Why Didn't They?

One of the common question you hear, and therefore presumably one of the questions which automatically comes to mind when we look at the Holocaust on the whole is," Why didn't anyone do anything about it?" Well, there are several answers. The first answer is really stupid," Because everyone in Germany was a Nazi! Duh!" The second is more practical, but still doesn't quite make the cut," Because everyone was too scared to do something about it." Which might be more or less true. It follows from the second answer that it was a minority of Germans who had the notion to do something about it. Which brings us to the question," What good would it have done for so few, who were so powerless, to do anything?" Which leads us into a whole different line of questioning having to do with morality," Was it incumbent upon them to do something, given the evident futility of the act?"

There are two kinds of moral actions, to my mind, which encompass all moral action, inaction, disposition, and thought. The first is those things which fall under moral obligation. We are morally obligated NOT to do certain things, hence," Don't sin." Don't do anything evil, immoral, et cetera, et cetera. We're also morally obligated to DO certain things, like paying those who work for an agreed wage, or worshiping God, or defending the defenseless. The second category is called 'supererogation.' Literally, a work above and beyond the normal work. The things which fall into supererogation are 'morally praiseworthy, but not morally obligatory.' For instance, finding a zit-faced teenager on the side of the road in a broken down vehicle, and then taking the time to fix his vehicle and then teaching him how to prevent it from ever happen again... that's supererogation. Or sending someone who could use it, a large sum of money, not expecting it back, anonymously. The philanthropist who can't really afford to be one is a 'supererogator.' I'm sure that's not a real word, so don't use it. Anyway, you get the idea. Christ talked about these two things in his sermon on the mount and said that, that which is morally obligatory is of no credit to us... "for even tax collectors and sinners do that." He stated in no uncertain terms that it is only supererogation that is a credit to us, " Love your enemies and pray for them."

So, why didn't a group of Catholics, why didn't hundreds of Catholics, stand up under the Third Reich, during the din of war and atrocity to at least blow up a single damn guard tower at Dachau or Auschwitz? Why didn't they knock a single damn hole in the wall? Forget that for the moment. Let's say they had. First of all, how would they be remembered today? It's safe to assume that everyone knows the answer to that. They'd be regarded as heroes by virtually the whole human race. They would all probably be canonized saints, right now... especially if they had all perished in the spray of machine gun fire.

Please don't assume that I am intending to undercut the real life heroics of hundreds, if not thousands of people in Europe who did risk everything to hide and save Jews. In no way! can the heroism and goodliness of those people's actions be delimited. And they ought not be forgotten. But having assumed this hypothetical alternate history, which category of moral action would their deeds fall into? Morally obligatory actions, or supererogation? Ruminate that.

Let's try to make a few analogies. If you saw a gang mugging an old woman, or beating an 80 year old vet to death for their wallet, do you think you would have a moral obligation to do something about it? Or do you think that your intervention would fall into the category of supererogation? Or lets say you saw a man kicking his toddler in the stomach repeatedly at a rest stop. Do you think you have a moral obligation to do something about it? Let me be more exact: To physically stop him? Or would your actions fall into the "morally praiseworthy, but not morally obligatory" category? Hmmm? Let's 'up the ante.' What if the guy stomping his toddler to death was openly armed with a pistol, and you didn't have one. Still morally obligatory? It goes back to that question," What good would it have done for so few, who were so powerless, to do anything?" Would you rather be the person who was shot trying to save that child, or would you rather live in immortal infamy as the person who stood by and watched?

"No-Brainer" questions, right? Okay, good. Congratulations on not being a completely worthless human being. Now, back to the hypothetical question about the our heroes from the alternate history... would their actions have fallen into the category of moral obligation or supererogation? Still hazy? No definitive line of demarcation? I understand. It's hard to grasp genocide, intellectually. How do you grasp a number like 12,000,000? Honestly? As Stalin said," One man is a tragedy. One million is a statistic." I could bring up things like putting people in xylon gas showers, pregnant mothers being injected with acid, people being shot in the back of the head, et cetera, et cetera. But... you've heard it all before. It will never be as shocking as 'the toddler' scenario. That doesn't make you a bastard. That makes you human. You can't fathom the gravity of it, because your mind isn't designed to. It's a thought terminating reality. It's too much. That's why the concentration camps were able to run. It's to much too grasp... Nazi soldiers included.

