Overheard at a local shopping mall:
Jan: “Marsha! How are you girl? I haven’t seen you in ages.”
Marsha: “Hey Jan, you’re looking great. How’ve you been?”
Jan: “Just peachy. Hey, guess what? I’m going to have a fetus!"
Marsha (excited): “That’s wonderful! Oh, I’m so happy for you. Now we both have parasites growing in us.”
Jan: “Yeah, but you’re having twins. I’m so jealous.”
Marsha: “Oh, I only have one now. Greg didn’t get his promotion so we decided to selectively reduce one of them.”
Jan: “Aww...well, that’s a valid choice. I was hoping to have two fetuses because this one is going to be used to harvest organs for Alice. It took us forever to find an IVF facility that would help us with a ‘designer fetus’”
Marsha: “I’m glad everything worked out. So when is it due?”
Jan: “My doctor says I’ll be delivering sometime in July.”
Marsha: “No, I mean when’s it due to become a human.”
Jan: “Oh, well, Bobby and I draw the line sometime within the first few weeks after birth.”
Marsha: “Hmm, Greg and I think it occurs in the third trimester but I can respect that. It’s a valid choice.”
Jan: “Hey, what happened to Cindy? I heard she was having complications with her pregnancy. Did she ever deliver her fetus?”
Marsha: “She did. Back in September. But the baby was born retarded so, you know, she did the right thing and took a trip to Holland.”
Jan: “That is so like Cindy. She has always been so compassionate.”
Marsha: “Oh, I know. She was really thinking about the child. I mean, what kind of quality of life would it have?”
Jan: “Exactly. It’s just a shame that she has to go all the way to Europe.”
Marsha: “Tell me about it. Until we get rid of Hitler, though, that’s what we have to put up with. At least Cindy has the money to travel. Just think about the poor women that have to resort to back-alley euthanasia.”
Jan: “You know, I cried for two weeks after that evil man was reelected.”
Marsha: “Me too, girlfriend. I don’t know what those Red State voters were thinking.”
Jan (mockingly): “The election was about moral values.
Marsha (rolling her eyes): “Yeah, some values they stand for.”
Jan: “Hey, I hate to run but I have to finish up my Christmas shopping. You know, it's depressing how commericalized the holidays have become.”
Marsha: "Haven't they, though? People have completely forgotten the 'reason for the season.' Well, it was great seeing you again. Give me a call sometime."
Jan: "I'll do that. Hope you have a great Christmas."
Marsha: "You too. Bye."
1
Very clever and bitingly incisive. ("bitingly"??). With a Brady Bunch allusion too?! Wow!
posted on 12.03.2004 2:00 AM2
Just out of curiosity, do any of the scholars out there know what was typically done with infants born with extreme spina bifida way back around 0 B.C.?
posted on 12.03.2004 2:16 AM3
It's sad to think that this is exactly what the world is saying right now...in plain language.
But hey, if you can't afford to keep the retarded fetus, what can you do? This world that Bush has created leaves us no choice but to kill it. If all our taxes weren't going to Haliburton, lining Cheney's pockets maybe we could afford a little more. If Kerry were elected there is at least the chance that the fetus' parts could be used to keep the suffering patients dying on death row alive a little longer instead of executing them without any compassion for life!
posted on 12.03.2004 3:19 AM4
I really get mad when people say retarded children have poor qualities of life. Just the fact that they said that is proof they don't know anybody that way or with muscular distrophy or downs syndrome or just challenged. O Brave New World, with such people in it!
posted on 12.03.2004 3:55 AM5
It is stunning to think someone could actually believe that Pres. Bush has so much power over our lives that because he is re-elected, we have no choice but to euthanize our retarded children. It's the same twisted logic that Scott Peterson followed: "I'm not ready to be a father and don't like being married to Lacy, so I'll just kill them both." But as Lacy's mother cried out on the witness stand, "Divorce was an option!" Just not one Scott chose to follow.
I applaud the "overheard" dialogue on the top of this post. I must wonder what kind of darkness of thought believing things as absurdly monstrous as these reveals.
posted on 12.03.2004 7:56 AM6
quote: "…she did the right thing and took a trip to Holland."
I bet dollars to donuts that it won't be long before some liberal "xtian" denomination comes up with a theological justification for it.
posted on 12.03.2004 8:29 AM7
Oengus Moonbones writes: "I bet dollars to donuts that it won't be long before some liberal "xtian" denomination comes up with a theological justification for it."
How about Augustine or Aquinas? Liberal "xtians?"
posted on 12.03.2004 9:46 AM8
Well put.
Larry, the Romans left unwanted children exposed on the hillside to die or be eaten by predators.
posted on 12.03.2004 9:53 AM9
The romans we not the only ones. Throughout the history of the planet, this has been common practice. Those hills were also prime spots for couples who wanted children but could not have them. Just go pick one up, like a gallon of milk at the store.
posted on 12.03.2004 10:06 AM10
and children are left to die by the side of the road in fallujah. what is your point?
posted on 12.03.2004 10:10 AM11
Curious thing, Larry and corrie, is that Christians were the ones who picked up such babies and raised them as their own.
posted on 12.03.2004 10:36 AM12
Reference to Augustine and Aquinas:
Augustine:The law does not provide that the act abortion pertains to homicide,for there cannot yet be said to be a live soul in a body that lacks sensation....
Is Augustine speaking of human law, or Divine Law? And since modern medical doctors have measured response to sensory stimulus on the part of a developing fetus, does that negate Augustine's argument in this matter?
Aquinas: The intellective soul i.e., true person is created by God at the completion of man's coming into being.
Is he referring to birth, or conception?
Lastly, are these statements in response to changing worldviews of the surrounding culture (as referenced in the post above), or referring to something else?
posted on 12.03.2004 10:41 AM13
I was laughing so hard I fell out of my chair. This is priceless and I will link it to my site...with attribution of course. Keep up the great work!
posted on 12.03.2004 10:46 AM14
steve h,
As the article goes on to clarify, both Augustine and Aquinas held that human personhood was not complete at conception, because both posited Aristotle's tripartite division of the soul. The point is that revered Christian thinkers have held this position, and yet they have not been condemned as moral monsters a la Peter Singer.
posted on 12.03.2004 10:55 AM15
Jim Anderson: and both have the Imprimatur of the Christian faith...unlike some heretical sects. ;-)
posted on 12.03.2004 11:05 AM16
Good job, Joe. I really liked the reference to people equating Bush to Hitler towards the end.
