I’m presenting a series here called Exposing the Religious Right.

The introduction/first installment is here.

The second installment, discussing the motivations/starting points of the RR is here.

I’m hoping that, through this series on the Religious Right (RR), I can shed some light on the RR, especially to other conservatives and Republicans who are wary of the RR.  This is not necessarily to defend the RR and every typical policy position of the RR, but to explain that there IS a logic and practicality to the positions and activism of the RR, as opposed to mere animus and ignorance, as critics allege.

Euthanasia/Doctor-Assisted Suicide is Wrong and Should Be Illegal

According to what the RR believes, life is sacred.  Death is not.  Death is the absence of life, just as dark is the absence of light.  Living human beings should be protected from harm by others from conception until natural death.  I already wrote about the RR’s position on abortion.

Some people assert that someone who is sick or disabled should be euthanized for their dignity and to ease their pain.  Why do some think death is more dignified?  How do you know the dead are not in pain?  We’d all like to think that someone we care for who is dies goes to “a better place” but how do we know that they do?  In the case of the RR, the redeemed or righteous are believed to be in a better place, but that’s because the Bible says so, and you won’t find euthanasia prescribed in the Bible.  Death is not dignified, no matter what the circumstances, so there is no virtue in suicide or euthanasia to “end suffering.”  "Death with dignity" is an empty promise.

There is a difference between letting someone die and killing them.  There is a difference between giving them medication to ease their pain and giving them something with the intention of killing them.  There is a difference between letting someone die from their organ/system failures and denying someone nutrition if they are bedridden.

Euthanasia has become a slippery slope in some parts of the world, in which the elderly are being killed because they are inconvenient and infants are being killed because they aren’t the Gerber Baby.

Some ask “What’s the difference?  This person doesn’t even know they are alive or who they are.”  Yes, but if YOU know who that person is, and that the person is a human being, and that is what matters.

If someone wants to kill themselves, it is hard to stop them, but doctors should not be in the business of helping them do it.  If they want to kill themselves and are unable to, that still should not allow someone else to commit homicide, certainly not a medical doctor.

Euthanasia has been facilitated by Darwinism and socialism.  Darwinism lets “enlightened” people believe that some human life is not worthy of life or is somehow less than human.  Socialism prompts the productive - and therefore the taxed - in society to seek to end the burdens caused by the old, sick, and disabled who require more health care and other assistance.  When you are told you are a burden on society, you are being pressured to die.  When you see that your family is struggling to take care of you, you may feel pressured to take the “legal, so it must be okay” remedy of having a doctor kill you.  It’s a nefarious slippery slope.

The Bible tells us to care for the sick, not to kill them, and to value life.  Many in the RR do just that.

A Human Being in the Embryonic Phase is Still a Human Being

The sanctity of life is also why the RR is against certain reproductive technologies, cloning, and embryonic stem cell research.  They either kill human beings or produce human beings who will be killed because they are “unwanted”, “extra”, or have a deformity.  They are also turning human beings and their body parts into commodities.  Yes, they are small human beings, but they are human beings.

Contrary to all-too popular ridicule, the RR’s opposition is not because they are against progress or are scientifically ignorant.  Rather, they are well aware of the scientific facts involved.  They just do not want “progress” at the expense of innocent human beings, citing that science should serve humanity, not the other way around.

Fortunately, in the case of stem cells, there are promising treatments being developed by using “adult” stem cells, which do not result in the killing of a human being.

A genuine conviction in the sanctity of human life motivates the RR to oppose killing the young, the old, and the sick – no matter how young, how old, or how sick.  It is scary enough when individuals are allowed to kill other human beings for reasons other than legitimate personal protection.  It is much more scary when the government protects such actions, then supports or even mandates such actions.  Do we really want our government to be in the business of killing innocent human beings?