What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.


What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

Belgium child euthanasia

I mentioned this situation in Belgium once before but am highlighting it again. Wesley J. Smith is often pointing out that surprisingly enough the Belgians are turning out to be the leaders in going completely off the cliff in the areas of suicide and euthanasia. The latest: Child euthanasia. The new proposal would also include euthanasia of people with Alzheimer's.

So much for choice. Belgium got tired of all that choice stuff, which requires that the person be of mature years and compos mentis. So the heck with it. And besides, we're told, doctors were already bumping off children without guidelines, and we can't have that. We have to put some "guidelines" in place. (As Smith says, in that case let's legalize bank robbery so that we can have "guidelines" for it. It's happening anyway.) Bioethicist Erik Parens should take notes. Remember him? He was the guy who says we "need to try" to justify euthanizing people with Alzheimer's. Well, heck, just do it! Don't bother with all this ethical finicking. And include children while you're at it.

Let's make no mistake about a couple of things: When people say, "X is going to happen anyway" as an argument for making X legal, they don't really think X is all that bad. Rape happens. Torture happens. Slavery happens. Heck, for that matter, workplace discrimination against mascot groups happens! Yet you'll never hear a liberal saying we should give up on those things. Nor should we, at least not for the first three. So when your liberal interlocutor says, "Abortion is going to happen anyway" or, now in Belgium, "Euthanizing children is going to happen anyway," what he really means is, "That doesn't bother me too much. I think there's a place for it. That's why I advise you to give up on trying to stop it altogether."

Second, choice always devours itself. Euthanasia was supposed to be a choice that people needed to have available. That's because it was seen as a benefit. But if it's beneficial, why restrict that benefit only to those who can choose it? It should be "available" even to those who can't choose it, because they are too young or mentally incompetent. And for that matter, if they are misguided enough not to choose it (dammit!) they should still be given the benefit. Those who were supposed to be the beneficiaries of this choice eventually become its forced recipients.

Comments (6)

Those who were supposed to be the beneficiaries of this choice eventually become its forced recipients.

That's because in a world where technocrats are responsible for effecting the maximal human happiness according to known principles, it is an unbearable inefficiency for individuals to make what is obviously a suboptimal choice from the point of view of the administrator or bureaucrat. It is the unruliness of the particular that most offends his desire for rational organization.

Beyond that, it is as you say: The man who laments that prostitution, abortion, and bigamy are unavoidable never expends an ounce of energy denouncing them on principle. The politically brilliant formulation, "safe, legal, and rare" was always known to be a cynical attempt at "positioning," never to be backed up by any real moral or legal force. Recall the commentary at the time--"What a brilliant act of positioning!" "He's such a magnificent triangulator!" "What a sly fox this man is!" I don't remember anybody either in the media or in the business of providing abortions actually stopping short and saying, "Wait a second, buddy--what do you mean rare???"

Because they all knew he was lying about that last part. After all the throat-clearing is over, their real position always comes tumbling out: "Not that there's anything wrong with that."

That's a very good point. I didn't notice the pro-aborts being alarmed about the "rare" part. Now that the Democrat Party has removed it from their platform, officially, I suppose some people might be alarmed in later years if they put it back in. But as long as it was Clinton doing it as a bluff, everyone was cool with it.

In fact, that "What a clever card that man is" attitude was characteristic of the Clinton years. He was always lying in plain view, and the attitude of the media was to comment on that fact openly and with admiration. It was an insult to the American people to do so, but frighteningly enough, it ended up seeming that the insult was justified. The postmodern President. America was never the same again once we fully accepted that truth doesn't matter.

Depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is.

Yeah, it is hard to conduct politics worth a nickel where you aren't even expected to appear to be telling the truth.

My family experienced this reality personally when our 5th child was born in the Netherlands in 1991. She was diagnosed with trisomy 18 at a week of age. Her pediatrician said that he could only offer us euthanasia. She died of pneumonia at 3 months of age, but in those 3 months, at every contact with medical personnel we were repeatedly reminded that she was suffering and our other children were suffering as well. I was quite shocked that as a Christian and a pediatrician myself, I was being manipulated to feel guilty for choosing life for my child. It was not just a choice offered to us, euthanasia was presented as the best choice and the right choice if you really loved your children. What a huge lie. I do love all of my children but that does not mean I can spare them suffering in this world. My older four children are not bitter at God, they are all believers, and we all rejoice that we will one day be reunited with Abigail, who went to heaven 21 years ago today.

Wendy, thank you very much for your comment. That is the sort of personal confirmation of what is going on that people need to know about. God bless you and all members of your family.

[C]hoice always devours itself. ... [I]f it's beneficial, why restrict that benefit...? And for that matter, if they are misguided enough not to choose it (dammit!) they should still be given the benefit. Those who were supposed to be the beneficiaries of this choice eventually become its forced recipients. --Lydia McGrew

Free public education fits the profile. That too seemed easily reached by a hop, skip and jump down a road paved with good intentions. Now here we are at the destination of all such roads.

Post a comment

Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.