Google+

Human Exceptionalism

Life and dignity with Wesley J. Smith.

Ending the Baloney About “Rare” Abortion



Text  



There was a full page ad in Sunday’s New York Times–expensive!–touting the message, “Abortion is not a crime. It’s a right.”

The ad was sponsored by the “Airlie Center, Virginia, for the World Leaders Consultation on Uniting for Safe Legal Abortion.” Here’s the wide-open fetus killing license the group advocates:

Make safe, legal abortion universally available, accessible and affordable for all women and girls.

Well, at least they’re not trying to snow us with the nonsense about wanting abortion to be “rare.” They seem to want  ubiquitous abortion, more than it already is. 

Swiss Assisted Suicide to Save the Planet!



Text  



Assisted suicide is not about terminal illness.

Assisted suicide is not about disability.

Assisted suicide is not about mental illness.

Assisted suicide is about suicide!

All pretense otherwise was stripped off the movement as the Daily Mail reports that a healthy elderly woman flew to Switzerland to be made dead because she couldn’t handle how high tech has impacted society and, apparently, to save the planet. From the story:

A retired art teacher has ended her life at the Dignitas clinic in Switzerland after becoming increasingly disillusioned with modern life. In an interview before her death, the 89-year-old environmentalist, from Sussex, said she felt technology had taken the humanity out of social interaction.

Anne, who asked to be referred to only by her first name, also said she was worried about the damage being inflicted on the planet through overcrowding and pollution.

This is right out of the Church of Euthanasia nonsense, only for real.

Ann was helped by one of the UK’s most prominent assisted suicide advocates. From the Independent story on the suicide:

Michael Irwin, the founder of the Society for Old Age Rational Suicide (Soars), helped Anne with her application to Dignitas. He said she had ended her life “with quiet determination”, and that her only “regret” was that she had been made to travel to Switzerland, accompanied by her 54-year-old niece, to do so.

Let’s see if Irwin is drummed out of the assisted suicide corps, as it were. I’ll bet not.

Another woman committed assisted suicide recently at a Swiss be-made-dead house because she was upset at losing her looks.

Death on demand: That’s what assisted suicide is really all about. 

#theyhavesomuchbloodontheirhands!

ADVERTISEMENT

Eugenics Mostly Progressive, Not Conservative



Text  



I have often stated that biologist/eugenicist Charles Davenport was one of the great villains of American history. Apparently a new book is coming out by Paul Martin, about American villains, includes a chapter on the odious man. Good.

But–there may be other agendas afoot in Martin’s writing about Davenport if the excerpt in Salon is a reliable indication. Indeed, a reader of the article would never guess that eugenics was primarily supported by political progressives who rejected human exceptionalism. From, “Hitler’s Favorite American:” 

What’s indisputable about the eugenics movement in this country is that it was driven by racial and class prejudice.

At the dawn of the twentieth century, white Protestant Americans feared being overrun by immigrants from southern and eastern Europe, people who traditionally had large families.

Groups such as the Race Betterment Foundation and the American Eugenics Society stoked those fears by suggesting that the superior traits of industrious Anglo-Saxons were being undermined by the lazy, degenerate masses showing up on their shores.

Meaning Catholics. And there’s no question that the era featured pronounced anti-Catholic bigotry, now, I’m afraid, in resurgence around other social issues. 

There’s some truth to what Martin writes, but he is more than implying that there is a nexus between supporters of eugenics 100 years ago and the liberal stereotype today that religious and other conservatives are prejudiced and racist. Thus the excerpt concludes:

And while we can celebrate the fact that the bigoted, immoral pseudoscience of eugenics has been consigned to history’s junk heap, regrettably the white supremacist attitude that shaped much of Charles Davenport’s career lives on in the beliefs of diehard social Darwinists—an outlook as persistent as a noxious weed, a kudzu of the mind.

Who are these “white supremicists?” Other than the rare crackpot and occasional KKK holdout, they mostly exist in the fervid imaginations of MSNBC commentators and such ilk who ubiquitously accuse Tea Party types, Paul Ryan fiscal conservatives, and opponents of Obamacare of secret racist motives.

Let’s get real: The Eugenics Movement was mostly a top/down phenomenon, driven into bigoted public policy tyranny by minions of the high academy, funded by liberal foundations like the Carnegie Institution for Science

Moreover it was primarily a politically progressive movement–technocratic at heart and claiming the mantle of “science”that presumed it possessed the wisdom to improve the human herd. All of this was based, in part–as my Discovery Institute colleagues have pointed out repeatedly–on a misapplication of Darwinian principles.

