 |
| Jack Kevorkian, “Dr. Death,” and abortionist Kermit Gosnell |
By Mike Schouten
Editor’s note. This is excerpted from a post at weneedalaw.ca.
Assisted suicide can be paralleled to drug-induced abortions, where a doctor prescribes pills that the patient ingests to accomplish their own goal of ending life.
Euthanasia, on the other hand, can be compared to surgical abortion, where a doctor is called upon to take active measures to end a life. In cases of both assisted suicide and drug-induced abortion, if a patients’ self-administered attempt fails, a doctor may be called upon the finish the job.Being pro-life means, by definition, being for life.
The same groups that recognize the value of children in the womb are those who recognize the value of the elderly, the terminally ill, and all human life. With euthanasia and assisted suicide now accepted in Canada as additional ways to eliminate inconvenience and suffering, it is worth considering how interconnected the issues of abortion and euthanasia are.
In both abortion and euthanasia, we see debates dominated by the word “choice”. It is becoming increasingly common in Canada for the word “choice” to be associated with ending life. We have essentially eliminated our fundamental right to life, and instead made it only a right to die. There is no legal protection for a woman who chooses to carry her child to term, and no legal guarantee that a terminally ill patient will have access to quality palliative care.
Instead, the discussion is focused on the right to end pre-born life, the right to end one’s own life, and, some suggest, a right to end the life of someone else who has been rendered incapable of making such a decision for themselves, for reasons such as dementia or mental retardation.
As some try to tell women they are empowered by the choice to kill their child, so we are telling those suffering that they are empowered by euthanasia. … We are telling both that the only empowering choice is death.
In both abortion and euthanasia, we see debates dominated by the word “choice”. It is becoming increasingly common in Canada for the word “choice” to be associated with ending life. We have essentially eliminated our fundamental right to life, and instead made it only a right to die. There is no legal protection for a woman who chooses to carry her child to term, and no legal guarantee that a terminally ill patient will have access to quality palliative care.
Instead, the discussion is focused on the right to end pre-born life, the right to end one’s own life, and, some suggest, a right to end the life of someone else who has been rendered incapable of making such a decision for themselves, for reasons such as dementia or mental retardation.
As some try to tell women they are empowered by the choice to kill their child, so we are telling those suffering that they are empowered by euthanasia. … We are telling both that the only empowering choice is death.
No comments:
Post a Comment