WARNING: Should you agree with me, know that I have friends and family members who — putting it mildly — do not approve how I “judgmentally” categorize organ transplantation.
Some have benefited from donated organs or have loved ones still alive because of them. Merely suggesting this comparison troubles such people at best. And in some jurisdictions merely troubling someone or some group is rapidly becoming unlawful.
Let’s assume the best, that the connection to cannibalism never occurred to someone you know. The truth is painful but must be faced. The practice portends to evolve into a horror — for some it may have already — and its wider acceptance will damn many many selfish souls.
However, if you love civilized behavior, and you practice not doing to others what you would not want done to you, you will join with me to end the silent acceptance of this practice of cannibalism.
When I saw this story, Forced Organ Harvesting in China Has Taken Place ‘On Significant Scale,’ Independent Tribunal Finds, I suspected there was a possibility that it was meant to be sensational and that it may contain suspicious “facts.”
However, there is another end served even if it is a false story. By being sensational it has a numbing effect, and any hype makes it easier to discredit at least in part. As such it would also serve the purposes of those who yearn to bring an end to our most fundamental human right, the right to our very life itself, by sedating their targets. “Oh, it’s false. We can cease to be concerned.”
But the practice of forced organ transplantation is almost certainly a looming threat all around the planet, especially at every location where personal self-defense is or is being made against the law.
What follows is a little exercise considering how organ donation and transplantation “progressed” this far without many eyebrows being raised.
This threat inherently lurked in the idea of organ transplantation from its conception. There is little doubt that once the ability neared reality the practice was proposed with all sorts of promises and guarantees erected in the new institution for regulating it. But Prog termites were certainly there from the start because of moneyed interests being there from the start. Who can categorically deny that with a straight face?
Moneyed interests, no matter how ostentatiously philanthropic and humanitarian, will be inclined to use their wealth to extend their own lives. This would be especially true if those paid can be depended upon to hide all the means necessary to give them what they want. Well, those who still pretend to themselves that they actually have a conscience. There are plenty of the other kind around. Look at the abortion mills and their proxies trying to imprison the whistle blowers and successful investigators.
What this essay is about is convincing those of us who see the dangers not to let anyone hide from the facts of the matter any longer.
Certainly from the start of seeking to discover if transplants were possible there were hints of what was to come. My guess the following question was not permitted to be asked, and anyone who dared to speak it was escorted off the premises, discreetly, with the aid of attending “journalists.”
“What exactly is the difference in transplanting a deceased person’s organ so its recipient may live and what the Donner party did?”
And just to be clear, we will never know for sure if surviving members of the Donner party did not speed any of the less fortunate along.
This last possibility has long been the subject of academic debates. Participants ponder how deep is each man’s moral foundation when placed in extreme circumstances where human nature and the will to survive creates conflicts that bring moral relativism into truly sharp focus. As is typical of academic exercises, about all that is really decided is who wins that debate that time by selling the most cleverly worded arguments.
But what we are now facing is not academic. Because we now must add the element of murder for profit. What can you say about that? Do you really want to accept as the last word the cynics’ Golden Rule: “He who owns the gold makes the rules?”
I ask readers to deeply reconsider both questions I raised above
- Do you really believe there is a difference between organ transplantation and what the Donner party did?
- Whose purpose is served by creating an institution based on promises that its staff is forever untouchable?
Let me leave you with the reaction of my old friend and sometimes collaborator on Death Cult issues, Francis W Porretto:
This whole matter terrifies me. There’s no moral-ethical space between it and outright cannibalism as far as I can see. We are on the verge of a political declaration that a man’s body is not his property. We’re closer to that when it comes to the corpses of the deceased than with the living, but mark my words: an attempt to “draft” the “extra” organs of the living would follow soon after.
Pray. It’s all we have left.
Yes, pray. Pray for a miracle. Even work to bring about a rebirth of the fear of God in those who currently believe it is they who are at the top. Or pray at least for the merciful return of leaders and neighbors who live by the original Golden Rule. Pray for those who will fight to successfully eliminate the selfish misanthropes who view us as sustenance.
It’s yet another complex subject with no easy answers.For my own view,one who gives of themself willingly to save the life of a loved one or even a complete stranger is acting in high moral principle.We see stories and know people who have donated a kidney for example to save the life of another.These people are selfless heros in my book.
Killing another to selfishly garner a profit or extend ones own life is on the opposite end of the spectrum,it used to be called murder,one of the most primitive human practices.
The same duality exists in the subjects of suicide and euthanasia.I don’t see anything wrong with a person who is terminal or facing a horrifying death choosing to end their suffering themselves.I believe that God knows full well that we all have our limits and His mercy allows us a way out.However encouraging others,especially those that still have hope to end themselves I believe is wrong and that euthanasia is a slippery slope and quickly goes astry when the state becomes involved.
I believe that within my lifetime it will become medically,or technically possible to either greatly extend life,or become for all practical purposes immortal.That would raise all sorts of questions wouldn’t it?Who deserves it?Who doesn’t?Does everyone get the chance,or just certain special ones?The Bible says that in the endtimes it will be as in the days of Noah.
Does that mean men and women given over to drunken depravity and moral decay,or does it mean extreme long life or both?No matter how evil and depraved a person becomes,the one limiting factor is the human lifespan.Sooner or later all human influence dies and goes to dust,I forget who said it,but good and evil alike lay fallow on the foundations of the Earth,meaning no matter what we make of our lives,sooner or later we go back to dust.
