Alfie Evans: Moloch Demands Another Sacrifice

You might have heard of the case, but if you haven’t, Alfie Evans is a British toddler suffering a terrible disease from birth. He’s been on life support and the government has decided that further efforts should not be taken to treat the boy and so have decreed that it is time for him to die – the parents take exception to this, but they don’t count. The kid has gotta die: the government says so…and even if it would cost the government nothing (or, in this case, cost the government even more to prevent health care from being applied), the death must happen.

Where did this come from? The first moment someone said that abortion should be legal. There’s a rather bright line here, folks: we’re not supposed to kill people. Even killing in self defense is still in the nature of “least bad” rather than “good”. Once you cross that line and say that some killing is good, then you have broken down the barrier…and in a short time, all killing will be good.

Remember: abortion was only supposed to be used in the most extreme cases: hundreds of millions of deaths later, we see where that went. We were told at the start of the “death with dignity” push that it would only apply to fully conscious adults who were incurable and suffering untreatable pain. Now, we see it being applied to some poor kid who, though ill, is not apparently at death’s door, given the fact that he didn’t die when they took him off life support. But, the government is resourceful: since the kid didn’t cooperate by dying immediately, I’ll bet they’ll eventually come up with the Schiavo Alternative and just let the kid starve to death. Now, just to get it out of the way: yes, some times health care is pointless. If a person can’t breath on their own, it may be time to die. If they can’t metabolize food and water, it is definitely time for them to die. But in each case, on their own time…if you can’t breath, you’ll suffocate…and if you don’t suffocate in a few minutes, it isn’t moral to have a pillow put over your head to hurry matters along. Can’t eat? Well, try – see if it digests. If it does, you get to live…if it doesn’t, you’ll die. But don’t refuse to give food to a sick person on the theory they can’t digest and/or can’t live much longer anyway.

They will decree our deaths for any and all reasons if we keep down this route. Addict? Die. Not too smart? Die. A little bit too smart? Die. Believe in silly superstitions like Christianity? Die. You think they won’t? You think these people who are killing a little kid – having 30 police in place to prevent the parents from taking the kid out of the hospital – won’t do that as soon as they have the power? What is to prevent them? Moral conscience?

Our only path back from this is to re-affirm that life is sacred – that each, individual human being has dignity and must be treated as such from conception to natural death. Abortion must be banned. The end. If we don’t do that, then these murderers masked in false mercy will eventually sit in judgement on our lives and decide if we get to live, or not.

20 thoughts on “Alfie Evans: Moloch Demands Another Sacrifice

  1. Amazona April 24, 2018 / 2:30 pm

    I’ve noticed that individual Lefties each have a mental line which they believe will never be crossed, and they are fine with whatever doesn’t get too close to that line. So abortion is fine if it is early enough and for a “good” enough reason, if the line is one of being able to live outside the womb or to feel pain. The problem is that there is always some inching toward that line, and then incremental nudging of that line a little farther, and then just a little farther more. Pretty soon some other elements are added to the reasoning, so instead of an abortion in the first twelve weeks if the mother has been exposed to a drug that causes birth defects it is 18 weeks, then 24, and so on. If it is until a child can survive outside the womb, it morphs into the atrocity of “late-term” abortions where a fully formed full-term child could be tortured to death as long as its head remained in the birth canal, not breathing air, and the new acceptable reasons included simply having the bad fortune to be gestated in the womb of a pathologically selfish and demented female. From this it was a short step to letting a full-term breathing baby outside the womb die alone, cold and starved in a box on a hospital shelf.

    The same line-nudging has taken place with the assisted suicide laws, till now we have people choosing to die so their offspring won’t have to spend much money on them, which of course nudged open the door to having the State make that decision for them.

    One result of all this nudging has been the ripping away of the former disguises donned by so many Liberals, the pretenses of decency and humanity. We saw that with Terri Schiavo, the enraged mobs literally howling for her to DIE DIE DIE. In spite of the testimony that she could understand what was happening to her, knew her family and that their visits meant a lot to her, that she could in fact eat soft foods and drink and make choices of what she preferred to have fed to her, in spite of her family’s pleading to be allowed to continue caring for her, the State and its accomplices in the Death Cults of the Left moved to kill her. Not just let her die, but actually kill her, by withholding food and water.

