Negative comment: We have "condemned Lilly to life"

A few days ago, I received the following comment on this blog (under my post "The Chub Factor" dated 4/28/11):

"God doesnt give a crap about anything for the simple fact that he doesnt exist. But sheeple feel more comfy believing in imaginary friends. The proof that there is no moron up there in the sky is ur poor daughter herself. U condemned her to life, shame on u!"

It was signed "anonymous."

While I won’t primarily dwell on the existence of God question, there are a few irrational (logically inconsistent) ideas expressed by Anonymous that bear addressing. (1) Only a being capable of being in all times and places simultaneously (God) is capable of stating unequivocally that there is no God. Anonymous can be a skeptic or an unbeliever but can not rationally know, let alone prove, that there is no God. (2) From where does Anonymous receive moral authority to pronounce shame on others? To pronounce judgment on another requires some standard of "good" that the atheist needs to account for. (3) Finally, it is a logical fallacy---that I’m sure that Anonymous does not consistently apply in their life---to suggest that whatever can not be seen with the eyes must be imaginary.

The main part of the negative comment that I feel needs addressing most at this point is the last sentence: "U condemned her to life, shame on u!" When I initially read this, I was holding Lilly in my lap and she was smiling at me and talking to me and was just so happy! Was she feeling "condemned?" Absolutely not! Anyone, I think including Anonymous, would see from just a few minutes in Lilly’s presence that she is glad to be alive, to say nothing of the joy and delight she brings to everyone in her life.

But Anonymous does not believe Lilly should have been allowed to live. That made me think of an article my brother P. shared with me by Chuck Colson, entitled "The 65,000 Question." (See
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/october/28.48.html ) Colson, grandfather to an autistic boy named Max, discusses Peter Singer, Princeton ethicist and atheist. Colson shares some statements by Singer:

"‘All I say about severely disabled babies is that when life is so miserable that it's not worth living, then it is permissible to give it a lethal injection.’ He asks rhetorically, ‘Why limit the killing to the womb?’ As if to answer his own question, he says, ‘Infanticide … should not be ruled out any more than abortion.’"

Did Singer limit murder to "severely disabled babies?" What about someone that is in a car wreck and becomes disabled? Should we murder them? What about someone that is really sick and has been in the hospital "too long." Are they worthy of lethal injection?

Colson’s article summarizes a debate between Singer and Disabilities-rights activist Harriet McBryde Johnson. (Reading this made a lasting impact on me.) Johnson, an attorney with a muscle wasting disease, needs help doing most physical things. Johnson argued that "the presence or absence of a disability does not define the quality of life." Johnson and Singer came away from their debate with some new respect for each other. But Johnson did say "[Singer’s] weakness is his unexamined assumption that disabled people are inherently ‘worse off.’"

Can we carry the eugenic argument to its natural conclusion? Since pretty much every person on earth suffers at some point in some way, physically, emotionally, or mentally, should any of us be permitted to live? Or are we all "condemned to life"?

Lilly is a fighter has shown her will to live five distinct times now. Should we have said "sorry - we don’t care you want to live. You’re not worth it." and then murdered her?

Did Anonymous accuse us of allowing Lilly to live because they really feel so sorry for Lilly for the times she is sick? Is Anonymous a person with a heart overflowing with compassion? Or does Anonymous just really think Lilly is a dead weight because she is mentally and physically delayed? Has Anonymous ever thought that many of us actually find taking care of others to be extremely fulfilling and not a burden in the least?

I confess I don’t know how Anonymous would answer these questions, and I can not judge this person’s heart. But I do know that the problem that leads to skewed thinking such as this, for Singer, Anonymous, and all of us, lies in our hearts. Professing to be wise, we become fools and we worship the creature rather than the creator (Romans 1:22, 25).

"O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?" - Romans 7:24. All of us, Lilly, Anonymous, you, me are condemned to a body of death by our sin. But there is an answer for all of us. There is a redeemer. "Thanks be to God---through Jesus Christ our Lord! . . . . There is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, . . ." - Romans 7:25, 8:1

My husband and I pray that all who read this blog, come to know Jesus Christ for who He is: "Jesus said . . . ‘I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live.’"

Thank you God for Lilly’s life. In Jesus it is both abundant and eternal, and certainly worth the living.

While I am typing this post, Lilly is right next to me. She is smiling and waving her arms and chatting away. Most of her days are like this. I daresay this child knows a joy more pure than any of the rest of us will probably ever be blessed to know. To God be the glory!