Martin Sheen ad says no to physician-assisted suicide in WA
The State of Washington has an initiative on the ballot to legalize physician-assisted suicide, I-1000.
According to noassistedsuicide.com…
I-1000 allows doctors to prescribe a lethal dose of drugs to “terminal” patients so they can use it to kill themselves. The patient meets with an “attending physician” and a “consulting physician” and then fills out a written request form, witnessed by two people. I-1000 allows one of these witnesses to be an heir. Once the lethal dose is issued by the pharmacy, there is no oversight. The death is not required to be witnessed….
Depressed or mentally ill patients can still receive the lethal prescriptions. All reporting is done on the “honor system” with the records sealed from public view. There are no penalties for doctors who fail to report their activities.
Actor Martin Sheen, a human rights activist who is Catholic and pro-life, is adding star power in opposition to I-1000. Great guy.
Watch for another powerful ad by noassistedsuicide.com featuring Barbara Wagner, who lives in OR, the only state at this point with legalized physician assisted suicide.
In it she describes the OR Health Plan rejecting payment of a cancer drug but offering to pay for her assisted suicide.
One final thought. The federal estate tax will be repealed in 2010 for one year and then restart in 2011. See Wiki chart at right.
I wouldn’t want to live in a state with legal physician-assisted suicide during that year.
This is the other end of abortion, encouraging the deaths of inconvenient elderly and physicially and mentally ill as well as people without financial resources to self-pay for care.
Next to crisis pregnancy centers pro-lifers will soon have to launch crisis elderly and ill centers.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Wow…didn’t know Martin Sheen was pro-life. His crazy son sure went in the opposite direction…
So, let me just see that I have this straight. If a celebrity speaks out for pro-life or any other right wing cause he/she is a hero. If a celebrity speaks out for pro-choice or any other left wing cause then he/she is sticking their nose where it doesn’t belong and should just stick to acting/singing/hosting talk shows/playing sports.
Sure, that’s not a double standard….
The October Surprise you have all be waiting for!
Obama has ties to Islamic extremists with documented proof:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OivgE4r0NYg
Please Spread Far and Wide!!!!
You know where Martin Sheen “got” his name? From Archbishop Fulton Sheen! Oh yeah!
A little off subject here, but I have a couple links to share: At the first, you can still see the original SNL “Barney & Nancy” skit, as of 8:40AM:
http://mcnorman.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/pat-dollard-young-americans-blog-archive-%C2%BB-it-is-here-the-banned-snl-skit-cannot-hide-from-louie/
And at the other, there is new information about the Ayres-Obama connection:
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2008/08/obamas-brownshirts.html
That was a terrific ad by Martin Sheen. I have a new respect for him.
I would never want to live ANYWHERE where I could be killed legally by another person’s choice.
If a celebrity speaks out for pro-life or any other right wing cause he/she is a hero. If a celebrity speaks out for pro-choice or any other left wing cause then he/she is sticking their nose where it doesn’t belong and should just stick to acting/singing/hosting talk shows/playing sports.
No, it’s more like:
If a celebrity (or anyone) speaks out for pro-life or any other life affirming cause he/she is supporting something worthy and noble.
If a celebrity (or anyone) speaks out for pro-abortion or any other cause which allows killing innocents, then he/she is supporting a morally reprehensible cause.
It’s not a double standard. It’s just a standard you don’t agree with.
One final thought. The federal estate tax will be repealed in 2010 for one year and then restart in 2011.
I wouldn’t want to live in a state with legal physician-assisted suicide during that year.
Ha! Jill, that’s awesome…
Martin Sheen pro-life? Only if “pro-life” is a flexible, adjustable label. Example: Sheen was a passionate supporter of Howard Dean during the last election cycle. Clearly, he’s a “Catholic of convenience,” pro-life only when it’s not inconvenient for him.
I praised Mr. Sheen for this on my blog, but I wouldn’t go so far as to call him fully pro-life. He has had no problem endorsing pro-abortion politicians for President.
Q: What are your views on abortion?
Sheen: I cannot make a choice for a women, particularly a black or brown or poor pregnant woman. I would not make a judgment in the case. As a father and a grandfather, I have had experience with children who don’t always come when they are planned, and I have experienced the great joy of God’s presence in my children, so I’m inclined to be against abortion of any life. But I am equally against the death penalty or war– anywhere people are sacrificed for some end justifying a means. I don’t think abortion is a good idea. I personally am opposed to abortion, but I will not judge anybody else’s right in that regard because I am not a woman and I could never face the actual reality of it.
“It’s not a double standard. It’s just a standard you don’t agree with.”
Bethany, it is a double standard. You can’t say that a publicly pro-life celebrity is such a hero for speaking out about abortion and then turn around and say a pro-choice celebrity is sticking their nose in an issue where it doesn’t belong.
To quote Bethany 8:09,
No, it’s more like:
If a celebrity (or anyone) speaks out for pro-life or any other life affirming cause he/she is supporting something worthy and noble.
If a celebrity (or anyone) speaks out for pro-abortion or any other cause which allows killing innocents, then he/she is supporting a morally reprehensible cause.
It’s not a double standard. It’s just a standard you don’t agree with.
I’m voting for I-1000. I like Martin Sheen, but I have to do the right thing here.
You have to do the right thing everywhere, Hal. In the state of Washington, I-1000 is the wrong thing.
“Bethany, it is a double standard. You can’t say that a publicly pro-life celebrity is such a hero for speaking out about abortion and then turn around and say a pro-choice celebrity is sticking their nose in an issue where it doesn’t belong.”
At least on this blog, it seems to be the sentiment concerning celebs. If we want to go back to the last time a pro-choice celebrity was mentioned there are comments similar the latter.
Totally scary stuff. If I’m not mistaken, this is already legal in Oregon.
Absolutely chilling that this could become legal and commonplace in many areas.
Then who is next?
I just don’t see a problem with this. I understtand the objections to abortion (killing another innocent life and all that) but this is someone deciding for themselves what do do with their own life.
Suicide is wrong. Only God has the authority to take human life. The civil government is His minister; as such, it has the authority to defend its country in war and to execute (capital punishment) murderers within the country. I have just outlined for you some Christian theology. I am a Christian. Western civilization was heavily influenced by Christianity.
Doctors helping people kill themselves are going against the Hippocratic oath, one line in particular that says:
To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death.
Is speeding up someone’s death unnaturally the right thing to do? Should we kill grandma because her medications cost a lot? Should we stop paying for grandpa’s kidney dialysis because “He’ll die anyway”?
Anyone who advocates Assisted Suicide is very sick person. ANYONE!
Anyone who advocates Assisted Suicide is very sick person. ANYONE!
Posted by: LizFromNebraska at October 9, 2008 1:13 PM
Raises hand.
