I was giving a talk to a bunch of eleventh graders once, and was accused of being 'judgmental', possibly the harshest criticism the poor brainwashed kid could think of.
So, I gave them the Beethoven story...trite and old hat to us, but quite a bit of eye-opening revelation to them and they seemed a bit shocked to be told after they had voted to kill him.
Then I gave them the story of a young woman in an abusive marriage that is about to end, with a family history of epilepsy and mental instability, with no qualifications or money who is pregnant.
I asked them to vote by a show of hands whether they thought abortion should be legal for women in such dire straights.
In both cases they voted almost unanimously for abortion.
I said, "Well, you've just told me that I would have been better off dead. But I personally beg to differ."
People with my kind of political and social beliefs are regularly (and quite tiresomely) accused of judgmentalism. It is, in our culture that extolls license and complete social anarchy, the worst sin.
But I wonder. The pro-lifers say to someone disabled, socially "underprivileged", poor, sick, old or unhappy, "I think you should be allowed to live, to carry on, to give life a try and see what you can make of it".
The abortionists and euthanists say to someone, who has not yet had a first breath or a first glimpse of his mother's face or a first taste of human kindness, "You should be dead, your life has no value."
I wonder, then, who is "judgmental"?
During a debate on Baroness Masham’s amendment which was aimed at eliminating disability as a specific ground for abortion, Baroness Meacher (pictured) argued that it would have been in the “best interests” of two children she knew with cerebral palsy to have been aborted.
She said:
“I want to speak about the rights of the child. The Mental Capacity Act refers to the child having capacity; if they do not have capacity, it is important for the professionals to consider their best interests. If we could hold to that, we would be doing pretty well.
“I happen to know two tiny children who were born at 25 weeks with very severe cerebral palsy. They were natural births. Those two children cannot breathe naturally; they have to be helped to breathe. They will never talk. They lie on their backs and can do nothing. My belief is that there are children, born at those very early ages, who are not viable people. It would be in their best interests to have been aborted.
“There rests my case. We need to consider the best interests of these babies.”
I'm reminded of a story regarding Vlad Tepes, one of the princes of Romania. I don't know if it's true or not, but it seems consistent with other tales. Apparently what Vlad did was summon all the beggars and such who didn't work, but wanted money and food, and invited them to a banquet. After they ate their fill, Vlad asked them "What else do you desire? Do you want to be without cares, lacking nothing in this world?". When they said this was what they wanted, Vlad ordered the banquet hall boarded up and set on fire. No beggars survived.
ReplyDeleteTo place a value on life without which life is "not worth living" is to take an even more brutal view than Vlad Tepes.
Of course, Chesterton said it better, "let all the babies be born, then we can drown the ones we don't like", while Lewis took a more friendly turn in saying "those that live may yet have good fortune, but the dead are all dead alike".
But, of course, what do two of the greatest Christian writers of the 20th century know that is better than the wisdom of 11th graders?
"They lie on their backs and can do nothing."
ReplyDeleteI disagree stringently. If they have life, breath they can pray, they can suffer and they can sacrifice.
What more can a contemplative religious do?
It is enough.
they can receive and experience love and care too.
ReplyDeleteMore important than most people imagine.
as soon as I read that woman's horrible rant, I realized what she was saying:
"Yeah, but what can they do for me?"