The right to help? Or the right to refuse help? Which is real?

The weak: To be despised and eliminated in the name of natural selection or to be helped more because they need it more?

We are in the presence of two entirely different world views. Or is this just a matter of personal choice?

Good on you if you help them, but they have no “right” to help. They have no “claim” on help. Or does the
need for help in fact bestow a right to help? Does a person have the right to the basic necessities for their life, growth and flourishing? Does a starving person have the right to food or a dehydrated person the right to a drink of water? Does a wounded person have a right to medical care? Does a homeless person have a right to some form of shelter to survive? Does an unborn child in fact have a right to his mother’s womb?

The ‘right to choose’ is a code word for the ‘right’ to refuse your womb to your unborn child at the expense of his life.

What is this right rooted in?

The right of refuse a dying beggar? The right to refuse the drowning man ahand to get out of the water? Is there really a right for the strong to refuse the basic necessities of life of the weak? Are rights in the end only for the strong? Or does weakness actually present itself to the human community as a priority – as a case that needs special treatment because of its special need?

Otherwise, have we not simply got another form of tyrannical injustice trying to present and sanitise itself in the language of justice?