In those posts, we pointed out that only the discoveries of the Nazi concentration camps stirred the Western World’s moral sensibilities enough to turn on the Eugenics movement, and to reject it for the depraved monstrosity it was.
Then, we pointed out that the Eugenics movement had not actually died, but lived on in the abortion mills, and in the racist and genocidal thinking of the Race Grievance Industry and elsewhere. It thrives also in Europe today, where “post-birth abortion” is an idea growing in popularity.
One other vital component, though, was present in the Eugenics movement: a belief that man is the highest moral authority there is. Eugenicists were overwhelmingly atheists. They needed to expunge any belief in a higher power, an ultimate authority, in order to harbor their obscene beliefs. A higher power whose authority ought to have stayed the hands of the Nazis, the Communists … and the American eugenicists, whose entire idea was to “improve humanity” by virtue of “weeding out” those from its midst who were “inferior” based entirely on a thoroughly subjective concept of what constitutes “superior” and “inferior.”(1)
Adolf Hitler was a huge fan of the American Eugenics movement.
Now, we come to the modern day eugenicists. They believe that you can “weed out” the defective, or the inferior from society at both ends of life: via abortion and euthanasia.
This guy, for example, in what he thinks are perfectly rational terms will tell you why it’s perfectly okay for a deeply depressed 20-year old to walk into a “Death With Dignity” clinic and request that the personnel there put him out of his misery. The blogger will say that if the poor depressed guy has tried everything and has convinced two doctors that he’s tried everything, and is convinced that there’s nothing that can relieve his pain, and there never can be, then it’s just okay to kill him. He says it in the following two astonishingly stupid sample paragraphs from his post. We’ve added our own comments in-line and in [square brackets and red font]:
Euthanasia is an issue of wellbeing. It is not an issue on the sanctity of life [Oh, why not? Because this guy says so? Who is he to decree that killing someone has nothing to do with the idea of “sanctity of life?”]; no compassionate authority would compel us to live through humiliation and pain that will never get better. [Wow! There are people who can see into the future?!? People who can tell that “humiliation and pain will never get better”?!? Incredible! Who even knew there were such super-human people?] A compassionate authority would comply to a ‘sanctity of wellbeing’ or of conscious experience. [Again, why? Because this guy says so? Remember: his basic premise is that it’s okay to kill someone else — only under “controlled circumstances,” of course, and putting in place adequate safeguards, of course, and being sure that no one would ever abuse this ultimate power, of course. Yeah. Right.] Enforcing life [<– Incorrect term. The correct term is “not killing someone.” Not doing something is not “enforcing life.”], even through endless misery and suffering, is cruel. [Again, no one can know whether misery or suffering will be endless or not. The guy writing this essay is a convinced atheist, and has no problem taking for himself the authority of God here. In fact, it’s his lack of a belief in a moral authority higher than himself that allows him to believe that it’s okay “under controlled circumstances,” or course, to kill someone. To take on God-like powers over another.] Questions of whether one has the right to take their own life, then, becomes an easy one [sic]: an authority (i.e. a body that grants us rights) which is compassionate [Another basic misconception by the author: there is nothing that suggests that a government has any interest whatsoever in being “compassionate.” All governments have one, and only one, prime directive: self-preservation. That’s it. All governments take all actions, make all laws, based solely on that one imperative. A government wouldn’t know “compassion” from shinola, and wouldn’t care. This is why the American founding fathers were so adamant about limiting the powers of the central government.] must give us the right to end our suffering [As you read further in the incoherent mess that is Allallt’s essay, you realize that by, “the right to end our suffering“, the author means: “the right of someone else to kill us without facing punishment.“] no matter what the course of action.
