Euthanasia is now ‘assisted dying'?
SYDNEY, November 16, 2012, (National Right to Life News) - Discussion about end-of-life issues simmers away in Australia. Reluctant as most of us naturally are to do so, it is nevertheless worthwhile to discuss with friends and family, and in public forums, ideas about health care, advance directives and our choices in such circumstances.
Likewise, there is nothing wrong with a discussion about euthanasia and assisted suicide. However, the discussion will be fruitless if, following the advice of Sydney academic Lyn Carson, we begin to change its terms. In a recent contribution to the Sydney Morning Herald Carson made a case for euthanasia by defining it as “assisted dying”. But holding to recognised terms and definitions is incredibly important to such discussions. If we don’t really know what it is we are asking for we are more likely to be dissatisfied with the outcome. As with decisions of a medical character, informed consent is paramount.
Substitute phrases like “assisted dying” and “death with dignity” might be great marketing slogans to soften the hard edges of this debate (used almost exclusively by those who support legal change), but they will not help us or any parliament debating the matter to make sound judgements.
Recycling a favourite argument of Dr. Phillip Nitschke, Carson attempts to draw us to the conclusion that the law is an ass [Mr. Bumble’s observation in Oliver Twist]: suicide is not illegal–but helping someone to suicide is. Ergo: we should change the law in favour of assisting suicide.
(Click “like” if you want to end abortion!
Suicide is not illegal, true; but assisting in a suicide remains in our criminal code precisely because once a third party becomes involved there is a risk of coercion and abuse. One need only reflect on the growing community concern over abuse of elderly people in Western countries, including Australia, to conclude that assisted suicide is a recipe for elder abuse. And, while suicide may not be a crime, none of us has a right-to-die; there is no right to kill ourselves.
Carson is correct in her observation that there is something of a “mismatch” between the results of parliamentary debates over many years and public opinion on the issue. She points out that that there have been a dozen attempts “to make laws allowing people to control their own deaths” (euthanasia) but the only one that succeeded was overturned within a year. It is worth reflecting upon the fact that, in respect to such debates, politicians are well aware of the gravity of the situation and in my experience do not take their roles lightly. So why the disparity?
It is in our parliamentary debating chambers that MPs, tasked with informing themselves of exactly what is happening in places such as the Netherlands, Belgium, and Oregon, that a thorough stocktaking of all the arguments pro and con is most likely. They are not simply saying yes or no to a phone poll. Indeed, it is when they get past the clever slogans and begin to weigh up the data that the majority see how our most basic responsibility — that of protecting vulnerable citizens — is compromised by allowing euthanasia and assisted suicide. That is why they have repeatedly decided to exercise appropriate caution and support the status quo. It is an informed decision.
The effect of legislating for euthanasia and/or assisted suicide is much broader than the limited models that we are being asked to accept. When we legislate for euthanasia and/or assisted suicide, we are really saying that these solutions are acceptable for everyone – not just the terminally ill with less than six months to live (or however else we want to define it). In law we will be creating a quasi-human right to be killed. The limitations we place (safeguards so-called) are essentially there to salve our consciences and to make us feel a little less queasy about supporting state-sanctioned killing.
My grounds for saying this? Firstly, the move to support assisted suicide rather than euthanasia by the pro-euthanasia groups in the past few weeks is really more about divining what our MPs might tolerate; as one MP admitted a few years ago, it’s seen as a good start. I would be skeptical of any claim to a moral epiphany here.
Secondly, if at some later time one of these groups builds public momentum towards an expansion of who qualifies for termination, would we then be debating whether or not we wanted to allow euthanasia as well as assisted suicide? No, we will already have made this decision. All we would be discussing at this juncture is the relative merits of expanding who qualifies. If by this time Australians are thinking like the Dutch — who see such legislation as a sort of human right – how could we then discriminate against anyone seeking to die?
As the British House of Lords Committee on Medical Ethics concluded, it is impossible to set secure limits “to create an exception to the general prohibition of intentional killing would inevitably open the way to its further erosion whether by design, by inadvertence, or by the human tendency to test the limits of any regulation.”
