Skip to main content


According to Webster's, compassion is:
sympathetic consciousness of others' distress together with a desire to alleviate it

When we keep alive a human body that has no human soul inside it, we are not acting in compassion. We are not acting out of a respect for "human rights". We are acting selfishly, in avoidance of the pain of loss.

Yet people in this situation replace the pain of loss, with a lifetime of suffering. Theirs, certainly. In many cases, that of the helpless patient as well.

Being human is more than having human DNA. It's more than having organs, heart lungs and liver. It's more, even, than being alive.

Our society has become fixated on the concept of life. We are obsessed with it. It is now assumed that in all cases, no matter what, to be alive is better than to be dead.

Yet many things in human behavior that are uniquely human, trade life for something more important. We trade life for love, or for freedom, or to save others. We are acting selfishly in these cases, because we are acting to further our values. OUR values. I would rather risk death than live as a slave. I would rather die than be comatose hooked up to a feeding tube for years. I would rather die quickly, than live months in pain dying slowly from terminal cancer. These are my choices. It's my life, and who the hell are you to tell me what to do with my life? I thought this country was about freedom?

And in the case of a person who is incapacitated, or even those who never developed a mind in the first place, the decisions of life and death must be made by others.

Compassion is not forcing the unlucky to bear a lifetime of agony keeping alive and caring for a soulless body. It does not alleviate the suffering of the victim, and it does nothing but create intense suffering in everyone else around. How is that "humanitarian"?

Those faced with the decision, take care of such a person or let them die, should be given the choice. And they should not be criticized, whatever the choice, by any of the rest of us -- those who do not step up and offer to take care of the victim in their place, have no goddamn right to say anything about it.

No person, whether parent, child, husband or wife, should be forced forever to endure the cost -- mental or financial -- of keeping alive an invalid who has no hope of ever gaining or regaining consciousness. To demand otherwise of them, is wholly uncompassionate.


Popular posts from this blog

Murder in the US

In 2011, I calculate the overall US murder rate as 4.6 per 100,000 population.

But if you recalculate this, and assumed that black men murdered at the same rate as everyone else, the overall rate would drop to 1.9 out of 100,000 population. That would give the United States the 147th highest murder rate in the world - or, the 60th best.

The insane disproportionate murder rate among US blacks is why the overall US murder rate seems so high.

I don't understand why liberals refuse to talk about this. I don't understand why blacks refuse to talk about this. Blacks are just as often the victim as the offender - almost SIXTY PERCENT of murder victims in the US are black. Shouldn't they care about this? Where are Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to talk about this? Yet they are silent.

And it's not like this is any secret. This culture of violence, abuse of women, and plain thuggery is paraded around daily in pop music. It's glorified on TV shows like "The Wire…

The Root of Violent Extremism

We are too flippant about writing off violent extremists as "crazy", "psychopathic", etc.

Just because *we* have a hard time conceiving of doing violence to others, does not mean that those who do are insane.

Hitler was not insane. Hitler was evil. There is a distinction.

To be insane, to be "crazy", means you cannot understand the difference between right and wrong.

People like Hitler, like ISIS, these people are *evil*. They have, in what they believe to be a rational process, *chosen* to embrace a death-worshipping morality.

Such thinking is going to lead us down wrong alleys in dealing with violent political extremism.

Unless we understand the various reasons why such people embrace philosophies of death, we cannot combat the root causes and defeat violent extremism.

Obama's "they need jobs" is a juvenile approach at this. But you simply cannot ignore and dismiss the reality of life in the countries that are the flash-points of extremism…

Is Government "just the name we give to things we do together"?

"Government is just the name we give to the things we do together." Well, no. This is a truly deceptive statement. Because look here, there are many, many human institutions where people get together to do things. Churches.
Families. And these all have their own unique characteristics. If government was simply a variety of these, or vice-versa, why would we bother to have a unique word for it? If government were *merely* a charity, wouldn't we just call it a charity? What is it about government then that makes it unique? I'll tell you. It's the use of force. Government is the sole human institution that legitimately exercises physical force against others. Churches don't commit violence. Corporations don't use physical coercion to get you to buy their products or to work for them. Families don't (shouldn't) do that. BECAUSE government's essence is the use of force, government simply should not do many things, eve…