“[I]f killing were wrong just because it is causing death or the loss of life, then the same principle would apply with the same strength to pulling weeds out of a garden. If it is not immoral to weed a garden, then life as such cannot really be sacred, and killing as such cannot be morally wrong.”
That quote was taken from the paper in this story from BioEdge. If you have ever wondered how the German people allowed the holocaust to happen, this is how it started. When their government and social institutions started to argue that certain people were not human and, therefore, it was not wrong to kill them, the German people did not object. And, once you start down the slippery slope of “rationalizing” who is and is not “deserving of life,” you will find a way to justify the taking of any life that causes you some inconvenience. In fact, if you will bother to do your own homework, you will find there is a connection between the abortion movement in this nation and the eugenics movement from the early 20th Century. Why does that matter? It matters because the Germans claimed the American eugenics movement as the foundation for their killing of “undesirables.”
The attitude of justification in this story is growing more and more prevalent in Western society, as reflected in this video:
It is also the motivation behind “The Whole Lives System:” the system behind Obamacare. It was designed by Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of Rom Emanuel. The idea here is that, in an environment such as ours where services are assumed to be fixed and finite, those services need to be rationed according to the individual’s worth to society. This necessarily means that the young should receive less care as society has not invested that mush in them in terms of education and other assets and resources, and because they have very little value to society in return. The same rational goes for the elderly: those who are deemed to be past their useful contribution to society would receive less care as a result. And those who are deemed to be nothing but a cost to society with no prospect of providing a return would not be worth the expenditure of any medical care resources. Again, do some research into this and you will find that this is the rationale behind the system the government is building for us (but not for them as they will always be worth more than the cost to care for them as they are the intellectual elite and society needs them to function).
Please, do not dismiss this issue. Nor should you dismiss the notion that human life is equivalent to plants. If the connection of human life to the Creator is severed, then the argument in this paper is logically sound, valid and rational. This is what I was talking about in my past posts when I explained why morality can only exist if it is founded on the Creator. What this paper reflects is an example of my past illustrations of how reasoning typical of people like John Stewart Mill can and does rationalize anything a person desires – if right/wrong is first divorced from God.
(I have no control over what you believe, but I will tell you that I understand the real enemy here is not the left or the right, nor any one individual. The force we are really fighting here is an ancient evil, and unless we understand, accept and face it, we will not defeat it, we will only enable it further. I am not trying to preach. I am not trying to claim superior intelligence or insight. I am posting this from a position of nothing. Utah and most of the rest of you are far more accomplished than I. The only thing I have is time, and I use it to think. I offer this only as a humble attempt to help you save your time by making you aware of something that you might have missed or haven’t given much thought, and then try to be of service to you by offering a start on what I see as the issue(s) at hand. I hope it is of some use to you in your life.)
The Rio Norte Line 
to compare human life to that of a plant or a weed presents a classic strawman theory.
I understand that, but that accusation only holds if you and I share the same foundational belief in a Creator. Logically speaking, when the Creator is removed from the equation, then there is no means by which to place any one life above another. If we try to argue that being rational makes us more important than a plant, a plant could argue that lacking rationality is more valuable as it removes the ability to pursue desire, which has been the cause of untold acts that might also be argued are wrong or immoral.
This gets confusing, but the easiest way to explain it is this:
If there is no creator, then my argument for what is right/wrong is no better or no worse than yours. As long as they are both sound, valid and rational, they are equal. Furthermore, the same could be said about the dolphin or the tree: from THEIR perspective, whatever they might think right/wrong is as equal as ours.
This is the problem: for morality to exist, it must be a universal concept. And without the Creator, there can be no such thing as universal morality. The Creator is the necessary fallacy.
This is why these people can write this paper and believe they have established some sort of truth: they have severed themselves from the Creator. The only problem is, their arguments can be used against them. They argue “ability” defines the worth of a person. Fine, then this means we can kill Dr. Hawking, because he has no “ability” without the high-tech life support required to keep him in contact with the outside world (that is a lack of ability without machines – the direct equivalent as what they discus in this paper). Neither do the people who wrote this paper have “ability.” I have no doubt they imagine their “ability” is defined by a person’s body’s ability to sustain life, but their argument can and I suspect will be used to claim they have no “ability” as they require the greater whole of society to sustain their lives. So, rather than relying on a machine to stay alive, they require the specialization of society as a whole. IN PRINCIPLE, there is no difference between the people they are trying to justify killing and themselves – only in the perspective from which they apply their criteria.
But then, this is ONLY how I see the issue. I am quite confident that others will disagree. So take from all that what you will, Tony. 🙂
Missed you at the Tea Party Black. I had a very wonderful conversation with KrisAnne Hall. But I digress.
