You can't kill people to solve your problems... or theirs

The peculiar British, utilitarianism-derived terror of "being a burden" is being exploited by the Death-peddlers.

As someone who was recently "a burden" on my loved ones, I can affirm that it made me a better person, more able to love and accept love from others, less interested in maintaining my white-knuckle grip on my own way in life.

The Brits are suffering from 200 years of philosophical and moral corruption that was visited on their culture by the secularist instinct that grew up like a cancer in the 18th century after the compromises and logical contradictions of the English Reformation failed to hold.



~

Ethicists

Next time someone tells you that their proposed legislation on euthanasia, IVF, cloning, abortion or any of the other death-cult favourites has been "fully approved by ethicists" you can show them this.

As someone once said, "Bioethics: we call it that because "the-science-of-figuring-out-who-we-can-kill"

is too long.

The two are quick to note that they prefer the term “after-birth abortion“ as opposed to ”infanticide.” Why? Because it “[emphasizes] that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child.”

The authors also do not agree with the term euthanasia for this practice as the best interest of the person who would be killed is not necessarily the primary reason his or her life is being terminated.

Ah yes, good old Monash University. We know it well.



~

The greatest good

Justice, beneficence and autonomy abide, but the greatest of these is autonomy.



~

Am I odd?

Am I the only one whose first reaction to this

Dutch Group Pushes for Suicide for Elderly Who are "Tired of Living"

was,

"Why just the elderly?"

I'm tired of living.

But these days I also qualify as "elderly".

Khyra Ishaq

Khyra Ishaq, who weighed just 2st 9lb (16.8kg), was said by a paramedic to be like a concentration camp victim when she was finally rescued from her home. She later died of an infection that was complicated by her condition.

I was just reading up on the prosecution's case against her mother.

He also said that just because Khyra had died of an infection it did not mean that there had not been a murder. "The fact she ultimately died of an infection is really neither here nor there. The cause of her death was the physical state that she was in. In a nutshell, their (position) is exactly the same as anyone who kept a prisoner and set out to starve them to the point where their life is at risk.

It’s just as much murder . . . as if they had shot, stabbed, beaten or strangled Khyra to death. It is our case that they were acting in effect jointly to do that which was done,” he said

I believe Angela Gordon was convicted last Friday of manslaughter.

Too bad the little girl wasn't already in a coma. Everyone would be hailing her mother as a tragic, tormented hero for compassionately saving her daughter from a life unworthy of life.

Or am I being overly cynical?

That "right to choose" thing really gets around, don't it?

After her acquittal, Gilderale told the Daily Mail that she was unrepentant of having helped her daughter to kill herself. "I have never had a moment's regret," she said. Describing the day of her daughter's death, Gilderale said, "I never thought of snatching the syringe away because I knew that would have made her more determined, and I respected her as an adult with the right to choose."

But not in a mean, crazy, scary Nazi Eugenics way, you understand

Roe v. Wade was supposed to eliminate "unwanted" populations.

"Reproductive choice has to be straightened out," said Ginsburg, lamenting the fact that only women "of means" can easily access abortion.

"Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of," Ginsburg told Emily Bazelon of the New York Times.

Well, the logic simply follows doesn't it? I mean if the baby is "unwanted" by the mother, why shouldn't the mother be unwanted by, shall we say, her betters?

What's the diff?

Singer

Well, I don't know about the future, but the guy sure has the present pretty well wrapped up.

No no, after you

Elderly Peers who have significantly contributed to the re-engineering of British society into a vast death camp in which cold materialist utilitarianism has replaced Christian mercy and charity as the guiding principle of society, have a duty to be the first to volunteer for the disintegration chamber.

Elderly people suffering from dementia should consider ending their lives because they are a burden on the NHS and their families, according to the influential medical ethics expert Baroness Warnock.

Muggeridge in 1979

Later on I want to say something about all this, showing how this humane holocaust, this dreadful slaughter that began with 50 million babies last year, will undoubtedly be extend-ed to the senile old and the mentally afflicted and mongoloid children, and so on, because of the large amount of money that maintaining them costs.