Hal,
It’s just a bit dangerous. Parents don’t give their suicidal teenagers a gun and ask them to take their life if they want. Most people who feel suicidal are feeling a sense of worthlessness, and will only feel an increased sense if we hand them some pills to kill themselves. Those that are so gone they don’t understand such a decision probably shouldn’t be making that decision for themselves, and as such wouldn’t be PAS but euthanasia. If its pain they are worried about, we can give them as much painkillers as they need. If we want to work around all of this with legislation it begs the question of is it worth it, only to bring more hassle into the process as it is? IMO, there is nothing dignifying about suicide, so there is no sense of “dying with dignity” that is at stake here in my view.
FACT: There has been no evidence of any pressure or coercion in 10 years in Oregon.
No disabled person is eligible to use death with dignity simply because they are disabled. Any disabled person who wanted to use the death with dignity law would also have to be terminally ill and meet all of the other conditions under the many safeguards.
There are lots of safeguards, including independently witnessed oral and written requests, two waiting periods, and mental state and prognosis confirmed by two doctors. Independent studies prove that the safeguards are working.
The Washington State Psychological Association found that “research and data analyses do not show evidence of abuse, neglect, manipulation of, or pressure on patients in vulnerable groups in the state of Oregon. The data do not show evidence of a slippery slope toward less stringent guidelines and regulation.”
The Washington State Psychological Association further found that, “Patients choose aid in dying because of a desire for autonomy and the wish to avoid loss of dignity and control, not because of a poor mental state, lack of resources or social support.” And that “the law has had a positive effect in terms of significant improvements in palliative care for all Oregonians, e.g. increased hospice referrals, advanced pain management, more home deaths, improved physician education and training in end-of-life care and detection of depression, and more open discussions among patients, doctors, and families about dying.”
I don’t entirely agree with Augustine in the following passage. His arguments become weak when applied to induced abortion, for example, at least in the terms that he has laid out. He doesn’t properly bring to bear the meaning of God’s image. The passage is from Philip Schaff’s translation of the first book of Augustine’s City of God, which was written from A.D. 413 to 426.
Chapter 20.-That Christians Have No Authority for Committing Suicide in Any Circumstances Whatever.
It is not without significance, that in no passage of the holy canonical books there can be found either divine precept or permission to take away our own life, whether for the sake of entering on the enjoyment of immortality, or of shunning, or ridding ourselves of anything whatever. Nay, the law, rightly interpreted, even prohibits suicide, where it says, “Thou shalt not kill.” This is proved especially by the omission of the words “thy neighbor,” which are inserted when false witness is forbidden: “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.” Nor yet should any one on this account suppose he has not broken this commandment if he has borne false witness only against himself. For the love of our neighbor is regulated by the love of ourselves, as it is written, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” If, then, he who makes false statements about himself is not less guilty of bearing false witness than if he had made them to the injury of his neighbor; although in the commandment prohibiting false witness only his neighbor is mentioned, and persons taking no pains to understand it might suppose that a man was allowed to be a false witness to his own hurt; how much greater reason have we to understand that a man may not kill himself, since in the commandment, “Thou shalt not kill,” there is no limitation added nor any exception made in favor of any one, and least of all in favor of him on whom the command is laid! And so some attempt to extend this command even to beasts and cattle, as if it forbade us to take life from any creature. But if so, why not extend it also to the plants, and all that is rooted in and nourished by the earth? For though this class of creatures have no sensation, yet they also are said to live, and consequently they can die; and therefore, if violence be done them, can be killed. So, too, the apostle, when speaking of the seeds of such things as these, says, “That which thou sowest is not quickened except it die;” and in the Psalm it is said, “He killed their vines with hail.” Must we therefore reckon it a breaking of this commandment, “Thou shalt not kill,” to pull a flower? Are we thus insanely to countenance the foolish error of the Manichæans? Putting aside, then, these ravings, if, when we say, Thou shalt not kill, we do not understand this of the plants, since they have no sensation, nor of the irrational animals that fly, swim, walk, or creep, since they are dissociated from us by their want of reason, and are therefore by the just appointment of the Creator subjected to us to kill or keep alive
for our own uses; if so, then it remains that we understand that commandment simply of man. The commandment is, “Thou shall not kill man;” therefore neither another nor yourself, for he who kills himself still kills nothing else than man.
Hey, Christians will not be obligated to use this law.
Bethany,
It’s not about whether you agree with them or not, it’s about their right to express their own opinions. It’s okay for you to believe what they are advocating is morally reprehensible, but what you hear most often is the old “shut up and sing” philosophy. I distinctly remember a thread about Kate Walsh speaking at a PP event, where the general consensus among you pro-lifers was that actors should stick to acting because it is all they know how to do. Yet here is an actor (Sheen) straying outside the confines of his acting career and its high fives all around only because he advocates a position that you all agree with. If he had been on the other side of the issue his relevance would have been questioned and he would have been told to concentrate on his acting. This is definitely a double standard.
Chapter 21.-Of the Cases in Which We May Put Men to Death Without Incurring the Guilt of Murder.
However, there are some exceptions made by the divine authority to its own law, that men may not be put to death. These exceptions are of two kinds, being justified either by a general law, or by a special commission granted for a time to some individual. And in this latter case, he to whom authority is delegated, and who is but the sword in the hand of him who uses it, is not himself responsible for the death he deals. And, accordingly, they who have waged war in obedience to the divine command, or in conformity with His laws, have represented in their persons the public justice or the wisdom of government, and in this capacity have put to death wicked men; such persons have by no means violated the commandment, “Thou shalt not kill.” Abraham indeed was not merely deemed guiltless of cruelty, but was even applauded for his piety, because he was ready to slay his son in obedience to God, not to his own passion. And it is reasonably enough made a question, whether we are to esteem it to have been in compliance with a command of God that Jephthah killed his daughter, because she met him when he had vowed that he would sacrifice to God whatever first met him as he returned victorious from battle. Samson, too, who drew down the house on himself and his foes together, is justified only on this ground, that the Spirit who wrought wonders by him had given him secret instructions to do this. With the exception, then, of these two classes of cases, which are justified either by a just law that applies generally, or by a special intimation from God Himself, the fountain of all justice, whoever kills a man, either himself or another, is implicated in the guilt of murder.
Hal, Christians will not countenance such a law. It is unjust, perverse, and ungodly.
Unjust to allow a person to take his own life with dignity. How is this unjust?
Perverse? That sounds subjective.
Ungodly. Sure. why not?
Mind control at its finest. I was speechless reading this article.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/obama-will-be-one-of-the_b_132843.html
Suicide is unjust and perverse because as Augustine said (did you read the passages I submitted):
If, then, he who makes false statements about himself is not less guilty of bearing false witness than if he had made them to the injury of his neighbor; although in the commandment prohibiting false witness only his neighbor is mentioned, and persons taking no pains to understand it might suppose that a man was allowed to be a false witness to his own hurt; how much greater reason have we to understand that a man may not kill himself, since in the commandment, “Thou shalt not kill,” there is no limitation added nor any exception made in favor of any one, and least of all in favor of him on whom the command is laid!
Also, as Augustine also said in the second passage I submitted, God is the fountain of all justice. If suicide is a sin, then it is also perverse. All sin is perverse; there’s nothing subjective about calling sin perverse.
There is something subjective about calling it sin.
