Where I stand: Choose LIFE!

{Welcome to readers of this week's Christian Carnival, hosted at Another Think. Please feel free to make yourself comfortable, and thanks for taking the time to stop by!}

How is it that in America today, we are having arguments - battles, even - about “right to die” and “right to life” issues? Why do cases like Terri Shiavo make national news and create storms of controversy? Why do cases like Mae Magouirk attract blogswarms, even when the initial information comes from a source with an admitted agenda? Why do people passionately defend or attack positions on abortion, partial birth abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and so on?

Recently, I posted in the comments at INDCJournal and exchanged a few comments with Bill, the owner of that site. I am going to use one of his remarks as a jumping off point for my discussion:

What I am "for" is rational distribution of resources - in this case yes, if someone is at an advanced age and has an untreatable deteriorating condition with a brain that's dissolved into mush - and they lack relatives that want and are able to pay for their care - it's very reasonable to let them go rather than artificially keeping their bodies alive.

Well, then, what happens in cases like Terri Schiavo's, where her family was desperate to take care of her, and yet the courts decided that it was "right" to starve and dehydrate her to death. What sources of information do you bring to bear on the case to make the decision that this person is

• of advanced age
• had an untreatable, deteriorating condition
• lacked relatives or resources to pay for their care

In addition, who is it that decides this "rational distribution of resources"? Assuming, for instance, that Michael Moore and George Soros were responsible, what if their decision was to force abortions on women, a la China? What if the people who made the decisions were Pat Buchannon and Jerry Fallwell, who chose to decide that every woman must carry their child - whether it was dead in the womb or not - to term? I am using wildly exaggerated examples here to make the point.

What if those people making the decision as to what is a rational distribution of resources were completely opposed to your most dearly held beliefs? What if they chose to willfully ignore your concerns and objections? How can you prevent that from happening to you? Why would it matter for you to try? What if that person who was making that decision had some sort of conflict of interest - an inheritance, perhaps, or a plain bias in favor of one side of the equation? How can you be certain that the decision was made rationally and without prejudice?

The basic point here is that I am one of the people who hold human life to be intrinsically valuable. Thus, the child severely handicapped by cerebral palsy or Down's syndrome or severe mental retardation, is equally valuable to a Michelangelo or a Pasteur. The adult struck down by Alzheimer’s, a stroke, or old age, is equally valuable to an Einstein or an MLK or a Churchill or a John Paul II. We are all made in the image of God, and His image is to be cherished and given respect, no matter how it manifests itself.

I refuse to let impersonal, unfeeling, uncaring "market forces" dictate the fate of human life and liberty. Our Founding Fathers didn't. And I refuse to believe that “enjoying” life and being “healthy and conscious” are the only - or the most important - things that give value to human life. If human consciousness makes us human, then I guess we’re not human when we’re asleep. And - I'll even narrow it - when we’re asleep and NOT dreaming. For all intents and purposes, except for the fact that we still have brain waves in that state of sleep, we’re not there. WE don't know the difference.

Is that reason enough for someone to take our life? Simply because we are not “conscious”?

But, but, but! If there’s (assumed) pain, or a person can’t move his body, or a woman can’t talk, or a child who will never grow healthy and strong and bright.... What’s left?

How about things like:

• Courage
• Diligence
• Perseverance
• Duty
• Determination
• Patience
• Humility
• Compassion
• Love
• Patience
• Kindness
• Goodness
• Self-control

You know, the kind of things that this country was founded on. The kind of things we inherited and should cherish from our Judeo-Christian heritage.

Oh, and also, one other small thing: JOY!

I understand there is a time to let go. But if there is a shadow of doubt, whether as to the desires of the afflicted or the possibility of recovery (and let's not, at this moment, go try to define that - you know the context of my statements), I am obligated to err on the side of life.

I believe that you should fight to preserve life... Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Yes. There is a time to let go. I understand that. But I will do my best to push that time back.

Here I stand; I can do no other.

Comments

[Kender]

1.

Great post R'Cat. This has inspired my upcoming post.

[jpe]

2.

Why? It's important stuff, y'know?

(I responded with lots at Betsy's page re: college. If you ever want an interlocutor that's utterly convinced that going to good, secular schools provede far superior experiences to schools that match one's pre-existing worldview, that'd be me)

[Romeocat]

3.

jpe, what is "important stuff"? What is your point? Is there any sort of invitation to a conversation in your response?

And yes, thank you, I saw your response at Betsy's page. Telling me about it is what e-mail is for.

--- Updated, and for the discussion at Besty's page (I might as well *shrug*), it's over here.

--- R'cat

[Crystal Clear]

4.

Nice job...If one has to eloquently explain this in 2005 as you have done...I wonder what the heck is also going to need to be explained by my sons in another 25-30 years....

[Michael]

5.

Great post, I'm also am against the death penalty (not popular among my friends). I would rather see VERY hard life in a prison over simply facing death.