The
first half of my life I lived in a predominantly Christian culture. Of course,
not everyone was Christian by belief, but most people agreed with Christian
values. As a result, the foremost value that pervaded society was the sanctity of life: preserve all human
life.
We now live
in a predominantly pagan society. Again, not everyone would call themselves
pagans; it smacks too much of primitive religion, but who never-the-less
subscribe to pagan values. These values are arrived at by social consensus based
on current and convenient opinion, not on any fixed religious moral code.
This has
given rise to a change over the last half century from the Christian sanctity of life, to a quality of life ethic. A little thought
should reveal the dangers lurking in this idea. A person who has, or is
unlikely to have a suitable quality of life doesn’t have a life worth living.
But who is
to judge whether a quality of life is worth living? You and I provide the last
word in a democracy which lives by social consensus. For instance, a fetus obviously
has no quality of life, so can be discarded at will. In fact, the quality of unborn
life is practically nil, so a living human in the womb has no right to be called
a person.
Abortion
on demand is the first step down this road. A BC court’s recent rejection of the
law against assisted suicide has opened up the next two: assisted suicide and
euthanasia. The distance between them is very short. Ideally, you would try to hold
out a helping hand to someone ready to jump off a bridge, by persuading him his
life is worth living.
But are you
prepared to assist his suicide by a helping push because he considers his life not worth living? That is distasteful enough.
If you are, it may not be long before you give him a push because you consider his life not worth living. The
appearance is the same, but there is vast difference.
The first push
may questionably be called suicide, assisted by you, the second push is murder;
considered and acted upon. But in each case, you become the final judge of his quality of life and act upon it,
believing your personal judgment gives you the right to help or cause another
person’s death.
Even if you
don’t participate, your opinion with others of like mind is what shapes your
society. Is this what you want? If so, perhaps one day another person will consider
your life not worth living. You will
have little say in the outcome, because you have bought in to a nebulous quality of life basis of judgment.
Wouldn’t you
and others you love rather feel protected by a sanctity of life based culture, where every human life is
considered inviolable?
