Mutilation and Regeneration

Unlike the Puritan maniacs, who would probably be against bilateral orchiectomy in such cases, believing that men simply need to “resist their urges,” I support the right of every man to get rid of his balls if the existence of his balls makes him experience sexual frustration.

However, as we see here, in such cases bilateral orchiectomy is far from an ideal solution. The ideal solution is to create the technology that allows for full organ restoration, by whatever means. Personally, I would like to have my foreskin back, even if that means that scientists in a laboratory would have to create it by growing it upon the body of a lab mouse.

Obviously, even better than growing foreskins or whole penises or testicles or whatever other organs upon the bodies of lab mice or other figurative “guinea pigs” is a futuristic organ restoration technology that can actually make the place where the missing organ is supposed to be re-develop the missing organ, ideally into a healthy (non-diseased) state. To me that seems like a very necessary technology and I hope that in the future it will be invented and used to solve problems such as those “Deliveryman” had.

I also hope that eventually people will be nicer to each other, but let me tell you: I am more optimistic about the organ restoration technology than about that.

Comment: Everybody who opposes regeneration technology should have his hands cut off and his eyes gouged out, AT THE VERY LEAST…

Many religions forbid euthanasia, many don’t. Think of Shinto, think of the religion of the Comanche. Hell is eternal, hell is eternal, hell is eternal…


OTTAWA, June 3, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – If the Trudeau Liberals eventually decide to widen their controversial euthanasia regime even further, as they’ve suggested they will, recent comments by the justice minister should provide fodder aplenty for their critics.

Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould has gone on the record insisting Bill C-14’s restrictions on euthanasia and assisted suicide need to be tougher than the Supreme Court decision in Carter or else it could allow assisted suicide for sex abuse victims, and combat veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder.

Last week the Liberal government won a resounding 186-137 final vote to get Bill C-14 through the House of Commons. Now the Senate is expected to hear from witnesses who say the bill does not offer enough protection to the weak and vulnerable and from advocates of medically assisted death who say it has so many restrictions the Supreme Court of Canada will throw it out.

If the Senate doesn’t remove the restrictions, warns Shanaaz Gokool, CEO of Dying with Dignity Canada, “Bill C-14 will be constitutionally dead on arrival: a warning the Liberal government has chosen to ignore. We encourage members of the Senate not to make the same mistake.”

In its 2015 Carter decision, the Supreme Court reversed its 1993 Rodriguez ruling and found that “consenting” adults have a right to “medical assistance in dying” – assisted suicide and euthanasia – if they have “grievous and irremediable” conditions causing “intolerable” suffering.

The Supreme Court delayed enforcement of its decision first for a year and then, at the insistence of the Liberal government, added a few more months. But the decision comes into force June 6.

Without a new law, all there is to protect the vulnerable from agreeable killers is the broad guidance of Carter and the particular policies of the provincial colleges of physicians. But this, according to Wilson-Raybould, would leave Canada with “one of, if not the broadest assisted dying regimes in the world.”

Bill C-14 would restrict medical help in dying to those “in an advanced stage of irreversible decline” from an incurable disease, illness or disability for whom death is “reasonably foreseeable.”

Justifying the tougher approach as a balance between opposing lobby groups, Wilson- Raybould told the House of Commons, “Under an approach where any serious medical condition is eligible, the law would be saying that an assisted death could be an acceptable treatment for a soldier with post-traumatic stress disorder, a young person who suffered a spinal cord injury in an accident or a survivor whose mind is haunted by memories of sexual abuse.”

But one of the leading advocates for the unrestricted right to die, Dalhousie University professor Jocelyn Downie, was cited by Canadian Press rebutting the justice minister. None of her hypothetical instances were “irremedial,” said Downie, and so would still have been blocked by Supreme Court’s criteria in Carter.

Wilson-Raybould also justified the bill’s omission of “advanced requests” – something dearly sought by assisted death advocates. This would allow people to pre-request euthanasia in anticipation of losing their cognitive powers due to a disease such as Alzheimers.

However, the justice minister explained, “Even the Alzheimer Society of Canada” has argued that “medical assistance in dying should only be possible when a person is competent at the time the assistance is administered. It says that advance requests not only pose risks to vulnerable patients, but they could also contribute to false stereotypes, undermining its message that it is possible to live well with this disease.”

While the Liberal government has been pushing for final passage before the June 6 Supreme Court deadline, anti-euthanasia advocates are disputing their claim that the current bill is necessarily more problematic than the regime envisioned in the Supreme Court ruling.

Alex Schadenberg, executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, says the Trudeau government bill “must be defeated.”

