Killing people using euphemisms

Terri Schiavo came she saw and was conquered. Conquered by a society and a system that no longer upholds the sanctity of life. Western society is obsessed with "choices" instead of life.

"Choice" has become a value to this society. This value of "choice"--which is merely a euphemism for selfishness--has murdered over 40 million babies in the USA since 1973 alone.

As Charles Colson writes:

"'Choice' over what to do with one's own body became the defining value of the 1970s and 1980s--all the while ignoring the fact that choice itself cannot possibly be a value and that value depends on what is chosen."[1] [emphasis by original author]

This culture of choice has gone so far that it has chosen the death of a woman who did not deserve to die. Sure, we will all die one day and we all deserve to die one day and stand before the judgement seat of God. However, none of us deserves to be condemned by the very system that was created to protect and serve the innocent. But, in the new America with a country ruled by despots called judges none is safe anymore. Then on the other hand, as the old saying goes, we deserve the government set over us.

So, why does the US have the government it has? I don't mean a Republican or a Democratic led government. Why does it have a government run by judges bent on the destruction of the true American way? America has slowly but surely turned its back on its past. A past filled with the Bible and personal moral accountability. The founding fathers of the US built their country on this foundation. However, there are many "reinterpreters" today wanting to sever all ties with the proper meaning of the US Constitution and its resultant laws. Udo Middelmann, in his introduction to Schaeffer's Death in the City, explains:

"Turning from the clear teaching of the Bible will not give us a vacuum to be freely filled with personal religious views or preferences. Instead there will be both the experience of the wrath of God and the experience of painful human and even stupid intellectual consequences. The removal of the biblical roots to our life and thought will necessarily dry up the many fruits we have treasured in the past in the form of a responsible, ethical, and creative society."[2]

One of these "stupid intellectual consequences" is how Terri Schiavo was treated by her husband, the courts and even the media. Seeing Michael Schiavo as the devoted husband wanting to rid his wife of a life of misery and pain is like calling Hitler a humanitarian! The courts on the other hand were absolutely despicable! Why would the courts not put any value on hearsay in murder trials, but when it came to Terri Schiavo's will to live or die, that is about the only thing that the courts used to sentence her to death? According to Terri's adulterous husband, more than fifteen years ago, in a casual conversation, Terri allegedly said that in such a situation she would rather die. Right up to the US Supreme Court, the majority of judges--may God have mercy on their souls!--agreed to send Terri Schiavo to her certain death! The only moral fibre that these judges have is that which exists in a golf ball! And the media... What can be said about them? If ever there was an inkling of a conspiracy against life and morality we can find it here. In all their flash polls they did with the American people, the Americans apparently overwhelmingly said that Terri should have been left to die and that the American government should not have tried to intervene. What they do not tell us is that in their polls they have already fed the American people so much misinformation and that their polling questions were set up to get the desired answers. In the week after Terri Schiavo's death, Zogby, a professional polling organisation, did a poll with proper information about the real situation surrounding Terri Schiavo's needs and death. The result was overwhelming. Americans did not want Terri's feeding tubes to be removed and they wanted the government to intervene. Even after Terri Schiavo's death, the highly regarded Time magazine still harpooned the American mind with the drivel of the polls performed by the media. Joe Klein, in his article A New Idea for Democrats: Democracy, wrote that the [Republican] government in signing "the Schiavo legislation all found their just rewards in the polls that revealed an overwhelming public disgust with the political shenanigans."[3] The Zogby poll has proven this notion to be completely false.

We can define a pro-life statement as follows: Protecting the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death. This includes opposing abortion and euthanasia; however, it is not necessary to prolong human life artificially.

The constitution gives no right to anyone to kill innocent human beings. Apparently the judges felt otherwise. Neither is there any explicitly stated right to privacy in the US Constitution. It seems that many in the US believe that a person's right to privacy precludes a person's right to life! So, whatever Michael Schiavo wanted to do in the privacy of his relationship with Terri had nothing to do with anyone else. However, these people conveniently forget that Michael Schiavo had to involve other people (doctors) in his murderous mission! Yet, on the other hand, since when could I murder someone in the privacy of my home without the government wanting to hold me responsible for that act? The categorically stated right to life in the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments of the US Constitution clearly takes precedence over any privacy issues. According to the Declaration of Independence we are endowed by our Creator with the unalienable right to life.

