Posted on 03/31/2005 11:49:50 AM PST by Thanatos
Neo-Nazis Kill Terri Schiavo
Mar 30th, 2005
| by William Federer Even before the rise of Adolph Hitler's Third Reich, the way for the gruesome Nazi holocaust of human extermination and cruel butchery was being prepared in the 1930 German Weimar Republic through the medical establishment and philosophical elite's adoption of the "quality of life" concept in place of the "sanctity of life." The Nuremberg trials, exposing the horrible Nazi war crimes, revealed that Germany's trend toward atrocity began with their progressive embrace of the Hegelian doctrine of "rational utility," where an individual's worth is in relation to their contribution to the state, rather than determined in light of traditional moral, ethical and religious values. This gradual transformation of national public opinion, promulgated through media and education, was described in an article written by the British commentator Malcolm Muggeridge, entitled "The Humane Holocaust," and in an article written by former United States Surgeon General, C. Everett Koop, M.D., entitled "The Slide to Auschwitz," both published in The Human Life Review, 1977 and 1980 respectively. Malcolm Muggeridge stated: "Near at hand, we have been accorded, for those that have eyes to see, an object lesson in what the quest for 'quality of life' without reference to 'sanctity of life' can involve.... the great Nazi holocaust, whose TV presentation has lately been harrowing viewers throughout the Western world. “In this televised version, an essential consideration has been left out - namely, that the origins of the holocaust lay, not in Nazi terrorism and anti-Semitism, but in pre-Nazi Weimar Germany's acceptance of euthanasia and mercy-killing as humane and estimable.... “It took no more than three decades to transform a war crime into an act of compassion, thereby enabling the victors in the war against Nazi-ism to adopt the very practices for which the Nazis had been solemnly condemned at Nuremberg."1 The transformation followed thus: the concept that the elderly and terminally ill should have the right to die was promoted in books, newspapers, literature and even entertainment films, the most popular of which were entitled Ich klage an (I accuse) and Mentally Ill. One euthanasia movie, based on a novel by a National Socialist doctor, actually won a prize at the world-famous Venice Film Festival! Extreme hardship cases were cited which increasingly convinced the public to morally approve of euthanasia. The medical profession gradually grew accustomed to administering death to patients who, for whatever reasons, felt their low "quality of life" rendered their lives not worth living, or as it was put, liebensunwerten Lebens, (life unworthy of life).2 In an Associated Press release, published in the New York Times, October 10, 1933, entitled "Nazi Plan to Kill Incurables to End Pain; German Religious Groups Oppose Move," it was stated: "The Ministry of Justice, in a detailed memorandum explaining the Nazi aims regarding the German penal code, today announced its intentions to authorize physicians to end the sufferings of the incurable patient. “The memorandum...proposed that it shall be possible for physicians to end the tortures of incurable patients, upon request, in the interest of true humanity. “This proposed legal recognition of euthanasia - the act of providing a painless and peaceful death - raised a number of fundamental problems of a religious, scientific, and legal nature. “The Catholic newspaper Germania hastened to observe: 'The Catholic faith binds the conscience of its followers not to accept this method'... “In Lutheran circles, too, life is regarded as something that God alone can take.... “Euthanasia... has become a widely discussed word in the Reich.... “No life still valuable to the State will be wantonly destroyed."3 Nationalized health care and government involvement in medical care promised to improve the public's "quality of life."4 Unfortunately, the cost of maintaining government medical care was a contributing factor to the growth of the national debt, which reached astronomical proportions. Double and triple digit inflation crippled the economy, resulting in the public demanding that government cut expenses.5 This precipitated the 1939 order to cut federal expenses. The national socialist government decided do remove "useless" expenses from the budget, which included the support and medical costs required to maintain the lives of the retarded, insane, senile, epileptic, psychiatric patients, handicapped, deaf, blind, the non-rehabilitable ill, and those who had been diseased or chronically ill for five years or more. It was labeled an "act of mercy" to "liberate them through death," as they were viewed as having an extremely low "quality of