Showing posts with label value life. Show all posts
Showing posts with label value life. Show all posts

Monday, August 5, 2019

Civilization Values, Part I: Life


I’m planning to spend several posts on Civilization. Specifically, civilization requires that we value the following: God, life, family, truth, and property ownership. These ideas come from the Ten Commandments, but they are universally necessary for civilization.

The first several of the Ten Commandments talk about honoring God—no other gods, not taking His name in vain, etc. We’ll handle belief in God another day, but we do need to keep in mind that any rights we have naturally, simply for being human beings, come from God. The alternative would be that they are granted—and taken away—by some imperfect human being(s). There’s no guarantee in that. So even those who don’t believe in God depend on those who do to recognize those rights.

On life, there’s “Thou shalt not kill,” or take innocent life, murder.

On family, there’s “Honor they father and they mother” and “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” or anything like unto it—so no sex outside the covenant of marriage.

On truth, there’s “Thou shalt not bear false witness,” or lie.

On property, there’s “Thou shalt not steal” and “Thou shalt not covet” whatever belongs to someone else.

Civilization Sphere
from the Spherical Model
I will be mostly quoting from the Spherical Model website, the article “Civilized vs. Savage,” which I originally wrote mostly in 2008 and published online in 2010. I reserve the right to insert comments and recent examples.

I had planned today’s post, on valuing innocent human life, several days ago, before the mass murders this weekend. I’d like to point out that the Spherical Model[i] helps us get a clearer picture of what happened, both in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio.

The news the last couple of days has been putting forth a right-left narrative. The evil murderer in El Paso seems to have an online presence saying he condemns immigration, particularly of Hispanics, whether legal or not; he’s a white nationalist, which the media call the extreme right. This crazy evil person was also a climatist (believes humans need to radically curtail activity to save the planet) and believes there are too many humans—a Malthusian.

Conservatives—who are about conserving the Constitution, along with the idea that all people are created equal before the law—have nothing to do with any race, or any other tribal group, being superior to the rest of the human race. Racism is a southern hemisphere idea, down in the tyranny zone.

Conservatives are about conservation—wise use of resources. Climatism, which is some combination of a pagan religion and a power grab against human technological progress by those who believe only they should benefit from such technology while they rule over the rest of us—that’s a southern hemisphere tyrannical idea. Malthusianism—in which humans should feel guilty for existing and should work to prevent the perpetuation of the species—are not only long debunked, but are part of the southern hemisphere savagery zone, not a northern hemisphere part of civilization.

screenshot from Monday news conference

The Dayton shooter was supposedly a socialist, Democrat voter. That puts him clearly in the southern hemisphere, where you find tyranny, poverty, and savagery. It doesn’t of course mean all people who have fallen for the socialist philosophy believe in mass murder.

But what we do see is that, as exemplified by these two mass murderers, their beliefs put them far away from freedom, prosperity, and civilization—the things we’re trying to conserve and restore.
Calling either of them left or right is at best a confusing misnomer, at worst a despicable lie.

In addition to these two massacres, there were three separate shootings, killing or injuring another two dozen people, in Chicago, in a single area in a single day. This included the deaths of two mothers who were dedicated to ending gun violence—shot and killed while they held up signs, if I heard the story right. I think this was black-on-black violence, which doesn’t fit the narrative of “rampant racism in America,” and is commonplace in that city. So these killings went almost unmentioned.

It was a tragically bloody weekend.

We have a long way to go to get to the northern hemisphere, where life is valued. But we won’t get there by blaming anything but the evil that is inherent in tyranny and savagery and also inexplicably rooted in certain individual hearts.

In hopes of better understanding, here’s a look at the value of life.