We must continue to protect all people equally. Risks to vulnerable people cannot be eliminated by weasel-worded legislation premised on a “right to die”. By all means, let’s discuss end-of-life issues openly and forge the way for better care and real choices, but let’s make informed decisions cognisant of our human nature and mindful of the risk to others.
Reprinted from National Right to Life News.
Please, enough with the cult of pop stars. Our kids need real heroes.
April 29, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – Two things happen each time a significant pop culture figure dies: Christians attempt to dredge up some moderately conservative or traditional thing that figure said at some point during his long career, and mainstream media attempts to convince a society thoroughly bored with such things that the person in question was a ground-breaking radical. The two most recent examples are the androgynous David Bowie—a cringe-worthy and possibly blasphemous video of him dropping to his knees during a rock performance and uttering the Lord’s Prayer circulated just following his death--and the pop star Prince.
I’ve had to suppress my gag reflexes many times as I saw my Facebook newsfeed fill up with memes sporting quotes from Prince about his faith and articles announcing that the musician who “embraced gender fluidity before his time,” according to Slate and “will always be a gay icon” according to The Atlantic, was against gay marriage. Sure, maybe he was. But only a Christian community so shell-shocked by the rapid spread of the rainbow blitzkrieg and the catastrophic erosion of religious liberty would find this remarkable. After all, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton said the same thing barely one election cycle ago. As one obituary celebrating Prince’s paradigm-smashing sexual performances written by Dodai Stewart put it:
Dig, if you will, a picture: The year is 1980. Many states still have sodomy laws. The radio is playing feel-good ear candy like Captain and Tennille and KC and the Sunshine Band. TV hits include the sunny, toothy blond shows Three’s Company and Happy Days. There’s no real word for “gender non-conforming.” But here’s what you see: A man. Clearly a man. Hairy, mostly naked body…a satiny bikini bottom. But those eyes. Rimmed in black, like a fantasy belly dancer. The full, pouty lips of a pin-up girl. Long hair. A tiny, svelte thing. Ethnically ambiguous, radiating lust. What is this? A man. Clearly a man. No. Not just a man. A Prince.
Right. So let’s not get too carried away, shall we? I know Christians are desperate to justify their addictions to the pop culture trash that did so much to sweep away Christian values in the first place and I know that latching on to the occasional stray conservative belief that may manifest itself in pop culture figures makes many feel as if perhaps we are not so weird and countercultural, but this bad habit we have of claiming these figures upon their passing is downright damaging.
After all, parents should be teaching their children about real heroes, titans of the faith who changed the world. Heroes of the early church who stood down tyrants, halted gladiatorial combat, and crusaded against injustice in a world where death was all the rage. These men and women were real rebels who stood for real values. If we want to point our children to people they should emulate, we should be handing them books like Seven Men: And the Secret of Their Greatness by the brilliant writer Eric Metaxas rather than the pop albums Purple Rain or Lovesexy by Prince. If parents spend their time glorifying the predecessors of Lady Gaga and Miley Cyrus instead of highlighting heroes like William Wilberforce, they can hardly be surprised when their children choose to emulate the former rather than the latter.
The mainstream media’s adulation of these pop stars is equally irritating. The unspoken truth of these obituaries is that the flamboyant antics of Prince and the rest of the so-called rebellious drag queens populating the rock n’ roll scene have been mainstream for a long time already. Want to see dozens of bizarre body piercings? Weird hairdos? Purple mohawks? Dudes with nail polish? Strange tattoos? Easy. Just go onto any university campus, or any public high school without a dress code. With headphones wedged firmly in their ear canals, they can pump the cleverly commercialized “counterculture” straight into their skulls 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
More than that, some of these courageous rebels have actually sued their employers to ensure that they can let their establishment-smashing freak flag fly at work, too. An Edmonton woman with 22 visible body piercings complained that her employer was unfair because apparently she was being discriminated against “based on body modifications.” Yeah! The Man must be told, after all. And if he doesn’t agree, we will lawyer up. I wonder what the shrieking rebels of the early days would think about the snivelling children of the current grievance culture.
So these days, the media’s eulogizing about aging culture warriors who went mainstream a long time ago rings a bit hollow. After all, most rock n’ roll stars these days look tame compared to what shows up in the children’s section at Pride Week. Freaky is normal now. Normal is radical. Welcome to 2016.
