Changing ethics

During this time of the epidemic, there has been a lot of talk about the decisions made in some areas not to resuscitate those patients who are deemed unlikely to recover fully, people with ‘underlying conditions’ including obesity, cardiac problems, and just being ”too old”. We’ve seen in recent years how so-called ‘progressive’ countries like the Netherlands and Belgium have legalized euthanasia, which used to be called by the euphemism ‘mercy killing.’ Now it’s become so respectable that it isn’t even being called ‘killing’ anymore.

Back when the “Affordable Care Act” [sic] was being hurriedly passed through Congress before we could see what was in those thousands of pages, the Left scoffed and laughed at the Right’s concerns over what were called ‘death panels’, which would pointedly exclude risky or elderly patients from life-saving procedures. ‘Waste of money’, said the progressives. Spend the money on young people who are worth more because they are capable of being productive citizens instead of a millstone around the neck of society.

I just happened across a link from a Free Republic thread from 2012, and it appears that at that time there was some shock or dismay about the issue of denying care in certain cases to the old or chronically ill. Now it appears the subject is old hat, although LifeNews ran some articles recently about the trend towards euthanasia. The 2012 article was titled The Elite Are Attempting To Convince Us That Killing Off Our Sick Grandparents Is Cool And Trendy.

I know I’m like a broken record on this subject, but if we are to regard our society as the least bit Christian, we can’t reconcile euthanasia (or abortion) as compatible with the morals and ethics which are at the heart of Western, once-Christian civilization. And yet a lot of the people online and IRL who cold-bloodedly justify euthanasia (by whatever name) actually claim to be Christian. To try to justify any part of the culture of death with Christianity can’t be done, and to do so simply defames the name of Christ and denies the core beliefs of our Faith.

Yet it goes on: ‘Christians’ who think the old and chronically ill are expendable, that they have less of a claim to life than the young and fit, are allowed to call themselves followers of Christ and no one challenges them on this falsehood.

Few people speak out against this. We’ve seen how many purported Christians support abortion and other anti-Christian practices and that too has become OK for a lot of people. It’s just a personal preference, so people sometimes say. But it isn’t; no matter what post-modern society says, no matter what popular culture tolerates, there are absolute standards. Not everything is up to consensus or popular vote.

And of course Roe v. Wade was a decision from judges legislating from the bench.

In the meantime the few people who object to this new system of ‘changing ethics’ are drowned out by the many who prefer to follow the crowd and popular secular opinion. That’s their decision, but don’t put a Christian label on those po-mo ”ethics”.

The article linked to above talked about how ‘the elites’ were trying to popularize this cynical philosophy — which seems to be rooted in either outright atheism or libertarianism/Randianism with its selfish ‘look out for number one, especially where $$ is at stake’ center.

I may offend somebody by saying this but somebody has to say it and I don’t see or hear anyone addressing it — except occasionally when someone wants to argue with me about it, and justify the fact that they want approval for hating their parents or grandparents or old folk generally.

Don’t worry; the culture of death and daddy-hating seems to be prevailing, and those who still hold to the old absolutes are being drowned out and jeered at. Certain bloggers have promoted this ghoulish attitude and continue to do so shamelessly, despite a few murmurs of criticism from the likes of me and a handful of people out there somewhere.

The bloggers who’ve done the most towards making elder-hating cool and popular know who they are, and so do most people who read their popular blogs. It pays to be ‘edgy’ and to offend certain people, so their blogs will prosper and grow in readership, judging by their present influence and popularity.

I find it amusing and telling that even the $PLC has taken note of the daddy-hating trend among certain age groups, and they note it with bemusement (or amusement?) because after all, the hatred is only directed at those who are old, therefore it’s benign and even desirable — as long as it’s old White folk who are the targets. Oprah Winfrey and others on the left are on the same page with the ”right”, saying that the old White folk should hurry up and die off because they are ‘bigots’.

And yes Oprah did say that in a video, though her cult of Nice White Ladies would probably deny it. It might still be on YT for those who need ‘proof.’

