The Cost of a Dying Culture of Life
If the young are a problem then the old will not be far behind
The recent Dobbs decision on Roe vs Wade has had remarkable repercussions. I donât want to make this about that decision per se. But I do want to suggest that there may be unintended consequences that stem from a commitment to abortion; or rather a repudiation of life.
But first of all as a physician, I try to take everyoneâs opinion into consideration. I see, and take care of, people with whom I disagree greatly. I often think that people make dangerous, or unwise decisions. Still, I want the best for them. I try my best for them.
I donât want to see anyone harmed, or treated poorly, as a result of changes in abortion laws. (I suspect that as in Kansas, the result of Dobbs will simply be that legislation fills in for court decisions⊠which is probably the right thing from a political and legal standpoint.)
Furthermore, I understand that some women come from bad relationships or bad home lives. They are fearful of the financial and social stresses of single parenting, or scarred by painful memories of childhood and adolescence. I understand, even if I disagree with abortion as the right solution.
Likewise, as a Christian who is opposed to abortion, I am equally opposed to behavior towards our political opponents that is not Christ-like. This is not a time for cruelty, violence or hatred in the name of the faith. (Mind you, there are also atheists who are pro-life from a purely ethical standpoint. But thatâs a topic for another day.)
In the wake of the SCOTUS decision many people were furious. There were threats and protests against justices. There was an attempt on Justice Kavanaughâs life. Others joked about abortion. One writer quipped that she wanted to get pregnant by a conservative just to abort the fetus.
Other young women have, in response to the decision, sought out permanent solutions to prevent childbirth, like tubal ligation. Young men have vowed to have vasectomies in alleged sympathy for the cause.
This is whatâs especially interesting and troubling to me. That the idea of propagating life, of carrying on oneâs genetics, of sharing with a partner in the initiation of new life, of doing what living things have done since there were living things, has been denigrated to a burden and its opposite, termination of pregnancy, to a political and cultural statement of progress.
I see a little of this when I hear people talk about those with large families (that being, apparently, more than one or two children). âWhat were they thinking? Donât they know how to avoid that?â As if children, the thing desired for untold ages of man, were suddenly a plague, an affliction. As if childlessness were always to be preferred.
We talk about science, we talk about evolution, the natural world and living in communion with nature and the beasts. But the beasts mate and evolution moves forward because they do so unabashedly; and as many times as they can until they die.
But this current and general opposition to making new life is in response to the idea of the fetus, the infant, the child. That dependent creature which, despite its helplessness, is typically adorable. The infant is messy and loud, it needs constant food and attention for years. The child requires intense vigilance, because it is uniquely susceptible to injury and illness. Even the least caring can be roused to passion for the well being of a small child; even if that passion leads to placing the child with foster or adoptive parents.
Somehow we see the future in the child. Or, perhaps, a blank slate that gives hope that another generation, or two, or three or a thousand may make things better. This is not without precedent. Things now are vastly better than they were even on hundred years ago and our distant ancestors, thousands or tens of thousands of years past would consider our world paradisiacal.
On the other hand, we have a growing population of the aged. And speaking from my work as a physician I can say that many of them are also infirm. Some live alone in sorrow and fear, barely capable of caring for their own needs. Many, due to stroke or dementia, cry and scream. Their shouts echo through my workplace when they are frightened or in pain. Some cannot be consoled, nor does reason hold sway when they have demands. They frequently fail to remember the conversation or attention that occurred five minutes prior. Also like infants they have to be fed and changed. Their waste is a daily concern for caregivers, and given their size far more of a challenge than that of newborns or infants. They are often ill. They cannot walk, or if they do they fall frequently.
Almost without exception, all of their parents passed away years before. Many have no children nearby if at all. They may have a niece, nephew, sibling or maybe a caring neighbor. Vast numbers of them have only facilities as homes, ancient infants in perpetual daycare (and nightcare) without loving advocates.
If we have now crossed over and find the idea of having children problematic or even repugnant, then what will we do when the aged become difficult, when they become (as demographics amply demonstrate) much more expensive?
A culture that repudiates young life will rapidly repudiate old lives. The same question asked of children, âwhy would they have so many?â might will be asked of the families of the aged. âDonât they know that keeping them alive just costs a lot of money and limits their fun! Doesnât he know how to take care of that?â
The already well advanced model of assisted suicide, of euthanasia, will blossom more and more (as it has already in many countriesâŠthis is not new). And universally it will be seen as either a duty or a very reasonable expectation of good citizens.
It will just be so much simpler.
Once young life and old life are both meaningless, then there will be no limits. The mentally ill, the frail, the disabled will all fall victim as this repudiation of life, as this view of âinconvenienceâ and âexpediencyâ grows and grows.
A dying culture of life may offer temporary liberty, but its cost may be higher than we imagine.
I totally agree with you. Itâs not difficult to foresee how the aged, chronically sick, senile, and disabled will become a burden on the rights of those young. But I wonder when the age limit for young will determine the elimination of the burdensome âagedâ? I shudder to see a world like that.