So, understanding, and accepting our handicap, let's just answer that question logically. Would their actions fall under moral obligation or supererogation? One answer sounds absurd, and it isn't moral obligation. So, if they, the people who knew and wanted to do something about it, were morally obligated... why didn't they do something? Hmmm? It's a good question. Which is why you can hardly think about the Holocaust without asking it, at least once.

Let's say, for the sake of argument that doing something about it would have fallen into the category of supererogation. It's unfathomable to me, but for the sake of argument. There are many situations where it is not better to live. There are many situations where life is subordinate to a goal, or the life of others. Many such situation happen in war. "Greater love hath no man, than to lay his life down for his friends." Do you believe that?.... Why didn't anyone do that violent act of supererogation? Why didn't hundreds do that violent act of supererogation? It's a good question. Which is why it naturally comes to mind.

Perhaps, they wanted to "honor the emperor." Or perhaps they didn't want to criminally damage government property by blowing up a guard tower, or knocking a hole in the camp wall. Or maybe they were worried that if they did, they would build a bigger, nicer, thicker wall in its place. Maybe, they were afraid that one of the soldiers might get burned if they threw a Molotov cocktail over the wall. Or perhaps, all that is complete bullshit. Maybe, they were just cowards. To be sure many were. Maybe, they just didn't have a single clue about what to do. Maybe, they were waiting for someone else to form an armed response that they could join. Maybe, it was too much to fathom what went on behind those walls. Or maybe, the Germans weren't lying when they told the Allies," We didn't know." Maybe...

So, let's talk about something else... killing babies. We've killed approximately 4.58 times the number of people the Nazis have, and they were all babies. And we killed them in the most grotesque place possible... inside of their mothers. People people at the incipient phase of existence. People in a practical sense, more innocent than most of the victims of the Holocaust. Not only, but we have enshrined abortion in law as a right. We have given it the full protection of our law... federal, state, and local. All our power defends and protects it in concert. 55,000,000 murdered babies. Fifty-five million. That's one of those numbers you can't really grasp. That's 6.67 times the population of New York City. That's almost 1 1/2 times the population of California. You could murder every single person living in Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark twice, and still have five million more people to murder to match that number. Really, it's an act of futility. There's no figure I can give you that will make it comprehensible.

Don't feel like looking down your nose at those German cowards anymore... do you? Waiting for someone else to do something about it? Don't know what to do about it? Waiting for someone else's efforts to gain momentum that you can join? Too much to even fathom; never seems quite the atrocity that it is? One thing is for sure... there's no way for you to lie about it like the Germans did. You know. You know.

One day, maybe, people will ask about us," Why didn't anybody do anything about it? Oh they waved plenty of banners, sure. But why didn't they do something REAL about it? Why didn't the Church stand up and denounce their 'Hitlers' by name and by party?! Why didn't they do everything in their power? Why didn't they risk everything? Why didn't they risk all for the just and right cause?" Weeell... that sort of response to abortion might have fallen into the category of supererogation..." What a safe and terrible answer." May God spread his mercy upon us for our moral dereliction. Be sure to do something meaningful about this... like talking about it on facebook.

Legislating Humanity

 Regardless of whether you are pro-life or pro-choice "so-called" I'm asking everyone to take a challenge. If you can tell me what a chair is, I will believe that human life can be legislated. That is to say, if anyone can tell me what a chair is, I will believe people can decide what human life is. Please leave a comment. But if none of you can tell me what a chair is, then I'm going to assume that you can't tell me what a human being is. And if you can't tell me that, then no one has the right to legislate what a human life is and due to such ignorance, abortion cannot be justified. Leave a comment.

