Being Pro Life WITHOUT Religion

  • Thread starter Thread starter Paddy1989
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Paddy1989

Guest
In New Zealand a new issue that is going to be put forward for a vote in parliament is Euthanasia. Hopefully it doesn’t pass, God willing. In our Parish we were asked to sign our names on a petition against such a thing and then give a NON religious reason why we didn’t support it. This is because New Zealand is a secular country and so most people feel peoples religious views should be private which in reality doesn’t make sense. The problem i have is that as a Catholic trying to debate against euthanasia using PURELY secular points is like trying to fight with my hands tied behind my back. One’s world-view whether it be Christian, Muslim atheist etc forces them to think about reality a certain way through the lense of their beliefs.

For example my argument against euthanasia is that human value can not be defined by one’s suffering or on them being a hindrance to others. That human value is objective outside human opinion. The question then is how is human value objective? If there is no God then all human value is subjective. Our Parish priest give one of the best homilies ever on this last week. He was able to give statistics showing the damage of euthanasia in countries where it has been legalized for years. He was able to give numbers showing that a large percentage of elderly in Sweden for example pursue euthanasia because they fear they will be a financial hindrance to their families, he was also to cite sources showing a large number of people were afraid to go to the doctor to treat depression in case they were suggested euthanasia might be an option. He really hit home in a beautifully, loving and direct way the results of euthanasia. He was getting each lay person to ask themselves do we as Christians truly believe in the Christian truth that human value and is not dependent on certain circumstances. I feel in this arena again there is too much emotional rants by pro euthanasia people that they don’t actually understand the greater damage they will do to society, it’s false compassion in a way.

I’d just like to ask posters how do you think we are going to get our points across in a society that no longer shares the same world-view as we do. How do we even get off the ground if they don’t allow us to even express our views because they deem it irrational. Should we rely on debating them at their own game, by emotional arguments?
 
That’s a good argument.

The slippery slope is another one. It’s very real and history has and is showing it.

Also euthanasia undermines care for those who are terminally ill or old. Vulnerable people like the elderly will be exposed to pressure to have it done. There are many secular reasons to oppose it fiercely.
 
The secular reasons though are all based on circumstantial points which could all be eliminated. It is like when pro life supporters try and use the fact that abortion is detrimental to a woman’s mental health. It’s a good argument but could easily be swept aside if it is remedied so circumstance arguments are secondary to the Root of why we feel the way we do and that is with pro life being that all life has intrinsic value and with pro choice believing all we are is a collection of cells
 
Secular Pro-Life - secularprolife.org - is a valuable resource in these matters. Search around on their site and see what you find.

I really liked this post on their blog. http://blog.secularprolife.org/2016/09/euthanasias-parallel-to-abortion.html
Of course, euthanizing disabled people because they are disabled does not sit right with disabled persons advocates. It’s essentially a case of non-disabled people making determinations about which disabilities are worth living with and making determinations about who lives and who dies based on those determinations. Even more sickening is the fact that leftist sites are praising the decision. Salon called it “powerful” (and let’s be honest, it is a decision a powerful person makes over the life of a powerless person). Yahoo News calls it a fight to let her daughter “die in peace.” These cheerleaders fail to consider how acceptance of “euthanasia” affects the broader disabled communities; if killing becomes acceptable, it dramatically reduces the incentive to find cures.
Click to expand...
 
These are great arguments however if all we are is a collection of cells, if such a world-view is true then noone has any right to life. Life has no value other than what society dictates and if a society even dictates by force that if someone can no longer contribute to that society due to old age then perhaps they should be euthanized, if i were a secularist who am i to judge. All that is really happening is that one tribe of animals may have differing views than my own on whats best for their society. This is why i feel secular arguments for pro life are shallow at best. They first have to presuppose certain things such as one’s rights, equality, human value etc that doesn’t make sense under a naturalist world-view
 
Last edited:
Paddy1989 said:
In New Zealand a new issue that is going to be put forward for a vote in parliament is Euthanasia. Hopefully it doesn’t pass, God willing. In our Parish we were asked to sign our names on a petition against such a thing and then give a NON religious reason why we didn’t support it. This is because New Zealand is a secular country and so most people feel peoples religious views should be private which in reality doesn’t make sense. The problem i have is that as a Catholic trying to debate against euthanasia using PURELY secular points is like trying to fight with my hands tied behind my back. One’s world-view whether it be Christian, Muslim atheist etc forces them to think about reality a certain way through the lense of their beliefs.

For example my argument against euthanasia is that human value can not be defined by one’s suffering or on them being a hindrance to others. That human value is objective outside human opinion. The question then is how is human value objective? If there is no God then all human value is subjective. Our Parish priest give one of the best homilies ever on this last week. He was able to give statistics showing the damage of euthanasia in countries where it has been legalized for years. He was able to give numbers showing that a large percentage of elderly in Sweden for example pursue euthanasia because they fear they will be a financial hindrance to their families, he was also to cite sources showing a large number of people were afraid to go to the doctor to treat depression in case they were suggested euthanasia might be an option. He really hit home in a beautifully, loving and direct way the results of euthanasia. He was getting each lay person to ask themselves do we as Christians truly believe in the Christian truth that human value and is not dependent on certain circumstances. I feel in this arena again there is too much emotional rants by pro euthanasia people that they don’t actually understand the greater damage they will do to society, it’s false compassion in a way.

I’d just like to ask posters how do you think we are going to get our points across in a society that no longer shares the same world-view as we do. How do we even get off the ground if they don’t allow us to even express our views because they deem it irrational. Should we rely on debating them at their own game, by emotional arguments?
Click to expand...
Surely this isn’t hard to do. It would be quite depressing if it was.

Can’t someone describe a person’s value without including God? Can’t someone want to reduce abortions without using a religious argument?

Find common ground, for heaven’s sake. Make an argument. Debate the facts. How hard can that be?
 
Paddy1989 said:
abortion is detrimental to a woman’s mental health. It’s a good argument but could easily be swept aside if it is remedied
Click to expand...
So far I’ve not seen a good remedy to the very real loss of a child. I think it’s a lot less circumstantial than the atheists would have you believe.

Another problem with euthanasia is that it doesn’t take account of the person’s ability to live on. Sometimes it would take a miracle, granted, but one life that could improve with treatment is worth 100 lives taken in vain.
 
Paddy1989 said:
These are great arguments however if all we are is a collection of cells, if such a world-view is true then noone has any right to life.
Click to expand...
Then use that in your argument! Nobody actually believes it when backed to a wall.
Paddy1989 said:
Life has no value other than what society dictates and if a society even dictates by force that if someone can no longer contribute to that society due to old age then perhaps they should be euthanized, if i were a secularist who am i to judge.
Click to expand...
But even people who hold that view don’t believe it. They argue against sexism and racism precisely because even if they don’t own it, they believe that women and minorities have intrinsic value existing apart from one’s genitalia or ethnic genetics. So put the pro-euthanasia camp on the defensive by emphasizing the sheer ableist bigotry of its position.

If you’re unequipped to make a secular case for human life in a pluralistic marketplace of ideas, you’ll never see an end to these human rights violations. You have to start with where people are in order to reach them, not what you want them to be, (Christian, presumably).
 
Last edited:
As a Catholic living in a predominantly non Catholic country, when I have to make arguments or discussions about these issues I frequently use the arguments based on natural law.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top