CHEAP LIFE
I witnessed something very disturbing on ABC’s news magazine Nightline on Wednesday night. In light of the nomination hearings for judge Samuel Alito in the Senate, ABC thought it appropriate (considering the strong fear by liberals that Alito will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade) to do a spotlight report on a medical doctor in Arkansas who runs an abortion clinic. His name is Dr. William Harrison. He is 70 years old and has been in the field of obstetrics and gynecology since the early 1960’s. According to Dr. Harrison, he had a “career transforming” experience with a patient who believed she had a tumor in her belly. When the woman was told she was actually pregnant she reportedly told the doctor she had hoped that it was cancer. This was apparently a watershed moment for the doctor and since that time he has specialized almost entirely in the performing of abortions – to the tune of some 10,000 over the course of his career.
This in and of itself was not what disturbed me. What disturbed me (actually it scared me nearly out of my wits) was to hear what this doctor stated – quite plainly – as the ABC correspondent interviewed him on camera. Dr. Harrison boldly stated, “I consider the mother’s life to be much more important than that little blob of tissue….” And when the correspondent challenged him with the data that at 20 days the heart is beating and at 40 days there are recordable brain waves, he replied that he was fine with killing life at this stage and had no moral qualms about it. As a matter of fact, along with the clear acknowledgment that human life begins at conception, he stated that his career has been “very emotionally satisfying,” because he has helped so many young women “regain control of their lives.”
While I appreciate Dr. Harrison’s candor, it truly does frighten me to no end as I see where the logical conclusions of this ideology lie. (And this is the ideology of the rabid pro-abortion activists who froth at the mouth when even the slightest restriction to abortion is suggested.) This man, after recognizing this “blob of tissue” as a human life, has set himself up as the arbitrator of which life is worthy of continuing and under what circumstances it is permissible to take a human life. By what arbitrary standard does he arrive at his conclusions? He comes to these conclusions based on his own personal convictions and logical reasoning, all of which is heavily influenced by his strong emotional response to the perceived crises in the lives of his patients. This is just one of the outcomes of the relativistic attempt to have morality and ethics without reference to a transcendent, objective standard. This ideology breeds a society wherein, as stated in the book of Judges in the Bible, “Everyone [does] what is right in his own eyes.” Once this concept has been embraced, it is difficult to determine where the stopping point is. Where does one draw the line? If a fertilized egg is recognized as a human being, but it’s alright to kill it; then what other human beings is it permissible to terminate? We’ve already seen the push for physician-assisted suicide, and we have not yet forgotten the fiasco with Terri Schiavo in Florida last year. There have even been stories of failed abortions resulting in live delivery where the newborn baby is left to die on a cold metal tray. Last I checked, that was called infanticide.
So how doe we, as a society, close Pandora’s Box? How to we rescue ourselves from this moral relativism? The key is recognizing that man is not the measure of all things. Mankind is responsible to a higher authority than himself. The State is not the giver of life, nor the provider of meaning in life. The Founding Fathers recognized this when they penned the words that all men are “endowed by their Creator” with certain, unalienable rights. These rights were given by a Creator, not the State; the State merely recognized and affirmed those rights. Until we again recognize this America will continue in its slide of moral decay. Today we may kill the unborn and those who wish to die. We may also allow those to die who have no voice to object. But one day we ourselves may be the one whose life has been determined unworthy of continuing. Who will speak for us then if we don’t speak out now? And what judgment will we face for our cheap view of life?
This in and of itself was not what disturbed me. What disturbed me (actually it scared me nearly out of my wits) was to hear what this doctor stated – quite plainly – as the ABC correspondent interviewed him on camera. Dr. Harrison boldly stated, “I consider the mother’s life to be much more important than that little blob of tissue….” And when the correspondent challenged him with the data that at 20 days the heart is beating and at 40 days there are recordable brain waves, he replied that he was fine with killing life at this stage and had no moral qualms about it. As a matter of fact, along with the clear acknowledgment that human life begins at conception, he stated that his career has been “very emotionally satisfying,” because he has helped so many young women “regain control of their lives.”
While I appreciate Dr. Harrison’s candor, it truly does frighten me to no end as I see where the logical conclusions of this ideology lie. (And this is the ideology of the rabid pro-abortion activists who froth at the mouth when even the slightest restriction to abortion is suggested.) This man, after recognizing this “blob of tissue” as a human life, has set himself up as the arbitrator of which life is worthy of continuing and under what circumstances it is permissible to take a human life. By what arbitrary standard does he arrive at his conclusions? He comes to these conclusions based on his own personal convictions and logical reasoning, all of which is heavily influenced by his strong emotional response to the perceived crises in the lives of his patients. This is just one of the outcomes of the relativistic attempt to have morality and ethics without reference to a transcendent, objective standard. This ideology breeds a society wherein, as stated in the book of Judges in the Bible, “Everyone [does] what is right in his own eyes.” Once this concept has been embraced, it is difficult to determine where the stopping point is. Where does one draw the line? If a fertilized egg is recognized as a human being, but it’s alright to kill it; then what other human beings is it permissible to terminate? We’ve already seen the push for physician-assisted suicide, and we have not yet forgotten the fiasco with Terri Schiavo in Florida last year. There have even been stories of failed abortions resulting in live delivery where the newborn baby is left to die on a cold metal tray. Last I checked, that was called infanticide.
So how doe we, as a society, close Pandora’s Box? How to we rescue ourselves from this moral relativism? The key is recognizing that man is not the measure of all things. Mankind is responsible to a higher authority than himself. The State is not the giver of life, nor the provider of meaning in life. The Founding Fathers recognized this when they penned the words that all men are “endowed by their Creator” with certain, unalienable rights. These rights were given by a Creator, not the State; the State merely recognized and affirmed those rights. Until we again recognize this America will continue in its slide of moral decay. Today we may kill the unborn and those who wish to die. We may also allow those to die who have no voice to object. But one day we ourselves may be the one whose life has been determined unworthy of continuing. Who will speak for us then if we don’t speak out now? And what judgment will we face for our cheap view of life?
posted by Jim V. | 10:49 AM
1 Comments:
Maybe Dr. Harrison can extend his practice of helping women “regain control of their lives” by killing particularly troublesome and demanding toddlers (and husbands) too.
Post a Comment
<< Home