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.
Let's work backwards:
- Terri Schiavo was murdered this morning. Actually that's not accurate. The act that caused her death was committed some time ago, with the blessing of the Florida and United States judiciary. She did nothing to deserve to be slowly killed over the past two weeks. She simply found herself at the mercy of those who both used her for personal gain and at the same time declared her to be no longer a person. We were told that she was in a "persistent vegetative state," a term that was distorted repeatedly as she was called "brain dead." We were told that she was on "life support," a term that conjures up ventilators and heart-lung machines, not the simple feeding tube upon which multitudes of healthy Americans (and one notable Pope) depend daily. We were told that she would be blissfully unaware of what was happening to her, a fact that was soundly refuted when she was being administered morphine to curb the excruciating pain of dehydration and starvation. And, perhaps worst of all, we were told that she didn't want to live, a vicious lie in light of her fight for life over two weeks without nourishment or hydration. Her sole crime against humanity was falling into a category through no fault of her own that left her open to be declared a "non-person."
- In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court of the United States made abortion a legal act, exempt from any restrictions imposed by states. In effect, they declared that the living human being inside a pregnant woman was not protected by the Constitutional guarantee of the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. What they accomplished, perhaps unwittingly, was dictating that a human being who was dependent upon another person for survival was devoid of "personhood," and as such could be considered a nuisance and exterminated like a cockroach.
- Environmentalists argue that humankind has no more right to exist than any living thing on planet Earth. An extrapolation of this logic defines us as a parasite on a fragile planet. As such, we are not only to do nothing that harms the environment, but also to ensure that we don't put our own needs for life over those needs shared by our "cohabitants" on the planet. We should see ourselves as no more entitled to life than the lowest member of the animal kingdom.
- Evolutionists argue that all life on earth descended from a common ancestor. This strips mankind of any basis for holding a higher valuation for human life than he holds for animal or plant life. This theory, of course plays well into the hands of the environmental movement. It also, however, undermines any basis for morality, as we're just a higher form of animal. If animals live by a rule of "survival of the fittest," there's no moral reason for us not to, and any deviation is a restriction on our freedoms as individual creatures.
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.
// posted by Jamie @ 3/31/2005 11:24:00 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
You don't understand the basic principles of any of the three topics you just spoke about. Environmentalists do NOT believe all creatures are equal, they feel that as the most powerful creatures we should protect the others. Evolutionists do NOT feel that we are animals because we descended from a common ancestor. They feel that evolution has made humans completely distinct and seperate from all other creatures. Finally, the idea behind abortion is that the human fetus is no more a person than a finger or a nose. It is part of a human, but it is not a person because it cannot think and it will die when seperated from the rest of the body. Please take the time to learn the facts before you go spreading ignorance. I smell a Republican.
# posted by 
: 1:40 PM
: 1:40 PM
My dear, bold, anonymous friend:
Perhaps you allude to the roots of the environmentalist and evolutionist movements. In that vein you would have a fine thread of basis for your statements about those categories. The first environmentalists were those who believed that man's standing was above God's other creations and that he was given dominion over all the world as both beneficiary and steward of all the world holds. Darwin himself wrote much more as an advocate for intelligent design rather than random evolution, and supported that the path from single-celled organisms to the obviously superior lifeform of mankind was a testament to the craftiness and might of the creator--not a proof of that creator's nonexistance. Sadly, both of those views have been cast by the wayside.
The modern forms of the environmental movement have taken a radically different slant, however. Do a search for "PETA quotes" and look at how the leaders of that group (and several others as the Sierra Club, Earth First!, etc.) feel about humans' place on earth. This is simply an extension of the evolutionist's mantra that all life on earth share a common ancestor.
As to your statement regarding the "idea behind abortion," the very thing you claim as the root of the debate is the exact point I made--that an establishment of "personhood" is the crux of the issue. Were the fetus just another part of the body, abortion wouldn't be considered. After all, how many people do you know who have elective amputations? The fact that the fetus will become a person is both the reason abortion is desired and the reason it is an unacceptable practice.
I offer you a cordial invitation to educate me on the "facts" that you are privy to, because the entire content of your post served to expose your own ignorance of the issues and their origins.
Finally, I could care less what you think you "smell." I make no bones about being a conservative. I believe that less government is better government and that belief leads me more often than not to the Republican party's position. I am, however, much more guided by logic and reason than by either party's talking points.
Post a Comment
Perhaps you allude to the roots of the environmentalist and evolutionist movements. In that vein you would have a fine thread of basis for your statements about those categories. The first environmentalists were those who believed that man's standing was above God's other creations and that he was given dominion over all the world as both beneficiary and steward of all the world holds. Darwin himself wrote much more as an advocate for intelligent design rather than random evolution, and supported that the path from single-celled organisms to the obviously superior lifeform of mankind was a testament to the craftiness and might of the creator--not a proof of that creator's nonexistance. Sadly, both of those views have been cast by the wayside.
The modern forms of the environmental movement have taken a radically different slant, however. Do a search for "PETA quotes" and look at how the leaders of that group (and several others as the Sierra Club, Earth First!, etc.) feel about humans' place on earth. This is simply an extension of the evolutionist's mantra that all life on earth share a common ancestor.
As to your statement regarding the "idea behind abortion," the very thing you claim as the root of the debate is the exact point I made--that an establishment of "personhood" is the crux of the issue. Were the fetus just another part of the body, abortion wouldn't be considered. After all, how many people do you know who have elective amputations? The fact that the fetus will become a person is both the reason abortion is desired and the reason it is an unacceptable practice.
I offer you a cordial invitation to educate me on the "facts" that you are privy to, because the entire content of your post served to expose your own ignorance of the issues and their origins.
Finally, I could care less what you think you "smell." I make no bones about being a conservative. I believe that less government is better government and that belief leads me more often than not to the Republican party's position. I am, however, much more guided by logic and reason than by either party's talking points.
<< Home