Speaking as a college student who is studying the Nazi period extensively at this time, those people have no idea what they're talking about. Hitler was all about killing off the weak and the inferior to make room for the superior races. Interestingly, this is exactly the sort of thing that Bush is against, but funny how some people fail to grasp that.
posted on 12.03.2004 11:21 AM17
*blinks*
Wow. You certainly outdid yourself with this one... And I have to agree just how ludicrous this situation has become, and just how poorly it reflects on our "modern" society. Very nicely done.
posted on 12.03.2004 11:24 AM18
Moral of the story: Never, ever, ever have sex unless you actually want to have a child.* Sex is strictly for procreation, and for no other purpose. God created you with sexual urges as the ultimate test of faith.
* - Nope, can't masturbate, either, that's a sin, too. And don't even think about non-vaginal intercourse...
posted on 12.03.2004 11:44 AM19
tgirsh,
Moral of the story: Never, ever, ever have sex unless you actually want to have a child.*
Um, why would that be the moral of the story? Married couples can have sex for pleasure without it ending in abortion or infant euthanasia.
posted on 12.03.2004 11:49 AM20
Sam writes
"I really get mad when people say retarded children have poor qualities of life."
So do I. I've known some wonderful people with varying degrees of mental retardation, including some interesting characters that never learned to talk or bathe themselves or not to drink the cholorinated pool water. Still, loveable chaps, albeit loveable chaps doomed to bachelorhood.
Just out of curiosity, Sam, what was the inspiration for your comment? Where did you hear someone say that retarded people have a poor quality of life? It seems to come from out of left field. Surely you aren't suggesting that the Dutch are euthanizing children because they are mentally retarded. That would be a gross lie. I know you're above that.
posted on 12.03.2004 11:51 AM21
Steve H (for Highly dubious?) writes:
"Curious thing, Larry and corrie, is that Christians were the ones who picked up such babies and raised them as their own."
Were there Christians in 0 B.C.? No, I don't think so.
I also think you're making crap up. It must please you to recite that tale. It would be nice if you could show me some evidence to support your position that around 100 A.D. Christians were adopting and caring for babies born with extreme spina bifida.
Yes, it would be nice. Of course, it's also impossible, steve h. No such evidence exists.
You're making stuff up. It's called lying.
You and I both know very well what people in ancient times (and even people today who live as they did in ancient times) do with their children who are born with incredibly disfiguring,horrifying and untreatable illnesses like extreme cases of spina bifida. And we both know why it's done: to prevent another human from suffering.
Can someone tell me what is the problem with eliminating a human beings suffering when they are suffering unbearable interminable and untreatable pain?
Or if that's too hard, maybe someone can explain why we don't execute prisoners by refusing them food and water. That way they would die "naturally". Wouldn't that make more sense than killing them?
Good luck, my friends. Maybe one or two of you will learn something today. You'll have to put down your script first.
posted on 12.03.2004 12:01 PM22
Larry,
Surely you aren't suggesting that the Dutch are euthanizing children because they are mentally retarded. That would be a gross lie. I know you're above that.
While I'm sure Sam is above lying, the Dutch aren't above euthanizing children because they are mentally retarded. If you had followed the link in my post you would have noticed this paragraph:
In August, the main Dutch doctors' association KNMG urged the Health Ministry to create an independent board to review euthanasia cases for terminally ill people "with no free will," including children, the severely mentally retarded and people left in an irreversible coma after an accident. [emphasis added]
23
Well, Joe, I would suggest that you consider what is meant by "severely mental retardation" under the circumstances. It would appear to me that "severe" mental retardation is similar to an "irreversible coma" or being "terminally ill with no free will".
I can say for myself that while I have known and worked with a lot of mentally retarded people, including some whom I might catergorize as "severely retarded" (i.e., never learned to speak, prone to seizures, near-constant guardianship necessary), I highly doubt that any of them would have qualified for the Dutch protocol.
Make no mistake: there are Dutch people in the Netherlands who will be paying close attention to these developments because they are as just as concerned as you are about the slippery slope.
posted on 12.03.2004 12:17 PM24
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDReviews7/kingofkings.htm
Quick OT -- Criterion has released a DVD of Cecil B. DeMille's legendary film, "King of Kings". The above link has a nice review. Looks awesome!
posted on 12.03.2004 12:18 PM25
Larry,
I can say for myself that while I have known and worked with a lot of mentally retarded people, including some whom I might catergorize as "severely retarded" (i.e., never learned to speak, prone to seizures, near-constant guardianship necessary), I highly doubt that any of them would have qualified for the Dutch protocol.
Who do you think would? In the U.S., severe mental retardation is defined as a person with an IQ of less than 50 who requires intensive support throughout his or her entire life. The people you have known appear to be exactly the type of children that the Dutch are talking about killing.
26
Can we also make pop music change every instance of "baby" to "collection of cells"? I think that would be fun.
You're the One for Me
Backstreet Boys
Hey collection of cells I need a girl like you
But tell me if you feel it too
I'm in delusion every minute every hour
My heart is calling out for you
I feel in heaven when I look in your eyes
I know that you are the one for me
You drive me crazy cuz you're one of a kind
I want your lovin'
And I want it right now
Ooh collection of cells you're so fine
I'm gonna make you mine
27
Who do I think would? Perhaps a severe Trisomy 18 baby born with a brain stem and little else.
THIS STUFF HAPPENS. It's awful, horrific, monstrous stuff, probably the worst thing you could wish on anyone. But it happens.
And it's terribly stressful -- utterly depressingly stressful -- for everyone involved: the doctors, the nurses, the parents. The brainless suffering baby that's getting poked with needles and stuffed with tubes is at the center of it all. The baby is incapable of begging for mercy. The baby doesn't know that he or she is alive and he or she never will know that. All the baby will know is discomfort.
Sure, shoot the brainless baby up with morphine. Will that make the baby's infected lungs feel better? Of course not. Will that make the urinary infection or other bacterial infection that is eating the baby out from the feel better? Of course not.
If you or anyone else claims to know your deity has in mind when He puts these sorts of human beings on earth, that's great. When you have your own severe trisomy baby, you can watch it suffer for as long as your pocketbook, insurance company and health care provider allows you to do so. Enjoy!
But it seems a tad presumptuous of certain people to condemn as "Nazis" anyone who thinks that God might be forgiving and understanding if, after careful consideration, we take every possible step to end the suffering of these horribly diseased and hopeless human beings as soon as possible. Especially it seems presumptuous of these people to make such claims in the complete absence of any specific and uncontroversial instructions in their holy book which support their position (not that it would justify their views from a legal perspective, but it would at least help to explain them).
posted on 12.03.2004 12:53 PM28
The Backstreet Boys? Uh oh.
