By Theodore Shoebat
The people who support euthanasia love to argue that ‘a right to die in dignity’ will only be observed on those who willfully want to die. Those who don’t want to be killed by a doctor need not worry about getting the end of the poisonous needle. The slippery slope argument is fallacious. This is what is constantly told to those who object to the idea of euthanasia.
But, if killing can be authorized by the state — even if it is done to a willing party (and I am not talking about capital punishment for serious crimes) — then the legislation in favor for euthanasia could easily be expanded, from voluntary to involuntary. Killing those who are not deserving of capital punishment lies on a very fine line between the willing and unwilling, and that line can be as fickle as a hair trigger. The gun can be pointed at the one who is willing to die, and in this very realm of Darwinism — wherein the sacredness of life is supplanted by utility and capital — who is to say that the end of the smoking barrel should not be turned to those who don’t wish to die? Who is to say, in other words, that state-sanctioned murder is wrong? If the good of the species is, they could argue, burdened by those who are not ‘fit,’ then why not purge them from the body politic?
This is why the slippery slope argument is not a fallacy, but an inevitable reality that can be foreseen in the end result of a darwinistic worldview. If sodomite actions are tolerable, then why not pederasty and the rest of the ranks of the republic of Sodom? This is the dismal realism that the acolytes of Sodom try to discourage people from observing. They want us to see nothing but bright colored rainbows, and to ignore the deluge of blood and gore that they want to unleash on the whole of humanity.
While the biggest Google search trends are Kim Kardashian and sports, a story transpired that should be a mark on the dark journey to destruction that humanity is treading. On September of 2019, the Dutch government acquitted a doctor after she murdered a woman who did not want to be euthanized. This woman, who suffered from Alzheimer’s, said that she wanted to be euthanized instead of being put in a home, but she added that she wished “to be able to decide [when to die] while still in my senses and when I think the time is right”. Consent was not honored in this society that has such an obsession with that particular word. For, in 2016, a doctor had slipped a sedative in this woman’s coffee which made her fall asleep. Before she could inject her with the killing poison, the woman suddenly woke up. The doctor then told her own family members to hold her down as she finished her off.
The details of the story reveal the true sinister nature of the doctor’s contriving. She had a morning coffee with the woman, her husband and her adult daughter. The conversation was calm and happy and was done in a setting described as “cozy.” It was during this conversation that the doctor spiked the 74 year old woman’s drink. As we read from the Guardian:
After half an hour, the woman felt sleepy but she did not go to sleep. A second dose of the sedative was administered via injection. The patient, although woozy, indicated her displeasure at the pain of the needle.
While she was asleep, the doctor attempted to administer a lethal dose of a different drug but the woman stirred from her sleep and stood up and had to be held down by her family to allow the final injection to be given.
The woman’s daughter supported the doctor’s decisions in a statement to the court in which she said that her actions “freed my mother from the mental prison which she ended up in”.
When the court declared the doctor innocent, applause broke out in the courtroom. Yes, applause. This entire story is a testament to the sinister realities of our times: we are entering a new phase of eugenics; a eugenics with a smily face, a eugenics that will have morning coffee with you before spiking your drink; a eugenics that will kill in the name of compassion, that will boast itself of having a ‘painless’ method of killing. It is like the mass slaughter of the French Revolution. The guillotine, a main means of killing in the Reign of Terror, was boasted as a ‘painless’ way of slaughter. Today we have the needle, and who knows what machinations the wicked will contrive in the future.
The Judge who oversaw the case, Mariette Renckens, concluded that the woman’s consent did not need to be verified. In her own words:
“We conclude that all requirements of the euthanasia legislation had been met. Therefore, the suspect is acquitted of all charges … We believe that given the deeply demented condition of the patient the doctor did not need to verify her wish for euthanasia”
You see right there; because she was so slow in her brain, her consent was meaningless in the eyes of court. The sick cannot speak, and those who cannot utter plaintiff cries loud enough, will receive the needle of death.
Brace yourselves for the new eugenics.