The recent news that doctors in the Netherlands have been administering lethal doses of sedatives to terminally ill newborns has received little notice in the U.S. Neither the mainstream media nor the blogosphere seems to have taken much interest in the “Groningen Protocol” – the policy that doctors have the authority to end the child's life if they think a child is suffering unbearably from a terminal condition.
Appalled by this development, Hugh Hewitt wrote:
There are three kinds of people in the world: Those who will react with horror and alarm to this story; those who will applaud it; and those who will shrug it off as of no interest to them. I am uncertain which of the latter two groups is in worse moral condition.
After searching the newspapers and finding no mention of the story, Hugh added:
MSM does not care to cover this. You figure out why. In silence is approval, and in approval, an invitation to proceed.
I must admit that the most surprising aspect of this story is that people find the practice of euthanasia surprising. For the past thirty years almost all Western nations have embraced some form of abortion and in doing so have accepted the premise that human life in not intrinsically valuable. The shift from abortion to active euthanasia of infants does not require tumbling down the slippery slope; it merely requires people to act consistently with their views.
Holland may be the first state to allow such “mercy killings” but it won’t be the last. Just two weeks ago I wrote about bioethicist Peter Singer taking his freshman ethics students on a field trip to a hospital neonatal unit. Singer, who is often cited as the “world’s most famous ethicist”, not only advocates killing terminally ill infants but endorses parental rights to kill newborns for any reason at all.
(Singer believes that “killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Very often it is not wrong at all.” Such extreme views, however, have not made him a social pariah. In fact, he holds the prestigious chair at Princeton University in the ironically (or Orwellian) named “University Center for Human Values.”)
What sets Singer apart from the mainstream is not his views but his consistency. Like many bioethical issues, the controversy stems from a disagreement over philosophical anthropology and the role of personhood. Singer, a utilitarian, openly rejects the substance view, the most dominant tradition from Christian thought.
The substance view, according to Francis Beckwith, claims that a human being is intrinsically valuable because of the sort of thing it is and that the human being remains that sort of thing as long as it exists. Opponents of this view agree that the a human remains the same substance from conception to adulthood but disagrees on the question of whether intrinsic value is a property had by the human as long as it exists.
In this view, intrinsic value (IV) is not an inherent property of human substance but is predicated on other properties or functions (rationality, sentience, self-awareness, etc.). Once we accept the notion that the fetus does not possess IV, it becomes obvious that the lives of terminally ill newborns are not inherently valuable either. Instead, the value of their existence is subordinate and dependent on other factors, such as “quality of life.”
As Hugh notes, silence is approval and a tacit invitation to proceed. But abortion rights supporters really have no choice but to accept the “mercy killing” of terminally ill infants. While there may be an instinctual moral repugnance to the procedure, they have already accepted the premise as foundational and irrevocable. The debate over partial-birth abortion was a prime example of their willingness to follow the logic to its morally troubling conclusion.
During the most recent election season, many critics – including some fellow evangelicals – criticized conservative Christians for being “single-issue” voters on abortion. But what will soon become apparent is that abortion is not a single issue but a wedge issue that prys opens a Pandora’s box of bioethical atrocities. Unless we stand together and convince our fellow citizens to recognize the substance view of personhood, we will soon find the Groningen Protocol practiced in our own hospitals and nurseries.
Related posts: Mark D. Roberts, Dr. John Mark Reynolds, Captain Ed, Matthew Heidt, Mark Sides, Bogus Gold, Brain Shavings, Theophilus, SDDC, Blogicus
So many people will read the story about what's happening in Europe and conclude "it's only a handful of babies who won't live long or well anyway." And yet, many of those who ascribe to pure evolutionary theory ascribe an almost mystical desire of all living things to survive.
We've reached a point it's now OK to eliminate the weakest among us for convenience, without stopping to consider if they would find a hobbled life better than none at all. It won't be long now before the views of people like Peter Singer, who advocates a parent's "right" to kill their children before a certain age, becomes mainstream.
Human life either has intrinsic value or it doesn't. Trying to carve out a middle ground, the way we have with abortion and assisted suicide, has only cheapened it. When society decides it has no intrinsic value, God help us all.
Joe writes
"For the past thirty years almost all Western nations have embraced some form of abortion and in doing so have accepted the premise that human life in not intrinsically valuable."
Let me get this straight: ending the suffering of a terminally ill person is anti-life, but executing a person merely because nine folks in a Texas court believe he or she is "guilty" is considered to an affirmation of the value of life.
Whatever.
Regarding the death penalty -
I would be thunderstruck if someone truly could not see the difference between killing an infant - unborn, ill, deformed, etc - who has untapped potential, a clean slate, a chance to lead a good life and killing a criminal who has taken innocent lives. If you truly cannot make that distinction, your moral compass is broken. What possible relation could those two have, the purely innocent and the evilly guilty? I would say they are apples and oranges, but I don't even consider them in the same food group as each other.
We execute killers precisely because we value life. We value innocent life so much, that if you destroy that innocent life, you pay for it with your own. Murdering an innocent person repulses us at our core and the death penalty is our method of setting things right when such an egregious violation of our morals takes place. Besides atoning for such a crime, it does two other practical things: it gets rid of someone who kills people and it deters others from acting in that way. The Death Penalty proves our value on innocent life.
As far as Netherlands scenario goes, what do you expect from Europe? Religion and morality and thus culture are on a sharp decline there. What's to prevent Hitler's specter from returning? It's 1930's Germany all over again. Life becomes less and less valuable and all it takes is for some charismatic nutjob to pop into power and it's Auschwitz ahoy. This is not hyperbole, this isn't lame arguing ("Hyuk, you're a Nazi if you don't agree!!"), this is a history lesson. Furthermore, I think one's degree of outrage about this is a good indicator of one's moral health. The fact that the Netherlands embraces this is frightening. First because of what it means for Europe's culture and second because it only took about 50-60 years for nations to start flirting with Nazi ideals again. It hasn't even been a hundred years yet and we are seeing it happen again! Hell, there are still survivors of the first Holocaust living to see the potential genesis of another one!
If we don't do something, it's about to get real ugly across the pond.
-Phil
I think by "ending the suffering of a" you mean "killing."
And by "nine folks in a Texas court believe" you mean "a jury that has witnessed all the evidence and deliberated over it decide".
Why do you put "guilty" in quotation marks? Do you not believe in the concept? Can you see no difference between killing an innocent child and executing a murderer? Even I, a Catholic against the death penalty, can tell the difference.
But then, I don't think your intent was to helpfully point out errors in Mr. Carter's thinking. Rather I think you understand the argument he made and, in typical American leftist fashion, you reached for the "hypocrite" bludgeon. After all, if he's a hypocrite on the death penalty then you don't have to listen to him on infanticide, right?
ending the suffering of a terminally ill person is anti-life
Since we are all terminally ill and we all suffer at some point, is there anybody who would not qualify for euthanasia? When did death become the standard method for relieving suffering? What about proper pain management? Most, if not all pain can be effectively controlled with proper medication.
but executing a person merely because nine folks in a Texas court believe he or she is "guilty" is considered to an affirmation of the value of life.
Let me guess, you don't like Texas. Of course, I am sure you are aware that the process of capital punishment is a lot more complicated than nine folks in a Texas court. Even in Texas, they don't take folks out back of the courtroom and string em' up by the nearest tree. What are you opposed to here, capital punishment as practiced in Texas or capital punishment in general?
