Category Archives: life issues

Wasting Time Dying

You might have heard the story of Brittany Maynard, the 29 year old newlywed who has been diagnosed with terminal cancer and who plans on killing herself on November 1st. It appears that her decision to kill herself in a very public manner is in service to her ideological desire that the laws of the United States be changed to make it easier for people to kill themselves. This is a very sad – pathetic – story to hear.

Upon first hearing the story, my first thought was: what a waste of time. The time this lady is spending on planning and marketing her death is time which she could well spend more usefully. You know, loving her husband, her family and her friends. Doing things as she is physically able. Perhaps even developing ideas to help other people who will be faced with her problem in the future. Each minute she spends on her death is a wasted minute – she won’t get them back.

Here is the news flash for everyone: we’re all going to die. Not a one of us will get out of life alive. To greatly concern one’s self with death is morbid. After all, none of us know when we’re going to die – not even Brittany Maynard. Oh, sure; she’s planned it for the 1st, but she could just as well get hit by a bus tomorrow, or her cancer could take a vastly worse turn and finish the job by October 31st. On the other hand, she might not get hit by the bus – and her cancer could take a vastly better turn and instead of having six months to live, maybe she’d have nine. Or twelve. Or even two more years – but if she goes through with her plan, she’ll never know, and her family and friends will be bereft, perhaps long before they should been.

In the old days, the Catholic Church would not bury a suicide in consecrated ground. To modern ears, this seems harsh and unreasonable, but the thought behind it was this: a suicide is the worst sort of murderer because a suicide murders the whole world. To kill yourself, when not an act of merest insanity, isn’t the act of a brave man, but of a coward – a self-centered coward, at that. Because life isn’t working out as a person wants, that person has decided to kill everyone, and every thing. No person is loved enough, no sunset is beautiful enough, to keep the suicide willing to endure just one more day.

For people like Ms. Maynard, the argument is this: “I don’t want to suffer pain and debilitation, nor do I want my friends and family to endure the pain of my long, slow death”. To me, that argument is a lot of nonsense. My mother endured a painful and debilitating death from COPD – many was the time my heart was wrung with pity for her suffering. Many is the time she wished for an end to it all. But had she offed herself in say, June of 2003, then I wouldn’t have been able to make her that last dish of my special mashed potatoes shortly before she died in December of 2003, nor would she had been able to rally herself painfully to make for me one, last batch of mom’s pea soup in October of 2003. And after she died, after one last, terrible night of suffering, all I wanted was five more minutes – even knowing they would have been painful minutes, and as my mother loved me, I’m sure she wished she would have given those five, painful, additional minutes.

We must keep in mind that, in reality, none of us can predict the future. We simply do not know what might happen. Just because someone says something terrible is going to happen by such and such a date doesn’t mean that it actually will. Life is what it is. No one is assured a soft life, nor any easy exit. In a more or less painful manner, we will all die. It is our duty – out of love for God and gratitude for our existence – to live our lives from first to last with as much dignity as we can. We are to pour ourselves out in love for one another, until God calls us home. Not, most assuredly, only until it is no longer easy or convenient for ourselves.

I feel sorry for Ms. Maynard and I will pray for her. Pray that she will see where the true act of love lies and hope that, in the end, she’ll trust in God, rather than the assertions of doctors, or the counsels of fools that November 1st should be her last day on earth.

For another take on this, go here - where another dying woman urges Ms. Maynard to reconsider.

Abortion and the Return of Moloch

First off, for our liberals out there – who was Moloch? Moloch was a pagan god who went by various names in the ancient world, but the main point here is that Moloch was appeased by human sacrifice, especially the sacrifice of children. In case you ever wondered why the Romans, after defeating Carthage in the Third Punic War, destroyed the city entirely and sowed the ground with salt, it was because the Roman’s despised the Carthaginians, who worshiped Moloch – to the Romans, what sort of savage, inhuman people sacrifice children like that? If you want to get a sense of the horror the Romans felt, imagine a community of modern, American people getting dressed up in their best to go watch a baby being roasted alive. Since the downfall of Carthage and the later rise of Christianity, the very concept of human sacrifice has been anathema in the West – until recently.

Here was have an article by Sady Doyle which is urging all good liberals to cease defending abortion as a necessary evil, but promote it as a positive, moral good:

Katha Pollitt’s Pro: Reclaiming Abortion Rights is a deeply felt and well-researched book which argues that abortion, despite what any of its opponents might claim, is a palpable social good. Progressives, Pollitt says, can and must treat abortion as an unequivocal positive rather than a “necessary evil”; there is no ethical, humane way to limit abortion rights. The fact that Pollitt needs to make this argument in 2014, however, seems to indicate that pro-choicers have long been a little too nice for our own good…

Too nice for their own good? Goodness, it’s like the good lady hasn’t even checked to see just what sort of hatred, vitriol and violence is directed against pro-life people by pro-abortion. But, we’ll set that aside – the real issue here (and I do give her points for honesty) is that she’s of the view that abortion is morally good, and insistent that the pro-abortion movement say just that in public.