“For those who are concerned that Bill C-14 will not be passed by June 6, stop worrying, it will definitely not become law by June 6. Therefore the approach needs to be to amend Bill C-14 in the Senate and if it is not adequately amended, to defeat the bill,” he wrote this week.

“If this bill passes, in its current form, the language of Bill C-14 will lead to significant growth of euthanasia. There will be many stories that people will refer to as a ‘slippery slope.’ Let me tell you now, these stories will not be the result of a ‘slippery slope’ but rather they will be based on the fact that the language of Bill C-14 allowed these acts to occur.”

Comment on site (Ruth Bard):

I should think suffering in Hell for eternity would be fairly intolerable, but no one seems to be worried about that, in spite of the fact that we are without any knowledge of what lies beyond death, other than the testimony of the One who came back. But the people advocating death-by-doctor aren’t listening to Him

My comment on the entire article: I do think I had some foresight four years ago. Do I have prophetic powers, or don’t I? Of course, I think the eternal damnation argument works in reverse. Hell is eternal.

Expert warns that Dutch children may be pressured to die by euthanasia

July 6, 2015 (AlexSchadenberg) — The Dutch News reported today that Professor Theo Boer, a Dutch euthanasia expert, is concerned that the Netherlands Paediatric Association (NVK) is extending euthanasia to children under the age of 12. Boer is concerned that children will be pressured by family members. Boer stated:

Around one in five patients who choose euthanasia in the Netherlands acts under pressure from family members.

Boer based the estimate on his experience as a member of a euthanasia review committee for nine years where he reviewed 4000 euthanasia deaths.

‘Sometimes it’s the family who go to the doctor. Other times it’s the patient saying they don’t want their family to suffer. And you hear anecdotally of families saying: “Mum, there’s always euthanasia”.’

Since one in five patients who die by euthanasia are pressured by family members therefore children who die by euthanasia are also likely to be pressured by family members.

Boer is also concerned by the growth of euthanasia in the Netherlands.

euthanasia and assisted suicide… has trebled from around 1,800 in the early years to 4,829 in 2013.

Although the vast majority of requests still come from terminally ill cancer patients, the parameters have gradually widened to take in growing numbers of people with conditions such as Alzheimer’s disease and psychiatric illness.

Boer is further concerned that euthanasia, which was considered a ‘last resort’ is now  considered a right. The Dutch news reported

‘The debate has changed. Euthanasia is no longer a last resort. It was originally seen as a law that gave doctors rights rather than patients. But we very frequently hear it discussed in terms of a patient’s right to euthanasia.’

Boer also argues that the reasons for euthanasia have changed

He has been critical of phenomena such as ‘duo-euthanasia’, where the partner of a terminally ill patient asks to die with them because he or she cannot face life alone.

Doctors are also feeling pressured by euthanasia. According to a study that was published by the Dutch Medical Association (KNMG) last December

70% of doctors had experienced pressure, while 64% felt it had increased in recent years. The survey did not ask where the pressure came from.

Boer believes that the Dutch euthanasia law should be tightened.

‘We made a number of serious mistakes when we drew up the law,’ says Boer. ‘The problem with being the first country is that you have no precedent. It’s good on some points, such as transparency and evaluation, but in general it’s nothing for us to be proud of. I worry that if death is seen too quickly as the solution, the value of life is reduced.’

Last November, Boer urged the Dutch government to reform the euthanasia law. He said that people who had months, even years to live were dying by euthanasia.

Transgender? That’s so yesterday. Now, meet the ‘transabled.’

Ideas have consequences. We used to understand this.

Examples of the truth of this are everywhere. Once we accepted the premise that the pre-born child in the womb is of no value, then we saw wide-spread slaughter, regardless of whether those legislating this premise intended abortion to be “safe, legal, and rare.”

Once we accepted the premise that sex is not intended to be both unitive and procreative in its purpose, then, as one writer dryly put it, society accepted that “any orifice will do.”

Once we accepted that monogamy is outdated and unrealistic, regardless of our intentions in doing so, we soon saw – and are seeing – any number of bizarre couplings, throuplings, and polyamorous relationships validated and celebrated.

And so it is too with the idea, most recently celebrated on the cover of Vanity Fairwith Bruce Jenner posing as his new alter-ego, Caitlyn Jenner, that how we feel should trump what we are.

And it is these arguments that are being used by a community that is just starting to make its voice heard: The “transabled.”

