Stupid (but deadly) "argument" of the week

From OPB News, serious silliness about the political fire fight in Washington state over assisted suicide:

Sponsors of Washington State’s assisted suicide ballot measure are criticizing the Catholic Church. They say church contributions to defeat I-1000 should instead go to victims of sex abuse within the church.

Anne Martens is with the Death with Dignity campaign. She says the bulk of the opposition money is coming from out-of-state dioceses -- including some that have been sued for sex abuse.

Anne Martens: “They put their money where their mouth is and clearly it’s more important to them to impose their religious beliefs on the people of Washington than it is to take care of the victims of abuse in their own states.”

... The Catholic Church hopes to raise at least $700,000 to defeat the Oregon-style measure.

In The Movement that Won't Die, a May 2008 feature article for Catholic World Report, Elenor K. Schoen reported:

With this latest failure to pass a California assisted suicide law, Carol Hogan, California Catholic Conference communications director, predicted that the assisted suicide debate—and the funding for it—would now shift to Washington. The prediction came true on January 9, 2008, when 71-year-old former Washington governor Booth Gardner filed an assisted suicide initiative.

Getting the necessary 225,000 signatures for the initiative to appear on the November 2008 ballot, and getting them by this July, will be his “last campaign,” Gardner said. The fact that he has suffered from Parkinson’s disease for the last 15 years was part of the reason he decided to go ahead with the initiative campaign, he claims.

“I just feel very strongly that I ought to have control over my life. I hate to lose control. That’s just my nature, and a lot of people feel that way,” Gardner said after completing paperwork for the “Death with Dignity Act.” Ironically, since Parkinson’s is not considered a terminal illness, Gardner would not be eligible for assisted suicide under this new legislation.

With the help of his primary sponsor, Compassion and Choices of Washington—a state chapter of the renamed Hemlock Society— Gardner has created a political action committee called It’s My Decision. This newly formed non-profit is supported by such sympathetic organizations as the American Civil Liberties Union. So far it has raised $900,000, hoping for a campaign war chest of around $5 million.

Shouldn't the ACLU be using its money to deal with real offenses against basic rights? And how is opposition to assisted suicide a form of "imposing religious beliefs" on people? Doesn't the support of assisted suicide actually impose a belief system on doctors and other health-care providers that might well be completely contrary to their own? Generally speaking, doesn't creating a new law or initiative, by its very nature, impose beliefs—religious or otherwise—on people?

Sadly, this stupid argument is quite brilliant, at least in terms of political strategy, which is often divorced from sober thought and sound logic. It worked here in Oregon because the pro-suicide crowd played (or, better, preyed) on the emotions of people who cannot stand the thought of Christians having any say in the public square. And now, of course, the grave problems (pun intended) of assisted suicide are starting to emerge in all of their dark ugliness.

Read Schoen's article for much more on the situation in Washington state (or, as I once heard it described by one Oregonian, "Oregon's Canada").

Comments

[Nick]

(It looks like I accidentally erased my last comment. Ill try it again.)

Is this article saying that doctors would be forced to do this "procedure" even against their will? That is a scary thought.

I have a feeling I know why these people prefer this "ceremony" done by a "professional" and don't just go in a closet and commit suicide and instead. They know that when people hear "suicide" that a negative cloud is cast over that individual's life and family, what these poor confused patients don't realize is that nobody is going to be fooled, even if this takes place in a "hospital."

This is all part of the culture of death, the (anti-Catholic) Utilitarian mindset that teaches human life is expendable and only has value in so far as it can "contribute" to society. This is nothing short of the devil's grip on our society, though thank God more and more people are waking up to the danger.

[Mel]

(or, as I once heard it described by one Oregonian, "Oregon's Canada").

Would that make California, "Oregon's Mexico"???

[Bryan]

Hey, Carl... How are things down there in Washington's Mexico?

The sad thing is that the pro-death crowd in this case is making people believe that in the event of terminal illness they have 2 options... 1) stay alive and suffer or 2) die and ease their pain.

Well, Newsflash... there is another option, and its the one that the Church promotes and the one that our healthcare providers should be seeking... that people can have their pain managed and stay alive (and even enjoy their lives as well).