Phil Aldridge: "As far as Netherlands scenario goes, what do you expect from Europe? Religion and morality and thus culture are on a sharp decline there."
This works as a nice test case, then. How long would you give until Eurore becomes a huge witches coven, ruled by Satan himself? Five years? Ten? Twenty? If after twenty years, Holland or the whole Europe are better places to live than they is today, can we conclude that their selected course was right, and having less religion did not lead to a catastrophe?
"It's 1930's Germany all over again. Life becomes less and less valuable and all it takes is for some charismatic nutjob to pop into power"
Of course, we all agree that being a "charismatic nutjob" is a bad thing for the national leader, especially if he's from "1930's Germany". You know, someone who
- despises liberals and intellectuals
- espouses belligerent nationalism and militarization, also likes two swagger around in military uniform
- considers the government to be an extended arm of corporations and vice versa
- calls for "national purification" against the infestation of corrupt and immoral elements, uses metaphors of illness when talking about that, calls for a "culture war"
- considers himself to be a personification of the nation, so that any criticism of the leader equals treason as it is criticism of Fatherland
- demands absolute oaths of loyalty from his followers, who are happy to provide it in mass rallies in unison
- considers nuance, shades of gray, ambiguity and reasoning to be for sissies, and believes that the leader has an ability to simply know the right course of action with his "gut feelings" since he is the leader and therefore has a direct pipeline to what God wants
That would be quite nasty. I doubt that Holland will be the first present-day country to raise such a leader, though.
I cannot say I'm surprised by the lack of notice in the MSM, but as far as the blogosphere goes, I am a little puzzled by the general lack of concern. I posted it, but frankly, was so upset and befuddled by those who consider this defensible - despite the desire to live, as someone else noted - I didn't really know what to say.
Perhaps the lack of...the lack of any sort of rumbling might be due to the fact that many people don't know how to fight against it? That is, they don't really have a firm grasp on the idea that human life is inherently valuable for the reasons you note.
Still, it is interesting that those who are most vocally supportive of people with disabilities of any sort and so forth couldn't care less about a baby, whose life is just beginning, who might still have a chance! - who has those same disabilities.
Wow, it only took six comments to get the Bush = Hitler in a post about killing infants. That has to be some kind of record.
Of course, we all know that Bush was going to engineer another terrorist attack so as to postpone the election and seize power. Wait that didn't happen. Of course he was going to round up all liberals, homosexuals and abortion doctors on trains and put them in concentration camps. Oh, that hasn't happened either. Maybe he is going to declare that black people (especially black democrats) are not fully human and not worthy of life. Don't think that is on the table either.
Look at which group is declaring people "unfit" for life. Who say that this group does meet certain qualifications for a good "quality life?" Who says that you have to meet certain conditions to be considered fully human?
It is ridiculous to go down the Nazi route. Conservatives aren't Nazis and neither are liberals, but only one doesn't see a problem of killing people based on their ideals of life.
But if Bush cancels the 08 elections and becomes national dictator, then we can have that discussion. But until then, let's get back to the point of the post, the Netherlands killing children because they deem them unworthy of life. That is the point and the issue to debate, not who looks like a Nazi.
Phil - Can you find any stats that show the death penalty actually deters crime? I sure can't. And I've been working in law enforcement for six years.
As a Christian, I'm pretty sure I've heard of a Commandment that orders "Thou Shalt Not Kill." Seems to me that the death penalty flies directly in the face of that one.
Phil and Gleeful
Thanks for expressing the sentiment I alluded to. For a moment I wondered if the life-affirming aspects of state execution were no longer an important part of conservative Christian support for the practice. I need wonder no more!
But Miss O'Hara and others here are pretending (again) not to be aware of the fact that many infants are born all the time which do not have a chance.
Extreme cases of trisomy 18 are a classic example.
http://www.trisomy.org/html/trisomy_18_facts.htm
A relative of mine gave birth to a severe trisomy 18 baby. After weeks in an incubator, the doctors let them take it home. It died within 24 hours, in their arms. Would it have died if they'd kept the baby on life support in the incubator. Nope. They killed it.
Was it right for them to kill it? Of course it was. Is theirs an unusual case? Nope. Happens all the freaking time. Every day.
Their second child is due to be born any day now. Had they kept their previous child alive by any means necessary they would not have been able to raise a second child properly. They don't have the time or money.
It's called the real world, folks. Have a taste.
Why is it necessary for Christians to believe that human life is intrinsically valuable to the extent that ending it to alleviate pointless suffering is by definition wrong? I see the intuition, but not the actual connection.
Ilkka: "If after twenty years, Holland or the whole Europe are better places to live than they [are] today"...
I suppose we will have to agree on what defines "better" in twenty years. The trend at this time is towards Socialism (ask Russia how that went for them), Ultra-utilitarian Eugenics (ask Germany how that went for them), and Anti-Semitism. I'm not saying it will stay that way, but to fuel these trends they are burning religion and culture. (I suppose it is a bit misleading to say that religion is on the decline when radical Muslims are flocking to Europe in droves, but the European elite's attitude is one of disdain for religion).
Frankly, I don't think I could name a successful modern free country that was socialist and anti-semetic, and though ultra-utilitarian eugenics is somewhat new, it doesn't have a good track record either. But hey, maybe Holland will conquer history and reason after all!
-Phil
Hugh Hewitt: "MSM does not care to cover this."
I followed the links from Hewitt's original posting, and it seems that he got this piece of news from mainstream media (the article he links to is "Copyright 2004 Associated Press"), and not from some blogger reporting what is going on in Holland.
Lump wrote:
As a Christian, I'm pretty sure I've heard of a Commandment that orders "Thou Shalt Not Kill." Seems to me that the death penalty flies directly in the face of that one.
Lump, first thanks for your service in law enforcement. I had a point of disagreement that although the 10 Commandments state, "Thou Shalt Not Kill," the Law then turns around and gives the Nation of Israel specific directions to execute Jews for particular offenses. (I would be more than happy to provide references if you want me to). You must therefore either recognize that Scripture distinguishes an individual's right to kill from a state's right to kill, or you must give up innerrancy and infallibility. Unless I am missing something here, which of the two alternatives do you choose?
Scott - I've heard your explanation before. However, I'm a Catholic and as such, don't really put as much credence in what the Bible tells the state of Israel can and can't do. I try to live my life as Jesus taught. I don't believe the death penalty is in agreement with those teachings. While this may seem indefensible from a strict Biblical sense, i.e, you could poke holes into it with plenty of cited verses, that's what I believe. And what many Catholics believe.
From a more secular viewpoint, I haven't seen where the death penalty does much good, other than sating a need for revenge and hatred (again, both sins?). The family of the murdered still grieves.
Most criminals commit murder without thinking about the consequences and don't really think about the death penalty - especially the real sickos, the ones that most people want to see executed.
I think there is confusion between euthanasia and the withholding of medical treatment. The former actively kills the person. The latter is a decision based on several factors. Larry Lord's story is not euthanasia, it is a withholding of treatment. Withholding treatment is not by default morally wrong. Euthanasia however is killing by another name.
Scott writes
"You must therefore either recognize that Scripture distinguishes an individual's right to kill from a state's right to kill, or you must give up innerrancy and infallibility."