It is all the more ironical when one thinks about the holocaust western audiences, and the German population in particular, have been shuddering over, as it has been presented on their TV and cinema screens. Note this compassionate or humane holocaust, if, as I fear, it gains momentum, will quite put that other in the shade. And, as I shall try to explain, what is even more ironical, the actual considerations that led to the German holocaust were not, as is commonly suggested, due to Nazi terrorism, but were based upon the sort of legislation that advocates of euthanasia, or "mercy killing," in this country and in western Europe, are trying to get enacted.

It's not true that the German holocaust was simply a war crime, as it was judged to be at Nuremberg. In point of fact, it was based upon a perfectly coherent, legally enacted decree approved and operated by the German medical profession before the Nazis took over power. In other words, from the point of view of the Guinness Book of Records you can say that in our mad world

it takes about thirty years to transform a war crime into a compassionate act.

Yep.

We were wondering about that...

Everyone's wondering what, exactly, has been causing global warming.

Some have said it is that there are now more MPs in the House of Commons than at any other time in British history. But this localised theory has been scoffed at by those who point out that at the same time, there are fewer and fewer Frenchmen around every year.

It's a mystery.

But now, the Optimum Population Trust has the solution, as Mr. Feschuk points out in Maclean's this week.

But now comes a voice of reason. Now comes the Optimum Population Trust, a British group with the courage to confront the real menace in the fight against global warming — tiny, little babies.

That's right: babies. Don't be fooled by their soft skin and angelic demeanour: cute, adorable babies are destroying the earth!

Straight from the womb, infants are an environmental menace. Almost immediately they begin to engage in profoundly selfish and destructive behaviour, such as exhaling. Plus, the Optimum Population Trust has uncovered shocking evidence that some of these so-called "babies" eventually grow larger and go on in life to do irresponsible things like drink water or exist.

"Pro-Quality of Life"

This was rather strangely tagged onto the end of a news story about efforts in the Philippines to put through a piece of legislation that would finally let the international population controllers get their claws in:

Recently, a priest in the Quiapo Church in Manila, was shocked to find a fetus inside a jar hidden in a basket of fruits offered during the Sunday morning Mass.

“It looked like a 4-month-old fetus. It had hands and feet. There was a rosary inside the bottle, too,” Msgr. Gerry

Same sh__ different year.

I love it when population control fanatics say things like "The Church should be working with us to find a common ground and improve the quality of life."

I'm with Benedict. There need to be more exorcists.

Who will set a guard over my mouth, and upon my lips an effective seal, That I may not fail through them, that my tongue may not destroy me?

Let this be a lesson to you.

Be very very careful about what you say in casual conversation. With things going they way they are, you might find it being taken very seriously indeed.

The Milan appeal court said it had been proven that Englaro's coma was irreversible.

It was also convinced that the young woman, when fully conscious, had stated her preference to die rather than being kept alive artificially with no perceptive ability or contact with others.

Hey, let's take a look at this business of being "peacefully" and "naturally" "allowed to die" by dehydration.

At age 33, Kate Adamson collapsed from a devastating and incapacitating stroke. She was utterly unresponsive and was diagnosed as being in a persistent vegetative state (PVS). At the urging of doctors, who believed she would never get better, her nourishment was stopped. But midway through the dehydration process, she began to show subtle signs of comprehension, so her food and water were restored.

Adamson eventually recovered sufficiently to author "Kate's Journey: Triumph Over Adversity," in which she tells the terrifying tale. Rather than being unconscious with no chance of recovery as her doctors believed, she was actually awake and aware but unable to move any part of her body voluntarily. (This is known as a "locked-in state.") When she appeared recently on "The O'Reilly Factor," host Bill O'Reilly asked Adamson about the dehydration experience:

O'Reilly: When they took the feeding tube out, what went through your mind?

Adamson: When the feeding tube was turned off for eight days, I thought I was going insane. I was screaming out in my mind, "Don't you know I need to eat?" And even up until that point, I had been having a bagful of Ensure as my nourishment that was going through the feeding tube. At that point, it sounded pretty good. I just wanted something. The fact that I had nothing, the hunger pains overrode every thought I had.

O'Reilly: So you were feeling pain when they removed your tube?