Joanne, thanks for that link. I agree with everything he said.
And get this:
“Speaking as a believing Christian I see the hand of a merciful God in Obama’s candidacy. The biblical metaphors abound. The stone the builder rejected is become the cornerstone… the last shall be first… he that would gain his life must first lose it… the meek shall inherit the earth…
“For my secular friends I’ll allow that we may have just been extraordinarily lucky! Either way America wins.
It’s not about whether you agree with them or not, it’s about their right to express their own opinions. It’s okay for you to believe what they are advocating is morally reprehensible, but what you hear most often is the old “shut up and sing” philosophy. I distinctly remember a thread about Kate Walsh speaking at a PP event, where the general consensus among you pro-lifers was that actors should stick to acting because it is all they know how to do. Yet here is an actor (Sheen) straying outside the confines of his acting career and its high fives all around only because he advocates a position that you all agree with. If he had been on the other side of the issue his relevance would have been questioned and he would have been told to concentrate on his acting. This is definitely a double standard.
Jkeller, if you can find one particular person who has applauded Martin Sheen or some other celebrity for speaking out politically, but then has condemned another celebrity for ‘sticking his nose where it doesn’t belong’, then sure, you could say they have a double standard.
But you are not doing that.
What you are doing is listening to one person on one side of the world commenting that the Dixie Chicks should ‘shut up and sing’, and you hear a totally different individual praising Martin Sheen, and then you decide, hmm, er well they’re both conservatives, and they both said things that contradict each other…I guess that makes them all hypocrites!
Who is it exactly that you are calling hypocritical, Jkeller?
Do you think we conservatives are all collectively the same individual, with one mind?
Jon, 11:55, thanks!
No, Hal 1:57, there is nothing subjective about calling suicide sin. Sin is missing the mark of God’s perfection. For morally-challenged human beings, God has laid out morality in the Ten Commandments. God has said, “You shall not kill.” Did you read the pieces by Augustine that I submitted?
I see you drink the Kool Aid Hal!
To call Nobama a man of “deep Christian faith” is about as offensive as it can get!
No, Joanne, saying someone onfdeep Christian faith is not a Christian is about as offensive as it can get.
To put things in context regarding the Frank Schaeffer article, read this article about him:
Francis Schaeffer’s son: Dad ‘worse’ than Obama’s pastor; Charges black minister’s ‘anti-America’ rhetoric mild by comparison
Get especially the perspective of Os Guiness (end of the article). Os Guiness knew the family well.
Hal, you are no judge of a “deep Christian faith.” You have yourself admitted that you are not a Christian.
Jon, is there anything in Frank Schaeffer’s article on Obama that isn’t true?
Going by my quick perusal, Hal, I wonder whether there’s anything in Frank Schaeffer’s article on Obama that is true. I’d have to look at it again, but I doubt that it’s worth the second reading.
Suicide is wrong. Only God has the authority to take human life. The civil government is His minister; as such, it has the authority to defend its country in war and to execute (capital punishment) murderers within the country. I have just outlined for you some Christian theology. I am a Christian. Western civilization was heavily influenced by Christianity.
Posted by: Jon at October 9, 2008 1:04 PM
That influence is usually called the Judaeo-Christian influence -so, nice bias edit Jon. But to be really honest about influences, Judaism was influenced if not an amalgam of earlier civilization in the Fertile Crescent. And we also need to accept that the Ancient Greeks and Romans were looked to by the U.S. Founding Fathers.
Hal, I completely understand what you mean. If I may, I’ll tell you the perspective of someone who lived in Oregon where this is legal.
In OR, we have the Oregon Health Plan, which, coincidentally is very similiar in nature to the universal healthcare plan advocated by Obama. Under the OHP more and more people are getting the letters saying that the medical treatment necessary for battling their illness is not covered, but assisted suicide drugs are. This is public record and is happening more and more often.
Further, the vast majority(also public record that has been documented as the country watches Oregon to see what happens with the law) are people suffering from depression. These people do not need to be told that their life is expendable to society. They need real treatment. The law is dangerous and is not a decision made between a patient and their doctor. Under the law, and under the initiative, people have the loopholes to go “doctor shopping” until the find a doctor that will write them a deadly prescription.
I’m not going to comment on the morality or immorality of suicide. I’m not God, and I certainly don’t feel qualified to make any such judgement on that. But I can comment on the fact that as the daughter of a terminally ill(and now deceased) Oregon woman who was fully eligible to have her doctor kill her if she so chose. Trying to take care of her was hard enough. Realizing that society as a whole didn’t care if she lived or died made it a little harder every day to carry on.
I learned more about grace and dignity watching her a die a natural death, than could ever be gained from watching her kill herself.
We need to focus on better pain management and better care for our ill, not better ways to kill them.
Let’s face it, Hal. If you really want to die, there’s nothing anyone can do to stop you. If you choose to commit suicide, so be it. Do we really need to make it legal? Do I really need to cast a vote telling you that if you’re sick, I won’t try to talk you off that bridge?
The day our society stops caring about our ill is a day when there will be little left to live for in our country.
Just my two cents.
It rains alot in oregon, ya know. But I’ve never felt drearier days than when an assisted-suicide practicing doctor was the one assigned to my mother’s bedside in the hospital.
There’s plenty of nonsense in Frank Schaeffer’s article, but here’s just one example:
Obama brings a moral clarity to his leadership reserved for those who have had to work for everything they’ve gotten and had to do twice as well as the person standing next to them because of the color of their skin.
And what are the results? What is this moral clarity?
Pastor Rick Warren: “At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?”
Barack Obama “…answering that question with specificity… uh… you know is, is… uh… above my pay grade.”
NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and other pro-abortionist organizations stand behind Mr. Obama 100%.
Phylo said, “But to be really honest about influences, Judaism was influenced if not an amalgam of earlier civilization in the Fertile Crescent.”
No, that’s YOUR bias showing through. I don’t accept the assumptions of secular humanist historians. I have a Christian bias, and so I say that Christianity predates Judaism. Judaism began after the Messiah came, as a rejection of Him. What you call the influence of Judaism is really Old Testament Christianity. Christianity is the original religion.
Bethany,
Exhibit A: http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/09/matt_damon_rips.html
Is there a particular person or statement you had in mind, Jk? Can you point out the hypocrisy, please?
CHChick @ 2:37,
Thank you for for sharing your perspective. I an very sorry for the loss of your daughter.
CHChick, your daughter had the option and decided not to exercise it. That’s the way the law is supposed to work. I’m sorry for your great loss. I don’t think everyone who is dying would or should take advantage of this law, I do think that living in a free society we should have the right. Yes, we can kill ourselves without this law, but the fact is that many try and mess it up, making things even worse. I heard teh story yesterday of a friend who’s father asked him to smuggle enough pills back from Mexico so he could kill himself. That doesn’t sound like a civilized way to go about this.
CHChick,
I am very sorry for the loss of your Mother. *HUGS*
Assisted suicide is a HORRIBLE thing and any country that has legalized it and euthanasia has become like the Nazis.