Indeed, Martin could just as easily have said that Davenport was Margaret Sanger’s favorite American. That he was Teddy Roosevelt’s, and George Bernard Shaw’s favorite American. That he was H.G. Wells’ favorite American, and Emma Goldman’s. Also, John Maynard Keynes and Oliver Wendell Holmes, of Buck v Bell infamy enthusiastically supported eugenics! The list of progressive eugenicists goes on and on.

With regard to “white Protestants:” Those who most supported eugenics were not primarily believers in orthodox concepts of Salvation and the sanctity of human life. Rather, the most enthusiastic Protestant eugenicists were liberal ”Social Gospel” types​–a historical fact documented splendidly in Preaching Eugenics by Christine Rosen. From my review in the Weekly Standard:

The Social Gospel movement, led mostly by Congregationalist and Unitarian ministers, grew rapidly in these years among mainline Protestant churches. The Social Gospel reconceived Christianity as being less about faith and salvation, and more about, as Rosen writes, “ushering in the Kingdom of God on earth through [social] reform and service.”

Many Social Gospel adherents viewed eugenics as God’s plan to reconcile the truths of science with the Bible. Toward this end, Bible verses were reinterpreted and found to contain what had theretofore been secret eugenics messages. Thus, in one minister’s sermon, Noah’s flood was God’s own eugenics policy for eliminating a human race that had degraded and become inferior. Others insisted that Christ’s Parable of the Talents was actually about improving the population: In eugenics exegeses, “Whoever has will be given more; whoever does not have, even what he thinks he has will be taken from him,” took on a whole new meaning.

Today’s eugenicists are also primarily politically progressive academics–such as Princeton’s Peter Singer and Oxford’s Julian Savulescu–who reject human exceptionalism and the equal moral importance of all human life. Religious types who support the new eugenics, as the original version, tend to come from the most liberal Protestant denominations.

Today’s eugenics is not racist. But it is elitist. Progressives today tend to support “new eugenics” policies and policy approaches; eugenic abortion, genetic enhancement/engineering, eugenic infanticide, euthanasia, and/or transhumanist “post human” recreationism. 

This isn’t to say that there aren’t conservatives who buy into pernicious neo eugenics agenda items. But not sanctity of life conservatives. And certainly not those who most liberal Salon readers consider to be on the wrong side of history in the pro-life/pro-choice culture wars.

Admitting Global Warming “Info Manipulation”



Text  



Climate Depot ran a story about a peer-reviewed journal article that defends exaggerating about global warming. I decided to check it out. Sure enough.

The need for international global warming agreements is so urgent, the authors claim, that “exaggeration” is justified in communicating with the great unwashed so as to increase their pessimism. From, “Information Manipulation and Climate Agreements” (my emphasis):

This article offers a rationale for the phenomenon of climate damage accentuation or exaggeration on the part of the international mainstream media or other pro-environmental organizations. Forming a binding IEA [International Environmental Agreement] to curb climate change is a matter of urgency. The IEA literature generally takes the pessimistic view that an IEA has little chance of success in resolving the climate problem because strong free-riding incentives prevent a sufficient number of countries from participating in that agreement.

When the media or pro-environmental organizations have private information on the damage caused by climate change, in equilibrium they may manipulate this information to increase pessimism regarding climate damage, even though the damage may not be that great…

[W]e show that the aforementioned exaggeration of climate damage may alleviate the problem of insufficient IEA participation.

But when people know they are being lied to, why in the (currently non-warming) world would they push their governments to participate in IEAs? 

The authors recognize that in more (supposedly) dire circumstances, that can be a problem:

In essence, overpessimism mitigates the problem of underparticipation that is caused by free-riding incentives. However, because people update their beliefs using the Bayesian rule, such information manipulation has a negative externality on the other state when climate damage is really huge, in which case the aforementioned information provider will not be sufficiently trusted even if it indicates the true state. As a result, the participation level falls further in this situation.

In other words, mendacity to increase fear about global warming can increase motivation to submit to the international technocracy after more minor events, but might reduce it after a major dislocation because of a loss of trust. 

The authors see the message manipulation as, essentially, a wash in promoting an international global warming agreement:

Overall, information manipulation has an ambiguous effect on IEA membership and global welfare from the ex ante perspective.​

Ambiguous? No. “Information manipulation” undermines people’s trust in science (at least, by association), destroys what is left of the media’s credibility on this issue, and is toxic to democratic deliberation. 

We have known we are being manipulated in this debate for a long time. The good news is that it doesn’t work well anymore except among those who are ideologically committed Chicken Littlists.

What is that old joke: How do I know global warming hysterics are lying? Their lips are moving. 

Feeding Tube Removed Despite Court Order



Text  



Texas has a medical futility–what I call Futile Care Theory–law permitting doctors to remove wanted life-support that works from a patient based on their views about quality of life. 