Allow me to take the opportunity to remind you that we are on the same side of the issue here. Anyone who would protect my liberty (and not take it), and would assure my economic need in the home (instead of steal from me) has my full and unwavering support.
Interestingly enough, at the Tea Party event, I heard an endorsement go out for Newt Gingrich. Many folks were holding Santorum signs, but yet still clapped for that person’s endorsement. No one booed, not even Doc Washburn who has been lambasting Gingrich on Facebook. In fact, the only booing to be heard came with the news that FL was attempting to redistrict West out of office (guess they know they cannot beat him).
This is what I was trying to discuss with you the other day. This idea. This notion that we have hit rock bottom with Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and likely Boehner as well.
Do I believe in the principles you talk about? Yes I do. Will everyone? No, likely not. Is everyone going to interpret the Constitution the same way? Nope to that as well. But we have to start somewhere. Here is a good place, I agree. But like the Tea Party speakers I listened carefully too, the message is clear. We cannot plan for today, or even tomorrow. We have to first ensure we win the Congress incase God forbid Obama gets re-elected. And if we can, put someone in the White House who at least stop the hemorrhaging of our liberty, and fiscal wellbeing.
I believe that. And that’s just what I will do.
Contrary to popular belief, I actually know that you and I are not enemies. I know that Utah and I are not enemies. Melfamy and I are not enemies. No one who understands and supports INDIVIDUAL rights and liberty is my “enemy.”
At the same time, I simply do not understand how we solve the long term problem by “joining them” short term. I believe you told me you have children and grand children. How does it help a child if I give in to every temper tantrum they throw so long as they promise not to throw another one? All I see is a guaranteed threat of another temper tantrum next time the child wants their way. And if I give in again for the promise that THIS will be the last time they do it, guess what I am going to get in short order?
FOR ME, I see no difference between this illustration and what we are doing in relation with our vote. I heard the same argument I am being given now in the 1996 election, the 2000, 2004 and then 2008 elections. When am I supposed to see this supposed reform I keep getting promised? I won’t: not as long as the child (in this case, the “R’s”) keep getting their way in return for a promise to do better in the future.
Nor do I want an immediate fix. I suppose now I am the one who is being underestimated, but I do not understand why as I have CLEARLY and REPEATEDLY stated that I understand this is a long-term problem that will take a long time to correct. I expect it will take at least a generation. The difference is, I understand that, unless we start now, there will be nothing left to save “later.” I was arguing we should have started back in 1996, and had we, maybe we wouldn’t be here now. But if we do not start now, where will we be in another 12 years?
I am a military man. I understand what it means to cede the field for strategic purposes. I do not understand why so many consider this an unviable option – especially when, as you rightly point out, we have the House to hold the line (if we try).
Anyway, for what it’s worth…
I’m in a rush to leave for a while, so I’ll respond the short bit I did get to read …
Rome was not built in a day. You start working on any problem where you can, and you move forward from there.
Pretty much what I have been trying to say all along.
No grandchildren yet (thank God). And FYI .. you are not being underestimated at all. 🙂
“But if we do not start now, where will we be in another 12 years?” precisely, but allow me to toss another analogy at you.
So I tell you that you MUST cut down that 300ft x 28ft base of a pine tree that’s growing near your house, or the thing may topple in the very near future. I hand you a butter knife. Now, are you going to spend what time you have left running around ranting and raving about only having that butter knife to cut down that massive tree, or are you going to get to work? It’s not going to cut itself.
Liken that to the situation we are facing right now. Obama has built this “massive tree” of a machine to get himself re-elected so that he can continue the destruction of your house (our Constitution, our country). In all of these candidates we end up with a drawer full of butter knives. We only have a short time to rally our base around this butter knife, and get this tree cut down (Lord knows, I wish someone would come along with a chainsaw today, but it’s likely not to happen).
What do we do?
I understand the difference between where I am and where you and Utah are. You two believe the world is as it appears: I do not. I actually place a great deal of stock in Carroll Quigley’s claim that we have 1 Party acting as 2. If we remember back far enough, we might recall that William F Buckley wrote a book which launched the modern American conservative movement. That book was driven in great part by Buckley’s realization that there was essentially 1-Party control over American politics and he wanted a second option. So I do not think my belief is as remote as many seem to believe. Still, I understand that most are reluctant to join me.
So, from where I stand, I do not see a difference between electing Obama or, say Mitt, because, when Mitt gets elected, the Congress will hand up Progressive Bills and he will sign them. This is what Bush “W” did, and I have no reason to expect anything different from Mitt and every reason to expect more of the same from Newt.
Look, with respect to you and Utah and everyone else who is in your camp: I am simply trying to look at history and apply it to my life. I have no desire to continue this in-fighting as I realize it is as harmful as the ideology of the left. Still, I cannot and will not ignore what has happened in the past as this is the ONLY thing I have to guide me today. It’s why a person’s character matters, and why I am “trying” to work on mine.
