Tag Archives: euthanasia

The Liberal Nurturing of Gun Violence

obamawithgunOriginally posted at American Thinker

Of late it seems as though liberals on the whole are incapable of understanding how one thing can affect another.  In this case, it’s the holy grail of abortion’s effect on gun violence.

Whether they recognize it or not, liberal ideology has contributed toward America devolving into a macabre death culture, where rooted in the corporate psyche is the idea that expediency trumps the sanctity of God-given life.  The abortion/gun violence dichotomy arises when pro-choice advocates like Barack Obama seek to limit some weapons made of steel but heartily support an industry that also uses steel to destroy innocent life.

In other words, America is again embroiled in a crisis the left has spent decades nurturing but is now seeking to remedy.

Liberals are adamant about funding the slaughter of 4,000 human beings a day.  Meanwhile, those who seek to advance abortion simultaneously insist that guns, which are inanimate objects, are responsible for killing people whom, if they were still in the womb, the left would be more than happy to exterminate.

Clearly this particular cause-and-effect principle emanates from a lopsided philosophy that discriminates with regard to deadly weapons.  If deadly force is administered via a firearm, liberals are irate.  However, if the weapon is a cannula, forceps, or a dilator, liberals are ecstatic.

Meanwhile, society as a whole has been successfully desensitized to casually accept unnatural death.  Secular humanism views euthanasia as benevolent; barely notices when global jihadis behead, burn, and drown Christians; and for the most part looks the other way as the unborn are slaughtered.

Post-birth abortion is now dismissed with a shrug; the sale of baby organs is justified as benefiting the common good; and right-to-death activists like the late Brittany Maynard, who offed herself with a handful of pills, are viewed as somehow heroic.

Sadly, that line of reasoning is likely the driving force behind the sort of violence that causes a shooter like Chris Harper-Mercer to believe that, for whatever reason, he has the right to stroll onto a college campus and blow ten people away.

Moreover, what liberals fail or refuse to recognize is that actively excising God from the public consciousness, systematically equating murder with women’s health, and spending almost half a century pressing for the right to kill eradicate any credibility they may have had concerning the issue of saving lives.

A blurred line between acceptable and unacceptable murder has developed, yet the ones most responsible for the distortion refuse to acknowledge personal culpability.  Instead, the same people directly responsible for cultivating the chaos have appointed themselves the engineers of legislation that does nothing to resolve the moral abyss.

Take for example Barack Obama.  Mr. Obama approves of sanitized violence in an abortion clinic but decries gun violence when the blood is shed on a college campus.

In the president’s mixed-up world of acceptable death categories, biohazard bags are tolerable, but body bags are not; tenaculums are fine as government-funded implements of death, but Thompson submachine guns should be banned.

Pro-death politicians preaching to us about the horrors of gun violence is sort of like listening to a woman with a forehead full of Botox and filler-enhanced lips pontificate about the virtues of aging gracefully.  In fact, when it comes to the issue of gun control, President Obama has mutated into America’s very own Maggie DeBlock.

Maggie is the portly Belgian minister of social affairs and health, who weighs in at close to 300 pounds.  Miss Maggie is to Godiva Chocolate what Obama is to the abortion industry.  The difference between the two public figures is that DeBlock preaches healthy living with chocolate-stained fingers while Obama, with bloodstained hands, denounces murder – but not all murder.

This brand of hypocrisy undoubtedly aids those who feel justified in disposing of other human beings based on a regrettable personal choice or some other distorted reasoning.

Therefore, whether Obama realizes it or not, the blame for mass shootings should be placed not on the Second Amendment or on those who believe that abortion outside the womb is an acceptable choice, but at the feet of those like himself, who condemn ambushing a roomful of people with a gun but openly approve of ambushing a baby in the womb.

It’s secular progressives who have spent 40-plus years dumbing down the public’s definition of murder.  Therefore, what right do abortion advocates have to get indignant when a deranged person with a gun executes a roomful of people?  Especially since, across town, a taxpayer-funded nutcase in colorful scrubs is concurrently using a liberal-approved weapon to ensure that his or her victim is just as dead as the sheet-covered corpses lined up on the gymnasium floor?

Articles: Moral Relativism and the Normalization of the Indefensible

Originally posted at American Thinker

imagesAn affront to humanity took place in Santa Ana, California when a morally relativistic arbiter, Superior Court Judge M. Marc Kelly, pronounced his sentence on a child abuser. Based on his personal opinion, Kelly said that the events leading up to a three-year-old girl being sodomized determined that punishing the sex offender was “unconstitutional.”