Thus sayeth Scott. Where in your holy book does it say that the text is "inerrant" and "infallible"? Does your holy book make that guarantee for any translation, no matter who performs the translation? What is the name of the individual who translated the version of your holy book that you rely on? Was the translation approved? What is the name of the individual who approved the translation? Are the translators and individuals who approved the translation infallible and inerrant as well? Did they work in every case from the original texts in the original handwriting of the original divinely inspired authors? Or is anyone who writes a version of your holy book imbued with infallibility and inerrancy?
I assume you know the answer to EACH of these questions, Scott, and they must be crystal clear because you were crystal clear when you told Lump what he "must" recognize.
Don't let me down.
Lump,
Scott - I've heard your explanation before. However, I'm a Catholic and as such, don't really put as much credence in what the Bible tells the state of Israel can and can't do. I try to live my life as Jesus taught. I don't believe the death penalty is in agreement with those teachings. While this may seem indefensible from a strict Biblical sense, i.e, you could poke holes into it with plenty of cited verses, that's what I believe. And what many Catholics believe.
While you may not personally believe in capital punishment, the Catholic Church does not forbid it:
Hey, there was a baby with severe trisomy 18 born today in California. The doctors say it's one of the worst cases they've ever seen and it's 1,000,000 to 1 that the baby will ever utter a word, walk, or even be able to comprehend it's surroundings.
Any volunteers to here to pay for keeping this human being breathing and eating (through a tube of course) for as long as technology allows it to do so?
Let me know. I'll happily forward your information. Oh, you'll have to eventually pay to have the whole incubator, breathing and feeding tube set up moved to your house, and you'll have to pay someone big bucks to do round the clock care. Doctors and nurses prefer to attend to born human beings who have a reasonable chance of someday appreciating that they are actually alive. There's only so much room in a hospital to satisfy the bizarre whims of every conservative evangelical Christian who believe that killing an innocent human being can never be justified (unless it's one of those innocent human beings that had the bad luck to be convicted by a texas jury).
Larry Lord, you are continue to ignore the difference between killing someone (euthanasia) and denying treatement. Denying treatment to the child you describe sounds morally defensible, but that is not euthanisia.
Lump:
The commandment is properly: Thou shalt not murder. At least if translated with fidelity to the original Hebrew.
Big difference.
Killing the morally culpable is simply different than euthanasia (one of the most despicable misnomers ever).
If you could discrd either your moral equivalency or your blindingly bitter partisanship, perhaps you could recognize that.
And I am Catholic as well. The Magestrium allows for capital punishment in certain limited circumstances. It does not allow for abortion or euthanasia ever. How faithful are you to that teaching, or are you simply in the line for the cafeteria?
Joe - First, the Catholic Church has not rendered a definitive opinion on the death penalty the way it has on abortion. Second, the key to your passage is "determined upon other and various considerations."
From my discussions with clergy, as well as readings outside of church, these considerations are steep - much steeper than the statues we use to determine if the death penalty is warranted. It's my understanding that, basically, the death penalty is sanctioned if the act will save innocent lives that could not be saved in any other fashion. If it is used as a method of punishment only, then it is verboten.
Larry,
Perhaps yopu can make the distinction between heroic (in the sense of above and beyond the normal standard of care) life saving measures and the ordinary care of the sick or injured. Here's a discussion that might put some context on your manipulative and crass postings:
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0408/articles/exchange.htm
Whether a feeding tube is a heroic measure or not is a close question.
Whether to pump a baby full of poison (an overdose is a chemical poisoning) is not a close question.
Your reductio ad absurdum is showing.
Hobgoblin - ease up on the caffeine or take some prozac. I'm pro-life across the board. No abortion. No euthanasia. No death penalty. I don't remember in any of my posts where I stated that I was pro-abortion or pro-euthanasia. Nor did I state any partisan comments.
As for your translation, I'm not arguing with it. However, how does "killing the morally cupable" jibe with Christ's teachings? Love the sinner, hate the sin, for example? Do unto others? Just a thought.
Again, there is a difference between a family deciding not to pursue every available means to keep someone alive in a vegetable state and purposefully killing a child. The first can be debated, but switching back and forth between the two does no good in this debate, expect to make those against infanticide defend things on two fronts. But that is the point isn't it?
And there we go again with the "innocent human beings that had the bad luck to be convicted by a texas jury." Apparently we can not advance anywhere in this debate because we seem to have a different definiton of the word: "innocent." I thought someone convicted of a crime, was basically by definition not innocent. But what would you suggest our judicial system do? No jury? No Texas jury? No convictions because we don't like them? No death penalty, but kill all the "unhealthy" children you want? Or again is this just an attempt to switch the debate to another front to make it even more difficult to get to the heart of the matter this post is about?
This debate is not about the death penalty. (That can be debated) It is not about whether people should be forced to keep loved ones in a vegetative state. (That can be debated) The debate is: Is it ethical and moral to kill children because they do not meet a government defined (or even parent defined) standard of health or quality of life? Do we really want to give the government or health officials the authority to determine who to kill? Eventually the government (if they haven't already) would have to set up some type of standard unless they want to give parents the right to kill their child for any reason (emotional or financial stress on the parents, the child has mental retardation, is physical deformed, or the child is not the perfect child they wanted, etc.)
Larry,
The "seamless garment" is not a Magisterial teaching, and believing it is morally superior does not make it so. Speaking for "many Catholics" does not give your pronouncements authoritative weight. Sorry. There are times when the death penalty is legitimate & warranted under Church teachings(if nothing else to protect inmate populations from the most dangerous of sociopaths). It matters little that you don't agree with that.
There is a fundamental difference between living Christ's teachings as an individual and having a society live Christ's teachings. The first is required of all faithful Christians, the second would be hopeless folly.
And to make a blanket statement that the death penalty flies in the face of the fifth commandment (our fifth, other's sixth) demonstrates remarkable ignorance. Taking your logic, you would have us beleive that Christ would not allow killing in self defense, which is patently false.
I'm sorry for being brusque. I simply have little patience and a sinful lack of charity when people falsely present the teachings of our Church.
Larry,
Your argument equates the act of intentionally killing by providing drugs whose sole purpose is to end the life with not giving them every single treatment possible.
This is an extremely weak argument.
You fail to distinguish the difference between an intentional act of killing (Scott Peterson killing Laci and Connor) and not doing everything possible to save lives (Me not sending enough money to save starving children in Africa).
They did not kill the child by "it" (was the child a boy or girl? Using the term "it" to describe a born child is a new low in my book) home. Have you ever heard of palliative care and hospice? Often times doctors realize that they can't cure a disease and then treatment turns to making the patient as comfortable as possible.
In your world is every patient that realizes that they are dying and wants to be kept comfortable instead of getting surgery after surgery killing themselves?
"The Death Penalty proves our value on innocent life."
Some would believe that nobody is outside the bounds of salvation. If Jesus can bring me into his flock, He can bring anybody. I for one am willing to give even a convicted murder God's alloted time on this earth to repent and believe. Seeing as how "innocent" life is not a threat in our prison systems, life in prison should protect innocent life and give the convicted murder time to get right with Jesus.
We might have a lot less muslim converts in our prison systems that way (thereby condemning the convict to an eternal jail) if Christians took a "life" position on their case as well as the unborn child.
my post above was meant for Lump, not Larry. I had a Leave it to Beaver moment of confusion (now I remember that Lumpy was Wally's rotund friend and Larry was Beavers chubby pal).