The National Post ran a feature on “transabled” people yesterday, beginning their story with a shocking account of a man who intentionally cut his right arm off. “One-Hand Jason,” as he calls himself, is apparently not the only one. From the Post:

“We define transability as the desire or the need for a person identified as able-bodied by other people to transform his or her body to obtain a physical impairment,” says Alexandre Baril, a Quebec born academic who will present on “transability” at this week’s Congress of the Social Sciences and Humanities at the University of Ottawa…

“The person could want to become deaf, blind, amputee, paraplegic. It’s a really, really strong desire.”

[Within this community] Many people, like One Hand Jason, arrange “accidents” to help achieve the goal. One dropped an incredibly heavy concrete block on his legs — an attempt to injure himself so bad an amputation would be necessary. But doctors saved the leg. He limps, but it’s not the disability he wanted.

We instinctively feel that this is a form of mental illness, or some cognitive malfunction. And indeed, this is how the “transabled” were originally approached. But things are changing:

The transabled are very secretive and often keep their desires to themselves, Baldwin says. One 78-year-old man told Baldwin he’d lived with the secret for 60 years and never told his wife.

Some of his study participants do draw parallels to the experience many transgender people express of not feeling like they’re in the right body. Baldwin says this disorder is starting to be thought of as a neurological problem with the body’s mapping, rather than a mental illness.

“It’s a problem for individuals because it’s distressing. But lots of things are.” He suggests this is just another form of body diversity — like transgenderism — and amputation may help someone achieve similar goals as someone who, say, undergoes cosmetic surgery to look more like who they believe their ideal selves to be.

It should be no surprise to anyone that the language of tortured, secret desire as well as bodily autonomy and the right to self-expression are being co-opted here by yet another “community.” They feel that they are perfectly normal—that it is reality that must be bent to fit to suit their desires, regardless of how ill-fated and self-mutilating those desires might be.

But we have, to a large degree, already accepted the idea that people can use surgery to slice and snip and alter themselves into different genders, so why would we deny this community those same rights?

For those who might be angry that I would draw that connection, I have to point out that it has already been drawn:

As the public begins to embrace people who identify as transgender, the trans people within the disability movement are also seeking their due, or at very least a bit of understanding in a public that cannot fathom why anyone would want to be anything other than healthy and mobile.

And, just as those seeking to redefine marriage reacted quite angrily to those who pointed out that identical arguments could be – and already have been – used to support polygamy, transgender activists are not pleased with the fact that their logic is being applied to a community they – at least for the moment – disagree with:

But this has been met with great resistance in both the disability activist community and in transgender circles, argues Baril, a visiting scholar of feminist, gender and sexuality studies at Wesleyan University in Middletown, Connecticut.

“They tend to see transabled people as dishonest people, people who try to steal resources from the community, people who would be disrespectful by denying or fetishizing or romanticizing disability reality,” Baril says, adding people in both transgender and disabled circles tend to make judgmental or prejudicial statements about transabled people. “Each try to distance themselves.”

Of course they do. As the sexual activists of all stripes have opened the Overton window wider and wider, they pause only to claim that the logic they use will never be co-opted by a group a bit further outside the boundaries. And yet, once those arguments are accepted, society is forced to apply them to increasingly bizarre manifestations of “self-expression.” And when it comes to the arguments that “transabled” activists are beginning to make, we have painted ourselves into a corner. After all, our society has already accepted virtually all of the premises that they will surely use to make their case.

Ideas have consequences, and those consequences impact more people than just the small minorities speaking into gigantic microphones. If self-harm, for example, were to become considered legitimate self-expression, what do we say to teenagers who engage in the same activity—especially if they say they do it because it makes them feel good? Some might scoff, and say that this is a bizarre slippery slope argument. But the same was said about euthanasia, when critics pointed out that enshrining in law the right to die because of “interminable suffering” could easily be applied to those suffering from depression—and in Belgium and the Netherlands, it already has. The originally hypothetical question of whether to send someone who is suicidal because of severe depression to an “assisted dying” facility or a suicide-watch facility is already one that is very real, and very terrifying.

We have lost the ability to trace premises to their logical conclusions. That is probably because the logical conclusions that can be drawn from much of the radical new experiments our society is embarking on seem so ludicrous. But unfortunately, those conclusions are not just fantasies created by moral panic in the deluded minds of social conservatives. They are predictions that are, one by one, turning out to be prophecies.

Comment: You all know that I think that this is a positive. Euthanasia could have prevented the sad case of David Reimer, who made the whole trans-movement possible. Hell is eternal…

Euthanasia in South Asia

In 2007 an infection swept through the pomegranate trees of Hyderabad-Karnataka in India. Pomegrates are a profitable export crop into countries like Germany, Switzerland, France, and Canada. Farmers had borrowed heavily to invest in pomegranates and the disease brought them to their knees. Then came floods. The banks threatened to foreclose. Politicians promised relief and did nothing.