embryo image from here

____________________

Value Innocent Human Life

There’s “Thou shalt not kill”—with kill better translated as “murder” or “take innocent human life.” It is a savage culture that does not value human life, specifically innocent human life. Baby killing is savage, yet as abortion becomes a settled fact of society, child abandonment at birth (children left in restrooms and dumpsters) is heard of more and more. In spring 2008, while I was researching for this article, a young mother put her newborn in the restroom trash in a Houston, Texas, hospital and covered it with bloody paper towels. Complaints about the mess are what brought a cleaning crew to discover the child, miraculously still alive (survived for several days). Texas is a state where unwed mothers can abandon babies with no questions asked, at hospitals, fire stations and other facilities. All any young mother had to do was come in and say, “I don’t want the baby,” and she would be treated without question, and the child would be put up for adoption. She had nothing to fear. She was already at a care facility. Yet she put a live baby in the garbage. Insanity? Yes. But savage insanity. She covered the baby so he wouldn’t quickly be seen. She went back to the hospital waiting room for treatment because of bleeding. She was carrying out relatively logical life tasks but didn’t know a baby shouldn’t go in the garbage covered by bloody paper towels? That she needs mental treatment is obvious. But that her variety of “insanity” is growing more common, spreading almost like an epidemic, is also apparent. There were two more examples in the news that April, one in a restroom on a plane, one at a Houston high school, both 14-year-old girls, and no one apparently knew they were pregnant.
If this insanity is spreading, then the disease is communicable because of the decay in value for innocent human life. Even insane behavior must occur to the insane person; if it’s inconceivable and never seen in society, it is much less likely to be conceived of in the mind of the mentally unstable.
That is why the insanity of campus shootings has become much more common since Columbine in 1999, when such an atrocity became “conceivable.” In 2007 a shooting rampage happened at Virginia Tech. It happened at Northern Illinois State in February 2008. The previously inconceivable insanity still horrifies, but it no longer surprises. And there’s a certain level of rational thinking among the insane attackers, who choose a place like a school, where they are likely to have free rein to kill multiple victims before being taken down in their own death. They have a savage goal, and they logically think through the ways to accomplish it. Insanity to the civilized mind, but logical to the savage mind.
Killing of the elderly, euphemistically called euthanasia or “dying with dignity,” is another way of saying society can’t be bothered to care for the no-longer productive. This idea flouts both honoring our parents and honoring life. And it is savage. Every civilized culture has valued innocent life, and every society that has then lost that value for life has decayed into more and more savagery.
Everywhere that euthanasia has been legalized, stories abound of people who, in more civilized countries, could have received care to live longer productive lives, but who in these countries are euthanized—against their will and the will of their families[ii]. They are disposed of. This is always the result of supposedly allowing people to have the “dignified” choice of naming the time, location, and circumstances of their demise, something civilized people don’t actually expect because that decision belongs to God.
Loss of value for life leads to looming demographic disasters. Worldwide reproductive rates have been falling for decades—not because of greater infertility, but because of self-imposed infertility. Replacement rates for society are 2.1 children per female, producing one replacement for herself and one for the male (the .1 compensates for the live births that do not then grow to adulthood). Most industrialized countries, as well as many third world countries, are well below these rates[iii]. Some people falsely believe this is a good thing for the planet, so we don’t overuse our resources. But they fail to take into account some basic math.
There are roughly three segments of society: those too young to be producers yet, the producers (adults in their working years), and those too old to still be producers. In part, the elderly can provide for themselves with pre-retirement savings, if they’ve planned well and lived providently. But if their needs exceed their ability to provide, it is incumbent on the producers (their adult children) to see to their care. Meanwhile, the producers are also caring for the upcoming generation. When this is seen as a burden, then producers have fewer children, which means that when the smaller generation moves into the producer role, there are fewer of them providing for larger groups of elderly plus young. And since the producers will be spending more of their earnings on elderly and child care, they will have less ability to save for their own retirement, so the next smaller generation of producers will be even more greatly burdened.
The only way out of the servitude toward the non-producers is to increase the offspring generation so that the next generation of producers will be bigger, thus spreading out the burden. (For example, an elderly couple with six adult children sharing the burden of their care is less of a burden per person than an elderly couple with only one or two adult children.) But the savage solution is to encourage the demise of the elderly once they become a burden. Socialized medicine, where a cold bureaucrat rather than loving adult children makes the decisions about an elderly patient’s care, tends to decrease care options “for the sake of society as a whole,” essentially causing premature death of the elderly. That’s savage.


[i] For a quick review of what north and south mean in the Spherical Model, see The Political Sphere Is Round.
[ii] According to ScienceDirect, whenever physician assisted suicide is legalized, euthanasia without consent follows. This LifeSiteNews story show the expansion of definitions to include everyone. 
[iii] I wrote about the danger of what is called Demographic Winter here and added to that here. Recent research shows that, while it’s a complicated question, the US fertility rate has joined Europe and other developed countries that have dropped below replacement levels. 

