Can Catholic Hospitals Really Interfere With Colorado's 'Medical Aid In Dying' Law ? So Far, Yes.

 Above left above: Dr. Barbara Morris dismissed from her job by Centura Health for planning to assist cancer patient Neil Mahoney (center) to end his life under Colorado's Medical aid in Dying Act.  Brittany Maynard  (right)  had to travel to Oregon in November 2014 to use the state's medical aid in dying law to gain relief from terminal brain cancer. 

The issue of medical assistance for terminally ill patients has again come to the fore, this time here in Colorado. In a Denver Post story yesterday (p. 6A) we learned Dr. Barbara Morris had been terminated for offering assistance (under Colorado's Medical Aid in Dying Law) to a stage IV cancer patient,  Cornelius Mahoney.   The firing was done compliments of Centura Health Corp., which Roman Catholic owners now fully or partially control 5 of 10 major hospitals in the state.  

The recent incident brought to mind earlier interference into personal moral choice with brain cancer patient Brittany Maynard 5 years ago.

Few of us can forget Brittany Maynard's decision  to pull up stakes and travel to Oregon  to avail herself of that state's medical assistance in dying law. She chose this rather than endure the terminal stages of brain cancer. Brittany specifically moved to Oregon to become a resident to be able to make the  decision to end her suffering and carry it out without legal sanctions.    As I wrote in a blog post at the time, after the Vatican's castigation of her decision as "absurd and reprehensible":

"Do the judgmentalists really understand what happens to people in the terminal phases of brain cancer? Do they appreciate that the victims become essentially vegetables incapable of consciousness or the most rudimentary thought - with no knowledge of their surroundings and all the time in unbearable pain as the tumor generates enormous pressures inside their craniums. Are they aware of how all control of bodily functions is lost, and the person becomes a writhing mass of flesh that must be cleaned up almost on the hour else is left lying in their own bodily waste? Are they aware the person's mouth must be wiped constantly to prevent the drool from pooling on the mattress?"

Among the codswallop trotted out at the time was recycled RC doctrinal  bunkum from Melissa Harris- Perry  that "there is redemptive value in undeserved suffering".  Hence,  Brittany ought to have been willing to go through the possibly months (or years) long suffering of terminal brain cancer including loss of all control of her bladder, brain and bowels. to expiate her "sins." 

Evidently, Perry and the Vatican's fossils (in the Curia)  who condemned her decision as "absurd and reprehensible" would have preferred she'd been reduced to a drooling vegetable, with nonstop incontinence issues, and not even cognizant of those around her.  They'd not even grant her the dignity in death we allot to a sick pet dog suffering from terminal bone cancer.  But this is how screwed up their morality is.   It is why it has been encapsulated as "premoral" by ethicist Cheryl Mendelson in her book, 'The Good Life'.  Therein she notes that irrationality is a prime attribute of premoral thinking and the premoral mind - which typically denies any role for individual conscience. 

So what is the alternative, rational approach to morality?  It is “moral provisionalism” or provisional ethics, as described by Michael Shermer ('The Science of Good and Evil'). According to Shermer:

"Provisional ethics provides a reasonable middle ground between absolute and moral relative systems. Provisional moral principles are applicable to most people, for most circumstances, for most of the time - yet flexible enough to account for the wide diversity of human behavior"

 Contrary to the Vatican's daft claim of "absurdity" in Brittany's choice,  the moral provisionalist only recognizes such in allowing a sentient being to descend into a totally vegetative state lacking any life quality - with excruciating pain to go with it. Hence, Brittany's choice to end her life is a greater good over merely existing in a debased vegetative condition based on the specious presumption of "sanctity of life" demanded indiscriminately for any and all conditions.  

Nor is there any need for any "redemptive" BS because "sin" itself is a macguffin to keep humans in an inferior state as opposed to attaining mastery over their lives. In the case of Catholics, for example, confession ensures a constant "sin treadmill"  where the person is never really free of the absolution of the assorted priests he sees over a lifetime. He keeps on "sinning" and then keeps coming back to confess them for relief - or "salvation".  Thus, sin is also a ridiculous concept. As my atheist friend Rick put it: "How can a finite glob of ambulatory flesh "offend" a supposedly infinite Being? It's totally ludicrous."
 
I mention this because the "redemptive"  baloney  has also been invoked  by Centura Health in its decision  to fire a doctor (Barbara Morris),  who had  planned to attend to a stage IV cancer patient, Neil Mahoney.    According to the earlier cited Denver Post piece:

 "In a letter hand -delivered to Morris, who has worked in the health care system since 2013, Centura president Vance Maclaren said she had violated the firm's governing rules" i.e. "embodied in The Ethical and Religious Directives For Catholic Health Care Services."

The letter went on to say:

"Rather than encouraging patient Cornelius Mahoney to receive care consistent with that doctrine or transferring care to other providers, you have encouraged a morally unacceptable option"

And what, pray tell, was the option she ought to have selected?  We learn the answer from the document cited by the Post:

"Patients experiencing suffering that cannot be alleviated should be helped to appreciate the Christian understanding of redemptive suffering."

