|
|
|
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Pro-life/Pro-choice: let's talk - 4/16/2009 1:04:11 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 4481
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
Well, if all it takes is a biologically-alive body, we could all possibly live til Jesus comes. We just don't have enough machines to go around for everyone in the world. Since we have the technology, whenver a loved one dies, why don't we just keep them here (as a person) via machines? That way no one would be lost. As long as the biology goes, we're here.
My point is that life can exist without personhood. I can tell some believe this, but fight that they don't, although they do double-speak. The problem is that they advocate people being removed from machines after certain ponts, or don't fight for them to be put on when they die naturally. But yet.... being a biologically-alive human automatically means you're a person, right (meaning "ensoulment")? That's all it takes? Biology?
(Not all of that was directed at you; yours was just a good post to make a point.)
There is a vast difference between saying "This person's brain is now biologically inactive, and therefore we can do nothing more to revive him, so it is time to let nature take it's course" (whether or not we can know a soul is present) and saying, "We are not certain whether a soul is present in this living and healthy being, but we will go against nature and destroy it anyway" - don't you think?
_____________________________
Jack
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
- C.S. Lewis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Pro-life/Pro-choice: let's talk - 4/16/2009 8:02:18 AM
|
|
|
318
Posts: 346
Joined: 1/9/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrFribbles
So would the act of terminating the life of a human zombie be capable of falling under the umbrella of murder?
By simply pulling the plug?: no. By smothering with a pillow or something like that?: yes.
_____________________________
Brian
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Pro-life/Pro-choice: let's talk - 4/16/2009 9:54:43 AM
|
|
|
Retro80s
Posts: 277
Joined: 3/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
Well, if all it takes is a biologically-alive body, we could all possibly live til Jesus comes. We just don't have enough machines to go around for everyone in the world. Since we have the technology, whenver a loved one dies, why don't we just keep them here (as a person) via machines? That way no one would be lost. As long as the biology goes, we're here.
My point is that life can exist without personhood. I can tell some believe this, but fight that they don't, although they do double-speak. The problem is that they advocate people being removed from machines after certain ponts, or don't fight for them to be put on when they die naturally. But yet.... being a biologically-alive human automatically means you're a person, right (meaning "ensoulment")? That's all it takes? Biology?
(Not all of that was directed at you; yours was just a good post to make a point.)
There is a vast difference between saying "This person's brain is now biologically inactive, and therefore we can do nothing more to revive him, so it is time to let nature take it's course" (whether or not we can know a soul is present) and saying, "We are not certain whether a soul is present in this living and healthy being, but we will go against nature and destroy it anyway" - don't you think?
There definitely is a huge difference, but you probably will not get much of a response from the "pro-abortion" crowd. When it comes to the issue of "ensoulment" regarding the unborn, I am virtually being ignored by that crowd when I ask why they would not err on the side of caution.
_____________________________
http://www.abort73.com
See for Yourself
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Pro-life/Pro-choice: let's talk - 4/16/2009 9:58:53 AM
|
|
|
Bro_Shane
Posts: 1614
Joined: 8/4/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: CCCdnt
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
Well, if all it takes is a biologically-alive body, we could all possibly live til Jesus comes. We just don't have enough machines to go around for everyone in the world. Since we have the technology, whenver a loved one dies, why don't we just keep them here (as a person) via machines? That way no one would be lost. As long as the biology goes, we're here.
My point is that life can exist without personhood. I can tell some believe this, but fight that they don't, although they do double-speak. The problem is that they advocate people being removed from machines after certain ponts, or don't fight for them to be put on when they die naturally. But yet.... being a biologically-alive human automatically means you're a person, right (meaning "ensoulment")? That's all it takes? Biology?
(Not all of that was directed at you; yours was just a good post to make a point.)
There is a vast difference between saying "This person's brain is now biologically inactive, and therefore we can do nothing more to revive him, so it is time to let nature take it's course" (whether or not we can know a soul is present) and saying, "We are not certain whether a soul is present in this living and healthy being, but we will go against nature and destroy it anyway" - don't you think?
There definitely is a huge difference, but you probably will not get much of a response from the "pro-abortion" crowd. When it comes to the issue of "ensoulment" regarding the unborn, I am virtually being ignored by that crowd when I ask why they would not err on the side of caution.
