Thursday, March 31, 2005

Evolution, Environmentalism, Abortion, and Schiavo

Four topics that inspire a whole lot of controversy, isolated issues to many, but in my view, inseparable.
Let's work backwards:

Now I'll make an attempt (perhaps feeble) to tie all this together. If Evolutionists are correct, there truly is no reason for humans to hold themselves accountable to any higher moral code than that shared by animals. Any notion of a Creator who has dictated what is "right" and "wrong" summarily goes completely out the window. The environmentalists, then, are correct in assuming that humankind, being the biggest hindrance to Mother Earth's health, are expendable for the good of the Planet, and therefore attempts at artificially sustaining life are harmful to the Earth. Abortion establishes that "personhood" is a needed criteria for life to be considered valid, and paves the way for systemic extermination of "non-persons" who happen to pose a burden to "persons." And Terri Schiavo was the first openly public case of a post-birth "non-person" being legally eliminated to facilitate a better life for a "person." I realize that many may "poo-poo" the "slippery slope" argument that has been used against evolution, abortion, and euthanasia, but I think we're seeing how fast that slope can become a downward spiral. Things will get worse, I'm afraid, before they get better.

Remember that Nazi Germany declared Jews to be devoid of "personhood," and thereby perfect subjects to the experimentation of demented scientists and the exploits of power-mad militarians before their (relatively humane) extermination in Hitler's Final Solution. This isn't, in all honestly, more than an arm's reach away from where we stand now. If we can declare an incapacitated but otherwise healthy human being to be devoid of that magical quality we've defined as "personhood," only time and further desensitation need take place before we're willing to make that same declaration towards an entire class of citizens.

Monday, March 21, 2005

My take on Schiavo

I have posted numerous comments over on Wizbang!. I have repeated my problems with this case over and over again. They all boil down to a few really disturbing things:

There is absolutely no way that I would condone someone being kept on life support against their own or against their family's wishes. That decision, made daily by families all over the nation, is difficult at best, gut-wrenching at worst, especially when there is significant disagreement upon the best action. What I see in the Schiavo case, however, is not an emotional, illogical hope by Terri's family, but rather a desire to see whether anything can be done to help their daughter and sister. I have a huge problem with any postion that contends that her husband is her "family," because of his actions in abandoning Terri. Until there are more tests, we simply cannot know what level of functionality, if any, Terri can attain. Until there is more time to study her body and brain, we cannot know what state she is truly in. I think the designation of "permanent (or persistent--I've heard both) vegetative state" is an attempt to make more people eligible for euthanasia. I also have very deep personal convictions that insist that to cause death, whether by comissive or omissive action, is morally wrong, outside the realm of capital punishment (that's another debate entirely).

Please, search your heart. Look closely at the unbiased, established facts (not hearsay). Go through the events of Terri's illness, from the mysterious collapse at her home through all the legal wrangling, to today. Ask yourself whether Michael is truly acting in Terri's best interests. Perhaps most importantly, ask yourself not whether you would wish to live in Terri's condition, but whether you would consent to an estranged spouse making the decision of life or death on your behalf.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?