    And each Lefty supporting these kinds of atrocities has a mental line in his or her mind that says “it is OK for this or that reason, but it will never apply to ME”. But when the State has acquired enough power, and enough supporters, it may very well come to apply to those who were fine with various kinds and levels of atrocity because they felt they, themselves, would never be affected.

    And by then it is too late.

    And just to add to the insanity, the same Libs who not only sanction but advocate for these kinds of killing by the State are likely to be the same people arguing against killing convicted murderers.

    • Amazona April 24, 2018 / 2:35 pm

      The German pastor Martin Niemoller wrote about this kind of indifference based upon the belief that it will only happen to others when he wrote about the Nazis targeting different groups.

      First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
      Because I was not a Socialist.

      Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
      Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

      Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
      Because I was not a Jew.

      Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

      The incremental creep of State power is invisible to many, and acceptable to many others because it affects only groups or causes with which the supporters agree. They don’t seem to realize that this power can also be turned against them.

    • M. Noonan April 24, 2018 / 5:26 pm

      They are also the same people saying we have to ban AR-15’s to save the children. It is just absurd…but, once you step over the line and start saying “killing is ok”, then one must become absurd. Because it is an absurd position to begin with.

      • Amazona April 24, 2018 / 8:15 pm

        They get pretty upset if there is a comment that they only care about SOME children—those fortunate enough to have been conceived by decent, caring, responsible women who were not pathologically selfish, who let them be born and grow up enough to go to school.

        That hypocrisy is so blatant, and therefore so threatening, that noticing it is like throwing gasoline onto a fire.

  2. Cluster April 24, 2018 / 4:54 pm

    OT, but I noticed the following comment from Nicole Wallace and thought, there is really nothing to add and I think it speaks volumes ….

    The McCain/Palin ‘08 strategist on Monday described herself as a “non-practicing Republican”

    Truth be known she was non practicing back in 2008 too.

    • M. Noonan April 24, 2018 / 5:23 pm

      She certainly needed more practice…you know, in “how to win”.

      • Cluster April 24, 2018 / 5:37 pm

        On the other thread I commented on Jonah Goldberg who I saw on TV this morning. I have always liked Jonah and found his opinions to be spot on most of the time, but the problem with his brand of conservatism is that he doesn’t care if he wins, and I think a lot of “conservatives” are like that. They believe in the principles of conservatism and they articulate them well ….. they just lack the drive and passion to execute. .

        Hence: Trump. They only have themselves to blame. What did they expect us to do?

      • Amazona April 24, 2018 / 8:12 pm

        Goldberg is really smart and knows a lot, and writes very good books. But I agree with you , that he has not seen his role as fighting to WIN elections, so his ideas can be put into practice.

        However, I read him a lot, and think he is starting to catch on that good ideas in a vacuum, generated in an ivory tower and never brought into real life, aren’t really worth much except as talking points at dinner parties. At least he is now admiring of most of what Trump has been doing, and reading between the lines in much of what he writes I see a dawning realization that we needed Trump to put into action the ideas he and his other pointy heads have been brewing in their book-lined studies and think tanks.

        I think he will be more combative in the future, especially if he doesn’t have to overcome that high-nosed distaste for the common man that he and Kristol and other idea men have developed. To some extent, I share that distaste—–Trump’s relationship with the WWE strongly affected my opinion of him, because to me that is the trashiest of the trashy. eeeuuww. But I didn’t have an identity and social and professional circle that revolved around that kind of distaste, so I could get over it a little faster.

  3. Jeremiah April 24, 2018 / 7:06 pm

    The question I would like to ask, is this…

    If the Supreme Court can legalize abortion, what prevents the Supreme Court from striking down that ruling?

    There is right and wrong, and there is no debate about what is right and what is wrong; without any foreknowledge, or instruction about right and wrong we have an innate ability to understand what right and wrong is, because we are endowed with a soul/spirit. But when sin entered the world, we also have the propensity to act on evil temptations. Cain slew Abel i,e. and God therefore rejected Cain’s sacrifice.