In other words, be accepting of a nice, tortuous and prolonged demise where you will be barfing and shitting your bedclothes and everything else most of the time - even as you're barely conscious of much more than the odor and filth. A dog in this country deserves better and gets it, but not terminal human cancer patients.  Those the church beckons to roil in their "redemptive" suffering for whatever...imaginary sins they committed in the past. 

But let's cut to the chase and drop the bafflegab and formalist bullshit and "doctrine" cited by Centura.  As the Denver Post piece observes (ibid.)  the prime culprit is the Trump administration's recent imposition of "religious freedom"  edicts embodied in its 'Denial Of Care Rule' for medical providers. Below an excerpt from the piece:

What is this so-called "conscience rule" about?   Archdiocese of Denver spokesperson Mark Haas put it thusly (ibid.):

"Asking a Christian hospital to play any role in violating the dignity of human life is asking the Christian hospital to compromise its values and core mission. This is not the hospital forcing its beliefs on others but rather having outside views forced upon it."

Which is pure balderdash. First, the top sentence means the "Christian" hospital actually invests more "dignity" in a contorted, tortured, puking and nonstop- shitting person than for that person to die with dignity.  How is that for twisted logic?  Sophistry anyone?   As Florida Lawyer Robert Rivas pointed out, skewering this claptrap (ibid.):

"When you look closely at what they're saying, it turns out they really want to be empowered to force their religion on others."

  As for the last line of Haas' statement, that also is a terrific excuse for running roughshod over a state law which entitles any Coloradan suffering from the final stages of a disease to get final respite at any hospital.    In reality, the only "outside force" at work here, providing leverage (empowerment) for this sanctimonious refusal, is the nation's pussy grabber- in -chief, Dotard Trump.  This asswipe excuse for a president is their moral dictator-   like he is now for the evangelicals, e.g.



As Americans United CEO Rachel Laser put it, after this farce of a conscience rule was ordained by the nation's number one sexual predator,  liar, grifter and con man:


"This is the Trump administration's most dangerous attempt yet to weaponize religious freedom, and we won't stand for it."

And it's now rearing its ugly, deformed head in challenging the state's medical aid -in- dying act passed by a large majority of Colorado voters. So we are clear on this politically implemented rule, no matter how its gussied up in doctrine or dogma: 

"It invites any health care worker - including doctors, nurses, paramedics, administrators and even clerical staff- to deny medical treatment and services to patients because of personal religious or moral belies."

This is exactly what's happened here in Colorado, never mind the "redemptive suffering" malarkey.   Thousands of  terminal or near terminal cancer patients are hoping this religious rebellion based on bogus first amendment sophistry can be nipped in the bud.  Else, patients will find other ways - not medically or legally sanctioned - to end their misery.   As Dr. Morris explained to the Post:

"These are complex, ill patients. We have a pretty big thing n medicine about not abandoning patients, so that's a pretty big issue."

In her lawsuit filed with Mr. Mahoney, she argues that "Centura's policy prohibting doctors from prescribing aid in dying drugs is broader than state law allows."

With which I concur.  And that's why I do hope the state AG joins the suit, especially as an ancillary state law mandates that "health care facilities may not limit or otherwise exercise control  over a physcian's medical judgement" . 

 We cannot allow religions which now - via mergers and other operations -control so many hospitals, to have the final say on a citizen's well being. And that well being includes his or her choice to shuffle this mortal coil without undergoing "redemptive" torture. 

See also:

If Trump Gets Another 4 Years: Look For Religious ...

RC's McCarrick Scandal Will Provide Another Opening For Materialist Ethics To Trump Religious Absolutism

In the image above, we see the ardent religious absolutists at work - carrying out Holy Mother Church's "sacred" Inquisitional tortures -  on a putative "witch" (suspended  at far right, after being disembowelled), a heretic with a red hot iron applied to his pudenda, and a generic unbeliever about to have his tongue ripped out,  then his eyes.  The picture, from 'A History Of Torture Through The Ages',  shows what happens when people - believers-   are convinced they have absolute moral truth on their side.

This introduces the recent WSJ op-ed ('When The Cardinal Sins')  by William McGurn from yesterday (p. A15)  in which we are treated to 4 columns (truncated fortunately) of religious caterwauling on account of the pederasty of one Archbishop Theodore McCarrick being exposed.  As we know the pope demoted the filthy maggot, but now all the likes of McGurn can do is wring his mitts at how it will be another blight on the Church's moral credibility.  He writes, for example:

"Think of it as akin to the (Protestant) Reformation, except here it will not be Protestant Christianity but some materialist orthodoxy that will likely move in after the Church takes this latest hit."

I have news for McGurn: that materialist orthodoxy has already "moved in". It was well on its way long before McCarrick's crimes, flaring after the first priest sex abuse crimes made headlines. Once repeated transgressions were made known, as well as how John Paul II and Benedict XVI played roles in concealing the deeds of many priestly pedophiles - and enabling their easy movement from parish to parish- while diverting calls for accountability- it was all over but the dirges.  Anyone with more than air between the airs knew the RC Church had lost whatever remaining vestige of moral authority it possessed.

