Updated: Jun 14
We live in a society of death. It is so accepted, so agreeable to our modern constitutions and amiable to our corrupted nature, that our nation not only welcomes death, but encourages it. In our culture, it’s glorified, offered as a sacrifice, and cherished. Abortion is venerated, euthanasia is championed as humane, and death’s insatiable appetite is always satisfied.
Our marital vows with evil were recently renewed and strengthened as our government passed Bill C-7. It is a Bill that amends our current law and allows a man whose death is “not reasonably foreseeable” to be euthanized.* It is, of course, a wicked law that leads us down a dark path we are foolish to traverse yet do so anyway. As a consequence, people with possibly problematic disabilities can take care of it without hassle or pain. Those who are fearful and worried about their future can get things over with efficiently. Rubbing salt into morality’s wound, all of these “humane” solutions are justified under the banner “life, liberty, and security of the person” as though euthanasia is freedom and not slavery.
For the past many decades, there has been a tactical invasion by academic and political institutions to revolutionize the way society understands value. Classically, something (or someone) was valuable because of what it was. A creation had inherent worth purely because of its existence; this guaranteed lawful treatment and protection from physical harm regardless of opposing beliefs. But the insidious ideology of a post-modern world, indoctrinated into students, has transformed man into believing that value is a product of feelings or circumstance.
So we believe nothing is inherently valuable anymore. No longer does something possess worth simply because it is, but rather, because we feel a certain way about it. A marriage is only desirable if the husband and wife remain in love, a law is only just if we feel it’s progressive, and free speech is only useful if it doesn’t offend. But if nothing is objectively valuable, then nothing is really valuable at all. Meaning becomes a constant flux and fluid change dependent on the fickle feelings of man—it’s much more sinister than it seems, for this worldview believes nothing less than the rejection of truth itself.
If we disobey Scripture and conclude all things are nothing more than random compositions of mere matter, once we surrender to the secularist the morality of their position, humanity is doomed to suffer subjectivism’s wrath. Murder is no longer murder if it’s for a revolution dismantling patriarchy and capitalism. Suicide is no longer immoral if it alleviates pain. Law becomes contingent. Genocide, torture, slavery, molestation of life all become permissible in specific circumstances because our feelings, which now dictate morality, change.
There are few things that display the consequences of this modern morality as effectively as Canada’s laws regarding euthanasia. Our legislators call it “MAiD” (Medical Assistance in Dying), mocking life as though suicide is an escape and a relief.
As it stood, patients who wished to receive MAiD needed to satisfy specific criteria:**
-18 Years Old
-Give clear consent to proceed
-Mentally capable of making decisions with respect to health
-The request for euthanasia must be voluntary and not the result of external pressure
-Be informed of all possible remedies to relieve suffering
-Must be experiencing intolerable and unceasing suffering that cannot be remedied under conditions acceptable to them
-Death must be reasonably foreseeable
Such legislation is horrible enough. It declares the value of life to be contingent on pain. A man who’s suffering, whose death is reasonably near, is no longer absolutely valuable but perfectly disposable. But now our law has been amended. A progressive revision, Bill C-7, has widened death’s jaws. This new amendment to our Criminal Code permits medically assisted suicide for individuals whose natural death is not reasonably foreseeable. The ramifications are dire.
With this wicked decree, the disabled are destined to die. Their lives, however beautiful and long they might be, are now legally less valuable than ours. Those diagnosed with disease or disability are permitted to commit suicide, a right never given to man, while I am not. This dares insinuate, by science absent of all justice, that particular lives chosen by government officials are not worth living. We are playing God.
But one of the most grievous realities of this amendment is that it makes life contingent on possible suffering. Who’s to say this law need be limited to those with physical disabilities? Who’s to argue it cannot apply to the poor or “ideologically insane?” Today, Bill C-7 might not apply to us, but tomorrow it might. Our governments are more than generous enough to trespass a little farther into the land of liberty for the sake of safety. For example, what of the poor who struggle? Do they not suffer as they starve in the cold? Many of them are older than 18, have sound mental capacity, know of the remedies to relieve the suffering, and can make decisions for themselves—what excludes them from this legislation? With this amendment, though the impoverished’s death is not reasonably foreseeable, it no longer matters. If a man is enduring intolerable pain as a consequence of his poverty, and if no remedies are acceptable to him, is his life worth less than ours? Our leaders who tabled Bill C-7 would think so. But why stop there? Why not murder a child with a disability that will ail him all his life? Why not euthanize a newborn who’ll grow up in a decrepit apartment? They will, after all, suffer. Under this Bill, their lives are essentially worthless, or at the very best, subjectively valuable.
The slope is slippery. Soon, we won’t even know if we’re suffering. We’ve seen this with the wicked doctrine of white-privilege already. The activists slander my beliefs and ethics as a product of my race. They say my morals and priors are so intertwined in privilege that I cannot discern whether they’re right or wrong. That is, I’m suffering undue harm (conservatism) without knowing it. Thus, the enlightened educators and their enforcement coerce members of society to engage in “cures”—cultural training, a denouncement of beliefs, and worship of equality. But no matter how hard they might try and remedy the situation, I might not capitulate to their brainwashing. And if I don’t, if no other avenue of recourse is available, if I still champion “ancient and regressive” things like Christ and freedom, what other option will there be except to end my suffering entirely and dispose of my life? I will be “too far gone for my own good.” These are the consequences of living in a subjective society.
Our only firewall protecting us from this descent into this dystopia is Christ. Our only salvation is Christ. Without Him, what’s the harm with these laws? If we really are cosmic dust and nothing more, how can we argue this legal murder is wrong? But we are made in the image of God, and as such, we’re convinced that all human life is objectively and infinitely valuable. Our lives do not derive their worth from success, pain, or wealth, but rather, from the fact that we are God’s creation. A human is a human, and therefore, whether old or young, rich or poor, sick or healthy, is under the unchanging law of God. Christ is our King, and by promising that all who come to Him shall have eternal life (John 6:35-40), by dying on a cross for the sins of the world (1 Corinthians 15:3-5), he declares the value of every person who has ever lived or will live. Therefore, we are commanded to protest treating someone as less than human, say by euthanizing them, because they (or the expert) feels like their lives have lost purpose and are undesirable. If we do not do so, if our rulers continue to pass this sort of law, it will ensure eventual genocide.
* Information available here
**All information in this section was copied from the Canadian Department of Justice