CHChick-
The way I understand it it is exceedingly difficult to actually get assisted suicide approved in Oregon at all and the actual follow through of the option year to year is low, can you shed some light on this?
Yes, we can kill ourselves without this law, but the fact is that many try and mess it up, making things even worse. I heard teh story yesterday of a friend who’s father asked him to smuggle enough pills back from Mexico so he could kill himself. That doesn’t sound like a civilized way to go about this.
Posted by: Hal at October 9, 2008 4:22 PM
Maybe the father was making a plea for help and didn’t really intend to kill himself. Please tell me, how do you “mess things up and make things worse” than being dead? Um, there’s nothing civilized about killing one’s self. Think about it – is this what you tell your kids? Sheezh!
So, do life insurance policies have to be paid out on suicides when suicide is legal? What a scary though that is.
Jon-
How can you claim such BS when Judaism in fact existed prior to Christianity PERIOD? History supports this, the Bible ITSELF supports this, why are you denying it? It makes NO sense.
Please tell me, how do you “mess things up and make things worse” than being dead? ‘
there are lots of things worse than being dead. Plus, some people shoot themselves, which is very messy. Some people don’t take the overdose right, and suffer terribly. It would be a blessing to know you’ve got the right drugs to do it painlessly and confidently.
And, RIGHT NOW most life insurance will cover suicide after the policy has been in effect two years. mine does.
Dan said, How can you claim such BS when Judaism in fact existed prior to Christianity PERIOD? History supports this, the Bible ITSELF supports this, why are you denying it? It makes NO sense.
Dan, the Old Testament is the history of God’s relationship with His Church. In the Old Testament, His Church was limited to one nation, the sons of Israel. Israel was meant to propagate the true religion, to produce the Scriptures, and to produce the Messiah. “In you,” God had told Abraham, “all the families of the earth shall be blessed” (Gen. 12:3).
That blessing came about in the New Testament with the coming of the Messiah. He is Immanuel, God with us. As the second Adam, He offered Himself as a sacrifice for sin. The blessing of restored communion with God is available to all people, a fact that the Jewish apostles had a hard time understanding. The book of Acts devotes a lengthy piece to the apostle Peter’s struggle over unclean food and unclean people. Finally Peter said (Acts 10:34-35,42-43),
“I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him… God ordered us to preach to the people, and solemnly to testify that this [Jesus of Nazareth] is the One who has been appointed by God as Judge of the living and the dead. Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.”
Don’t think that the Jews welcomed their Messiah with open arms. They crucified Him. “His blood be on us and on our children,” they said. In A.D. 70, the Romans over-ran Jerusalem and dispersed the Jews to all parts of the known world. Israel as a nation ceased to be.
“Brethren, my heart’s desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation.” So said the apostle Paul (Romans 10). “For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge. For not knowing about God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believe.”
In his mission to a city, Paul always preached to the Jews first, and then to the Gentiles. Some of his letters to the congregations thus founded had to defend them against Judaism, the heresy that the Gentile believers were bound to keep all the Old Testament ceremonial laws that the Messiah had fulfilled and now rendered obsolete. Even worse, some Judaizers sought to turn believers away from the Messiah, to destroy their faith. About this legalistic bunch Paul said to the Galations (6:12-16),
“Those who desire to make a good showing in the flesh try to compel you to be circumcised, simply that they may not be persecuted for the cross of Christ. For those who are circumcised do not even keep the Law themselves, but they desire to have you circumcised, that they may boast in your flesh. But may it never be that I should boast, except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. And those who will walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.”
Maybe I would not mind so much if you wanted to call Christianity the continuation of Old Testament Judaism. My point is that the true religion remains the same. It is the religion of God’s grace to undeserving sinners, a point abundantly illustrated by faithless Israel through the entire Old Testament. In our days, God has poured His Spirit out on all flesh; at Pentecost, the reverse of Babel, the young men had visions and the old men dreamed dreams. Everyone prophesied. Now I, a descendant of the violent German barbarians who worshipped sticks and stones, am also represented by the Messiah. I am part of His Church, which has been from the beginning of history and will continue to the end of history.
“For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; neither are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants, but: ‘Through Isaac your descendants will be named.’ That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.” Rom. 9:6-8
I am a child of Abraham.
Or rather, I am a spiritual descendant of Abraham; I am a child of the promise. That is, by God’s grace, I am God’s adopted son.
God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world… it was fitting for [God], for whom are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to perfect the author of their salvation through sufferings. For both [Jesus] who sanctifies and those who are sanctified are all from one Father; for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brethren… Since then the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same… For assuredly He does not give help to angels, but He gives help to the descendants of Abraham. Heb. 1:1-2; 2:10-11,14,16
After my Grandpa had a stroke my Nana took care of him mostly by herself for years. When she had her heart attack and could no longer care for him herself he died. My Mom said he knew she couldn’t take care of him anymore so he knew it was time to move on and he passed away.
I feel that the pro-life movement is very selfish in that it only think about “me” as in, “I wouldn’t have wanted to be aborted”, “I want to live as long as possible no matter how.” And then you even use artificial means to stay alive, isn’t that going against God? When a person is hooked up to life support isn’t that just giving them artificial life? When someone has to take 30 different pills a day to live isn’t that exceeding the natural life God gave them? But again pro-lifers can’t seem to handle the thought of the afterlife, they will do anything to ensure they out off facing judgement as long as possible. Why? Why the double standard between unnatural death and unnatural life? Why will you abandon God’s will so you can put off paradise for a few more weeks or months?
If anything were to happen to me now I wouldn’t want any artificial life, not even a feeding tube. I feel like I truly live my life to the fullest each day and even though I am only twenty I feel like I’ve lived 80 years worth of memories and experiences, 80 years worth of love and tears and laughter. I have no fear of death.
And in response to: “Hal, you are no judge of a “deep Christian faith.” You have yourself admitted that you are not a Christian.”
So you can’t judge the homosexual lifestyle unless you’re a homosexual.
When you let a disabled woman die from starvation and thirst, and you proclaim you’re a Christian, you’re doing Jesus a disservice: Whatsoever you do to the least of my people, you do UNTO ME.
There’s a difference between providing comfort care and food and water and being on a ventilator, Jess.
It’s true I’m not a good one to judge true Christian Faith. From what I understand, however, no one else should be doing that either. Personally I’d prefer a president who was not religious (assuming he/she could ever get elected) but I’ll deal with it.
I don’t know about you Liz but I love my family too much ever bring that kind of stress into their lives.
In many Native American cultures the elderly would go into the woods to die in times of famine. The elderly were very respected in those cultures, however the elderly knew their lives, an extra person to feed, could mean death for the entire tribe. I know that’s hard for you to understand but could you please try to see this from another persons perspective? Not everyone has it as easy as you do.
No life is **worthless**, Jess, not in God’s eyes. Even the smallest child can inspire a whole world.
JKeller,
It is a double standard, and I will not try to argue that point with you.
But I do admit that I feel a little happier when celebrities voice their opinions in support of life, because there are so few who do it. The vast majority I hear championing for the other side, so yeah, it does make me smile a little bit when somebody comes to support the cause of life.