The article goes on for a bit about how sweet and wonderful abortion is – essentially asserting the view that pregnancy is a disease and massive, artificial medical intervention is necessary lest women have the unbelievable horror of pregnancy “forced” upon them, apparently in violation of the primary female activity, building a career in corporate America (yep, nothing says “freedom” better than being shackled to a cubicle for 8 hours a day…of course, it could be that Ms. Doyle doesn’t interact often with that part of the sisterhood which doesn’t make its living writing articles lauding abortion…). It is horrifying to read; to understand that in 2014 we have people who have so far gone into moral topsy-turvydom that evil is good and good, evil. Pregnancy to Ms. Doyle is a problem - and it needs a solution, and might as well make it a Final Solution, right?

I’ve long held the view that once you step off from morality, you’re doomed to just get worse and worse unless you step back to morality. Chesterton in one of his stories had a character point out that you can some times maintain a reasonable level of good (in spite of routine failures and sins), but you can’t maintain a reasonable level of bad – once you go bad, unless you repent completely, you’ll just get worse and worse. Once people asserted that human life is not uniquely valuable and legalized abortion, it became certain – unless we repented – that we would eventually start killing anyone who isn’t up to snuff. Now we see euthanasia for the ill and elderly, people advocating for children to be killed even after birth if they aren’t “fit”, and now a bald-faced assertion that killing is morally good – this being far different (and, morally, far below) the original argument of rare, sad necessity used to push abortion to legality. Given how far we’ve fallen, I don’t think that anyone can argue against my next statement:

Unless we repent and restore the sanctity of human life in law and custom, we will eventually start celebrating the murder of human beings.

I’m not kidding – people who have fallen low enough to say that abortion is morally good will eventually want to celebrate it. It is the next step down, don’t you see? What would stop them from doing such a thing? They already hold life, itself, in contempt – only the most narrow and selfish interests move them…and if they are to have an abortion, why not make a party out of it? And they’ll do it when they kill the elderly, as well – in fact, I can easily see, given attitudes about the environment, that killing human beings can be seen as beneficial to the world…a small sacrifice to Mother Nature, right? That it is human sacrifice – heck, so much the better: in fact, when you abort your child (or off you grandmother), you are doing a good deed…you are helping to save the plant by reducing humanity’s carbon footprint!

We are, fortunately, on the cusp of an increasingly pro-life America. The young, especially, seem to be keen on allowing everyone to live (having been born in a time when they, too, could have been aborted at will, I think, has concentrated their minds on the matter). I do hope that this is the last, hideous shriek of the Culture of Death – but if these people do continue to have power, they will continue to press their case, and we might find altars to Moloch springing up here and there. The lesson here is for everyone who still claims to be “pro-choice”: you can no longer hold to that position. You really do have to choose – be pro-life, or be pro-abortion (or, more accurately, pro-death). Pro-choice was a phrase which allowed people to hide from the actual, moral choice required of them. It is now time to choose – which side do you want to be on? On one side, there’s the rather difficult task of getting everyone into the world, and then treating them decently until they die a natural death. On the other side, people who will kill because a person is inconvenient. Pick.

Some Random Thoughts Part II

Mary Katherine Ham over at Townhall wrote a piece on this very good blog article from the Village Voice. I have no idea who Andrew W.K. is and I will wager to say that he and I are diametrically opposed on the political issues, but on this subject, he and I are in 100% agreement. I am sure all of us have family members with opposing political views, but at the end of the day, we realize that while we disagree, we still love and cherish their presence in our life. Here are a few excerpts and comments from the article that I particularly liked:

The world is being hurt and damaged by one group of people believing they’re truly better people than the others who think differently. The world officially ends when we let our beliefs conquer love. We must not let this happen.

The following excerpt really resonated with me as a conservative. This is an issue many of us here have repeatedly spoken on, and that is the desire of the power elites to keep the general populace at odds with each other. I don’t overlook the GOP’s culpability in this area, but I think that the Democrats, and particularly the Obama Administration, have excelled at this over the last few years::

People and systems craving power take advantage of this desire and pit us against each other using a “this or that” mentality. The point is to create unrest, disagreement, resentment, and anger — a population constantly at war with itself, each side deeply believing that the other is not just wrong, but also a sincere threat to their very way of life and survival. This creates constant anxiety and distraction — the perfect conditions for oppression. The goal of this sort of politics is to keep people held down and mesmerized by a persistent parade of seemingly life-or-death debates, each one worth all of our emotional energy and primal passion.

