WATC…And We Must Speak for Those Who Cannot

Paul, in his sermon on Mars Hill to the philosophical crowd in Athens, declared that God is the Author, Sustainer, and King of human life.  If I’m breathing, it’s only because He gives me breath.  When I die, I die under the sovereignty of God.  Life is not mine to give or take, but God’s alone. 

If this is the case, then we as the Church must find ways to speak up for those who cannot.  There are people and groups in our culture who have already stripped the “personhood” from unborn children, but there is also a movement that seeks to take it from healthy, thriving infants as well.  But this shouldn’t shock us.  It’s the next natural step in the quality-of-life over sanctity-of-life culture.  The quality of my life should be protected above the right to life of another who is deemed to have a life of lesser quality.  In fact, many will claim that animals should be equal to, or even have priority over, human babies.

This comes from people like Peter Singer, professor of bioethics at Princeton University, Michael W. Fox, Vice President of the Humane Society, and Ingrid Newkirk, PETA’s President, among many others.  Here are some quotes:

If the fetus does not have the same claim to life as a person, it appears that the newborn baby does not either, and the life of a newborn baby is of less value to it than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee is to the nonhuman animal.  (Peter Singer)

There are some circumstances, for example, where the newborn baby is severely disabled and where the parents think that it’s better that child should not live, when killing the newborn baby is not at all wrong…not like killing the chimpanzee would be.  (Peter Singer)

The life of an ant and the life of my child should be accorded equal respect.  (Michael W. Fox)

There is no rational basis for saying that a human being has special rights.  A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy.  There’re all mammals.  (Ingrid Newkirk)

Now, as far-fetched as these things may sound, they are simply the logical conclusions of a naturalistic worldview.  It’s a worldview that discounts the supernatural, and holds that only the natural, or physical, world exists or matters.  A large number of our scienific community would say they hold to some kind of naturalistic worldview, at least in their professional capacity.  And these radical views above are the only logical conclusion to reach as a result.

If we truly believe that everything here is here by chance (i.e. we are merely the result of life originating by chance and mutating and evolving by chance), then we really have no moral obligation to anyone.  If the laws of natural selection are true, then life is a war and I must kill or be killed.  I must do whatever I need to in order to, first, ensure my survival, and second, enhance my life.  This may come at the expense of any other person, animal, or thing, because they are only here by chance. 

Luckily, the majority of those who claim this worldview have not taken it to it’s logical ends.  But some are beginning to.  And this doesn’t only call into question the right of children, born and unborn, to personhood and life, but also any other human being who is deemed to use more resources than he or she produces.  The question should become, if we really believe this, “Does he or she actively contribute to the society?”  If not, we should rid ourselves of their draining influence. 

But thankfully, many in this camp are inconsistently naturalistic – for now.  I don’t think it will remain this way.  I believe that there will be a growing divide in the coming years between those who understand that all human life is worthy of protection and those who would place their quality of life above the lives of others.  But we are the Church…and we will speak for those who cannot speak for themselves.