Before that is done, patients/families are supposed to receive due process–such as it is–e.g., a hearing before a bioethics Star Chamber committee. Then, if the committee decides the treatment should end, the patient has 10 days to find a new hospital.

But here’s the thing: I believe that once a society determines that doctors can refuse wanted efficacious life-sustaining service–that becomes the meme–and eventually the due process part goes away. 

That may be part of what happened in a case out of a hospital near Austin. As recounted by Thaddeus Mason Pope, an estranged wife (of 5 years!) authorized pulling the feeding tube of Terry Mace. His parents won guardianship and a court blocked the dehydrate decision.

But the hospital did it anyway. From the Austin State Journal story:

Stephen Casey, one of the attorneys for Mace’s parents, said doctors at Seton Medical Center Williamson surprised the family by removing the feeding and hydration tubes for Mace sometime within the past few days. The 43-year-old Killeen man had been hospitalized since March 6, when he went into cardiac arrest and hit his head on a concrete floor.

After receiving a phone call Monday morning from Mace’s father, Casey went to the hospital and saw the tubes had been removed. Mace’s father got a doctor to reconnect the hydration tube Monday afternoon, Casey said. Mace died about 1 a.m. Tuesday. The hospital’s director of communications, Adrienne Lallo, released a statement Tuesday afternoon saying the hospital had cooperated with Mace’s family. 

Some cooperation.

Apparently the hospital didn’t adequately explain that “comfort care” actually meant in Mace’s case, ”dehydrate to death:”

Doctors had told Mace’s family over the weekend that they were providing “comfort care” to him, meaning they were keeping him sedated and making sure he wasn’t choking, said Casey. Mace’s parents might have been confused about what kind of treatment their son was receiving, their lawyers said.

This is how trust in our health care system is being steadily destroyed.

Some might expect lawsuits to be filed. But I would probably advise the family not to risk adding insult to injury.

In my experience in this field, once a seriously disabled patient dies, juries tend to apply a “no real harm, no foul” invidious judgmentalism. In other words, imposition of futile care can sometimes be stopped before death, but afterwards, it ceases to matter very much outside the family’s mourning.

ADVERTISEMENT

Humans Are the Enemy of Earth!



Text  



I will be interested if the former Washington governor calls us cancers or a plague. Or perhaps, as David Suzuki has, maggots?

If you are having trouble viewing this email, please click here.

 
We have met the enemy and he is us.
Former Gov. Christine Gregoire

FORMER GOV. CHRISTINE GREGOIRE
TO SPEAK AT PLU FOR EARTH DAY

7:30 p.m. Tuesday, April 22

Register for Lecture

Former Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire will be the keynote speaker at Pacific Lutheran University’s Earth Day presentation on April 22; the title of her talk is, “We Have Met the Enemy and He is Us.”

Gregoire, who served as Washington’s governor from 2005-13, says Puget Sound offers a good example of the title. “As environmentalists have raised concerns about the health of the Sound, we have responded with answers from, ’the solution to pollution is dilution’ to ‘industrial discharge is the problem’ to today’s understanding that the health of a water body like Puget Sound is determined by each of us and what we do.”

As the 22nd governor of Washington, Gregoire prioritized the environmental health of the state and its residents: She created the Puget Sound Partnership in 2007 and insisted that the state invest in and deploy one of the world’s premier oil spill and prevention response programs. Gregoire also reinvigorated the state’s Department of Ecology and led the state to adopt Clean Air standards in 2009.

During her tenure, Gregoire passed laws that made the state a national leader in climate-protection policy, leaving Washington an environmental treasure for future generations.

Office of the President
Pacific Lutheran University
Tacoma, WA 98447
253-535-7101

[email protected] 

www.plu.edu/president 

 
 
PLU

 

Unintelligent Not Wanted in Life!



Text  



Eugenics is pernicious. Its core philosophy holds that some human beings are better than others based on invidious categorization of human capacities and characteristics.

Eugenics leads to oppression and even, killing. The old eugenics unleashed involuntary sterilization in the USA–as well as infanticide and the murder of disabled adults in Germany.

Those horrors put eugenics into hibernation, but it has awakened in the very places it started in the first place–among the intelligentsia. 

Oxford bioethicist Julian Savulescu is a leading neo eugenicist. Now, he proposes screening embryos for intelligence–for them, of course–because, poor things, the less intelligent have “worse” outcomes in life. From, “Genetic Screening to Enhance IQ Should be Embraced:”

A common objection is that being smarter does not make your life better. In this study, researchers were concerned with those with an IQ between 70-85. Below 70 is classified as intellectual disability but an IQ of 70 to 75 is similar to mild intellectual disability.