    Ever since that time, when Cain slew Abel there has always been a consequence for murdering another human being. Because murder is wrong in the sight of God. If there was no punishment, or consequence for the sin of murder, everyone would be murdering, and the governments of the world (at least some) where Christianity is the dominant religion have had laws in place against murder. Yet, now, here in the United States, that has had laws in place for more than a couple centuries, is now changing the law to make murder acceptable. Where are they getting their morals to make laws that exempt murder in certain circumstances? Certainly not from God. God makes no exemptions for murder. None. In fact, He requires the life of the person who takes the life of another. Genesis 9:6

    As human beings, we are created in the image of God. No other creature in this universe shares this unique feature. And no other creature possesses a spirit. This is why God does not allow murder.

    But now that man has kicked God out of government, education and so forth we are seeing the results of those decisions.

    Conservatives and those who hold values that align with pro-America, pro-Christian, pro-Life etc are losing badly on the educational front, and choose only to make their voices heard at voting time, which is causing them many losses in small battles like governorships, mayoral positions, senate races, etc.

    If we want change, we have to make it known that we want change. The left does it, Conservatives can, too.

    • Amazona April 24, 2018 / 8:04 pm

      The Roe v Wade decision has been severely criticized without any reference to God at all, merely on the grounds that it is just a bad legal decision, so there are reasons for overturning it on both moral and legal grounds.

      The actual job of the Supreme Court is merely to determine if a law is, or is not, compliant with the Constitution. In this case, the Court ruled that no state or district court could ban abortion because they found, in their words, an “emanation” of a “penumbra” of an unwritten, unstated, “right”, or the “right to privacy”—-and then ruled that whatever a woman decides to do “with her own body” is a private matter.

      The moral argument is that abortion is only partly related to the woman’s body and nearly entirely related to a separate body, that of the child she has caused to be created through her own actions. That is an argument that is simply ignored by ear-piercing screaming that as long as that other person resides within the woman’s body IT’S HER BODY !!! and it is too irrational to even deal with. The facts are so clear, the science is so clear, the morality is so clear, that I no longer even consider these people as true women, who deserve respect, but merely as female gestators.

      BUT…there is the law. There is no right to privacy in the Constitution. There is an argument that the 9th Amendment discusses rights not mentioned in the Constitution, but there is no stated or even implied right to “privacy”. (If there were, no men would be allowed in women’s restrooms or changing rooms or locker rooms, and all sorts of accepted violations of privacy would be outlawed.) And to base such a profound ruling on a perceived “emanation” from a “penumbra”, or halo, of an unstated right removes it to quite some distance from such a right, if such a right exists. The Court invented a “right”, then found a penumbra or halo surrounding it, a halo of undefined content, and decided that this halo emitted some sort of emanation that justified killing babies.

      On top of that, there is the question of the 10th Amendment. Because privacy is not addressed anywhere within the Constitution, much less in the enumerated duties of the federal government, the Court had no right to drag abortion into Federal jurisdiction. It should be a matter left to the states. The Court should not have said anything, one way or another, regarding abortion other than it is not a matter of federal authority.

      it is simply bad law.

      Now that we have science proving that these are truly human beings from the moment of conception, that their DNA shows that from that moment they are nothing BUT human beings, and that at very early stages they show personality traits and can feel pain, and now that they can live outside the womb much earlier than in the past, there is ample reason to revisit Roe V Wade, but that will never fly with the pro-death movement. However, a 10th Amendment argument might.

      So yes, it can be done. Rather, it could be done. But not with this Court. With one or two more staunch Constitutionalists it could be done.

  4. jdge1 April 25, 2018 / 4:41 pm

    Part of the almost unreal & astounding situation of the Evans case is that the UK courts refuse to allow the parents to remove the child from the hospital. The courts along with the hospital seems intent on seeing the child die, despite the fact that the Vatican hospital has agreed to treat the child and the Italian government has granted the child Italian citizenship to help facilitate this. If they are so insistent that the child would not survive, seems it would be far easier to simply allow the parents the remove the child from the hospital care, placing all responsibility of the child’s outcome on the parents.