Phil, we need to have a talk.
posted on 12.03.2004 12:55 PM29
Joe and Larry are both missing the point of Joe's quote:
In August, the main Dutch doctors' association KNMG urged the Health Ministry to create an independent board to review euthanasia cases for terminally ill people "with no free will," including children, the severely mentally retarded and people left in an irreversible coma after an accident. [different emphasis added]
Notice that the Dutch aren't talking about euthanizing all mentally retarded persons--just those with terminal illness, and without the capacity to fend for themselves. One can make the slippery slope argument, but one should also get the facts straight first.
posted on 12.03.2004 1:01 PM30
LL,
Are you joking about that movie post? Some times I can't tell the difference between your joking and your contempt with Christians. Maybe its the same I don't know...
If Joe packed up his bags and EO was gone, admit it you would be in despair wouldn't you? ;)
Just curious what other blogs do you frequent?
Thanks
posted on 12.03.2004 1:02 PM31
Joe, have you ever discussed Numbers 5, which seems to advocate forced miscarriage in the case of marital infidelity?
27 If she has defiled herself and been unfaithful to her husband, then when she is made to drink the water that brings a curse, it will go into her and cause bitter suffering; her abdomen will swell and her thigh waste away, [6] and she will become accursed among her people. 28 If, however, the woman has not defiled herself and is free from impurity, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.posted on 12.03.2004 1:22 PM
32
"LL,
Are you joking about that movie post?"
Nope.
"Some times I can't tell the difference between your joking and your contempt with Christians."
I don't have contempt for "Christians" or any other religious people. I just don't like to see rational discourse squelched by absolutist "principles" that inevitably are not consistently applied.
"If Joe packed up his bags and EO was gone, admit it you would be in despair wouldn't you? ;)"
I'd probably miss it but I bet my employers would be pleased by my sudden increase in efficiency. Seriously, you want to talk about an ethical struggle ... it's wrong to be blogging on company time. A very bad habit. You could even call it stealing. Now you've done it ... I'm feeling guilty. Ashamed. Perhaps I need more coffee.
"Just curious what other blogs do you frequent?"
Many of the usual left-leaning sites (kos, Atrios, et al., though I don't read the comments most of the time). And of course The Daily Howler. I usually don't go near any other conservative sites with public comments. Every time I visit Free Republic I find myself wondering whether blind hate is the essence of humanity. For the Christian conservative viewpoint, I am not aware of a site like this one. The commenters here are pretty sharp, overall, and I think I've noticed since I've been hanging out here that just about everyone's wiser overall. I know if I went back to my earliest posts I'd probably some find some careless global Christian-bashing and more battered strawmen than I'd care to remember ...
posted on 12.03.2004 1:36 PM33
One last offtopic tidbit, cdm, two other essential films which explore the concepts of grace, chance, and suffering like no other films before or after:
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDReview6/auhasardbalthazar.htm
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDReview6/mouchette.htm
34
Jim,
Joe, have you ever discussed Numbers 5, which seems to advocate forced miscarriage in the case of marital infidelity?
I have to confess I’ve never heard that particular interpretation before.
Since there is nothing in the passage that implies that the women is pregnant I would think it’s a bit of a stretch to think that is advocating a forced miscarriage. The curse is on the women herself who will become sick and sterile. I personally don’t see any reason to assume that it would relate to forced miscarriage much less be openly advocating such an action.
35
"I would think it’s a bit of a stretch to think that is advocating a forced miscarriage."
It sure is a weird passage. Certainly if the woman has been unfaithful, then it seems from the passage that when she is "made" to drink the water "that brings a curse" she is going to get pretty damn sick. If she happened to be pregnant, the symptoms don't sound fetus-friendly to me.
It's a good thing that such water doesn't exist. I imagine there'd be a huge market for it in the suburbs.
posted on 12.03.2004 2:24 PM36
"Since there is nothing in the passage that implies that the women is pregnant I would think it’s a bit of a stretch to think that is advocating a forced miscarriage."
The implication is fairly clear, I think; if she's innocent, she hasn't been impregnated. If she's guilty, she has, and the life inside her will wither.
That is, unless the water of "curse" is magical, and only affects the guilty, which is dubious.
37
Larry,
Why ask for evidence you know doesn't exist? If it is to foster discussion, I understand. If it's to play "gotcha" with someone, then I don't.
I'm afraid there is no such date as 0 BC, or 0 AD for that matter. And, yes Christians in Roman times did pick up abandoned babies and care for them. As to spina bifida explicitly, who can say?
I agree it's a thorny issue. I'm solidly against abortion on demand, but there are gray areas that need thoughtful consideration.
posted on 12.03.2004 2:53 PM39
"Now you've done it ... I'm feeling guilty. Ashamed. Perhaps I need more coffee."
heh.
Seriously, I wonder how many blog-addicts this is an issue for. I mean lurking/blogging on company time.
posted on 12.03.2004 3:11 PM40
Joe:
Married couples can have sex for pleasure without it ending in abortion or infant euthanasia.What happens if that sex results in pregnancy? posted on 12.03.2004 4:08 PM
41
As for me, Josh, I tend to spend my lunch-break time at my desk, or stay late when necessary. I try to keep honest.
A child born in those days with severe spina bifida or other dramatic problems would be unlikely to survive long regardless of the care they received. That's beside the point.
What's at issue here is that a panel of doctors has arrogated unto itself the right to decide whether an individual shall live or die.
It comes down to whether or not humans have rights that no other human can take away.
The Founders declared that it was "self-evident" that God - excuse me, "the Creator" ;-) - endowed humans with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. An individual may voluntarily waive those rights (by commiting a crime, for example), but no person or government may take them away.
As Ed Morrisey put it at Captain's Quarters, if the right to life itself is not intrinsic, if there is not something ineffably special and different about human life, then all humans are merely animals. And all animals are equal. Of course, some animals are more equal than others. Those that sit on boards and commissions, for example.
The argument that "it's just a small number of cases" is like saying "there's just a little ice in the water ahead" to the passengers on the Titanic.
posted on 12.03.2004 4:18 PM42
tgirsch - then their family grows, DUH! Unmarried couples can put the child up for adoption (married couples can too, for that matter).
The point is that there are alternatives to killing the child.
posted on 12.03.2004 4:20 PM43
BTW, Joe, you and I just got a "Hugh-tip" :-)
http://www.hughhewitt.com/#postid1155
posted on 12.03.2004 4:27 PM44
Tgirsh,
What happens if that sex results in pregnancy?
Like Corrie said, you then have a bigger family. I know its a radical idea but children -- even unplanned children -- are not a horrific curse imposed upon people who participate in that dirty activity known as sex.
My wife isn't able to have kids but if by some miracle she became pregnant I would be shocked, scared, and completely freaked out. But we would simply make room in our lives and in our hearts for our new child. I suspect that is what most people would do.
posted on 12.03.2004 4:51 PM45
Joe,
Great post. My how our society changes a language to conceal it's sin. I refer back to a quote from one of your posts (November 17, 2004)from Abraham Lincoln:
“If you call a dog’s tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?” “Five,” his audience would invariably answer. “No,” he would politely respond,” the correct answer is four. Calling a tail a leg does not make it a leg.”
