Saturday, October 25, 2014

Where's the Logic in Helping Ebola Victims? And What Brittany Has to Do With It.

I'm not really sure why people are making such a big deal about Ebola.

Why should we even care what happens to Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea?  Do these countries have anything to offer the rest of the world?

They are bottom-of-the-world poor.  They are war-torn.  Their natural resources have already been pillaged.

Even without Ebola, how long would these people even live?  Like 50 years?  Would they even have any quality of living anyway?  No electricity, no running water, very little education.  Who would even want to live in those circumstances?

Couldn't this just be nature's way of natural selection?  Don't we already have a problem with overpopulation in this world?

Why not just seal up the borders and let nature take its course?  Why should we give our hard-earned money, or our government's money, to this cause?  We've got our own problems in our own country. We've got our own poor, our own sick.  Why should we sacrifice our best doctors?

They seem to have a death wish anyway.  They already have murdered health workers and ravaged Ebola clinics.

What about just shipping over lethal drugs that would allow these people to put an end to their misery?  Most of them are going to die soon anyway, so this would allow them to die peacefully, on their own terms, instead of dying a horrific death.

Wouldn't that be a logical conclusion?

Really, it would just be like Brittany Maynard.  I mean, she's a hero, isn't she?  She is so brave to choose to end her life instead of living through suffering.

We are a schizophrenic society, my friends.  Americans would tar and feather me for the notion of "peacefully exterminating" west Africans, and yet the media darling right now is a woman who is choosing "peaceful extermination."

Do we not realize that the line between the two is paper thin?

How did we get here?  And is it really possible we could get there?  Of course we could.

Listen, I can understand why non-Christians are frustrated with Christians who declare that Brittany should not end her life because God says so.  That would be like my neighbor telling me that the fairy in her backyard told her I shouldn't go to the store today.

Uhhh.....thanks for nothing, crazy person.

If you don't believe God exists, then you could care less what He thinks.  Point taken.

So instead, let's try this:

Brittany should not end her life because the people in Liberia deserve to live.  And this is why those two statements cannot be separated.

Secular worldview wants us to believe that we are nothing but evolved chemicals.  Human life is an accident.  There is no purpose to it other than what we pretend is purpose.  There is nothing that makes humans more inherently valuable than any other type of life.  There are no moral absolutes. Morality is created by the needs of society and is constantly fluctuating.

"Morality is a collective illusion of humankind put in place by our genes in order to make us good cooperators."  (Evolutionary psychologist Michael Ruse)

Morality--good, evil, love, hatred--is an illusion.  Human life really means nothing.

In this worldview, assisted suicide makes absolute sense.  We put our dogs down when they are sick, don't we?  So if Brittany is just an evolved animal, why can't she be put down?  If there is no transcendent purpose to her life, if she does not have a soul, and if life is just about eking out as much pleasure and happiness as possible, then there would be absolutely no reason for her to choose to live a life of extreme suffering.

But this is the problem:

Once we give one human the authority to choose the death of a human (even oneself), then we are opening the door for anyone to choose the death of anyone for any multitude of reasons.

If you don't think that is possible, then just think about what is happening in women's wombs all over the world.  And why then would philosophers say things like this:

"Pragmatist philosopher Richard Rorty has seriously suggested that rich nations may end up engaging in 'economic triage' against poor nations...The idea that human rights are universal, Rorty notes, was a completely novel concept ushered in by Christianity...Because of Darwin, Rorty notes, we no longer accept creation.  And therefore we no longer need to maintain that everyone who is biologically human has equal dignity.  We are free to revert to the pre-Christian attitude that only certain groups qualify for human rights."  (Nancy Pearcey, Saving Leonardo)

And that, my friends, is how choosing euthanasia for our society would eventually lead to government-sponsored genocide.

Let me assure you of this:  I have the utmost compassion for Brittany.  Her story brings me to tears. Why God would allow such a thing is a discussion for another day.  But I cannot, and will not, concede that it is morally acceptable for her to take her own life.

The Christian worldview tells me that God is the ultimate authority over His creation.  Man was created by God in God's image.  This means that we have a soul (an immaterial and unseen aspect to our existence that goes beyond our physical bodies); we have ability to reason, think, create, and imagine.

Human life is inherently valuable, in whatever form, whether unborn, suffering, orphaned, handicapped, Muslim, Hindu, poor, rich, homosexual, American, or African.
It is morally unacceptable for anyone other than God to take a life in any form for any reason.

This is why I am staunchly pro-life.  This is why I am anti-euthanasia.  This is why I am anti-slavery. This is why I am living in Africa.  This is why I believe we need to be doing everything and anything we can to help our fellow humans in Liberia.

But isn't Brittany's decision a personal choice?  Why should it affect me?  Why should I care?

This is why I care.  This quote is about abortion, but euthanasia can easily be substituted:

"Liberals sometimes say, 'If you're against abortion, don't have one.  But don't impose your views on others.'  At first, that might sound fair.  But what liberals fail to understand is that every social practice rests on certain assumptions of what the world is like--on a worldview.  When a society accepts the practice, it absorbs the worldview that justifies it.  That's why abortion is not merely a matter of private individuals making private choices.  It is about deciding which worldview will shape our communal life together." (Nancy Pearcey)

If you don't believe in God, and you believe that Brittany should be allowed to end her life, I won't throw God into the discussion.  But be consistent in your worldview.  If Brittany has the right to choose her death, then we don't have any moral obligation to help Ebola victims.

Worldviews have consequences.  Know why you believe what you believe.  And be consistent about it.

So if you accuse me of being cold-hearted, or uncompassionate, or cruel when I say that Brittany should die naturally, just know that it's because I believe in the God-given, sacred value of life.  And that's why I care about Ebola victims.

Post a Comment