Adamson: Yes. Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. To say that — especially when Michael [Schiavo] on national TV mentioned last week that it's a pretty painless thing to have the feeding tube removed — it is the exact opposite. It was sheer torture, Bill.

O'Reilly: It's just amazing.

Adamson: Sheer torture . . .

In preparation for this article, I contacted Adamson for more details about the torture she experienced while being dehydrated. She told me about having been operated upon (to have her feeding tube inserted in her abdomen) with inadequate anesthesia when doctors believed she was unconscious. Unbelievably, she described being deprived of food and water as "far worse" than experiencing the pain of abdominal surgery, telling me:

The agony of going without food was a constant pain that lasted not several hours like my operation did, but several days. You have to endure the physical pain and on top of that you have to endure the emotional pain. Your whole body cries out, "Feed me. I am alive and a person, don't let me die, for God's Sake! Somebody feed me."

But what about the thirst, I asked:

I craved anything to drink. Anything. I obsessively visualized drinking from a huge bottle of orange Gatorade. And I hate orange Gatorade. I did receive lemon flavored mouth swabs to alleviate dryness but they did nothing to slack my desperate thirst.

Sometimes this country makes my blood run cold

This just in via email:

Our group is made of mostly relatives who have lost loved ones through neglect at Mid Staffs Trust hospital. Several having lost their lives through lack of fluids and nourishment.

From the evidence I have gathered and the accounts I have listened to from relatives, the decision wasn't discussed with them. It appears that the decisions were made by the doctors/nursing staff without consultation with the families.
The hospital is now under investigation for high death rates and concerns over care. The report is not due to be published until Spring.

I launched the campaign after spending 8 weeks caring for my Mother of 86. After 3 days of her being in the hospital, I was so concerned with the poor standards I was too frightened to leave her and we stayed with her constantly. What I saw in those 8 weeks will sadly remain with me forever. Vulnerable patients were left to care for themselves those who had no family died, neglected.

In the car on the way home tonight, I was told a harrowing story by a woman whose daughter went to local hospitals for minor surgeries. While she was in recovery, the girl in the hospital bed next door was having a "medical abortion", that is, she was given a dose of RU-486. There were some kind of complications and the attending physician came in and removed the "product" with foreceps, all the while giving a loud blow-by-blow description of "the procedure". When my friend told nursing staff that her daughter was becoming very upset by this and would like to be moved to another bed, she was told that she and her daughter were being "jugemental". My friend so upset the nurses by being upset by what was going on that she was asked to leave.

There will be more on this later this week on LifeSite, but for the moment, I am in awe and terror at how deeply evil our country has become.

Thoughtcrime of the day: Nazi eugenics was a movement of the left

and still is.

it was not thoughtless right-wing thugs as much as writers and scientists, the intellectual elite, who led the movement.

The exhibit is important, accurate but, regrettably, long overdue. It also fails to stress just how much the socialist left initiated and supported the eugenics campaign, not only in Germany but in Britain, the U. S. and the rest of Europe. Playwright George Bernard Shaw, English social democrat leader Sydney Webb and, in Canada, Tommy Douglas were just three influential socialists who called, for example, for the mass sterilization of the handicapped. In his Master's thesis The Problems of the Subnormal Family, the now revered Douglas argued that the mentally and even physically disabled should be sterilized and sent to camps so as not to "infect" the rest of the population.

It is deeply significant that few if any of Douglas's left-wing comrades in this country or internationally were surprised or offended by his proposals. Indeed the early fascism of 1920s Italy, while unsavoury and dictatorial, had little connection with social engineering and eugenics. The latter German version of fascism was influenced not by ultra conservatism in southern Europe but, as is made clear in the writings of the Nazi ideologues, by the Marxist left.

...and it is also significant that Canada, a country in which the public information systems are entirely controlled by the left, voted recently voted Tommy Douglas "Greatest Canadian". Nothing could have been more appropriate in the socialist state he helped to create in which there is no such thing as a free press and thoughtcrimes are now being prosecuted in courts in which there are no rules of evidence of procedure.