You can call abortion or euthansia anything you want and it does not change the fact that it voilates one of God's commandmants.
46
Corrie,
Sounds like a good way to balance your online time during work hours, as long as you have those flexibilites (staying late, etc.) and I suppose most office workers do.
I agree with your post on the intrisic value of human life. However, if a baby were severely deformed, and has zero chance of living off of life support it is entirely justifiable to remove that support. If the baby can indeed live apart from life-support, then killing it is wrong. Would anyone here hold as a moral certainty that a baby who would die without it ought to be kept on life-support indefinately?
posted on 12.03.2004 5:22 PM47
"Would anyone here hold as a moral certainty that a baby who would die without it ought to be kept on life-support indefinately?"
Or a human. Any human. Regardless of how much pain they are in or whether they have a brain function greater than that of reptile's.
posted on 12.03.2004 6:58 PM48
Larry & Josh,
Seems to me a baby on life-support wouldn't need to be actively killed just "unplugged", so it isn't really part of the Groningen kerfuffle.
I'll add my "thumbs up" to Larry's film recommendations. I saw Mouchette about 20 years ago. It was a very powerful film. I never did see the Balthasar movie though, but looking at the link and reviews, it surely looks good to me.
One of the things I find just plain wrong about the Groningen thing is the "parents having little or no say" in influencing the "committee". It doesn't seem to get as much press as the other aspects of the case.
posted on 12.03.2004 9:35 PM49
I'll defend myself against Larry Lord's non serious accusation that I lied.
I remember when I was in 8th grade a discussion a class where we disscussed the hypothetical situation that if you HAD to kill a Dog or a Baby which one would you kill and under which circumstances would you kill the baby. At the time I would easily have agreed with the Utilitarian arguments that if everybody will be happier when the baby is dead, by all means kill it. And when would everybody be happier when the baby was killed? If the Baby would have a poor life, or was terminally ill and would die within a matter of a few years or the baby was going to be retarded and would require a lot of attention from his or her parents.
It's just so for me to think about it. Unless you consider human life sacred (which our class didn't, but our teacher did... our entire class was argueing with the teacher, can you imagine?) then you just can just call it as you see it. Who will be happy? The Dog will live longer, the baby will grow up to be a criminal, the baby is too smart and so he/she will grow up to being depressed and ostricized, whatever.
I certainly think the slippery slope argument is valid and trumps many of the other ones but of course our values will continue to change and we won't see ourselves descending the slope, but becoming more enlightened, but what's really at issue is do you consider a human life sacred? Everything else hinges on that.
posted on 12.04.2004 4:19 AM50
Woops! I'm sorry I didn't defend myself, I just ranted. Okay defense: I too have worked with mentally handicapped people, and I know a lot of potential parents would get really scared and sad if they found their child was going to handicapped. I mean, I would be. Wouldn't it be tempting to avoid all that? You could pretty easily convince some people it was okay. Boom, quick infanticide, sweep it under the rug, and forget it.
posted on 12.04.2004 4:21 AM51
Larry,
Can you provide a rational basis for regarding any human life as having dignity, which is not subjective and aribtrary, arrived at through either social consensus or government fiat?
posted on 12.04.2004 10:17 AM52
Joe Carter, I always thought the Devil knew how the quote Scriptures, but it turns out that he also knows how to quote Augustine and Aquinas when it serves his purpose. Keep up the good work, Joe, on exposing the "Groningen Protocol".
53
Oengus,
As the one who brought Augustine and Aquinas into the discussion, let me say that I am not sure whether to be appalled or bemused as to why you consider me a tool of the Devil. Shoot not the messenger. Read Augustine and Aquinas, and discover the difficult truth for yourself: in their Aristotelean philosophical framework, personhood does not begin at conception. If that is the Devil's position, then so be it. Until you demonstrate why my reading is flawed, I'll have to dismiss your rhetoric as either flippant or misguided.
Respectfully,
Jim Anderson
posted on 12.04.2004 4:32 PM54
"Can you provide a rational basis for regarding any human life as having dignity"
Define what you mean by dignity. Otherwise it's impossible to respond to this question in a meaningful way.
I'll also ask why you are interested -- I certainly don't believe that human beings should be treated like dirt. Does any person believe that who is not a sociopath?
posted on 12.04.2004 5:11 PM55
Hysterical and yet a disturbingly accurate representation of what this world is turning into!
posted on 12.04.2004 5:29 PM56
" I know a lot of potential parents would get really scared and sad if they found their child was going to handicapped. I mean, I would be. Wouldn't it be tempting to avoid all that? You could pretty easily convince some people it was okay. Boom, quick infanticide, sweep it under the rug, and forget it."
Or put the baby up for adoption and "forget about it."
Happens every day, in the US and in the Netherlands. No legislature in any country that I'm aware of is proposing the execution by physicians of born babies who are merely "handicapped." Can we agree that this is the case?
I recognize the theoretical possibility of a slippery slope. Who doesn't? It's obvious that the Dutch do. That's why they are "putting the spotlight' on the issue and trying to make their procedures transparent.
I'll ask the question again: do any of you doubt that your positions aren't being expressed in the Netherlands and considered carefully?
We're talking a handful of severely utterly and completely messed up human beings. Do you comprehend what is possible? Are you aware of the sorts of human beings that nature (or your deity) permits to be born alive?
We're not talking merely limbless human beings or microcephalics. We're talking people whose cerebellums don't exist or aren't functional who are capable of breathing but who will never be capable of an emotional life with greater depth than that of your pet snake, but who (like your pet snake) are capable of experiencing intense unbearable pain and who (like your pet snake) are incapable of comprehending that death is their only escape. How much morphine do you need to feel comfortable when your spinal cord and nerves are unprotected while your body grows?
While we're at it, how many souls does a two headed human being have if it's sharing all or most of its internal organs? What if one head has a brain that functions only to open a sightless eye or move a mouth that a cannot speak? Is it a justified "killing" to remove the second head? Or is it murder?
Don't tell me this sort of thing never happens. It does.
posted on 12.04.2004 5:35 PM57
quote: "Read Augustine and Aquinas, and discover the difficult truth for yourself: in their Aristotelean philosophical framework, personhood does not begin at conception."
When it comes to murdering the innocent, frankly, I don't gave a rat's patoot about philosophical frameworks, no matter whose, used to try to justify it.
Quote: "I'll have to dismiss your rhetoric as either flippant or misguided."