An old Pastor friend of mine once boiled down the human condition to just two main types of people-Those who are led by God and those who want to become God.I believe those that practice abortion on demand,organ harvesting and trying to buy their way to immortality fill the latter column.
A Jewish scholar once wrote that the first stone in the foundation of western culture was formed when Abraham,knife raised above Issac,listened to the voice of God and spared Issac’s life.There was nothing unique about child sacrifice in that time.Indeed all cultures had practiced it on every continent,except possibly Antarctica.The difference was in Abraham’s case,his God created in him a consicence and the ability to hear it’s voice.
Remember that scene in the movie Unforgiven,possibly the best western ever made IMO,-“It’s a Hell of a thing,killing a man.You take away all he’s got and all he’s ever gonna have”
https://youtu.be/3zKCIf-vfbc?t=157
In that moment before Abraham plunged the knife into Issac’s chest,he was for that moment God over Issac.He had the power to take way all Issac had or would ever have,but chose not to,because he allowed conscience to steer him away from power.
Is what we need to do,simply to try and appeal to these people’s conscience?My gut feeling is those like the ones running PP have no conscience,they are the truest definition of sociopaths.
I like your way of thinking except for the fact that those with the power will inevitably choose not to use the procedures in any but a self-serving way while putting every person, decent or not, at risk.
Back when I made my first case against the death cults I too invoked the memory of Abraham and his offering of Isaac. When we choose death for others we only do what we can to mimic Him in our basest manner. Only He can create life, and we who love life love Him for it. That love is what drives powerful men mad with resentment and would choose to wipe us all out simply because we won’t love them as we love Him.
For what it’s worth, here is that essay against the death cults from 2006, originally published at my old site before blogger, reprinted on blogger in 2012. Abe understood his God so well that he had faith that no harm would come to Isaac. The offering was designed to show the world that the one true God, the Creator of all, wanted the old nasty traditions of forcing innocents to pay for sins of the guilty be discarded, and He did not need puny men to take life for Him. Thus the basis of True Justice makes its first appearance — yes it’s the principal foundation of Western culture as you wrote. He takes each of us when He is ready to do so. It’s our arrogance that makes us think we have a hand in choosing the time for us or anyone else. Yes we can be His agent when we save a life, but we are still His agent.
While the contrast of Abraham sacrificing his son to satisfy God and thus earn favor for himself with neighboring Molochites doing the same is interesting, to a Christian, it can represent the covenant wherein since Abraham was willing to sacrifice his own son (perhaps in the belief that God would raise him from the dead to fulfill His promise) God was willing to offer His own only Son (Whom He would raise from the dead).
Yes, in the account about the offering of Isaac one finds the prediction for Jesus’ sacrifice.
But to suggest Abraham, the burner of idols, sought to earn favor with the Molochites, really dismisses key elements of his whole story and misses the point that the practice of child sacrifice was from thence to fall into disrepute. And it gradually became more disreputable until our times, Ed, where today one may hear abortion named as the Left’s only sacrament.
“I like your way of thinking except for the fact that those with the power will inevitably choose not to use the procedures in any but a self-serving way while putting every person, decent or not, at risk.”
I have no illusions, few,if any will make the correct choice,it’s not in their nature.Can they change?Yes,it is possible,they can have that road to Damascus moment that changes their whole lives,but those instances are rare.
Yes, in your last words we see one effective solution. Prayer.
Without prayer, the other solution, appeals for mercy, would become ever more rare as time marches on. Indeed, it would be a certainty the most inspired appeals would produce the opposite reaction from the most irredeemable villain the moment he’d sense some penetration of the callous he’d painstakingly built around his conscience. He’d cut off the hand that writes or tear out the tongue that speaks and put them on display as a warning to the next who dares ask for mercy.
We are witnessing the beginnings of that today with the rapidly expanding censorship.
I think Darin said it well.
I’d like to add that I see no problem with the Donner Party or the Andean air crash survivors as long as they did not hasten the demise of their meal givers.
Abortion assisted fetal tissue harvesting meets your description of cannibalistic practices, where the living are sacrificed for the living. A true horror.
Remindful of the story “I have No Voice And I Must Scream” where people are kept alive in vats to be organ harvested for the rich.
Ed,we have known since the 70’s that fetal tissue products were being used in some expensive cosmetics,so it’s even several steps lower than the drive for survival,it’s purely for vanity.
Ann Coulter once made the point about abortion that she would yeild on the 2% of abortions that were for the life of the mother,for rapes,or for fetal deformity.However it’s the 98% that are for convenience or the result of irresponsibility where we have a sticking point.
Without God there is no upper limit to the excesses.
I recall a novel many years back where fit young people died during routine and minor surgery. The bodies were strung up and kept “alive” so their useful bits could be sold off. The hospital eventually got busted for murdering the patients. I remember being nervous about going under the knife after reading it but am now too old and worn out to worry.
Kinda like identity theft,I don’t worry much,cause nobody wants to be me
https://youtu.be/i3lhPGw0Wsg
That sounds like the novel they made into the movie Coma.
While contemplating this matter you may need no additional reminder of the benefits from being able to defend yourself.
Knowing how many Kiwis are regulars at this blog when I read It’s a Feature, Not a Bug at The Smallest Minority, I thought I’d pass it along.
In his congratulations to Kiwis, Kevin’s bottom line reads: “Hard to confiscate if you don’t know who owns what. That’s kind of the point. “
I keep telling people when/if confication begins,that is the signal to open fire.When the jackboots have to retreat under a continous hail of lead from all sides it will become instantly hard to find anyone stupid enough to take the job.