Category: Cultural Survey

Posted on

Euthanasia and the Idol of Autonomy: What Does It Mean to Die Well?

As Christians, we often grapple with the question of why a good and loving God allows evil and suffering—a question known as the problem of evil. Orthodox Christianity offers a profound response rooted in God’s nature and His purposes for creation. At the heart of this answer lies freedom. God created humanity with free will, allowing us to choose between good and evil because love, in its truest form, cannot be coerced. He desires our love and relationship, not the programmed affection of robots. But God did not leave us alone in our brokenness. In His infinite love, He entered into our suffering through Jesus Christ, the second person of the Trinity, who took on flesh, endured the cross, and defeated death for us. This sacrificial love assures us that God is not indifferent to our pain—He redeems it for His glory and our good.

As Christians, we recognize that death is a profound part of life—a moment of both physical frailty and spiritual significance. Leah Libresco Sargeant’s thoughtful article on euthanasia, An Idol of Autonomy—How the push for medical aid in dying distorts our understanding of life, raises an important question: What does it mean to die well in a culture obsessed with autonomy?

The Allure—and Danger—of Autonomy

At the heart of the euthanasia debate lies our culture’s idolization of autonomy. Independence, self-sufficiency, and control over our own bodies are treated as sacred. For many, the desire for “death with dignity” is rooted in a fear of becoming dependent or burdensome. But as Sargeant points out, this framing is deeply flawed. It not only misunderstands the human person but also risks turning our most vulnerable moments into opportunities for abandonment rather than care.

The reality is that autonomy has always been an illusion. From our first moments as helpless infants to our final days, dependence is a fundamental part of life. Our need for others isn’t a failure—it’s part of God’s design.

The Slippery Slope of Euthanasia

Sargeant’s shift on euthanasia began after reading a chilling account of Belgium’s increasingly permissive euthanasia laws. What started as a narrow allowance for terminally ill patients in extreme pain expanded to include children and individuals with non-terminal conditions like depression. Canada’s experience has been similarly troubling, with euthanasia becoming so common that one in 20 deaths in 2022 was medically assisted.

This slippery slope isn’t surprising. Once the state decides that some lives are not worth living, the boundaries inevitably blur. Vulnerable populations—children, the elderly, the disabled, and the poor—are disproportionately affected. What begins as a choice becomes a subtle pressure, as people are made to feel that their dependence is a burden, their existence a problem to solve.

A Christian Understanding of Life and Death

The Christian view of life offers a radically different perspective. We are not our own; we are created beings, fearfully and wonderfully made. Our value is not tied to our productivity, independence, or strength. Instead, it is intrinsic, rooted in the image of God within us.

Sargeant highlights how this truth is often forgotten in modern euthanasia debates. Advocates focus on avoiding pain, but in practice, the driving forces are often fear, shame, and a misunderstanding of what it means to live with dignity. True dignity isn’t found in autonomy—it’s found in love, dependence, and trust. Jesus Himself modeled this perfectly, submitting to death on the cross and relying entirely on the Father’s will.

Caring for the Weak

So, how do we resist the tide of euthanasia? First, we care for the weak. We honor the elderly, support the disabled, and comfort the dying, reminding them that their lives are precious. We invest in palliative care that alleviates physical pain and provides spiritual and emotional support.

Second, we tell the truth about what it means to be human. Dependence is not shameful—it’s natural and even beautiful. It reminds us of our shared need for God and one another. In our vulnerability, we find opportunities for love and grace that reflect the very heart of the Gospel.

Final Thoughts

Euthanasia may promise control and dignity, but it ultimately offers despair. As Christians, we are called to a higher vision of life and death, one that celebrates the sacredness of every moment and every person. Instead of making an idol of autonomy, let’s reclaim the beauty of dependence and the hope of eternity. By doing so, we honor God’s Good Creation, even in its most fragile forms.

[Source: The Dispatch]

+++

Choose Life

Posted on

Why the Supreme Court Needs to Uphold the Texas Age-Verification Law on Pornography

[We are called to protect and nurture God’s Good Creation, and nowhere is this responsibility more sacred than in caring for our children. It is our solemn duty to guard their hearts, minds, and futures, ensuring they grow in the light of truth and love.]