In Judge Kelly’s relativistic worldview, Kevin Jonas Rojano-Nieto, the 20-year-old who took a break from playing video games in a garage to force a small child to perform lewd and lascivious acts, did not display “violence or callous disregard for (the child’s) well-being.”  Apparently in Judge Kelly’s eyes, covering a child’s mouth with your hand, pulling down her pants, and forcing her to fondle your genitals is not that wrong of a “wrongful act.”

According to Judge Kelly, since the child wandered into the garage on her own, and even though an “inexplicably” sexually aroused man proceeded to assault her, Rojano-Nieto’s behavior cannot be defined as predatory.  And even though the girl was physically and emotionally wounded, Kelly said, Rojano-Nieto “did not appear to consciously intend to harm (the victim) when he sexually assaulted her.”

The judge concluded that “Although serious and despicable, this does not compare to a situation where a pedophilic child predator preys on an innocent child.”  As proof that he has absolutely no commitment to moral absolutes, Kelly deviated from the usual minimum sentence of 25-years-to-life in prison and shortened Rojano-Nieto’s sentence to less than half of that.

In defense of his decision, Kelly noted that according to a doctor’s report, the sodomizer suffered “a great deal of family disruption and abuse, making him an insecure, socially withdrawn, timid, and extremely immature young man with limited self-esteem.”  The judge used a doctor’s report to rationalize Rojano-Nieto sexually gratifying himself by defiling a tiny child.

Meanwhile, in New Hampshire, in comments that suggested he values raising taxes over sustaining life, state representative/computer techie Michael Cahill (D) revealed his own unique brand of moral relativism.

It’s common knowledge that as a group, Democrats maintain that moral standards are not above personal choice.  That’s why it shouldn’t shock anyone that Mr. Cahill freely blurted out that if Republicans in New Hampshire refuse to raise the taxes necessary to build handicapped ramps, the state should solve the problem by euthanizing the disabled.

That’s right, during a legislative debate, a progressive representative of the people of the “Live free or die” state actually asked “Since we are refusing to raise revenues to fund needed programs, to fund services to disabled, for example, have you looked at euthanasia?”

In response, House Speaker Shawn Jasper (R-NH) declared Cahill out of order and referred to his “euthanasia” comment as “inappropriate,” which in some circles would relegate Mr. Jasper to the politically-incorrect category of judgmental absolutist.

Nonetheless, even if Cahill was making a tasteless attempt at sarcasm, either way, for him and his party the moral duty to pay taxes clearly usurps the moral duty to reject murder.  And who’s to say he’s wrong?  Certainly not another moral relativist, because criticism of such a suggestion runs the risk of having those who think like Cahill being forced to admit that wickedness actually exists.

Can’t have that.

Instead, whether we like it or not, Americans are now at the mercy of a bankrupt society where the crime of sexually assaulting a child is minimized by a judge who measures the “wrongful act” of sodomy against whether or not the offender stalked his victim or felt remorse after murdering a little girl’s soul in the pursuit of sexual satisfaction.  Moreover, it’s where, in a game of political tit-for-tat, elected politicians who have already justified murdering 60 million unborn babies are now publicly joking that sometimes fiscal prudence excuses terminating the disabled.

So, sadly, in place of virtuous standards, a viewpoint that reeks of self-serving arrogance is currently in the process of institutionally degrading America’s legal and political systems and systematically progressing to a point where the indefensible is now being defended.

According to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (IEP), which describes itself as a “peer-reviewed academic resource,” moral relativism is defined as a “view that moral judgments are true or false only relative to some particular standpoint … and that no standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others.”

In essence, moral relativism is the belief that there are no moral absolutes and that no person or culture has the right, based on a basic sense of right and wrong, to impose ethical or moral judgments on those whose belief system differs from their own.

As a result, America has been fundamentally transformed into an egocentric culture populated with 330 million individuals, many of whom have been led to believe that personal conscience is the highest authority.

The credibility of moral relativism is shaky, because even for the most ardent relativist there’s always a limit to what principled sensibilities can endure. That’s why every relativist should exercise extreme caution when reacting to the unthinkable, lest a code of ethics be established that even skeptics might be forced to acknowledge.

And as twisted as that may sound to those who subscribe to archaic standards like Biblical doctrine, natural law and universal principles, America is now sliding into further decline because without fear of rebuke, moral equivocators are dismissing despicable behavior and publicly verbalizing vile sentiments.

