Saturday, May 13, 2006

Pious pricks mandate suffering

The pious and the politicians in England’s House of Lords have teamed up. And anytime you get religious leaders and politicians working together you can bet that somebody will get screwed. In this case it is people who are suffering.

England was considering legislation that would have removed bad legislation preventing people who are in unbearable pain with less than six months to live to have drugs prescribed that would end their lives.

A trinity of pious pricks couldn’t resist interfering. These included Rowan Williams, who uses the puffed up term “Most Reverend” before his name and who is the archbishop of Canterbury, Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, the Roman Catholic archbishop of Westminster and Jonathan Sacs, the chief rabbi.

They wrote a letter saying: “We believe that all human life is sacred and God-given with a value that is inherent.” This means that the state must take away from people any control over their own suffering “to ensure that British law continues to safeguard the principle that the intention to kill, or assist in the killing of an innocent human being is wrong.”

We are not talking murder, which is killing individuals without their consent. We are talking about individuals having the right to end their own lives because of the suffering they are enduring. Apparently these moral monsters think pain is the will of some deity and that human’s have no right over their own lives.

You can look at this death the same you look at sex. Sex without consent is rape. Death without consent is murder. Sex with consent is not the state’s business. Death with consent is not the state’s business either.

The pious among us argue there is a slippery slope. If you let terminally ill people in pain end their own lives the next thing you know someone will be running around murdering people and no one will care. This is about as logical as saying that allowing people to consent to sex leads to rape.

There is no sanctity for life in what is happening here. And they are the ones denying the sacred nature of human life. To them life is merely the state of not being dead and that makes no distinction between being human and being a plant. Plants are dead or alive. That is it. For humans life is a process and it entails choices that plants cannot make.

What this trinity of mullahs are saying is that to preserve the uniqueness of humans we must treat them like plants --- without the ability to choose. For them all that matters is whether this switch is on or off. Either you are alive or dead. If alive then parliament and pious pricks make choices for you.

Plants don’t think. People do. Plants have no rights. People do. Plant’s don’t make choices. People do. But in the name of human dignity these men are saying that when it comes to life and death decisions individuals should not bother thinking it out as it has been thought out for them. In this matter they have no rights since the pious and House of Lords have stripped those rights away. And when it comes to the most important aspect of your own life, whether to live or not, you have no choice.

You can’t respect life if you refuse to respect the choices of the living. This is not pro-life. It is only anti-death.

Even more important at it’s core this is not a “right to life” issue as the moralists like to pretend. A right implies the legal standing to make a choice. Freedom of speech means I can speak IF I choose to do so. But I can also choose not to do so. A right to trade means I can make an exchange if I wish or I can choose to not do so. Yet when these people talk about a “right to life” they mean no choices as all. You don’t grant a right by taking it away. And when it comes to human sanctity they this means that they get to decide what choices other people should make.

Make no mistake about it. These men are not advocates of morality. There is nothing moral in dictating to others what they must do with their own life. They do not uphold the right to life but deny it in the most fundamental way possible. They are antihuman to the core. Shame on them.
Now you know I think they have the right to speak their mind. And they can run around all they want trying to convince suffering people that it is better to suffer for Jesus, Jehovah or Jupiter. But there is no right to deny others their choices over their own lives. To take control of the lives of other is immoral to the core.


Blogger Venturesome Kiwi said...

The right to self-ownership — complete, unadulterated self-ownership — either exists or not. There is no grey area here.

Naturally, when people are accorded the said right, they will use it in the ways the holier-than-thou may not necessarily approve of. Tough!

If their right to self-ownership was infringed on or their religion was touched by the infidel filth, they would no doubt run amok (and, incidentally, their actions would be perfectly legitimate). Double standards are simply mind-boggling.

May 13, 2006

Blogger Derreck said...

It is never the descision of any church, to what to do with your own body. This is a matter of life and death, that descision is not to be made by anyone except for yourself, or your family, would you be in a coma. Why would God even bother about the fact that you get to the afterlife a bit earlier? Why would God find it bad to end your own suffering? What use would your suffering be? None. This is a good example of disgustingly extreme Christianity. There is only one reason for you, not to destroy your body. That includes sexchanges, suicide, hard-drugs, anything badly damaging to your body; your body is the temple of God. it is the House of the Holy Spirit. There are of course many ways to see this. But suffering is damage as well, your fysical health isn't so much different from your mental status. It is something you believe or don't but your mind is of great effect on your body.

God doesn't need you to live long, or short, you live just once, try to make it last. Your family, and other close ones are those who decide about you, not a church (Unless your name is Phelps) and you yourself of course. Then there is the huge differende between suicide and euthanasie.

May 13, 2006

Blogger Derreck said...

Besides, we all die eventually.

May 13, 2006


Post a Comment

<< Home


Web Counters Religion Blog Top Sites