Its downright scary what can happen when suicide is seen as healthcare. I can see it now... I'm in the hospital room, in pain, my insurance company is getting tired of paying for my needs and doesn't understand why I'm refusing their 'healthcare' solution of killing myself, the hospital doesn't employ a doctor that can manage pain because everyone knows that when you have chronic pain you kill yourself... Now that's a nightmare.

Go Huskies.

[Sharon]

They say church contributions to defeat I-1000 should instead go to victims of sex abuse within the church.

At least that makes a change from "church contributions to defeat 1-000 should instead go to the poor."

[Ed Peters]

As soon as opponents of this or that aspect of Church teaching see that they are losing the debate, you can be sure they'll bring up the clergy sex abuse scandal. It basically means they know they've lost on the merits, and have nothing but emotism to invoke.

[rd]

other than the evil of assisted suicide itself, the next biggest thing i found offensive about this initiative is the fact that it requires the doctor to record that the cause of death was the patient's terminal illness, not suicide.

[Ted Krasnicki]

"imposing religious beliefs"
I think your comparison with "impose a belief system" is the key to this and most arguments that try to keep "religion" out of the market place of public ideas.
What is "religion"? Is it a belief system, and if so what then is a "religious belief"? The problem is that the word "religion" has many meanings, and there are a lot of fallacies of equivocation in arguments using this word.
This is not a minor issue, but has been the one used very successfully particularly by atheists in imposing their nihilism on the public.

If religion is a belief system that one ardently holds to be true, it would imply that religion speaks about things that cannot be "proved" and so must be believed. So then the argument moves to the nature of "proof", of what is acceptable and not acceptable as "proof", and so we get further into an examination of the nature of what we call "knowledge", and a whole world of conflicting ideologies opens up. If religion is a belief system, it encompasses many organised areas of society, such as Christianity, Bhuddism, and of course the modern sciences, as these deal with presuppositions such as that the world is only matter and energy, or has no final causes, things which cannot be proved in the normal sense of that word, but must be believed also.

But when someone says "religious beliefs", clearly the meaning of "religion" has shifted. I suspect it now means "something having to do with God". That would certainly exclude Bhuddists, and many pagans. In this meaning of "religion" the above argument for assisted suicide would read: "imposing beliefs having to do with God", another form of discrimination against Catholics.

I think the onus on Catholics is to clarify what we mean by "religion" and stick to it and point out the fallacies in the arguments that rely on a shift of meaning for that word. I favour the first definition, because things have changed considerably since the Romans started using the root of this word with respect to their civic duty towards their gods: the gods of society have changed.

[Kathy]

In response to a comment posted by Carl Olson, "how is opposition to assisted suicide a form of "imposing religious beliefs" on people?" Consider this,
When Religious organizations oppose Death with Dignity's choice for terminally ill patients, they are working towards completely taking away that choice for everyone and that's a dictate to all persons basic freedom of personal choice. On the other hand, Initiative 1000 would not be a mandate that all people must use, only those that wish too and are diagnosed with six months or less to live. This law would not take away anyone's right to choose. If for Religious reasons you wish not to use Death with Dignity, this law will not take that right away from you, suffer all you want! I'm not lumping all faith based people together, there are plenty of church going folks that will support I-1000 due to their belief in a basic fundamental right to their own bodies and the free will to act their own conscience. This initiative would give everyone individual choice, nothing more, nothing less. Carl Olson goes on to say that physicians & health care providers would be forced to use Initiative 1000, NOT SO. Physicians anywhere can and do refuse care, some states even have laws to back that up. However, in my view, refusing care is contradictory to the profession of Physicians. Physicians take an oath to serve their patients, not themselves or practice their own morality and religion on patients. And to the argument that we don't need a law that allows for end of life choices, I find hollow. To say we can end our lives now with a gun is appalling heartless & cold and could only be said by someone who's never seen their loved ones blood and brains splatter all over the bedroom walls or had to dredge the river for a body. We need a humane law that allows the terminally ill choices and I am voting Yes on I-1000!

[Ainjell]

ABORTION: It's my body.
EUTHENASIA: It's my decision.

I Want to be IN CONTROL.
I WANT TO BE GOD.
I AM GOD.

(Pray for our country to the one true God. You see what this way of thinking did for Lucifer.)