By Dave Andrusko
At the risk of only a slight exaggeration, abortion and euthanasia/assisted suicide are, at a minimum, fraternal twins, if not identical twins. Birthed in the same hatchery, for example, they are inherently expansionary.
You could say, and I would, that the urge to find more victims is a part of their very DNA. Its partisans, the likes of Planned Parenthood and the preposterously named “Compassion and Choices,” can no more find an “end point” than a cancer will, on its whole, cease to spread.
Consider just a few of the parallels, starting with the need to perpetually push all boundaries. For instance, if ending the life of her unborn child is a woman’s “right,” why should that “right” end at the conclusion of the first trimester? Or second? Or through birth?
Not content with abortion on demand (which they pine to have paid for by taxpayers), it comes as no surprise that we now have to fight blatant excuses for infanticide. The child was supposed to be dead, the abortion lobby tells us. Why would you give him or her the same medical care you would a “wanted” child born at the same gestational age? Which is why Congressional Democrats work night and day to ensure that there is no vote on the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.
Likewise with assisted suicide. If the issue is about autonomy– about one’s supposed right to die “on my own terms”–why should there be any ethical calibration made about “good” reasons or “sufficient” reasons, or any reasons?
If I can’t exercise my “right”–whether because I am in a weakened physical state or no longer can articulate my desires, or something else–then surely it is nothing short blatantly discriminatory not to facilitate my death, right?
Where the twin sisters of death meet is when countries decide that newborns should be at a minimum, neglected, or even killed, if they are disabled (physically or intellectually). We reach this hideous conclusion by imputing imaginary motives to them. If only they could speak, they’d want that—or so the anti-life lobby insists.
“Neonatal euthanasia” meet “after-birth” abortion.
Similarly, every pro-lifer writer, including me, has observed that abortion corrupts everything it touches. Jonathon Van Maren, a Canadian pro-lifer, once extended that argument in a brilliant piece he titled, “20 reasons why euthanasia corrupts everything it touches, and must be opposed.”
Each and every one of those 20 is worth an individual post. But let me just take three minutes to highlight three illustrations:
Assisted suicide suggests that for people to “die with dignity,” they must die faster. The underlying insinuation of the “Death with Dignity” movement is that those who do not opt for an expedited exit are not dying with dignity. …
Eugenics. Assisted suicide requires the state and the medical establishment to judge what constitutes a “life worth living.” As a result, those with disabilities become less valued as their lives are judged to be less valuable than those without disability. Parents of disabled children in Belgium have had people suggest to them that they should have their children euthanized. Euthanasia – Greek for “good death” – is being employed as eugenics, which is Greek for “good birth.” Just as abortion is used to kill pre-born children with Down syndrome and other conditions, euthanasia is already being used to kill born people deemed less than perfect. …
Assisted suicide could be used by children to pressure parents into accepting this “service.” Instances of children encouraging their parents to take this route have surfaced in the United States and Europe already. As people live longer and thus spend much of their savings on their own care, the reaction of selfish offspring watching “their” inheritance shrink should be noted. (In fact, the Calgary Herald recently published a column describing the anticipated “bequest boom” over the next decade, in which Canadian parents are anticipated to turn over $750 billion in inheritance over to their children).
Parents pitted against their own children, children pitted against their own parents. The “market” in “imperfections” resembles the real estate boom of the early 2000s.
Reverence for the uniqueness of every single life is treated with disdain, dismissed as a left-over from a by-gone era (and, they would add, good riddance).
You get the picture.
That’s why euthanasia/assisted suicide is every bit as awful, every bit of an encouragement of the dog-eat-dog mentality, as abortion is.
That is why from its very beginning, National Right to Life opposed euthanasia/assisted suicide just as vigorously and with equal determination as it did abortion.
And that is why along with coverage of abortion, you will read stories about euthanasia/assisted suicide everyday at NRL News Today.
If you have not signed up to have NRL News Today sent free of charge automatically sent to your inbox, take 30 seconds out and go to.