The philosophical origins of the Eugenics movement are not widely known of course, because they have been so thoroughly buried in the simplistic political sloganeering that has replaced serious debate and investigation. But the evidence is clear enough for those willing even to do a little Googling, that the modern eugenics movement (free abortion for "defective" children up to birth, Planned Parenthood "clinics" in every black neigbourhood in America, pre-natal hunter-seeker technology for Down's syndrome babies, pgd, the work to "improve" the human race through monkeying with IVF) that all of its tools continue to be fought for on the southpaw side of Parliaments.

When I started doing research into this ten years ago, I thought what everyone thought: that "conservatives" were evil and if you pushed them just a little, they turned into jackbooted brownshirts. It was my look into the history of the Eugenics Movement that made me realise I had gone my whole life blindly accepting a bunch of slogans that had been formulated specifically to prevent me from thinking clearly about this subject.

A Question

A few years ago I was involved in a little speaking group who went to schools to discuss the various life issues with students in high school. In many cases, the discussion would move to the issue of suffering, which underpins much of the debate over abortion and euthanasia, and even embryo research.

I asked the students, normally of a Catholic school, if they thought that suffering was the worst thing in human life, or if they could think of something worse than suffering. I normally ask the question once we have established that the class, in general, is in favour of abortion (or euthanasia) in cases of extreme hardship, or anticipated hardship, for the child. We usually decided that the class favours killing before birth a child (yes, in a Catholic school, shock of shocks...ho hum...) to be born with a terrible illness or into a loveless and disordered family, someone whom we judge to be more or less doomed to suffer throughout life. We usually prefaced this assertion that not every kind of potential suffering was worthy of such a drastic cure.

HJMW: What's your name?

Kid: Julie.

HJMW: Well, Julie, would you mind if I ask you a personal question? (nod) Have you ever suffered in life?

Kid (Grinning, embarrassed. Teachers never ask interesting questions I guess.) Yes. I guess so.

HJMW: Like what?

Kid: Well, you know. Normal stuff.

HJMW: Failed tests or exams? Got the flu? Had a fight with a close friend?

Kid: Yeah.

HJMW: OK. Anything more serious? You don't have to answer of course, if you don't want to. But anything like parents' divorce, or a death of someone close to you, or a really serious illness or something like that?

Kid: (nodding)

HJMW: Or, if not, do you think it might be possible that you could suffer something really serious in the future, something we can't really predict but like what happens sometimes to other people?

Kid: Yeah. I guess it's possible.

HJMW: OK. Well, do you want me to kill you?

(general laughter) Kid: No.

HJMW: No? Why not? I thought we had just established that it is OK to kill people, even before they are born, who might at some time in the future experience serious suffering. What gives here?

(general restlessness... they know they've been trapped)

HJMW: Is it possible, do you think, that you might be able to rise above your suffering? Even, maybe benefiting in some mysterious way from having suffered?

Kid: (nodding)

HJMW: Is it possible that you might even become a better person for having suffered? And that such growth is not really possible without suffering?

Kid: Yeah.

HJMW: So, you don't want me to kill you, in case your anticipated suffering, which you are right to fear, might actually turn out to be a good and useful thing. Right?

OK, well, let me know if you change your mind. I live to help.

* ~ * ~ *

Yes, it's certainly not difficult to talk to kids in school who have never been told anything whatever about the spiritual life. Easy room, you'd say. Yeah, I guess.

But I wonder if we can be so smug about suffering. It's easy to be an armchair Aquinas, but...

Anyway. One time at one of these things, a kid who was assigned to take me to the next class, thanked me for talking about abortion. I had mentioned that in Canada, as in most countries, the rhetoric that has prevailed of it being only and exclusively a "woman's right to choose" meant that in law, no father has any legal right to save the life of his child. And that to attempt to do so results at best in him being labeled and persecuted. The kid, lanky and tall, said, "I wanted to thank you for saying that. My girlfriend had an abortion last year and I wanted to raise it and my parents said they would help, but she went ahead anyway."

Yeah, it's all fun and games and womens' rights until you're faced with this kid and his carefully schooled unemotional expression. I cried for him on the bus on the way home.

That old ghost is getting louder

Norman Lamb, the Liberal Democrat Shadow Secretary of State for Health, dismissed the objections of disability rights groups to the eugenic screening of embryos, saying it is a case of discrimination against the disabled. Lamb said he did “share the view” that “it is tantamount to regarding an individual with a disability as less valuable in some way”.