But you wouldn't know that from reading McGurn's twaddle, e.g.:

"In our day the battle is no longer between competing versions of Christianity.  It's not even  about God, though it's often characterized that way. The real fight has to do with who's right about the reality of the human person- those who posit him as a physical combination of matter and energy or those who believe him - as the Eighth Psalm put it, "a little lower than the angels"'

Himmm...how about a LOT lower than the angels, as in risen apes? E,.g.


See, any species that is capable of the violence unleashed in "ethnic cleansings", mass rape,  atomic bombings,  developing gas chambers for annihilating a whole race,  ripping infants from parents and caging them - is no angel, not even close to it. Hell, in the case of the latter behavior (as demonstrated by the Trumpite vermin) one could argue humans aren't even as decent as apes.   But this is the la-la land McGurn appears trapped in, so he can't fathom that fantasy train has already left the station, except for the odd cases of  "sin" preached about by "frustrated old men in robes".  (I suspect "robed fossils"  is more apropos.)

He also whines that the Church's teachings, like about sex and such - e.g.. masturbation, use of artificial contraception ("mutual masturbation" according to one ethics prof I once had)  are "incomprehensible to increasing numbers of people".

Well, why should they be comprehensible when sensible, intelligent people were told over and over again by the Church's prelates and popes that they had the moral answers and authority - but in the next breath were busy either raping children or hiding the rapists? Doesn't McGurn give the skeptics any credit for having brains at all? Evidently not!

At least scientific Materialism recognizes humans for what they are:  evolved apes with many ape characteristics, and behaviors. It doesn't glorify Man as some demigod or an angel in the works. At the same time this perspective enables us to dispense with the virus of moral absolutism.    Indeed, the archaic notion of "sin" can be seen in a new perspective.

Consider the Church's historic obsession with sins of the flesh that McGurn references, e.g. "Throughout history Christian teachings about the history and purposes of sex have often proved a hard sell.".    But if one steps back and examines Church history one can grasp why.  Thus, many of the Church sexual prohibitions date from Augustine's time.  Less known is that Augustine was originally a Manichean. The ancient Manicheans (founder Mani, b. 219 BCE) absolutely believed that the human was essentially a spark of deistic light locked within a body of flesh fashioned by 'Satan'. Of course, semen was the satanic fluid that kept the cycles of evil going.

Birth was the manifestation or culmination of the evil when the devilish flesh finally sprouted. Hence, enabling birth, was in effect tantamount to multiplying the total of diabolically imprisoned 'sparks' in the world. Since there was never any assurance these sparks could be liberated, it was paramount that the diabolical flesh be prevented from reproducing itself.

Interestingly, when Augustine converted to Christianity in 387 CE, the only Manichean tenet he ditched was the contraception. He retained all the other flesh/pleasure =demonic connotations and interjected them into his various teachings including his 'letters'. (For more on this, see the excellent monograph 'Eunuchs For the Kingdom of Heaven' by Ute Ranke-Heinemann, Doubleday, 1990). 

Augustine's Manichean teachings (after his conversion) held that any sexual pleasure whatsoever was "diabolical" in origin. However, it could be countenanced IF a baby was the end product. Otherwise, the offending parties were trafficking with demons. (He cites at one point, for "proof", the demon Asmodeus, who "slew seven men in 7 beds with seven women, but not when they were sitting at a table".)

 Augustine's harsh and sterile dogmas also probably spurred the Church Father Origen (of Adamantius) to cut off his own sexual organs - because he was unable to control them. Since each 'stimulus' enabled a particular demon to gain a foothold, it was better to get rid of them entirely.

Ramping up the ante much further are the essays in the book, 'In Defense of Sin', edited by John Portmann.  Thus, we find stirring contributions under the chapter headers: 'In Defense of Idolatry'( One), 'In Defense of Lying'(Six), 'In Defense of Adultery'(Five), and 'In Defense of Lust' (Twelve).

In regard to Augustine's up tight views on sexual sins, Portmann writes (p. 223):

"Missing from Augustine is the idea that lust completes us (however temporarily), fills us with a vivid sense of being alive, propels us along the way to self-fulfillment...Lust like the playfulness of children or the treasures of the Louvre, lights up a rainy day."

The author also makes a good case for enhancing creativity before listing (including with reasons) all those things we think qualify as "sex" but which really aren't, including: Phone sex(lack of touching so can't be sex), ogling porno photos or videos (voyeurism, but not sex, doesn't make the touching or intimacy cut), oh and flirting is not sex.

He also (rightly) rips into masturbation as sinful (p. 229) since it is based on a phantasm engineered by the early Church Fathers: to wit,  that each sperm was a "homunculus" or "little man" - hence each and every sperm had to be protected. Extended the same rights as the big man in whom it lived, else akin to mass murder on a miniature scale. Thus, spilling it was a no-no (often confused with Onanism ....which was actually a different category of "sin" since it was an offense against the Hebrew law of succession. In this, the nearest male relative of the deceased husband is obligated to fertilize the wife. If he refused, and spilled his seed, he was guilty of onanism. This is different from the early Catholic view that each seedling is a little man with life of his own. (This position didn't change until after better optical resolution in microscopes was achieved and individual sperm could be as similar to single celled flagellate creatures.)