Three hundred of these despairing farmers have a solution: they have petitioned the local governor for mercy killing, ie, euthanasia: “No yield, no money to repay the loans. The only option before us is to die,” they say.

On the other side of the country, in Jharkhand, 130 prisoners have also petitioned the local governor for mercy killing. They claim that they have spent 20 years in jail and have done their time but the authorities have done nothing. They are suffering from extreme mental trauma and say that death is better than the lives they are living now.

Such requests for “mercy killing” are relatively common in the Indian media, believe it or not. Perhaps they are genuine. Perhaps they are calculated to capture the media spotlight. But in any case, no one is going to die. Euthanasia is illegal.

However, it’s easy to see how dangerous it could be for desperate people. Bureaucrats would rubberstamp their application for a lethal needle, for it would be easier to kill the petitioners than to give them jobs. If euthanasia were legal, people would die simply because they were luckless and poor.

Is there a lesson for us in more developed countries? I think so. As a committee of the Scottish Parliament wrote in a thorough report this week about an assisted suicide bill (see below), “there is no way to guarantee the absence of coercion in the context of assisted suicide.”

Comment: The basic mistake of course is that the slope begins when you leave Christian morality, and Christian morality isn’t itself on a slope. The same people who constantly warn us for slippery slopes in which chemical birth control inevitably ends up in Auschwitz completely freak out if you point out that maybe, maybe, the Sermon on the Mount might lead to Madagan. Then it is suddenly: “Communism isn’t Christianity, so Communism cannot be the result of Christianity!” Of course, any form of birth control, including NFP, can only be used if euthanasia is legalized first, or else you would get demographic imbalance. Hell is eternal!!!

Turn defeat into victory!!!


Saudi-Arabia can turn defeat into victory if the Grand Mufti issues a fatwa allowing euthanasia, in particular to those of advanced age. After all, Iran has a serious demographic problem in so far the population is skewed towards old. By allowing euthanasia, Saudi-Arabia will set the example, and gain the upper hand. The Netherlands set the example for Saudi-Arabia…

Don’t even think of nuking Mecca!!!


Nuking Mecca is expressly forbidden, according to my religious views. Even fancying the thought will lead to eternal damnation.

Voluntary euthanasia of people is morally acceptable, so people who consider any euthanasia intrinsically wrong will be damned as well. Ironically, involuntary euthanasia would pose less of a problem for most religions, who fear that allowing suicide would lead to everybody killing themselves in order to get in Heaven.


Hell is eternal, Hell is eternal, Hell is eternal…


My take on child rights v.s. parental rights

I think the best solution is to have the state look away when children take care of their elderly parents. I do not think euthanasia is inherently immoral. Paradoxically, involuntary euthanasia is less dangerous to religion than voluntary euthanasia. After all, most religions fear people committing suicide in order to get in Heaven, and that is why suicide is generally expressly forbidden. My religion is the most lenient on euthanasia of all religions.

Euthanasia in Belgium

There is no law that can contain euthanasia – especially if the criteria is eliminating suffering

In November last year I attended a debate in Brussells between my Canadian colleague, Alex Schadenberg and two leading Belgian pro-euthanasia academics.

As I reported at the time, the comments made by Professor Etienne Vermeersch in not only

defending the Belgian laws but also in arguing that there was ‘not enough euthanasia’ in his country left many of us speechless. Vermeersch was very clear: his aim to eliminate all suffering is a program of eliminating all sufferers. His observation that ‘not enough euthanasia’ deaths were occurring followed by a pointed attack on an audience member where Vermeersch said, ‘Wait until you are paralyzed’ said it all.

No-one wants to suffer and no-one wishes suffering upon another. This point, at least, we can say that we share with Vermeersch. But once we make the elimination of suffering the criteria for killing people were spinning out of control in a vortex that has only one logical conclusion: totally unfettered and unregulated euthanasia – with or without request.We should be wary of accepting the opinion of one academic to draw such a calamitous conclusion. But Vermeersch’s words are also supported by what has occurred and what continues to occur in his country.

One recent example of what we could call  ‘euthanasia anarchy’ should send shivers down the spines of any thoughtful observer. An official recent statement from the Belgian Society of Intensive Care Medicine boldly asserted that doctors need to be able to give lethal injections to shorten lives which are no longer worth living, even if the patients have not given their consent.

Michael Cook, from Mercatornet reports:

The Society has decided (decreed may be a better word) that it is acceptable medical practice to euthanase patients in critical care who do not appear to have long to live — even if they are not suffering, even if they are not elderly, even if their relatives have not requested it, even if they have not requested it and even if it is not legal.

