continuity and the culture of death
1 a: the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body b: a principle or force that is considered to underlie the distinctive quality of animate beings c: an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction
~the definition of Life, from the Merriam Webster dictionary (online).
I cannot reconcile myself with the four pillars of the “culture of death.” Each pillar finds its support at times by various proponents at many points across the political spectrum, making the discussion of life vs death very difficult to pin down politically. To me, abortion, the death penalty, euthanasia and war are all acts which end the life of a person (or persons) – either a very young person (or fetus), a very bad (or perhaps tragically innocent) person, an enemy, or a person who is either very old or in a great deal of emotional or physical pain. They are all living beings in possession of a soul, however damnably bad or temporarily interred to the womb that soul may be. Soul aside, if you happen to not believe in it, they are still human beings possessed of a potentiality that death will snuff out entirely.
A fetus possesses the potentiality of full personhood. Indeed, there is little else a fetus could become save a baby. The point at which life begins, scientifically speaking, is the moment of conception. Philosophically, of course, life is easily redefined. The debate over abortion often falls on this point. Ironically, outside of the abortion debate few arguments exist about say the beginning of life for a plant (germination) on either side of the political spectrum.
A criminal condemned to death possess the potentiality to change, to find remorse, salvation etc. They are also, as I mentioned above, quite possibly innocent. Beyond this, I oppose the death penalty because it oversteps the reasonable bounds of the state – and in a democracy in particular makes citizens complicit in the extinguishing of human life, whether or not they wish to be.
War, is of course, a difficult concept to grapple with because it is not (always) the decision of a powerful entity to take the life of a non-powerful entity (think: mother and fetus; state and condemned; etc.). It takes two to tango, as the saying goes. However preemptive, expansionary, or aggressive wars can rightly be called unjust. They take the potentiality of peace away from another party – the invaded state or tribe or region.
Assisted suicide generally involves the will of an individual over themselves. I can envision a state of affairs in which euthanasia becomes the accepted function of the state over people deemed incapable of choosing for themselves (as a matter of efficiency, perhaps), which is not a totally unreasonable fear. (Read Lois Lowry’s The Giver) Even without such insidious action by the state, is it possible that the act of assisting someone to end their life robs them of their potential future? A future which could include breakthroughs in medical science to remove their pain, cure their disease, etc. or a future which might bring some unexpected happiness to assuage their depression? Or for those simply too old to want to go on living, perhaps a natural death on their own without the need of an assistant to act as usher?
May 28, 2009 136 Comments