Once the actual sperm could be observed in high powered microscopes, as well as photographed, the Church's antiquated position was dispelled, and there was no more reason to oppose masturbation other than on an irrational basis. (Thus, the Church had to come up with its absurd "natural law" doctrine, which holds no weight - given it was also invoked to defend slavery.)

A  common misconception, repeated as a subtext in McGurn's piece, is that Materialists have no ethical standards to offer. That we are fans of "survival of the fittest" thinking and "do as you please".  Nothing could be further from fact. The reason is that precisely because the Materialist invests in no 'hereafter' or supernatural realm, he values the material world in all its attributes and dimensions.

Not surprisingly, the Materialist is much more likely than the supernaturalist to place a premium on revering the Earth and demanding the rational disposition of its resources. As a Materialist, after all, I can examine the evidence and determine that our planet is possibly the only inhabited one, at least in our galaxy. I can also ascertain that this life is most likely the only one and that I must strive to enhance it in any way possible. I should emphatically not squander what I have now, while awaiting a mythical afterlife.

As a Materialist I refrain from looking to any hypothesized deity for deliverance, or lay blame for human ills on some mythical demonic entity. On the contrary, Man alone is responsible for his actions and is the ultimate master of his fate. As a Materialist I maintain that Man need not suffer extinction as a species if he has the courage and vision to assume control of his destiny through the use of reason.

It isn’t necessary to wave a bible or the ten commandments at a Materialist, nor quote the "golden rule". The true Materialist, by definition, respects his fellow men and reveres all life, since he recognizes (through his philosophy) that they share a planet that may be unique in the cosmos. Thus, the true Materialist treasures and conserves the Earth's finite store of resources, since he comprehends that Earth also has one life to live - and there is no more after the existing resources are consumed.

With these things in mind, the true Materialist does not give his offspring any and every thing that grabs attention. He certainly does not wish to encourage the sort of wanton greed and over-consumption that has brought our world to its present sorry state. The Materialist knows well enough that the planet can ill-afford more such uncaring people.

Embodied within the above examples are a practical ethics, which have been forged out of the Materialist's reason and his priorities. This has one overriding aim: to cherish the Earth and all life upon it. Consequently, the true Materialist disdains all forms of violence, since ultimately these are inimical to the community and to species' survival. Since violent acts undermine a community's cohesion and threaten its very existence, the true Materialist must regard them as irrational. The Materialist is compelled to co-operate with his fellows and promote a common good, not out of fear for the wrath of a deity, but to held insure a thriving, harmonious community with high survival value.

As William Provine noted in his article Evolution and the Foundation of Ethics [1], young people should be encouraged to think rationally and critically concerning ethics, not out of fear of some divine force's wrath, but to protect their own long-term self-interest.

If a person asked me for a specific ethical code that Materialists can follow, I could do no better than to cite : "moral provisionalism" or what I would call: "ethical incrementalism".  This ethical standard is superbly covered by author Michael Shermer in his monograph, The Science of Good and Evil. We are informed, for example (p. 168):

"Provisional ethics provides a reasonable middle ground between absolute and moral relative systems. Provisional moral principles are applicable to most people, for most circumstances, for most of the time - yet flexible enough to account for the wide diversity of human behavior"

As an example, let us recall how back in 2010, the Catholic Church  excommunicated  an American nun  in Arizona  for saving a 27 year old mother’s life at the expense of her fetus’. The physician nun's moral choice was either to let the birth occur and see both mother and infant die, or prevent the birth (because of the mother’s blood pressure complications) and save the mother.  Meanwhile, absolutist ethics would have argued that an effort to save both ought to have been made, despite the fact that medically both would have died.

In yet another example of the triumph of Materialist provisional ethics over RC Church absolutism, Brittany Maynard chose to end her suffering from brain cancer 4 years ago.  The Vatican's pseudo-moralistic fossils wasted no time in yelping from their high horse, condemning her decision as "reprehensible" .  Evidently, the Vatican's relics would rather she had been reduced to a drooling vegetable, with no bowel or bladder control, and not even cognizant of those around her. But this is typical of the Vatican's scornful approach to morality, and also McGurn's endorsement of it.

To the Materialist moral provisionalist what is reprehensible is allowing a sentient being to descend into a totally vegetative state lacking any life quality - with excruciating pain to go with it. Hence, Brittany's choice to end her life was a greater good over merely existing in a debased vegetative condition,  based on the specious presumption of "sanctity of life" demanded indiscriminately for any and all conditions.  Hence, the greater good here is ending the suffering and degradation of life quality rather than allowing it to progress to the stage one can make no authentic choice.

So what is McGurn's Catholic rejoinder to the advance of Materialist ethics? He scribbles near the end - in the wake of the McCarrick travesty:

"The Church certainly has the sacramental tools for healing and forgiveness."

