IN the same week that Stevie Nicks boasted there would have been no Fleetwood Mac had she not aborted her baby, Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk has vowed to legalise euthanasia.
Stevie Nicks confirmed what honest people have always known – that, despite the fog pro-abortionists like to create, abortion destroys human life for the convenience of others.
She told The Guardian she had conceived a child with The Eagles singer Don Henley in 1979 but that “there’s just no way that I could have had a child then, working as hard as we worked constantly.”
“I knew that the music we were going to bring to the world was going to heal so many people’s hearts and make people so happy. And I thought: you know what? That’s really important.”
So Stevie Nicks had an abortion.
As Fleetwood Mac famously sang, “Loving you isn’t the right thing to do. How can I ever change things that I feel. You can go your own way.”
Freed from the inconvenience of a child, she went on to sell more than 120 million records and to be twice inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.
“If I had not had that abortion, I’m pretty sure there would have been no Fleetwood Mac,” she said.
And we all thought the cost of a Fleetwood Mac album was around $20!
When you feel no shame admitting that you judged the life of your unborn child to be of less value than the possibility of a pop music career, you are acknowledging that our culture has crossed a moral line.
But our obsession with individual autonomy – celebrated by Stevie Nicks – is something that should give Queenslander’s reason for pause as Labor promises to legalise euthanasia.
If people applaud Stevie Nicks for judging another human’s life worth sacrificing for a Grammy Award, what is to stop those same people judging our lives worth sacrificing for their own peculiar reasons?
This is not a question the Queensland Premier wants anyone to seriously consider which is why she waited until the middle of a pandemic and just two weeks before the state election to announce her euthanasia policy.
Better for voters to feel rather than think when it comes to euthanasia. And what better time to feel the argument for death than after suffering for months at the hands of a stubborn virus and soul-destroying lockdowns.
The argument for euthanasia derives its emotional power from the picture painted of a terminally ill patient with nothing but intense suffering standing between him and death.
The picture is largely false since there are ways to manage pain for the terminally ill.
Moreover, there are many people in discomfort – physical or emotional – but who are not terminal. Are they to be denied the permanent relief euthanasia provides for want of a terminal illness? But I digress.
The euthanasia candidate will be in a diminished physical condition and probably frightened or despairing, or both. All of which means that his will and his capacity for independent thought will also be weakened.
He will be flat on his back with his relatives and the authority figure of the doctor looking down at him. There can be few better subjects and settings for subtle or not-so-subtle psychological coercion.
The patient will know and will probably be informed that prolonging his life – which the physician says will be brief – places an enormous emotional and financial burden on his family. Many people in this position are likely to accept premature death under coercion.
This is what progressives call “death with dignity”!
There is also the very real prospect that some people who request euthanasia are really looking for reassurance that they are loved and valued despite their physical decline. If the family and the doctor fail to pick up on this, the patient may become trapped by the request and feel that he or she has no choice but to die.
Is this the autonomy of the patient that euthanasia supporters insist is their object?
The systematic killing of unborn children in huge numbers is part of a general disregard for human life that has been growing for some time. Abortion on its own did not cause the disregard, but it certainly deepens and legitimates the nihilism that is spreading in our culture and that finds killing for convenience acceptable.
We crossed lines, at first slowly and now rapidly. We killed unborn children for convenience and harvested their foetal tissue – for science of course – all the while calling it “reproductive health”.
As Stevie Nicks would sing: “Tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies.”
Abortion has coarsened us.
If it is permissible to kill the unborn human for convenience, it is surely permissible to kill those thought to be soon to die for the same reason.
And it is inevitable that many who are not in danger of imminent death will be killed to ease their families of burden.
Convenience has, for some time, been the central theme of our culture. Humans tend to be inconvenient at both ends of their lives.
Be part of the solution
This content is produced and published without censorship or paywall by the team at The Good Sauce, thanks to the Good Sauce Supporters. If you’d like to be part of the solution by helping us produce more truthful content like this, become a Good Sauce supporter today.
James Macpherson is a sought after international speaker with a background in journalism at the Courier Mail and Daily Telegraph. He previously pastored a significant church in Australia and South Africa. James' weekly Good Sauce podcast comes out every Tuesday. He also writes regularly for The Spectator.