Hobgoblin -
"Taking your logic, you would have us beleive that Christ would not allow killing in self defense, which is patently false."
I never argued against killing in self defense. I'm in law enforcement and I know it works - well. However, once you have caught the criminal and can send him to jail for life or execute him, you have moved past self defense and into punishment. Also, don't worry yourself about sociopaths harming the general population. First, it's usually the other way around. Second, the worst offenders are usually in solitary.
I recommend, if possible, to tour a supermax prison. When you see the perps serving life in solitary confinement, with only 1 hour a day to walk around a small outdoor cage, you'll see punishment in action. Most of them go crazy.
Gedi - good points.
Lump,
We agree that if a murderer can be assuredly confined beyond the reach of others for life, at that point, he should not be killed. That is the teaching of our Holy Father and the Church.
I can tell you, as a lawyer, that the problem with this proposition as a permanent bar on the death penalty stems from the word "assuredly" in the above thought. The murderer will still be a danger to the guards in any event, and given wily defense attorneys filing habeas petitions and such, the chances of a criminal serving out a life sentence are far from 100%.
So, we have a murderously violent predator in a cage, but no assurance that the cage will hold. Do we a) institute the ultimate penalty with God himself prescribed for many offenses (the OT is still part of our God's Holy Writ), or do we b) hope that the guy (which they almost always are) never gets the chance to touch another human being?
The civil justice system has flaws, especially in the death penalty process, but the death penalty itself is not forbidden.
As I recall, you wrote "As a Christian, I'm pretty sure I've heard of a Commandment that orders "Thou Shalt Not Kill." Seems to me that the death penalty flies directly in the face of that one."
You, my friend, are wrong on that score.
BlueDevil (and a few others that refuse to acknowledge reality) writes:
"No death penalty, but kill all the "unhealthy" children you want?"
Bluedevil -- do you believe that a baby with severe trisomy 18 is a healthy baby? I am going to assume not. The fact is that most of the world and most of the states in the United States subscribe to the position you paraphrased above, in quotes. There's nothing inherently contradictory about it.
I'm going to ignore the ridiculous "withholding care" versus "administering poison" distinction that a few people have raised. Perhaps those people would like to pause and use their brains before they post such worthless arguments.
Bluedevil writes
"The debate is: Is it ethical and moral to kill children because they do not meet a government defined (or even parent defined) standard of health or quality of life?"
Well, in the case of severe trisomy 18 babies (and the hundreds of similar maladies that afflict babies that barely escape being still-born) it is certainly ethically and moral to kill them.
Are we all clear what the alternative is? A lot of conservative evangelicals are really big on creating false dichotomies for people to choose from. Here's a real one: the alternative to not putting a severe trisomy 18 baby on life support for the rest of its vegetative life is to take it off life support which is equivalent to killing the baby. Now, you can let the baby die slowly of natural causes (e.g., lung or brain infection) and maximize this human being's pain and suffering and the trauma to its parents and its caretakers, or you can take steps to hasten a comfortable end for this human being.
Every day, doctors and parents around the world choose the later. I think it's obvious why. I'm not sure why you disagree unless it's because some preacher told you to make a big stink out of this issue.
There's nothing in the Bible which you can use to justify your position that doesn't contradict the position of many conservative evangelicals here who believe its okay to kill innocent human beings who are NOT suffering from terrible illnesses just because a jury found them "guilty" or because they live in a country ruled by a leader that our leader is suspicious of.
Again, these contradictory positions are widely held by conservative evangelicals in the United States, but are not widely held by most of the rest of the world. It'd be nice if you could provide a coherent rational explanation for the positions that doesn't rely on your holy book. After all, most people in the world don't share your beliefs.
Lump says: However, how does "killing the morally cupable" jibe with Christ's teachings? Love the sinner, hate the sin, for example? Do unto others? Just a thought
Christ taught ways for individuals to treat individuals. He did not teach countries how to operate. He even says "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's..." and elsewhere in the Bible (Romans, f'rinstance), we see that God allows leaders and governments a certain amount of power and exhorts Christians to obey the laws of the land. Christ's teachings center around how individuals should live. You're in Law Enforcement (I am as well) so you know all about having to take the lives of dangerous criminals. When Joe The Methed-Up Parolee starts firing at you because he ain't going back to jail, you don't "love the sinner" and "turn the other cheek", you end his life because you are going home to your family at the end of your shift, period.
When you shoot Joe, you are acting as an arm of the State, as is the Correctional System when they execute the other Joes of the world.
There are plenty of decent arguments for why capital punishment is wrong (i don't agree, but they are out there), but applying individual-oriented teachings to Government Issues is not going to fly.
Furthermore, would you not agree that, if the Bible is true, that God probably values life more than anyone on earth because he created it? Allowing for a minute that the God of the Bible is real, wouldn't you think he had the utmost respect for life? Why, then, would God command his people to execute various criminals in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, if execution "devalues" life? From a philosophical viewpoint, it seems that God found executions by the state to be a good thing.
(I'm sure the next issue raised will be that since gays were executed, does that mean that we should execute gays in modern times? Of course not. I'm simply advocating a philosophy that capital punishment does not mean life is devalued, either secularly or from a Christian perspective)
-Phil
David writes
"Using the term "it" to describe a born child is a new low in my book"
Take a hike, David. You're clueless. Here's life according to David ...
David: Our baby was born last night.
Jesus: Was it a boy or a girl?
David: You disgust me, Jesus.
Hobgoblin - You still have never told me how you reconcile the death penalty with teachings of Christ. As for the OT, it also calls for the death penalty for working on the Sabbath. As a lawyer, you've probably done a litte work on the Sabbath, right? Willing to die for it? My point is, and as a Catholic you should know this, that the Bible calls for many punishments that we now ignore. We don't stone adulterers, even though the Bible calls for it.
I'm in law enforcement and trust me, I care for the welfare of the guards, just like I do for every other officer. However, you can never guard against every possibility. A convicted drug dealer or rapist is just as likely, or even more likely, to attack a guard as a murderer would. Should we just institute the death penalty for ALL violent crimes?
This is certainly an important and complicated issue, but your post is off-base in most respects.
First, the issue has been reported: the AP carried a detailed story just yesterday, after the main hospital in question issued a public report on the topic; earlier discussion of the policy was conducted openly among medical professionals, and reported in the British Medical Journal on September 11. Since the issue was raised in the public press (by the hospital itself) only yesterday, it's hardly surprising that there hasn't been much written on it yet, but it has hardly been buried. Claiming some sort of conspiracy to suppress a story that's barely 24 hours old is rather paranoid.
Second, both abortion and euthanasia may touch on a common concept (which, as you rightly note, is the question of the intrinsic value of the human organism), but there is no logical "slope" from one subject to the other. Some people may support both, but some who support one may perfectly rationally oppose the other, on either principled or practical grounds. "Acting consistently" with views that support one or the other of these practices may or may not lead you to support of the other - your lumping them together is much too superficial. The fact that you disapprove of both has nothing to do with whether they are linked logically.
And, finally, your obsession with Peter Singer is a bit tiresome. You now blame him for everything anyone else does that seems vaguely similar to things he has discussed doing. He's hardly that influential.
