Columnist Todd Starnes has distilled a powerful question from the Charlie Gard matter: What kind of nation would kill a baby in his mother’s arms?
That sobering question should prompt reflection by citizens and government leaders alike. A nation’s character is reflected in its answers to such questions. Government leaders especially influence the virtues, or vices, of a nation.
The answer to the question is simple: A nation that will kill a baby in his mother’s arms is first a nation that will kill a baby in her mother’s womb.
England, and the West, is well down that slippery slope that begins with the demeaning of human life. What happens now?
After all, it is the same human life at conception as at the time of natural death. The little girl or boy in the womb is human and nothing else. She/he is alive. If we do not value life in the womb, there is no reason to value Charlie Gard’s life or any other baby’s life.
A nation that would kill a baby in his mother’s arms is a nation that thinks
- Darwin is right, God does not exist.
- Human life is the product of a cosmic accident and has no purpose.
- A baby in the womb is not a human baby, but a “product of conception,” “tissue,” a cancer in the mother’s body.
- The State is sovereign.
- The State defines what it means to be human.
- The State has the authority to grant life or death to any citizen.
Such a nation will take the life of Charlie Gard.
A nation that protects the life of a baby in his mother’s arms believes that
- God exists as the Creator of the universe and the Father of the entire human family.
- Human beings are not only created by God, they bear the image of God.
- The right to life is given by God and not by the state.
- This right is inalienable.
- This right is granted to all people no matter their age, race, sex, or health condition.
Such a nation will protect the life of the baby in the mother’s womb just as it will protect the life of Charlie Gard.
Which nation do you want to live in? One where the State is sovereign? Or one where God is sovereign? The choice is yours! Your choices will determine the kind of nation you live in and the nation you will help build.
We need to reflect on these questions, to determine the kind of nation we want for Charlie Gard, for our own children. And then we need to act. To fail to act is both a choice and an action.
It was the British Statesman, Edmund Burke who famously said: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
What will England’s Prime Minister, Theresa May, do? If she does nothing, Charlie Gard will not simply die, he will have been killed by the government she leads.
Will our lives be marked by passivity in the face of evil?
Who is sovereign, the State or God?
- Darrow Miller
Print this page
3 Comments
Mike
July 27, 2017 - 2:13 pmThere are some factual inaccuracies here Darrow. The British courts are not an arm of the state, they, unlike the US, are independent and hold the state accountable. (Judges are not appointed by politicians…) The issue was more the parents against the medical profession.
Here is an interesting counter blog to yours…
http://www.melaniephillips.com/cruel-ignorant-campaign/
admin
July 28, 2017 - 12:57 pmMike, thank you for your thoughtful note and for attaching Melanie Phillips counter point.
I have not studied the structural distinctive of British governance and the relationship between the Prime Minister, the Parliament and the Courts. I would assume that they represent three distinct branches of the government as they do in other democracies.
I would not argue with your statement that this was a dispute between the parents and the medical profession. There is a growing cultural understanding in the West, that the State is sovereign and not God. Common folks like Charlies parents are losing their rights to the state and to various bureaucracies.
Mike, on a personal level, who would you want making decisions about the education, health care or nutrition of your children? Do you want to make those decisions or do you want the state or a state sanction bureaucracy making those decisions?
I would also argue that there should be a cultural presumption toward life rather than towards death, towards the humanity of a precious little Charlie Gard and a presumption toward the family having the greatest interest in the life of their child.
Again, Mike, thank you for your note.
Dennis Warren
August 6, 2017 - 11:58 amDarrow, thanks for the balance from comparing pivital presuppositions of differing worldviews … Another case where presuppositions can be a matter of life and death.