Who Decides?
The great Pontificator quotes the great Robert George on issues of sex and abortion.
But even if George's ethical claims are valid, what is the point, ultimately? With the understanding I have of the State, I simply will not and can not trust it with outlawing private (though perhaps religiously-based) judgments on end-of-pregnancy or end-of-life procedures. Whether or not any or all artificial means to preserve, or end, life are valid, the claims of the State are always, categorically, invalid. The fetus, and the helpless and infirm - the lives in question - are not even members of civil society, only "parasites" on it (i.e., they consume without producing). An outside authority, the State, would place burdens on us to protect "life" as the state interprets it at the time.
The reality is, the life and death of human life, in their states of helplessness that are beyond the reach of the State, are the matter of families, an institution older than the State. A more libertarian state would stay away from the ethically "difficult" questions, leaving to families, not the State, whether an individual should continue to artificially live or die.
In a more just, Christian society, perhaps the State would better protect such helpless humans. But anyone looking for a Bush or a Clinton, or some ideal state Governor, to provide the right balance, is a fool. Politicians are dishonest bigots. That's why they are politicians: they are categorically incapable of discering right from wrong. To trust them with preserving life is to empower them to order death.
Don't trust the State, not on economics, not on morals, not on life/death issues, not on anything. Any Church or Sect that advocates such a thing is on a suicide course.
But even if George's ethical claims are valid, what is the point, ultimately? With the understanding I have of the State, I simply will not and can not trust it with outlawing private (though perhaps religiously-based) judgments on end-of-pregnancy or end-of-life procedures. Whether or not any or all artificial means to preserve, or end, life are valid, the claims of the State are always, categorically, invalid. The fetus, and the helpless and infirm - the lives in question - are not even members of civil society, only "parasites" on it (i.e., they consume without producing). An outside authority, the State, would place burdens on us to protect "life" as the state interprets it at the time.
The reality is, the life and death of human life, in their states of helplessness that are beyond the reach of the State, are the matter of families, an institution older than the State. A more libertarian state would stay away from the ethically "difficult" questions, leaving to families, not the State, whether an individual should continue to artificially live or die.
In a more just, Christian society, perhaps the State would better protect such helpless humans. But anyone looking for a Bush or a Clinton, or some ideal state Governor, to provide the right balance, is a fool. Politicians are dishonest bigots. That's why they are politicians: they are categorically incapable of discering right from wrong. To trust them with preserving life is to empower them to order death.
Don't trust the State, not on economics, not on morals, not on life/death issues, not on anything. Any Church or Sect that advocates such a thing is on a suicide course.
posted by Unknown at 10:02 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home