Hmmm....then why haven't they yet been successful in halting the predations of many current padres on their young charges?   And this followup classic:

"The classic rejoinder is that we are all sinners and the Catholic Church will survive the McCarrick scandal as it has survived so many scandals over its 2000 years."

Brave words for a Church, a religion, on the ropes.

Will the Catholic Church go on? I have no doubt at all. Will it gain more converts? Sure, mainly of the poor, the ignorant and dispossessed in the more backward nations of the planet, as well as immigrants. However, its days as the moral arbiter and voice for the advanced nations in Europe, North America and Australia are forever gone. Those nations are becoming ever more secular, and even in the U.S. now the "Nones"  (no religion professed) are increasing at a rate faster than new Catholics.  Meanwhile, in the most advanced secular nations the Vatican’s voice has been reduced to barely above a raspy whisper.

The Roman Catholic Church will persist but also become a literal shell and shadow of its former self, paving the way for Materialist ethics (or secular humanist ethics) to make major inroads for millions to adopt a saner alternative.

See also:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2017/05/moral-absolutism-is-trumped-by-moral.html

And:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/06/nun-articulates-sexual-ethics-for.html

----------------------------------------

[1] MBL Science, Vol. 3, No. 1, p. 25, 1988

The Irish Repeal Of 1983 Anti-Abortion Law Rightly Puts The RC Church In Its Place

Irish women voters whoop it up at Dublin Castle after "Yes" vote trounces the backward anti-abortion faction.

I never believed for one second some of the polls, published in the days before the Irish referendum Saturday, to repeal an antiquated anti-abortion law (from 1983).   That  law (constitutional amendment) punished women with up to 14 years in prison if they even sought an abortion.  I didn't believe those "too close to call" polls because I knew the Irish (most of them) - like Catholics in the USA - were fed up with being told how to use their bodies. Especially by a clergy and pontificate that had long since lost any moral authority because of the sexual abuse crisis -  involving thousands of pedophile priests worldwide - which too many RC dogmatists would prefer to forget (and have the rest of us forget too).

The church also lost much of its credibility in the wake of scandals involving thousands of unwed teen mothers who were placed into servitude in so-called Magdalene convent laundries or mental asylums as recently as the mid-1990s.  Most of these atrocities didn't come to light until a late 1990s documentary on"The Magdalenes"- especially the way the nuns worked the young women to tears, see

Search ResultsThe Forgotten Maggies Official Documentary (52 min) Magdalene ..

Search Results

The Forgotten Maggies Official Documentary (52 min)

This is why the truest words in the aftermath of the resounding 'yes' were spoken by Gail McElroy, professor of politics at Trinity College Dublin:

"This is devastating for the Roman Catholic hierarchy.  It is the final nail in the coffin for them. They’re no longer the pillar of society, and their hopes of re-establishing themselves are gone.”

And that is as it should be!  Whether pronouncing on the ability of deathly ill people - like Brittany Maynard -  to end their lives after incredible physical suffering, or blabbering on the "ills" of masturbation to otherwise virginal adolescents with no other sexual outlets - to trying to shame  women into not aborting an unwanted fetus. (Not a child! A fetus is called a 'child' by ideologues attempting to make false equivalence between actual persons and non-persons.)'.   In all these cases the Catholic moral dogmatists have had their way with the sex organs of their flocks signed, sealed and delivered compliments of the Vatican's fossils in the Curia. But no more! The Irish forcefully said no more running our country from the Vatican. (And oh, by the way, clean up your own act first!)

Anyway, in a powerful final punch, the culmination of what's been called a "quiet revolution", the abomination known as the Eighth Amendment to the Irish constitution was struck down with nearly preternatural force - by a final tally of 66.4 % to 33.6 %.  If described in football terms, it'd  be a 'blowout'. But that lopsided vote showed most of us what an odious law it was - conferring equal rights on the fetus and the mother and banning abortion under almost all circumstances. The draconian and punitive nature of the amendment forced thousands of Irish women each year to either  travel abroad or to buy pills illegally online to terminate their pregnancies.

That nonsense must now stop and in the words of Prime Minister Leo Varadkar:

"This has been a great exercise in democracy and the people have spoken and said: 'We want a modern Constitution for a modern country, and that we trust women and that we respect them to make the right decisions and the right choices about their own health care'.”

Adding:

"No more doctors telling their patients there is nothing that can be done for them in their own country,” he said. “No more lonely journeys across the Irish Sea. No more stigma. The veil of secrecy is lifted. No more isolation. The burden of shame is gone.”

What was most encouraging is how the 'yes'  votes pervaded different Irish voting demographics. While women outpolled men in the exits, for example, men still supported the 'yes' side, as did farmers and rural counties. But as may be expected, the support for yes was most robust among the young and urban.

In the words of Irish Times columnist Finan O'Toole:

"For all the attempts to divide us into tribes, the exit polls showed that every part of Ireland voted broadly the same way, which was to trust its women and make them fully equal citizens."

Of course, there was the expected caterwauling and promises of "this isn't over" from the losing side, who ought to know after this (like the personhood morons in the States) that it is over. As one of them - Cora Sherlock, deputy chairwoman of one of the largest anti-abortion groups-  whined:

"Today is a sad day for Ireland and for people who believe in genuine human rights. The struggle to defend the most vulnerable has not ended today, it’s just changed.”

