An immoral mentality

In Ann Link’s letter, it appears she defends the fundamental tenets of a secular, humanistic, utilitarian philosophy that link the abortion-on-demand mentality with the correctly descriptive phrase “culture of death.” Ms. Link praises a friend’s decision to abort her pregnancy because the baby boy had a genetic abnormality. By so doing, Ms. Link affirms the “culture of death” approval to such a savage and inhumane redefining for the human qualities of compassion and care.

Ms. Link states, “Our lives are the one thing we totally own.” By the word “own,” does she mean “control”? When do we totally “own/control” our lives? At what age or circumstance is that “ownership/control” bestowed and by whom? Does this apply to the life of the unborn child, or the disabled, or the aged person in the nursing home? Ms. Link answers these questions herself, in her letter’s final sentence which reads, “Whether we are a damaged fetus, or an oldster slipping into end-stage dementia, the decision as to the worth of that life must sometimes be made by another.”

But isn’t “worth” subjective? Who has the right to determine the worth of anyone? The concentration camps of Nazi Germany bear witness to what happens when people start deciding who has the right to live and who does not. I believe Ms. Link’s verbiage endorses the “culture of death” justification for euthanasia and assisted suicide. Both of these options logically follow the flawed, immoral mentality that an abortion-on-demand society begets.

I support the belief that one of the most important criteria marking a just, caring and civilized society is the degree to which that society respects and treats its weakest members. The premise that all human life is precious and sacred is one of the foundational pillars that such a society embraces; remembering that each of us is not our own maker, but the supporters and sustainers of life, life which comes from our creator, God himself.

MARY SPOND

Sherwood