Forgetting History - A warningSo it is late and here am I up, instead of being in bed and asleep, going through the news and reading about various issues when I come across an article referenced in an blog that catches my attention. The headline reads "Academics Call for Killing People to Harvest Their Organs.
The blog explains that an article in the Journal of Medical Ethics makes no distinction between death and those persons totally disabled. The author argues that the totally disabled should be killed in order to harvest their organs.
I had an immediate flashback to numerous conversations many years ago with Doctors Josef and Carolyn Gerster, M.D. about Josef's experiences in Nazi Germany while growing up. Dr. Carolyn mentioned a book written in the 1920s that set the stage for the killing of medically dependent and disabled children and later adults. This indoctrination of the medical profession to consider that some lives were devoid of value was the precursor of the atrocities committed by the Third Reich. Robert Lipton later wrote a book called The Nazi Doctors documenting the history in Germany of medical killing and the psychology of genocide.
As Dr. Gerster would articulate in her talks and lectures, the disposal of the Hippocratic Oath in Germany mirrored what happened in the U.S. after the legalization of abortion. Indeed the editorial in California Medicine in September 1970 made the haunting statement that
The process of eroding the old ethic and substituting the new has already begun. It may be seen most clearly in changing attitudes toward human abortion. In defiance of the long held Western ethic of intrinsic and equal value for every human life regardless of its stage, condition, or status, abortion is becoming accepted by society as moral, right, and even necessary. It is worth noting that this shift in public attitude has affected the churches, the laws, and public policy rather than the reverse. Since the old ethic has not yet been fully displaced it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent. The result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous whether intra- or extra-uterine until death. The very considerable semantic gymnastics which are required to rationalize abortion as anything but taking a human life would be ludicrous if they were not often put forth under socially impeccable auspices. It is suggested that this schizophrenic sort of subterfuge is necessary because while a new ethic is being accepted the old one has not yet been rejected.
Connecting the dots does not require a master's degree in mathematics. Wesley J. Smith wrote about it on Friday in The Daily Caller. He points out that we must expose this thought process to the general public
Sunlight is the great disinfectant. Most people will oppose killing for organs. Thus, the best way to prevent this dark agenda from ever becoming the legal public policy is to expose it in popular media every time it is proposed.He was hopeful that as long as the American public is aware of this effort, they will not go along with it. I do not know if my concerns rest with the people's awareness of the plan or the efforts by the federal government to slide this in with all of the other destructive actions that it is taking with "health care.". After all. remember the panic the Obama Administration and the mainstream media had when Sarah Palin referred to the 'death panels' that would be set up to figure out when it was time for Grandma to make her final exit.
Combine these past concerns raised but never adequately addressed with the current controversy over forcing individual Americans and religious institutions violate their religious consciences.
What we gain from this examination is just another example of why this administration must not get a second term. No person who values freedom can support this open assault on religious liberties. The fact that this article was even published in an academic journal is scary. People who have a utilitarian world view will not allow believers to exist. They cannot tolerate any view but their own. One sees the extent of their toleration in their attack on the Catholic Church. One sees their mind set in their effort to define what is and is not "church or religious activity." Their total disregard of the First Amendment is brazen. Yet with the cover of heir media friends, the administration is able to create false scenarios and lie to the American people in order to deceive them. Lets not mince words. Back in the 1960s the media attacked the Catholic bishops in order to marginalize them on the subject of birth control. They succeeded and certain liberal bishops in the U.S. have cow-towed to the left's agenda ever since. Again in the 1970s the press painted opposition to abortion as a religious issue, appealing to a bias and prejudice against Catholics, in order to keep Protestants and Evangelicals from seeing it as a human rights issue. Fortunately that changed and the collaboration among men and women of different faith backgrounds has created a true ecumenical movement in the nation. But once again the game plan is similar. Marginalize and divide.
Whether it is the subject of abortion or concern for those at the end of life, without a consistent ethic that values all human beings, we as a nation are no different from previous generations who sought to justify the killing of human beings for their own purpose. Articles such as the one referenced above must be condemned as a totally wrong. People who espouse such thoughts must be rejected by the body politic. There is no room in politics or academia for anyone who thinks it is permissible to kill an innocent person. Such thinking was responsible for a world war and mass murder on two continents killing almost a 100 million people. It cannot be presented as an acceptable philosophy now or ever.