Monday, December 23, 2013

Right to Life? Part 2

Does an oak tree have a right to life? Does a weed? 

Does a butterfly have a right to life? Does a mosquito?

Does a healthy, newly-conceived fawn have a right to life? Does a rabid baby rat?

Why do we rarely, if ever, see deformed, injured, or diseased animals living in the wild? Why are they not nursed by their own kind rather than left to die?

Why do we euthanize (actively kill, mercifully put out of their misery) our pets that are seriously deformed, injured, or diseased and call it compassion but condemn it as suicide or murder when we do the same with ourselves or fulfill a loved one's request?

NOTE: I'm asking probing, thought-provoking questions, not advocating for a specific answer.

Is investing huge amounts of time, energy, creative thinking, money, and all manner of resources into examining, testing, and putting pharmaceutical chemicals into the seriously deformed, injured, and diseased a wise investment? If so, for whom?

Who really benefits from all of the examining, testing, and consumption of pharmaceuticals? 

The dying? 

Does prolonging the dying process come from compassion for the dying?

Who benefits from prolonging the dying process?

Is the so-called "right to life" an absolute?

No comments:

Post a Comment