"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~

Abortion- Errors of Logic

Previously, I wrote a secular argument against abortion that left out moral judgment. For those of you who read my blog and other Catholic writings, you might come across philosophical language and theological three dollar words which at times may seem like little more than a vain attempt to sound smart. But they're actually quite necessary in conveying specific ideas and keeping clear of semantics in already complicated issues. To those of you who aren't used to the jargon, just hang on! You'll get used to it and understand why these subjects have their own terminology. I just wanted to throw that out there to whoever it applies to. Also, if you want to leave a comment in the form of a rebuttal or a counter question, all are welcome. You can be passionate, but please be respectful. I'll try to respond to any comment.

So, having said that much, this time around I would like to talk about the pro-choice ontological argument. That is, I'd like to address the pro-choice (pro-abortion) argument concerning "being." We often hear pro-abortion folks declaring that a fetus is not a human life. Without sliding into "yes it is! no it isn't!" style argumentation, I'd like to look at some of the assertions that are necessary to this stance that a fetus is not a human life. Now, I'm addressing the logic, or lack thereof, of some common pro-choice arguments. I'm not saying that everyone who is pro-choice believes these things, makes these arguments or that they don't for that matter. So, read with that in mind.

This is actually a very weak argument and I'll show you why. The pro-abortion side says," The fetus cannot live outside of the mother, it cannot live without the mother. Therefore, the mother and the fetus are synonymous biologically. Ergo, the fetus is not a human life, because it is part of the mother's body just like a fingernail, or an elbow." I don't think that any pro-choice individuals would say that I've misrepresented their argument, here.

Well, fine. Why would they point this out, though? Very obviously, it is because they wish to say convincingly what they always say," My body, my choice!" Let's look at our laws and see if they make provision for that kind of thinking, that sort of philosophy if you will. Can we do whatever we want to with our bodies, because they are our bodies? If I wanted to sell an organ, rumor has it that I could do so for thousands of dollars on the black market. But the black market is simply a phrase which means 'illegally.' Doesn't look like I can do what I want to with my own body. Or imagine that I was pulled over and given a ticket for driving without a seat belt. It's my body, why am I getting a ticket for not buckling it in? I obviously can't do what I want to with my body; it's obviously not my choice.

Jack Kevorkian, a.k.a. Dr. Death, sits in prison because he agreed with a lot of people that they have the right to choose what to do with their own body. Looks like the law doesn't agree, there. And what about all those people incarcerated for drug possession and prostitution? It's their body, their choice, right? Well, the law doesn't agree. What about drugs? What about prostitution? The law doesn't agree that you have the right to do either of those "because it is your body." This is yet another reason why in my previous blog I mentioned that abortion causes hypocrisy in government. If we are allowing women to have abortions based on the idea that it is their body, their choice, then why are we disallowing these other things? Abortion keeps no continuity with our other laws; it's a contradictory and erroneous law. It's not derived reasonably from our other laws.

O.k. so I haven't made a moral argument, yet. Can you blame me? It's like shooting fish in a barrel. So, let me make an ethical argument against. An ethic of course is a moral generally agreed upon by a given society. Ethics are rapidly disappearing because of relativism. That's the real danger present in society today; it's not that we are becoming immoral. That's what the last fifty years were all about: immorality. Now, society is just becoming amoral," Morals are subjective. Who needs 'em?" they say.

Well, since ethics still exist I'll make use of them here. Another pro-abortion argument overlaps the one I just mentioned and it's that the fetus or the zygote are not human because they do not possess all of their body parts and don't function like an independent human specimen. Further, part of that assertion is what was stated previously, namely that it cannot survive independently. Their organs aren't formed completely and they don't even have a complete skeletal system. They point these things out to make the fetus or the zygote as dissimilar from a fully formed human child outside of the womb as possible, so as to make them seem like two different species of organism.

I'm going to indulge in sarcasm here and talk about the implications of those assertions. So, the fetus is not a human because it's organs don't work or aren't formed completely? Does that mean that people who have malformed hearts aren't human? Does that mean that the mentally and physically handicapped aren't human? Does that mean that people with rare bone diseases and deficiencies aren't human? Can we just kill them off, too?

