3 posts tagged “peter singer”

From the article "European Court agrees to hear chimp's plea for human rights":

His name is Matthew, he is 26 years old, and his supporters hope to take his case to the European Court of Human Rights.

But he won't be able to give evidence on his own behalf  -  since he is a chimpanzee. Animal rights activists led by British teacher Paula Stibbe are fighting to have Matthew legally declared a 'person' so she can be appointed as his guardian if the bankrupt animal sanctuary where he lives in Vienna is forced to close...

...Miss Stibbe, who is from Brighton but has lived in Vienna for several years, says she is not trying to get the chimp declared a human, just a person.

A seemingly good idea, if not rather comical, for a seemingly good cause.  I hate to see animals used and abused.  But the attempt to declare an animal a person- not a good idea, not comical, and, in fact, it's quite ominous. 

It is becoming an accepted idea, as evidenced by those who believe that even animals can be people, that there is a difference between a person and a human.  So, with this reasoning, 'human being' doesn't automatically mean 'person', and, therefore, not every human being is afforded automatic human rights for simply being human, unlike 'persons', including the right to life. 

This is what some animal rights activist such as Peter Singer want, for animals to be acknowledged as persons, while at the same time denying the existence of personhood for some people, such as the fetus, infants, and children and adults with profound cognitive disabilities.

Here's an example of his thinking from the story "An Ethical Man":

"'HIV research using chimps has not been very helpful as they don't seem to get the disease in the same way humans do,' Singer explains. 'So I don't think it's right and it's causing a lot of suffering and distress to beings who are sensitive animals--social animals who should be living in social groups and who suffer being in isolation and confined and that's wrong. If we need beings very like us to do this on, we should perhaps [turn to] the families of people who tragically have been brain-damaged and have no hope of recovery from persistent vegetative state who are totally beyond suffering because they are beyond consciousness."
. 

Does life have absolute value simply because it is human?

We have to answer that question.  We have to.  We have to.

We have to realize that bioethicists today, SAY NO.  We have to become educated, at the very least aware, of what the consequences have been and will be of them saying no!  We have to.

What do we say, Christ followers?  How do we answer this question?  A simple yes or no will suffice- for now.  It's a start. 

Most of us are already aware when we listen to God and let Him put His Truth in our hearts that the once taken for granted sanctity of human life is no longer a given, we will grieve for the life that has been lost, for the lives that will be lost, and for what our part has been.  And it will hurt.

I know, believe me, I know, it's hard to look at what's happening.  It makes us have to do all that 'thinking'.  I know it's 'uncomfortable' when we seek God's Truth in this matter because we have to 'feel stuff'.  We might offend people, even our friends, and be contraversial.  We might even be called to speak out, make a stand. 

You don't have to watch all of these videos.  They are of a lecture given by Wesley Smith at Trinity Law School on the value of human life and what is happening in the field of ethics today.  Watching all four will take 2 hours total of your time.  So, you don't have to watch all of both videos. 

But you do have to answer the question- Does life have absolute value simply because it is human?  You have to.

What would the world be like without Down syndrome?  I don't know.  What would the world like without the people who have Down syndrome living in it?  How have they contributed to society?  I can't say.

I can say how my life personally has been affected by people with Downs.  Most of the people I know personally who have had Down syndrome and I have made friends.  As with all friendships, some of these friendships came easily and others took a lot of work.  Either way, through our friendships, I learned things like how to trust people who said they loved me, and I learned that's it's really okay to laugh and be silly sometimes.  Something I really needed to learn.

I wonder why it matters.  I wonder why it matters what life would be like without Down syndrome and what life would be like without people who have Down syndrome.  I wonder why it matters what people with Down syndrome have contributed to society?

No one has ever looked at me, save perhaps my father in moments of frustration and myself in moments of despair, and pondered the question, "What does Julie contribute?"  "What good does her 'kind' do?" 

Yet, such questions come up when making a case for life.  When deciding to terminate a pregnancy when tests show the child will have developmental disabilities or when deciding, as it is becoming legal here in the west, to euthanize an infant with a severe disability or illness.  Those of us defending us these children and their right to life are quick to give our western answers which base their right to existence on what they can contribute to society.  What they can 'do' and 'give'.  These are action verbs, if I remember my 4th grade grammar.

Instead, though, I wonder if our arguments for the right to exist shouldn't be based on being verbs.  If we shouldn't understand for ourselves first, before we 'preach' to others, that our right to exist, all of ours, is based on who we are.  Or even that we are.

Peter Singer and other such 'ethicists', seem to be bypassing the argument of what one can contribute to society, anyway.  They are attacking directly one's personhood.  They are defining personhood based on whether or not one is aware of his existence and mortality.

So, they declare that infants, all infants, healthy or not, people with severe or profound cognitive disabilities, those in the advanced stages of Alzheimer's, etc., though perhaps human, aren't really a  person.  Therefore, if the human is not really a person, euthanasia is very much ethical.

Also, for parents and doctors who really care about children born or who will be born with severe disabilities or illness, they are not so much concerned with what the child can contribute but with the child's potential suffering.  They have feelings of hopelessness, helplessness, despair, fear of the unknown, and guilt.  In their grief over their child's potential suffering, parents can be swayed by the thought that the child will be better off if they let him/her die by the hand of their trusted doctor.

How do we help those parents make a choice for life?  I'm asking because I don't know.  While we passionately know that the child has a right to exist, how do we lovingly convey to parents that their child is better off alive and suffering than dead and at peace?

Is the child better off suffering than dead?  Who are we to decide that the child must suffer?  Yet, who are we to decide that death at the hands of doctors is the answer to suffering?  

I think we should put down our protest signs, step out of the marching lines, with all due respect to the pro-life activists who have done much for the cause of life, and find a way to come along side suffering parents.  Help them find hope because there is hope in the midst of suffering.  Help them by enjoying and appreciating their child for who he/she is.

I think we should come along side those with disabilities and illness.  It is through relationship with them that we will come to understand that most of their suffering does not come from their disability or illness.  But rather their reception from the rest of society of prejudice, rejection, untold amounts of abuses, and the suspicion and judgment by some of us of their very existence.