posted
What's really intriguing to me is that a lot of people who believe that death is a transition to "a better place" fight so fiercely against mercy killing.
And indeed, as Brian puts it, "in many, many cases, medical technology has done nothing but prolong inevitable death." Is this part of God's plan as well?
I've experienced 6 deaths in the last year - from old age, from cancer, from violence, from fire, from an untreated heart condition, from congenital defects. I'm wrestling with the coping of life and death. What is death's place in the grand scheme of things? Why do we fear it? Why do people get so puffed up claiming they'd NEVER kill anybody or abort a child or unplug their grandparents? It's a painful thing to decide, and my opinion is that you can't know until you get there what you would do. And the comforting platitudes people say at a tragic death somehow get turned on their heads if one applies them to an aborted baby or the ending of life support.
"He's in a better place" "At least she's not suffering any more." "God's watching over him" "We'll see her in Heaven someday"
Is this true? Are these appropriate things to say to the grieving? Even if the dead involved were aborted or unplugged? And if so, then why the fierce dedication to life at any cost?
Even in nature, there are animals who reabsorb their fetuses or eat their babies in times of scarcity. Is that part of God's plan or not?And how do you know?
I'm still not inclined to recommend killing someone to put them out of their misery or to avoid dealing with a child who might have life-threatening disabilities. That seems very wrong to me. But I'm also not inclined to be harsh to someone who truly agonizes over their decision and comes to a different conclusion than me.
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
Don't kill the baby... first, you are murdering, let call a spade a spade here. The only reason we don't call it murder is b/c the profession has dehumanized the human by calling it a 'Fetus'. Changing the name doesn't change its reality - a rose by any other name... Second - does anyone have any clue what the waiting list is for adoption? Don't you think parents incapable of having a baby would much rather take a child from a mother considering abortion rather than having to fly half way around the world to buy one from a foreign land (no offense to foreign lands). Now I know the situation is a little different if the baby has some sort of birth difficulties along with it, but still, there are alternatives.
Posts: 69 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
comparing humans to animals in terms of 'reabsorbing fetuses and eating babies' is not exactly a fair comparison or criticism of God's plan. Our higher order thinking informs us that these things are wrong. God's plan is much more targeted towards humanity, so lets leave those Sinfuly evil animals (tongue firmly in cheek) out of this. Jenny, I find your response to be refreshing, even if your analogy wasn't the best. You put forth a gracious attitude - one we would all be wise to adopt. While I could never agree with a decision to adopt, I also could never condemn someone who made that decision - its not my place and it never will be. There is always room for grace
Posts: 69 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know that this isn't about aborting babies with defects, but it is still on topic and puts the whole notion into an interesting perspective - the author is Michael Coren - he writes for the Toronto Sun Newspaper:
Canada too permissive on abortion
By MICHAEL COREN
Last week, several days after Prime Minister Stephen Harper reiterated that he would not reopen the abortion debate, the governor of South Dakota signed legislation that would ban almost all abortions in that state.
Many other jurisdictions in the U.S. are discussing limitations and bans. Even in liberal Europe, there is no country with such a permissive attitude towards abortion as Canada.
Which should oblige us all to analyze our position on this life-and-death issue. Once again, I state clearly and loudly that I am pro-life. As to why, here is just a sample of reasons.
The proposition that abortion is acceptable because a woman can do what she likes with her own body is absurd. The inherent assumption is flawed, in that a woman cannot do what she wants with her body. She cannot, for example, sell her organs for transplant purposes or obstruct the public way.
Further, the argument is not about what she can or cannot do with her own body because it is not just her body that is involved. Within her is an unborn child, unique at conception and a distinct character and soul. If the contents of her womb were mere tissue, there would be no discussion.
But no mother ever tells people with delight that she "felt the tissue kick today" or announces that she has chosen a name for her tissue. Nor does she speak of her "fetus." It's a baby. It is referred to as a fetus by pro-abortionists because it's easier to kill what one has dehumanized.
We invariably hear people who favour what they describe as "choice" say they would prefer there to be fewer abortions. Yet if abortion is merely the removal of tissue without any moral or emotional consequences there is no reason for there to be fewer of them.
We deny, we disguise, we kill. Clearly, it is a life. A life whose sex can be determined even before implantation, a life which at 17 days has its own blood cells, which two days later is developing eyes and the day after has an entire nervous system established.