There is no mercy in killing a sufferer. Killing deformed infants and adults who are suffering does not avoid suffering, but it rather inflicts the suffering of death. Avoiding suffering through euthanasia cannot be justified since the end does not justify the means. Killing the innocent is evil and not good.

Many claim that a person should be able to decide when he wants to die by which method. Physical illness affects the mind and the body. As a result, these stressful situations always lead to difficulty in coming to a well-adjusted decision. Patients may one day want to die and another day want to live. Which day will be reckoned as his final decision?

It is far too easy for voluntary euthanasia to slip into involuntary euthanasia. It is necessary to continue making the elderly and the sick feel "valued" in order to make them value themselves. Failing to do this may make them feel valueless leading them to feel obligated to ask for euthanasia so as not to be a burden.

The last time I checked no one in my family carries a price tag. Perhaps if I owned the mafia a lot of money! Should euthanasia be legalised because it will relieve the family and society from extreme financial strain? According to this rationale we should protect and preserve life only if we can afford it! This is certainly not moral thinking but materialistic. How can we put material value on a spiritual life made in God's image? Thinking that euthanasia will alleviate society of a great burden overlooks the fundamental value of a human life.

There are two types of passive euthanasia: unnatural passive euthanasia--withholding natural means of life support in order to allow a person's death; natural passive euthanasia--withholding unnatural life support to allow a person's death.

Unnatural passive euthanasia is the deliberate withholding of natural means in order to maintain human life. This would include withholding water, food and air. Unnatural means include respirators and artificial organs. As a result, starving someone is called passive euthanasia, but allowing that person's death due to starvation makes one responsible for taking that person's life, which is morally evil. Such an act leads directly to that person's death, which then amounts to negligent homicide. On the other hand, withholding unnatural means, leads only indirectly to the person's death. Natural passive euthanasia is a morally justified category of passive euthanasia.

Unnatural passive euthanasia and active euthanasia directly cause death. Therefore, from a Christian viewpoint, it is morally unacceptable since it rejects God's sovereignty over human life. These means of euthanasia attempt to preempt God of His sovereign right over human life. Since human life is made in the image and the likeness of God it is sacred. Because of the sacredness of human life we ultimately attack God when we kill another person.

Suicide is also a rejection of God's sovereignty over life and an attack on the sanctity of life. God is sovereign over human life whether this life belongs to us or someone else, since it is still created in God's image. Whether euthanasia (not natural passive euthanasia) is self-inflicted or imposed by someone else, it remains a form of homicide. Even the few cases of suicide mentioned in the Bible are condemned by God.

Euthanasia is an intrinsic humanistic ethic. This can be clearly seen from Humanist Manifesto II. Euthanasia denies the divine ownership to life. A secular humanistic ethic rejects God's ownership to life and therefore destroys the barriers that protect human life.

Geisler points out:

"When we do not respect life before birth, it affects our attitude toward life after birth. When we do not respect the dying, it affects our attitude toward the living."[4]

The very same case can be made for killing mentally and physically handicapped infants after birth as can be made for killing them before birth. Abortion and euthanasia go hand in hand. How do these two go hand in hand? Abortion leads to a disproportionately ageing problem, and as result euthanasia becomes the solution to the economic problems caused by abortion.

Terri Schiavo had an unalienable right to life, and the very "reinterpreters" of the law that were supposed to protect her against selfish adulterers like Michael Schiavo, sentenced her to an agonising death by starvation.

My wish and prayer is that the US government will not allow this to happen again. It is now the time, while this case is still fresh in everybody's mind to set about to enact watertight laws that cannot simply be overthrown by judges who themselves act illegally by scrapping legal laws.

Since killing someone by starvation is obviously a homicide, I wish someone will have the guts to sue the relevant judges--from judge Greer up to those in the Supreme Court--together with the relevant senators who voted not to save Terri Schiavo; including the medical staff who disconnected the feeding tube and most of all Michael Schiavo, for the murder of Terri Schiavo. In this case, the notion that government officials cannot be sued while performing official duties must be challenged.

How could people have been so spineless to have followed a command that was so obviously immoral and therefore had no legal grounds?

------------------------------------
[1] Charles Colson and Nancy Pearcey, How now shall we live?, Tyndale House Publishers, Wheaton, Illinois, 1999, p120.
[2] Francis A. Schaeffer, Death in the City, Crossway Books, Wheaton, Illinois, 2002, p12.
[3] Time, April 11, 2005, Vol. 165, No. 15, p51.
[4] Norman L. Geisler, Christian Ethics: Options and Issues, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI, 1989, p166.