No, not flippant or misguided, I am simply fed up and sick to death of pervasive moral cowardice and excuses, dressed up with pseudo-intellectual veneers, in the face of a relentless Evil that is leaving in its path a long line of dead corpses.
(And yes, I have read Augustine and some Aquinas. But sometimes even supposedly good people can have some horrifically bad ideas.)
posted on 12.04.2004 8:02 PM58
Thanks, Larry, for showing us the absurdity and desperation of your extreme arguments. You've outed yourself.
To Joe, et al:
This bit of drama is only slight hyperbole. That this dialogue in its entirety is a typical checkout counter conversation, yet, is still a bit of a stretch; but at any moment of the day, in any medium sized city, the individual pieces of it are being uttered. It's only a matter of time before the individual threads are woven into a chilling fabric, fit for wrapping dead children.
posted on 12.04.2004 8:21 PM59
The problem with the protocol of course isn't that it contemplates that certain diseases might cause us to not prolong suffering, or that parents might want to choose the option of letting nature take it's course; but rather that an external committee would evaluate the life of a human independently and choose whether or not they should actively end the life of that human.
That is a monstrous thought, one that no appeal to the horrors of particular diseases will ameliorate.
posted on 12.04.2004 9:02 PM60
Hey Winsome and Oengas
Funny I never hear you freaking out about the thousands upon thousands of innocent babies, fetuses and adult men women and children that we've been blowing to bits and cripppling in Iraq, all paid for with your tax money.
Let's recall what the "justification" is for our killing of those people. So you can "feel safer" while you munch on your Snickers (TM) here in the good ol' USA.
Just curious, what other innocent people are expendable because it would make you "feel safer" if we dropped some explosives in their immediate vicinity? I won't ask you to show me where in your holy book the killing of innocent people is justified because I know it's not in there. You've made that abundantly clear.
But I want to hear from your own sad sick lips who else we can afford to kill besides Iraqis, without causing your deity to switch sides. Don't try washing the blood of your hands. It's not removable. And it's on my hands, too. The diffference between us is I'm sickened by it. You pretend not to notice the Iraqi corpses while you shout hysterically about 3 or 4 hopeless terminally suffering human beings who were put out of their misery.
Can you step up to the microphone and say anything that isn't in your script? Or are you going to keep at it with the fundamentalist Osama-style pronouncements and Armageddon pronouncements while children continue to be slaughtered on your dime?
Just answer some of the questions in my previous post and I'll let you off the hook on these questions which are likely too "grown-up" for you to handle right now.
posted on 12.04.2004 9:07 PM61
Funny I never hear you freaking out about the thousands upon thousands of innocent babies, fetuses and adult men women and children that we've been blowing to bits and cripppling in Iraq, all paid for with your tax money.
Well, we're killing them for their own good.
D'uh.
posted on 12.04.2004 9:17 PM62
When it comes to murdering the innocent, frankly, I don't gave a rat's patoot about philosophical frameworks, no matter whose, used to try to justify it.
If you had an email address or something, I'd just email you, but it's posted neither here nor at your website. So, I'll have to be mean here:
Are you serious? You initially asked how long it'd be before someone tried to come up with a theological framework for the justification of abortion. Well guess what, Einstein: the framework already exists in Augustine, who was working within the Aristotelian tradition.
Oh, and watch that drool; you don't want it soaking your shirt.
posted on 12.04.2004 9:26 PM63
Larry,
Way to switch the topic over to Iraq. The brief answer to the question is that it's now over that people are dying, it's why they are dying. Are we trying to give them a chance at a better life? Did we free them from a brutal dictator? We may have been wrong to some extent on the reasons to go to war, but overall, it was justified.
There is no reason to argue with you Larry because you just follow a script yourself. Your compassion ends the moment something becomes difficult or painful. Your response becomes, "kill them." Several have tried to reason with you that there is a difference between denying treatment and euthanasia (killing). You choose to remain ignorant of those arguments.
If I am an absolutist because I believe that human beings are unique and have intrinsic value, then I gladly take the mantle. I will not back away from that position.
BTW, look at the commas in the sentence about killing the mentally retarded. It was not referring to the retarded who where terminally ill.
posted on 12.04.2004 9:38 PM64
Chris Lutz writes
"Way to switch the topic over to Iraq. The brief answer to the question is that it's now over that people are dying, it's why they are dying. Are we trying to give them a chance at a better life?"
Hahahaahah. No my friend, it's you who are doing the sleazy switcheroo here and you don't seem to realize it. I'm talking about killing individual human beings. Those human beings have no chance of a better life. They are DEAD. You don't know what kind of a life they might have had under Saddam Hussein. Hell, for all you know, some of those dead people might have ended up killing Saddam and freeing Iraq from his dictatorship on their terms. But they won't be doing that now. No, thanks to the major league pussies, inept media and corporate fatcats that run our country, those innocent Iraqis are going to rot in the ground (at least the ones weren't incinerated completely upon impact of whatever explosive might have killed them).
"We may have been wrong to some extent on the reasons to go to war, but overall, it was justified. "
Wow. What else do you see in your crystal ball? Such a devastating argument, Chris. I'm not sure how to respond ...
"Your compassion ends the moment something becomes difficult or painful. Your response becomes, "kill them." "
A complete fabrication on your part. Nice. Please show me where I said that the moment something becomes difficult or painful for a human being, they should be killed. Either that, or apologize. And say a prayer for forgiveness while you're at it. Lying is a sin according to your holy book.
"Several have tried to reason with you that there is a difference between denying treatment and euthanasia (killing). You choose to remain ignorant of those arguments. "
No I haven't. I have acknowledged the arguments and presented counter-arguments in the form of hypotheticals which illustrate that the arguments you refer to are faulty. And what has been the response to my counter-arguments? The mere repetition of this allegedly critical "distinction". If I was debating with Jehovah's Witnesses, I'd understand this obsession with "natural causes." But we're talking about babies who are likely going to be on life support prior to their euthanization (= freeing from their irrevocable unbearable suffering). Remove the life support, and it's inevitable that the babies will die. And it's probable that they will die more slowly and with more suffering than if they were euthanized, humanely, with compassion and, I might add, with no less grief about the ultimate outcome than if they were allowed to die "naturally". In fact, one might expect more genuine appreciation for the life lost in the instance of euthanasia than if the baby is allowed to suffer interminably. Under those circumstances, people may fall into a state of shocked numbness as they watch the tiny individual suffer, waiting for death to come, and when death does finally come: relief. Does that scenario seem unlikely to you? If so, why? Is the emotional reality of the sentient human beings involved in either scenario completely irrelevant to the effectuation of your so-called "culture of life"?
"If I am an absolutist because I believe that human beings are unique and have intrinsic value, then I gladly take the mantle. I will not back away from that position. "
If that is what qualifies one for being an absolutist, then I am one too according to that definition.