This in no way means that we must compromise our principles and firm political beliefs, but we must always remember that we are all children of God and that we all face our own daily challenges of life and as a Christian and one who worships the life of Jesus Christ, it’s the right thing to do:

We must be tireless in our efforts to see things from the point of view we most disagree with. We must make endless efforts to try and understand the people we least relate to. And we must at all times force ourselves to love the people we dislike the most. Not because it’s nice or because they deserve it, but because our own sanity and survival depends on it.

I know Andrew is writing this article solely for Americans, and our political environment, so I keep the following sentence in perspective:

And if we do find ourselves pushed into a corner where we must kill others in order to survive, we must fully accept that we are killing people just as fully human as ourselves, and not some evil abstract creatures.

I will only say however that if we do find ourselves pushed into a corner by radical jihadist factions, I am not sure I agree that they are as fully human as we are. Just saying. I hope everyone has a great weekend.

 

The Death of Civilization

Here’s how they die, at least in the modern, internet era:  pitching romantic vacations in the hopes that someone might wind up pregnant:

Denmark has a lot of things going for it. Last year, the UN’s World Happiness Report crowned it the globe’s happiest country, citing the nation’s commitment to maternity leave, gender equality, biking, and drinking lots of wine when it’s cold outside.

Its economy is also tops, chugging out $211 billion in annual GDP despite its relatively small population of 5.6 million. Economic inequality? Not a problem. Income distributes more evenly there than most places.

But Denmark has a sex problem. (Re-evaluating that happiness ranking already?)

Well, it’s not exactly a sex problem, per se. It’s more like a baby problem. According to government statistics, Denmark posted a birth rate of 10 per 1,000 residents in 2013 — its lowest in decades. The nation’s birthrate was  9.9 in 1983…

And, so, a travel agency has worked a “Do It For Denmark” campaign – at the link you can view the mildly NSFW ad pitch.  Its all very cute and funny, but it also reveals the underlying problem.  For all our wealth and for all our civilizational obsession with sex, we ain’t having kids.  And here’s the problem – if a people doesn’t create new people, it dies.  Funny how that works, huh?

We have no stigma attached to shacking up without marriage.  No one would dare call a child born out of wedlock a bastard.  Our popular culture is saturated with sexual references.  We have a “hook up” culture among our young which appears to hold that sexual activity is just part of a movie/dinner date night.  Everyone is encouraged to have as much sex as possible…and yet birth rates around the world have cratered.  Often to the point where some nations are already losing population year by year.  What gives?

For most people it would all be a great mystery.  It won’t be for some – those of us who either back when already knew or who have discovered the truth: when you separate sex out from its marital and procreative functions (via pre-marital sex and various forms of birth control, plus abortion) you will get lots more sex, but you won’t get sex which has any actual purpose in life…and you’ll also get people who have grown to believe that sex is just a thing of itself, having no purpose beyond the actual sex act.  And then you’ll get cratering birth rates, welfare States in trouble (all welfare States are built upon the requirement of a steadily increasing population) and absurd ad campaigns to convince people to have sex with a purpose.

As I’ve said elsewhere, this is just the end of a civilization – a dying, liberal civilization which proposed to make everything just great for everyone as soon as we cast off all the burdens of the old, Judeo-Christian civilization.  Well, with abortion on demand, same-sex marriage and, now, human bodies being burned for fuel, I think we can say that the very last shreds of the old civilization have been cast off.  This is now the liberal civilization long dreamed of.  Here it is.  Do you like it?  Well, don’t get too used to it – its already dead.  It’ll be replaced – by a Judeo-Christian civilization…where people will not only know how to have sex, but will know what it’s for without having to be prompted by a slick ad campaign.

 

As Usual the Proggies Have It Wrong…. What the Pope Is Actually Saying!

The Proggies think they understand everything.  How can an anti-religious political ideology understand any religion, their teachings and their origins especially when the proggies cherry-pick passages from the Bible to prove their pathetic points.

Fay Voshell says it all…

HuffPo and other liberal publications can stop rejoicing. The Pope has not turned into a radical progressive.

On the contrary, he is merely affirming what every pope before him has said.

The Holy Father is merely making the proper distinction between the pastoral role of the church and the church as the Christian counterculture confronting the evils of society. He is advising the faithful not to forget the two aims of the Church, one of which is loving evangelization and discipleship; the other of which is firm confrontation of the distorted standards of the world.

The pastoral role of the Church is basically as follows: All sinners — that’s all of us — are invited to accept the forgiveness of God freely offered through the gospel of grace. Each is invited to travel on the Christian journey of sanctification, seeking every day to become more like Jesus Christ.

