The Audacity of Death from the Wall Street Journal

As an Illinois state senator, Barack Obama twice opposed legislation to define as "persons" babies who survive late-term abortions... Mr. Obama said in a speech on the Illinois Senate floor that he could not accept that babies wholly emerged from their mother's wombs are "persons," and thus deserving of equal protection under the Constitution's 14th Amendment....

...Mr. Obama has compiled a 100% lifetime "pro-choice" voting record, including votes against any and all restrictions on late-term abortions and parental involvement in teenagers' abortions

To Mr. Obama, abortion, or "reproductive justice," is "one of the most fundamental rights we possess." And he promises, "the first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act," which would overturn hundreds of federal and state laws limiting abortion, including the federal ban on partial-birth abortion and bans on public funding of abortion."

Then there's Mr. Obama's...opposition to laws that protect babies born-alive during botched abortions. If partial-birth abortion is, as Democratic icon Daniel Patrick Moynihan labeled it, "too close to infanticide," then what is killing fully-birthed babies?

On the campaign trail, Mr. Obama seldom speaks about abortion and its related issues. But his few moments of candor are illuminative. When speaking extemporaneously, Mr. Obama will admit things like "I don't want [my daughters] punished with a baby." Or he'll say that voting for legislation allowing Terri Schiavo's family to take its case from state courts to federal courts in an effort to stop her euthanasia was his "biggest mistake" in the Senate. Biggest mistake?

...He recently compared his relationship with unrepentant domestic terrorist William Ayers, a member of a group responsible for bombing government buildings, to his friendship with stalwart pro-life physician and senator Tom Coburn...

...In "The Audacity of Hope," Mr. Obama denounces abortion absolutism on both ends of the ideological spectrum. That is audacious indeed considering Obama's record, which epitomizes the very radicalism and extremism he denounces.

(Thank you, Ron.)

From West Palm Beach Florida:

Family's Fight Over Feeding Tube Reminiscent Of Schiavo Case

Husband, Mom At Odds Over Tube

A Florida woman put on a feeding tube after she had a stroke is at the center of a court case similar to the dispute over whether Terri Schiavo should be kept alive.

Karen Weber's husband wants to have her feeding tube removed and have her transferred to a hospital ward, where she would likely die. He claims that his 57-year-old wife is in a vegetative state, but Weber's family is fighting to keep her alive, arguing she's alert and responsive...

...A judge in Weber's case has issued an injunction prohibiting the feeding tube's removal while a committee determines the woman's competency. She does not have a living will and can not talk.

Her husband, Raymond Weber, said he doesn't want this to become a media event, but her mother, Martha Tatro, said she refuses to let her daughter die.

Read complete story here.

Now, I have some questions.  For one, is this woman alert and responsive or not?  If so then she is not in a so-called 'vegetative state'.  I understand that due to privacy laws, Mrs. Weber's doctors may not explain her condition to the media.  But either she is or she isn't.

(I use the word 'so-called' because the terminology of vegetative state is ridiculous and undignified.  An individual in such a state is not a plant in the corner being kept watered occasionally.  He or she is someone who has lost cognitive neurological function and awareness of the environment but retains noncognitive function and a preserved sleep-wake cycle.  In other words, he or she is still a person, one with profound cognitive disabilities.) 

Second question, since there many cases of misdiagnosis of and treatment for this state, such as the sleeping pill Zolpidem which can temporarily revive people in a so-called permanent vegetative state, or one similar, to the point where they can have conversations, have these treatments been attempted?

Thirdly, why is removing her feeding tube even an option.  Mrs. Weber is alive, with brain function and breathing on her own.  A feeding tube has technically legally been deemed life support lately, but unlike removing a breathing tube of someone with absolutely no brain activity who will instantly die when that breathing tube is removed because he or she is already dead, pulling out the feeding tube of Mrs. Weber is not 'letting her die'.  It is refusing to feed a woman who needs help eating; it is willful neglect.  It is death by neglect.  It is murder.

Lastly, what difference does it make whether she is in a 'vegetative state' or not?  What if Mrs. Weber never regains awareness of her surroundings or even of her very existence? What if she remains totally and completely dependent on others the rest of her life for every aspect of her life? 