Today, the Supreme Court takes up a case with serious implications for the digital age: the Texas law requiring age verification for accessing online pornography. The case has drawn a spotlight on the critical issues of child protection, free speech, and technology’s role in shaping our society. A group of social scientists and experts—Jonathan Haidt, Jean Twenge, Jason Carroll, Brian Willoughby, and Brad Wilcox—have lent their voices in an amicus brief supporting the law. Their arguments draw from extensive research on the harms of pornography exposure to minors, and here’s why they believe this law matters.

The Case for Age-Verification Laws

The amicus brief makes a clear case: the digital age has transformed the accessibility and nature of pornography. Smartphones and the internet have made explicit content readily available, with minimal barriers. Research cited in the brief reveals that a staggering 97% of boys and 78% of girls between ages 12 and 17 have been exposed to pornography. Many encounter it as early as age 10. Unfortunately, this exposure is not to innocuous content—it often involves violent, degrading, and harmful depictions of sexuality.

This environment is particularly harmful to minors, whose cognitive and emotional development makes them more vulnerable to the effects of such media. The experts argue that traditional methods of limiting access, such as parental controls or content filters, have proven woefully inadequate. In this context, age-verification laws like the Texas statute aim to offer a more effective solution to protect vulnerable populations.

The Harms of Pornography on Minors

The brief underscores a range of negative outcomes associated with early and frequent exposure to pornography:

1. Unhealthy Sexual Attitudes and Behaviors

Minors exposed to pornographic content are more likely to develop permissive sexual attitudes and engage in risky sexual behaviors, such as unprotected sex. This increases the risk of poor health outcomes, teen pregnancies, and emotional distress.

2. Aggression and Violence

Research shows a troubling link between viewing violent pornography and real-life aggression. Minors exposed to such content may normalize or even imitate these behaviors, leading to an increase in sexual harassment, dating violence, and other harmful interactions.

3. Mental Health Challenges

Compulsive consumption of pornography among minors has been linked to addiction-like behaviors, depression, anxiety, and issues with self-esteem and body image.

4. Relationship Instability

Early exposure to pornography is associated with difficulties in forming and maintaining stable, healthy relationships later in life. This has long-term implications for family stability and societal well-being.

A Balancing Act: Free Speech vs. Child Protection

Critics of the Texas law argue it infringes on First Amendment rights by creating barriers to access for adults. However, the amicus brief emphasizes that reasonable restrictions, like age verification, are not about censorship but about protecting minors from demonstrable harm. The brief draws parallels with existing laws on age-restricted content, such as alcohol and tobacco, which reflect society’s commitment to safeguarding youth.

Furthermore, the brief notes that technological advances make it possible to implement these measures without unduly burdening adult users. In fact, many argue that the real question isn’t whether we can protect minors but whether we choose to prioritize their well-being.

Why the Supreme Court Should Support This Law

In their closing arguments, the amici warn against viewing age-verification laws as merely a matter of convenience or free speech. The stakes are higher than ever in an era where the internet saturates every aspect of our lives. Upholding the Texas law would set a precedent that states can take proactive steps to protect children in the digital age.

This isn’t about banning pornography (although I would like to) or policing morality—it’s about recognizing the unique vulnerabilities of minors and creating a framework that shields them from undue harm. For the sake of the next generation, the Court must acknowledge the compelling evidence presented by these scholars and support reasonable, well-crafted measures like Texas’ age-verification law.

The amicus brief, backed by years of research, is a wake-up call to lawmakers, educators, and society at large. It’s time we take a hard look at the costs of inaction and commit to safeguarding our children in an increasingly complex and digital world.

[SOURCE: Brief of Social Science Scholars as Amici Curiae ]

+++

Protect Our Children

The Pornographic Roots of Gender Ideology

Posted on

Authentic Masculinity

Responding to review of her book “The Toxic War on Masculinity” Nancy Pearcey has a few words about authentic masculinity from a Christian perspective:

+++

God Made Us Male and Female