The countercultural role of the Church means that at the same time the Church has a pastoral and evangelistic ministry that includes anyone who is a seeker of The Way, the Church takes a radically prophetic stand against the contemporary assaults on a transcendent God, his character and his commands. The Church retains its unyielding ideals and clear, unchanging directives concerning sexual behavior, marriage, and the sacredness of life. Such ideals remain bedrock foundations.

Progressives should not, then, expect the pope to endorse their agenda in any respect. Such matters as gay marriage, eradication of the distinctions between the sexes, and abortion on demand will not soon be endorsed by the leader of the Catholic Church.

The Left should expect to be deeply disappointed in this Pope.

Thank God.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/09/what_the_pope_is_really_saying.html#ixzz2fWEej5NN

A Terrible, Horrible Anti-Choice Abortion Law

Read it and weep, liberals:

Conditions: Between 12 and 18 weeks of gestation, the women must discuss the procedure with a social worker. After 18 weeks, permission must be obtained from the Board of Health and Welfare.

Abortions must be performed by a licensed medical practitioner and, except in cases of emergency, in a general hospital or other approved healthcare establishment…

Can you believe those knuckle-dragging, bitter-clingers of Texas trying to impose that kind of burden on a woman’s choice?  The nerve of those Christo-fascists!  Leave a woman’s vagina alone!  Keep your Rosaries off their ovaries!

Oh, wait…that is Sweden’s abortion law….

When our liberals claim that we’re engaging in a “war on women” because we want reasonable restrictions and regulations on abortion, all we’re doing is bringing American law in line with the rest of the civilized world.  Only a few Western nations ban abortion outright – Chile and Ireland being notable exceptions to the general run which allows abortion…but in almost all Western nations, only unrestricted in the first trimester.   In a very real sense, only in America can a child a day or two away from birth be murdered at the sole discretion of the mother – and that is the situation our liberals wish not only keep, but to make government-subsidized and available to minors without parental knowledge or consent.

As you all know, I’m pro-life – I’d like us to mirror Chile and just ban abortions outright.  We’re not, however, likely to get that any time soon – but we should at least be as cautious about abortion as the ultra-liberals of Europe, shouldn’t we?  Isn’t human life worth at least something?

Bottom line, anyone who does not get on board with laws like that proposed in Texas – which really does no more than put a few restrictions on late-term abortions and require abortuaries to maintain minimum health standards – is essentially coming down on the side of infanticide.

Libertarianism

Jonah Goldberg recently wrote an excellent article over at National Review Online:

In a much-discussed essay for Salon, Michael Lind asks: “If libertarians are correct in claiming that they understand how best to organize a modern society, how is it that not a single country in the world in the early twenty-first century is organized along libertarian lines?”

Such is the philosophical poverty of liberalism today that this stands as a profound question.

Definitions vary, but broadly speaking, libertarianism is the idea that people should be as free as possible from state coercion so long as they don’t harm anyone. The job of the state is limited to fighting crime, providing for the common defense, and protecting the rights and contracts of citizens. The individual is sovereign; he is the captain of himself.

It’s true, no ideal libertarian state has ever existed outside a table for one. And no such state will ever exist. But here’s an important caveat: No ideal state of any other kind will be created either. America’s great, but it ain’t perfect. Sweden’s social democracy is all right, but if it were perfect, I suspect fewer cars would be on fire over there.

Ideals are called ideals for a reason: They’re ideals. They’re goals, aspirations, abstract straight rules we use as measuring sticks against the crooked timber of humanity.

Goldberg goes on to say that the progressive movement is only moving America towards the tried, failed and archaic system of statism, wherein our lives are largely dictated by leaders who are purported to know what’s best for all of us. Been there, done that, throughout history and it has never turned out well. How liberals and democrats can cite this as “progress” is beyond me.

I increasingly find myself on the libertarian side of the political equation, having been disappointed with the “conservative” movement far too many times. The less of an authoritarian figure that is in my life, the much better off I am – and that is both from a political and personal standpoint. I would much rather fail on my own, than succeed as a result of someone else’s decisions. Sadly I believe we have abandoned that ideal as a country and now far too many of Americans would prefer to be “employed” and work and live at the direction of someone else, rather than take a risk and seek their own path. The other day one of our resident progressives asked what did “conservatives have to offer”, which I found to be extremely disheartening. Too many people have simply lost sight of the spiritual and professional fulfillment that complete liberty can bring. When you are left to your own, failure is a given, but so is the potential abundance of spiritual awareness and financial rewards. You never really know who you truly are, until you have only yourself to rely on and I wish more people would take the leap to experience that.

Happy Father’s Day y’all!!