Even for individuals with an IQ between 75 and 90 there are still significant disadvantages. Job opportunities tend to be the least desirable and least financially rewarding, requiring significant oversight…Individuals with this lower level of intelligence are at significant risk of living in poverty (16%), being a chronic welfare dependent (17%) and are much more likely to drop out of school (35%) compared to individuals with average intelligence.

Studies show that there is also an increased risk of incarceration and being murdered.

So make sure they have zero chance for a happy life. What a compassionate guy!

The answer? Make our babies through IVF and then toss those that would appear genetically to be destined for lower intelligence:

In my view, we ought to test embryos for such gene variants. Imagine you are having IVF and produce ten embryos. They are all clear of major diseases, but one of them has two copies of the Thr92Ala gene. Given that there are 9 others that don’t have this potentially disadvantageous trait, why not select one of them?

Of course this does not guarantee that the embryo you do choose will have normal intelligence, but based on the information you have, it reduces the chances. Given that the outcomes are so much worse than their alternatives, we should reduce the chances even by a small account, provided the costs aren’t great. But given that whole genome analysis is likely to be used in the future, why not use the information that is available to try to at least start off with a higher chance of a better life?

Here’s the thing: Eugenicists always think people “like them,” are best. Savulescu is very intelligent, and so he values intelligence. 

Here’s the other thing: Even if people have no problem discarding eugenically incorrect embryos as medical waste, it wouldn’t stop there. Eugenicist bioethicists generally accept personhood theory under which being human is morally irrelevant. What matters morally are mental capacities, such as being self aware. 

This means that all embryos, fetuses, and newborns aren’t persons. So, why restrict the eugenic cleansing to embryos in a dish?

Once the principle was accepted that we can morally stop the less intelligent from making it fully into life, it wouldn’t. As Margaret Sanger once put it, we have to pull the pernicious weeds.

Notice these guys never write about increasing our capacity for love. What a sterile, heartless society these eugenicists want. If their targets were gays or people of color, they would be rightly called bigots. Here too, just different victims.

Nor would the new eugenics long remain restricted to private decisions. Eventually, the government would either require–or give positive and negative incentives to parents–to make the eugenically correct “choices.”

This much I know: If Savulescu values prevail, we will descend into tyranny.

Switzerland is Jack Kevorkian as a Country



Text  



More than one person committed suicide a day in the Swiss suicide clinic Exit. From the Swissinfo.ch story:

Swiss assisted suicide organisation Exit helped 459 people end their lives in 2013, 100 more than the previous year. Membership also increased by more than 8,000.

The Zurich-based organisation, which supports the right to self-determination, said last year it had received more than 2,000 enquiries from people looking to die, an increase of 18%.

This isn’t the only suicide clinic in Switzerland, nor necessarily the most active.

Culture of death, Wesley? What culture of death?

Jane Goodall Into Plant Dignity?



Text  



I have never been a fan of Jane Goodall. Her work with chimpanzees wildly and intentionally–by her own admission–anthropomorphized the animals. Then, rather that being knocked down a peg by colleagues, the biological fields instead yielded to subjectivity in the discipline, which has impacted science adversely (in my view) ever since.

She apparently committed plagiarism in Seeds of Hope: Wisdom and Wonder from the World of Plants. (Plants can’t be wise or express “wisdom!”) A revised edition of the book has been released correcting the previous intellectual conversion.

But that’s not why I write. Her comment to the Guardian about why she is happy the controversy has been resolved in the new edition raised my eyebrow. From the story:

In the revised edition of Seeds of Hope, to be published this month [April], Goodall said she had made minor changes to the text to address the book’s critics and added a lengthy notes section…And she claimed the controversy had turned out to be a “godsend.”

“I am really happy for the sake of the plants that we’ve got it right now. I feel this is a book we can really be proud of now.”

For the sake of the plants?” Good grief.

But then, this may be the flow of our deconstructing culture:

When you reject human exceptionalism, you go off the rails. Sigh.

Vegetarians Less Healthy



Text  



Humans are natural omnivores. Some of us choose for ethical or health reasons to forego our natural diets to become vegetarians.  We are the only species in the known universe that would so do, which is one of the things that make us exceptional.

A new study out of Austria has now cast doubt on a claim often made by vegetarian proselytizers that one should forego meat and animal products for health reasons. From the study:

Overall, vegetarians are in a poorer state of health compared to the other dietary habit groups. Concerning self-reported health, vegetarians differ from each of the other reported groups toward poorer health.  

Moreover, these subjects report higher levels of impairment from disorders. Vegetarians additionally report more chronic diseases than those eating a carnivorous diet less rich in meat. Significantly more vegetarians suffer from allergies, cancer, and mental health ailments (anxiety, or depression) than the other dietary habit groups (Table 3).

Subjects who eat a carnivorous diet rich in meat more often report urinary incontinence. No differences between individuals consuming different forms of diet were found regarding their vascular risk.

