Assisted Suicide and the Culture of Death

California has become the fourth state in the nation to legalize assisted suicide, joining Vermont, Oregon and Washington.  The culture of death has slowly gained acceptance in our culture, in large part, to how it is being presented.  The advocates of assisted suicide call it “death with dignity,” “compassionate choices” and the like.  This is another frontal attack on the dignity of life, whether in the womb or in old age.  Since this is a huge subject.  I will not address why this so wrong.  I want to point out one more ominous development that has happened in California:  The fact that 23 left wing Democrats decided for 30 + million people on matters of life and death instead of putting this huge decision to the voters.  California voters have rejected this type of law no less than six times in the past 20 years. This is pure tyranny, no matter where you stand on this issue.  This should scare you whether you’re a Democrat or a Republican.

A Referendum, supported by the Catholic Church and other organizations, is currently being circulated to take this issue to the voters, as it should, in November 2016.  Our church is circulating this this coming weekend.

Advertisements

Assisted Suicide is Neither Compassionate nor “Death With Dignity:” Oppose California’s SB 128

It is often said that whoever controls the language controls the debate.  This is true when it comes to the “compassionate left.”  They clothe their words in such flowery language as “compassion,”  “death with dignity, “personal choices,” and other words that would lead you to believe that only a Nazi would oppose such things.  When we speak of assisted suicide, such as practiced in three U.S. states, Oregon, Vermont and Washington, such flowery words are far from the truth.  What they’re selling is death, killing and possible rampant elder abuse.  Recently, the Los Angeles Times, to its credit, published an opinion piece by a doctor, called “We should Think Twice About Death With Dignity.”  Click here  to read it.

This is a hot-button issue.  Unfortunately, many people are hugely uninformed about it.  I would not want to have my life prolonged by any extreme means.  I’ve put this in writing in my Living Trust.  However, assisted suicide is another story and needs to be carefully investigated before we decide where we stand on it.  No matter where you stand on this issue, the most damaging and scariest part about such a law is the slippery slope that it creates. Once the door is open you can never close it again.  Can we afford this?  Here are some facts to consider:

In the Netherlands and in Belgium where they have such laws, the slippery slope is no longer slippery, it’s an avalanche.   In Belgium twin brothers who were going blind decided to kill themselves because they could not stand not being able to see each other once blind. Click here to read their story.  Dutch doctors report that assisted suicide is out of control and impossible to regulate. Additionally, the law in the Netherlands has morphed into doctors administering euthanasia without a person’s consent.  The Ohio Patient’s Rights Council reports these findings:  “In addition, 8,100 patients died as a result of doctors deliberately giving them overdoses of pain medication, not for the primary purpose of controlling pain, but to hasten the patient’s death. (13) In 61% of these cases (4,941 patients), the intentional overdose was given without the patient’s consent.”

Oregon’s law is equally impossible to regulate or supervise.  See additional details related to Oregon in particular later in this article.  The possibility of abuse is huge and uncontrollable.

In California there is a pending bill, SB 128, which will bring assisted suicide to California.  Once this is legal in California it will spread like wildfire to all other states.  The experience in Oregon, Vermont and Washington has shown that there is little or no oversight at all.  Lethal medicine can be picked up and administered by a family member.  In many cases, the sick and feeble are under immense pressure to take their own life, not wanting to burden their family.

Margaret Dore, a Washington attorney who specializes in these cases, has written extensively on the dangerous practices that occur in each state that has this law.  Click here to read her compelling and shocking analysis.

Another huge issue is who supervises the execution of these laws and how effective can they be controlled?  We’re not just losing money, we’re losing lives, human lives.  Here is an example of the non-supervision of the Oregon law as published by the Ohio Patients Rights Council:

Under Oregon’s law permitting physician-assisted suicide, the Oregon Department of Human Services (DHS) – previously called the Oregon Health Division (OHD) – is required to collect information, review a sample of cases and publish a yearly statistical report. (1)Since the law, called the “Death with Dignity Act,” went into effect in 1997, ten  official reports have been published. However, due to major flaws in the law and the state’s reporting system, there is no way to know for sure how many or under what circumstances patients have died from physician-assisted suicide.