What about that idea that people aren't human because they can't survive by themselves? Technically, human children are meant to survive by breastfeeding for the first portion of their lives. They still need their mother's bodies. They also need handling and affection, otherwise they die and/ or can develop serious psychological and chemical disorders. How old must a child be before it can survive independent of it's parents? Eight years old, maybe? Lot's of old people can't take care of themselves, neither can lots of invalids. There are many mentally and physically handicapped people who simply cannot survive without assistance. Some people need machines to stay alive. So, what are they trying to say? That we can just kill them off, too? They meet the criteria. Perhaps, we should bring back the practice of exposure and just leave unwanted infants for dead on hillsides to be picked apart or eaten by birds and wild animals.

And I'm not even going to mention the other subjective nonsense arguments concerning unwanted children, children born into poverty, into areas of crime. I'll just simply say, what I said above against the so-called disqualifying factors: does that mean we should kill all poor people, too? And the unwanted, whether they be elderly or in the womb? Should we just kill everyone in every ghetto in America like the Nazis did all over Europe?  

You know, it sounds like they are supporting euthanasia at the same time when they support abortion. In fact, they are, de facto. But even more grotesquely the scope of who doesn't qualify as humans is astounding if we go by this definition of human life. We can kill all mentally and physically handicapped people, invalids, those on life support, all children under the age of eight, the elderly, the deformed, etc. The only people who would be classed as humans are those who are of sound body and mind, capable of surviving independent from all other human beings. Well, they'd quickly disqualify themselves, because no one who thinks that is of sound mind, unless they are pure, cold, calculating, intellectual evil.

Sounds a lot like eugenics; you know, the same thing the Nazis were all about. They say the apple never falls too far from the tree. Well, the rotten apple of modern abortion proves this maxim correct. Margret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, a.k.a. the abortion people, was an avid activist of eugenics. She thought that criminals and the mentally handicapped should be involuntarily sterilized. She even suggested the following to congress,"Keep the doors of immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feebleminded, idiots, morons, insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class barred by the immigration laws of 1924." She also said," The undeniably feeble-minded should, indeed, not only be discouraged but prevented from propagating their kind."

She was an open racist. Do you know that today, right now, you can call Planned Parenthood and tell them you want to donate specifically to black abortions? Did you know that Planned Parenthood's all over America are intentionally and strategically placed near minority and low income areas? Eugenics in action here in the 21st century and we still look to the past and wag a finger at the Nazis. Looks like her philosophical offspring still agree, even if they deny it, even if they don't realize it. Those are the implications of their arguments; eugenics and euthanasia follow necessarily from these arguments.

So, where are the legitimate arguments for abortion? What's another one we all hear," Do you want it to go back to what it was like in the past?! Back alley with a coat hanger?! Do you know how many women died and became barren because of those illegal procedures?!" What kind of argument is that? That's like if tomorrow we passed a law that said people are allowed to break into houses and steal. If people tried to repeal the law, the ones who passed the law would say," Do you want it to go back to like it was in the past?! Back when criminals had to worry about being shot?! Do you know how stressful that was?! Do you know how many thieves died over a T.V. or a gold watch?!" You'd look at them and say after a long pause," ARE YOU INSANE???" We don't alter our laws because criminals suffer the natural consequences of their actions! That's not even an argument. That's argumentum absurdum.


Almost anyone who is pro-choice would look at the consequences and logic of these common arguments and say," No! Of course I don't believe any of that is ok!" But show the logical argument for abortion, then. Show a bullet-proof, iron-clad, objective argument for abortion. I'm not trying to paint everyone with one brush stroke, but let's face it, the pro-choice side is not a theistic stance. The pro-choice movement is primarily an atheistic one. I've never met an Atheist who wasn't pro-abortion; well, maybe one, but I can't recall exactly. Anyway, this seems to be the case. So, just like the Atheists like to put the onus on theists to prove that God exists, it's up to pro-choice individuals to prove that it isn't a human life. The onus isn't on the pro-life side to show that a human life does exist. We all know what the course of nature is for a zygote, we know what the fetus becomes. There is no denying what the course of nature is; that much is evident. The onus is on the pro-abortionists to prove their correctness, because nature is the ultimate default. If you are an Atheist and a pro-choice individual, don't be a hypocrite. Just make your objective argument. Or if you don't have and argument, accept the fact that you don't have one and the next time someone asks you why you're pro-choice tell them the truth," I don't have a real reason. I just am."   