The study doesn’t claim that vegetarianism causes these poorer outcomes. But one could imagine that varying significantly from a natural diet wouldn’t be the best for one’s health over the long term. 

I have never believed that we are ethically required to engage in practices contrary to our biological natures. If people want to, great. It is like monastics taking a vow of celibacy. Voluntary, not required.

In any event, it is food for thought. (Yes, I know some studies are contrary, so don’t yell at me!) 

 

POLST’s Potential for Abuse



Text  



With the growing technocracy in medicine, it becomes increasingly difficult for patients to have actual control over their own care. Everything has become so (expletive deleted) arcane! Mind numbing, which is very dangerous because there is great potential for abuse in them-thar hills.

Take the POLST, which stands for Physician Order for Life Sustaining Treatment. This is a document placed in the patient’s chart that directs the medical team how to care for a patient in the event of a life-threatening circumstance.

POLST is different from an advance directive, such as the durable power of attorney for health care. But it is supposed to reflect patient or surrogate desires, and thus, be consistent with the AD. But if the POLST contradicts the AD, its instructions may be carried out instead of what a patient directed in his or her AD.

POLSTs follow the patient if he or she changes care/treating institutions. That means a mistake made in hospital A follows the patient to nursing home B.

POLST forms do not expire, and thus they can bind a patient years after signing, even if they no longer reflect patient desires.

California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform has published an important white paper that should be pondered by anyone with a loved on in a nursing home or hospital. Since I think these findings may not be exclusive to California, I share a few highlights with you here:

1. Virtually anyone (in CA) can sign a POLST form–it doesn’t necessarily have to be the patient, closest family member, or appointed surrogate. The potential for abuse is obvious.

2.The (CA) law does not require POLST orders to be compared with a patient’s advance directive to assure they are consistent. That means a POLST order could require care a patient does not want, or more likely, visa versa.

3.POLSTs are not mandatory, but 73% of patients were often or always told that they are, and apparently, there are reports of manipulation of patient “choices.”

4. Non-health care professionals often fill out the POLST forms contrary to law. That’s a problem:

In long-term care facilities, a staggering 57% of all POLSTs are believed to be completed by non-health care professionals such as admission coordinators and business managers. While these persons may possess some basic knowledge of health care, they are not experts in medicine and the issues of end-of-life care. Thus, many important choices on the form and their implications may be inaccurately explained or not explained at all, leading to violations of patients’ basic rights to give informed consent prior to medical treatment.

5. This part is also really scary: Apparently POLST orders have been signed by family members even though the patient was competent! 

One Long-term Care Ombudsman in Los Angeles reports that multiple nursing homes have a standard practice of having POLSTs signed by resident family members, regardless of whether the resident has capacity to make health care decisions. This observation is reinforced by the fact that 59% of surveyed Ombudsman found that POLSTs were signed by third parties, even when the resident had capacity, “often” or “sometimes.”

Think of a family member whose potential inheritance is being drained by the costs of care. Or, a family member with a different good faith perspective than the patient. If they sign a POLST, their views– instead of the patient’s–will be followed.

I know this is eye-glazing but attention must be paid!

I was the named health care surrogate for my late aunt. I was offered a POLST to sign–and did. But I required that I be called before life-impacting decisions were made in almost all circumstances–DNR excepted, per her expressed AD wishes. In that way, I retained control to react to actual circumstances. That approach worked out very well for my aunt as she was dying.

Just a suggestion, but if you are a surrogate and asked to sign a POLST, you consider doing likewise. The life you save may be that of someone you love.

For more information on POLSTs than I can give here, see this fact sheet from the always elucidating Patients Rights Council.

How to Drive the Dying to Assisted Suicide



Text  



Hey kids! I have an idea to cut health care costs: Let’s legalize assisted suicide and also ration care to the elderly and dying! Then we’ll still call it “choice.” Genius!

Think that’s alarmist? Assisted suicide is on the front burner in the UK, with the PM personally opposed to assisted suicide but still planning to allow  a free vote to legalize in the House of Commons.

At the same time, the NICE rationing board is apparently getting ready to reduce the level of treatment available to the elderly and late stage cancer patients. From the Daily Mail story:

Thousands of seriously ill cancer patients could be denied treatment under changes to the way drugs are funded on the NHS. Campaigners are warning that proposals from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (Nice) will end the priority given to terminally ill patients.

They estimate almost 13,000 cancer patients a year who are given life-prolonging drugs might be denied them under the new plans – with the elderly particularly vulnerable. They are urging the Government to tell Nice to approve more treatments, as has been done in Scotland.