Phil - I'm all for self-defense. Especially in the field. However, as Gedi mentioned, once we get the criminal, would Jesus want him summarily executed? Or is there another punishment that will spare his life and allow him to (hopefully) find salvation? Life in prison w/o parole is an answer, while not perfect, that I think can serve both man and God.
As for the functioning of the State, the state is an extension of the individuals therein, in my mind, and therefore, should not be treated any differently when examining Biblical directives. Only in totalitarian systems is the state divorced from its citizens (or subjects), as it was when Jesus said "render unto Caesar..."
hobgoblin wrote, "Do we a) institute the ultimate penalty with God himself prescribed for many offenses (the OT is still part of our God's Holy Writ), or do we b) hope that the guy (which they almost always are) never gets the chance to touch another human being?"
So, you would institute the death penalty for marital infidelity (Leviticus 20:10)? Surely not. You would institute the death penalty for working on the Sabbath (Exodus 31:15)? Surely not. I beseech you to look upon the Old Testament laws as being fulfilled in Christ. You cannot pick and choose which laws you wish to keep around to suit your needs.
Larry Lord offers the argument that, well, caring for inconvenient, marginal lives costs money and take effort, and -- per Larry, they take up too much room; so, here -- YOU take care of them; otherwise, shut up and let them be killed . . .
Didn't Hitler use the same gambit when he loaded a ship full of Jews? You want Jews? You can have them; the more worthy people in middle Europe need their resources, they take up too much room, so either take them yourself, or shut up and let us kill them . . .
Gee, Larry, I guess Hitler wasn't so wrong after all, huh?
(Larry, I couldn't help noticing the baby you described wasn't even a person to you -- not a he or she to you -- but merely an "it.")
Lump,
I appreciate your honesty when you wrote that you "...don't really put as much credence in what the Bible tells the state of Israel can and can't do. I try to live my life as Jesus taught. I don't believe the death penalty is in agreement with those teachings." I may disagree with your position on Scripture, but at least your logically consistent. And I respect you for that. I wasn't trying to trip you up, but rather simply try to get out of you how much credence you put on the Bible since you quoted it for your position. By the way, you may want to look into Dennis Prager's articles (www.dennisprager.com) on the death penalty if you want to read more sophisticated arguments that don't hinge on Scripture. By the way, I would never pin my case for the death penalty because "Scripture tells me so." My grounds for the death penalty are purely philosophical.
Larry --
I apologize if my tone sounded arrogant. That was never my intent. For the point I was trying to make, I should not have used the words "inerrancy" and "infallibility" since they raise much more convoluted issues. Scholars have exhaustively debated the various issues in inerrancy and infallibility for some time. And no matter how I try to answer your stream of questions, there will be other viewpoints that disagree with my position. By the way, CS Lewis is my favorite author and he doesn't have the most "evangelical" views on inspiration. But all of that is beside the point. My simple point was this: either the Torah contains a contradiction when it says to kill and then says not to kill or there is a distinction between the state's right to kill (justified killing) and an individual's right to kill (unjustified murder). I personally accept the latter. If one wants to accept the former, that is fine with me, I just want them to acknowledge that the Bible contains a contradiction there and be consistent in their position as is the case with Lump. It was my mistake to throw in extra words that raised deeper, more-complex theological issues. I hope my clarification doesn't let you down.
Phil writes
"Christ taught ways for individuals to treat individuals. He did not teach countries how to operate. . . [W]e see that God allows leaders and governments a certain amount of power and exhorts Christians to obey the laws of the land. Christ's teachings center around how individuals should live."
I have heard this garbage so many times I'm ready to puke. Look, Phil, our leaders are individuals. For example, our Congress consists of 100 individuals. The President is an individual. The Supreme Court has nine individuals. All of these people are elected and appointed by ... individuals. A government consists of individuals.
Come back to reality and stop reciting that crappy evangelical script. It's meaningless.
Every time someone is executed, an individual pulls a switch. He does so because another individual told him to do it. That individual told him to do it because some other individuals told him to do it. Maybe some individuals got together and wrote a law to make some other individuals happy.
Did you know Phil that in the few remaining US jurisdictions where the states authorize people to kill individuals who are found guilty of murder, the state often often employs several individuals to pull the switch simultaneously so that none of them know who is doing the killing.
That is curious, I think, given the position of many people here that executing people who have been found guilty in a court of law is a noble endeavor, approved (or arguably mandated) by your deity.
Although there have been plenty of innocent people on death row throughout history, I would guess that nearly ever one of the people who pulled the switch which killed a prisoner in Texas is a self-proclaimed Christian. I find that odd.
In order to beat you to the punch...
I cannot reconcile the death of Ananias and Sapphira...
This to me is a New Testament enigma which is not readily discernable to my blurry eyes. Perhaps someone can explain their deaths to me or point me to a decent commentary. While this is a churchly execution and not a governmental killing, it could certainly be argued against the Christly admonition to "love your enemies".
Septimus, surely you are not responding to my 4:23 pm post. If you are, then please re-read it.
Larry,
Why post at "Evangelical Outpost" and ask people not to justify their positions by their faith?
unless you're simply an attention starved troll.
With comments like "Come back to reality and stop reciting that crappy evangelical script. It's meaningless", I think it's safe to assume you are a troll.
And the Romans who crucified Christ were not murderers in the Bible. The "individuals" who act as arms of the state now are not murderers. If your myopic moral view of the world, where killing=killing regardless of the context, is your only contribution to the debate, I would kindly ask you to grow up.
Aren't liberals all about nuance after all?
And larry,
Before your moral equivalence makes you too blind to read, just think for the moment about giving a terminally ill baby, adult, whichever, measured doses of pain medication to alleviate suffering, and waiting upon their eventual demise and putting a .45 bullet in their heads to simply end it "humanely."
If there's a difference there, (when the impact and the damage by the bullet will instantly destroy the brain), and death by suffocation induced through drug overdose (which no one knows if it is painful or not), please enlighten us, O Wise One, what might that difference be?
Why not just put bullets in the heads of trisomy babies?
It might actually be more "compassionate."
To argue that there is no difference between keeping terminal patients pain free and let nature take it's course and affirmatively killing them is mind-bogglingly ignorant and naive.
Lump,
you're arguing in good faith, and I appeciate that, but you have a disturbing habit of moving the goal posts.
You wrote to Phil about whether Christ would want criminals "summarily executed" Death penalty cases are about as far from "summary" as one can get.
Ansd the risk to the guards is still that---a risk. The murderer, as opposed to the crack head or the thief, has PROVEN he'll take human life. Once hthat happens, it is morally culpable to allow him to threaten any other people. The people in prison are innocent of something one assumes, so they don't deserve to be killed by other prisoners. The guards are doing noble, but difficult work. Which of these folks deserve to be put at risk by a remorseless killer?
As long as there is a real risk to human life, no matter how few lives or how small the risk, the death penalty is justified in certain instances.
Please simply admit that and the rest of us can move on to beating up on Larry more.
Hobgoblin, you've lofted far too many strawmen up in the air. Why not address the simply situation of a severe trisomy 18 baby and the decisions you are faced with in that uncommon yet recurring real-world instance?
As to what I expect from evangelical Christians, I expect them to understand where their faith ends and where post-hoc rationalizations to support conservative political views begins.