So we’ve got the left and the ”right” carrying the same anti-White message. Nice work, helping the left spread their toxic memes, and bolstering each other’s efforts. Nothing like the left and the right working toward the same goals.

Meantime the people who write all the hysterical stories about the coming mass deaths from the pandemic can calmly tell us that we just can’t afford to care for everybody because ‘the health care system is overwhelmed’. Despite empty hospitals and encouraging decreases in new cases, we are still told that we can’t afford to care for certain people. Yet somehow we have money to burn when it comes to certain special causes.

But, medical ethics change, so they tell us; ethics and morals are all flexible and relative, just like everything else these days. No fixed principles. No standards, no absolutes.

And yet they tell us that slippery slopes do not exist.

Banishing reality

Now the left is proclaiming that anyone who uses the term ”illegal alien” must be condemned.

Of course this was the panel on ”Meet the Press”, indicating the usual leftist bigotry. I would like to think that the average citizen is more reasonable and not as radically left as is the “Meet the Press” panel.

Why do these people demand ‘condemnation’ of anyone using a factual term? They say that the phrase “illegal alien” is an invitation to violence, that it is ‘dehumanizing’ and lacking in empathy.

Speaking for myself, I have plenty of empathy; I’ve never been accused of a deficiency of that quality — but it’s hard to empathize with people who knowingly flout laws and violate boundaries. I would not empathize with someone breaking into my home, or my neighbors’ homes. Why would I? I’ve never felt an urge to let myself into someone’s home, to sneak in through a window or to break in. The left, who are prone to “empathize” excessively with lawbreakers, inevitably claim that the illegals poor dears are ”forced” to come here lest they die of starvation or fall victim to violence in their own countries. I know of no famine in their home countries, nor are they in fear of their lives from some kind of murderous pursuers. Yet I am still expected to ”empathize” with those millions who ‘let themselves in’ to this country, in violation of laws.

I keep reading about the many leftists who are fleeing to Canada because they so abhor our country and our current political situation. Do those fleeing leftists just saunter across into Canada as the spirit moves them? Do they tunnel across in the dead of night — there are tunnels found on the U.S.-Canada border. But somehow I suspect even the leftists don’t defy the Canadian laws and sneak across in violation of Canadian laws. I would bet they observe the rules and get the necessary paperwork. Funny, that. Why not follow the example of their mascot illegals undocumented pre-Americans? If this world is naturally borderless, and borders are just a socio-political construct, why not just rush the Canadian border and demand your free health care, education, and housing? Seems like a good plan for millions of illegal aliens Americans-to-be; it works for them, as witnessed by the fact that upwards of 30 million have successfully arrived.

By the way, I am not recommending this course of action to anyone, lest anyone twist my words. It’s meant as irony, for anyone who is in doubt.

In any case the Canadians seem to control their borders more closely than we do.

But back to this condemnation business: American citizens, in theory covered by First Amendment freedom of speech, are to be ‘condemned’ for the words they choose to express themselves. Certain words merit condemnation in the left’s eyes, but illegal unlawful entry of another country is something which deserves ’empathy’ and support. What next?

Next? I wouldn’t be surprised to see more de-platforming, more people banned from Twitter and more blogs taken down because of of using speech that the all-powerful left ‘condemns.’ And who gave anyone on the left power to nullify the First Amendment? Who made them gods over the rest of us, to control what we can say and what we can’t say?

Another edict of the left: any mention of ‘conspiracy theories‘, so-called, will possibly bring on more de-platforming and more disappeared blogs — but only one side, the right, is ever targeted for this sort of thing. Funny.

Never mind the fact that conspiracies have happened throughout human history — anytime two or more people collude or cooperate in some sort of plan, that’s a conspiracy. But the left, including those who control which views are heard and which are silenced, thinks they can ban something which undoubtedly is factual.

The left can ban and banish and de-platform all they like, but they cannot erase Truth itself. Truth always wins, ultimately. But the left keeps on working tirelessly to nullify reality.