First Things Blog Examines Sprague's Pro-Euthanasia; an Examination of the Inner Workings of a Conventional Progressive

I should have blogged about Charlie Sprague's laughable (yet utterly creepy) blog post, titled The Economic Argument for Euthanasia. Fortunately, the ever intelligent people at First Things blog beat me to the punch. (Hey, I'm overworked this summer, what can I say?) They actually believed that Sprague's argument to allow the old people to kill themselves was a satire. I wish that it were and explained to them in the comment section that no, Sprague's actually serious. Here's what they wrote regarding the post.

If this is a parody, it just proves the Smith Maxim on Satire and the Culture of Death: They always catch up to you. Look how Oregon Medicaid has already denied chemotherapy to cancer patients but offered to pay for their assisted suicides. Moreover, some real euthanasia supporters have already made the argument. Thus, Derek Humphry and Mary Clement adopted the save-money-by-killing-the-sick argument, on page 333 of their book, Freedom to Die:

A rational argument can be made for allowing PAS [physician-assisted suicide] in order to offset the amount society and family spend on the ill, as long as it is the voluntary wish of the mentally competent terminally and incurably [note: not the same thing as terminal] ill adult. There will likely come a time when PAS becomes a commonplace occurrence for individuals who want to die and feel it is the right thing to do by their loved ones. There is no contradicting the fact that since the largest medical expenses are incurred in the final days and weeks of life, the hastened demise of people with only a short time left would free resources for others. Hundreds of billions of dollars could benefit those patients who not only can be cured but also want to live.

And don’t forget the radical environmentalists are looking toward instituting increased abortion and euthanasia as a way of reducing human population and “saving the planet.” Alas: This article may be a parody, but it is already behind the times.

If you want honest and open conventional progressive opinion, go to Charlie Sprague's column on The Forum. You might remember when I wrote a blog post that demolished his defense of racism/affirmative action. Or better when, Jesse Blumenthal embarassed him in the Israel-Palestine debate by explaining what white phospherous actually was and pointing out that American servicemen have actually been awarded medals from the U.S. government for its tactical use. To stick with the military analogy for a moment, Sprague's column consistently succeeds at presenting a target rich environment for those of us that love documenting and explaining the logical fallacies and inconsistencies of the modern left. And lest anyone believe I advocate censoring him, please know that I welcome the opportunities to show just how mistaken he is.

Today, Sprague argues that we need to geo-engineer the planet because global warming might be a serious problem in the near future, but for his evidence, he asks us to believe the U.N.'s seriously flawed data.

Global carbon emissions have exploded at a faster rate than even the previously most pessimistic forecasts by the United Nations. Furthermore, global warming is a classic tragedy of the commons problem where every country wants to keep polluting and free ride off other countries costly carbon reduction programs. In fact, America’s decision to remain outside of the Kyoto Protocol has made many European governments fear that they are putting themselves at a competitive disadvantage by continuing their carbon reduction programs.

I wonder if he's actually serious or if The Forum fact-checked this argument as relentlessly as it fact checks that which I write. For one, the United Nations' itself estimates that the total rise in global sea level will be only one meter! There are serious project problems with the IPCC, which other scholars have documented in their laughable entirety.

Second, he totally ignores the fact that China has become the world's largest producer of carbon dioxide emissions. Perhaps the Europeans were tired of losing manufacturing and jobs to China and decided to shirk on already unrealistic carbon dioxide quotas?

Moreover, Sprague fails to examine the incentives of the scientists that call for more funding of research related to targeting global warming. Or as, Nature editor, John Maddox, puts it: the "excitement of the chase leaves little room for reflection" and that "there are grants for producing data, but hardly any for standing back in contemplation."

The hubris of some people knows no bounds and that's why many scientists are itching for the ability to reengineer the planet and Sprague would willingly allow them to turn the entire earth into a Petri dish. Worse yet, when people question the wisdom of those policies, he calls them crazy in the comment section. How's that for uncritical thinking?

For those looking for a serious discussion of the politics surrounding environmental crusaders and their ilk, I would recommend this article put out by the Claremont Institute for a serious discussion of so-called global warming and its new turn as an almost religious undertaking. (Uncommon Knowledge did an interview with its author, Steven Hayward, and he's done a few internet videos that address this topic.) Unfortunately, much of our policy is based upon those quasi-religious impulses that are so clearly on display in Sprague's post.