.Sections

.Front Page

.News

.Student Life

.Calendar

.Science & Environment

.Arts & Entertainment

.Etcetera

.Business

.Opinion

.Outdoor Living

.People & Places

.Women's Life

.Military Matters

.Lifestyles

.Sports

 

.Archives

.About Us

 

 

by Alex Epstein, junior fellow, Ayn Rand Institute


Applauding the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold a ban on so-called partial birth abortions, President Bush called it a victory for “building a culture of life in America.”

The idea of a “culture of life” has been a rallying cry for religious conservatives in their opposition to all abortion and embryonic stem cell research, and in their opposition to euthanasia and assisted suicide. By doing everything possible to preserve embryos, fetuses, and the incurably ill or vegetative, they say, we will bring about a “culture of life” to replace what conservative icon Rush Limbaugh calls our present “culture of death, from abortion on demand . . . to embryonic stem cell research [to] assisted suicide.”

But what would life actually be like in the Christian fundamentalist “culture of life?” Consider a world in which abortion were illegal—which is the exact meaning of the president’s pledge, following the Supreme Court’s verdict, to “continue to work for the day when every child is welcomed in life and protected in law.”

Pregnant women who rationally desired to abort—whether because of accidental pregnancy, rape, birth defects, or danger to their lives—would be forced to undergo 20 years of enslavement to the needs of children they did not want to give birth to, or forced to resort to dangerous, back-alley abortions, the kind that crippled or killed untold numbers of women before Roe v. Wade.

To prohibit abortion would be to sentence countless women to spiritual—and sometimes literal, physical—death.

Or consider another staple of the “culture of life”: a world in which euthanasia and assisted suicide are illegal. Individuals with incurable and unbearable diseases would not be able to die with dignity at a time of their own choosing, but would be subjected to a protracted existence of often unspeakable agony. Their loved ones would have to endure torturous months or years seeing what was once a vibrant human being persist as a mass of pain or as a vegetable. Remember the now-famous case of Terry Schiavo, whose husband Michael had to see his wife exist for 15 years in a state incapable of emotion, memory, or thought.

Finally, consider a world without embryonic stem cell research. The stem cells that can be extracted from microscopic, 150-cell embryos have the potential to become any other type of human cell and thus, say scientists, be used in therapies that could save or enhance millions of lives. To stop stem cell research would be to deprive every one of these millions—including those with heart disease, diabetes, and Alzheimer’s—of the possibility of a longer, better life.

To uphold these positions in the name of the sanctity of life is a colossal fraud. The “culture of life” endorsed by President Bush and his conservative Judaeo-Christian supporters would not benefit human life, but cause massive suffering and death.

What could possibly justify the religious conservatives’ crusade for such a world? “God’s will,” they answer. Our lives belong to a supernatural being, they say, and He commands us not to end them “unnaturally,” no matter how unbearable they become.

This God, say those of the Christian Right, sanctifies bits of protoplasm, and commands young women to abandon their hopes, dreams, and ambitions in order to raise unwanted children.
He also commands everyone to abandon the breathtaking promise of a new field of research that could save lives and ease human suffering.

This is the rise of the same medieval mentality that demanded rejection of the life-enhancing developments of anesthesia, the dissection of corpses, and birth control.The religious conservatives do not value actual human life; they are consistent followers of the Christian ideal that human life is properly lived only in sacrifice to a supernatural being, and that suffering is proof of virtue.
The worship of suffering is fundamental to Christianity, a religion whose central figure is glorified for dying a horrific death for the sins of mankind.

Several years ago, a prominent religious conservative said of the Schiavo case that, “Terry Schiavo . . . is suffering in obedience to God’s will. Isn’t that,” he added, “the exact center of religious life?”
This is the culture of living death.

What would a culture of life really look like?
Human life is sacred—not because of supernatural declaration, but because of the unique nature and glorious potential of the individual, rational human being. To think, to create, to love, to experience pleasure, to achieve happiness here on earth: A genuine culture of life would leave individuals free to pursue these and their own happiness free from coercive injunctions to sacrifice themselves to religious dogma.

We must seek to create a culture of life, even as we do everything possible to fight religious conservatives’ culture of living death.

The Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, Calif. promotes Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand—author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.

 
 

 

 

Back

Kalamalama, the HPU Student Newspaper. All rights reserved.

Web site designed by Robin Hansson.and maintained by Christina Failma

Web Counter

Untitled Document