A life that at 28 days is forming arms and legs, at 30 days is developing ears and nose and at 49 days is a miniature person with complete fingers and toes.
So convinced are we now that this is a genuine life that in Britain some pro-abortion doctors want anesthetic to be administered to unborn babies before the procedure. In Canada, however, medics who object to performing abortions risk losing their jobs. Several have already paid that price.
This has nothing to do with so-called unwanted babies. There are legions of couples who want to adopt children. Even if there weren't, we still do not have the right to take an innocent life simply because we are larger and more powerful. That is the style of the thug and the fascist.
Nor is there a population problem. In fact, Europe and North America have a crisis of under-population. Where starvation occurs, it is the fault of the greedy West rather than the over-populated developing world. Again, even if there were a problem, it would not give us the right to kill.
We have to provide care and help for mothers in need and guarantee community support for children from conception to birth to adulthood to death. We have to know that the human person, which should be at its safest in the womb, is now, obscenely, at its most vulnerable.
Posts: 69 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jenny Gardener: What's really intriguing to me is that a lot of people who believe that death is a transition to "a better place" fight so fiercely against mercy killing.
There is, IMO and IME, no contradiction whatsoever between saying that the World to Come is a better place than this one, and saying that every moment of life in this world is a precious gift that we have no right to throw away.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hari, First of all, welcome to Hatrack! I'm not one of the best known Jatraqueros (members of the Hatrack community) but if you're anything like me, you'll find it a breath of fresh air with people who are intelligent, usually caring for one another, and deeply passionate about what they believe. I think the latter point is one that you haven't quite realized yet. Posting things like
quote: Don't kill the baby... first, you are murdering, let call a spade a spade here. The only reason we don't call it murder is b/c the profession has dehumanized the human by calling it a 'Fetus'. Changing the name doesn't change its reality - a rose by any other name...
is likely to ruffle more than a few feathers. There are thoughtful, intelligent people here who don't always equate abortion with murder, and you've just insulted them (for the record, I'm generally pro-life but not to the degree that some are.) The general tone of your post is that of "what I'm saying is obviously right and whoever disagrees with me is a nutjob."
Also, the use of the Shakespeare quote is waaay out of context. I'm just sayin'.
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why do people get so puffed up claiming they'd NEVER kill anybody or abort a child or unplug their grandparents? It's a painful thing to decide, and my opinion is that you can't know until you get there what you would do. And the comforting platitudes people say at a tragic death somehow get turned on their heads if one applies them to an aborted baby or the ending of life support.
I have been there, though. My mom was on life support at the hospital. My step-brother was in a coma from which they would never recover. I'm all for life.
I HATE the comforting platitudes. I don't think they are comforting. I do believe in the better place, but I hated it when people would say it to me. Grief from her death wasn't there because I thought she was in hell - I was devastated because, no matter how great a place she was in, I wasn't with her. She wasn't with me. And considering how much my mother loved me and the rest of her family, I think she would have liked to have been with us for another forty years, despite how great the next place was.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I apologize Brian, for coming off as arrogant. That was not my purpose. I guess, as you so eloquently put it, I ruffled too many feathers. Wait, my feathers are ruffled now because of your post. I don't consider anyone here a nutjob, since I am relatively new here, I can't make that assumption.
Again, it was not my intention to ruffle feathers, I thought the general topic did a good enough job of that already.
I'm just sayin'.
PS - the quote works
Posts: 69 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jenny Gardener: What's really intriguing to me is that a lot of people who believe that death is a transition to "a better place" fight so fiercely against mercy killing.
There is, IMO and IME, no contradiction whatsoever between saying that the World to Come is a better place than this one, and saying that every moment of life in this world is a precious gift that we have no right to throw away.
Especially if one believes in eternity. The moments here are finite; the moments after aren't. Therefore, living longer here does not detract one whit from what happens in the World to Come.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:He's in a better place" "At least she's not suffering any more." "God's watching over him" "We'll see her in Heaven someday"
While many people believe in and in the fullness of time find comfort in such thoughts, that doesn't take away the deep wish the loved one was still with you. And for the losses I've faced, I didn't want to hear those platitudes for about a year or so.
Posts: 2711 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
