Are we paying attention to what’s going on around us? Or are we so taken up in our own world that we don’t recognize where we’re quickly heading as a society?
Some years ago, a friend of mine came into the gym we trained at, with a troubled mind. I would describe him as a Conservative Liberal. I know it sounds like an oxymoron.
He and others within our group are the sorts of people who vote for conservative parties because of their tight economic policies. But for all other intents and purposes they are social liberals – they’re fine with abortion, euthanasia and a number of other beliefs usually associated with leftist liberals.
My friend had always been of the conviction that a fetus wasn’t human. Now he’d just seen his daughter’s ultrasound and his conscience concluded otherwise. He’d seen pictures of ultrasounds before but this was different – it was personal. The fact that he was looking at his unborn grandchild shook his view on abortion.
Now he was paying attention for the first time. And it bothered him.
In contrast, I recall the resistance of our other Conservative Liberal friend. It wasn’t his daughter or his future grandchild, so he wasn’t about to change his mind. There were no thoughtful rebuttals, only an awkward silent denial. It quickly became obvious he was uncomfortable with the conversation and keen to draw our attention elsewhere.
You see this same idealistic denial in the recent Planned Parenthood videos controversy.
PP quickly garnished support from those who were more interested in protecting an ideology than unborn babies. The sympathetic Obama administration pushed the line that PP was about women’s health. In fact PP’s sole existence is to provide a facility to kill unwanted pre-born babies. The fact that a significant portion of our society defends PP despite these videos should raise a Big Red Flag as to the direction we’re going.
PP’s official narrative – more or less – is that babies accidentally born alive during “procedures” are protected human beings. But if moral philosopher Peter Singer’s bioethical views ever gain traction, PP may not have to worry about such an inconvenience in the future. Singer discusses the possible future rights of parents to euthanize children born with severe disabilities (non-voluntary euthanasia).
“At present parents can choose to keep or destroy their disabled offspring only if the disability happens to be detected during pregnancy. There is no logical basis for restricting parents’ choice to these particular disabilities. If disabled newborn infants were not regarded as having a right to life until, say, a week or a month after birth it would allow parents, in consultation with their doctors, to choose on the basis of far greater knowledge of the infant’s condition than is possible before birth.”
Singer’s ideas are being considered for a number of reasons, one of which is a struggling health care system and another is the environment. In one recent Patheos article, the Rev. Dr. Carl Gregg presented them in a positive light:
“Relatedly, within my own tradition of Unitarian Universalism, there is a small, but growing movement inviting us to ask if our Seven Principles – which thirty years ago were revised to become less male-centric – need now, especially in light of global climate change, to become less human-centric.” (Emphases mine)
Philosopher, Elizabeth Barnes urges Singer’s supporters to approach ethical discussions more from the perspective of disabled people. Barnes notes that while academic freedom allows Singer the right to express his ideas, it shouldn’t protect him from the consequences. Singer has the proclivity of saying things which are offensive and troublesome to disabled people. She points out that they deal with:
‘…the very real, very rational fear that the views of thinkers like Singer will have influence both on public policy and on wider public perceptions about the quality of life of people with what Singer calls ‘severe’ disabilities.”’
The concept of “assisted suicide” or “euthanasia” is currently generating much discussion. Alex Schadenberg notes that Belgium and the Netherlands are already implementing some of Singer’s ideas. California has become the fifth state to allow “physician assisted suicide”. Will more states follow?
Writer Charles Lane wrote that in Belgium between 2007 and 2011, 100 people suffering depression, schizophrenia, and Asperger’s Syndrome visited a clinic seeking euthanasia. Doctors offered lethal injections to 48 of these, with 35 taking up the option. As this becomes more main stream, What will future statistics look like?
There are those who look on abortion, non-voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide for the suffering as desirable. It’s not just about being humane either. As Rev. Gregg intimated, the world needs to become “less human-centric” because of the climate change problem.
Fewer humans presumably equal less environmental impact. Many agree with him.
With that in mind, I find it troubling that Pope Francis has identified so-called Climate Change as one of the foremost modern challenges. I’m not suggesting that he’ll eventually advocate Singer’s ideas. But I wonder what sort of Pandora’s Box he’s opening when he recruits radicals like Jeremy Sachs (supporter of abortion and population control), Naomi Klein, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber and others as advisors.
Does he know what he’s doing?
As an aside, the US Dept. of Justice is adopting the Strong Cities Network plan. The Obama Administration is planning to create a global police force countering “violent extremism” in the United States and globally.
According to Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch;
“As we continue to counter a range of domestic and global terror threats, this innovative platform will enable cities to learn from one another, to develop best practices and to build social cohesion and community resilience here at home and around the world.”
The Muslim community has, naturally, already voiced its concerns. But Matthew Vadum warns that Mr. Obama’s (and other people’s) definition of extremism isn’t restricted to jihadists. In the past it has extended to “conservatives [read fundamentalist Christians] and Tea Party activists.”
Our world is quickly changing. The people who describe the nature of ethics and extremism have biases. Ethics are debatable and fluid. What was normal, sacred or accepted as ethical yesterday is not necessarily so today.
The only True Moral Compass is God as He is revealed in the Bible, not Peter Singer, Mr. Obama or anyone else. Unfortunately, the world has rejected that revelation.
We are now facing the reality that governments may soon impose moral and ethical codes based on their own fluid definitions and agendas. Those who are protected today might be considered extremists tomorrow if they do not meet government guidelines and sympathies.
I know the crisis analogy has been used so often it has become a cliché. However it remains true that all one needs is a good crisis to seize an opportunity to control the masses. Climate change is one great excuse…but there are plenty of others to pick from. The sanctity of human life will not be guaranteed under these circumstances. History has shown us that.
Are you paying attention?
Let not your heart be troubled; you believe in God, believe also in Me. In My Father’s house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also. And where I go you know, and the way you know. John 14:1-4
Sharing is caring!
