The “industry” for kind killers has taken off in recent years. Why? How does this speak to us in terms of God’s purposes? Roger Dunsdon investigates …..
Kind Killer as a philosophy
There are three types of “kind killer”. People who want to ‘kindly kill’ babies before they are born. People who want to ‘kindly kill’ the seriously ill. And people who want to ‘kindly kill’ anyone who chooses to be killed. Perhaps we should add to this, people who want to kill babies that happen to be of the ‘wrong’ gender – in 99% of these cases, the wrong gender is female (see endnote).
The religion of “choice” has been with us for many years. Our Western consumer society chants “my body, my choice”. Libertarians have long argued for the relaxation of narcotics legislation on the basis that people should be free to choose to engage in dangerous practices (LSD, Coke, Smack etc) on the basis “my body, my choice”.
My choice, YOUR body
Strangely no one has a serious answer to the objection what happens if a Smack-addled driver mows down a pedestrian? “My choice – your body” would surely be the appropriate mantra here. If there’s any answer at all, it is usually a shrug; life is dangerous, they say, and ‘accidents’ will happen.
Narcotics abuse pressures already over-burdened health services. The Economist newspaper has argued for decades for relaxation of narcotics law, using ‘arguments’ that have been comprehensively debunked many times before. The Economist acknowledges, with a shrug, there will be many more drug addicts. Never mind, they say, health services will simply be reinvested to “deal with” these additional victims.
Since it is the ordinary taxpayer who must fund health services, and there is NEVER sufficient provision to meet all health needs and expectations, the mantra of “my body, my choice” wears a little thin! No one ever asks the long suffering taxpayer! “My body – your wallet” might be an underlying mantra here. But that is an argument seldom aired!
Campaign
Today the ‘Kind Killer’ industry is campaigning ‘religiously’ (perhaps that’s an unfair term, since most advocates are atheists!) for the legalization of euthanasia. The flavour of their argument is similar to that used for the legalization of abortion. It would be kind, they used to say, to provide abortion ‘services’, because of the ‘huge number’ of ‘back street abortions’ said to blight women’s lives. Whether there was, in reality, a huge number of such abortions seems, in retrospect, rather doubtful.
Yet that spurious claim served the purposes for which it was devised. Today the euthanasia ‘case’ is predicated on similar grounds. The heart-rending “story” of someone who suffers ‘terribly’ and wants to do away with themselves, is the one most often paraded by the ‘mainstream’ media.
Safeguards?
When UK abortion (the killing of a pre-born baby in the womb) was argued before 1967, the British Government, under Harold Wilson, assured the electorate that abortion would only ever be an exceptional procedure:
- limited killing to before 28 weeksgestation (later reduced to 24)
- overseen by two (not one) doctors who would each signrelevant paperwork
- where continuance of pregnancy would involve risk of injury to physical, or mental, health of the pregnant woman or existing children of her family
- where substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from physical or mental abnormalities and be seriously handicapped.
These ‘safeguards’ have been legislated away. Today we have, virtually, abortion on demand, and that is the stated aim of the abortion industry (those ‘kind killers’). “My body – My Choice!” A shame no one can ask the baby in the womb for its choice!
The history of the UK abortion industry should be a clear warning of what will happen when euthanasia is legalized. Whatever safeguards are promised will quickly be whittled away – as is the case with any controversial social ‘reform’. The experience in many countries that have legalized euthanasia is that it quickly becomes uncontrollable. Forced ‘terminations’ are not unknown:
Dutch doctors feel pressured to euthanize:
Dutch doctor prosecuted for euthanize that was resisted:
Dutch legal system too comfortable with euthanasia:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/06/noa-pothoven-and-dutch-euthanasia-system/591262/
Australian man had reasons to euthanize his wife:
Kind Killers and bad cases
An old truism: bad cases never make good law. ‘Kind Killers’ always find ‘cases’ to illustrate their project to change the law and make killing easier. With mainstream media 100% behind these moves – in many cases orchestrating them – the broad electorate is ill informed about the real agendas. When euthanasia is legalized, the new “freedom” will be egregiously abused, but the courts will not intervene.