"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~

Abortion- Not Smart

Talking about abortion is always difficult, not because we must grapple with semantics, morals, ideas, ethics, virtues, science, medicine, or anything else of that order. It is difficult to talk about because there is so much wrong with abortion that one struggles to know wear to start, which door to enter, where to grab on, which error and vice to first expose. Now, perhaps some of you are in favor of abortion and don't like what I've just said, but hear my argument if you will; I'm going to keep this one secular. I will gladly read any rebuttal in the comments section.

First, let me not make a moral criticism of abortion, but rather let me propound to you some commonsense reasons for why abortion is bad for society. In the first place, it causes hypocrisy in government. The United States government says that it does not fund abortions with tax payer money, at least at this present moment. Is this true? No, and an emphatic resounding 'no' at that. Companies like McDonald's, Sam Adams, Coca Cola, Swiffer and many more give millions and millions to Planned Parenthood every year so that they can have huge tax write-offs. That means that the tax money they would have had to pay was diverted to an organization whose primary mission is to provide abortions and contraception. Monies owed to the state, taxes, was given to abortions.

How exactly does the government not pay for abortions when such so-called philanthropy is at the expense of the government, a detriment to its total collection? What? Because the money didn't pass from the government's hands the government didn't fund abortions? How can anyone say that when it was the government in the first place who agreed not to collect the monies so that it could be so diverted? The government is financially complicit in abortion. For the government to say that it doesn't fund abortion is a pathetically feeble deceit of the first order.

Are you not convinced? Let's try this with other organizations. What if Smith & Wesson had given one million dollars to the Irish political party Sinn Fein back when they were fund raising in America during the 1970's, during 'The Troubles,' for the IRA. Keep in mind that the IRA is considered a terrorist organization by the United States. Let's imagine further that Smith & Wesson got a tax break out of it. Everyone in America and the U.K. would be screaming about how the U.S. government was funding terrorism against the U.K. in Northern Ireland, in the same fashion that the PRC and USSR funded North Korea and North Vietnam.

Or let's imagine that the U.S. government declared that it wasn't attempting to sway the Iraqi economy in any particular direction, that it wasn't interested in imperialism or colonialism. Then, let us imagine further that congress passed a bill which said to all U.S. oil corporations that they would only pay 50% domestic taxes and 75% foreign for 20 years if they established themselves inside Iraqi oil fields. The U.S. government's actions would be irreconcilable with its words. 

This is precisely what we have here: lies, deceit, and hypocrisy. Do you imagine that this sort of behavior is acceptable and good for government? Or do you suppose that such governments are worthy to govern their people? Can such governments be trusted? Perhaps, up until now you've been saying," The government does the same thing with write-offs to religious organizations." You are correct, but the government never said,"We don't give money to religious organizations." What the government says is that there is a separation of Church and State, so that no religion is founded or established by the government. That statement was in direct condemnation of what king Henry VIII did when he established and founded the Church of England with his secular power.

Also, notice that it is a separation of Church and State, not church and State. If the separation of Church and State is to be understood as an absolute as so many like to suggest, how then does the State impose this law upon the religious without dissolving such a separation? The very idea doesn't even make sense. How are they separate when religious interference in politics is limited and prohibited by the state if such restrictions are imposed by the state? It cannot be! This species of separation defies logic, unless such a phenomenon were accidental and mutual, but it is not. The nature of the separation must be otherwise defined. Ergo, as stated, there is a separation of Church and State, so that no religion is founded or established by the government.