Sorry, Cora, but it has ended.  I hate to have to spell this out, but fetuses have no rights such as the already born do. A fetus cannot have the right to vote, or the right to free speech - given it has no speech- nor a right to bear arms, or to have a trial by jury.

More to the point here, the Irish anti-abortion crowd would do well to process they've actually been had by their esteemed Church.  I refer to the fact up until 1869  the Catholic Church DID ALLOW abortions to be performed up until the third trimester.   This, according to John Connery, S.J. a leading historian of the Church’s teaching on abortion, and citing a long standing tradition of Canon Law. (See, e.g. Druyan and Sagan, PARADE, April 22, 1990).

But wait! The RC Church is now adamantly against abortion. What can explain this turnabout?  Well, obviously, if you can alter a position, it is hardly "absolute" or true for all time. In his marvelous book, Infallible?, Hans Kung observes (p. 143):

"No one, neither Vatican I, nor Vatican II, nor the textbook theologians, has shown that the Church - its leadership or its theology - is able to put forward propositions which inherently cannot be erroneous."

In other words, the basis for all theological, moral rulings on issues like abortion is that they are relative only. Clearly, the fact the Church already changed its doctrine on abortion shows its moral positions are malleable and not set in stone.  If this is so, then their authority over a given nation' citizens is fleeting, temporary only - and that is by virtue of national laws enacted to prop up bogus theological dogma.

But as the Irish vote shows,  women can be released from the shackles of the knuckle draggers when the specific nation holds a referendum to dump the national law.  In other words, Irish citizens had the final say on whether women would be hostage to some ancient, absurd dictate now worth no more than a half ounce of doggie lickspittle.  At the same time the Church, which still hasn't resolved the priest sex abuse crisis, has to take one on the chin  - in a hearty blow delivered by Irish 'yes' voters.

Best advice to the losers? Try to lick your wounds, and instead of wasting time on an 8th amendment redo, learn why your countrymen voted as they did.

In the meantime, we need to bear down on the Trumpie assholes who - using a Reagan era gag rule - have prohibited doctors, nurse practitioners and other medical staff from even referring patients to abortion info.   It is absolutely sickening that while Ireland has made a great leap forward in social progress we've allowed the Trump degenerates to take us backward...toward the days of back alleys and coat hangars.

---------------------------------------
Notice to EU readers: This site deposits cookies and according to EU law you must be notified. (You should be seeing a separate notice - compliments of Blogger- when you visit Brane Space.)  This is because Brane Space uses Adsense.  For your further information see:  “How Google uses data when you use partners’ sites or apps.”

Exposing Another False Argument Against 'Right to Die' Laws

Brittany Maynard - chose to end her life 3 years ago after developing inoperable brain cancer.

Back in November I posted about the passage of Colorado's Proposition 106, the state's aid in dying measure for those unwilling to live in abject pain with a terminal illness. Thus Colorado citizens will now have the same rights as brain cancer patient Brittany Maynard, though she  had to move to Oregon to take advantage of such a law. Here in Colorado, despite over $1 million spent by the Roman Catholic Church, it passed by nearly a 3 to 1 margin.

Recall the RC Church also inveighed against Brittany Maynard's  end of life decision. As I noted at the time (Nov. 5, 2014): "the Vatican's relics would rather she had been reduced to a drooling vegetable, with no bowel or bladder control, and not even cognizant of those around her."

To remind readers, the Vatican called Brittany Maynard's decision to end her life "reprehensible" and "absurd".  This is from a moral absolutist framework, i.e. when clerics believe they have absolute insight  into a moral problem when in fact the human brain's tri-partite architecture (neocortex, mesocortex, paleocortex)  imposes limits on the level of discerning such knowledge.   Given such a biological limitation, it makes more sense for humans - ALL humans of whatever faith (or none at all) -  to make use of "moral provisionalism” or provisional ethics. This was first described by Michael Shermer ('The Science of Good and Evil'). According to Shermer:

"Provisional ethics provides a reasonable middle ground between absolute and moral relative systems. Provisional moral principles are applicable to most people, for most circumstances, for most of the time - yet flexible enough to account for the wide diversity of human behavior"

Thus, what is truly absurd is allowing a sentient being to descend into a totally vegetative state lacking any life quality - with excruciating pain to go with it. Hence, Brittany's choice to end her life constituted  a greater good over merely prolonging  an existence in a debased vegetative condition. The latter based on the specious presumption of "sanctity of life" imposed indiscriminately for any and all conditions.

We beheld similar irrationality of "life above all else" in the case of the UK infant Charlie Gard whose parents kept him alive with artificial means.  This was despite the fact medical experts had judged him incapable of a viable, independent existence where he could breathe, see, hear or remotely think on his own. Ultimately, they gave in only after a visiting U.S. expert on Charlie's condition arrived at the same conclusion.

Hence, the greater good again - in the Gard case-  was ending the suffering and degradation of life quality rather than allowing it to progress to the stage no authentic choice was possible.