life," as well as being a tax burden on the public. The public psyche was conditioned for this, as even school math problems compared distorted medical costs incurred by the taxpayer of caring for and rehabilitating the chronically sick, with the cost of loans to newly married couples for new housing units.6 The next whose lives were terminated by the state were the elderly in institutions who had no relatives and no financial resources. These lonely, forsaken individuals were needed by no one and would be missed by no one. Their "quality of life" was considered low by everyone's standards, and they were a tremendous tax burden on the economically distressed state.7 The next to be eliminated were the parasites on the state: the street people, bums, beggars, hopelessly poor, gypsies, prisoners, inmates and convicts. These were socially disturbing individuals incapable of providing for themselves, whose "quality of life" was considered by the public as irreversibly below standard, in addition to the fact that they were a nuisance to society and a seed-bed for crime.8 The liquidation grew to include those who had been unable to work, the socially unproductive, and those living on welfare or government pensions. They drew financial support from the state, but contributed nothing financially back. They were looked upon as "useless eaters," leeches, stealing from those who worked hard to pay the taxes to support them. Their unproductive lives were a burden on the "quality of life" of those who had to pay the taxes.9 The next to be eradicated were the ideologically unwanted, the political enemies of the state, religious extremists, and those "disloyal" individuals considered to be holding the government back from producing a society which would function well and provide everyone a better "quality of life." The moving biography of the imprisoned Dietrich Bonhoffer chronicled the injustices. These individuals also were a source of "human experimental material," allowing military medical research to be carried on with human tissue, thus providing valuable information which promised to improve the nation's health .10 Finally, justifying their actions on the purported theory of evolution, the Nazi's considered the German, or "Aryan," race as "ubermenschen," supermen, being more advanced in the supposed progress of human evolution. This resulted in the twisted conclusion that all other races, and in particular the Jewish race, were less evolved, and needed to be eliminated from the so-called "human gene pool," ensuring that future generations of humans would have a higher "quality of life."11 C. Everett Koop, M.D., stated: "The first step is followed by the second step. You can say that if the first step is moral then whatever follows must be moral. “The important thing, however, is this: whether you diagnose the first step as being one worth taking or being one that is precarious rests entirely on what the second step is likely to be... “I am concerned about this because when the first 273,000 German aged, infirm, and retarded were killed in gas chambers there was no outcry from that medical profession either, and it was not far from there to Auschwitz."12 Can this holocaust happen in America? Indeed, it has already begun. The idea of killing a person and calling it "death with dignity" is an oxymoron. The "mercy-killing" movement puts us on the same path as pre-Nazi Germany. The "quality of life" concept, which eventually results in the Hegelian utilitarian attitude of a person's worth being based on their contribution toward perpetuating big government, is in stark contrast to America's founding principles. This philosophy which lowers the value of human life, shocked attendees at the Governor's Commission on Disability, in Concord, New Hampshire, October 5, 2001, as they heard the absurd comments of Princeton University professor Peter Singer. The Associated Press reported Singer's comments: "I do think that it is sometimes appropriate to kill a human infant," he said, adding that he does not believe a newborn has a right to life until it reaches some minimum level of consciousness. "For me, the relevant question is, what makes it so seriously wrong to take a life?" Singer asked. "Those of you who are not vegetarians are responsible for taking a life every time you eat. Species is no more relevant than race in making these judgments."13 Singer's views, if left unchecked, could easily lead to a repeat of the atrocities of Nazi Germany, if not something worse. Add to that unbridled advances in the technology of cloning, DNA test which reveal physical defects, human embryos killed for the purpose of gathering stem cells to treat Diseases...and a haunting future unfolds before us. President Theodore Roosevelt's warning in 1909 seems appropriate: "Progress has brought us both