July 16th, 2018

Society seems to no longer value sanctity of life

By Letter to the Editor on April 12, 2018.

I would like to express my thoughts regarding the removal of pro-life signs in Lethbridge. The Canadian government has chosen to sanction “assisted dying” for those with terminal illness, who are experiencing pain and suffering. And yet we hesitate to acknowledge that an unborn baby, helpless, defenceless and without a voice of his/her own, also experiences pain and suffering when aborted.

As a society, it seems we no longer value the sanctity of life. Maybe, just maybe, it has something to do with the fact that God, who gave us life and guidelines to live by, has been eliminated in so many areas of society. Perhaps, by ignoring God, we avoid the guilt of rejecting those guidelines.

Dorothy Low


Share this story:

17 Responses to “Society seems to no longer value sanctity of life”

  1. IMO says:

    Abortion Bans Premised on Fetal Pain Capacity
    Katie Wilson

    Medical Humanities and Bioethics Program
    Northwestern University
    Feinberg School of Medicine

    Abortion bans premised on fetal pain capacity…a medically suspect anti-choice initiative…No one is “pro-fetal pain.” But rhetorically, the concept of “fetal pain” works to conflate the capacity for pain with the experience of pain. If pain justified banning medical procedures, all surgery would be illegal. Pain is a routine side effect of medical practice [and childbirth]. What’s unethical is unnecessary pain, and that’s why the standard medical response to pain is palliation.

  2. biff says:

    what say we start with working hard – for real, and effectively – to ameliorate the sundry horrible living conditions of so very many billions the world over, and then we can focus on fertilised eggs in the womb? sanctity of life, you ponder? looks more like your ilk prefers to maintain the misery of life, and the more the merrier.

  3. grinandbearit says:

    I like to think that Dorothy Low is probably a very nice person who cares about her fellow citizens. In that light she should know that christians make up the largest group in Canada in terms of religious beliefs, the majority in fact. One reason we have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms is to protect minority groups, including minorities in religious beliefs. I am sure she understands the virtue of protecting minorities beliefs given the history of her own protestant view of christianity. The second largest group in Canada is those people who have no religion, I am one of those. Our religious views deserve as much respect as Dorothy’s under our Canadian system of laws.
    In that light, not everyone shares Dorothy’s belief that assisted dying is wrong, not everyone believes that termination of a conceptus, embryo, or fetus is wrong, we do not share Dorothy’s beliefs. We are happy that we live in a country where Dorothy can condemn her loved ones to suffer miserable unnecessary suffering as they die and that she and her close relatives bring every embryo to full term, that is her right. I hope she confers similar respect to other beliefs.
    Many of us do not eliminate god or ignore him, we simply do not see any convincing evidence that he exists.You cannot ignore or eliminate a thing that has never existed. But, we respect Dorothy’s right to believe in that fantasy and regulate her life according to that belief. We feel the same way about jesus as Dorothy does about the gods she does not believe in.

    • Tony Pargeter says:

      Excellent replies all.
      But I have a couple of pertinent questions.
      Why not send these in for publication?
      And why don’t any of you people use your names?

      • grinandbearit says:

        A while back, a few of us weighed in on a controversial topic through this forum and letters to the editor. Some hyper religious people and their fellow travellers tried to intimidate and made threats against those they could identify who published views that they did not like. When topics verge on the far-side of religious beliefs/interests we do not use our names.

  4. johnny57 says:

    “Choice” trumps everything now Dorothy!

    • Tony Pargeter says:

      I have a question for you.
      Is there ANY condition attached to a man’s body that you can imagine yourself commenting on in any way, shape or form? Especially publicly. Any condition whatsoever?
      Pretty sure the answer is NO. So how do you NOT see the parallel with women’s bodies? And how do you NOT understand their outrage?
      I would suggest it is because you see women as altogether lesser beings, child-like possibly or mentally challenged, and therefore undeserving of the same degree of autonomy that men have.

