Song of the day, for my daughter: “Dear Abby, I’ve got a question for you”

Dear Abby, what makes the planet so blue?

For whatever reason, the soundtrack in my head couldn’t stop playing this kids tune from Rocknoceros when I read MarySue‘s post on Potluck last night asking, “What is a good mother to do?”  She writes:

Can murder be a kindness? Television pundit Virginia Ironside shocked BBC viewers when she argued that sometimes the most loving thing a mother can do is to put a pillow over the face of a suffering child.

I was watching the clouds floatin’ high overhead.

And I was wonderin’, are they soft like the pillows in bed?

Virginia Ironside is also an advice columnist, a Dear Abby across the pond.

pjToddler woke me at 0300, and the song played on.  The innocence of the lyrics–the questions my toddler asks–all jumble in my head when I read this and a lump rises in my throat.  It’s one thing to see–graphically–what the lefty environuts think of humanity and our children (a blight upon the earth, seriously?!) But to hear someone, in all seriousness, say that the best thing a loving mother can do for her child is to smother it?  A loving mother would ease the suffering of her child and, presumably, the burden of the state simultaneously.

And furthermore, when waves crash on the shore

Do they go back to sea where the albatross soar

Sincerely,

Your Friend Artie

It’s safe to assume Virginia Ironside isn’t religious, considering her view of suffering mirrors that of our modern culture–all suffering is inherently bad–and any wrinkles, like disability and unwanted children–should be smoothed out as best as possible.  Because it’s easier that way.  A shame she’s obviously never met a disabled person without thinking, “Oh, such a pity you’re here and suffering.  A shame your mummy didn’t have a good, firm pillow.”  Does she tell adoptees who write her to go ahead and jump off a bridge since their birth mothers obviously didn’t want them?   

Dear Artie,  Your questions are very astute.

Dear Artie, I wish I had answers for you.

Pundette:

It’s a cold, cold arrogance which, after a look into the future, considers the following issues for others and decides on the death sentence:

Does your life have intrinsic value? No.
Because you may suffer for years, should you desire to continue living? No.
Is your death preferable to X amount of suffering, as perceived by me? Yes.
Can suffering have redeeming value for the sufferer? No.

And let’s not pretend that the advice columnist’s “good mother” doesn’t have a conflict of interest. Her own suffering, that ultimate evil in Ironside’s world, is surely part of the equation as she ponders the destruction of her child.

Many mysteries grow deeper as time passes by

And there’s a question for every star in the sky

My favorite bioethicist, Wesley J. Smith, weighs in:

I have warned that our neurotic obsession with eliminating–as opposed to mitigating or alleviating–suffering leads directly to support for eliminating the sufferer. Yes, some were outraged by the statement. But the UK has already taken a hard turn onto Euthanasia Road, accepting killing as an acceptable answer to human suffering to the point that the public prosecutor has stated he won’t punish some assisted suicides. That leads directly, if farther down the road, to infanticide, as it has in the Netherlands and Belgium. In other words, with controversies like this the ground is being paved.

Indeed, we see increased support for the killing of the littlest sufferers–and not just from Peter Singer. For example–and I wish I were surprised–in the wake of the Ironside brouhaha, the left wing Guardian published an opinion article by Zoe Williams, “Abortion and Euthanasia: Was Virginia Ironside Right?”, who answers her own question, why yes she was. From the column’s conclusion:

There is a furious lobby that attaches a eugenicist tag to anybody who is pro-choice or euthanasia, but it silences its opponents in an underhand way by accusing them of hostility towards the disabled. Of course Ironside is not waging a war against the disabled: she simply said “life isn’t a gift per se”. There are plenty of circumstances that make it more burdensome than joyful. The fact that Ironside ruffled any feathers at all illustrates how important it is not to take this as tacit, but to say it out loud.

Of course it is hostility when killing is advocated as the answer to a life that is “more burdensome than joyful!” Good grief.

Many eugenicists of old advocated killing disabled babies and other unfit as if they were “weeds.” This is no different. The neo-eugenicists have simply learned not to express direct hostility for those they would prefer eliminated. Rather, the killing agenda it is couched in gooey euphemisms and words of oozing compassion. But the key point to remember is that the act advocated is the same. The underlying evil is no less loathsome merely because it is wearing prettier clothes.

I wonder if those who see the “burdensome” aspects of life ever question if they can truely know joy since they see the burdens as something to sidestep entirely.  For a related palate-cleanser, read the rest of Pundette’s fabulous post (I had never heard of Christopher Nolan).

Related: with the rise of Obamacare, will mothers be forced into choosing the pillow route for their children as the government will see the “suffering” only as a hefty price tag?  Scary ain’t it, when the government gets involved with your health care decisions based on cost alone. 

Ironically, the title of the Rocknoceros album is “Dark Side of the Moon Bounce.”   I feel trapped there these days with the likes of Virginia Ironside.