Because life does not matter to them. They use things like "for the mother's health" as a ruse.
_____________________________
<---- Respect the turtle neck
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Pro-life/Pro-choice: let's talk - 4/16/2009 10:55:39 AM
|
|
|
MrFribbles
Posts: 2341
Joined: 1/29/2007
From: Hawaii, but I've moved around since then
Status: offline
|
quote:
By simply pulling the plug?: no. By smothering with a pillow or something like that?: yes.
Why? Either way you're ensuring death, so what's the difference?
(incidentally, we were having this discussion in my Ethics class a few weeks back, and nobody could answer this one, so I look forward to hearing your thoughts!)
_____________________________
"To the humble man, and to the humble man alone, the sun is really a sun; to the humble man, and to the humble man alone, the sea is really a sea."
-G. K. Chesterton
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Pro-life/Pro-choice: let's talk - 4/16/2009 11:08:55 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 4636
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: online
|
quote:
Not all doctors are bad. They're very useful, sometimes. Thanks for my daily dose of humble pie, 3cm! 
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Pro-life/Pro-choice: let's talk - 4/16/2009 11:10:51 AM
|
|
|
solo_soprano23
Posts: 2081
Joined: 4/27/2005
From: I'm a Southern girl
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
Well, if all it takes is a biologically-alive body, we could all possibly live til Jesus comes. We just don't have enough machines to go around for everyone in the world. Since we have the technology, whenver a loved one dies, why don't we just keep them here (as a person) via machines? That way no one would be lost. As long as the biology goes, we're here.
My point is that life can exist without personhood. I can tell some believe this, but fight that they don't, although they do double-speak. The problem is that they advocate people being removed from machines after certain ponts, or don't fight for them to be put on when they die naturally. But yet.... being a biologically-alive human automatically means you're a person, right (meaning "ensoulment")? That's all it takes? Biology?
(Not all of that was directed at you; yours was just a good post to make a point.)
There is a vast difference between saying "This person's brain is now biologically inactive, and therefore we can do nothing more to revive him, so it is time to let nature take it's course" (whether or not we can know a soul is present) and saying, "We are not certain whether a soul is present in this living and healthy being, but we will go against nature and destroy it anyway" - don't you think?
So a biologically-inactive brain is a criterion for death? Then wouldn't any human body without a functioning brain be dead, at least, until they have a functioning brain or suddenly come out of some state of PVS (or the like)? I see the point you're trying to make (I'm going another direction), but even most Christians I see agree that no functioning brain means no person's there, although you seem to think otherwise. What I see here is "well, if you give it more time, they have potential (for a zygote)." Does potentiality mean personhood? It very well may, to some. I'm just asking. With the brain thing, I don't hear that reasoning from Christians most of the time. It's usually that they're taking them off the machines because they think the person is gone to wherever they would end up because they basically have no brain now; and at a certain point, they realize they can't bring them back or keep the person here via keeping the body going. Admitting one thinks a soul can be absent from a functioning body means admitting that a body can funtion biologically without a soul in some form or fashion, whatever that point in life is. I don't run into Christians who say they let someone go/pulled the plug but still thought the person was alive/there and did it anyway. It's the biology=life=person=soul argument for 100% of the time that I'm not buying, especially from Christians who believe that a soul can be absent from an alive body at the end of life. If it can happen at the end, then it's possible.
And CCC, I did answer about erring on the side of caution... probably a few pages back now.