Your post is fine, except that you assume we do not share your belief, or your high moral standard. We do. Get past that. But we also know what’s realistic between now, and November. Maybe we recognize a greater danger, I do not know.
But, from what I saw today from the Tea Party, I am in pretty good company with my reasoning.
Respectfully.
I do not mean to slight any of you. I try to show that by telling you I understand and have some respect for your positions. Those are not platitudes: I mean what the words say.
Good to hear there is hope with the TEA Party (was that today?).
As for the greater danger: maybe, I guess. Honestly, I am not sure. I am looking at the long term because I see no short term solution. You guys do. I will have to just hope you are correct.
BTW: I emailed the Goulds to ask when and where the TEA Party meeting was, but never heard back. I hope they are OK, I know she was having some trouble in Dec. They had wanted me to speak at Feb’s meeting, but not so sure that is a good idea 😉
also, continuing with her logic, if i were to cut down a perfectly good tree in my yard because it blocked the view from my favorite window, that would be committing murder.
so lets theorize that she said it would not be committing murder to cut down that tree. to continue with her logic, if i were sitting in a movie theater and a tall person sat in front of me and blocked my view-it would be ok for me to chop off his head.
well watch out tall folks, ive got my headge clippers.
Tony, I’m 6’4″, can I have the seat Next to you?
For clarity (par 2) correction: “would assure the freedom for me to protect my economic need in my home”.
I’m not looking for handouts, just merely to not have what I have earned stolen from me.
Watched this video a while back ago. First thing that popped into my head was something that has kind of haunted me.
Um, years ago, I was dating a fella from Africa who explained to me that parents would kill their children rather than have them tortured during a raid. This was appalling to me until he told me what the torture methods were. Still, I don’t know if I could do it.(kill my kids)
I say that because my dog of 15 years was my best girl and had cancer and yet, I couldn’t do it. I couldn’t put her down.
I suppose I shouldn’t relate pain, torture, or suffering with morals.(or dogs with people, for that matter) It’s just that I don’t know the correct answer, because sometimes it is not about eugenics or being a liberal, but about the situation itself.
That said, were I to pose a question, do you know what you would do? Would your morality be any different because of your answer?
I shall pose the question if you like.
I feel guilty when I put a dog or cat down, Kells. It is not a selfish act, but a hard decision to make when care for the old animal impacts your other responsibilities.
I wonder how many people harbor the desire to end a loved one’s life when they are in pain, or incapacitated to the point where life is just a miserable wait for suffering’s surcease. I wonder, too, how many would, if euthanasia was SOP, try to talk a family member into forgoing expensive treatments that are draining away their inheritance .
Euthanasia is a slippery slope, one I am leery of navigating.
So would you be wiiling or able to put down your family if you knew they were to be mutilated with machetes?
Obviously, I’m off on a tangent of the abortion topic, but it still makes me wonder….
Unfortunately, I fear my family would suffer a slow, painful death as I would believe myself to be like John Wayne and save the day. The reality? I really don’t know that I could shoot someone.
Perhaps I could distract em with somethin else, though. (get your mind out of the gutter; I was thinking Scheherazade)
Are you asking ME that question?
Well, B. what would you do? Think hard on this. I know you have probably shot people in the line of duty. The circumstance I refer to is completely different.
I am one of those people who do not accept this sort of either/or proposition. In the case you describe, I would arm those of my children old enough to fight as best I could and lead them in self-defense as best I could. If the situation were as hopeless as what many in Africa faced (face), I would pray we could put up enough of a defense that we would force them to shoot us. But, by the nature of the type person I am, I do not accept defeat (in this case, death) as lightly as most. In addition, though things do change with age, this is a topic I have some familiarity with. I have seen senseless death, and I have seen people survive incredible suffering. I simply can’t bring myself to give up on me or anyone else until they draw their last breath dues to causes outside their (my) control.
Not sure you will like that, but it is my answer.
I like your answer, B. But Guy’s is more realistic. I mean, gosh, I’ve never shot someone.
If you had to while you were over there, I get it. But what did that feel like?
I guess I just have a problem with this whole argument of okaying the killing of an unborn child and okaying a person to death. Then again, I do believe if someone was harming my son and I had a gun, who knows…….
Why can’t people just use BB guns? I find it to be very effective (except when I shot my eye out)….
Damn! It’s way past my bedtime…..
What did it feel like? I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t like my answer to that question.
As for could I kill again? Yes, but I refuse to commit murder. There is a difference.
Kells, I don’t think anyone could really give you an honest answer to that question because a person doesn’t really know what they would do until it’s time to do the deed.