So, it isn't the same. What happens with abortion and religious organizations are very dissimilar in substantial ways. There's no need to address or entertain that assertion further. Let's rather look at the fiscal responsibility of abortion. The last time I checked, every American has an estimated monetary value. Some of you might remember the old movie "Boy's Town" with Spencer Tracy. In that movie there is a line that says," That boy is worth $10,000 dollars to the state!" It was said in reference to an orphan played by Mickey Rooney. But that was back during the Great Depression. Everyone back then was estimated to be worth about $10,000 to the state. That means that the mathematical mean of what a person will produce is X amount of dollar from the time they are born to the time they die.

We can contrast this with the debt average. I keep hearing rough numbers about the amount of debt allotted to each American; supposedly it's about $2.5 million and rising. That is to say, if we took the national debt and distributed it equally across every living citizen in the United States, each of us would owe approximately $2.5 million dollars. Now, today each of us is obviously worth more than $10,000 USD, quite a bit more in fact. More like $1.4 million. So, that means you still have $1.1 million hanging over your head if you are an American citizen.

All of that to say, every person born in America alleviates $1.4 dollars of debt. You could also say they generate $1.1 million. Still doesn't change the fact that they alleviate more than they generate. Abortion on the other hand costs money and generates none. Abortion is fiscally irresponsible; it does not have the power to generate wealth, only to stymie growth and progress. Any semblance of wealth is an illusion, comprised of money merely changing hands, insurance monies, and donations. It is a drain on society. The average abortion costs about $300 dollars, but certain procedures which occur less frequently can cost up to $1,000 dollars.

So, let's do some simple math here. I'm gonna be conservative with the constant here; the old general estimate of how many abortions have occurred since Roe vs. Wade is 50,000,000. Now, it's closer to 60,000,000 if it isn't almost there. So, 50,000,000 it is. And as we stated, the vast majority of abortions cost about $300 bucks. So, $300 bucks it is. Now, understand, whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, that this is not statistical science here. This equation proves nothing. It's merely an illustration, but a powerful one.

If we multiply 50,000,000 with 300, we get 15,000,000,000. That's $15 billion dollars in debt to kill the unborn. If we multiply 1,400,000 with 50,000,000, we get 60,000,000,000,000. That's $60 Trillion dollars. To put that in perspective for you, the infamous national debt is $14 Trillion, 5 Billion. Abortion has hurt us financially, regardless of what oat bran hippie fear-mongering fanatics might say about over population. Abortion has hurt us badly. And because of abortion this generation not only suffers from old debt, but at some point will face what Europe now faces: more dependents than there are people to depend upon. Enter welfare state. 

We can't say that we'd be better off or worse off debt-wise at the present moment, or at least I'm not qualified to say so. It would probably take a decade, hundreds of people, and lots of money to find out the precise truth of the matter. But it's very probably we'd be in the exact same place we are at right now, financially speaking. Except for one thing: having too few people to support the aging population of 'baby-boomers.' That certainly would not be a problem. Abortion is irresponsible, it exists primarily because of irresponsibility, and creates a culture of irresponsibility. Abortion is bad for the world, plain and simple, even leaving moral arguments aside.

"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~

Euthanasia Should Remain Illegal

In the recent decades there has been quite a bit of talk concerning euthanasia. The proponents of euthanasia say that every person has the right to die. On this point we might all agree, but this is not really at the heart of the issue. The question isn’t whether or not man has the right to die, but rather does man have the right to kill himself? Here, I will do my best to convince you that man doesn’t have that right at all. My purpose is to give you well founded and systematic reasons for why these practices are bad for society and the individual on various levels. Further, my intent is not to persuade you by means of rhetoric, but if I can win you over by reason then I have succeeded.

Euthanasia is defined in the Merriam-Webster’s dictionary as the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy. Also, Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines suicide as the act or an instance of taking one's own life voluntarily and intentionally, especially by a person of years, of discretion, and of sound mind. However, for the purposes of our discussion we will use an expanded definition of euthanasia, which is inclusive of psychological problems as well. The reason being that those who believe euthanasia is a right, believe that the psychologically impaired should have equal access to euthanasia.