unbounded opportunities and unbridled difficulties. Thus, the measure of our civilization will not be that we have done much, but what we have done with that much. “I believe that the next half century will determine if we will advance the cause of Christian civilization or revert to the horrors of brutal paganism. “The thought of modern industry in the hands of Christian charity is a dream worth dreaming. “The thought of industry in the hands of paganism is a nightmare beyond imagining. The choice between the two is upon us."14 In his State of the Union address in 1905, President Theodore Roosevelt stated: "There are those who believe that a new modernity demands a new morality. “What they fail to consider is the harsh reality that there is no such thing as a new morality. “There is only one morality. All else is immorality. “There is only true Christian ethics over against which stands the whole of paganism. “If we are to fulfill our great destiny as a people, then we must return to the old morality, the sole morality.... “All these blatant sham reformers, in the name of a new morality, preach the old vice of self-indulgence which rotted out first the moral fiber and then even the external greatness of Greece and Rome."15 In biblical comparison, Jesus showed mercy by healing the sick and giving sanity back to the deranged, but never did he kill them. This attitude was exemplified by Mother Teresa of Calcutta, whose version of "death with dignity" is to gather the dying from off the street, and show compassion to these rejected and abandoned members of the human race, all the while knowing that they may only survive for another half hour. Her "mercy-living" movement goes to great trouble to house, wash and feed even the most hopeless and derelict, because of inherent respect for the "sanctity of life" of each individual. This attitude is summed up in her statement: "I see Jesus in every human being. I say to myself, this is hungry Jesus, I must feed him. This is sick Jesus. This one has leprosy or gangrene; I must wash him and tend to him. I serve because I love Jesus."16 Will America chose the "sanctity of life" concept, as demonstrated by Mother Teresa, or will America chose the "quality of life" concept, championed by self-proclaimed doctors of death court decisions - such as in the case of Terri Schiavo - and continue its slide toward Auschwitz? What kind of subtle anesthetic has been allowed to deaden our national conscience? What horrors await us? The question is not whether the suffering and dying person's life should be terminated, the question is what kind of nation will we become if they are? Their physical death is preceded only by our moral death! |
Do you smell feces where you are?
Wait a darn minute. You told me that all I needed were boxtops and a decoder ring. Now you're telling me the "vision-thing" requires feces? I'm outta here.
I'm sure the Nazis believed they were doing the Jews a favor when they wiped millions of them off the face of the earth too--it "put them out of their misery," you know..
How do you *know for a fact* that Terri Shiavo wanted to be killed???
The answer is you don't, but you wanted her murdered anyway.
You would be amazed at how some people don't really care about the situation. They just use it as a political tool.
I'm outta here
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Finally, a statement from you that makes sense.
"it means that God has turned His protective eyes away from America because we displease Him by killing millions of His children in the womb, and by legalizing homosexuality. "
Yes, but if one believes in predestination (not saying you do, btw), then one would have to believe that the Lord is punishing us for doing something we were destined to do in the first place. Not saying that 'predestination' excuses the behavior, mind you, just something to consider.
"NOBODY will answer my point. That is telling. "
My $0.02 are forthcoming...
"NONE of us would want to be in Terri Schiavo's place (while she was alive). NOBODY would want to live like that past even a year or so. "
Not me, anyways.
"Doesn't it mean anything to all the 'Christians' that a soul was trapped in a state worse than death? "
Hell, how do I know God didn't "call her home" 15 years ago, and we've only been 'playing God' by keeping her alive?
"Why will no one address this? Why is mercy killing such an awful sin?"
Interestingly, a point used here in this debate that in Florida, starving a pet is illegal and a worse crime legally than what happened to Terri, legally. That 'dogs receive better treatment than Terri' in Floriduh.
I agree with them and would point out that dogs are 'put to sleep' by the hundreds on a daily basis in Floriduh, legally and with no protest from anyone.
"But it relieves their pain!!" - it's still forced euthanasia.