Benevolent Billboards – American Thinker – July 17, 2010

Originally posted at American Thinker Blog

What a coincidence. Just as Obama is about to institute health care reform, up pops a billboard on Route 22 in Hillside, New Jersey advertising a group supporting the Right-to-Die.  What an ironically opportune time for the euthanasia discussion to begin again.

The billboard is sponsored by the Final Exit Network, whose mission provides guidance to “adults with painful illnesses” offering exit – not off Route 22, but onto the highway to hell.

The abortion argument has resolved, so it’s time to segue to baby-boomers sparing the kids and the government expense by choosing to veer toward the cemetery. Apparently, the slaughter of 60 million unborn children isn’t enough.  Its time to up the ante and convince people with Alzheimer’s, Lou Gehrig’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, and even emphysema that “choice” may start with birth prevention, but it ends with taking a death plunge.

Before the general population willingly submits to putting Dr. Death on speed dial, suicide, like abortion, needs to be sanitized and made palatable.  Murder is now the right-to-choose, and in the run-up to Obamacare euthanasia groups like the Hemlock Society are busily transforming suicide into an “End-of-Life Choice.”

Recently the “End-of-Life Choice” moniker was changed to “Compassion in Dying,” which then merged two favorite liberal words to finally become “Compassion and Choices.”  What could be more munificent than the sick and elderly voluntarily buying the farm as an extension of kindness toward the common good?

Final Exit Network defines caring compassion as putting a turkey basting bag over your head, a sweat band around your neck and, after blowing up a few festive balloons marking self-deliverance, turning on a helium tank and bidding adieu to life-long government dependency.

Moreover, what better place to start programming the masses than on billboards presenting the culture of death motto: “My Life My Death My Choice,” which sounds strangely similar to “My Mind My Body My Choice.”

Upon seeing the billboard on the road, Emiliano Martinez voiced what liberals would likely consider an outdated religious view, saying “It’s the not right choice. God gives us life and only God knows when He’s going to take us from this world.” If health care gets expensive, a federal policy to deal with resistant people of Martinez’s ilk may need to be established to ensure “Compassionate Choice” is carried out on defiant people like Emiliano.

If the self-deliverance promotional campaign goes well, most Americans will likely become amenable to the idea, such as Richard Barros, who contends “It’s your life.  You should be able to choose where you want to go and what you want to do with your life.”  Translation: If Barrios is in need of a triple bypass, hopefully he will decide to turn on an unauthorized gasoline-powered vehicle in an airtight garage and compassionately spare the healthcare budget.

The billboard sponsor denies assisting deaths but admits providing information to at least 300 people nationwide. The Final Exit Network doesn’t literally push anyone off the top of a 20-story building. Instead, Final Exit compassionately goads the “psychologically sound” to make the suicidal choice by standing on the sidewalk yelling “Jump, go ahead and jump!”

Ironically, the Final Exit Network strategically placed billboards in San Francisco and Florida in honor of the large elderly population, hopefully in ample time to convince seniors soon to be denied health care that on the freeway of life in Obamerica, there’s always the option to get off at the final exit.

Stopping Beating Hearts…Within Pay Grades?

fetus3A few questions for Barack Obama, who believes that commenting on when life begins is “above his pay grade.”  Obama, Do non-living beings have a beating heart?  Mr. President, What is the difference between life and death, a heart beat or lack thereof?

If it is possible to be a non-living being with a  beating heart, it is highly probable that at some point the pro-choice community will rationalize premature burials for those they define as lifeless, while their hearts still beat.

If abortion can be justified as a choice, than the choice to end the lives of those outside of the womb can easily be justified too.  If a beating heart does not signify life, than anyone with a beating has a life in danger.

With universal health care on the horizon, with it’s rationing, poor quality, high cost and limited access Americans should be very concerned.  Congress, Senate and the President are refusing to give up their present health care and sign on to the substandard version they are foisting on us.  In like manner, those who define a beating heart as being less than life, would likely balk at having the embalming process initiated on them or a loved one, while their hearts still beat.  Yet, they still refuse to admit a heart beat is indicative of human life.

As the life force of our heart still beats within us, those who have been fortunate enough to make it out of the womb should contemplate the future.  It would be in our best interest to consider the next time we elect leaders, selecting those who consider it within their pay grade to admit the obvious, that a beating heart signifies life.

In the meantime, radical, pro choice policies threaten beating hearts everywhere of being stopped way before their time!

%d bloggers like this: