Dehumanization Is Unhealthy

 

After reading Michelle Malkin’s recent blog  which told some history and views of Obama’s “Science Czar” John Holdren, I am shaking my head and wondering what will be next.

The man believes that a newborn baby will ultimately turn into a human being if it is nourished and socialized properly. So not only does he not think a fetus is human, but he also doesn’t believe a baby is human. I wonder at what age he feels that they finally achieve the distinction of being called a human being? Two? Ten? Eighteen? Twenty-five? It would be interesting to know his definition of “human.”

I wonder if he has any children? And if, as newborns, he thought of them as no more important than a pet? Oh, no, Holdren wouldn’t have children, I’m sure. He probably wouldn’t dream of cluttering up the planet with more humans, when he has promoted the idea of forced abortion as well as putting medications that would result in sterility in the drinking water. Wow, just the kind of person I want to be advising our president on health care. Of course, the White House issued a statement from Holdren recently denying he embraced those ideas, so that sets my mind at ease. Never mind that he co-wrote a book that proposed exactly those things.

But since his mentor is well-known eugenicist Harrison Brown, I guess none of this is surprising. Brown dreamed of a world in which the “number of abortions and artificial inseminations permitted in a given year would be determined completely by the difference between the number of deaths and the number of births in the year previous.” He also speaks of the global population as a “pulsating mass of maggots.”

Charming.

But that is not all (oh, no, that is not all! Can you name the source of that quote?  ) Dehumanization doesn’t focus just on babies. There are also the old people. Those 65 year olds who, under Obama’s idea of a “health” plan, would receive lower priority than a twenty-five year old, simply because they’ve had their chance, they’ve lived awhile. Time to give way to the next generation. After all, the world can’t possibly sustain this many people for very long anyway, and it’s only fair to give someone else a chance.

So I’m wondering…if the 25 year old is a dropout who is living on welfare and the 65 year old is an esteemed medical scientist who has recently made some exciting discoveries in cancer treatment, would the same rules apply? And is it a good thing for some person or committee to make a judgment on which is the most worthy of treatment? When you consider how many people throughout history have made significant contributions to society after the average retirement age, it’s quite disturbing to think of this being put into effect.

Of course, there’s also the other non-productive sector of society–the handicapped. Admittedly, some of them are useful in one way or another, so there would have to be some sort of test to determine whether you were producing enough to be worth the resources you’re using. That could get a little complicated, but you know our government would put their best and brightest on it.  (Pardon my sarcasm.  This is just too painful to address in a completely serious way.)

Honestly, though, this isn’t the very worst thing about dehumanization. The worst part is that human beings can be manipulated into agreeing that this IS probably the best solution to our problems. That is the most dehumanizing part of all. John Holdren and Harrison Brown and their ilk have already been effectively dehumanized. They no longer look at other human beings as human–what could possibly be more pitiful than that?

When we cease to see our fellow men as humans worthy of our care and respect, I think that is when we have completely lost our own humanity.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in a speech recently, “I think it would be wise to let science guide what the best health care package is.”

If by “science” she means John Holdren, I can’t say that I agree.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

…ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away
James 4:14

Now that’s the only kind of dehumanization I can truly espouse. No, humans won’t be here forever. But let’s be good stewards and take care of humanity the best we are able while we can. Thank God for the promises:

Fret not thyself because of evildoers, neither be thou envious against the workers of iniquity.
For they shall soon be cut down like the grass, and wither as the green herb.
Trust in the LORD, and do good; so shalt thou dwell in the land, and verily thou shalt be fed.
Psalm 37:1-3

The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree: he shall grow like a cedar in Lebanon.
Those that be planted in the house of the LORD shall flourish in the courts of our God.
They shall still bring forth fruit in old age; they shall be fat and flourishing;
To shew that the LORD is upright: he is my rock, and there is no unrighteousness in him.
Psalm 92:12-15

Advertisements

About dayuntoday

I'm a wonderer. I spend a lot of time mulling, pondering, and cogitating. This is just a place to park some of those thoughts.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Dehumanization Is Unhealthy

  1. Yes,  Holdren is awful.  He does not understand the sanctity of life.  Other strange czars you may or may not be aware of are Cass Sunstein, a Chicago crony of Obama’s.  He believes that animals should be able to sue people.  He is czar of information and regulatory (OIRC) comitee, I forget.  It’s on my site in a previous post.  And the so called “Green Jobs Czar” Van Jones is a self-described communist, black nationalist and “Green Co” profiteer.  These are some very dangerous and strange characters. 

  2. fwren says:

    “Fret not thyself because of evildoers” ~ certainly a time to apply this scripture ~ thankfully, we can say with you “He is my rock!”

  3. homefire says:

    @villainwasright – I completely agree.  The one who wants animals to sue people just made me laugh when I first heard of it, because it’s so ridiculous, but I know that we shouldn’t underestimate stuff like that–these idiots are actually serious, I’m sure.

  4. BooksForMe says:

    “So I’m wondering…if the 25 year old is a dropout who is living on welfare and the 65 year old is an esteemed medical scientist who has recently made some exciting discoveries in cancer treatment, would the same rules apply? And is it a good thing for some person or committee to make a judgment on which is the most worthy of treatment? When you consider how many people throughout history have made significant contributions to society after the average retirement age, it’s quite disturbing to think of this being put into effect.”Maybe, I’m just being the Devil’s Advocate here, as I’m often prone to do, but isn’t is just as wrong to determine worthiness of life based on education or contributions to society?  Who can measure a person’s contribution to society?  Isn’t the person who greets every as the enter Walmart making a valid contribution?  They brighten my day with their smile.  I’d vote for them to live.The real issue, though, is did you write Psalm 37:1-3 from memory?  

  5. homefire says:

    True, from a Godly perspective, but I was coming at that from a  worldly viewpoint in my sarcasm.And would you believe that for some reason, the second verse is giving me fits?  I only remember how it starts about half the time.  I have the rest pretty well mastered, but I’m struggling with that one.And you didn’t recognize my quote?    Well, it’s been a long time, I guess.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s