I don't follow your hypothetical. Jack, the aggressive tailgater, surely knew somewhere inside that being an aggressive driver might be dangerous.
Dropping bombs, on the other hand, is a wee bit more settled in its violence. Anyone near WILL get hurt. While we may try at times to limit collateral damage, its a cost benefit analysis. Which is why Narby's thought process makes more sense than this hypothetical.
A more analogous hypothetical: I detonate a bomb in front of my neighbor's house as an April Fools joke . . . thinking it would be a good laugh. Only, instead of leaving an M80, I park a UHaul full of explosives. Intent to kill? Maybe not. If I was rational would I have known someone might be killed? Yes.
That's a nice contortion of logic to get fanatically worked up over TS but not be concerned with the plight of the Iraqi children who had their bodies torn apart by shrapnel ripping through their houses. After all, TS may have wanted to die. Those Iraqi kids? I'm fairly certain they would have wanted to see their country's bright tomorrow. None of them had 10 years of legal battles or oodles of medical evaluations to determine their futures.
If this all works out like I expect it to, TS is much happier today than she was on Tuesday. Those Iraqi kids, well, that depends. The way some of you see it, they were condemned to Hell.
Was TS intentionally "killed?" This has been one of my biggest misunderstandings all along. If her parents had agreed with Michael from the beginning . . . wouldn't the act still been intentionally "killing" her by your definition? (But presumably none of you would have thought twice about it.) Since you must answer yes, what if TS left a notarized document saying she would want to be let go under these circumstances . . . wouldn't the act of pulling the plug or tube still be "killing?"
If letting someone starve is "killing" them, how do you justify your inaction when tens of thousands starve around the world daily? (You know its happening and intend to do nothing about it. Ergo, intent to kill?)
Why draw the line at starvation? What about denying anyone the latest and greatest in medical care? After all, when was the last time you opened your pocketbook so that homeless penniless Bob could have quadruple bypass surgery and take the latest designer medications so as to keep him alive on a respirator? Denying that care to him surely means he dies. From your logic, your inaction "killed" him. Moreover, you've "killed" not only Bob, but also Juan Pedro, Francoise, Elizabeta, Mungofa, Patel, Ming Do, and Kazuhira.
Why starvation and medical care? Why not lifestyle issues? We know that pollution limits people's health. Fast food. Someone is making money off of that stuff and it is surely shortening people's natural lives. Does that constitute killing in your book? That SUV you drive is intentionally spitting out pollution and that oil is leading to warfare. Both are very much shortening people's lives.
I could go on forever . . . this was ONE woman who's case was evaluated for over a decade by doctors and lawyers. My God is merciful. In my view of things, He never was big on us telling him who was and who wasn't righteous. I expect He may not too happy that some of his pharisees don't want to trouble themselves over some Samaritan children dying but rather want to condemn the bloke down the road who let go of a loved one He had been calling home for some time.
So FR is too liberal for you. Maybe you belong at Stormfront.org.
You're the ones sounding like facists.
By the way, what's a "facist"? I often see that word on placards carried by leftists.
I'm not sure what you intend to accomplish with that exercise in hair-splitting, other than perhaps to try to confuse the issue.
If a person is in your care, and you force them to starve, you've killed them. A person who is not in your care that starves may be a tragedy but unless you've caused it by force, it's not your fault. It is absolutely wrong to say Terri Schiavo died due to "inaction". She died due to the enforcement of a court order that no one was permitted to give her any food or water in any way. If one is to accept that the court order was legal, then it would have been against the law to feed her. Who else starves to death because the law forbids them to eat?
It's unfortunate that some innocents are killed by U.S. bombs, but it's long been established that those who are truly responsible are the terrorists who hide among innocents and use them as shields. If the presence of innocents were sufficient cause to deny our rightful duty of self-defense, then the first hostage-taker to come along would rule the world.
