(no subject)
I've been trying to articulate some current thoughts into an entry but the words aren't coming, at least not to my satisfaction. The general gist is that I deeply believe in the sanctity of life but I am appalled at the hypocrisy of many who claim to agree with my position. I believe quite passionately that taking another human life is not justified and I find the sheer concept horrifying. I do not understand how people can actually wage war or commit violent crimes. Often in abortion debates, I see the "sanctity of life" card played, but all too often, I find the same people are quite happy to disregard that entire concept and have support for war and executions that almost equates to bloodlust. I cannot comprehend this - is any diplomatic dispute so far gone that it can only be solved with bloodshed and death? Is any criminal so dangerous that they cannot be safely kept in a modern maximum security jail, and are we actually able to see into the future to forecast who will and who won't reform? It just seems ridiculous to me. "Sanctity of life" isn't just confined to abortion debates, and if you're going to play that card, at least play it consistently.
One extension of the sanctity of life belief that is often overlooked and forgotten is that it also is against artificially continuing a life. Basically, it's a "die when your time comes, not before or after" stance. An important distinction is required with life support. In some circumstances, someone may naturally die if left untreated, but with modern medicine, they can be kept alive and a recovery can take place. This is not artificially supporting life. This is using the knowledge of modern medicine the way it should be used - to promote health. However, in some cases, you will have patients that are so far gone that they have no chance of recovery and their body is little more than a shell. Whatever animation is present is created solely by a machine and there is no chance this will change. This, to be, is artificially supporting life beyond "its time". It also seems to be a massive waste of time and money, especially for health services suffering from underfunding, understaffing, and poor facilities. The life is gone and you have to let go - let the life end at its appointed time.
I'm a big believer in consistency. If you believe in the sanctity of life, don't contradict yourself by only professing your belief at convenient moments. And if you believe life should end at its appointed moment, this extends to opposing artificially extending the life as well as opposing prematurely abbreviating it.
(For the record, I'm torn on the issue of euthenasia. That's a matter of personal choice, it doesn't deny the rights or take the life of anyone else, and I recognise the arguments on both sides. It's an issue I will have to consider further, though it's fun to play devil's advocate in debates.)
One extension of the sanctity of life belief that is often overlooked and forgotten is that it also is against artificially continuing a life. Basically, it's a "die when your time comes, not before or after" stance. An important distinction is required with life support. In some circumstances, someone may naturally die if left untreated, but with modern medicine, they can be kept alive and a recovery can take place. This is not artificially supporting life. This is using the knowledge of modern medicine the way it should be used - to promote health. However, in some cases, you will have patients that are so far gone that they have no chance of recovery and their body is little more than a shell. Whatever animation is present is created solely by a machine and there is no chance this will change. This, to be, is artificially supporting life beyond "its time". It also seems to be a massive waste of time and money, especially for health services suffering from underfunding, understaffing, and poor facilities. The life is gone and you have to let go - let the life end at its appointed time.
I'm a big believer in consistency. If you believe in the sanctity of life, don't contradict yourself by only professing your belief at convenient moments. And if you believe life should end at its appointed moment, this extends to opposing artificially extending the life as well as opposing prematurely abbreviating it.
(For the record, I'm torn on the issue of euthenasia. That's a matter of personal choice, it doesn't deny the rights or take the life of anyone else, and I recognise the arguments on both sides. It's an issue I will have to consider further, though it's fun to play devil's advocate in debates.)