Defending Life In Public
By Averthanus L. D’Souza

GOA, May 03, 2010, 16:30 Hrs (Averthanus L. D’Souza):

In this age of the communications revolution it is unfortunate but true that people have lost, or are slowly beginning to lose their ability to think independently and critically. Television, stereoscopic movies and stereophonic sound systems have made viewers more passive and more susceptible to being influenced by what is thrown at them by technology. Along with the overpowering influence of technology, the messages which are being communicated are so heavily distorted that the recipient is unable to discern the right from the wrong. In fact, the question of whether something is right or wrong has been made redundant by communications technology. What concerns the viewers is whether something which they see is impressive or not.

A brief analysis, such as this, does not allow for a more detailed elaboration of how communications technology is affecting people’s perceptions about the world around them. It would not be unfair to say that the media of mass communications have reduced entire populations into mere herds which can be manipulated at the whims and fancies of those who have command over the media. We live in an illusory world in which “we” make all the decisions which affect our lives. Little do we realize that our very decisions have been manipulated in subtle ways unknown to us. Marketing Research is done in psychology laboratories which investigate ways and means of breaking down resistance to ideas and to feelings. Vance Packard, already in the late 1950s (The Hidden Persuaders, 1957 Pelican Books.) showed how people’s choices are determined for them by marketing agencies. An example of such manipulation was the cigarette industry, which used advertising and marketing techniques to persuade more and more people to smoke, including women and children. It has taken almost half a century and millions of dollars in research funding to prove that cigarette smoking is not just injurious to one’s health, but that it has fatal consequences both for the smoker and for the bystander, who becomes a passive smoker. The medical establishment and governments are still trying to persuade people that it is in their own interest to give up smoking and to persuade friends and neighbours to give it up too.

Another prominent example, in recent times, is the aggressive marketing and advertising of breast milk substitutes. Clever messaging by baby food manufacturers succeeded in persuading many mothers to stop breast-feeding their babies. They were persuaded to believe that artificially prepared baby foods were more nutritious than normal breast milk. In high pressure advertising, the baby food industry played (preyed?) on the weakness of women to have “attractive” figures even after child-birth to induce them to substitute their products for Nature’s own nourishment for their babies. It took more than forty years for non-governmental agencies and associations of Paediatricians to repair the immense damage that had been done to the health of both babies and their mothers by the abandonment of normal breast-feeding of babies.

Closely allied to these disasters caused by big businesses, whose only interest is to make more profits, even if this is at the cost of human and social health, is the aggressive promotion of other related products, which were, and are being, promoted as superior to Nature’s own products. Not so long ago the world was shocked to learn that cattle were being fed with cattle-feed which contained elements which were totally alien to their natural diet. This was done in order to fatten the cattle, and, consequently to give the cattle farmers more income. The “mad cow” disease which threatened the health of humans all over the world, was arrested only after correct information was provided to the people about the processes involved and the dangerous practices which were indulged in by vested interest. But the fact remains that entire populations were manipulated into consuming products which were harmful and even dangerous to their health.

One can provide many, many more examples of how people are easily persuaded to buy and to consume products which are dangerous. Unfortunately, only when the problems took on epidemic proportions, governments and citizens groups began to act to repair the damage.

One might wonder what this has to do with the subject at hand: which is the defence of life in the public square. These few examples are sufficient to prove that people in general, contrary to the common belief that they are well educated and well informed, are, in fact more gullible today than they were before the communications revolution. We delude ourselves into believing that we are discerning and critical in assessing the information which is fed to us persistently and persuasively. The fact is that we have become susceptible to manipulations and we have abandoned our critical assessment of the garbage which is fed to us by the popular media – specially television. If we look at the few examples of opinions expressed in the press on moral issues, we will find - to our horror and dismay – that even so-called “educated” Catholics have fallen prey to the moral depravity which has overtaken modern society. Just a few examples should suffice to illustrate this. Many Catholics believe, and even openly advocate the view, that a woman has a right “over her own body.” Therefore, they conclude, a woman has the right to kill the baby inside her womb – for whatever reasons. Of course, they will not acknowledge this act is an act of killing (or of murder) of an innocent human being; instead they will describe it as a “medical termination of (an unwanted ) pregnancy.” They never stop to think that their own life was not a matter of their choice – they did not choose to be born; neither did they choose their parents, or the place and time of their birth, or the community into which they were born. Yet they loudly proclaim that they have a right to murder on the ground that they have a “freedom of choice.” They do not see the implications of this distortion of what freedom of choice really means. I do not have the “freedom” to take my own life; how then can I have the freedom to take someone else’s life? Such people are unthinking individuals who are simply swayed by “public opinion” which is influenced by the media.