    There are numerous instances where “patients” have been declared brain dead by the medical community, only to have that same patient awaken from this so-called lifeless state. Many people, even within the medical community itself, are beginning to challenge what was previous thought of as “fact”. While there are medical marvels, in particular with regard to surgery, doctors are NOT infallible or even significantly knowledgeable about the deep intricacies of the brain, the central nervous system or the body’s unique ability to withstand extremes placed on it.

    In a strange contrast, my father tells a story of when he went to pickup my mother and a newborn child from the hospital. In order to complete the discharge process he had to get “release papers” from the billing office saying he paid the bill. While at the billing office he informed them he would make monthly payments as he did for all of the previous children. The billing office informed him that this was not acceptable anymore and he would not be able to take his wife & child until the bill was paid in full. He calmly asked the clerk for the telephone. When asked why, my father informed the clerk he was calling the police charging the hospital with kidnapping. Apparently that was all that was necessary to remove the threat detaining wife & child. Not sure how this would play out today, but I believe here in the US, except in extraordinary circumstances (none that come to mind at the moment), the hospital MUST release the patient upon request either from the patient of legal age, or the parent / guardian of the patient. They may have to sign a form saying they realize this is against the advise of the doctor / hospital, but in almost every case the hospital must comply. Strange that the UK would be so different. The scary part is that many of the left want the US to follow in the footsteps of Europe’s socialized medicine where the doctor and hospital have more control & say than the parents. Not sure how far I’d go if I were in the Evans situation. Glad I’m not in their shoes.

    • Amazona April 25, 2018 / 6:23 pm

      As I said, we did see something similar here in the US in the Terry Schiavo case. Her parents wanted custody of her, but the courts said her husband—-who was suspected of harming her and putting her in her near-vegetative state—-had full custody and full authority to decide her care. Her caregivers said she was alert and aware of her surroundings. The husband would visit her and insist on being alone with her and she would be upset when this happened and then go into a deep depression afterwards, and they all suspected he was abusing her in some way, if only verbally. She appeared frightened of him. Her caregivers said she responded to visits from her family, preferred some drinks (such as orange juice) over water, and had been able to swallow some soft foods given to her. Her husband demanded that she be removed from life support, and when she was, she was able to breathe on her own. Her family offered to assume all responsibility for her and he refused. He refused to allow anyone to do basic range of motion exercises to help her body heal and halt contraction of muscles and tendons, which is painful. He then demanded that she be starved to death, and her caregivers said she was aware of the meaning of having her feeding tube removed, knew it was a death sentence, and was terrified and fought them when they removed it. She clearly had brain function and was regaining some physical functions, but the husband, who had a conflict of interest as he was suspected of abusing and injuring her and who could be prosecuted if she were to regain the ability to communicate more fully, who was living with another woman at the time and who would benefit financially from her death, was allowed to have her killed. Worse, the nation was full of people raging against those who simply wanted her to have a chance, just a chance, to live.

      This was the first time I was aware of the death cult of radical Leftism. These people were rabid, not only in demanding that this innocent person die a painful death due to starvation but in their vile and vicious attacks on her, her family, and all who thought she should be allowed to have a natural death if that was her fate. There were some of these rabid death cult Lefties on this blog at the time, and the range and scope of their venom was astounding, as they fought anyone who defended her, lied about the meaning of brain scans and other tests, ignored the testimony of her caregivers, and demanded that she die.

      This is what can happen when the State is given massive power and authority, and allowed to override family and religion. Not in the name of saving lives, which might be an excuse if, for example, the State were to demand that a blood transfusion be given to someone whose religion forbids it, but to end the life of someone who might not have to die.

  5. Amazona April 25, 2018 / 6:31 pm

    Just in case the Alfie Evans case is not enough to scare the daylights out of you, regarding government power run amok, we have this example of what happens when innocent people get dragged into Central Authority witch hunts.

    This man was just a witness, yet he has had to engage legal counsel, and has had death threats to him and his family.

    I am sure Scooter Libby knows what he is going through.

