Thanks to social media I am exposed to far more provocative thought today then the past, when I could isolate myself within a rather small community of like-minded individuals, brought together with a common purpose, and with mostly shared values. Now, thanks to Facebook, I see all these posters created by individuals or groups, and forwarded by many who appear to put little thought into the real effect of the choices proposed.
I’ve written in the past on how we as a society have cheapened the value of life to the point we are seeing significant increases in casual violence, gun use, and murder, not only in the inner cities but even the formally safe places like the rural country side. Even the ideas of worship and the concept of a God are now under attack by those who believe there can be no such deity, and our very existence is simply a matter of happenstance.
When you couple these two factors I can only shake my head at the convoluted morality we are attempting to perpetrate on this nation all for the sake of political supremacy. We have moved from a society that placed great value in life, as a God-given right, to one where the value of life is tossed around like a political football. We argue the pre-born have no rights, or the right of the mother is supreme and she has the power to terminate that life. We question the right of the state to end the life of a convicted murder, yet at the same time we argue for the right of the ill to commit suicide. It seems to me we are on a slippery slope as we abandon the basis for a common morality regarding life and choose instead to fragment our understanding and set various values for life.
Life has no value until the person is born, and only then must it be protected from gun violence through the elimination of legal gun ownership. (abortion and gun control) These are the convoluted talking points from HRC, the democratic candidate for President.
If a human is to be born with handicaps, the mother must have the right to end all hope of survival for it is in the unborn infant’s best interest to do so, and this is okay since life before birth has no value. (partial birth abortion) Those who advocate for this suggest that life for all concerned will be better. This is essentially the argument Margret Sanger made with the creation of Planned Parenthood and her belief in eugenics.
If a person has a life threatening disease and does not want to endure the pain or infirmity that is likely to come, they must have the right to end their life and the state has an obligation to help them. (assisted suicide) Of course those who encourage this say there will not be an increase in the death rate, only the dignity of those deaths. What a small transition it will be for the state to decide who should live and who should die.
What a slippery slope we have set ourselves on since the Supreme Court ruled that the state must sanction the belief a doctor and patient had the final authority on continuing or ending a pregnancy in the first trimester in their land mark decision in Roe v Wade, and we play god with the value of life.