When I refer to the script, I am not referring to everything that comes out of the mouths of evangelicals or another sect of Christianity. I have no truck with religion per se nor the holding of beliefs for which there is no evidentiary support in the natural world (i.e., the world you and I confront and maneuver through each day). Rather, my concern is when those faith-based beliefs are used to justify policy positions that otherwise have insufficient rational basis. In my opinion, such fundamentalism tends to be antagonistic to values that are essential to the peaceful survival of human beings on this planet: truth, fairness, justice being prime examples.
Getting back to the "script", there is some stuff in the Bible about rendering unto Caeser. Fine. Wonderful. But Phil's take on that phrase amounted to nothing more than a rehashing of a particular interpretation that is recited over and over again by conservative evangelicals in the context when it suits them. Later on we'll hear some other conservatives Christians complaining about how their taxes are too high or that all federal taxes are unconstitutional, which would seem to the ordinary reader to fall squarely within the scope of Jesus' teaching.
My point: if you want to quote the Bible, go ahead. Personally I prefer the New Testament and think that Jesus had a lot of great stuff to say. But the idea that he believed the death penalty was an important aspect of government is just horsehockey, as is the idea that he favored keeping sick suffering people alive as long as is technologically feasible.
hobgoblin writes, "As long as there is a real risk to human life, no matter how few lives or how small the risk, the death penalty is justified in certain instances."
By your logic, those who have stolen have proven their propensity for kleptomania. We should, perhaps, cut off their hands so that they won't steal again. After all, the guards might have their food stolen.
Certainly, we thinking human beings can come up with solutions for confinement which precludes an opportunity for murder, either by the state or by the convict.
And... as Christians, we should believe in redemption, no matter how far fetched. Saul, for instance.
"To argue that there is no difference between keeping terminal patients pain free and let nature take it's course and affirmatively killing them is mind-bogglingly ignorant and naive."
Sometimes there is no difference. Sometimes there is.
Look, I am married to a wonderful woman and a wonderful cat. When my cat's kidney's fail, I can put her on a dialysis machine or put her to sleep. On the dialysis machine, she will eventually start to suffer terribly. So what happens? At some point, when I look into my cat's eyes and see that her suffering is intense and unbearable, I will call up the doctor who will come over and give her a lethal injection. She will fall asleep and die in my arms, the place on earth where she has always been happiest.
Why would you allow such compassionate treatment for animals but deny it for your fellow beings? On what basis do you justify allow human beings to suffer needlessly? It looks as though you would rather that dying human beings suffer for an indeterminate period of time as "nature it's course" rather than risk offending religious beliefs which, frankly, don't appear in your holy book but were handed to you by some pointy-headed preacher.
Sounds disgustingly selfish to me. You'd rather have bacteria eat me from the inside out than risk ... what? You believe that God would send you to hell unless you keep me respirating for as long as technologically feasible? Where is that written in your holy book?
Larry,
"the idea that he favored keeping sick suffering people alive as long as is technologically feasible"
bullsh*t. ]
(It's OK, I'm Catholic, I can go to confession for that)
Why do you stubbornly insist on refusing to see the difference between "letting nature take its course" and hooking up people to machines that live for them? If a trisomy baby dies a natural death in hours or days, then fine, let nature take its course and attempt to keep the infant comfortable with pain medications. That is not morally reprehensible. Killing the baby is.
And either killing the baby with an overdose is reprehensible or using a bullet is not. That's no strawman, that's a direct analogy.
You're adamant refusal to see that there's a difference between letting someone die and killing them is, in its own way, more dogmatic and irrational than any faith-based argument. You would (and do) make a great religious zealot. I just don't know quite who you're worshipping.
Before your moral equivalence makes you too blind to read, just think for the moment about giving a terminally ill baby, adult, whichever, measured doses of pain medication to alleviate suffering, and waiting upon their eventual demise and putting a .45 bullet in their heads to simply end it "humanely."
During one knock-down drag-out over "Death with Dignity", I asked why "physician-assisted lethal injections"? Why not just shoot them in the head with a .45?
The response: "That would be KILLING!"
Apparently giving them a shot and watching them "go sleepy-sleep" isn't Really killing. When killing becomes so Ozzie & Harriet, when nobody can say "I killed" or "I ordered the kill", how easy can it be to kill?
When you kill, don't "put to sleep", KILL!
gedi,
I have a simple answer: my Church doesn't allow for maiming as a course of punishment.
The better answer is that the recidivism of a thief does not threaten the life of the victim (just a thief, not a robber in this example), and the only Catholic justification for the death penalty is to protect the lives of others. maiming is a red herring.
The protection of property in Catholic though does not justify the maiming of human beings (that I know of). Though morally, I see no reason why such a punishment would be inherently immoral. You want to cut off a hand? I don't know where the Bible or the Magesterium speak to that. The criminal on the cross, a thief, called his execution "just," and Christ granted him paradise. I think current Church doctrine would frown on such a punishment, but short of death, one supposes most punishments aren't specifically disapproved opf if not done to torture, but as a regulated form of punishment. Far from being the parade of horribles you've intended, gedi, I'd say you provoked a good question.
But remember, as Lump noted, we're not talking about punishment with the death penalty in Catholic thought.
Just fyi:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/12/01/texas.inmate.ap/index.html
Here's some liberals working to save the life of a woman who may be innocent. It appears they have succeeded.
Or is preventing the execution of someone not the same as saving their life?
You tell me, folks. You're the ones who have all the answers.
Let's not forget:
the protocol "covers any child up to age 12"
so much for only going after the trisomy babies.
Hobgoblin
"Why do you stubbornly insist on refusing to see the difference between "letting nature take its course" and hooking up people to machines that live for them?"
I don't refuse to see the difference. Read my post and stop putting words in my mouth.
Why don't you respond directly to the straightforward questions I asked you?
There is a simple two-word response when someone who claims to be a Chrisitan asks me if I believe that shooting babies in the head with a pistol is okay. I'll let you imagine what those two words are. And then I'll suggest that you grow up.
Again, if you believe that withdrawing life support for a born person who needs life support to survive is not killing, that's fine. Just stay out of my local hospitals okay? The doctors and parents there have a somewhat deeper understanding of the situation than you are capable of.
Hobgoblin
"so much for only going after the trisomy babies."
So much for you not being able to articulate a coherent defense for your absolutist position using a concrete real-world example that occurs every day.
And did you just say "going after"? What do you mean by "going after" hobgoblin? That is a strange way to describe the euthanizing of people who are suffering unbearably without hope. ONe might add that is a dishonest way. But of course, lying is prohibited in your holy book so it can't be the case that you'd intentionally use such misleading language to make your case.
Larry,
Just wanted to make sure you got my post at 4:37.
Scott
these questions:
You'd rather have bacteria eat me from the inside out than risk ... what? You believe that God would send you to hell unless you keep me respirating for as long as technologically feasible? Where is that written in your holy book?
Since you keep pushing the "machines doing the living for you" angle, and since I have repeatedly said that with the exception of a feeding tube these aren't what I'm talking about (the feeding tube is a gray area, I'll admit. Is it extraordinary care or not?), these aren't questions for me.
or these questions:
Why would you allow such compassionate treatment for animals but deny it for your fellow beings? On what basis do you justify allow human beings to suffer needlessly?
If you define "compassion" as deliberate killing, I think the animal/man distinction is one you might want to look into.