    • Cluster April 26, 2018 / 8:17 am

      And I am sure Gen. Michael Flynn can attest to the “long arm of the law” – he had to sell his home to pay for attorneys because of deep state hacks. If it were me in Flynn’s position …. let’s just say I would have spent that money on ammunition.

      MSNBC has just spent the last half hour talking with little bitch attorney Michael Avanatti about Trump’s alleged affairs with Mika wondering breathlessly if there are any pictures.

      Such is the state of our media.

      • Amazona April 26, 2018 / 9:46 am

        Most of them, and too many Libs, just can’t get their noses out of the crotches of conservatives. At least at a dog park once the initial sniffing is over they go about their business.

  6. Cluster April 26, 2018 / 8:55 am


    In light of the medias and Democrats efforts to put Michael Cohen in jail for violating campaign finance laws by allegedly writing a $130,000 check to Stormy Daniels, I present the following story:

    This “legal loophole” allows “bundlers” to raise large sums of money from wealthy donors — more than $400,000 at a time — by filtering the funds to the national committees.

    “Suspecting the DNC had exceeded those limits, a client of Backer’s — the Committee to Defend the President — began reviewing FEC (Federal Election Commission) filings to determine whether there was excessive coordination between the DNC and Clinton,” Cleveland stated.

    “What Backer discovered, as he explained in an interview, was much worse,” the Federalist reporter noted. “There was ‘extensive evidence in the Democrats’ own FEC reports, when coupled with their own public statements that demonstrated massive ‘straw man contributions’ papered through the state parties, to the DNC, and then directly to Clinton’s campaign — in clear violation of federal campaign-finance law.’”

    • Amazona April 26, 2018 / 9:51 am

      OF COURSE the Dems have been engaging in campaign finance lawbreaking. Can we say “Jamie Gorelick”? Johnny Huang? Buddhist nuns and Chinese busboys? Half a million dollars for a half-hour speech? Duh. Now we just have to see how much attention this will get from the Complicit Agenda Media—maybe Mika can stop sniffing at Trump’s underwear long enough to discuss it.

      But really, Trump has to start working with smarter people. All Cohen had to say was that he made the decision on his own to pay off the sex-for-money broad, and then added it to Trump’s account, though he hadn’t yet sent him the bill. Therefore, Trump didn’t authorize it and might not even know about it but it was something he would be expected to pay. End of story. Cohen is too stupid to be allowed in front of a camera or an investigator.

  7. Cluster April 26, 2018 / 1:57 pm

    Too Funny …..

    On Wednesday’s CNN Tonight, anchor Don Lemon hosted a segment to discuss the fact that rapper Kanye West has received criticism for praising President Donald Trump. The CNN host even alluded to West’s history of accusing President George W. Bush of not caring about black Americans to then suggest that now West may not “care about black people.”

    Kanye West doesn’t “care about black people” according to Don Lemon. Do black people need to cared for? Are they that fragile?

  8. jdge1 April 27, 2018 / 8:49 pm

    What an absolute piece of trash.

    Dr. Ranj Singh of Alder Hey Children’s Hospital argued on U.K.’s “This Morning” ITV program Friday; “Withdrawing life support is not killing someone. It is redirecting care to make them more comfortable and give them the most dignifying life that you can.” In Alfie’s case, redirecting care to make him “more comfortable” means denying him food, water and life support. Dr. Singh doubled down on his claim, framing the withdrawal of life support as a way to make patients more comfortable and give them “the most dignifying life”:

    This is the end result of socialized medicine and leftist thinking. Anyone who see’s this and still believes socialized medicine is the best way to go should be locked up in a mental institution.

    • Amazona April 28, 2018 / 1:30 pm

      I have to wonder if Singh would be appreciative of efforts to add dignity to his life by withdrawing his own life support. I expect that his statements will end up being used as defenses in murder cases—-“Well, your Honor, I didn’t actually KILL the woman—–I just removed some of her life support, in this case oxygen when I throttled her, but my intent was to add dignity to her life”.

      Leftists always end up trying to get rid of those who don’t agree with them or add to their agenda. Look at Stalin’s Ukraine for an example. At Pol Pot, at Hitler, at Castro. Whenever you see the inconvenient or the opposition being killed, you will see the Left behind it.

Comments are closed.