In Western society where elder abuse is not uncommon, including by family members, New Zealand requires only that a doctor acting on a request for euthanasia “do their best to ensure the person exercises their wish free from pressure”. Do their best? That sets the bar rather low! There is no formal requirement for assessing coercion. How good will that “best” be when the doctor hardly knows you, let alone your family? How much time can the doctor invest in the process?
The ‘Kind Killers’ agenda is to create a world where “terminating” one’s life is a universal ‘freedom’ – probably eventually to be ‘protected’ under the universal declaration of humans rights. Today controlled euthanasia! Tomorrow euthanasia on demand, the same as abortion. And the day after?
So what’s really going on?
The elderly can feel themselves a burden on their children and society. Soon – very soon – there will be a simple cost-benefit analysis associated with the elderly. Old people cost the State quite a lot to look after. If they can be persuaded they would be ‘better-off’ out of it, then the State will save a lot of money: https://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2020/06/belgian-professor-of-nursing-challenges.html
What is really happening is that Mankind, once again, wants to act as “god” independently of his Creator. In the book of Job we have that wonderful verse “The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away”, followed of course by the magnificent “blessed be the Name of the Lord.”
Normative Christian understanding is that God is Sovereign and works out His perfect will. In the account of Job it is clear that Job becomes the focal point of a direct spiritual battle between God and satan, so we cannot assume that Job’s experience is common to all. However, Job’s general response to his dire circumstances, that God is worthy of Job’s undivided worship, is a truism that has sustained God’s people for millennia.
It is interesting that Job’s so-called ‘comforters’ seem to have mixed motives as they counsel him. Today, one ‘comforter’ would undoubtedly suggest to Job that he allow himself to be euthanased, and so escape his problems.
Tear families apart
It is noteworthy that the number of the Beast in Revelation chapter 13 is directly described as the number of Man(kind). The future “Beast” will be enabled, supported and followed by the wider population of Mankind (excepting true Christians, and Jews). Remember Adolf Hitler was an elected leader, with widespread support!
Revelation 13:18 tells us that the Beast’s number is 666 and states categorically that this is Man’s number. It is, perhaps, man X man X man – an unholy trinity. It will be the time when Man worships himself rather than his Creator God, when Man worships evil and rejects holiness. Within this evil reign life itself becomes ever cheaper, and even though God sends great woe upon the Earth, stiff-knecked Mankind refuses to budge (Rev 9:20-21).
Once euthanasia is legalised, what will be the effect on families where some counsel ‘termination’ yet others counsel continuing life? Many families will be torn apart by these pressures. Forgiveness and reconciliation seems unlikely.
Today?
Today Mankind has taken upon itself the authority to kill the unborn child, right up to birth. Some argue for ‘termination’ beyond birth. Their day may yet come: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2108433/Doctors-right-kill-unwanted-disabled-babies-birth-real-person-claims-Oxford-academic.html
Recently a new word has entered the popular lexicon: homodeus – man as ‘god’. Today Mankind has taken upon itself the authority to take away young childrens’ gender identity in the pursuit of imaginary alternative or ‘new’ identities (the ‘termination’ of gender for the individual). Today Mankind is taking upon itself the right to kill the elderly as ‘Kind Killers’. And today – yes TODAY – in the UK alone, 600 babies will be ‘kindly-killed’ in their mother’s womb.
Tomorrow we start on the elderly and infirm. There is a reckoning to come.
<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>
THE ECONOMIST newspaper 06 March 2010 ran a major report on gender based abortion. For every 120 boys in India – only 100 girls are born. In China the ratio was 108 to 100. Estimated that by 2020 China would have over 40M more men of marriageable age than women, leading to huge social problems. In 2010 it was estimated the world was short of 100M baby girls. It is unclear to what extend this abortion gender imbalance persists today.
Recent Comments