From a practical stand point there are many ways to end suffering: counselling, therapy, medicine, operations and other palliative care and fixing options. But certain illnesses—particularly the degenerative ones that often get us in later life—don’t permit themselves to treatment: degenerative illnesses of the nervous system, late-stage pancreatic cancer and I’m sure any doctor could name more. The current option of palliative care and waiting for death simply isn’t enough. [Why? Because this guy says so? Who died and made him God? How does he know? Easy: he doesn’t. What if the guy who’s convinced that there’s nothing that can help him is just simply … wrong? Even after consulting with “two doctors” and all the rest. Gee, I wonder if anyone has ever just been wrong before? Even on important matters? Naaaahhh… unthinkable!] If you have enough of your mind left to feel embarrassed that another person is caring for you, [A really deeply stupid thing to say. Why would anyone on earth feel embarrassed that someone else is taking care of him? A fundamental part of being human is the ability to feel empathy, to derive real benefit from helping another in need. It is a massive moral failing of our society that there could even exist any idea whatsoever that there should be embarrassment, or a diminishment of self-esteem or loss of dignity in allowing someone else to demonstrate his or her nobility by taking care of us.] to feel guilty that you have become a financial and emotional burden on your family, [This is the same grave moral failing as in the previous note. The basic error the author makes here is in not understranding that society needs to eradicate from its midst the horrific idea that to care for another human being is a “burden,” rather than the blessing that it actually is.] to lose self-worth [Another stupid error: No one can deprive you of your sense of self-worth except you. No circumstances can diminish you except those you bring about yourself.] because of your condition then no amount of morphine and pretty nurses are going to help you. If this is the condition you are in—constantly feeling ashamed, guilty and weak and waiting for death [Again, this represents a grave moral failing on the part of society; that it would foster a state-of-mind in someone that he is somehow diminished as a person, somehow has less dignity, or worth, or value, simply because he is sick or suffering.] —who is anyone to tell you you must live? The right to suicide1 seems unquestionable.
I’m thinking of the “two doctors” thing above. Well! Doctors would never succumb to the temptation to abuse the ultimate power, now would they? Our 20-year old, of course, is absolutely sure to find only enlightened, wise, never-power-hungry-or-susceptible-to-any-other-human-failing doctors(2) when he presents himself for the killing.
He could visit, for example, Dr. Gosnell, or Dr. Kevorkian. How about Dr. Singer (because, why does it need to be a medical doctor. The “procedure,” after all, can hardly be called a “medical procedure,” now can it?) How about “doctors” like Dr. Tiller? Or “Dr.” Mengele (though I’m beginning to repeat myself here)? Or any of the numerous “doctors” who will kill you for a fee in Europe (Wait…really? They’ll kill you for money in Europe? Surely, no one would ever abuse ethics for money, now would they!?!), where the practice of killing people legally is increasingly commonplace. Wonder how our depressed 20-year old would fare with those “doctors.”
And what, finally, allows the author of the above horrific paragraphs to pen them? Simple: atheism: the belief that there is no higher moral authority than man to decree what is right and wrong, good and bad.
Absent any such moral authority, one has absolutely free rein to decide whatever one wants in terms of what is right and wrong. No limits. No constraints. No guidelines except those one chooses for himself at his own whim. And those guidelines can change overnight, or in the next five minutes.
Where else can one see atheism’s bloody handiwork? Where else is it obvious that men have chosen to invent their own moral code, and have decreed that it’s just okay to kill other men wholesale in pursuit of their own goals? How about in the more than 120 million murdered in the century previous to this one? Atheism is an absolutely essential component of the most deadly disease to strike at humanity in its history: socialism. Without atheism — in particular without a belief in Jesus Christ, and His clear and unambiguous command to treat all other human beings with love — there is no possibility of socialism, or for that matter, for war, or any other manifestation of man’s inhumanity to man.
Including killing another — even when he asks you to.
(1) Today, as in the 20th Century, that seems to be based on the current understanding of “intelligence,” or of “intellectual capacity,” as I prefer to say. Tomorrow, however, who’s to say that the criteria for “superior” or “inferior” won’t be “attractiveness,” or “height,” or “skin color,” or “sexual preference,” or “eye color,” or some combination of the above and other characteristics?
(2) Never mind that the doctor who is willing to kill him is, by definition, already morally depraved.