Done dirt cheap. Why must you always cause me to break into song?
<— avatar 😛
Augger, you look like Uncle Duke in the Doonesbury strip.
@Mel … and your avatar? 😛
You got me on that one, Augger! So here I am
Great, NOw I see that it takes an hour to show up.
Hopefully Mel, you picked a better avatar. The other one looks like something the cat did and forgot to cover up. 😉
And Guy, though I’m being silly; you are in line with my thinking. I think we all would agree that abortion should not be used as birth control, and that the sick, elderly or infirm should be treated with the utmost respect. There is that weird line, though. I kinda get it, but I don’t know if I could cross it……
Enough! How’s about the song Guy got me singing?
One of my favorite tunes, kells.
@black
Ann Coulter’s Case for Romney. Does this make a difference in the the dynamic?
RE-ELECT OBAMA: VOTE NEWT!
January 25, 2012
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-01-25.html
@augger,
Policy wise, is there a difference between Newt and Romney? I have been listening – closely. What I see is people support Romney because of the polls. If the polls suggested Newt would win, they would be supporting him. Besides, I’ve never been a fan of Coulter and have never really followed nor given much consideration to her opinions.
I do remember you quoting her in the past to support your posts. Why the change now? (Not that I am supporting Romney).
I have quoted Marx when it serves the point I am making, but I don’t support him, and it reflects no change in my thinking to cite him. 🙂
I have also cited people with whom I believe my intended audience will agree. If and when someone is correct, I will use their words – but only to support, never to make my case. Malkin is making a case similar to mine regarding Santorum, but I haven’t cited her for the same reason: I do not follow nor often agree with her reasoning. So it isn’t that I’ve made a change of any sort as much as her words may have suited a purpose at the time.
You can start banging your head against the brick wall now…..
Kells,
Just because you quote someone, even in support of your own positions, doesn’t mean you support or adhere to them.
My reading of your last comment is you think I am being evasive again. Let me ask you a question. You (and others) often tell me that I see things to simplistically, too black-and-white. So How is it you can tell me that things are more complicated than you think I understand them to be, yet you won’t allow me to be more complicated?
To me, what you seem to think is evasiveness from me is often nothing more than my recognition that “things are more complicated” than you might want them to be.
There is nothing complicated in the question. However; I believe if Paul runs as an Independent, things could become very complicated. Would we have another 1996?
Speaking of Ann Coulter, I just watched a clip of her this morning calling Newt a douchebag. She has her beliefs and I have mine. You all have yours and I get it. It is just disturbing to me that if Romney is the winner, you will not vote. If you cannot imagine things getting incredibly worse in four years under this president, you are obviously delusional.
I hope that wasn’t too complicated.
“may have suited a purpose at the time” <— comes off opportunistic. (just saying)
Anyway, the question was asked "Ann Coulter’s Case for Romney. Does this make a difference in the the dynamic?".
Personally for yourself, a "Yes" or "No" would have sufficed. The question was meant to be more broad in scope, so I shall pose it again …
Do you think that Coulter's endorsement of Romney change the dynamic of the primaries from this day forward on a national level?
Yeah, yeah … I know. We are all just posturing at the moment. The real election comes in November. But it is fun to speculate on the candidates to see who's ship is sinking, and who's is shored up at the moment.
OK, the answer is: “I do not know because I haven’t given it any thought.” Sorry, best I can do, but still the truth.
@ black
“You (and others) often tell me that I see things to simplistically, too black-and-white.”
I do not agree with this assessment. In contrast, I think you some times over think a topic. At times, when all that is required is a simple decision, you often research so deeply that you end up in much farther place from the place you need to be than you should be. And that’s not necessarily a bad thing either. It frees the mind to explore other thoughts.
Often, I find myself posting with no other purpose than trying to reel you back in towards a much more focused point.
So no, I do not agree with their assessment. I think you are a bit more broad in scope than that. 🙂
Keep fishin, luv. You’re not gonna reel him in….
Oh I’m not fishing. I’m not losing any sleep over it either.
Can I have some brownies? I promise to be really good! 🙂
The special brownies that make you giggle? I don’t know if we should go there again. Remember what happened last time?
@ Kells…Did you see where the Heiress to the L.L. Bean fortune has endorsed Ron Paul? And Paypal has started a super PAC for him also. Things might be looking up for our guy, eh?
I think he’s gonna have to run as an Independent,Guy. I tell you, G. said he would vote for him and he’s not alone. Then again, if things are rigged then who knows? (Lincoln and JFK wanted to end the Federal Reserve and look what happened) …. hmmm…at my voting booth, there were only Ron Paul signs. Wish he would’ve campaigned in FL….
Why do I have a sinking feeling that I’m going to lose my bet tonight….