This should scare you.

Hey, the left has redefined everything from the beginning of life, to the nature of marriage itself, to gender. And now even death must be redefined.

The New York Times is concerned that there aren’t enough organ donors so they want to consider redefining death.

This is what one calls a slippery slope.

This is yet another example of a powerful, unelected elite trying to redefine fundamental concepts. These “experts” believe they are smarter than everyone else and are pushing an agenda that serves their own interests – in this case, the organ donation industry – rather than the good of the public.

If we redefine death to include a persistent vegetative state, it’s only a matter of time before the definition is expanded further to include people with severe disabilities, dementia, or other conditions. Today it’s brain-dead patients. Tomorrow, it’s your grandmother with Alzheimer’s. Where does it end?

So what’s really behind this? Might this be because the cost of healthcare is so high. So if the financial burden of caring for patients in long-term care by making them “organ donors” might help, we should try it, right? It just takes us redefining death.

This is not a standalone issue or debate. Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. The moment a culture abandons Him, they embrace lies and death. I’m actually serious. It is that stark.

It is the difference between believing that all human life is sacred or considering humans to be a mere cog in a soulless, materialistic society.

The fight we are slogging through right now in our culture is whether there is such a thing as objective truth. Are there different genders or is it all fluid and subjective? Marriage can be anything that consensual adults say it is. Human life is only considered human life when we say it is. Death is what we say it is.

Is objective truth a reality or are we just basing our belief on norms fit for a particular moment in time which are subject to change. The way you answer that question will create your worldview.

Human beings can only have “inherent dignity” if there is such a thing as inherency and believe that something can exist as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute.

Humans can only have unalienable human rights if they emanate from something outside humanity’s reach.

Make no mistake, this is a dangerous and immoral attack on the sanctity of human life, driven by the self-serving motives of a powerful and unaccountable elite.