The Society spells out its policy very carefully. It is not about grey areas like withdrawing burdensome or futile treatment or balancing pain relief against shortening a patient’s life. It clearly states that “shortening the dying process by administering sedatives beyond what is needed for patient comfort can be not only acceptable but in many cases desirable”.

“Shortening the dying process” is a euphemism for administering a lethal injection.
Most dying patients in intensive care have not made advance directives and “are usually not in a position to request euthanasia”. Therefore, “difficulty can arise when the purpose of the drugs used for comfort and pain relief in end-of-life management is misconstrued as deliberate use to speed the dying process.” The Society’s solution to this difficulty is to allow its members to kill the patients.

Note Bene: Belgian law does not support such behaviour, but it is likely, in a country that recently supported euthanasia for children, that this is being received by the Belgian populous with little more than a passing thought.

And for those who might be tempted to find solace in the thought that euthanasia laws might somehow protect vulnerable people, think again: This behaviour shows up the recent intense parliamentary debate on child euthanasia in Belgium as the sham that it really always was.

Whilst the law makers deliberated over euthanasia for children, including so-called safeguards, the medicos themselves have said, in very clear terms, that the law – regardless of what it does and does not allow – is redundant; that they and they alone will decide who lives and who dies. The statement is, by the way, inclusive of euthanasia for children in the same terms.

This kind of thinking, that the doctors are the prime (if not sole) moral agents and ethical guides in determining who should die by euthanasia, is quite common. We first saw a public expression of this kind of development in 2004/5 in The Netherlands with the advent of the Groningen Protocol which allows for the euthanasia of disabled neonates. This remains, as it was then, outside the parameters of the Dutch law. As a postscript, the Dutch Medical Association said in 2013 that ‘parental suffering’ was a sufficient reason for infant euthanasia, even in circumstances where the child might not actually be suffering.

An exception to the criminal code that allows for killing of another person in expressed limited circumstances and for limited reasons will still mean that any killing outside those stated exceptions is a criminal offence under the laws on homicide. Or at least it should be. But what actually happens when a doctor does kill outside the law provides another potent example of why euthanasia law can never be contained.

In Belgium responsibility for assessing euthanasia cases rests with the Federal Control and Assessment Commission, chaired by Dr Wim Distelmanns. A 2007 study of euthanasia deaths found that nearly half of cases in the Flanders region were not even reported to this commission; something that should have created significant disquiet. After all, if all a doctor needed to do to hide a euthanasia death that he or she suspected was outside the law was not to submit the paperwork, then the work of the commission is effectively neutered. Nothing has been done to address this situation; the law is being ignored and everyone knows it.

Moreover, Distelmanns himself has been involved in a number of deaths that have come to the attention of international media where, on any reasonable assessment, there were at least sound reasons to believe that the law had been ignored. None of these cases was referred by the commission to the authorities for further investigation. In fact, no cases in the 12 years of the operation of the law, have ever been seriously questioned.

This idea that the law should simply get out of the way and allow for doctors to perform euthanasia deaths without review or accountability was driven home during an interview conducted for De Standaard in which Distelmanns and his friend Dr Marc Cosyns discussed the issue at some length. Cosyns candidly talks to both Distelmanns and the newspaper about his attitude to reporting: “No, not when it comes to our own patients,” Dr Cosyns responded. “Everything I do is done on the basis of the law of patients’ rights. We should not be required to give assurances that we did not intend to harm the person. Euthanasia is a normal medical procedure, as normal as the possibility of palliative sedation.”

In that same interview, Distelmanns replies: “But Marc,” he said gently, “you cannot ignore the criminal law.”

A public acknowledgement of law breaking – even if only to the extent that Cosyns does not fill in the paperwork – and nothing is done; not by Distelmanns himself – who must have some obligation to the law because of his position on the commission – and not by law enforcement agencies.

The elimination of suffering has moved beyond a guiding tenet and raison détre for the law to being the sole determinant that absolves anyone who kills for supposedly compassionate reasons.
Even compassion itself seems to take a back seat here. While it remains an appropriate sentiment towards those who are suffering, like any emotion, any action that arises in us as a result of a sense of compassion is not only individual in character but must also be tempered by reason. If this were not so, then any action – no matter whether effective, appropriate or even legal – could not be judged on an objective basis.
If the law, public policy and/or medical guidelines do not and cannot create in the minds of doctors a sense of pause and opportunity to reflect on such situations before acting, then ‘euthanasia anarchy’ reigns in an increasingly dystopian and dangerous place to find oneself in need of medical attention.