_____________________________
For God, For Learning, Forever.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Pro-life/Pro-choice: let's talk - 4/16/2009 11:12:26 AM
|
|
|
solo_soprano23
Posts: 2081
Joined: 4/27/2005
From: I'm a Southern girl
Status: offline
|
Bro_Shane, we can all have a discussion about this without getting in the mud. Can we respect each other, even if we disagree and don't respect their opinions? Probably not, I guess, but it was worth a shot. :)
_____________________________
For God, For Learning, Forever.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Pro-life/Pro-choice: let's talk - 4/16/2009 12:03:36 PM
|
|
|
tromo
Posts: 38
Status: offline
|
I have been watching this thread and even chimed in a few times, but I'm just gonna throw this out there. The bible tells us that as Christians we are to flee from even the APPEARANCE of evil. (1 Thes 5:22) I would caution any one not firm in their faith whether you are a new Christian or not, to read Jude (which I posted several pages back) and also in 1 Timothy 3 about false prophets mingling among us. I would also say that as Christians we are called "to make it our goal to please him, whether we are at home in the body or away from it." (2 Cor 5:9) and also that we are to "Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves." (Philippians 2:3) I pray for those who would try to make the Bible fit their desires instead of allowing the Word of God to conform them to the image of Christ. I know that most will ignore this and at the very most I will receive some ridicule for being "narrow minded" but I also know that the way of the cross is narrow.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Pro-life/Pro-choice: let's talk - 4/16/2009 12:07:37 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 4636
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: online
|
quote:
I pray for those who would try to make the Bible fit their desires instead of allowing the Word of God to conform them to the image of Christ. Amen, preach it, brother (?sister)! You'll get no ridicule from me, tromo, as I truly doubt Jesus would ever have recommended abortion to anyone!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Pro-life/Pro-choice: let's talk - 4/16/2009 12:24:29 PM
|
|
|
tromo
Posts: 38
Status: offline
|
It's brother! And thanks Drmark.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Pro-life/Pro-choice: let's talk - 4/16/2009 12:34:34 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 4636
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: online
|
quote:
I'm just bothered by the "Dr's word is Gospel" idea, especially when it comes to abortion. I'm bothered by the godless moral relativism of many of my colleagues, cm3, so you have nothing to apologize for. God help us when physicians and scientists try to play God with the miracle of Life so wondrously given by the Creator of Life.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Pro-life/Pro-choice: let's talk - 4/16/2009 1:09:59 PM
|
|
|
solo_soprano23
Posts: 2081
Joined: 4/27/2005
From: I'm a Southern girl
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tromo
I have been watching this thread and even chimed in a few times, but I'm just gonna throw this out there. The bible tells us that as Christians we are to flee from even the APPEARANCE of evil. (1 Thes 5:22) I would caution any one not firm in their faith whether you are a new Christian or not, to read Jude (which I posted several pages back) and also in 1 Timothy 3 about false prophets mingling among us. I would also say that as Christians we are called "to make it our goal to please him, whether we are at home in the body or away from it." (2 Cor 5:9) and also that we are to "Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves." (Philippians 2:3) I pray for those who would try to make the Bible fit their desires instead of allowing the Word of God to conform them to the image of Christ. I know that most will ignore this and at the very most I will receive some ridicule for being "narrow minded" but I also know that the way of the cross is narrow.
I think people need to read what's there in the Bible; no adding, no twisting to make it fit what you think in your head already (or have been taught). Don't blindly follow church teaching; don't blindly follow what the pastor says the Bible says, etc. That goes for this isssue, too. :)
_____________________________
For God, For Learning, Forever.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Pro-life/Pro-choice: let's talk - 4/16/2009 1:21:04 PM
|
|
|
tromo
Posts: 38
Status: offline
|
I think the same way. Which takes us to:
Acts 17: 11
11Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.
And as one more word of caution I would point out Romans 1:18-32.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Pro-life/Pro-choice: let's talk - 4/16/2009 1:24:05 PM
|
|
|
Bro_Shane
Posts: 1614
Joined: 8/4/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: solo_soprano23
Bro_Shane, we can all have a discussion about this without getting in the mud. Can we respect each other, even if we disagree and don't respect their opinions? Probably not, I guess, but it was worth a shot. :)
When I use "they" I am not referring, necessarily, to the people in this discussion. I meant it in the general sense. I should have been more clear in my usage.
Sorry.
_____________________________
<---- Respect the turtle neck
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Pro-life/Pro-choice: let's talk - 4/16/2009 4:13:31 PM
|
|
|
tromo
Posts: 38
Status: offline
|
I would also think that an examination of Proverbs 6: 16-19 could be in order:
16These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
17A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
18An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
19A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Pro-life/Pro-choice: let's talk - 4/16/2009 9:02:02 PM
|
|
|
318
Posts: 346
Joined: 1/9/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrFribbles
Why? Either way you're ensuring death, so what's the difference?
Let's be clear: death is a sure thing no matter what.
The difference is whether or not allowing a sure, natural death is the result of depraved indifference, or simply the natural course of natural events.
Let me use an example from my own experience:
My son was born with two physical anomalies that would have resulted in his sure death (in fact, he did die and was revived) had it not been for our consent to some surgical procedures. The result of these procedures is that he will never have a normal heart anatomy, and he still may not live very long in spite of everyone's efforts.
