Connect with us

Culture and Religion

Ethical dilemmas

Published

on

Q&A

Q: Is it ever ethical to take a human life?

A: Yes.

WHY?

Killing is not always murder.

SELF DEFENSE

In most societies and most jurisdictions, preventing another person from taking one’s own life is justifiable even if deadly force is required.

LAW ENFORCEMENT

If a law enforcement officer fears for his or her life or to protect the life of another, the Use of Force Continuum must be applied. There are various models but this is the basic one that has been taught to federal officers.

Continuum

WARFARE

Taking the life an enemy soldier with a rifle pointed at you may not cause ethical anguish when considered abstractly. It must not cause a moment’s hesitation on the battlefield.

Today, sometimes the person who “pulls the trigger”, or launches the drone in the Middle East or Southwest Asia could be sitting in an air-conditioned room in the Nevada desert. He or she is in no immediate danger. But it is warfare none the less.

But when an Al-Qaeda or ISIS operative is taken out in Pakistan or Afghanistan, for instance, his family including possibly small children are going to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I would submit that the toughest decision ever made by a U.S. President and Commander-in-Chief fell upon the gentleman from Independence, Missouri. The war of attrition continued in the Pacific after Germany had already been defeated in Europe. The Empire of Japan would never have surrendered had not the atomic bombs been dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 under orders from Harry S. Truman.

I personally served in the United States Air Force for 5 1/2 years between December 1968 and June 1974 during the Vietnam era with assignments for nearly three years in the Philippines and on Okinawa. But I never faced combat.

Friends and family who did fight in Vietnam understandably did not like talking about it. War is hell. No doubt. That particular war should never have happened. But the blame is upon political leaders not the soldiers who just did their duty. They just did what they had to do to protect themselves and their fellow soldiers.

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

I live in Hawaii which does not and surely never will execute criminals for any crime whatsoever. Byran Uyesugi committed the worst mass murder in Hawaii history on November 2, 1999 murdering 7 people at Xerox on Nimitz Highway in Honolulu. I haven’t seen an article or heard word mentioned about him in years. No need to Google it again now.

But of course I hear about executions in many states on the U.S. mainland, many of them in Texas. I can’t say whether Byran Uyesugi would be a threat to public safety if he ever was released or escaped. Life imprisonment may well serve the cause.

Executing a prisoner as punishment or retribution is something that I would not personally want to happen. But if a person is liable to harm others, and if the people of a state support capital punishment, that is a decision they and their elected officials must make and bear responsibility for.

TERRORISM

This is a separate category from warfare per se. Some may call it asymmetrical warfare. But here we are not dealing with nation-states and formal military combatants.

I have no problem whatsoever with KSM having been waterboarded. If he expired during that, and it resulted in information that saved innocent lives, it would have been justifiable in my book. He’s still in Gitmo and they may as well throw away the key.

ABORTION

It was an abortion issue that led me down the path of this ethical dilemma. But first I wanted to address other scenarios where we as human beings, even the most moral among us, usually agree that there are limited circumstances where one may and must take another human life.

IS ABORTION EVER NECESSARY?

That is the key to dealing with the ethical dilemma.

In the strictest sense, the answer is no. The possible exception to that would be the life of the mother. If a medical doctor determines that either she or her baby can survive but not both of them, both lives have equal value.

There are mothers who will sacrifice their own life to bring new life into this world. If she is not medically capable of making her own decision, then that is the most heart-wrenching choice her husband could ever have to make.

Life begins at conception. A sperm or an ovum by itself is not yet a life, but when the DNA of both mother and father form a zygote, it is a new distinct life which is not a clone of either parent. Therefore, I would not even support the morning after pill.

EXCEPTIONS?

The part that we as Christians and as conservatives may legitimately differ over is the matter of rape and incest. Either way, an abortion kills a living child. There’s no getting around that.

Therefore I believe that in both cases, the pro-life position is that exceptions should not be made. This is not as simple a conclusion to reach as it might at first seem.

RAPE

A woman’s life is already tragically impacted when she is raped. Adding to that, killing her offspring in her womb due to the circumstances of the conception and the unknown hereditary traits that might be passed along from the rapist will further traumatize any woman with a conscience.

While I would hope that a loving Christian mother would want her child no matter what, I would not condemn her for whatever she decides. If she does not choose to raise the boy or girl herself, adoption is a far better option than abortion.

Testimonies of people who were conceived by rape confirm that their lives do matter. The ethical dilemma comes in whether we criminalize abortions in cases when the baby was conceived via rape.

I want the children to live. But do we really want to tell a doctor he cannot abide by the decision of the woman who suffered the rape?

I pose the question but I’m not going to try to provide a conclusive answer. You will have to decide for yourself on this.

INCEST

This is a harder issue to deal with than rape. The reason is that hereditary and genetic anomalies may occur as a result of inbreeding. An entire extended family will be disrupted by any case of incest.

Incest is one of the most unpleasant subjects to even have to consider. It totally disgusts decent people. Unfortunately, in this world it happens all too frequently.