Thus this kind of twisted blame-assignation turns right and wrong on its head, and serves to absolve the truly evil of all responsibility, all the while decrying every imperfection of the good.
One cannot be held responsible to correct all the evils in the world simply because they desire to correct one of them. If we were to follow your logic to its ultimate conclusion, there would be but one choice in life: whether to dedicate one's entire life to feeding others, or to reject any selfless good at all in the name of serving one's own interests only.
I'm not sure exactly how I got pinged here, but who's "not concerned with" that? Nice straw man.
None of them had 10 years of legal battles or oodles of medical evaluations to determine their futures.
"oodles" of medical evaluations ain't exactly an accurate characterization. Show me her PET? MRI?
The length or number of legal battles is rather irrelevant when they were all rubber-stamping the first judge's decision, because that's all that was within their power to do.
Those Iraqi kids, well, that depends. The way some of you see it, they were condemned to Hell.
What the hell are you talking about? Who holds this point of view you ascribe to "some of you", exactly?
Was TS intentionally "killed?"
Yes.
This has been one of my biggest misunderstandings all along. If her parents had agreed with Michael from the beginning . . . wouldn't the act still been intentionally "killing" her by your definition?
Yes.
But presumably none of you would have thought twice about it.
Think again.
Since you must answer yes, what if TS left a notarized document saying she would want to be let go under these circumstances . . . wouldn't the act of pulling the plug or tube still be "killing?"
Yes.
By the way there was no "plug or tube". Just tube.
If letting someone starve is "killing" them, how do you justify your inaction when tens of thousands starve around the world daily?
I don't.
Now, explain how this makes it ok to kill Terri Schiavo.
You know its happening and intend to do nothing about it. Ergo, intent to kill?
Um. Sorry, you're making a bizarre error here.
Michael Schiavo intentionally withheld food from Terri Schiavo. Nobody is going to Africa to where those starving people are and taking food away from them. Again, if we are at fault it is our inaction to alleviate their starvation. But we aren't intentionally causing that starvation when inaction on our part would otherwise allow them to eat.
Michael Schiavo did.
Why draw the line at starvation? What about denying anyone the latest and greatest in medical care?
Because feeding a person such as Terri Schiavo would have been mindbogglingly cheap and effortless and "the latest and greatest in medical care" cannot as a practical matter be given to everyone?
Because your apples-oranges analogies are testing my patience?
Nobody was asking that Terri Schiavo be flown to Vienna to have a team of 150 world class surgeons and doctors devoted to her case 24 hours a day for the rest of her life. We were talking about putting freaking FOOD into her STOMACH for crying out loud. Can you please come back to reality with the rest of us?
After all, when was the last time you opened your pocketbook so that homeless penniless Bob could have quadruple bypass surgery and take the latest designer medications so as to keep him alive on a respirator?
When was the last time you made an argument that didn't rely on dishonest misdirection and subject-changing like this?
Terri Schiavo JUST NEEDED TO BE FED to stay alive, like the rest of us! The ONLY reason she died is because Michael Schiavo intentionally took sustenance away from her and forbade other people from giving her any!
Denying that care to him surely means he dies. From your logic, your inaction "killed" him.
No, what would constitute me killing the homeless penniless Bob would be if I locked him in a room, gave him no sustenance, and prevented all other people from giving him sustenance.
Why starvation and medical care? Why not lifestyle issues?
Why these idiotic questions?
Do you not understand that Terri Schiavo was intentionally starved/dehydrated to make her dead? If you can't grasp that simple fact, you are hopelessly dense. If you can but won't grasp that simple fact, you are intellectually dishonest. Which is it?
We know that pollution limits people's health. Fast food. Someone is making money off of that stuff and it is surely shortening people's natural lives. Does that constitute killing in your book? That SUV you drive is intentionally spitting out pollution and that oil is leading to warfare. Both are very much shortening people's lives.
Are you proud of your sophistries?