However, I think the best celebrities are the ones who just keep to themselves. You know, the ones who don’t flaunt their kids everywhere, or are the spokesperson for any political agendas. I appreciate them the most because I can just enjoy the product of their work, and am not bombarded with their political ideas. This includes Martin Sheen. While I appreciate the fact that he is pro-life, I’m sure some people don’t, and this puts a bad light on his work for them. I know I enjoy watching movies,tv, and listening to music more when I don’t have the artists’ political agenda playing in the background of my head.
I never said a life was worthless Liz, never ever, in fact I often say the opposite.
You must be thinking of fellow pro-lifer John M. He considers some people worthless.
Ah the pro-lifer double standard.
Jess
My paternal grandmother died 3 1/2 years ago. My dad and his siblings (except the one that lived a few hours away, so she couldn’t come very often) took care of her for the last 18 months of her life. My dad’s brother’s wife, my Aunt, was her caretaker for much of that time. They had an overnight nurse as well. She died peacefully, when it was her time, on a Sunday morning around the time of 8:00 AM Mass. I am so glad that she had her family caring for her. Because of my dad and his siblings love and dedication to her,she was able to stay at home, she didn’t go to a nursing home. She was 90 years old.
Now that’s dedication.
I wish everyone in America (and around the world) could have a dedicated family like that. Then there wouldn’t be the obsession with Euthanasia or Assisted Suicide. There would just be LOVE.
I said, ‘Hal, you are no judge of a “deep Christian faith.” You have yourself admitted that you are not a Christian.’
Jess said, “So you can’t judge the homosexual lifestyle unless you’re a homosexual.”
Your comparison doesn’t work, Jess. Hal spoke of a “deep Christian faith” as if it is something good, something desirable. But he practically despises the “deep Christian faith” because he himself does not have it nor want it. Consider the source.
I don’t pretend that homosexuality is good. Call a spade a spade.
Besides, God Himself refers to homosexuality as a perversion. According to the inspired apostle Paul (Romans 1:18-32), it is one of the consequences of a lack of faith.
After my Grandpa had a stroke my Nana took care of him mostly by herself for years. When she had her heart attack and could no longer care for him herself he died. My Mom said he knew she couldn’t take care of him anymore so he knew it was time to move on and he passed away.
I feel that the pro-life movement is very selfish in that it only think about “me” as in, “I wouldn’t have wanted to be aborted”, “I want to live as long as possible no matter how.” And then you even use artificial means to stay alive, isn’t that going against God? When a person is hooked up to life support isn’t that just giving them artificial life? When someone has to take 30 different pills a day to live isn’t that exceeding the natural life God gave them? But again pro-lifers can’t seem to handle the thought of the afterlife, they will do anything to ensure they out off facing judgement as long as possible. Why? Why the double standard between unnatural death and unnatural life? Why will you abandon God’s will so you can put off paradise for a few more weeks or months?
If anything were to happen to me now I wouldn’t want any artificial life, not even a feeding tube. I feel like I truly live my life to the fullest each day and even though I am only twenty I feel like I’ve lived 80 years worth of memories and experiences, 80 years worth of love and tears and laughter. I have no fear of death.
Posted by: Jess at October 10, 2008 8:52 AM
———————————————-
I have no fear of death… I know where I’m going afterwards. This has nothing to do with a fear of death.
I have extremely clear advance directive paperwork in place. This has nothing to do with ventilators and feeding tubes. However, choosing to not be placed upon life support, feeding tubes, ventilators, etc. in clearly defined circumstances is not the same as removing said items from someone who is dependent upon them.
When I was an LPN I worked in a long term skilled nursing care facility for children. These children were near-drowning victims, car accident victims, abuse victims, or children born with severe medical needs. Many of them needed feeding tubes. Many of them needed trachs. Does that somehow make their lives less valuable? I had a 2 year old patient with caudal regression syndrome on a feeding tube. Should that have been removed to cause his death? I think not… that was the happiest, most smiley little boy on the planet! I had a near-drowning victim on a feeding tube. Should that have been removed to cause his death? That would have required the child starve to death, because despite his inability to communicate in any way, there was nothing else medically that would have hastened his death…. oh, but I’m sure some of you would have viewed that child as a burden on society.
On another note, my husband takes over 30 pills per day for a progressive, terminal illness and the side effects of that illness. Does that mean he should just do the entire world a favor and die now instead of in 2 to 5 years? Even though with advances in medical science we might be able to extend his quality of life for another 5 to 10 years? Even though we have six children who absolutely adore their father? Is he somehow less of a father or human being because he cannot support our family? Is his contribution of reading stories to his children from the recliner he finds himself confined to most days unimportant? Are those memories for our children not worth making? He hit his pill limit… time to die?
Jess,
The teaching of the Catholic Church does not require that a person be kept alive by extraordinary means unless it is the will of that person (predetermined in a legal document). Food and water are not extraordinary means however, so they must be given unless it would inflict pain in the case of some kinds of terminal cancers. You may feel very differently about it down the road. Are you aware of the intense suffering that is experienced in the case of withholding water from a person?
God love you, Elisabeth, and your family!
Hal said, It’s true I’m not a good one to judge true Christian Faith. From what I understand, however, no one else should be doing that either. Personally I’d prefer a president who was not religious (assuming he/she could ever get elected) but I’ll deal with it.
The apostle John said the following (2 John 6-11):
“Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist. Watch out that you do not lose what you have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully. Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him. Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work.”
At the time that John was writing, the denial of Jesus’ humanity was a common heresy. Today the prevalent heresy is the denial of His divinity. Those who preach the “social gospel” usually subscribe to this heresy. Mr. Obama seems to be one of them.
Also, one’s faith is supposed to be validated by one’s life. The talk and walk should agree. Many Christians see much greater agreement in Mrs. Palin, for example, than they do in Mr. Obama. That is, Mrs. Palin’s faith appears to be genuine.
Obviously I cannot open and close the kingdom of heaven to Mr. Obama. The chief Shepherd and His under-shepherds (Mr. Obama’s pastor and elders, unless they are themselves frauds) have that responsibility. Ultimately only God can justify or damn a human being.
When Hal says that he prefers a president who is not religious, I think he means that he prefers an atheist, agnostic, or secular humanist for president. According to my definition of religion, everyone is religious. Religion is a person’s response to God; life is religion.
Thank you Eileen… He very much has!
Oh Elisabeth, how you inspire me!
Elizabeth @ 12:33,
Oh Elisabeth, how you inspire me!
Me too! God bless you and your family!
And God bless you, Elizabeth (Gabriella’s Momma)! :)
God Bless you Elisabeth. And prayers for your family.
my husband takes over 30 pills per day for a progressive, terminal illness and the side effects of that illness. Does that mean he should just do the entire world a favor and die now instead of in 2 to 5 years? Even though with advances in medical science we might be able to extend his quality of life for another 5 to 10 years? Even though we have six children who absolutely adore their father? Is he somehow less of a father or human being because he cannot support our family? Is his contribution of reading stories to his children from the recliner he finds himself confined to most days unimportant? Are those memories for our children not worth making? He hit his pill limit… time to die?