And while our host undoubtedly appreciates you keeping it rated [G] in here, i suggest there's not a dime's worth of difference between a .45 and a syringe full of an overdose. And there are three similar words (that our Vice President may have once uttered) I would have in retort. Here's my question to you: WHAT is the difference?
If you don't like a .45, how about a suppressed .22LR. That's no noise and no mess. is it OK because the needle doesn't make a noise? How about a needle to the spinal cord. that's pretty instant and painless too. C'mon, buddy, you just don't like guns, is that it? Can't you recognize a deliberate OD is KILLING? Or maybe not an OD on pain killers, but just sodium pentathol (sp?)? Even the stupid word euthanasia means mercy-KILLING.
I mean, were the folks in Old Yeller morally culpable because they used a gun instead of a syringe? If Fluffy's got kidney failure, why is the .22 worse than the trip to the vet?
Larry,
"That is a strange way to describe the euthanizing of people who are suffering unbearably without hope."
Why is pain management not an option? Why only death? Why so eager to kill, Larry? Why so eager not to kill those who murder (like your Texas story)?
The management of pain is the doctor's duty. Remember the hypocratic oath--do no harm? How is deliberate premeditated killing not harm? because the ends justify the means? Where have we heard that? Stalin? Mao? Oh, yes, the glorious future awaits if we only clear away a few more "undesirables."
Death of innocents makes no one's life better, least of all the ones who you kill.
I'm quite happy with this absolutist position, Larry. Thanks for nothing.
Scott
Yes I did see your post. My apologies for not acknowledging your thoughtful and sober response. It was spot on and I'm glad we didn't go down the road where my questions were leading. Been there before. Kinda boring. ;)
Hobgoblin, you're shooting all over yourself.
When it comes to the death penalty, hey that person is a murderer so screw him (or her). When it comes to euthanasia, you run to the opposite extreme and it's just like blowing a healthy person's brains out instead of giving them aspirin.
You've admitted in your comments that gray areas do exist. Difficult decisions. The issue, as I see it, is whether we (you and I) are allowed to make difficult ethical decisions or whether some ridiculous law should be passed which requires that people be maintained indefinitely on life support.
Removing life support from people who need it to survive leads to their death. Period.
Engaging in activities which leads people to their death is killing. Period.
Killing people is morally acceptable under certain circumstance. Period.
Killing people is not always a crime. Period.
The question is whether YOU, hobgoblin, can define under what circumstances someone who is suffering unbearable pain and who is never going to be able to recover and have that pain effectively managed should be euthanized.
If you can't imagine any circumstances where that is acceptable to you, then you are either stupid, lazy or a frigging sadist.
"Death of innocents makes no one's life better, least of all the ones who you kill."
Wow that's so nice of you to lecture us. Too bad you can't articulate why you believe that is true for a trisomy 18 baby in an incubator suffering from a horrible bacterial infection that would cause the baby to scream in agony if it didn't have a breathing tube shoved down its throat.
Just so everyone can understand what sort of Christian you are, I'll indulge you by answering one of your sick hypos:
"If Fluffy's got kidney failure, why is the .22 worse than the trip to the vet?"
My cat's name is Kitty. She's 12 years old and she's pulled through two trips to the emergency room in her life, both related to a chronic immune system disorder which I treat with prednisolone. When her time comes to die, I would rather have her die in her sleep peacefully in my arms, where she is happiest and where we have spent a great deal of time together. Why would I want to remember the sound of her brains splattered against the ground? That is why a 0.22 is worse.
An obvious question is how stupid and asinine does someone have to be to not know the answer to such a question before hitting the post button? And what is the Christian goal of asking such a ridiculous question?
>Let's not forget:
>
>the protocol "covers any child up to age 12"
Or the 51st Trimester if you're one of those Womyn's Right To Choose types.
If you are, South Park beat you to it -- in a dream-sequence episode a few seasons ago, Cartman's Mom seduces President Clinton to get an Executive Order okay for a 50-something trimester abortion. Don't remember the exact number, but if you measure in trimesters instead of years, it came out to Cartman's age plus nine months.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/12/01/netherlands.mercykill/index.html
CNN has the story. Yeah, sounds like a real covert death machine at work in Netherlands.
"Dr. Eduard Verhagen, clinical director of the hospital's pediatric clinic, told NPR in an interview that the babies who had been euthanized were born with incurable conditions that were so serious "(we) felt that the most humane course would be to allow the child to die and even actively assist them with their death."
"They are very rare cases of extreme suffering. In these cases, the diagnosis was extreme spina bifada."
That disorder is marked by incomplete development of the brain, spinal cord and/or their protective coverings. ....
"What we would like to happen here in Holland is that we put the spotlight on these decisions because they need to be extremely secure, and instead of taking these positions in a kind of gray area, we want them to be in the spotlight," the doctor said.
My cat's name is Kitty. She's 12 years old and she's pulled through two trips to the emergency room in her life, both related to a chronic immune system disorder which I treat with prednisolone. When her time comes to die, I would rather have her die in her sleep peacefully in my arms, where she is happiest and where we have spent a great deal of time together. Why would I want to remember the sound of her brains splattered against the ground? That is why a 0.22 is worse.
Because you would have to admit you had her killed and that she is dead, not "sleepy-sleep". Death isn't this fluffy My Little Pony thing, and "go sleepy-sleep" blurs the line into pretending it is.
As I said above, if you're going to kill, don't "put to sleep", KILL!
-----
P.S. There's a story about some sort of daredevil (auto racing, I think) who was asked by a reporter why he did something that stood such a chance of getting him killed and how could he stand to get into the cockpit and fire up the engine knowing there's a chance he could crash and splatter.
Going Socratic, the interviewee asked the reporter "How do you want to die?"
Reporter answered "In my sleep."
"Then how can you work up the courage to go to bed each night?"
"Womyn's Right To Choose types."
Womyn -- get it?
HAHAHHAHHAHHAHHHAHAHAAHAHAH!!!!! You are such a funny man, Ken. HAHHAHAHHHAAHAH!!!! I can't stop laughing. AHHAAHHAAHAHAHAHHAAHAAH!!!!!!
Ken strikes me as one of those goony Christian types who says stuff like, "If it weren't for the existence of God, nothing would stop me from blowing your head off right now because there would no basis for morality."
You know the type. Voted "most likely to be honorably discharged" at Davy Crocket High. That guy.
And then I'm always left wondering why the peanut gallery here is so tolerant of people like Ken, who clearly represent the worst possible aspects of any form of Christianity.
Anybody here care to defend Ken's position that whenever killing is justified, it is preferable to kill using violent and bloody means if possible? Just curious.
Larry -
No, I was commenting on your post at 3:34. Nice dodge.
So, withholding treatment equals administering poison, eh? So when terminal cancer patients decide the next round of chemo isn't worth it, because the last 3 rounds haven't worked, that action is equal to their putting a gun to their head? Interesting "reasoning." Most convenient.
Larry,
You still haven't answered my first question:
Why KILL Larry, why not just provide pain killers and let nature take its course?
Why are YOU so bloodthirsty? What is the MORAL (not aesthetic) difference between a scalpel in the brainstem and a needle full of pentathol (or in your ever-loving kindness morphine)? A .22 would be hardly bloody at all. As for Ken, he's not advocating bloody death of the ill, he's making fun of you.
You write:
The question is whether YOU, hobgoblin, can define under what circumstances someone who is suffering unbearable pain and who is never going to be able to recover and have that pain effectively managed should be euthanized.