Of course, Oregon already jumped down this particular rat hole: It rations Medicaid–including life-extending cancer treatment to late stage cancer patients. But it will always pay for assisted suicide–as a Medicaid administrator oh, so coldly wrote to Barbara Wagner and Randy Stroups, denying payment for chemotherapy but assuring that their assisted suicides would be fully covered.

As Wagner put it: The state “will pay to kill me but they will not give me medication to try and stop the growth of my cancer.”

Compassion! Coming soon, perhaps, to Canada, Vermont, and the UK.

#it’stheendoftheworldasweknowit

Lovelock Loses New Time Warming Religion



Text  



Global warming hysteria is part of the war on humans. 

Now, a general in radical environmentalism has hung up his stars. James Lovelock, the founder of Gaia Theory–e.g., earth as a living organism–has become a global warming agnostic. From the Guardian story:

Environmentalism has “become a religion” and does not pay enough attention to facts, according to James Lovelock. The 94 year-old scientist, famous for his Gaia hypothesis that Earth is a self-regulating, single organism, also said that he had been too certain about the rate of global warming in his past book, that “it’s just as silly to be a [climate] denier as it is to be a believer” and that fracking and nuclear power should power the UK, not renewable sources such as wind farms…

Asked if his remarks would give ammunition to climate change sceptics, he said: “It’s just as silly to be a denier as it is to be a believer. You can’t be certain.”

Wisdom. Climate hysterics have lost the public’s ear because their ludicrous, often mutually conflicting predictions, have cost them all credibility.

The best way to be gentle on the earth is to foster greater world prosperity. The environmentalists’ war on humans seeks to do the opposite, promoting policies guaranteed to increase poverty in the developed world and force more than a billion people in the poorest parts of the world to remain mired in bone-crunching destitution.

Radical misanthropic environmentalism serves a fearsome, destructive god.

Chimpanzees are Psychopaths!



Text  



I was listening to a scientist interviewed on NPR today. He described his horror at watching chimpanzees hunt down monkeys and tear them apart, eating them alive as their prey howled in agony.

Naturally, being me, my human exceptionalism radar went up. I looked it up, and sure enough, they eat monkeys alive, meaning: Chimps are psychopaths!

Except they’re not. They’re chimps. They don’t have a moral nature. Thus, their torture of the monkeys is merely an expression of instinctive chimp nature.

We, in contrast, do have moral natures. Any human who acted like a chimp on a hunting frenzy would be rightly deemed a “Hannibal Lecter” psychopath, a person with a profound psychological disorder utterly lacking in empathy.

For all of you “chimps are people too” types–you know who you are–human moral accountability is just one reason why we are exceptional and chimps are not.

Death on Demand Coming to Canada?



Text  



No more justifications that assisted suicide is about the “terminally ill for whom nothing can be done to alleviate suffering.” That patently isn’t true. Legislative proposals/laws that limit doctor-prescribed death to the terminally ill never have the “nothing can be done to alleviate suffering” part. 

Thus, these restrictions are best seen for what they are–mere political expediencies deemed necessary by death ideologues to get the ball rolling. For that matter, so are requirements mandating that the patient actually take their own lives. Active euthanasia is the actual destination and always has been

Here’s another example of the broad death license that the euthanasia/assisted suicide movement seeks: Legislation has been introduced in Canada’s Parliament to legalize assisted suicide, and once again the “strict guidelines” are broad enough to drive a hearse through. From, “The Right to Die Well,” by the bill’s author, Steven Fletcher:

Having been diagnosed by a physician with an illness, a disease or a disability (including disability arising from traumatic injury) that causes intolerable physical or psychological suffering that cannot be alleviated by any medical treatment acceptable to that person, or;

Being in a state of weakening capacity with no chance of improvement and being of sound mind and capable of fully understanding the information provided to him or her under other sections of the law.

Note, this isn’t the same thing as saying there is no way to alleviate “pain” since the suffering can be psychological. Also, that including the phrase, ”acceptable to that person,” would mean that there would be no objective way to measure or judge any of this.

Besides, any suicidal person thinks there is no way to alleviate their suffering. Should this bill become law, it won’t be long before it extends to mental illness–which, after all can cause far more suffering than a physical malady. Indeed, that is precisely what happened in the Netherlands, Belgium, and Switzerland.

This bill probably won’t pass before the next election. But the ground is being prepared for a radical lurch  I think Fletcher is right that the Supreme Court of Canada wants to strike down the existing anti-assisted suicide law. 

And don’t think that beneath the surface this isn’t about health care costs. Throughout the West, a lot of effort is underway to take expensive patients off the books. 

People with disabilities, the elderly, the chronically ill, and eventually the mentally ill in Canada could soon be in the maw of the culture of death, masking as compassion. 

Noah’s War On Humans



Text  



Having heard the rumors that the Russell Crowe $130 million extravaganza, Noah, was distinctly anti-human and radically environmentalist, I decided to check it out. Ayup.