What is the intrinsic value of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis killed with your tax money, which you evidently are happy to pay? At what point does the "intrinsic value" of a human being no longer justify keeping the human being on life support? Can you articulate an answer for me?
"BTW, look at the commas in the sentence about killing the mentally retarded. It was not referring to the retarded who where terminally ill. "
Strawman. We might as well be talking about euthanizing babies because they are boys. It's a different topic.
posted on 12.04.2004 10:29 PM65
Well, I thought this was a great post until it turned into a "hypocritical liberals are so stupid for hating Bush." And it, of course, completely ignored the pro-life conservatives who think Bush is a Hitleresque "evil man."
posted on 12.04.2004 11:45 PM66
Peter writes
"And it, of course, completely ignored the pro-life conservatives who think Bush is a Hitleresque "evil man."
Are you one of those pro-life conservatives? If so, where in heck have you been hiding? ;)
posted on 12.05.2004 12:27 AM67
Larry Lord,
You're a monster.
Since you enjoy the thought of killing so much, why don't you kill yourself?
That way you wouldn't have to endure the pain and suffering of having to live with those of us who still believe that a human life has intrinsic value and that there is never any moral justification for killing an innocent person.
posted on 12.05.2004 12:55 AM68
To the Christians among you: All of this rattling reminds me of Paul's command to "stay clear from controversy". WHERE IS YOUR FAITH? All I'm reading is evidence of FEAR. Instead oif spending so much idle time at your computers engaging in "cyber war" which is sure to bless not a one, why not spend this time feeding the poor and visiting the widowed and orphaned as you Lord Jesus commanded?
posted on 12.05.2004 1:37 AM69
Big David states proudly and unequivocaly:
"[I] believe that a human life has intrinsic value and that there is never any moral justification for killing an innocent person."
Is that really what you believe, David, or are you just reciting from your script? I assume then you are opposed to capital punishment and to war, especially pre-emptive wars, and that you oppose removing someone from life support when life support is necessary for their survival.
Agreed?
Or do you want to rephrase your statement?
I won't challenge you yet with some other interesting real-world scenarios that articulate adults sometimes discuss. You ain't yet grown up enough for that, evidently. Hint: recent documentary about mountain climbing.
In the meantime, let me tell you something about values, David. Values that amount to nothing more than slogans for you to recite are worthless.
You recited your script about respect, then called me a monster and suggested I go kill myself.
What the hell sort of values are those? No thanks, man. Keep your values.
I put an extraordinarily high value on ALL life, including and especially human life. The living -- and non-living natural things -- which your deity allegedly created are extremely important to me. That is why I am opposed to our killing of innocent people in Iraq (as are you, apparently), our destruction of the environment and the poisoning of our water and food supply for corporate profit, the death penalty which invariably kills innocent people but doesn't deter murderers (i assume you are opposed to capital punishment as well), and extending the unbearable suffering of terminally diseased people so that sadists like you can get your rocks off pondering "God's mysterious ways."
I'm also opposed to bigotry and discrimination against people on the basis of who they love.
So what are you values again? Please don't recite your bogus unintelligible script about the "intrinsic" value of human life unless you've got some legs to stand on.
Maybe I'm all wrong about you. Prove it.
Imagine: your plane crashes in the desert, your wife is giving birth, it's a breach birth, if you don't kill the baby your wife will die, and if you cut your wife open to save the baby she'll die, and if you do nothing they'll both die. Your wife tells you that she doesn't want to die.
What do you do? "Let nature take its course"?
Is it amoral to take action? Which action is less moral?
For the record, I am not a philosophy teacher or a philosphy student. The crap bores me. I'm just using the brain that your deity allegedly gave me to imagine some scenarios where your fundamentalist position might create interesting results. Of course, that's assuming you're as fundamentalist as you claim to be, David.
C'mon big talker. Take the test. Your savior didn't shy away from "the devil". Why should you shy away from The Lord? Larry Lord, that is.
BWAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAhaahahahaahah.
What do you do?
posted on 12.05.2004 2:05 AM70
Darla, you should feel free to answer the questions I posed to David as well.
posted on 12.05.2004 2:08 AM71
I thought I'd stick up another comment and say I'm not reading anymore of this thread. It's fun, but heck, so is heroin. I'm not trying to make any statement out of this other than "I'm a big jerkstore." Eat it.
posted on 12.05.2004 4:06 AM72
Larry,
"'Can you provide a rational basis for regarding any human life as having dignity'
Define what you mean by dignity. Otherwise it's impossible to respond to this question in a meaningful way."
You've just helped illustrate the problem. I could pick a definition, and you and 10 other people might or might not agree with it. How would one definition gain legal acceptance then? Consensus or government fiat. Let's hope that those making the decision are nice, enlighted liberals and not the sort of Brown Shirts who shoot up Bush campaign headquarters and intimidate voters at the polls, or look the other way while others do so. Let's hope they're not the sort who attend seminars espousing Jew hatred on college campuses then riot when a Jew or Israeli comes to speak. The Nazis wanted to parse the definition of "human" to undermine the former belief in universal human dignity. Not saying you're a Nazi; just pointing out that we're walking over a minefield.
But very well then. I will use this definition (a cubjective choice, of course):
the quality or state of being worthy, honored, or esteemed (Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary)
I'll also ask why you are interested -- I certainly don't believe that human beings should be treated like dirt.
Why not? Should you tread pond scum like dirt? Should you treat dirt like dirt? While you would treat people with dignity, without a transcendant Lawgiver you have no rational basis for doing so. All you have is an arbitrary, subjective decision to do so. Someone else makes an arbitrary, subjective decision not to. What are you going to do? Force your value system upon them? You might condemn a Hitler or a Dahmer, but that's just yor opinion. What if society decides upon a definition of "human dignity" that resembles Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Soviet Union? Lenin believed in freedom: under his own definition of it of course.
Without God, it all boils down to "might makes right" in either benign or malevolent form. That's why the Netherlands' current debate on whom to kill and under what circumstances centers upon those who cannot defend themselves.
posted on 12.05.2004 7:18 AM73
This was an actual conversation, right? What's so bizarre about it? I've overheard several of this type in the last 2 or 3 years. This is just business as usual for the moon bats. Nothing new here.
posted on 12.05.2004 7:24 AM74
Okay, I admit, I'm hooked, I just read Larry's comment above mine. It's pretty provocative and yeah, I can see how current "party line" looks inconsistent. I agree that we should't have flat party lines, or that they shouldn't be so solid, and I agree we shouldn't reflexively defend Bush and conservatives, but the other line isn't abandoning their rank either, and their tendancy is to reflexively blame Bush (it's strange that our President should be tied into this, but somehow it always boils down to the same things). But of course, just because they're doing that, does that give us the excuse to do the same? Moving on...