Immortalhumans.com says in its online article titled An Overview On Euthanasia; Are We the Master of Our Own Destiny, “In 2002, the Netherlands became the first country to legalize doctor –assisted suicide. Around 20% of the death toll in the country is from euthanasia and it is believed that out of this 12% is involuntary. The consent or acknowledgment of doctor-assisted suicide gave rise to illegal dilemma of falsified proof of death willingness. Imagine the ramifications of legalizing euthanasia. People would live in fear, instead of having doctors willing to treat patients, there would be doctors ready to kill them instead.”

Euthanasia is intended to be a way out for individuals who are faced with often incurable diseases, for the elderly who do not want to die in the due course of time, for those who are suicidal, and the depressed. The argument goes that these individuals have the right to do with their bodies what they please; they have a right to choose whether or not they will continue to live in such painful physical and psychological conditions. In fact, there is a wide array of arguments for doctor assisted euthanasia. This is partly due to the popularity of the issue. I’ll take a moment here to mention some of the pro-euthanasia arguments.

One very popular argument is that if man is allowed to choose how he will live, then it follows that he should be allowed to choose how he shall die. This argument seems reasonable, until we examine it further. Do we get to choose how we live? Are any of you living exactly as you would if you did indeed have the choice? The answer is no, because nature, circumstance, and society work in unison against us to put restrictions on our ability to do exactly what we want, when we want and therefore no one is living as they choose. Man does not have the right to live as he chooses, nature has not provided for that. So, if man does not have the “right” to choose how he will live, then it follows that he does not have the right to choose how he will die either. Therefore, this is a fallacious argument for euthanasia.

Another popular argument for euthanasia and suicide is that which appeals to nature. These people argue based on instances of suicide and euthanasia observed in nature across various species. The argument goes that often enough in nature there are instances where herds leave behind the elderly to die. They also make mention of the suicidal tendencies of various species. The purpose of this argument is to establish that suicide is a natural impulse, and euthanasia is a natural way for a community to deal with the eminent death of its members. They reason that if they can show euthanasia and suicide to be natural impulses then the government does not have the right to make them illegal or regulate them. 

The problem with this argument is quite simple. While animals both euthanize and commit suicide, they also have sex with their siblings and parents, lick their anuses, and not only eat each others children, but their own as well; and I might add that they do so with far greater frequency than they do euthanasia and suicide. So, if we are to allow euthanasia and suicide based off of natural evidences, we must first allow cannibalism, murder, and incest. Therefore, this is another fallacious argument.

Another very popular argument is that euthanasia doesn’t hurt anyone. Notice here that this argument is made only for euthanasia. This is in part because to say the same concerning suicide is ridiculous. Many of us know of someone who has committed suicide. Some of us have seen the sad slope into despair and the final self-destruction of our loved ones. No one can say that suicide only hurts the person who commits it.

So, instead the argument is made that “euthanasia” doesn’t hurt anyone else. When this argument for euthanasia is propounded it is coupled with images of the terminally ill, crippled individuals, and aging widows. It is far easier to stomach such an idea when we imagine a person suffering from AIDS in a doctor’s office receiving a painless shot that ends their suffering. It’s easier if we think of a person whose whole body is paralyzed from the neck down, choosing to end their hopeless life. Or the lonely 80 year old widow whose family never visits her; who has passed the last seven years alone without her lifelong husband.

Those scenarios are much easier for us to accept, because they appeal to our sense of mercy, hence the term “mercy killing.” They don’t involve a bloody bed spread that someone shot themselves on; they don’t involve someone vomiting to death while trying to dial 911, because they changed their mind and don’t want to die after all. It’s in a sterile environment, administered by a medical professional, and they just go to “sleep.”

But this proposition is yet another argument rife with errors of logic. Specifically, this is what is called a ‘pathetic argument’ and is an error of logic. This argument attempts to assert the rightness of itself by appealing to emotions while pointing at the pitiable and pathetic state of the object being argued; in this case a person.

