In the news last week MSN Now reported that two twin brothers, deaf from birth, learned that they were going blind, so they got official permission to be killed. They couldn't bear the thought of not hearing or seeing each other. One tweeter said, "The Culture of Death marches on."
I was amazed at the reactions in the comments. One said, "I believe in Pro-Choice in everything for Everybody!" The comment had hundreds of "likes" and one reply that said, "+ one million thumbs up". I'm thinking, "Really????"
So, how does that work? If someone exercises their "choice in everything for everybody" and executes the commenter and his/her family, was that good? Well, of course not! And why not? Well, the commenter didn't get his/her choice!
The ridiculous notion is that anyone can at any time choose ... death or whatever sin du jour or ... without infringing on anyone else. To that I say, "Nonsense!" Have you not heard? "No man is an island." The mother that chooses to execute her unborn baby contravened the baby's choice to live. The two brothers who chose euthanasia over life violated the choices of everyone who cared about them. There is no victimless crime ... or sin. Even the hidden sins have consequences that reach outside of oneself.
The bottom line, of course, is not "Pro-Choice in everything for Everybody", whether as the commenter intended or as it comes out when you think it through. The bottom line is who gets to choose. The lie "a woman should be allowed to choose what happens with her body" ignores the baby. The lie "porn is my own business" ignores any relationships and their choices. And all of it places ME at the center as if we are the ones who own our own bodies. When the Master of the Universe makes a choice, however, isn't it obvious whose choice should prevail? In our current culture of self-indulgence and death, apparently not.
2 comments:
The age old question of which is more humane, let someone live in agony or die with dignity? Not that this particular example would be defined as agony in my book. But that seemed to be the thrust of most of the comments for the article. It is a question chalk full of emotion and little true reason. Unfortunately, life doesn't seem to have the same value it used to, and then there's the lack of thinking things through clearly to their end.
Yes, it is indeed a question of the value of life (and not merely "quality of life"). Yes, it is indeed a question that will almost always be answered today from the emotions rather than the reason.
But I'm pretty sure you meant chock-full. :)
And while that would be an easy mistake and of little consequence, the serious consequences of the diminishing the value of life to "how I feel at the moment" will have serious repercussions.
Post a Comment