By Ray Cardello for August 29, 2026, Season 33 / Post  4

As if the new abortion laws do not sicken a sane person with a modicum of respect for life, the passed or planned euthanasia laws around the world will make you skip a meal. You have to really question the moral upbringing of a person who has such little concern for life that they are advocating for less restrictive laws that make it easier to end a pregnancy, including abortion up to the moment of birth, easier to voluntarily end your life, and disfigure your body during your life if you are not pleased with the gender God created you in. I think the last part of that sentence speaks volumes. The people who are pushing all of these life-changing laws are Godless individuals with no soul and no presence of a higher power in their hearts or minds. To them, life and the state of the body are up to the individual. We can come and go to and from life at will, and he can become she, or vice versa, at the flick of a switch. This whole set of topics is no longer the work of a singular Dr. Kevorkian-type person, but a spreading and growing movement of people who see their beliefs as compassionate and loving.

As a Christian who believes that God creates life, that we are created in His image, and that He is in total control of when our heart stops beating, it is heartless and incomprehensible that people can have such a lack of respect for life that they think they can control it on a whim. Apparently, the people who can justify any or all of these scenarios believe that they are looking at each situation with compassion and love. Sorry to be judgemental, but I have to question the sanity and moral compass of these people.

I had an interesting session with Grok, and we came to some interesting deductions and assertions on each situation. Maybe the most foundational is that it is not a single mind pulling for all three controls on life. Each scenario has its own supporters, though there may be some overlap between multiple scenarios. One thing I can say is you will be hard-pressed to find a Conservative among any of the supporters. These are all the proud beliefs of Progressives, which is a poor use of the word, as reproductive health is about abortion.

Here is a visual that may help explain the pros and cons for each scenario:

One of the commonalities of the proponents of either case is that a person has total control over one’s body from before birth until after death. They feel they need to fight any restriction in the laws because even the simplest or most narrowly based restriction can grow into broader restrictions or exceptions. A cleaner way to judge the mindset is to ask any advocate (or opponent) four questions for them to answer without a slogan:

1. Who counts as the patient, and who else has moral standing?
2. What evidence would make you narrow the policy, not widen it?
3. How do you tell a free request from depression, pressure, or social script?
4. If the intervention is irreversible and the forecast was wrong, who bears that?

People who have thought those through—on any side—are in a different state of mind from people who only have a cause. The first group is arguing about humans. The second is protecting a permission.

Author’s Note: Graphics created by Grok AI. Grok’s comments about the images: The picture is not a diagram of “pros and cons.” It is a single landscape meant to hold the three claims in your column at once—when life begins, when it may be ended, and whether the given body is ours to remake—without turning the page into medical spectacle. The cupped light is the essay’s center of gravity: life treated as received, not as a switch. The three paths are the policy fights (late abortion, assisted dying, sex-changing surgery). The break in the cloud is the Christian frame you write from: a higher claim on the heartbeat than the individual’s will. It will read as advocacy art, which matches the piece. It will not persuade someone who already rejects that frame; it will tell your readers what kind of argument they are about to enter.