  5. biff says:

    t.p – i do not use my name so that the messages i enter stay as much about the positions i take, and are tarnished or prejudiced as little as possible by my name.
    as for the male body, there has been debate about circumcision: necessary?; useful for health?; or, at best, risky and nothing but mutilation?; and, if at all useful, should it not wait until the person can have a say? (for what it is worth, i feel no sense of loss or deprivation for getting snipped in the bud, and really do not see what all the fuss is about from those that feel compelled to make an issue of it). but, by comparison, the right to females being able to choose as the sole arbiter of their body whether they will bring a fertilised egg to term is, indeed, a big cut above that of male circumcision. i say: my body, and only mine, and i have the complete and sole right to determine what goes into it and what comes out. this right extends to my choosing an early exit in as humane and dignified a manner as may be.

    • Tony Pargeter says:

      A very different answer from you biff, and understandable, up to a point. I myself have very much enjoyed speaking as if I were a man, partly because I seriously can’t seem to get my own name set up here, even after putting in a different e-mail. My plan has been to go to the Herald office….but on facebook I just got tired of switching back and forth between my husband and myself and so proceeded using his account with the idea of it as an experiment actually! It’s been very interesting….
      But, we are in a culture war with religion, which I perceive as a house of cards actually, and one that is teetering at the moment. So never a more auspicious time to battle the doctrines. Never have they been so exposed for what they truly are. Don’t you think?
      But what are these other august commentators talking about?

      • grinandbearit says:

        Persistent phone calls at work, complaints about on-line commentaries to employers, names published on-line and in hand-outs as poisoners and people damned to hell by jesus, threats to children, threats of lawsuits, etc.

        But Biff makes a good point, namely, that evidence and argument should be dealt with independently of the source.

        • Tony Pargeter says:

          Disgraceful that these lesser people have been able to browbeat you in such a fashion.
          “Poisoners” and “damned to hell by Jesus” and other such arcane absurdities while having the bloody nerve to claim ownership or guardianship of the innocence of children! This while simultaneously lying their asses off to them about the most important thing of all in our short, shining lives, i.e. the nature of reality. Truth just isn’t THAT subjective.

  6. biff says:

    i do not know what issue/incident grin and lgl refer to. before my time on this site, i think.
    i see a strong correlation between people that follow religion and those that are law and order. regardless, each approach is about control, and that need may stem from fear and distrust, and even an underlying level of hatred. my concern is not so much about being at war with religion per se, but about having my freedom chipped away and trounced upon…not that we have ever been fully free of the hate and intolerance of state, majority opinion, and religion. my focus is becoming less about disparaging a choice, and more about pushing for the common sense and truth that will protect my rights from the forced choices of others that infringe upon them. so, i blab on, and on…, about things like the right to complete personhood, and sundry things that undermine this right, such as social and economic inequality, greed, power, the degradation of and utter disrespect for the living planet and all its creatures. indeed, i feel a truly religious person would understand all this.

  7. Tony Pargeter says:

    I vote for the underlying level of hatred as an underapprecisted but equally valid component of the “passion of the Christ.”
    But control and fear and distrust are at work too. In short, these traits are the worst of human nature being manifested by these purported “believers” despite their claimed alliance with the “divine” and the “sacred.” It is how they cosset themselves, cowards that they are, from the full slate of their too-raw animal nature.
    A more obvious display of the far more pedestrian and proverbial leg up is hard to imagine. I realize that there may be some genuinely kind and well-meaning people among the religious, as is suggested, but truly, their affiliates remain, and they are the likes of ISIS after all. The gradations of “extreme” so often brought forward as a panacea for that truth completely ignore the other underlying truth–that claiming the existence of ANY god is extreme, particularly at this point in human history. And these people of a kindly nature would be no less so as atheists after all.

  8. biff says:

    grin – hard to imagine that people purporting to be followers of jesus would be completely contrary to his philosophy. mind you, they do not really practice the practical and intelligent thinking of jesus, but instead buy into the silliness that he is the son of god (and a god that is a most immature conjuring, no less). fools act foolishly. while we do not always agree, grin, i appreciate your intelligent entries and perspectives, as they challenge or expand my present understanding on many things.

    t.p – thank you as well for taking time to share your intelligent thoughts on many matters. we are in a hotbed of intolerance that passes as religion, and religious affiliation can determine “belonging” and even public office here. it is reassuring to connect with people that are open-minded, tolerant, and enlightened.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.