"Die! Die! Die!"

Yes, I enjoyed that wholesome family sit com Home Improvement.  It was one of the few contemporary family sit coms that still acknowledged common sense in everyday living instead of rationalizing ostentatious behavior as normative.  But I digress...in one episode the Taylor family goes to open mic poetry night at a local restaurant(?), and the first poem read is by a woman in Goth regalia.

"Die!"
"Die!"
"Die!" she poeticizes into the microphone.  Everyone looks around as it is apparent that that is all there is to this poem.

"You first," mutters Randy.  And that response is about as common sense as it gets.

Just two states over from where I live, a chilling high school banner reads:  "ZERO POPULATION GROWTH; IT'S UP TO YOU - NO MORE THAN TWO."  Wow.  So few words; so lengthy a message.  Apparently, zero is a good thing, and "you" must limit yourself to having two children (that's the unstated indirect object) in your lifetime.  Pretty heavy for high school, don't you think?

The one wrong thing to do about this poster is to give credit for any of the words on it.  First, zero population growth is not "zero population growth."  It is population stagnation, and if that is the goal, it would be similar to sloganing "Zero Economic Growth; It's Up To You - No More Than [insert arbitrary income level here]."  What the slogan does not recognize is that there is such a thing as an already declining birth rate, and that there is such a thing as a death rate.  As it stands, every major developed country is experiencing non-replacement birth rates.  I attended a conference last weekend, and the esteemed speaker, Dr. Craig Mitchell, had related to the audience that Japan in 2012 was the first year that purchases for adult diapers exceeded the purchases of baby diapers.  The irony of zero population growth is that it is not a controllable data point.  Populations cannot be controlled; they either rise or they fall destructively due to artificial stresses on society.  A birth rate equal to that of the death rate is unattainable through effort, because there are too many variables.

But that isn't the real goal, is it?  If you've been around the pro-life block several times like I have, you know that zero population growth isn't about balance.  It is not even about the environment as often touted.  No, environmental concerns are a smokescreen for gaining greater control by the powerful over the less powerful.  It is about instituting mass manipulation as fulfillment of a marginalized ideology that would never gain popularity if not for a generous bit of sophistry and fascism.  Every tyrant and dictator to have come into power since the 20th century has launched a campaign to reduce their local population to a "manageable" size.  The killing fields of Tuol Sleng, the failed agriculture scheme of Mao, the mass executions of Stalin--all done in the effort to stamp out dissent and the distasteful ideas that people should be free to earn and reproduce as they see fit, not as a central planner sees fit.

So "IT'S UP TO YOU," is not a word of encouragement.  It's a demand.  And given that there is absolutely zero context given to this poster, we can assume that all methods of meeting this goal may be implemented:  carcinogenic contraception, abortion, sterilization, gendercide.  Of course, these things done voluntarily is preferred, I'm sure.  Involuntary methods, however, are just one refusal away.

Sure, we'll get to the point where there are more elderly people to care for than there are caretakers.  Oh, but don't worry, the anti-humanitarian laws being introduced today will make executing them easier tomorrow by labeling it a "GOOD DEATH; IT'S UP TO YOU - ONE AND DONE."

You first.

Addendum: I find it ironic that those who advocate population reduction and control never include themselves in that population that must be reduced or controlled. Of course, they justify that kind of elitism with implying that no one would spread their message if they would volunteer to leave the land of the living first. But I would remind everyone that the ideology that has spawned their protests has come from people long dead now, and they should fear not for the immortality of their worldview. After all, in the words of Margaret Sanger, "there is nothing they do that hasn't been done before," so to be consistent, these population bombers should lead by example and be the first to improve the state of the earth by throwing themselves into the ovens. With popular support of euthanasia among them, why delay?

Think government-controlled health care is here to help you?

Think again.

Most critics of private health insurance (especially the President) have tried to make the case that government-controlled health insurance will avoid the drawbacks of denied and/or limited coverage, exemptions, and well, corporate greed. But will it? Reality says no.

Just take a look at this video of the chairman of the Oregon health plan as he explains why the state-run "public option" can deny life-saving medication to cancer patients yet approve the cost of receiving doctor-assisted suicide.


Credit YouTube user AlreadyKnownAsX2

His answer to the question "is it cheaper?" to pay for ($$$) end-of-life care rather than pay for ($$$) cancer treatment is astounding. He ultimately affirms that the issue is about ($$$) money while denying that it is about money. Ohhhh. Heads up, people, the bottom line is still the bottom line whether it be public or private insurance no matter what the motivation.

If it be not corporate greed, it will be some other rationalization. Brilliant.

(Many thanks to Frank Beckwith at WWWTW for the heads up on this one.)

ADDENDUM 9/2/2009:
When private health insurances deny a patient some medical procedure, it's called corporate greed. When govt health insurance (socialized medicine) does it, it's called "saving money." At the end of the day, if you're that patient, do you care WHY you're being denied or BY WHOM? Tell your politicians not to implement the 'public option' that screws the public's options.

Atheism, the Cure for Inalienable Rights

A few months ago, I was kicking the euthanasia question around with a few of my fellow churchgoers at Theology at the Bottleworks. The issue of rights, specifically the right to legalized euthanasia became part of the topic. Underlying that question was the question, "what does God have to say about it?" was not directly discussed, but I could sense the strain that many of the attenders were under keeping it out of the discussion. Philosophically, the question of euthanasia comes down to the classic premise, 'If God does not exist, then all things are permissible.' In this case, if God does not exist, then euthanasia is permissible.

At face value, I agree, but does that give anyone the right to commit suicide, the right to euthanize someone else, or the right to legalization? If it is a question of rights, I don't think so. The consequence of the idea that God does not exist is that objective judgments (neither morals nor rights nor any claims to truth) do not exist.

My argument caches out like so:
1. If God does not exist, then objective moral rights do not exist.
2. The claim that anyone has an objective moral right to euthanasia is a claim to an objective reality that does not exist if God does not exist.
3. Therefore, a claim to an objective moral right to euthanasia does not exist.

Any atheist rallying to legalize euthanasia has two problems here. In terms of legalization, it's a non-starter. Atheism negates any objective right to anything (i.e. euthanasia), which means no one can make it incumbent upon other people to allow or approve of euthanasia. Second, the atheist is guilty of a philosophical incoherence at this point between atheism (to justify the non-objectivity of morals) and the claim to an objective moral right to euthanasia. If anyone wants the argument for legalized euthanasia to go forward, then the argument must reach beyond the limits of atheism for something else, and God only knows what that is. /smirk

One woman there, I think, captured the essense of the issue perfectly. She said in effect, if you want to end your own life, why do you need a law and a mechanism (vis-a-vis a lethal drug) to permit you to do that? Very simply, stop eating and drinking.