“It must surely be preferable to avoid babies being born with very serious disabling conditions. That seems quite different from doing everything possible to avoid any discrimination against an individual who has a disability.”

And old ghosts are whispering in the corners

Dr. Desmond Turner:

Cutting the time limit would mean more births of deformed children. Do we want that? I think not.

“right of the terminally ill to die”

“right of the terminally ill to die”.

Interesting phrase isn't it?

It's one of the most interesting in the entire Worldwide Death Cult.

It always makes me think the same thing. How can there be a "right" to do something that you can't help doing anyway?

Does gravity have a "right to make things fall down"?

Is there a "right to grow older"?

Do teenagers have a "right to be a pain"?

Do leftists have a "right to be stupid and morally bankrupt"?

Obviously it is one of those String Noises we've talked about before. A phrase that gets used, esp. by journalists, that is an obvious bit of propaganda. But I think it is one that is so transparent that Mr. Goebbels would be disinclined to use it. It's too stupid. I think he was better at his job than the current Let's-Kill-Everybody-in-the-Whole-World crowd.

Let's deconstruct it shall we?

Clearly on its face, the phrase is meaningless. So, what else could it mean, other than what it's string-pullers mean you to think it means?

If everyone is going to die anyway, and terminally ill people sooner than most, why do we need a "right"? If there is such a right, it's one that is protected automatically by the laws of nature. So, clearly we don't. No one is taking this one at face value. It's one of those phrases that really says, "We all know what we're really talking about, but we're too polite to say it out loud." Canadians have a problem with the word "toilet". It's not nice. We use the term "washroom", and just grit our teeth and put up with everyone in the world laughing at us.

Euthanasia is a nasty thing. It means killing people we don't want around. When we start using real words, the niceties fall away into the background and sit in the corner sulking.

Whether a person who is "terminally ill" consents becomes a moot point. A terminally ill person (when we are restricting ourselves to killing these) is, by definition, a vulnerable person. Fear and depression can so easily turn into despair and there are the doctor deaths of the world grinning down at them proffering "peaceful pills", essentially assuring them that they do indeed have no hope and no reason to live. When the doctor tells you that you will die of your disease and then offers you a pill to kill yourself with, what sort of message are you going to take away? That there is no other hope, that this death is going to be so unspeakably horrible it is better to let yourself out the back door.

And lets not get into the question of the effect on health care triaging of legalised euthanasia. Especially in countries with all-government health care. When the government and the doctors tell you you're better off dead, how are you going to feel? What about when the government tells you that you don't "qualify" for NHS pain treatment towards the end...when it is going to be really bad. Euthanasia is cheap, don't forget. A lot cheaper than hospice.

But the point is the slimy disingenuousness of the phrase itself. If the matter were one of rights, why are we couching it in such greasy euphemisms. If there is nothing to hide, why use such language? Language that a six-year-old could see is a lie?

"How could this possibly have happened?!"

"I'm shocked! Shocked that there's been infanticide gambling going on at this establishment..."

Local politicians reacted with shock to the discovery and asked how it was possible that the disappearance of the babies over a period of some 16 years had not come to light earlier.

"We are looking at a crime on a scale that, as far as I can remember, has never been seen in the history of the Federal Republic," the Interior Minister of the state of Brandenburg, Joerg Schoenbohm, said in a statement.

"We have to ask ourselves how this incredible crime remained hidden over all these years. It's a question directed at relatives, neighbours, doctors and the authorities," he said.

But let's be careful not to ask too hard.

A German politician sparked widespread outrage and calls to resign for suggesting that mothers in eastern Germany are more prone to killing their babies because of liberal communist-era abortion laws.

Amid growing concerns about the safety of children following a spate of child murders and infanticides, many of them in eastern Germany, a politician controversially suggested over the weekend that liberal attitudes in the communist former East Germany were partly to blame.

Replying to a question about a study that showed babies in eastern Germany were three to four times more at risk of being killed than in the west, Wolfgang Boehmer, premier of the eastern state of Saxony-Anhalt told German news magazine Focus: "This can be explained by the careless attitude towards early life in the new [eastern] states."