Life Matters

Government sponsorship of healthcare may sound "fair" or as if we will be sharing, but there is much more at stake. We must first realize what healthcare is.

It refers to the health of your body. Your body is where you live. As your health fails you want to have the best healthcare available because should your health fail entirely, it is your life that is at stake. In government sponsored health care the government is controlling the fate of your life. Many people fail to understand the grave pressures that government healthcare will put upon the lives of its citizens, because government is the one that will make life and death decisions over your life.

Government sponsorship of healthcare may sound “fair” or as if we will be sharing, but there is much more at stake. We must first realize what healthcare is.

It refers to the health of your body. Your body is where you live. As your health fails you want to have the best healthcare available because should your health fail entirely, it is your life that is at stake. In government sponsored health care the government is controlling the fate of your life. Many people fail to understand the grave pressures that government healthcare will put upon the lives of its citizens, because government is the one that will make life and death decisions over your life.

Some people say that California law will never recognize the need to protect an unborn child in the womb or the right of that child in the womb to have a right to life. They don't understand that the laws of California already do that. It's called fetal homicide and Scott Peterson is sitting in jail for having killed both his wife and his unborn child. He was given two sentences for killing two unique human beings.

The law is based in objective facts. It is the pro-abortion position in Roe versus Wade that is not based in objective facts or the basic principles of the law. The vulnerable child in the womb was protected under the law before Roe v. Wade and once Roe v. Wade is overturned we will again need to assert the basic, objective facts of life and the law's responsibility to protect children in the womb." The facts are on our side and facts are terrible things to waste.

Some people say that California law will never recognize the need to protect an unborn child in the womb or the right of that child in the womb to have a right to life. They don’t understand that the laws of California already do that. It’s called fetal homicide and Scott Peterson is sitting in jail for having killed both his wife and his unborn child. He was given two sentences for killing two unique human beings.

The law is based in objective facts. It is the pro-abortion position in Roe versus Wade that is not based in objective facts or the basic principles of the law. The vulnerable child in the womb was protected under the law before Roe v. Wade and once Roe v. Wade is overturned we will again need to assert the basic, objective facts of life and the law's responsibility to protect children in the womb." The facts are on our side and facts are terrible things to waste.

Euthanasia advocates like to present themselves as "helping people to die," but that's not really true. Everyone is going to die, that's a natural process. Their goal is to actually kill people - to cause them to die. That is an entirely different verb. Today, in the Netherlands, more than one out of every twenty people who do die are in fact, intentionally killed by one of those whose job it was to care for them. There is no longer a need for terminal diagnosis, there is no longer a need for a request. Doctors are killing because it's what suits them. This is what always happens when medicine is free to be used as a killing implement.

Euthanasia advocates like to present themselves as “helping people to die,” but that’s not really true. Everyone is going to die, that’s a natural process. Their goal is to actually kill people - to cause them to die. That is an entirely different verb. Today, in the Netherlands, more than one out of every twenty people who do die are in fact, intentionally killed by one of those whose job it was to care for them. There is no longer a need for terminal diagnosis, there is no longer a need for a request. Doctors are killing because it’s what suits them. This is what always happens when medicine is free to be used as a killing implement.

Actor James Franco has a YouTube channel entitled "Philosophy Time." He recently had a Princeton University ethicist explain the morality of early term abortion. Her rationale was simple, but still convoluted; she says there are two different kinds of fetuses - one with a future and one without.

Those that have a future are considered of moral worth. Those who are "terminated" are without moral significance. Mr. Franco appeared skeptical, the idea that moral worth is determined by the whim of another did seem to be an odd assertion. Perhaps it would've been good to ask, "What about mothers who change their minds?"

If the mother had decided that the child had unique, moral significance, but then was convinced to change her mind, did the child's moral significance magically change? And the child, whom she meant to abort but was unsuccessful in aborting, was born and lived, is that not a morally and ethically protected individual? Why?

Actor James Franco has a YouTube channel entitled “Philosophy Time.” He recently had a Princeton University ethicist explain the morality of early term abortion. Her rationale was simple, but still convoluted; she says there are two different kinds of fetuses - one with a future and one without.

Those that have a future are considered of moral worth. Those who are “terminated” are without moral significance. Mr. Franco appeared skeptical, the idea that moral worth is determined by the whim of another did seem to be an odd assertion. Perhaps it would’ve been good to ask, “What about mothers who change their minds?”

If the mother had decided that the child had unique, moral significance, but then was convinced to change her mind, did the child’s moral significance magically change? And the child, whom she meant to abort but was unsuccessful in aborting, was born and lived, is that not a morally and ethically protected individual? Why?

On Life Matters we discuss life, culture, and the battle of ideas and those ideas are often expressed in words and phrases. We must be aware of the true meaning of the words and phrases that are often misleading us to get us to accept the killing of other human beings. One such example is the phrase "terminating a pregnancy". But, pregnancy is a condition. It does not necessitate killing a human being. For example, most pregnancies are terminated in a very natural way. It's called birth! The use of such a phrase, "terminating a pregnancy" is dishonest and meant to cover up what's really being done. It's as if a murderer, who is planning to kill his wife declares, "I think we need to end our marriage." While it is true that murdering his wife will end the marriage, it doesn't reveal what is really at stake. It's intentionally misleading and so is the language that is used to kill vulnerable human babies.

On Life Matters we discuss life, culture, and the battle of ideas and those ideas are often expressed in words and phrases. We must be aware of the true meaning of the words and phrases that are often misleading us to get us to accept the killing of other human beings. One such example is the phrase “terminating a pregnancy”. But, pregnancy is a condition. It does not necessitate killing a human being. For example, most pregnancies are terminated in a very natural way. It’s called birth! The use of such a phrase, “terminating a pregnancy” is dishonest and meant to cover up what’s really being done. It’s as if a murderer, who is planning to kill his wife declares, “I think we need to end our marriage.” While it is true that murdering his wife will end the marriage, it doesn’t reveal what is really at stake. It’s intentionally misleading and so is the language that is used to kill vulnerable human babies.