Elizabeth, very nice and honest post. No, Pro-Choicers are not saying your husband should do anything but what he wants, there.
Elizabeth, very nice and honest post. No, Pro-Choicers are not saying your husband should do anything but what he wants, there.
Posted by: Doug at October 10, 2008 6:53 PM
——————————————-
I let him know that. He’s very relieved!! ROFLMAO :P
Doug said, “Elizabeth, very nice and honest post. No, Pro-Choicers are not saying your husband should do anything but what he wants, there.”
Doug, very nice but dishonest comment (or deceptive, at least). If you read the post that began this thread, Jill Stanek spoke of “the OR Health Plan rejecting payment of a cancer drug but offering to pay for [Barbara Wagner’s] assisted suicide… This is the other end of abortion, encouraging the deaths of inconvenient elderly and physically and mentally ill as well as people without financial resources to self-pay for care.” It’s the result of the same “pro-choice” thinking: “her (his) body, her choice.” The difference is that the person who will possibly die gets to make the choice (supposedly).
I’ve referred to the following piece before. It’s from Geert Wilder’s speech to the Dutch Parliament on September 17. The Dutch state television had abruptly terminated live coverage of his speech. Euthanasia is legal in the Netherlands.
There are far too few people with health care. Secretary of State Bussemaker [Socialist party] knows that. But meanwhile she is waving away all wrongdoing in our nursing homes and homes for the elderly. The 88-year old Mrs. Willemse has been sitting in a dilapidated wheelchair, the wheels tilted, a ramshackle wooden frame and a plate as backrest. She got bedsores sitting in it. And the very elderly gentleman Steller has been waiting more than two years for the care he needs. Mrs. Emons died not in her bed but in the in the cold storage of the morgue due to haste.
Incidents? Unfortunately they are not incidents. Already for a very long time they aren’t. In many of our nursing homes, poverty rules.
This Cabinet leaves our elderly, our disabled and seriously ill as hard as a stone in the lurch. Elderly people just have to wait and see whether they will be reanimated.
[There follows a chapter on care for the elderly, budget change and lower taxes]
Ah, death with dignity! This contempt for human life is not just part of the Dutch culture; it’s also becoming American. According to this report by the Chicago Tribune, a “130-page report of an investigation by the Illinois Department of Public Health says that improper use of drugs such as morphine sulfate contributed to five suspicious deaths in 2006 at the facility in Woodstock, then called the Woodstock Residence. A supervisor allegedly told a nurse, “I do not care if you play the angel of death, just don’t let me know about it,” the report says.
In a secularizing democratic society where so many people are pragmatic rather than Biblically principled–like you, Doug–why should tax-payers continue to fund non-contributing dead-weights who seem to have lost the joy of existence? Why not come to a happy agreement and end the misery, for the benefit of all involved? And if the decrepit senior has lost too much of his intellect to do anything for himself, why not lovingly make the choice for him? Don’t protest that such abuse will not happen; it’s just human nature. It will happen; it already does happen. It’s the very real result of an idealistic “pro-choice” mentality.
As a last example, consider a “pro-choice” response to Trig Palin. Such wonderful support Mrs. Palin has received from “pro-choicers.” This comes from a LifeSiteNews article.
According to the Globe and Mail, Dr. Andre Lalonde, executive vice-president of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC), is worried that Palin’s decision to give birth to Trig, despite knowing about his condition, could influence other women in similar situations, but who lack the financial and emotional support that Palin had access to… Citing his concern for women’s “freedom to choose”, Lalonde said that popular examples about women like Palin, who choose not to kill their unborn children, could have negative effects on women and their families, reported the Globe.
Christians regard suicide as a sin. Many societies or civilizations have honoured it. In an elementary social studies course, I learned that the Inuit expected elderly members to leave the community when food became more scarce in the winter. They would just wander away, fall asleep in the cold, and never wake up. It was the honourable thing to do. Were the Inuit “pro-choice”?
Doug said, “Elizabeth, very nice and honest post. No, Pro-Choicers are not saying your husband should do anything but what he wants, there.”
If you need yet another “pro-choice” example, see Jess at October 10, 2008 8:52 AM. She said, ‘I feel that the pro-life movement is very selfish in that it only think about “me” as in, “I wouldn’t have wanted to be aborted”, “I want to live as long as possible no matter how.’
“Sure, live as long as you want, but you really shouldn’t be selfish, you know.” Many people begin to think in such a way when induced abortion or euthanasia become options.
Oh, regarding my last comment 6:50, I see that Jess’s comment 8:52 was what Elisabeth 11:06 was responding to in the first place. I should have checked first. Yes, excellent comment, Elisabeth.
Doug said, “Elizabeth, very nice and honest post. No, Pro-Choicers are not saying your husband should do anything but what he wants, there.”
Jon: Doug, very nice but dishonest comment (or deceptive, at least). If you read the post that began this thread, Jill Stanek spoke of “the OR Health Plan rejecting payment of a cancer drug but offering to pay for [Barbara Wagner’s] assisted suicide… This is the other end of abortion, encouraging the deaths of inconvenient elderly and physically and mentally ill as well as people without financial resources to self-pay for care.”
Jon, I was being honest. You are talking about something else.
The deal in Oregon is that there needs to be a reasonable chance of success before the money is spent. The gov’t does not have unlimited funds, and it may seem like a hard choice to you, but it’s one that we are confronted with, and one that will be more prevalent in the near future, versus less prevalent in the past few decades.
There comes a point when a line has to be drawn, and that applies to almost all of us. I’m not saying that I’d necessarily agree with everything that Oregon is doing, but if you or I was in charge, we’d still have to act within what is possible.
…..
In a secularizing democratic society where so many people are pragmatic rather than Biblically principled–like you, Doug–why should tax-payers continue to fund non-contributing dead-weights who seem to have lost the joy of existence?
It’s up to the taxpayers and their representatives. Ask them. If somebody truly wants to end their life, is of “sound mind,” etc., why should they not be allowed to die? It’s not even a case of tax-payers having to pay for them, then.
…..
Why not come to a happy agreement and end the misery, for the benefit of all involved?
Because that’s not what necessarily makes people “happy.” It’s a question. There are always widows, orphans, sad cases of all sorts, etc.
…..
I learned that the Inuit expected elderly members to leave the community when food became more scarce in the winter. They would just wander away, fall asleep in the cold, and never wake up. It was the honourable thing to do. Were the Inuit “pro-choice”?
No, I’d say the Inuit were anti-choice, there. Some societies have indeed “put out” their elderly, sick, etc., in times of severe resource shortage.
If anything, this goes toward population pressure being one big reason why you’d see more of that type of thing in the future. Not saying that “The End is Near,” but resources – especially energy – is a huge thing going forward in time.
…..
If you need yet another “pro-choice” example, see Jess at October 10, 2008 8:52 AM. She said, ‘I feel that the pro-life movement is very selfish in that it only think about “me” as in, “I wouldn’t have wanted to be aborted”, “I want to live as long as possible no matter how.’