Answer: nothing would lead me to KILL someone who is not placing my or another's life at risk. I would try to alleviate their pain fully and let God take them as He sees fit.
If you can't imagine any circumstances where that is acceptable to you, then you are either stupid, lazy or a frigging sadist.
OR someone who believes DELIBERATELY KILLING innocents is horrid.
Wow that's so nice of you to lecture us. Too bad you can't articulate why you believe that is true for a trisomy 18 baby in an incubator suffering from a horrible bacterial infection that would cause the baby to scream in agony if it didn't have a breathing tube shoved down its throat.
Why is DEATH your sure response? Why is pain management impossible? What makes you want to KILL those YOU find unworthy of life?
Simply put, who the ____ made YOU God, Larry?
Larry,
In such cases, I don't see a "limited" intrinsic value being placed on the child's life. However, given that many people have moral qualms about active measures to kill a child, I fail to see why you wouldn't also support pain medication combined with withdrawal of life support in these cases in lieu of lethal injection.Strangly enough, I'm almost agreeing with you on this point. The protocol as indicated is limited:
I'm also concerned that those limits may get more "flexible" as time permits. Roe v Wade for instance, was indicated for the "health of the mother" which has come to be interpreted as "that baby might make me too financially constrained" or "a child might be inconvient right now". I wouldn't like a future even more squishy society than current deciding "unavoidable pain" to be the mental anguish of "looking different", "not tall enough, being mentally deficient, or whatever eugenic philosophy is currently in vogue.
Also troubling is the "a parent's role is limited" phrasing largely because I'm a parent and wouldn't want decisions concerning the fate of my child to be made without my consent.
larry,
you advocate the nihilistic impulse taken to its perfect conclusion. Nietzche would be proud of you Larry (except that only simpletons take Nietzche as a pure nihilist).
You pose the narcissistic aggrandizment of the morality of the self. That's what your're saying, bub. "I, Larry, decide what is right because I exist." Do you really want to say it's OK to kill a baby, even if horribly ill? Do you want to push that needle in? If it's truly so i>merciful/i>, you should want to do it yourself. Just think of the pain you're sparing those poor unfortunates.
I really hope you're not a nurse or doctor, Larry.
Mark O.
"I fail to see why you wouldn't also support pain medication combined with withdrawal of life support in these cases in lieu of lethal injection."
I never said that I didn't support that option if it's deemed by someone who knows best to cause no additional suffering relative to a euthanizing treatment.
But again, the view that pain medication and allowing nature to take its course is always the most humane option is woefully naive. There's not only pain, but epileptic fits, bacterial infection, and a range of other god-awful stuff that happens when you let "nature take it course". That stuff can go on for years, depending on how hands-off you want to be. There's also the issue of not being able to know for sure that all the pain is being alleviated.
But hobgoblin (who has clearly gone off the deep end by now) still maintains that all of these real-world facts take a back seat to his unsupportable religious belief that God would rather have people suffer interminably than allow us to behave compassionately towards our fellow humans. With animals -- no problem. We are allowed to be compassionate with animals. But not humans. No sir.
"Roe v Wade for instance, was indicated for the "health of the mother" which has come to be interpreted as "that baby might make me too financially constrained" or "a child might be inconvient right now"."
This is not true, Mark. The law of the land is that any laws passed which regulate abortions in the third trimester must make exceptions for the health of the mother.
Allowing a woman to die against her will during the last trimester of her pregnancy is homicide if a doctor knows that aborting her pregancy will save her life. Do we all understand that this is the law? Does anyone here believe that killing women to save their babies is justifiable homicide? Speak up, folks. Hobgoblin and Ken are scraping rock bottom already so I assume they're on baord with the latter proposition.
Hobgoblin, since you have not directly addressed any of the simple straightforward questions I have thrown your way for many comments, I've moved on.
Someday maybe I'll be holding you by the hair dangling from a tall building and we'll have a funny conversation about the definition of killing.
If life can go on for years without mechanical or technological intervention, Larry, one can hardly be a vegetable, no?
And the case of the LIFE of the mother, not the amorphous "health" of the mother, does permit, though not require killing the baby in utero. It seems your position would just DEMAND doctors perform abortions wherever there is risk of death, or mental anguish, or just bad feeling(since all that is "health" as determined by the sup ct). If not, please say so.
Otherwise, just keep telling yourself that deliberate killing is "compassionate." You know, the jihadis think the same thing. It's "suffering" to live without the light of Islam, so it's compassionate to kill the infidel.
Remember Killing = Compassion. Just keep saying it over and over. Just once I'd like to see you write, "it's better to kill the baby that let it suffer" in the context of euthanasia. Can you admit to yourself at least that they are actively killing that which would otherwise still live?
Once you admit that, then it's just a matter of defining at what point life does not become worth living. I could grant you terminal, pain racked patients with less than 24 hours for the sake of argumment. the problem is the arguemnt never ends there. It's an incremental step to birth defects that aren't fatal and mental retardation. But the Dutch would never do that, would they? Let's wait and see on that one, OK champ?
Why do you PREFER death as a first option, embodied in a protocol, Larry?
I've been in some bad pain in my day through surgeries and such, and medication has always abated it. Why is death the better option in these cases? If a baby will die in days away from modern techniques, why not allow the baby to die naturally while keeping it numbed to the pain?
How much more "merciful" is actively killing a nearly dead baby?
You're just sick, dude.
May God have mercy on your soul.
"If life can go on for years without mechanical or technological intervention, Larry, one can hardly be a vegetable, no?"
Are you joking? Please don't tell me you are this naive.
"It seems your position would just DEMAND doctors perform abortions wherever there is risk of death, or mental anguish, or just bad feeling(since all that is "health" as determined by the sup ct)."
I'm sorry, you must have missed the phrase "against her will." No surprise there. You obviously enjoy pretending not to understand any argument whose conclusion runs contrary to your script.
" Can you admit to yourself at least that they are actively killing that which would otherwise still live?"
Of course and I have in nearly every one of my comments on this thread.
Look hobgoblin, I know you disagree with my position. My question to you (which I've asked repeatedly and which you refuse to answer) is whether you are capable of articulating a rational explanation for why you believe that any amount of suffering is always better than death. And also whether you can explain to me why your proposition is true only for humans.
Instead of responding to these obvious questions, you just continue to demonize me and argue with stupid sick strawmen.
"Why do you PREFER death as a first option, embodied in a protocol, Larry?"
See what I mean? What the hell are you talking about?
"If a baby will die in days away from modern techniques, why not allow the baby to die naturally while keeping it numbed to the pain?"
I've already explained why the simple assumptions which underlie your hypothetical don't necessarily apply to every circumstance. It would be great if we could knew that we could keep "it" (!!!!) "numbed to the pain" for however long it took for "nature to take its course" but that's simply the reality.
"May God have mercy on your soul."
Cool.
It's an incremental step to birth defects that aren't fatal and mental retardation.
It is? Would you like to support that contention, or are you just content to look like a person in the throes of hysteria?
I don't know about other papers, but the biggest newspaper in Oregon (The Oregonian) had this story on their front page today.
hobgoblin,
Sometimes a little window opens up which lets me see how far the catholic church is from the teachings of Christ. This would be one of them. Contemplating the validity of chopping off hands for theft.. *sigh*
Thanks for your honesty.