The right to life and (the right to commit) murder.

Sunday, 29 April 2018 · Posted in

A quick thought on the right to life and (the right to commit) murder: How many people gathered around the Alder Hey hospital commending the view that Alfie's life ought to be prolonged no matter what, only by coincidence (or not) of that being the wish of Alfie's parents, are simultaneously oblivious to the deaths of so many babies whose life is terminated after it began but before being born? How many?

Will versus Rights (just like for Alfie's parents): I am pro-choice, reckon that always will be, mainly as I give priority to the mother's wishes over the rights of an unborn human being, especially if I am related to her and notably in case I was involved in the process that resulted in a pregnancy, view I can preserve seeing I'm not representing the unborn's interests. At the same time, I haven't any doubts that committing an abortion is factually terminating someone's life. The name for that is murder — it doesn't have another.

Does that make any difference? None, not to me, but that is why I am pro-choice, and not because I am morally enlightened nor that I pretend to be a champion for women's rights. I am very aware that I am positively insensitive / indifferent to the life that already exists but is not yet born. I couldn't care less. But the people making decisions shouldn't have the luxury to be insensible. Their duty isn't to stand by the wishes or the will of parents, but the rights and/or the furthermost interests of the child, Alfie Evans or others, including (perhaps) those who aren't born.

With regards to Alfie Evans: Bringing the child to a Vatican hospital would have done something for the parents, but accomplished nothing for the child (except, perhaps, needless suffering). Putting her (the child's) interests before the parents' can only be praised, no matter how much negative hype (fuelled by disinformation) it generates.

The Tragic Case of Alfie Evans:
"... there was a medical consensus that further treatment would be futile and carried at least a small risk that it would exacerbate any suffering Alfie was still capable of experiencing. Alfie’s case was not even like that of Charlie Gard where there was at least a proposal for experimental treatment. Even his parents accepted that no cure and no improvement was possible. Nor, in the main, did they dispute the medical evidence; indeed, their own independent doctors agreed with those at Alder Hey about Alfie’s prognosis (...) It would be absurd, and a victory for the most disreputable religious bigotry, for English law to take such a turn now. Instead, we should celebrate the fact that, on the whole, we are fortunate to have courageous and independent family court judges who follow clear and long-established principles of law. Of course their decisions are not always correct, but no good will come from tinkering with the fundamental principle of English law that moral dilemmas about the treatment of children can only be properly resolved—as they have been for over 150 years—by relying on the judiciary to listen to the evidence and then to decide what is best for the particular child involved. That is certainly not unjustifiable government interference in the rights of parents; it is upholding and defending the rights of the child."

Leave a Reply

Powered by Blogger.