Larry's argument, I think could be paralleled with this. If your mother contracted a rare disease and her body turned into the world's biggest most giantest atomic bomb evAr and was going to explode the world(!!!), would you kill her to save the world? HA! Gotcha! ^_^ You mother killer!
Admit it, he could use that argument just as effectively.
A lot of us Evangelicals want to keep things black and white. The rest of the world hates that. Why do we insist there is an intrinsically right and wrong thing to do? Because we always aspire to do what is right, without comprimise. I think that's pretty noble.
Now what happens when the odd baby is born without a brain or has the exact genetic make up of a nuclear warhead? I tell the truth, I don't know. I would probably side with Larry on this one, but does that mean we're right? Maybe it's Technology that's killing us. If we didn't have neato life support machines the baby would die by itself (unless the baby was a nuclear warhead). I don't know. I concede that this doesn't seem to be a black and white issue. Maybe this is more like calculus with some sort of curve and there being an optimum. But after all this is said, I still find the happenings in the Netherlands extremely disturbing, and I still consider myself 'pro-life.'
posted on 12.05.2004 7:34 AM75
A bitingly incisive commentary indeed. Congratulations.
Incidentally, http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/abortion/whatexod.htm covers many of the Biblical passages which *seem* to advocate abortion, but don't. It doesn't specifically cover Numbers 5, but it does cover the analogous passage in Exodus, and the same basic objections apply.
76
Without God, it all boils down to "might makes right" in either benign or malevolent form.
Rethink and rewrite.
posted on 12.05.2004 11:53 AM77
VV,
The site's interpretation is tenable as to the "premature birth" aspect--nothing in the text says, either way, if the injury applies to the mother or to the mother and the (possibly stillborn) child.
It's not analogous to Numbers 5, though, which describes what is either an abortefacient or a magic potion, since it affects only the guilty. (As was pointed out above, if the woman is indeed pregnant through her adultery, then the fetus will be aborted; why does God punish the innocent victim as well?)
At any rate, the burden of proof is on the shoulders of those defending the violent, spare-only-the-virgins morality of the book of Numbers--a violence that includes abortion, assuming even one of those women is in any stage of pregnancy, by pro-life logic. Abortion "on demand" is never justifiable; so why is "abortion on command?"
posted on 12.05.2004 2:46 PM78
Larry,
Do you have proof of "tens of thousands" killed by our tax dollars? I have not doubt that some innocents have been killed. Innocent people are always killed in war. It especially happens when the enemy blends into the population. How many have been killed by the insurgents? You do know that the Geneva convention does not allow the actions taken by the insurgents, but they know it is the only way they can survive.
Taking someone off of life support who has no chance of recovering is not euthansia. My grandfather asked for a cessation of treatment after about 6 months of being in and out the hospital. He passed away about 24 hours later. That was not euthanasia. Euthanasia would have been the doctors or the family deciding to pump him full of drugs to kill him because he no longer had a certain "quality" of life.
A mother having a baby that is a breach birth where one must die or both must die is not euthanasia. That is a difficult decision to save one life by taking another.
You keep shifting the argument to avoid answering the tough questions, Larry. I recommend you sit down and think a little bit before spouting mile long posts of drivel.
posted on 12.05.2004 2:52 PM79
Chris Lutz
"I have not doubt that some innocents have been killed. Innocent people are always killed in war."
Thank you for the refreshing candor, honesty and (above all) acceptance of the facts. Is the killing of those innocent people justified becuase you it's easier for you to sleep at night without worrying about Saddam nuking you?
"You keep shifting the argument to avoid answering the tough questions, Larry."
Bullcrap. Absolute disgusting dishonest bullcrap, Chris. You stink.
I am not the one who made mindless absolutist claims like "killing of innocent people can never be justified".
I am the one that is answering the tough questions. You are the one that is running away.
"Do you have proof of "tens of thousands" killed by our tax dollars?"
Are you joking? Please tell me you're joking. What kind of "proof" do you need? That sort of denial is a sign of sickness, my friend.
In any event, even it's one innocent death, it's still not justifiable? Or is there some complicated calculus you need to perform before answering? Does it matter whether the person killed was a Christian or not?
"Taking someone off of life support who has no chance of recovering is not euthansia."
Wow, you tore the head right off that strawman. Of course, I never said that taking someone off life support is euthanasia. But when you take someone off life support and you know that as a direct result of pulling the plug they are going to die, that's killing.
Do you doubt this is true? Please consider the instances where people have been convicted of killing when the plug was pulled accidentally or intentionally before you go back to reciting your script.
"You do know that the Geneva convention does not allow the actions taken by the insurgents, but they know it is the only way they can survive."
Geneva conventions??? Talk about changing the subject. What a hypocrite.
Sadly, this is at least the second time I've had to set this obvious fact forth in this thread. I'd suggest laying off the pot pipe if your memory is that crappy.
80
You do know that the Geneva convention does not allow the actions taken by the insurgents, but they know it is the only way they can survive.
Mentioning the relevance Geneva conventions, huh? Do you hate America or something? The Supreme Leader wouldn't be pleased with this, in case you didn't get the memo.
posted on 12.05.2004 3:34 PM81
Sam writes
"Larry's argument, I think could be paralleled with this. If your mother contracted a rare disease and her body turned into the world's biggest most giantest atomic bomb evAr and was going to explode the world(!!!), would you kill her to save the world? HA! Gotcha! ^_^ You mother killer! Admit it, he could use that argument just as effectively."
Well, not "just as effectively" because my hypo doesn't invoke the unprecedented and fantastical metamorphosis of a human being into an explosive device. But it's a sign that someone is using his brain and imagination to challenge himself! I can dig it.
"A lot of us Evangelicals want to keep things black and white. The rest of the world hates that. Why do we insist there is an intrinsically right and wrong thing to do? Because we always aspire to do what is right, without comprimise. I think that's pretty noble. ... I concede that this doesn't seem to be a black and white issue. .... But after all this is said, I still find the happenings in the Netherlands extremely disturbing, and I still consider myself 'pro-life.'"
Incontrovertible, reasonable, thoughtful ... maybe we're getting somewhere.
Indeed, there are good reasons to be concerned about "the happenings" in the Netherlands. The Dutch themselves are obviously very concerned and are undoubtedly aware of the slippery slope. Who wouldn't be?