I wonder if a life like hers is testimony that a person's worth to us and to God is not at all dependent on abilities, but on simply the fact that she is a fellow human being.  Now is our chance to show we believe that idea when we tell our children, "God loves you for who you are, not for what you can do" by protesting this woman's murder, caring for those most in need of caring around us, and caring for their families.

Some say that it would be undignified to 'allow' Mrs. Weber to remain alive in such an event.  However, is it not more undignified to refer to her as a vegetable, rescind her status of personhood, and starve her to death?

From the article "European Court agrees to hear chimp's plea for human rights":

His name is Matthew, he is 26 years old, and his supporters hope to take his case to the European Court of Human Rights.

But he won't be able to give evidence on his own behalf  -  since he is a chimpanzee. Animal rights activists led by British teacher Paula Stibbe are fighting to have Matthew legally declared a 'person' so she can be appointed as his guardian if the bankrupt animal sanctuary where he lives in Vienna is forced to close...

...Miss Stibbe, who is from Brighton but has lived in Vienna for several years, says she is not trying to get the chimp declared a human, just a person.

A seemingly good idea, if not rather comical, for a seemingly good cause.  I hate to see animals used and abused.  But the attempt to declare an animal a person- not a good idea, not comical, and, in fact, it's quite ominous. 

It is becoming an accepted idea, as evidenced by those who believe that even animals can be people, that there is a difference between a person and a human.  So, with this reasoning, 'human being' doesn't automatically mean 'person', and, therefore, not every human being is afforded automatic human rights for simply being human, unlike 'persons', including the right to life. 

This is what some animal rights activist such as Peter Singer want, for animals to be acknowledged as persons, while at the same time denying the existence of personhood for some people, such as the fetus, infants, and children and adults with profound cognitive disabilities.

Here's an example of his thinking from the story "An Ethical Man":

"'HIV research using chimps has not been very helpful as they don't seem to get the disease in the same way humans do,' Singer explains. 'So I don't think it's right and it's causing a lot of suffering and distress to beings who are sensitive animals--social animals who should be living in social groups and who suffer being in isolation and confined and that's wrong. If we need beings very like us to do this on, we should perhaps [turn to] the families of people who tragically have been brain-damaged and have no hope of recovery from persistent vegetative state who are totally beyond suffering because they are beyond consciousness."
. 

From the video:

In a collective decision, every voice counts, either by its rhetoric or by its silence.

Does life have absolute value simply because it is human?

We have to answer that question.  We have to.  We have to.

We have to realize that bioethicists today, SAY NO.  We have to become educated, at the very least aware, of what the consequences have been and will be of them saying no!  We have to.

What do we say, Christ followers?  How do we answer this question?  A simple yes or no will suffice- for now.  It's a start. 

Most of us are already aware when we listen to God and let Him put His Truth in our hearts that the once taken for granted sanctity of human life is no longer a given, we will grieve for the life that has been lost, for the lives that will be lost, and for what our part has been.  And it will hurt.

I know, believe me, I know, it's hard to look at what's happening.  It makes us have to do all that 'thinking'.  I know it's 'uncomfortable' when we seek God's Truth in this matter because we have to 'feel stuff'.  We might offend people, even our friends, and be contraversial.  We might even be called to speak out, make a stand. 

You don't have to watch all of these videos.  They are of a lecture given by Wesley Smith at Trinity Law School on the value of human life and what is happening in the field of ethics today.  Watching all four will take 2 hours total of your time.  So, you don't have to watch all of both videos. 

But you do have to answer the question- Does life have absolute value simply because it is human?  You have to.

Disability or illness does not compromise one's humanity, that is, one's status as human.  Rather they are evidence of it. 

Humans are weak, fallen creatures, vulnerable to pain and suffering.  It is not true that the more one suffers, such as with disability or illness, the less he is human, but rather, the less one suffers, the less he is human. To not have pain or not to suffer would mean, well, inhumanity.

A life without suffering is not a life to be achieved nor possible to achieve. 

To be continued... when I'm not in the crowded library.  ;)