|
|
His name is Paul Burrel. He was Princess Diana's butler. He
was her confidante. She called him her Rock. She was his most faithful companion on her travels. He shared a special relationship
with the late princess.
And he's on trial for stealing her belongings.
I also recall a story I heard some of
on the radio yesterday though I believe it was a repeated program with a story that happened years ago. In the story, a group
of indians are protecting their burial ground from some outside force.
Both get the attention of people. Both are seen
as violating the dead. Both are just causes and there is nothing wrong with wanting to commemorate the dead and honor their
memory.
But both have more rights than the unborn child.
Have you ever considered that? How dare we disgrace
Princess Diana! How dare you steal from someone? But could we not say she is dead and in a materialistic worldview she is
dead and gone forever and all there is a memory.
Then if that is so, since when do the non-existant have rights? This
makes more sense in some theistic worldview of some sort where there is seen to be a life after death and the person is more
than their physical body and the functioning of their brains.
Yet why are the dead treated as persons and the unborn
are not? The unborn we are told are uncertain because we do not know when life begins. Of course that is a fallacious argument
but in the case of the dead we know their physical bodies no longer have life in them and their brains have ceased to function.
For some reason though, they are granted the full rights of persons.
In fact, the dead certainly can't speak for themselves.
In the trial of Paul Burrel, Princess Diana cannot certainly be called to speak as a witness yet no doubt England will have
someone to speak on her behalf.
The unborn can't speak for themselves either and to have someone speak on their life
is seen as religious fanaticism. Is this not unbelievable? A lifeless body decaying in the ground has more rights than a living
creature being nourished in the womb of a mother?
One thing that will have to be settled is what constitutes a person.
A person has to be more than a physical body and a brain functioning or else there's no point in honoring the dead. There
must be something more to a person.
What if there was something about a person that was eternal? Something that would
last forever? What if there was a soul that was made to live forever? Now we have a belief that can make sense with these
actions.
And would there be something magical in a birth canal that can create a soul? That is just as silly as the
pro-abortionist belief that there is something in the birth canal that can create life suddenly. Yet our biblical worldview
says that we are fearfully and wonderfully made and that includes every facet of us, including our soul.
Perchance
now we need to seize this as an opportunity. An opportunity to point out that if we're gonna give the dead which are definitely
non-living rights, why not give the unborn rights? It'd be interesting to see what the difference between the two would be
to the abortion side.
|
|
|