Lives that are not worth living

In a recent Weekly Standard article, Wesley Smith takes on the infant euthanasia that is gaining traction in Holland.  His opening paragraphs are models of clear writing:

At last a high government official in Europe got up the nerve to chastise the Dutch government for preparing to legalize infant euthanasia. Italy's Parliamentary Affairs minister, Carlo Giovanardi, said during a radio debate: "Nazi legislation and Hitler's ideas are reemerging in Europe via Dutch euthanasia laws and the debate on how to kill ill children."

Unsurprisingly, the Dutch, ever prickly about international criticism of their peculiar institution, were outraged. Giovanardi's critique cut so deeply that even Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende felt the need to respond, sniffing, "This [Giovanardi's assertion] is scandalous and unacceptable. This is not the way to get along in Europe."

As is often the case in the New Europe, what is said matters more than what is done. Thus, the prime minister of the Netherlands thinks that killing babies because they are born with terminal or seriously disabling conditions is not a scandal, but daring to point out accurately that German doctors did the same during World War II, is.

As he gets deeper into his column, Smith notes that making Nazi comparisons can shut down dialog and allow even those engaged in egregious behavior to deflect criticism.  However, he then goes on to point out the many disturbing parallels between the Nazi program and the Dutch program.  Indeed, it seems as if the only distinct difference between the two is motive:  the Dutch kill from compassionate motives, the Nazis killed to cleanse their society.  But killing is still killing.

The article piqued my interest at two levels.  First, I knew little about the Nazi euthanasia program except for this:  my great uncle on the goyish side of my family, who was bipolar, was one of the first adult victims of this euthanasia.  Second, it occurred to me that perhaps part of the problem with Europe's ability to integrate its Muslim population may be that this isolated new population looks at a Europe that doesn't value itself and, rightly concludes, that Europe is not worthy of being valued.  And since it's not worthy of being valued, it's obviously okay (a) to kill Europeans (they're killing themselves, after all) and (b) to supplant their own, Islamic culture. 

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Pingback: Webloggin - Blog Archive » Lives that are not Worth Living()

  • http://ymarsakar.blogspot.com/ Ymarsakar

    The way I look at it, is that of a child waif left alone in this world, fighting for survival, and living in a nation of law. Because the law does not protect the child waif, because the law does not allow the child waif to feed herself, and because the law enforcers themselves neither believe in the law nor enforces it, the child is forced to survive by fighting and evading the law.

    The child is forced into creating her own laws, her own institutions, and her own protections. A life of crime appeals, because crime has a heirarchy, a purpose. It makes use of her life, gives her pride in being able to accomplish goals and objectives. Crime gives her the opportunity to advance in the heirarchy, from thief to god king.

    When Europe decided that simplistic American notions of cultural superiority and national supremacy in the form of such names as they called it, “jingoistic patriotism”, were bad ideas, the Europeans abandoned all children in all areas.

    It is much harder now to bring them back into the fold, because the children have lost respect for the people who no longer believe in themselves. Anti-Americanism has many detriments. Perhaps somebody should get a clue before it is too late. Neo has a good link about France.

    http://www.theaugeanstables.com/essays-on-france/paris-notes-spring-2006/