That’s why I believe that a baby in the womb conceived by incest must lead to respect of a professional medical evaluation of the situation.

I will not go into how the birth of such a child complicates any family structure. You can visualize that easily enough for yourself.

Yes, every human life has value from the moment of conception. That is why it is one of the most difficult choices a pregnant woman will ever have to make on behalf of her entire family.

Again, as with rape cases, do we really want to bring felony charges against a medical doctor who is caring for a mother who has an incest-conceived child in her womb?

WHO MAKES THE LIFE OR DEATH CHOICE?

In the case of a civilian facing a deadly threat to himself or herself, or of a police officer or a soldier in the line of duty, he or she must make a split-second decision whether to use lethal force. It is an irrevocable decision, the consequences of which are the alternative to possibly dying on the spot.

With capital punishment, it is a decision which each sovereign state must make. There is a federal death penalty but it is used rarely for people such as Timothy McVeigh.

Concerning terrorism, this will continue to be a thorny issue as long as our leaders refuse to properly focus upon the underpinning ideology of Jihad. Suffice it to say here, this is an existential issue that is just going to have to be dealt with realistically.

BUT IS ABORTION A CHOICE?

That is tearing our society apart at the moment. Both the Bible and the Constitution were written before modern technology existed. We can never fully comprehend the eternal and infinite wisdom of Almighty God as long as we are still here on this mortal sphere. We must also apply the U.S. Constitution to technology which did not exist in the 18th century or in the minds of our Founders.

For Christians, this is very much a spiritual and religious issue. But how do I present an argument to U.S. Senator from Hawaii Mazie Hirono who is a Buddhist? She does not accept or acknowledge the Judeo-Christian tradition. I have no idea if Buddha ever had any concept regarding abortion nor does that line of reasoning hold any promise in this present context.

Therefore, I hope she can realize that defining the object of abortion as a human life is not just a modern conservative invention. When she talks about decades of precedent set by Roe v Wade, that pales in comparison with millennia of respect for life in the womb.

Of course I realize that neither I nor any other of the people she was elected to serve here in Hawaii will ever convince Mazie that abortion is not just a woman’s healthcare choice.

It’s hard to imagine that anyone can seriously look at an ultrasound in this day and age and declare that abortion-on-demand up to the moment of delivery is a constitutional right.

If they cannot see that it is a human baby in the womb, then they suffer from cognitive dissonance. No further discussion or debate will change their mind.

If they say it is already a child but they don’t care, likewise they have made their choice and it is a choice of death.

OUR ORIGINAL QUESTION

Is it ever ethical to take a human life?

Yes, but abortion on demand is not one of those circumstances. Children conceived in rape or incest have a right to life.

The question with which I will leave you is:

Will you prosecute medical professionals who perform an abortion at the behest of the mother in cases of rape and incest? That’s what state laws that will inevitably be decided by SCOTUS will determine.

EPILOGUE

In Hawaii, we must elect conservatives to Congress because none of the incumbents will ever change course and support pro-life legislation. If your U.S. Senators and Representatives in your state are more reasonable, please contact them with your views. The same goes with state legislators.

This could go either way when it reaches the U.S. Supreme Court. It’s possible that Roberts and Kavanaugh could go the wrong way and let Roe v Wade stand. I’d rather see this reach that ultimate arbiter after President Trump has the opportunity to nominate someone to succeed RBG.

YOUR ANSWER

The ethical dilemma does not extend to the wanton slaughter of pre-born babies. But, you must answer for yourself what should be done in cases of rape or incest. Do you believe abortions under such circumstances should be criminalized and doctors prosecuted? Don’t tell me; contact your legislators.

Psalm 139 13

Advertisement

0

Culture and Religion

Let’s have that ‘conversation’ about guns and why we’re never giving them up

Published

on

By

Lets have that conversation about guns and why were never giving them up

#GunPrideMonth is the perfect time for a calm, rational discussion about the true causes of violence.

Our friends on the national socialist Left love to bring up the issue of guns in the context of a ‘serious crisis’. Tying to make it seem as Corey Booker falsely claims that there is a mass shooting every day. Well, its been several days since one of those occurrences, so that is clearly a lie. Even the Washington Post has made it clear that gun homicides have dropped substantially over the past 25 years in this article: Most Americans incorrectly think gun-murder rates have become worse, not better.

However, for the Left they have convince themselves of the righteousness of their causes, so making something up here or lying there is perfectly acceptable to them, never mind that reality shows them to be complete frauds, ‘in the aggregate’.

At least it used to be that way. Now the Liberty Grabber Left has come out of the authoritarian closet with a full court press for socialism and gun confiscation [funny how those two things go hand in hand?]. At this point in time, it’s a case where they haven’t stopped complaining about guns, despite the violence rationale dropping out of the news.

It’s time for a calm and rational conversation about the basic human right of self-defense.

The Liberty grabbers are at a decided disadvantage in having these discussions in a relatively calm environment. It always seems to work best for them when emotions run high and they can run around with the hair on fire screaming ‘we have to do something –anything – about guns, now before we rationally think about it too much’. Well, they usually don’t add that last part, thinking is the last thing they want anyone to do.