Now, a WSJ letter writer - a Richard J. Wall Jr. - believes he has an even more solid argument against all right to die laws. In his letter he writes, for example:

"The Declaration of Independence puts life first among its catalog of inalienable rights....this means that 'pursuit of happiness' cannot logically include the intentional destruction of innocent human life."

But again, he's wrong- and for very much the same reason the Vatican was wrong in its judgment of Brittany Maynard: One simply cannot make absolutist moral pronouncements. Note this is not an absolute statement in itself, merely a statement of limitation, biological and theoretical, based on facts. If brains are limited in size and capacity they simply can't know everything, hence, can't render absolutist propositions about any positive moral actions. (This also follows from the Godel Incompletness Theorems).

Indeed, he's on even shakier ground than the Vatican given the 'Declaration' is a political document, not a theological one. The nature of happiness itself is not definitive or absolute and there are a multitude of perspectives. For example, to the Buddhist it means reducing one's desires and wants to zero. If one has no active desires and wants one cannot be rendered "unhappy" when they are unmet or frustrated.  The 'pursuit of happiness' then cannot be said to be definitive or the last word, based solely on some positive or affirmative action, or what one nation's political document proclaims.

To a sentient being, also capable of enormous suffering (because of being subject to the slings and arrows to which flesh is heir),  there must then include the ability to end life as well as continue it. This was the decision Brittany took when she realized her brain cancer would soon render her a living vegetable: minimal awareness, no control of bladder or bowels, and unimaginable pain only relieved by the most powerful drugs at the expense of any awareness. She didn't wish to endure such hellish existence, nor have others exposed to or burdened by it  - so she chose this way to end her life- and ought not be questioned or criticized for it.

In the end, Brittany made the only authentic choice - one of true ultimate salvation for HER.  In other words, in the context of HER pursuit of happiness, ending her life was the highest priority - given that life had mutated into a personal hell. Thus her intentional destruction of the life which has become a burden to her was a totally rational decision, contrary to Mr. Wall's claim.

Another egregious argument trotted out by Wall is:

"Proponents of physician -assisted suicide might benefit from a personal dose of humility.  Only a prideful person finds natural death an affront to his dignity".

An easy statement for a whole, healthy, self-righteous person to make who isn't covered with number two every hour -  even as his caretakers change his diapers every minute  - as he writhes in agonizing pain, pukes from the drugs administered (or the cancer's advance), and then goes periodically into uncontrollable spasms. Even as the most minimal consciousness recedes.  So, one can't help but wonder how Mr. Wall would have coped in his "natural death dignity" if suffering from the same brain cancer as Ms. Maynard. It's easy to adopt a cavalier pose and pontificate morality for others  when it's not your body taken hostage by a horrific disease..

He then goes on:

"Just as we did not bring our own lives into existence, so also we have no right to end them."

In fact this rests on a false analogy in comparing potential actions and conditions for a wholly involuntary.  unconscious state to a conscious one.  Yes,  our lives were 'brought into existence' in an unconscious state (zygote). But that entity has no conception of anything, including what it is. So it is daft beyond belief to compare the "rights' of a zygote to those of a fully conscious human being wracked by pain. The zygote has no capacity for independent choice of action but the suffering sentient human has at hand the power  (in right to die laws) to end his agony if he chooses..   The fact is that the sentient being has every right and then some to end that vegetative or other state which has been found intolerable. 

Colorado's law (Prop. 106)  offers all terminally ill patients who are at least 18 years of age to access life-ending, doctor -prescribed sleep medications so they can die peacefully. To qualify, the patient must be diagnosed with a terminal illness by at least two doctors, be Colorado residents, and have no more than 6 months to live. They must also be mentally capable of making an informed decision in order to receive the prescription.  Without any hesitation, both Janice and myself would resort to its use if we felt it necessary - though we hope it wouldn't come to that. But like all who've used the law thus far, it is there if one has to use it at some future point. 

"Duck Commander" Phil Robertson's Degenerate Anti-Atheist Rant Reveals He's Devoid of Morals, Humanity

At the Vero Beach Prayer Breakfast  on Friday morning, Duck Dynasty "Commander" Phil Robertson - juiced on self-righteous indignation,  waxed on uninterrupted about some kind of grotesque fantasy situation in which a family of atheists is bound, gagged and raped. That the “Duck Dynasty” clan leader had a national platform upon which to spew bullshit was basically an indictment of our whole society, and in my opinion - a further sign  this society has lost its collective mind, judgment and reason.  What this asshole basically allowed is that he has no concept of atheism, nor any of morality - far less humanity. He's demonstrated himself, in so many words, to be vermin.

“I’ll make a bet with you,” Robertson said in the talk which was later broadcast on Christian conservative radio host Rick Wiles’ program, “Trunews.” “Two guys break into an atheist’s home. He has a little atheist wife and two little atheist daughters. Two guys break into his home and tie him up in a chair and gag him. Then they take his two daughters in front of him and rape both of them and then shoot them, and they take his wife and then decapitate her head off in front of him, and then they can look at him and say, ‘Isn’t it great that I don’t have to worry about being judged? Isn’t it great that there’s nothing wrong with this? There’s no right or wrong, now, is there dude?”

