By Larry Ray Hafley
Under the headline, “Assisted suicide is all about care for the dying,” the following argument for the clinical dispensing of death was made:
“A merciful gentle death when continued life is intolerable is a kindness we routinely extend to pets, point out those who argue for making assisted suicide legal. Do not human beings deserve the same compassion?” (Joan Beck, Houston Chronicle, January 12, 1997, p. 3C).
First, the cases are not parallel. Some men do reach out and ask others to kill them. However, when my parents had to put the dearest dog in the world to death, old “Sam” was not requesting their aid. “Sam” was not seeking to kill him-self. Further, when whales “beach” themselves and apparently seek their own demise, do scientists rush out to “assist” their “suicide” attempt? No, rather, they do every-thing in their power to keep the unfortunate beasts alive. According to the Kevorkian mentality, the scientists ought to run to the beaches and help the whales untie the knot that binds their spirit to the string of life. But do they do that? No. Therefore, the cases are not parallel.
Second, “we routinely” spay and neuter animals to control their reproduction. Do immoral women who “routinely” bear children and increase government welfare rolls “deserve the same compassion”? If not, do the fathers? Farm animals are “routinely” castrated, but even when sex of-fenders ask to be castrated they are not shown “the same compassion.” Liberal engineers of social justice go “hog wild” when someone suggests that an animalistic, sexual predator should be castrated (“natural brute beasts made to be taken and destroyed” 2 Pet. 2:12). Since “we routinely” castrate certain animals, should these also not be castrated? If not, then down goes the argument which equates putting a horse with a broken leg to “sleep” with the issue of “assisted suicide.”
Third, “we routinely” declaw cats and other animals which destroy property with their claws. Since some human beings use certain of their body’s parts to maim and murder, should “we routinely” show them “the same compassion” and cut off their offending members?
Fourth, “we routinely” make animals our slaves. We feed and shelter them and compel them to serve us. If the fact that “we routinely” put animals out of their misery justifies assisted suicide, does the use we have made of donkeys, oxen, and horses justify human slavery?
Conclusion
When men do not recognize their special creation in the image of God, and when they equate themselves with the beasts of the fields and forests, we may expect them to act and analyze accordingly. Some scientists believe that the more common threads we find between ourselves and the animal world, the better we will understand one another. Such “findings” have been used to justify everything from homosexuality to man’s “natural tendency” to seek multiple sex partners. “We” contracted it from “them.” In other words, “monkey see, monkey do,” is that it? Yes, to them that is it. Sadly, for them, however, that is not all. Judgment awaits (Jude 15)!
Guardian of Truth XLI: 5 p. 22
March 6, 1997