The fact is a research study from Northeastern University demonstrated that: Schools are safer than they were in the 90s, and school shootings are not more common than they used to be.  Facts like that don’t help the Liberty Grabber Left in their gun confiscation quest, so such things are ignored. It’s better for them to engage in their usual routine of making things up and repeating them ad nauseam until they are believed as the truth, thanks to the admonitions of socialist luminaries Hitler a Lenin.

A discussion on the underlying causes of violence instead of inanimate objects.

We’ll begin with a video from a year ago from the Warrior Poet Society on Why Gun Control is NOT about GUNS:

[Note that even he mistakenly states that shootings are getting worse.]

He points out that the worse thing we could do is establish so-called ‘Gun-Free’ zones where mass murderers can have free reign. Most mass shootings since 1950 have taken place in ‘Gun-Free’ zones.

This leads to the larger point that even if the Liberty Grabbers got their wish and confiscated every gun from the innocent, the criminals and the government would still have them to prey on people.

Still further, making the point, even if those of evil intent didn’t have guns, they could use other means: explosives, poisons, edged weapons, vehicles..

He makes the last point that this is a recent phenomenon, unheard of 50 or so years ago. This is partly due to the glamorization of these killers in the media.

One change has been in the culture and in our society and the fact that many of these killers have grown up in fatherless homes. An article from last February pointed out that Of the 27 Deadliest Mass Shooters, 26 of Them Had One Thing in Common: fatherlessness.

The Takeaway.

The Liberty Grabber Left would like to have a ‘Conversation’ about gun confiscation. We of the Pro-Liberty Right want to Keep our freedom. Despite the lies of the Left, guns aren’t a growing epidemic. But they do stand in the way of the Socialist-Left attaining their desired authoritarian power. Thus they keep on bleating about the ‘problem’ even though its diminishing in intensity.

The intent here is to have that ‘conversation’ and prove that it’s NOT a question of guns, but of the breakdown in our culture induced by the Left. They would prefer it to be about guns, and how fast and how soon they will be confiscated.

[But only from certain people ]

Additional reference links

Poll: More Americans Have a Gun in Home Than Ever Before
Nearly 120 million Americans have a firearm in the home

Any Study Of ‘Gun Violence’ Should Include How Guns Save Lives

That Time The CDC Asked About Defensive Gun Uses

UPDATED: Mass Public Shootings keep occurring in Gun-Free Zones: 94% of attacks since 1950

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Article about Imam Mohamad Tawhidi pulled down over threat of lawsuit

Published

on

Article about Imam Mohamad Tawhidi pulled down over threat of lawsuit

An article that appeared on NOQ Report last week has been removed following threats of a lawsuit. In our current revenue situation, we are not in a position to defend against lawsuits from powerful people like Imam Mohamad Tawhidi, known on Twitter as the “Imam of Peace.”

It should be noted that Tawhidi did not request the article to be pulled, only edited. While I appreciate his position and the cordial way he has handled this from the start, the author of the piece was unable to edit the story in a way that would be satisfactory without changing the premise and conclusion of the article itself. The only recourse was to remove the article altogether.

As much as I hate censorship in just about any situation, prudence is called for in this particular circumstance. Despite incredible growth in traffic – more than triple of what we had in March of this year – revenue has been challenged. Our attempts to be completely crowdfunded have not yielded the dollars necessary to be able to fight lawsuits. I hate most ads but at this point they’re necessary. Even a frivolous lawsuit could be enough to shut the site down, which is why we continue to ask for donations whenever possible.

It’s saddening to have to resort to taking down articles when faced with challenges, but we know if we persevere we will continue to grow. Someday, we will have the clout to fight lawsuits, but for now we are fighting for survival.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

This could be a daily headline: ‘Ilhan Omar invokes race card’

Published

on

This could be a daily headline Ilhan Omar invokes race card

Being anti-Semitic wasn’t getting enough attention for Representative Ilhan Omar, so in recent weeks she’s shifted her standard operating procedure to go from attacking Israel to playing the constant victim and labeling anyone opposed to her as racist. The latest episode of “How Ilhan played the race card today” happened at the ideal place for such things: the far-left Netroots Nation gathering.

DailyWire’s Ryan Saavedra gave the short version as well as a video of the pertinent parts of her speech:

The biggest flaw of Omar’s argument is causation versus correlation. She claims the illegal immigrants are being put in “cages” because they don’t look like the people putting them there. But even if we set aside the false notion that people of color are all against stopping illegal immigration, they aren’t being detained because of the way they look. They’re being detained because the broke the law and attacked the sovereignty of our nation by stealing entry and claiming an asylum status that is reserved for truly oppressed people, not economically challenged people as most of the migrants are.

If a Caucasian family crossed the border illegally, they would be detained just as quickly and with the same rules applied to them. The fact that most who do so are people of color does not mean they’re being detained because of their race.

Omar and her cronies from the Justice Democrats – Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ayanna Pressley, and Rashida Tlaib – have made it a habit to invoke the race card in every circumstance and regarding every policy. Today is just them on repeat.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending