Tuesday, July 7, 2009

To Be or Not to "Be": Is there really any question?

Today while driving home I was listening to a talk radio show to pass the time. The story they were discussing was disturbing on many levels but even more disturbing were the call in responses from the listening audience.

Apparently police were called to a domestic dispute. Once on the scene they found a young mother seated on a couch nursing a 6 week old baby. The problem? She was drunk. She was drunk enough to be arrested and charged with neglect.

The amazing thing is that caller after caller defended this woman's behavior and choices! One caller said it was a free country and she could do whatever she wanted to do, including being a drunk nursing mom. Another took the pity route and said maybe she could only afford beer and not formula! Ok, now let's stop at that one. Let's pick that argument apart: if she were really strapped for cash, would alcohol really be the drink of choice to consume and feed her baby through nursing? Why not Kool-Aid? Doesn't that cost under a dollar or less for a packet of that high caloric junk drink? Think how far it would go for the baby, never mind the sugar high as an added bonus. Plus, there are all those pretty colored flavors to choose from. Beer is just pee gold. Well, maybe not on St. Patrick's Day but for the most part, it is. Even milk, that good ole fashioned stuff that comes from the cow has got to be cheaper than a six pack.

Then a lawyer called into the show. She said neglect isn't defined by one incident and that maybe the mother didn't have the resources to make better choices for herself blah blah....it was all about the woman being the victim, not the baby. It was all about her needs, her issues, her needing understanding. The baby was a nonentity, not even a blip on the moral radar screen.

And, so it seems to be in this society. It seems we are a culture that has devalued life, especially the young and defenseless. Trust me, if this had been a story about a drunken woman who was feeding beer to a puppy, people would have wanted this woman tarred and feathered and locked up in a jail cell. Seems to me that people value the defenseless and dependent only if they are covered in fur.

But, a defenseless, dependent human being seems to be considered expendable. The woman's needs, wants, desires, conveniences, choices all supercede that of her child, whether that child is a fetus or an infant.

Yes, a fetus. There is a huge chunk of society that regards budding life as nothing more than a clump of cells--but not human being cells, just cells. What they think these cells will become is beyond me but maybe they can't (or won't) consider that these cells are human because to do so would define it as a person; a unique being with its own DNA. To accept that idea would mean changing what they believe are their "rights" with choice; in other words whether or not these cells live or die.

To peel away the illusion of what these cells really are, legislation has been introduced in South Dakota to have doctors explain that abortion is procedure which ends human life. Whoa...harsh, eh? Not as harsh as to the fetus being destroyed. Reality checks can really suck sometimes.

So my question is, when do rights for being human begin? In the womb, at birth or later? And, if we don't step up to protect the defenseless and vulnerable (at any age or state), then who will?

No comments:

A new life has begun! II Cor 5:17

A new life has begun! II Cor 5:17
God's GPS