Well what is that, Jon? Jess is describing some other people projecting emotions to where they were not, or at least to where it’s very doubtful they were. If you really have an issue with it, take it up with Jess.
She has a point about “selfish” in that all our motivation lies in us trying for what we want the most, among our availabe options (or that for which we have the least distaste).
No, Doug, you are not being honest. Or, at least, you are refusing to come to grips with the issue. Jill Stanek’s point regarding the Oregon case is that the state government is actually now “encouraging the deaths of inconvenient elderly and physically and mentally ill as well as people without financial resources to self-pay for care.” It’s offering assisted suicide. A government or insurance company can work within budget constraints without resorting to this immoral final solution. Witholding treatment is different than active killing (unless its not really “treatment,” e.g. witholding food as in the Terry Schiavo case).
The rest of your response is irrelevant. You ignore my point. You ignore it to the extent that you fail to respond to the portions where I make it explicit. I had referred to the increasing “contempt for human life” and warned you, “Don’t protest that such abuse will not happen…” I gave you several examples. You responded to several rhetorical questions without considering their point. Probably I was not clear enough, then. Let me try again.
My point is that assisted suicide invariably leads to insisted suicide. The temptations are too great; abuse is inevitable. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Don’t put the fox in charge of the hen-house. You, who like to be so pragmatic, are in this case exceedingly idealistic. You are too naive. You have too rosy a view of human nature.
I’m actually more sympathetic with the Inuit than I am with contemporary “pro-choicers.” If I have described the Inuit correctly (if I indeed was fed true knowledge as a grade school student), then they didn’t actually compel their elderly to die. The elderly “volunteered” (it became the right thing to do, same as today). Today we’re not arguing over the last bits of food. We’re arguing whether the elderly should continue to live or the rest of society pursue a lavish lifestyle. It becomes the lifeboat analogy, except that the question of survival pertains only to the elderly. Shall we throw the elderly overboard so that the pleasure cruise can continue? Or shall we keep them aboard, work harder, and scrimp and save? It’s a question of priorities, of course.
One of the items in Pandora’s box is “pro-choice” ideology. It eventually results in the oppression of the weak by the strong. The strong will make the choice for the weak. Might is right.
God is good. He said that only He has the authority to end a human life. Killing oneself or others is a sin. However, the West is replacing its Christian heritage with the culture of death. “Pro-choicers” give desperate single mothers the option of killing their children. They may do whatever they wish, but do they know what a burden a child will be on them and on tax-payers? Make a wise decision, now, lady; you are not a Sarah Palin–and you shouldn’t be. But don’t look at the ultrasound; it will make you too emotional. It will make you feel attached to your child. (Never mind that you indeed are.)
“Pro-choicers” are not saying Elisabeth’s husband should do anything but what he wants, as far as continuing his life is concerned. But he should know that his insurance policy will no longer provide coverage for his expensive pills or treatment; after all, suicide is a valid option, and a cheaper one at that. And does he realize what a drain he and his generation are on the nation’s economy? As Jess says, don’t be selfish. There are too many old people, not enough young people. So when you’re feeling miserable, old man, be aware that the doctors are ready and willing to help you out–on their terms. And when they have thus helped often enough, they will become as callous and omniscient as the abortionists in the U.S. or care-givers in the Netherlands.
“Pro-choicers” are not saying Elisabeth’s husband should do anything but what he wants, as far as continuing his life is concerned. But he should know that his insurance policy will no longer provide coverage for his expensive pills or treatment; after all, suicide is a valid option, and a cheaper one at that. And does he realize what a drain he and his generation are on the nation’s economy? As Jess says, don’t be selfish. There are too many old people, not enough young people. So when you’re feeling miserable, old man, be aware that the doctors are ready and willing to help you out–on their terms. And when they have thus helped often enough, they will become as callous and omniscient as the abortionists in the U.S. or care-givers in the Netherlands.
Posted by: Jon at October 12, 2008 9:44 AM
———————————————-
Bada bing, bada bang. If we were to live in a state that authorized euthenasia, the day would come that rather than pay for treatment, insurance would choose to pay for death. After all, an overdose of medicine is cheap. By comparison, even the relatively inexpensive procuedure (meaning we’re talking in the thousands, not the tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands) that Marc uses to kill nerves in his back and legs to bring his pain down to a bearable level is not as cheap. Plus, it will lead to other pesky costs, like the wheelchair he will need when they finally have to deaden the nerves that control his legs altogether.
For those worried about death with dignity, please check out the hospice movement. The hospice doctors and nurses are absolutely amazing and are quite capable of ensuring that death contains dignity, without unduly hastening that death.
As for the Inuit, if it was expected, it is not something I would support. But I have seen many people “choose” to let go and pass away, even in hospitals with the latest of technology… when I was working in the SICU (wow, seems a long time ago now, 7 years) we could usually tell when someone was going to go despite the best efforts of medical science, you learned to get a knack for “reading” it… it helped you prepare the families and we as staff were usually aware when it would happen. Certainly there were those cases that caught us by surprise… but for those who were deliberately choosing to let go, there were signs.
In fact, our 20 year old Australian Shepherd just did that two days ago… just walked off into the backyard and laid down under the oleanders. We will miss him. More surreal than sad, after five years of saying, “There is no way Bandit could live another winter” we’d gotten kind of used to the idea that the dog would, inexplicably, go on living. He was old, stiff, had cataracts and had lost half of his teeth, but he was happy, and adored, and he still ruled the roost around here up until the day he died. Had we been paying attention, he, like my SICU patients, was certainly cluing us in. He said his goodbyes earlier this week and was extremely affectionate, above and beyond his usual.
(Kind of reminds me when my grandma died. She said, “Goodbye, Elisabeth” about a dozen times with me saying, “No, don’t worry Grandma, I’m not going anywhere” before I caught on and said, “Oh, okay, goodbye, Grandma, I love you, too.” She died that night in her sleep at the age of 98.)
Jon: “Pro-choicers” are not saying Elisabeth’s husband should do anything but what he wants, as far as continuing his life is concerned. But he should know that his insurance policy will no longer provide coverage for his expensive pills or treatment; after all, suicide is a valid option, and a cheaper one at that. And does he realize what a drain he and his generation are on the nation’s economy?
No. I’m not saying “what a drain he is.”
I don’t know the details of his insurance but I don’t see any compelling reason that anybody else should be telling him what to do.
My point is that assisted suicide invariably leads to insisted suicide. The temptations are too great; abuse is inevitable. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Don’t put the fox in charge of the hen-house. You, who like to be so pragmatic, are in this case exceedingly idealistic. You are too naive. You have too rosy a view of human nature.
Jon, you saying that does not make it true.
It’s fact that there are not unlimited resources. I’m not saying it’s all to to one side or the other – you’re the one doing that. I know full well there is a balance to be drawn.
On the Inuit – I don’t know if they really “put out” their elderly, etc., i.e. put them “out on an ice flow..”
Yet some societies did, in times of severe resource shortage. And the surest way to move our present world in that direction is to increase the population faster.