The United States has better things to worry about that the procedures instituted in the Netherlands to alleviate unbearable suffering in extraordinarily rare cases of terminally diseased infants. For example, the behavior of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which appears to be incurring the wrath of the Supremes, including those who are not per se opposed to death penalty. You can read all about in today's New York Times if you like.
posted on 12.05.2004 3:43 PM82
Larry,
By your logic Larry, we can never go to war if there is a possibility that an innocent person will be killed. Well, I guess we should all be saluting the Fuehrer right now or showing proper respect to the commissar because hey, we might kill an innocent person while fighting them. Wars are ugly but they are necessary sometimes. The goal is to avoid innocent deaths whenever possible. But, they are going to happen.
You're right Larry, it is killing. But some types of killing are acceptable. Accidently killing someone with a car isn't the same as intentionally killing someone to rob them. Removing life support in certain situations is an acceptable form of killing, especially with the request of the patient.
The Netherlands is going down the slippery slope. Unless the news article is incorrect, it says the severly retarded are part of the procedure.
posted on 12.05.2004 5:11 PM
83
"By your logic Larry, we can never go to war if there is a possibility that an innocent person will be killed."
No, that's not "my logic." That's carrying your earlier statements to their logical conclusion.
But it seems as if you are retracting those absolutist statements ever so carefully. It must be nice never having to just come out and say that you were wrong. I don't recall Jesus teaching that such behavior was a virtue but, hey, maybe I just forgot a couple verses.
"Accidently killing someone with a car isn't the same as intentionally killing someone to rob them."
Gee, thanks for the "education".
"The Netherlands is going down the slippery slope. Unless the news article is incorrect, it says the severly retarded are part of the procedure."
And since there's zero chance that there is more to it than is reported in the news article, and there is zero chance that you, Chris, would ever leap to a false conclusion based on a short news story, we can assume ... what exactly? That the "severely retarded" are "part of the procedure." Is that verbatim from the text of the approved final version of the protocols as of the beginning of the month?
Please forgive me, Chris, for wanting to establish precisely what it is that the Dutch have done before launching into a diatribe against those unscrupulous Dutch "Nazis."
I'm still waiting for you to answer my hypo about the morality of killing either the woman or the baby to save the life of either. What's the problem? Can I assume then that you'd let them both die and pray to be forgiven?
posted on 12.05.2004 5:23 PM84
Larry,
Speaking of still waiting for an answer, I am too. To repeat:
What objective, rational basis do you have for according human dignity to anyone? First you ask for a clarification, then you don't respond. I think you're evading the problem.
Bonus question: If you truly believe in human dignity, why do you so frequently call people here names and maintain a supercilious air?
posted on 12.06.2004 8:48 AM85
"...and maintain a supercilious air?"
Or a "super-silly-assed air"....
Hee hee
posted on 12.06.2004 10:11 AM86
Joe:
Like Corrie said, you then have a bigger family.Which brings me back to my point: if you don't want children, don't have sex. Any time you have sex, even with your wife, you run the risk of pregnancy. And once you get pregnant, there's no turning back (at least, not in your world).
So even among married couples, abstinence is the only way.
posted on 12.06.2004 12:30 PM87
The answer to the mother having a breach birth is that one would have to die to save the other. It is a morally acceptable position.
I have to go by what is said in the article. You are the one leaping to conclusions that the protocols will not include the mentally retarded. When the statement is in the article, that is not jumping to conclusions.
My statement was that I am an absolutist in believing that human life is unique and has intrinsic value. Nothing I have said has changed that position.
Let me state this clearly for you Larry. Is it ever okay to go to war even if innocents will die?
Real classy there Larry saying "Duh" when I was just clarifying my position. You get pretty touchy when people oppose your opinions. I've had some intense arguments online with people on other boards that made some great points and made me think. Never did they resort to your petty antics.
posted on 12.06.2004 6:36 PM88
In response to Larry's challenge about saving either the pregnant mother or the breech baby:
My husband has already made it clear that faced with such a situation, he'd save me whether I liked it or not. I would prefer that he save the child and give it a chance at life. I've been kicking around 33 years now, and have been incredibly blessed to do so, despite the evils of war, personal tragedies and suffering that I have witnessed. Some would say that it would be merciful to spare the baby from ever having to grow up in a world filled with hatred, conflict, suffering and war. I do not agree.
Because we are conscious, sentient beings, we cannot fathom not having come into existence. So we are operating at somewhat of a disadvantage when arguing over whether it is better to be or not to be. Some who have made the decision to end their own lives would argue, for a myriad of reasons, that it is better not to be - and so they end themselves.
But we also do not have the benefit of knowing, other than a vague suspicion, whether or not there is a soul that continues and has being apart from the physical body. What you personally believe about this will play into whether you believe it is better to save the mother or the baby.
Speaking for myself, I do believe I have a soul that will go on to my deity, as you refer to Him. My soul shall live and not die ever again. Therefore, as tragic and painful and awful as it would be to die and leave my child motherless in this world, I would choose for that child to live, if it is in my power to do so.
The bible says that there is no greater love than this, that a man lay down his life for his friend. John 15:13
Note that Jesus is not saying that if the man hesitates and the friend dies, then that man is evil. He's merely saying that the man, woman or child who is so moved to freely sacrifice their own life that another might live is exhibiting the greatest kind of love known to mankind.
From this one could construe that sacrificing one's life that a child can live would be an extreme act of love.
Please note: I do not say this to heap guilt upon those who have chosen otherwise, I have absolutely no desire to cause anyone who has endured the torment of such a decision any further chagrin or heartache. My deity, as you call Him, offers comfort and compassion to all people who are wracked by tragedy, fear and condemnation.
What is sad to me is that Christians fall so easily into the trap this type of argument lays out. We find ourselves quickly trying to defend our beliefs by trying to prove that we will always choose the moral or right or correct thing to do. That is not the point of having a Christian worldview. While we do endeavor do live as Christ would have us to live, we are still flawed human beings, prone to making mistakes, and prone to weakness. That is, after all, why we feel we need a Savior.
Those who argue that some life is not worth saving must understand that when you speak to a garden-variety evangelical Chrisitan, that person believes their life was saved, undeservedly so, by the sacrifice of Christ.
Because of that deeply held conviction, it is impossible for us not to value every life, knowing the great lengths to which God has gone to redeem us. Let's be honest, on some days our life seems a pittance, and a waste of space on the suffering planet. And yet by dying on the cross for all mankind, Christ declared that the joy of granting us everlasting life was worth the price, worth his life and death.
So this is what colors our worldview - not condemnation, not the desire to conquer or supress. But the deep and sacred knowledge of what Christ did for all men - both those who accept him and those who reject him.
If Christ died to give us life, how much more so in our hearts we desire for life to go on. That's where we're coming from (well, it's where I'm coming from anyway).
God bless,
Feeble
89
Joe,
Brilliant piece. May I have your permission to post this on the Centurion's private web site? I will point them to your blog.
Jeff
posted on 12.07.2004 11:50 AM