Now, what if we had not consented to the surgeries? What if we had just let his condition run to its natural conclusion (like it used to always do in cases like his just fifteen years ago).
Would that have been the same as killing him outright? The law says "no."
What say you?
< Message edited by 318 -- 4/16/2009 10:22:58 PM >
_____________________________
Brian
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Pro-life/Pro-choice: let's talk - 4/16/2009 9:06:39 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 4636
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: online
|
quote:
What if we had just let his condition run to its natural conclusion (like it used to always do in cases like his just fifteen years ago).
Would that have been murder? The law says "no."
What say you? What in the world is the connection between foregoing dangerous surgery which may have little less chance of killing the patient than the patient's underlying medical condition and the deliberate termination of the natural condition of preganancy which has 100% mortality for one of the patients?!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Pro-life/Pro-choice: let's talk - 4/16/2009 10:14:33 PM
|
|
|
318
Posts: 346
Joined: 1/9/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
What in the world is the connection between foregoing dangerous surgery which may have little less chance of killing the patient than the patient's underlying medical condition and the deliberate termination of the natural condition of preganancy which has 100% mortality for one of the patients?!
I was answering a question that MrFribbles asked me.
_____________________________
Brian
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Pro-life/Pro-choice: let's talk - 4/17/2009 12:53:20 AM
|
|
|
MrFribbles
Posts: 2341
Joined: 1/29/2007
From: Hawaii, but I've moved around since then
Status: offline
|
quote:
Would that have been the same as killing him outright? The law says "no."
What say you?
First, I'd like to say I'm sorry for the hardship this situation has doubtless caused you. I really have no point of reference for how hard it must have been.
Now, to answer your question - in my opinion, yes, it would be. I think of two examples. First, imagine you are taking a hike along some mountain, and you sit on a rock by a high cliff to rest and enjoy the view. As you sit there, you see a blind man coming along. Though doubtlessly very careful most of the time, this man is currently lost in thought and not using his guiding stick as he should. You realize that if you don't speak up and warn him, he will walk off the cliff and fall to his death. In my mind, staying silent would be as malicious as sneaking up behind him and pushing him off yourself.
The second, and slightly more popular - Batman Begins. I apologize if you haven't seen the movie (both because this illustration will make less sense, and because it's a delightful film), and just in case, I'll summarize - at the end of the film, Batman and the main villain are fighting it out on a subway train. Batman gets the upper hand at the last minute, right before the train is going to crash because of some destroyed track. The villain, unable to escape the train, cries out and says "You can't kill me!", to which Batman replies "You're right. But that doesn't mean I have to save you," at which point our Dark Knight spreads his wings and flies to safety. The villain, of course, explodes shortly thereafter. Now, I don't disagree with Batman on very much, but in my opinion, he killed that villain just as much as if he planted a bat-a-rang in his forehead.
I hope that illustrates my opinion on this matter sufficiently.
_____________________________
"To the humble man, and to the humble man alone, the sun is really a sun; to the humble man, and to the humble man alone, the sea is really a sea."
-G. K. Chesterton
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Pro-life/Pro-choice: let's talk - 4/17/2009 5:09:08 AM
|
|
|
Tagurit
Posts: 89
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline
|
I have read this whole post over the last couple of days and I see a couple of points worth mentioning about 318's posts....
1. From what I have seen in my life up to this point it has been a practice for people to justify sin in their minds any way they can. If you do not read/study God's Word prayerfully you close yourself off from God's meaning. Then, you take His Word out of context as Brother Shane has had to point out on more than one occasion....
2. Whenever you justify sin then it becomes compromise. I feel sad for 318 because justifying murder is a rather big compromise. You will definitely be in my prayers.
3. The 3rd and most important point that I do not believe has been mentioned...is that you destroy your Christian witness be voicing this incorrect stance on murder. No one on this forum is going to change your beliefs--that is clearly evident. Only God is going to reveal to you how wrong you are.
If you will recall Paul's situation with eating meat sacrificed to idols in 1 Corinthians 8:4-13, you will clearly see how much your Christian witness could be hurting others. If you truly analyzed this situation from a scriptural point of view and were able to put your pride aside for a moment, I think you will see the error of espousing this extremely minority view (for a professed Christian).
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