She died that night in her sleep at the age of 98
Cool, Elizabeth. I have one remaining grandparent, a grandmother who will be 97 next month.
Her husband lived to be 97 or 98…
Doug said, “I don’t know the details of his insurance but I don’t see any compelling reason that anybody else should be telling him what to do.”
Of course there’s no compelling reason. There’s never a compelling reason to tell someone to die. People just do it, for reasons such as Doug gave in his next comment: “some societies did [put their elderly out to die], in times of severe resource shortage.
Doug said, “It’s fact that there are not unlimited resources. I’m not saying it’s all to to one side or the other – you’re the one doing that. I know full well there is a balance to be drawn.”
As I have already said, managing limited resources does not have to mean providing the option of suicide. Suicide is an extreme measure; anyone who contemplates it is psychologically imbalanced and spiritually at risk. Regardless, suicide is immoral.
Doug said that “the surest way to move our present world to [severe resource shortage and insisted suicide] is to increase the population faster.”
Doug doesn’t believe in God; the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. This present world is not forever, and God will end it at His predetermined time. In God we trust. Be fruitful and multiply!
The surest ways to move our present world to severe resource shortage and insisted suicide are (1) to refuse to drill and (2) to abandon our Christian heritage. The West has faced population and resource pressures before without resorting to the murder of its elderly people. The question is decided by priorities and morality.
Doug said, “I don’t know the details of his insurance but I don’t see any compelling reason that anybody else should be telling him what to do.”
Of course there’s no compelling reason. There’s never a compelling reason to tell someone to die. People just do it, for reasons such as Doug gave in his next comment: “some societies did [put their elderly out to die], in times of severe resource shortage.”
Jon, that’s a contradiction. I don’t see any compelling reason, and I also don’t see any rational arguments that that is what’s going on with the husband.
A far different thing from the societies in the past that really did feel a compelling need.
……
Doug said, “It’s fact that there are not unlimited resources. I’m not saying it’s all to to one side or the other – you’re the one doing that. I know full well there is a balance to be drawn.”
As I have already said, managing limited resources does not have to mean providing the option of suicide. Suicide is an extreme measure; anyone who contemplates it is psychologically imbalanced and spiritually at risk. Regardless, suicide is immoral.
Not at all. Your own take on it in no way necessarily applies to other people. Meanwhile, the fact remains that there is indeed a balance to be drawn, and we cannot expect unlimited resources to be spent on us any more than we can expect the hypothetical “free lunch.”
Can states, which are already in general running red ink, spend vast amounts of money on people? Not sensibly they cannot, no. If somebody really wants to end their own life, who are you to tell them no? It is also not “pushing suicide” to face the fact that we cannot live beyond our means as far as health care. “Providing the option” is one thing, but regardless whether or not a state does that, the fact remains that it cannot “keep everybody alive” without an accounting of cost.
…..
Doug doesn’t believe in God; the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.
No, the fear of God is a very sad thing for many people, and not so sad a thing for others, but in no way is it any necessary “wisdom,” there being no proof.
…..
This present world is not forever, and God will end it at His predetermined time. In God we trust. Be fruitful and multiply!
Again, we’ve already done the being fruitful and multiplying deal, and now we’re getting to the time that population pressure itself is seriously beginning to argue against you.
Doug said that “the surest way to move our present world to [severe resource shortage and insisted suicide] is to increase the population faster.”
Doug later said, “Again, we’ve already done the being fruitful and multiplying deal, and now we’re getting to the time that population pressure itself is seriously beginning to argue against you.”
But Doug previously said, “Pro-Choicers are not saying there are too many children.” Likely, Doug, who is an ardent “pro-choicer,” was not making the first two statements as a “pro-choicer.” Still, he was trying to advocate the “pro-choice” position.
Here is Doug’s full comment on October 10 at 7:14 PM. It’s on another October thread, ‘New Stanek WND Column, “Killed Abortion Survivor Finally Gets Funeral.”‘
Doug said that “the surest way to move our present world to [severe resource shortage and insisted suicide] is to increase the population faster.”
Doug later said, “Again, we’ve already done the being fruitful and multiplying deal, and now we’re getting to the time that population pressure itself is seriously beginning to argue against you.”
But Doug previously said, “Pro-Choicers are not saying there are too many children.” Likely, Doug, who is an ardent “pro-choicer,” was not making the first two statements as a “pro-choicer.” Still, he was trying to advocate the “pro-choice” position.
_____
Jon, it’s not advocating the Pro-Choice position to point out that population pressure does have effects. If anything, increasing population at this point will reduce the percentage of Pro-Choicers and make for more people who think that population control is essential.
If you are worried about “a lack of respect for life,” then an increasing population is not necessarily what you want.
…..
So Doug can envision a compelling reason. Severe resource shortage gave “societies in the past” a compelling reason. And, according to him, “the surest way to move our present world to [severe resource shortage and insisted suicide] is to increase the population faster.”
Well, yeah – but that is not saying that we are to the point where Elizabeth’s husband is being “put out.”
China, agree with it or not, felt compelled to do something about population pressure. This is not saying that I’m for such policies. But that population pressure can make people’s attitude change and result in policy changes is undeniable.
…..
Maybe there aren’t too many children, but there can be too many children. According to Doug. And when we achieve that situation, then will there be a compelling reason to force women to force themselves to abort?
If we get to that point, then more people are going to think there’s a compelling reason, yes. Pro-Choicers are not for that, nor for trying to force the continuation of unwanted pregnancies.
This isn’t saying that “the population is out of control oh boo hoo hoo….” The point with population pressure is that we certainly don’t need to increase the rate of population growth beyond what it already is, by banning or further restricting abortion.
…..
Society already pressures some women to abort.
And it already pressures some women to continue pregnancies. There are varying influences, yes.
…..
In Doug’s words, “not everyone is suited to having kids.”
Right, and Pro-Choicers are for allowing the individual to make their own decision there, in general.
…..
An expectant mother doesn’t have the authority to kill her child.
If you know of a child being killed, call the cops.
…..
A severely handicapped or elderly person doesn’t have the authority to kill himself.
Not true, because some places they do have the legal authority, and moreover, it’s a silly prohibition. Person kills himself – what are you going to do, fine or imprison the corpse?
If somebody is of sound mind and is suffering to the extent that they want to die, and the suffering cannot be adequately relieved, what is so bad about allowing them to end their life?
If somebody is of sound mind and is suffering to the extent that they want to die, and the suffering cannot be adequately relieved, what is so bad about allowing them to end their life?
Posted by: Doug at October 14, 2008 9:03 AM
It sends the message that life is disposable, that we determine our own worth. We don’t. God does. The Catholic church teaches that there is redemptive value in suffering for the sufferer and those around him, which I’m sure you wouldn’t understand because you don’t believe in God or have faith. We can offer our suffering for the reparation of sins of others. Pope John Paul II lived his last several years suffering greatly, but persevered out of his love for God and His Church.
Janet, I understand such beliefs, but I’d go with the person’s own determining in this case, rather than with what other people say.