Sustenance was intentionally, deliberately withheld from Terri Schiavo in order to make her die.
I could go on forever . . .
I'll bet you could. Please don't. Instead, grow up and stop building argument sandcastles in the sky for you to admire. Face the reality that the woman was intentionally killed, no scare-quotes.
...the bloke down the road who let go of a loved one He had been calling home for some time.
God had been calling Terri Schiavo home for some time, huh? Tell me, do you have a direct pipeline to God where he tells you these wishes of his?
Or by "God" do you mean "Michael Schiavo"? It was his conscious, deliberate act of will - and nothing else - that caused Terri Schiavo to die. Admit it and deal with it or prove yourself hopelessly unserious.
A distinction here. Terri's parents were both capable and willing to feed her. So it wasn't that the state merely let her starve by inaction, the state actively forced willing bystanders to feed not her.
Good greif, You are now furhter down the same fallacious road. Would the state bar Mother Terrisa from paying to have penniless Bob undergo surgery?
I must apologize for my impertinence, but you seem to have gone quite a long way down a demostratably fallacious road. Again, Terri's parents have volunteered to support her life. The state was not asked to do so. Moreover the state forced the parents not to do so.
Well certainly He already knows better then we do. But might I humbly suggest He would appreciate it if we tried to discern the difference between righteous and unrighteous behavior a little harder.
This is the second time this ridiculous article has been posted. Not new. Not news. Not even rational.
Trust me they want to eliminate the Human Race - that's the only conclusion I can arrive at, pure socialism - we are all equal when we no longer exist!
Right now I'm listening to Metallica's Unamed Feeling!!!
All I have is an opinion, take it for what it's worth.
The word "punishing" when related to God is often misused or misunderstood. I believe a more accurate term is "consequences", (a concept all but lost in this generation).
God gives us all free will, that's what separates us from, and elevates us above, the rest of His creation. And if it turns out that our choices were poor or selfish ones that caused great harm to others or offended God, we then have the choice to continue on in that spirit or change, (repent). So ultimately the bed we sleep in is the one we made, our actions bringing either blessings or the consequences attached to them. (In this regard I am not referring to things that happen to us that we have little or no control over anyway, such as injury, illness or death). I am talking about things we choose to do and the grim consequences we willingly accept in spite of being warned by our religious leaders.
I believe that there is some repercussion, good or bad, for every action we take or fail to take. And there are both natural and Divine consequences for sin. For example, a natural consequence of abortion would be the Social Security crisis we are about to be hit with. As we aborted away roughly one-third of our future workers and taxpayers, we created a huge problem for the upcoming generation to bear as they will have to shoulder the burgeoning Social Security crisis created by tens of millions of retiring 'baby boomers'. We'll have more old than young. (You have to wonder if the culture of death will try to solve this catastrophe by doing away with some of the more fragile and sick of these "useless eaters").
We've aborted away our future, and the only answer our Politicians have given us so far is to throw open our southern borders so that millions upon millions of aliens, legal and illegal, can come pouring into our nation to work and take up some of the slack. (But this stupidity has its own dire consequences, which I'm not even going to get into here).
This is why I agree with Falwell and Robertson when they associate our national behavior with our national fate. There are natural and Divine consequences to behaviors called 'sin' in the Scripture. And as the Bible states, one of these consequences for evil is that God will eventually turn his eyes away from those that displease Him, (see bottom), which would leave us unprotected from our enemies like the Islamofacists.
But I firmly believe that a merciful and patient God is still very much in the picture for America, because we have been protected from further terrorist attacks on our homeland. It's difficult to believe that this is all due to vigilence and 'luck'. So perhaps while the horrific events of 9-11 were allowed by God to serve His purposes, they also served to wake us all up before it became too late altogether. Whereas before we rested on our laurels and did little while they plotted our destruction, now we're fighting them and chasing them all over the planet, and they're running like cockroaches.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.