(SPOILER ALERTS! There is a great flood. Also, I will discuss some plot points.)

As I left the theater, I was put in mind of the remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still. In the 1951 original, the space alien Klaatu comes to earth to save humans from destroying themselves. But in the misanthropic remake, Klaatu comes to earth to destroy all humanity to save the earth. There is even a Noah’s ark scene in which animals are removed temporarily so they can be restored once all the evil humans are dead.

In Darren Arnofsky’s remake of the Genesis story of Noah, “the Creator” doesn’t decide to destroy humankind because, as in the original, He is sickened by man’s unrighteousness and immorality. No, like Klaatu, He wants us all dead to–yes–save the earth

You see, after being kicked out of Eden, man became industrial, building evil cities (never depicted except at a distance), strip mining minerals from the earth, exhausting the soil, and generally despoiling the environment into a barren wasteland (except for Methuselahs’ Mountain, which remains green). Good grief, the place looks like Mordor: No trees, rare animals, ubiquitous toxic waste–a radical environmentalist’s hysterical fantasy about how we are supposedly ”killing the planet” today.

Nor is Noah necessarily spared because he is morally righteous–although he is the epitome of how Deep Ecology types believe we should live gently on the earth. For example, he solemnly instructs his young son Ham to never pick a wildflower because “we should only gather what we can use, what we need.” (I was reminded how, in real life, Switzerland’s constitution has declared that individual plants have intrinsic dignity and an opinion by a Swiss bioethics commission that “decapitating” a wildflower is immoral.) 

As a son of Seth, Noah is a hunter gatherer. Other men, descendants of the murderer Cain, are depicted as evil for their sadistic and bloodthirsty consumption of meat. 

Noah receives a vision of the coming flood and the need to build the ark. Later, when looking for wives for his two younger sons, he has a second vision of humankind being inherently evil, which includes silhouettes of uniformed soldiers fighting from the ancient to modern times. 

Thus, it develops that Noah might have been chosen to captain the ark–not to ensure humans survive the “cleansing flood”–but because he will obey The Creator’s will that all humans perish so that the earth can be restored to a paradise. Here are a few script excerpts that push the theme as best as I could write them down:

Man broke the world.

Water will separate “the foul” [humans] from “the innocent” [animals].

Before man, earth was a paradise.

Man is against creation.

Everything that is good and beautiful we shattered. This means there can be no men for earth to be a paradise.

[Once humans are gone] Creation will be left alone, safe and beautiful.

The “good guy” Noah, teaches that it is man’s job to “serve the innocent.” The vile villain, believes it is man’s job “to subdue the earth”–as he eats an animal alive with gluttonous gusto. 

Only Emma Watson’s character–not in Genesis–mitigates the unremitting and two-dimensional depiction of humans as irredeemably bad. She convinces Noah that there is some good in us. We love our children! (There is a similar character in The Day the Earth Stood Still, who convinces Klaatu not to destroy us all because we have Mozart.)

Whether man gets a “second chance” or goes extinct, is depicted as Noah’s decision, not The Creator’s.  What he decides is obvious since you are reading these words. But the clear implication of the movie is that Noah made a mistake showing us mercy, that we remain evil descendants of Cain, and just as destructive of The Creator’s Paradise. 

Bottom line: Noah pushes much too hard on the modern environmentalist meme–as I reported in The War on Humans–that we are a terrible plague on the living Gaia. That message sells among a small group of progressive elites and  misanthropic neo-earth religionists. Whether the movie is a hit or a flop, I suspect,will depend on whether most are willing to accept being defined as cancers on the planet.

 

Cloning Succeeds Using Destroyed Embryos



Text  



I have long believed and argued that stem cell research is merely the opening stanza of a longer planned biotechnological symphony. What “the scientists” are really after is a reliable way to conduct human cloning.

Without cloning, and you might get effective medical treatments from all kinds of stem cells–both ethical and unethical. With cloning, it is Brave New World time, baby!

Cloning science might have taken a huge step forward with the announcement of a successful mouse experiment in which two-celled embryos were destroyed and each cell subjected to the same cloning process used to make Dolly the sheep (somatic cell nuclear transfer). From the LA Times story:

In a paper published Wednesday in the journal Nature, researchers said they had successfully generated embryonic stem cells using fertilized mouse embryos — a feat that many scientists had thought was impossible…

Senior study author Shoukhrat Mitalipov, a cell biologist at Oregon Health and Science University, says his lab now wants to reproduce their success, “first in a monkey and later with human embryos.”

If successful, the development would allow the use of “excess” human eggs that are retrieved and fertilized during in vitro fertilization treatments, but never used.Senior study author Shoukhrat Mitalipov, a cell biologist at Oregon Health and Science University, says his lab now wants to reproduce their success, “first in a monkey and later with human embryos.”

