Only God can play God
Does the government have to right to decide who lives and who dies? Does the government have the right to decide who is useful and who is not? Does the government have the right to decide who will make better use of universal healthcare dollars? Does the government have the right to play God? (Originally published: 5/23/2018)
Sadly, it seems in many countries, including the United States, they can and do. The most recent case is in England where the parents of a 23-month-old baby boy were ordered to disconnect him from life support because the English government has decided he wasn’t worth the resources it would take to support him. Yes, Alfie Evans had a rare disease that left him with very limited brain function. Yes, he was probably going to die anyway. Yes, it was taking resources that could be used for others. But that doesn’t make it right. They wouldn’t even let his parents take him home to die there.
What makes this case even sadder is it didn’t have to end this way. The Italian government offered to fly Alfie to Rome where he was to be placed into a Vatican affiliated hospital at no charge to the family. But the British government wouldn’t allow it. Instead, they would rather play God. They would rather be the ones who decide who lives and who dies. This is what the world we live in has come to, our lives are no longer our own but we belong to the government.
This leads to an even bigger question: Who should draw the line as to who lives and who dies? We are already seeing abortions being performed where the baby is determined to have a genetic disorder or perhaps may have Downs syndrome or autism. We are seeing cases where the elderly are being told their quality of life is declining so much they should consider euthanasia. Again, who draws the line? Will it come to a point where it will be the government who decides anyone who is of a certain race is not worthy of living? Will it come to a point where the government will decide that only people with an IQ over a certain number will be allowed to have children? Will the government decide that only babies with blonde hair and blue eyes will be allowed to be born, go to school, be fed? It may already be at that point.
Hundreds of dead newborn girls have been found dumped in garbage piles in Pakistan over the last year amid a cultural preference for boys, it has emerged.
A total of 345 babies have been found dead in refuse heaps in Karachi, Pakistan’s most populous city, since the beginning of 2017 with 99 per cent of them found to be girls, according to local reports. – Daily Mail
Oh wait, this has already happened. How soon we forget. Back in the early 20th century, it was called Eugenics. One of the founders of the Eugenics movement was a woman named Margaret Sanger. Yes, this is the same Margaret Sanger who was instrumental in founding Planned Parenthood.
Planned Parenthood traces its roots back to nurse, educator and founder Margaret Sanger — whose activism changed the world. Sanger had the revolutionary idea that women should control their own bodies — and thus their own destinies. – History of Planned Parenthood
No matter what they try to tell you, Planned Parenthood is in the business of abortion, aka killing unborn children. Reading some of the writings of Sanger one will discover all sorts of interesting reasons why we need to be able to abort babies. Here is just one:
There is but one practical and feasible program in handling the great problem of the feeble minded That IS, as the best authorities are agreed to prevent the birth of those who would transmit imbecility to their descendants” – The Pivot of Civilization Chapter 4 “The Fertility of the Feeble-Minded.”
And this is what is happening today. Picking and choosing who lives and who dies based on someone’s (more increasingly the government) idea of what the perfect human should be. The proponents of these policies have been very careful to disguise them by changing the language used. By changing the terms, they have changed the perception of most people. Favoring abortion isn’t pro-death but pro-choice, an unborn baby isn’t a child, it’s a fetus, killing the infirm is an end of life comfort measures or a person with no other exit strategy. The newest term used by the judge in the Alfie Evans case mentioned above was if they left Alfie on the ventilator it would compromise his “future dignity”. Call it anything but what it really is.
Elsewhere in England, there was another little boy born last month, to the Royal Family. What would the government have done if he had been born with the same genetic disease as Alfie? Would his parents have been ordered to remove him from life support? Or would he have been allowed to live? Would he have been a special case where it would be decided that he was different and not a drain on the healthcare system in England? Not to wish something like this to happen to anyone but it must make one wonder.
Where else can this lead? What if someone with political clout has a family member who needs a new heart and one of your elderly parents has one that is a perfect match, can they decide your parent should give it up? What if your parent or child is in a car accident and has a 50/50 chance to live, can they make the decision then? What if your children decide you are too much of a burden to take care of and they sure could use the money you have built up over the years, can they decide you are incompetent and have you euthanized? We convince ourselves this won’t happen and there will be safeguards, but the door has already been opened.
Only God can play God. If you don’t believe in God that’s fine, but do you want someone else making life choices for you or your loved ones? Like the Government?