Culture of Life? Or, Death?

I apologize ahead of time. This isn't a very happy or pleasant topic. But I believe it needs to be said and heard.

I have wanted to write a blog post on this topic for some time now. Ever since the court battle over Terri Schindler-Schiavo's "right to live" or "right to die" (depending upon which side you are coming from), I have wanted to start a discussion on whether America is heading towards promoting a culture of life or a culture of death.

In a previous blog post comment on the abortion issue, I stated the following:

"On the religious side of the debate, abortion on demand as we now have it does not promote a culture of life; it promotes a culture of death. The original idea and argument that Roe vs. Wade proponents held (before the Supreme Court decision was made) was to make abortion safe, legal and rare. If they truly wanted to make abortions rare, they would agree that we should do everything we can to promote a culture of life in the U.S.

But their ideology SINCE abortion became legal has been sharply driven to the left where abortion should be a 'right' and forget about attempting to promote a culture of life. In most of the pro-abortion/choice advocates eyes, pro-lifers are the enemy.

The suggestion that the religious right should be doing certain things to educate people and provide support for choices other than abortion is what we have been doing for the past 30 years. But the attitude towards those who wish to promote a culture of life is STILL volatile. Pro-life people and their views are consistently and viciously attacked by the left and no one can deny that fact."

In one reply comment by Clandestine, she stated:

"However, I think we should avoid ridiculous hyperbole like "a culture of life" and "a culture of death." Unless, of course, we want to talk about a culture that believes every conflict, however real, between countries should be solved by war; a culture that thinks it's acceptable to let poor people die because they can't be evacuated; a culture that promotes the death penalty, etc."

All of these issues could be raised and discussed when it comes to talking about a "culture of death". I personally disagree with the thought that "poor people were left to die" purposely. There were enough errors done in the aftermath of the Katrina hurricane disaster which could place the blame on any number of individuals and agencies.

Sometimes war is necessary to keep our country safe from further and repeated attack. I'm sure no one would deny that we shouldn't have entered into WWII after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. That event involved us in a lengthly global war event of such magnitude (with many lives & countries sovereignty at stake) that we knew it couldn't end until victory was achieved.

We now face a new kind of enemy in the War on Terror. The latest news reports about Al Zawahiri's letter to Zarqawi in Iraq, shows the plans Al Qaeda has for taking over that country, their desire to destroy Israel and their aim for global domination. My next post will expand upon this issue. For now, I just wanted to mention it.

Going back to the topic at hand.

When Terri Schindler-Schaivo was dehydrated and starved to death, many in our nation just watched helplessly and in absolute horror. I don't care what you think about the 'right to die' issue, this was terribly inhumane. If someone did that to a dog they would go to jail!!

For weeks afterward, I would awaken at night with my mouth dry, needing a drink of water which was always within reach at my bedside. I would always think about Terri. I remember how the visiting pastor said that they had a vase full of flowers IN WATER at Terri's bedside, but if he attempted to place a drop of water on her parched lips he would be arrested!

They allowed this poor woman to suffer the agony of dehydration to death!! Think about how painful that must have been!

It gave me nightmares to think that people in our nation would refuse to see the inhumanity of this type of death sentence placed upon a woman who could not speak for herself! One judge, one lawyer, and a despicable excuse for a husband decided that she should die this way? How awful!!

Since I don't have all the time that I would like to have right now to finish this post, I will close with an email letter that I just received from the Alliance Defense Fund President, Alan Sears. The Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments for and against Oregon's assisted suicide laws. I never dreamed that it would come to such a thing folks. Laws to allow people to be killed by assisted suicide?

Horrendous!

Isn't that guy Kevorkian in prison for doing this very thing several years ago? Now, they want to change the laws to allow it? It is just more evidence that we are headed down that slippery slope into a "culture of death" mindset. And, guess who is leading the way on this? (Psst...the liberal left loonies!!)

I will have much more to say on this issue in a future posting. For now, read this letter and then click on the amicus brief to read ADF's argument against such a horrific 'culture of death' idea for a law!

Christine

*******

U.S. Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments in Oregon Assisted Suicide Case – Please Pray…

Last Wednesday, October 5th, the United States Supreme Court held oral arguments in the ADF-funded case Gonzales v. Oregon. This case involves Oregon’s so-called “Death with Dignity Act” which allows physicians to prescribe a lethal dose of drugs to a terminally ill person. ADF and its allies, along with the Department of Justice, contend the law is a violation of the federal Controlled Substances Act, which regulates the manufacture and distribution of drugs that can be used to produce controlled substances.Perhaps the most interesting (and encouraging) aspect of the oral arguments was the seemingly strong stand taken by new Chief Justice John Roberts on the right of the federal government to regulate how states can issue potentially deadly drugs – pointing out the need for a uniform standard to avoid legal and medical chaos.

At one point during the oral argument, the Chief Justice asked the Oregon Senior Assistant Attorney General: “If one state can say it’s legal for doctors to prescribe morphine to make people feel better, or to prescribe steroids for bodybuilding, doesn’t that undermine the uniformity of the federal law and make enforcement impossible?”

ADF provided funding for two friend-of-the-court briefs in this case, including one submitted on behalf of Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council. You can read these briefs at www.telladf.org/UserDocs/VictoryAmicus.pdf.

Please be in prayer for the outcome of this case.

Initial media reports seem to indicate that four of the left-leaning members of the Supreme Court indicated support for the state of Oregon’s position.

Please also pray for this Supreme Court term – and new Chief Justice Roberts – as they will deal with several ADF-funded cases that will have major ramifications for religious freedom, the sanctity of life, marriage, and the family. We will keep you posted on those cases as they come before the Court.