Statements made by individuals who have been involved in assisted suicide in Oregon — those who implement it, compile official reports about it, or prescribe the lethal drugs — clearly show that the law’s “safeguards” are not protective and that effective monitoring is close to non-existent. (2)

“Pro-Choice” or it Depends What the Meaning of is, is

The other day I was watching the Hannity show where the host was conducting a Townhall-type of meeting with college students.  Now, the minute you mention college students to me, I immediately think of such adjectives as clueless, naive, left-wing seminarian, etc.  When Hannity asked these students how many of them believed in abortion on demand, half of them raised their hands.  One young woman stated what I’ve heard so many times that I can only shake my head and repeat one of the aforementioned adjectives.  This young woman said that “abortion is for each woman and her doctor to decide.”  Now would anybody say that murdering your two year-old child should be up to you and your doctor to decide?  Why not?  But, this is the level of ignorance that is repeadted  every day by non-thinkers such as college students and pro-abortion advocates.

What is the issue?  Is an unborn not a human being?  When does life begin?  You’re life and my life did not begin the minute we came out of the womb; it started as a zygote, a single cell.  This is not an opinion; science has verified this.  Click here for details.  Many of the “pro-choice” crowd will tell you that they follow only what science can prove, but when you provide the scientific proof, they change the subject; the idea that only science can provide proof is a falsehood in itself.  This is referred to as scientism.  I challenge any “pro-abortion” advocate to provide proof of their position.  I’ve never been offered one.  I’m still waiting.

Walk Softly or Carry a Big Stick?: Pro-Life Strategies

How do you defend the pro-life position?  Do you walk softly or do you carry a big stick?  There are good arguments for both strategies.  Our culture does not want to see what abortion looks like.  We have people like Wendy Davis, the Texas Legislator, who wants to have abortion legal from beginning until birth.  These people will never acknowledge what abortion is.  They will tell you that it’s up to each woman and her doctor to decide, but will never admit that abortion kills a human life.  They’ve done it by changing the language of the culture.  It’s not abortion, but “a woman’s right to choose.”  Abortion is called “woman’s health.”  They have been masters at changing the language.  The political left are masters at avoiding the issue.  For example, the black community will not admit that they have a problem with the breakdown of the black family.  I don’t know how many times I’ve heard a black person asked about how they stand on the breakdown of the black family and they will refuse to answer the question.   The abortion supporters will not let you show them a picture of an aborted fetus.  They will not look at one.

The pro-abortion side has one huge advantage:  They have the entire main stream media on their side and rooting for them.  Let’s take the Wendy Davis example, the media loves her and promotes her as if she’s a Hollywood star.  They will never ask her any questions about what abortion really is.  The August 19, 2013 issue of “The Weekly Standard” has a story on her on this issue. The article describes what happened when she appeared on ABC’s “This Week.”  The Reporter asked her about her pink shoes, and using a catheter in her filibuster; no questions on abortion.  Click here to read the story.

As Father Frank Pavone of Priests for Life has said:  “you will not end abortion until you see abortion.” Wendy Davis and the Texas Democratic Legislature want abortion to be legal at all stages of life.  They scream that this is their right.    I’m using the example of Wendy Davis and the Texas Legislature not to dump on them but to point out that their view on abortion is shared by the political left, the Democratic Party, President Obama and all abortion supporters.  This issue cannot be sugar-coated.  In order to see what something is you must look at it.  If you have a pain in your body do you tell your doctor not to look at it?  Scott Klusendorf, a prolific pro-life speaker makes this example:  A young mother or dad is busy washing dishes at the kitchen sink; their two-year-old child comes behind them asking ” Mommy/Daddy, can I kill this”?  What is the question you must ask:  What is it?

There are many places you can see what abortion looks like.  Fr. Frank Pavone has a good video that introduces the images and then lists the links you can click on.  The images will not play unless you click the link.  Click here to watch.    I challenge any abortion or pro-choice advocate to look at these images and tell me that abortion does not kill a human being or it’s “women’s health.”

The Party of Death

You’ve recently heard of the ruckus the Democrats of Texas have orchestrated against the passing of a new law restricting  abortion after five-months pregnancy and regulating of abortion clinics.  An abortion after five months of pregnancy is considered  “partial birth abortion.”  Click here for a definition of partial birth abortion.  The bill would additionally restrict abortion clinics to prevent the horrors of the Dr. Kermit Gosnell abortion clinic in Philadelphia.

The party of death, the Democratic Party, is for unfettered abortion at any time up to delivery.  Remember, Dr. Gosnell was convicted of murder because he killed babies after birth.  Had he killed the babies in the womb just before delivery he would still be a free man today.   What does a five-month old baby look like?  Click here is to see an image of a five-month old baby in the womb.  Is this baby a clump of tissue or a human being?  According to the party of death any baby can be dismembered in the womb up to delivery; they call this “women’s health.”  Excuse me, but in logic, this is crazy.  The supporters of the party of death were yelling “hail to Satan” in one of their demonstrations.  Well, I think they’re right in hailing Satan, because this is exactly what abortion is.  The party of death call themselves an advocate of the “little man” or of the poor, yet the most vulnerable of society, the baby in the womb is ripe for dismemberment and death.