Another smug argument which is commonly advanced by the pro-abortionists is the so-called “reproductive rights” of women. They do not pause to consider what such reproductive rights really mean. Reproduction is a physiological function, just as is breathing, digesting, and the rest of the physiological processes common to most species on this earth. No intelligent woman would demand that her neurological rights be respected, or that her cardio-vascular rights be upheld in a court of law, or proclaim that she had lactation rights or digestive rights. Yet, the radical feminist movement has successfully manipulated many ‘intelligent’ (?) women into believing that they have ‘reproductive’ rights, and that under that right, they have the right to murder an innocent, unborn human being. A high ranking (woman) officer in the Department of Health and Human Services of the Barack Obama administration has actually argued in the U.S. Supreme Court that pregnancy is a sexually transmitted disease similar to syphilis or gonorrhoea, and that women have the “right” to terminate their pregnancies just as they had the right to treat other diseases. Another (woman) officer in the same Department has described women as being “foetal canisters.” It is this kind of thinking (or rather, lack of thinking) which is afflicting many women all over the world because it gets propagated via the mass media. Space does not permit any elaboration of the many other false doctrines which are being widely propagated through the media of mass communications. One thing is certain, however; unless we refute such preposterous claims, we will be sucked into the moral maelstrom which is clearly evident at the beginning of this twenty-first century. The “abortion rights” movement, camouflaged in the garb of a movement to protect the “reproductive rights” of women is only one of the tentacles which the anti-life movement is using in its campaign to convert people. Along with abortion, there are vigorous efforts being made to make euthanasia socially acceptable. This movement also tries to dull the sensitivities of people by making it appear that euthanasia – or ‘mercy killing’ is a social good which should be espoused by governments all over the world. Another common sugar-coating of the dreadful doctrine is to call it “death with dignity” or the “right to die with dignity.” Many arguments are advanced to make this murderous assault on the dignity of the human person appear to be preferable. Underlying this movement to kill the elderly, the mentally challenged, the physically disabled, feeble and dependent persons, is the same evil influence which denies the dignity of the human person and the inalienable rights which have been conferred by the Creator.

The simple truth is that since we do not ‘give’ life, we do not have the right to take life. Any act of killing – whether of unborn babies or the elderly and helpless – is a violation of the basic commandment of God. Only God who gives life and who sustains it throughout its earthly existence can decide when and how and where that life can be terminated. Human beings, who are merely creatures, and subject to the same Natural Law which God has inscribed in all of nature, have no right to arrogate to themselves the right which belongs to God alone.

Inexplicably, humankind which was created by God to live life in abundance while on this earth, so that we might enjoy it to its fullest in heaven, has chosen to pursue the path of death and destruction. Abortion, contraception, euthanasia, eugenics and all the other abominations which some people have unleashed upon humankind should be seen for what they really are: a blind rush towards self destruction and the destruction of society. It is not too late to reverse course and to return to the path which leads to life. If we pursue life we are only fulfilling our ‘destiny’ because we were created to have life and to have it in abundance. But it is not enough that we pursue life individually. In the context of present-day realities, we have a serious obligation to expose the error and the falsity of those who promote death. The media of mass communications can also be used to promote life and the higher values. We will only have ourselves to blame if we miss this opportunity through our lethargy or indifference.