When Christians are posting nostalgic tributes to the rebels who helped inoculate their children against the radical views of Christianity in the first place, you know that the victories of the counterculture are complete and Stockholm syndrome has set in.
View CommentsClick to view or comment.
Share this article
Target boycott climbs to over 1 million
April 29, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – Over 1 million people have signed a pledge to boycott Target over its new policy allowing men to access women’s bathrooms.
The American Family Association’s Boycott Target petition gained traction immediately, reaching the one million mark in only nine days.
“Corporate America must stop bullying people who disagree with the radical left agenda to remake society into their progressive image,” said AFA President Tim Wildmon. “#BoycottTarget has resonated with Americans. Target’s harmful policy poses a danger to women and children; nearly everyone has a mother, wife, daughter or friend who is put in jeopardy by this policy. Predators and voyeurs would take advantage of the policy to prey on those who are vulnerable. And it’s clear now that over one million customers agree.”
Target defended its policy in a statement saying that it believes everyone “deserves to be protected from discrimination, and treated equally” and earlier this week, a Target spokeswoman defended the policy as “inclusive.”
The AFA said that unisex bathrooms are a common-sense alternative to allowing men unfettered access to women’s bathrooms.
“Target should keep separate facilities for men and women, but for the trans community and for those who simply like using the bathroom alone, a single occupancy unisex option should be provided,” the petition says.
The AFA warned that Target’s new policy benefits sexual predators and poses a danger to women and children.
“With Target publicly boasting that men can enter women's bathrooms, where do you think predators are going to go?” the petition asked.
There have been numerous instances of predatory men accessing women’s bathrooms and intimate facilities in the wake of “transgender” bathroom policies allowing them to do so.
“We want to make it very clear that AFA does not believe the transgender community poses this danger to the wider public,” said Wildmon. “Rather, this misguided and reckless policy provides a possible gateway for predators who are out there.”
View CommentsClick to view or comment.
Share this article
Amazing new video captures the flash of light the moment life begins
CHICAGO, April 29, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – Life begins with a spark – literally.
Researchers at Northwestern University have documented the striking event in a new video that accompanies a study published this week.
At the moment of conception, the egg releases massive amounts of zinc, which creates a spark that can be seen with the aid of a microscope.
“It was remarkable,” said Teresa Woodruff, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Northwestern University's medical school. “To see the zinc radiate out in a burst from each human egg was breathtaking.”
The research team had noted the zinc sparks before in mice eggs but had never observed the process in human beings.
“All of biology starts at the time of fertilization,” Woodruff said, “yet we know next to nothing about the events that occur in the human.”
One of the researchers, Northwestern chemistry professor Thomas O'Halloran, explained the science behind the process in 2014.
“The egg first has to stockpile zinc and then must release some of the zinc to successfully navigate maturation, fertilization and the start of embryogenesis,” he said. “On cue, at the time of fertilization, we see the egg release thousands of packages, each dumping a million zinc atoms, and then it's quiet.”
“Each egg has four or five of these periodic sparks,” O'Halloran said. “It is beautiful to see, orchestrated much like a symphony.”
Since the amount of zinc in an egg correlates with successful implantation and birth, the Northwestern researchers are highlighting that their research may be used to assist in vitro fertilization.
But that raises concerns given the grave moral issues with IVF, which involves creating numerous embryos that are either killed or frozen. Moral theologians also emphasize that IVF is an injustice even for the children who are born as a result, as they are created in a lab rather than in the union of man and woman.
The study may have far-reaching consequences the research team did not intend, such as strengthening public belief in the longstanding scientific consensus that life begins at the moment of conception/fertilization.
Many of those who saw the Northwestern video said it testifies to the beauty of life and the shallow lies that buttress the argument of abortion-on-demand.
“I saw this, and I was blown away by it,” said Rush Limbaugh on his nationally syndicated radio program Thursday afternoon. “For anybody in the mainstream media to openly admit that life begins at conception” defies arguments that an unborn child is only “tissue mass.”
Researchers released a separate video of the zinc spark taking place in a mammalian egg more than a year ago:
The paper, which is entitled “The Zinc Spark is an Inorganic Signature of Human Egg Activation,” was published by Scientific Reports on April 26.