See, how the media mislead in these issues? The materials used wouldn’t be excess “eggs.” Once eggs are fertilized they aren’t eggs anymore. They would be excess embryos–e.g., nascent human life.

Here’s how the new technique would be performed:

  1. Destroy early embryos–either those frozen or made for the purpose;
  2. Take the embryonic cells and remove the nuclei;
  3. Insert a nucleus taken from cells of the person being cloned into each embryonic cell;
  4. That would result in a new cloned embryo(s); 
  5. Allow the cloned embryo(s) to develop ten days in a dish to the blastocyst stage;
  6. Destroy the new cloned embryos for their embryonic stem cells, and/or
  7. Implant the embryos in a uterus or substitute therefore and gestate for fetal farming or to birth for reproductive cloning.

This breakthough could be important because is a potential way to do away with the need for eggs currently required in every cloning attempt–and given the egg dearth, a resource problem that has materially held back the sector.

We still don’t know if the technique will work in humans. And we don’t know if the technique will be successful on human embryos beyond the two-celled stage, which most frozen embryos are.

But this I do know: The time to outlaw all forms of human cloning is now–not later when it becomes too late!

Fetuses as Furnace Fuel



Text  



To the Source asked me to opine about the scandal of UK hospitals using the bodies of aborted fetuses to heat hospitals. From, “The Next Logical Step:”

Like most people, I was shocked by the macabre story that broke in the United Kingdom this week. It seems that “at least 15,500″ aborted and miscarried babies were incinerated to heat several hospitals over the last few years. Not cremated and respectfully interred, mind you: Incinerated as fuel to run the boilers.

Shocked yes, but not surprised…To put it bluntly, legalizing abortion at will transformed fetuses in the minds of at least half the population into a killable caste—akin to a tumor or a vial of tainted blood—that can be destroyed at will (except in the latest stage of pregnancy, and in the USA, often even then).

Once any category of humans is devolved into a killable caste, why treat their remains respectfully? 

I get into Kermit Gosnell’s macabre crimes and his keeping fetal body parts in a jar.

Similarly, Jack Kevorkian considered disabled and dying people who wanted to die a killable caste, justifying in his mind conducting human vivisection upon those he was euthanizing.

The Belgians have coupled euthanasia with organ harvesting–transforming despairing disabled and mentally ill patients into so many potential organ farms–with nary a peep of protest outside of disability rights and pro-life commentary.

I conclude:

So, back to dead fetuses as heating fuel in the UK: We should be shocked! Indeed, may we never be sanguine about such horrors.

But we should never again be surprised. As we have seen historically—slavery, the Holocaust–once we create killable castes of people, making utilitarian use of them becomes an easy, and indeed, logical, next step. Those with eyes to see, let them see.

Such are the consequences that flow logically from rejecting human exceptionalism and the unique value of human life.

World Down Syndrome Day: Yadda Yadda Yadda



Text  



Last Friday was the Ninth World Down Syndrome Day. Did you hear anything about it? Neither did I.

Perhaps that is because the advocacy seems determinedly uncontroversial and “feel good.” From WDSD Website:

World Down Syndrome Day (WDSD) is a global awareness day which has been officially observed by the United Nations since 2012. Each year the voice of people with Down syndrome, and those who live and work with them, grows louder.

But there is still so much more we can do. Down Syndrome International (DSi) encourages our friends all over the world to choose your own activities and events to help raise awareness of what Down syndrome is, what it means to have Down syndrome, and how people with Down syndrome play a vital role in our lives and communities.

But where is the advocacy urging people to please not abort Down babies?  I did a site search. Not. A. Mention. 

Yet, in the USA, 90% of our brothers and sisters with Down are prevented from being born. Denmark has made it official policy to have zero people with Down–meaning complete eugenic prenatal cleansing, since there is currently no treatment.

As readers of my work know, I embrace all people with Down. I support the valuing message of WDSD and good on all the loving people who have made serving people with Down their cause.

But until we get more than a once-a-year feel good “day” that officials can embrace safely–and without shifting gears to include an explicit and oft-repeated anti-culture of death message to go along with the once-a-year positive images–WDSD will remain mostly a gesture, akin to putting a colored ribbon on our collective lapel.

It pains me to say this, but yadda, yadda, yadda. 

U.S. Govt. Calls Death Penalty “Euthanasia”



Text  



The National Institutes of Health is confused. It calls capital punishment “euthanasia.” From the NIH Website:

Euthanasia is illegal and not practiced in the United States except in cases of capital punishment.

Good grief. No wonder we are in such a mess.

Pages

Sign up for free NRO e-mails today:

Subscribe to National Review