Thursday, March 20, 2014

Advance Directive


I haven’t yet written my personal advance directive. I thought that doing it here, not only would it be in print, I would have the chance to define some terms my own way. So here goes.
image from here
If a time ever comes that I am in a hospital on life support, I DO NOT give permission for life support to be removed to hasten my demise.
Here are the basic reasons:
·        I believe the decision about when I die belongs to God, not to me or any other person or entity (exception: if I were to commit a heinous murder and had thereby subjected myself to capital punishment—but I think that scenario is easily avoided).
·        I reject the premise that a person deserves the “dignity” of choosing the time, place, and circumstances of their own death. How does usurping that authority from God make you more dignified, rather than simply unwilling to trust God?
·        I reject the premise that people who are a “burden” on their loved ones, or on society, have committed a capital offence.
·        In addition to the above, I reject the premise that, since good people don’t want to “burden” their loved ones or society, euthanasia is the preferred option to alleviate that guilt.
·        I have experienced a long history of failures by medical experts; I don’t automatically trust their opinions about whether healing can come. I believe in miracles, and I don’t want to rule out that possibility. I also believe that the brain can respond to stimulation and exercise, and is worth trying to rehabilitate.
·        When it is time for the Lord to take me, I want to go in harmony with Him, knowing that even in the difficult last hours, I did not rebel against Him and insist on my own way.
·        I absolutely DO NOT want my family members burdened with the decision to overrule God.
·        I refuse to let anyone imply that I have given permission to medical personnel to decide I am not worth treating. If medical personnel or government bureaucrats (death panel) try to take that decision upon themselves, I want them to know that I expect them to stand judgment before God for undervaluing my life (or anyone else’s).
Now, I think we have to define some terms. We think we know what life support is: machines maintaining life that would otherwise not continue, so it’s artificial life and not real life. But in reality, life support has some specific aspects.
One is air. We need to breathe. In older times simply the absence of breath was the indicator of death; there wasn’t a remedy. Now we can provide oxygen and help a person breathe. Usually this is expected to be temporary, but there are a number of people, often elderly, who are able to go about their lives as long as they bring along their oxygen tank. They’re conscious, definitely alive. Without the oxygen, they would likely soon die, but with the oxygen they can enjoy their life for possibly a number of bonus years. So a life on oxygen isn't by definition an artificial life.
Another is heartbeat. Lack of heartbeat is another indicator of death. But sometimes a stopped heart can be restarted. Worth trying? To the millions who have responded to defibrillators, probably so. One of the machines people are hooked up to might be a heartbeat monitor (that beeping thing with the jagged line, that sends an alarm when it goes to a flat line, so stimulation to restart the heart can be tried again). Unplugging it would do nothing but remove the indicator that help is needed urgently.
Another one is blood. In older times, large loss of blood typically led to death. Now we can provide blood transfusions, to resupply.
Another one is nutrition: food and water. If a person is unconscious, they may need an IV to supply nutrients, because they can’t eat. Or there might be a feeding tube or maybe some other method I’m not thinking of. The food supply is probably put in at a point when there is a supposition of possible recovery. You don’t starve an unconscious patient; you give them nutrients, so the body can heal.
Food, rather than some “artificial life,” is the likeliest issue concerned in an advance directive. If you assume someone is not going to recover, and you want to hasten the inevitable death, you remove the food. You starve the patient to death. In the already weakened condition it could take from a few days to a couple of weeks for the unfed organs to begin to shut down, one after another.
Dying of starvation and thirst is a painful way to go. And it’s unnecessary. There are ways to continue giving the patient nutrients.
Are there exceptions? Possibly. Suppose you have an Alzheimer’s patient, nearing the end. Almost no mental function—which is soon going to affect control of various organs that require input from the brain. Suppose the patient is essentially unconscious most of the time, and never lucid when conscious. Are you required to feed artificially in order to lengthen the time of death? You could. But you could also offer food and water whenever the patient can be persuaded to swallow. At that point you are nurturing the patient, not artificially lengthening life. In this case it isn’t a matter of removing life support; it’s a matter of choosing whether to impose that form of feeding, or continuing the more natural way.
I don’t want to be a burden on my children. I intend to continue earnestly striving to maintain good health; they are all aware of this. Plus, the odds are in my favor. Brain function has been good in my family; my maternal great-grandmother had dementia in her last years. No one else. No grandparents. No aunts and uncles. My dad was 91 and fully lucid the last time I got to talk with him, the day before he passed away. My mom is 85 and still sharp and taking care of herself in her own home. So it looks like genetics are with me.
But, while I hope I can be active and involved with my family up until the very end, I recognize that some things may be beyond my control. I don’t wish that burden on my children. But I want them to know that God will bless them for any loving care they give. One way God blesses us is with increased love for those we willingly serve. So I admonish my children to willingly serve me and their dad, because I want that blessing of increased love in their lives.
I want them to know that I believe in them; they can be loving, even in difficult circumstances. I don’t discount them by thinking such a challenge is beyond them, and, like some misguided helicopter parent, signing some paper that will whisk the problem away.
I don’t mean to indict others who have “no resuscitation” orders or similar advance directives. They may have a different understanding of “pulling the plug” than I do. They may have a different relationship with God than I do. I’m not trying to persuade them; I’m just trying to declare what I want.
I want life. It’s a matter of gratitude. I want abundant life, appreciating every day I get here with those I love, even if some of those days are difficult. I want Heavenly Father to know that I hope to always trust Him to be with me during whatever hard times come. And I want my children to know that valuing life, trusting God, and offering loving service make for a better life than avoiding burdens or misplaced guilt.
I choose life.