We are compelled to agree with this argument, because it appeals to emotion; not because it corresponds with reason. To quote Socrates,” A system of morality which is based on relative emotional values is a mere illusion, a thoroughly vulgar conception which has nothing sound in it and nothing true.” We are sold on this argument because it makes euthanasia out to be some sort of good for those who are suffering incurable and hopeless physical conditions. However, in the same instance they try to “shoe-horn” in psychological cases as well, for instance the lonely widow scenario. They try to gain the moral superiority by making a claim to mercy. 

Further, they are pretending that it is the same species of mercy by lumping all of their scenarios together. Can we truly compare a person with a mangled and paralyzed body to an otherwise healthy elderly person who is simply tired of living? This argument creates a plethora of moral, philosophical and ethical dilemmas and in no way levies an effective argument. For instance, are those who are psychologically impaired with suicidal depression fit to make such choices? No.

The argument that euthanasia doesn’t hurt anyone else is based on the idea that we are all sovereign; that we are independent individuals who have a right to do whatever we want with our bodies. Let’s say that we do legalize euthanasia based on this thesis, what will the second and third order effects be? How far can we take this philosophy and what will it do to society? How will it change our laws, our world view, and our social norms? If we are the masters of our own bodies and immune to government interference concerning what we do with them, then it follows that we should legalize all illegal drugs. We should be able to do heroine, cocaine, ecstasy, crack and LSD. Prostitution should be legalized. Further, the sale of human body parts should no longer be illegal.

Where does this philosophy end? If you open the door, what else must you let in? Why don’t we allow people to do or sell crack? Because it ruins lives, and those lives add up to make communities, which add up to make society. The sale of illegal drugs has an adverse effect on society; that is why people may not do what they want to with their bodies. Similarly, the sale of body parts is illegal because people would be performing operations on each other and thousands of people would die; people might even murder in order to sell off body parts at a high price if they could readily sell it in a free market. We don’t allow prostitution because of the spread of disease, the increase of crime and the moral decay it brings to society. 

The idea that a person should be allowed to do whatever they want to their own body is diametrically opposed not only to our laws, but to reason itself. The very idea promotes anarchy. Anarchy is the philosophy of “Do what thou wilt.” This selfish philosophy does injury to society which is a mutual necessity for the individual and the collective. 

In the end, all arguments for euthanasia and suicide are either fallacious, subjective, or both. The argument for euthanasia is not built on rational arguments or facts. Further, for the past 2,500 years the physicians and doctors of the West have take then Hippocratic Oath where in it is written: “I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect.” The very idea of euthanasia disagrees with the medical arts, and with our common ancestors

To recap, there is a difference between having the right to die and the right to kill oneself. We may choose to not be resuscitated; we may even decline treatment or cure for life threatening diseases. We may choose martyrdom over self-defense, or we may even prefer to be killed instead of killing. These instances differ from euthanasia, because we are not killing ourselves, neither are we hastening the inevitable. Man does indeed have the right to die, but he does not have the right to hasten the inevitable and take his own life, because it is against the natural law. Therefore, no government can make right what is inherently wrong in nature, even if they should legalize it; and if a government cannot make right what is wrong it most certainly should not try and give license to the people to do what is wrong. There is no sufficient evidence to support the right to kill one’s self in nature, in philosophy, in science, in antiquity, or otherwise. If anyone can effectively make the argument for suicide and euthanasia, proving that it is indeed good and beneficial for mankind to practice, then let them make their argument and better mankind. 

Otherwise, we must submit to the facts. It is a question of law and not of passions and opinions. To quote John Adams,” Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidences.” We must judge this matter based solely on the evidences produced for and against euthanasia. When our liberty is destroyed through the abuse thereof, we are returned to the tyranny of our passions. We have liberty for a purpose, and not for the sake of itself. Liberty does not give us the right to do whatever we want; liberty and lawlessness are not synonyms. Euthanasia, suicide and all other such practices must remain illegal, because we are a society of laws; laws which extend from and expound on our fundamental rights as human beings.

"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~