Should the Government Determine a Life's Value?

Should the Government Determine a Life's Value?

Should the Government Determine a Life's Value?

What happens when the government determines a person’s value?  Whether China’s One (now two) Child Policy, or Great Britain's government mandates to remove care from sick babies, the concept remains the same: in their mind, government, not family or God, determines whether a person deserves to live or die.

While some have framed China’s 2016 acquiescence to the “Two-Child Policy” as the end the Chinese government’s strict One-Child policy, forced abortion and sterilization still occur. Reggie Littlejohn, Founder and President of Women’s Rights Without Frontiers, an organization fighting against forced abortion and gendercide in China, writes,

"…I believe the Chinese Communist Party will never abandon coercive population control, because coercive population control is keeping the regime in power. Although every couple is allowed to have two children, single women are still forcibly aborted [being forced to abort their children], as are third pregnancies. Women of childbearing age still have to go in for mandatory pregnancy checks several times a year. Two Child Policy violators are still forcibly sterilized. All this instills terror. The Chinese Communist Party is a brutal, totalitarian regime, which reigns with terror. The Two Child Policy is social control, masquerading as population control."

China’s One-Child policy, which the Chinese government enacted in 1980, has yielded disastrous results. This includes “gendercide” — the systemic aborting of girl babies — due to the cultural preference of sons over daughters, as well as a marked increase in female suicides. China now has a huge gender imbalance between boys and girls and has suffered several issues such as stolen children, kidnapped children and sex trafficking as a result.

China initially enacted the One-Child policy in response to fears of overpopulation and food shortages. However, “overpopulation” tends to be the problem of a closed system, making closed communist countries, which prohibit the freedom of movement, the most susceptible.  Yet, in a free society, population increases give rise to the “suburbs” when people move outside of the crowded cities to raise a family.  An example of this would be the American “Baby Boom,” following the end of World War II, when many couples moved to the suburbs to have more children. Crowded cities and crowded countries do not tend to be as big of a problem in market economies because people have free movement—they can move if it starts feeling overcrowded.  In communist countries, however, the government prohibits movement, unless it gives you permission.

Further, the Population Research Institute notes that overpopulation is not equivalent to overcrowding.  City planners, not population controllers (in the form of abortion and euthanasia), ought to solve the overcrowding problem.

In addition, populations worldwide have actually declined below replacement rate. According to a 2017 U.N. study, almost half of the world’s population live in countries below replacement rate (2.1 children).

In a market economy, people are assets.  More people means more creativity, and a greater increase in innovation, technology, and research.  By contrast, in socialist and communist countries, people are the problem.  Why?  Because the government has to take care of them.  And if the government is deciding how many people are on the public dole, they will always choose less.

While China’s forced abortion seems like a barbaric action of a far-away country, the premise upon which it rests has seeped into socialist countries, such as the U.K.  While the U.K. is not demanding the abortion of children based upon a quantifiable, mandated number, their actions are the same:  Denying the dignity of the human person and denying the rights of parents to determine the best situation for their children.

The story of Alfie Evans, who died on April 28, illustrates the heartbreaking consequences of socialized “medicine.”    The 23-month-old, diagnosed with a rare neurodegenerative condition, had been on life support for almost a year.  While his parents wanted to take him to Italy for treatment, the doctors and judges ruled that this would not be in the child’s “best interest.”  But shouldn’t the parents decide what was in the child’s best interest?  Instead, the judges ordered the hospital to take him off of life support, which resulted in his death.

Sadly, Alfie’s story of the government determining the value of a person’s life, is not unique.  Last summer, U.K. doctors denied treatment for Charlie Gard, a baby with a similar, “incurable” illness, despite the public outcry against this injustice and his parent’s wishes to seek treatment abroad.

Socialism and communism deny human dignity trading it instead for the value of a person’s “work.”  The government elite establishes the standard of value and worth, not the parents or loved ones or even God. If a child or disabled person cannot “contribute” to the society (whatever the government determines that to be), he or she does not “deserve” to live.

But who really assigns value and dignity?  Who really decides whether a person should live or die?

People are not machines to be discarded when they cease to function properly. Yet by stripping the human person of value, worth and dignity, socialism and communism views people as machines to serve the state.

Communism and socialism’s social re-engineering seeks to create a world without faith, a world without family and a world without love.  A world which transforms humans into machines whose sole purpose lies in obeying the government without question.  Whether this means forced abortion in China or forcing parents to remove medical care for their sick children, the human rights abuses stay the same. Government coercion, whether socialist or communist, promises “protection” but only delivers slavery, abuse and exploitation.

Image credit: macsuga/Bigstock

Caroline C. Lewis

Caroline C. Lewis
More about this author

© Values4Europe