Earlier this week, I was listening to a classic country station and they played a song by Lorrie Morgan titled “What part of no ( don’t you understand )?” In the song, a woman has gone into a tavern alone simply to get a drink and unwind, nothing else. A fellow has decided to use his best moves on her in order to resolve his physical er.. issues, er… needs, er…desires, well, you get the idea.
After some period of time, she confronts him, thanks him for the rose he had sent to her and the other gestures he had made and then she asked him ‘What part of no don’t you understand?’ She had ignored or passed off his gestures since she was not interested, so, what part of no was giving him trouble?
My remaining synapse points
That which represents itself as the fragments of my demented, geriatric mind had determined that some of my remaining synapse points had made a connection from the song to the five non-negotiables. With what part of non-negotiable does our society have an issue?
These are many of the same people who have no concern with the word “unconstitutional” as meaning in violation of the constitution. This would be the case for the word “abortion” and those who believe that there is a constitutional right of a woman to kill her child.
Unconstitutional means not in the Constitution
Let’s look at only a couple of things that are clearly unconstitutional, insofar as they are not in the constitution. ATM machines, space travel, internet businesses, totally electric vehicles, and carry-out Chinese food.
Returning to the five non-negotiables and the original topic. All five of the non-negotiables deal with life as a gift from God rather than as simply something that a society may allow if it so elects.
Euthanasia clearly deals with life from the aspect of its continuation, rather than from its creation. Who decides that an adult, an invalid, a child is no longer deserving of life? If we select society as the judge who decides who can live, we can very quickly go from one or two terminally ill people who are guaranteed not to make it another week and should be taken out of their misery, to the killing camps of WWII.
While society, in general, may still be in agreement that euthanasia is murder, a “verbal softening” is already well underway as can be seen in the dialog surrounding the issue of “doctor assisted suicides”. It makes no difference if a doctor is on hand to ease Uncle Fred into the transition into the next spiritual realm, or if he is able to pull the plug out of the wall himself, Uncle Fred is still dead.
If society plans to kill Fred on Wednesday since he is in such terrible shape and is such a drain on the medical system, they may miss the poem he could have written on Thursday.
But how about the other end of the life spectrum?
Embryonic stem cell research clearly is not at the end of life where euthanasia would happen, so what’s the big deal? The big deal comes from answering a couple of questions. First, where did these embryos come from? Were they spares, created during a fertility program? Were they deliberately created for research only?
If we are to do research on a previously frozen embryo, is it not our intent to kill the child when the research project asks have we extracted the stem cells as yet and are we ready to continue?
The word embryo is simply one of those terms used to describe a certain period of pregnancy pre-birth. To do research on an embryo, someone’s pregnancy must be stopped somewhere along the way.
Yes, but, this embryo is one of seven “spares” which were created using IVF to assist a childless couple to become pregnant. The treatments resulted in ten embryos being created, three have been implanted and will be trimmed down based on viability in a couple of weeks. So, there have been eight or nine extra embryos that have been created, and now you are going to kill one or two of these just to get some stem cells? The others, it may be presumed, will simply be frozen until they too are wasted in some fashion in the future. Each of these embryos is the result of the manipulation of the woman’s egg and the man’s sperm, but, it is still the result of fertilization and one may expect each of these embryos has been endowed with a soul by God at the time of fertilization.
How about creation without fertilization?
The next non-negotiable may be considered asexual reproduction — cloning. Here, we are not talking about creating an infant, but simply taking a few stem cells from cousin Waldo and fashioning a new Waldo 2.0 from them, no problem with wasted cells, etc.
While there may not be any issues with creating spare embryos, the first major problem is that man has taken creation upon himself and has assumed a role of God. Will the clone have a soul? Will it require that Waldo’s soul is split in half? and on and on these questions could go as well.
Last of the non-negotiables
Same-sex marriages will have the same impact on life as the other destructive items. In this case, there can be no life created simply because the plumbing does not work. Male to male, the plumbing does not work to provide a pregnancy. Female to female, once again the same story. So whatever the same-sex couple does, they cannot consummate the relationship, in the same way, as they are closed to the prospect of life.
What part of no…
The five non-negotiables are all designed to promote and protect life, what part of that does society not see?