Abortion and “The Big Lie”

We all marvel at how an entire nation like the Germany of World War II could support the murderous Adolph Hitler.   Indeed, Hitler perpetuated the lie that the Jews were somehow “the problem.”  His most ardent henchman, Joseph Goebbels,  is famous for saying that if you repeat a lie many times people will eventually believe it as truth.  There is a perfect correlation today on how many people, including religious Christians, Jews and others can believe that a perfectly healthy baby can be killed, as long as it is in the mother’s womb.  Take the recent Dr. Gosnell murder trial where he killed babies after the baby came out of the womb.  He routinely snipped the neck of the struggling baby on the table to kill it.  This outraged most people and Dr. Gosnell was convicted of first degree murder.

A reporter recently asked Nancy Pelosi what is the difference between what Dr. Gosnell did and the killing of a baby in the womb?  Pelosi opposes any law limiting partial birth abortion, even though she claims to be Catholic.  She gave an angry convoluted answer, which did not address the question, but trotted out “a woman’s right to choose.”  Watch this video of Pelosi responding to this question – it’s a classic. This is contrary to all logic, yet many people, including good friends of mine who attend the same church I do,  cannot admit that there is no difference.  They keep stating the nonsensical answer that women have “a right to do with their bodies what they like,” or words to that effect.

What has happened in our society, world-wide, is that the lie about abortion has been repeated so many times, and indeed everyday, that these people believe it as truth.  There is no difference between what the Nazis did to six million Jews and what we do today to unborn babies in the womb; the Nazis killed innocent human beings and we kill innocent human beings in the womb.  What supports this claim?  Science has verified that human life begins at conception; logic tells you that the baby in the womb is the same baby in a mother’s loving arms, a few minutes after birth.  Natural  Law, the law written in all of our hearts, tells us that murder is wrong.  You don’t need to be educated to know that murder is wrong.  Should you have any questions about this, just go to anyone in the world and ask them if murder is OK.  Another example of the law written in our heart:  let’s say I come to your house and before I leave I take you nice new Nikon Camera that you spent $1,000 without your permission.  Would the owner of the camera say that was wrong?  We know, by instinct, what is right and wrong.  Abortion is the killing of a human life and it is wrong all the time, under all circumstances.

Abortion is Bad But it Should be Legal?

In Bill O’Reilly’s new book, Keep it Pithy, he argues on page 105 that he is against the death penalty because it’s too lenient a punishment.  On page 108 he states that he would not outlaw abortion, but would restrict it and encourage people to see its ghastly procedure as a human rights issue.  What?  Did I read this right?  As this blog suggests by its title, logic is important here.  How can abortion be ghastly but should not be outlawed?  Is the death penalty a human rights issue or a utilitarian issue as O’Reilly suggests?  Where is the logic?

I point this out here because this is the same argument made by many liberal Christians and Catholics.  Indeed, many of my liberal friends at my church would agree with O’Reilly.  Let me put it bluntly:  this argument that abortion is ghastly but should not be outlawed is a contradiction in logic and pure nonsense.  In a logic syllogism, if you have one false premise, the conclusion is also false.  Click here to see a definition of a logic syllogism.  If a human life begins at conception, as many scientists agree that it does and if an unborn fetus is a human being just like you and me, how can you say that it is OK to kill it at any stage of life?  What does location have to do with it?  Am I a human outside of the womb but not a human while in the womb?  Before you and me were adults, we were adolescents, before adolescents, we were children, before children, infants, before infants we were called unborn babies, before unborn we were fetuses, before fetuses, a human embryo.  At all of these stages we were the same person that you see in the mirror.  Can we kill humans at early stages?  According to our abortion law we can kill a human being up and until delivered and on a table and in some cases even a live baby on a table can be killed.  Look at what President Obama did when he was an Illinois Senator.  He voted against the born alive bill three times. Click here to see just what he did as an Illinois Senator.

Recently Dr. Kermit Gosnell was found guilty of killing unborn babies outside of the womb.  Did it occur to you that the same baby, could have been killed by Dr. Gosnell just before delivery and it would have been totally legal?  He could have dismembered a perfectly healthy baby inside the womb and not be in trouble.  Where is the logic?  What universe is the person from who says you’re a human upon delivery but just meat while in the womb and fully developed?  Can a piece of meat become you and me just by plopping out of the womb?  Where is the logic?