“But you’re the one who says there is no God, there’s no right, there’s no wrong, so we’re just having fun. We’re sick in the head, have a nice day.”

Back up, butt brain. No atheist says "there is no right or wrong". What we say, as I repeated in my recent book ('Beyond Atheism, Beyond God'), and earlier from 'The Atheist's Handbook to Modern Materialism' is that morality must be predicated on physical reality not an imagined supernatural one. It must be founded on practical ethics, not absolutist nonsense. This implicitly  means a pure Materialist philosophy which also implies provisional ethics.

Let me elaborate on the first. As genuine Materialists, we can examine the astronomical evidence and determine that our planet is possibly the only inhabited one, at least in our galaxy - if not the cosmos. We can also ascertain that this terrestrial life is possibly all that exists in the cosmos and hence that we must strive to enhance and support it in any way possible. We should emphatically not squander what we have now, while awaiting a mythical afterlife.  Nor squander the lives of others as this crazy co-pilot Andreas Lubitz apparently did  - killing 148 people in the French Alps because he wanted to take out himself.

As Materialists we refrain from looking to any hypothesized deity for deliverance, or lay blame for human ills on some mythical demonic entity. On the contrary, Man alone is responsible for his actions and is the ultimate master of his fate. As  Materialists, then, we  maintain that Man need not suffer extinction as a species if he has the courage and vision to assume control of his destiny through the use of reason.

It isn’t necessary to wave a bible or the ten commandments at a Materialist, nor quote the "golden rule". The true Materialist, by definition, respects his fellow men and reveres all life, since he recognizes (through his philosophy) that they share a planet that may be unique in the cosmos. Thus, the true Materialist treasures and conserves the Earth's finite store of resources, since he comprehends that Earth also has one life to live - and there is no more after the existing resources are consumed.

If dunderhead Robertson knew any of this then he'd realize that his confabulated deviant fantasy of raping little girls  and their mother not only flew in the face of atheism but  common decency and humanity. Indeed, only a depraved pervert deprived of any humanity would come up with such an abomination in his feral mind.  It,  indeed, shows Robertson lacks any scintilla of humanity....or residue of morality.

Now what about provisional ethics? Any persistent observer of human social interaction will note that the vast majority of people are law-abiding and decent folk who naturally practice a common-sense, utilitarian ethics similar to what has been described. For proof, one need only look as far as the upstanding Atheist or agnostic who inhabits every community and who - though he disdains a deity, nevertheless treats his fellows with compassion and respect. No supernatural law or commandment ordains this behavior. Instead it is the conscious and deliberate recognition that the promotion of the welfare of others is directly linked to one's own welfare.


Unfortunately, what the religionists have done is to take the natural code of ethics most people follow and embellish it with a blizzard of superstitious precepts and injunctions. When these are stripped away one arrives at provisional ethics. As described by Michael Shermer ('The Science of Good and Evil'):

"Provisional ethics provides a reasonable middle ground between absolute and moral relative systems. Provisional moral principles are applicable to most people, for most circumstances, for most of the time - yet flexible enough to account for the wide diversity of human behavior"

To fix ideas, in the case of the  nun excommunicated several years ago, for saving a 27 year old mother’s life at the expense of her fetus, the  moral choice was either to let the birth occur and see both mother and infant die, or prevent the birth (because of the mother’s blood pressure complications) and save the mother. She opted to maximize life chances for the mother as opposed to dramatically reduce them for both mother and child. 

This is a perfect example of atheistic morality  in action. Thus, in provisional morality the greater relative good is always chosen over the lesser one. In this case, two deaths with two life saving efforts represented  the lesser good, while one death with one life saving effort represents the greater one. 

 In the case of Brittany Maynard's decision to end her life after being diagnosed with inoperable brain tumor, her choice to end her life was a greater good over merely existing in a debased vegetative condition based on the specious presumption of "sanctity of life" demanded indiscriminately for any and all conditions. (Absolutist morality).  Hence, the greater good here is her ending the suffering and degradation of her life quality rather than allowing it to progress to the stage she was unable to make any authentic choice.

In both cases and many others the atheist disdains and rejects morality that (in the words of Sam Harris): "pursues aims that are flagrantly immoral, in that they needlessly perpetuate human misery, while believing these actions are morally obligatory. "

Adding that such   "pious uncoupling of moral concern from the reality of human suffering" is unacceptable.

We see then that Robertson's portrayal of atheists as total scalawags and renegades with no moral compass is totally off base and in fact, insane. The atheist family he has raped and killed in his debased mental ideation then, must be seen as actually reflecting HIS own lack of morality and no one else's. We assess  from this that his "morality" is debased and perverted since it would slaughter and rape those with a different life philosophy under the assumption they don't care and  believe that "anything goes".

At root, not only is Robertson responsible for hatching such vile swill glorifying  child rape and murder, but the media shares blame for giving this depraved piece of filth  a stage on which to spout his degenerate fantasies - as a basis to supposedly condemn atheists.