Euthanasia And Sanctity Of Life

ALAYMAN said:
Why?
Click to expand...
Life is a gift from the Creator, not a right. Simply wanting a baby doesn’t entitle one to it. As you alluded to, IVF carries a host of potential moral questions and violations. Separating procreation from the marital act approved by God is unnatural. With better knowledge of science today, you might understand why the Alabama Supreme Court recently ruled that frozen embryos are unborn children: https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2024/the-alabama-supreme-courts-ruling-on-frozen-embryos
 
IDK... Perhaps this thread should revert to its original purpose: Remembering HAC alumni who have passed on...

Just sayin'.
 
ALAYMAN said:
I can write on this with experiential authority. Alayboy was the product of natural conception (but nonetheless our "miracle child"). We grappled with undiagnosed infertility for about 10 years before going the IVF route, with no viable pregnancies. When counseled by our doctors we were given the "option" of destroying any unused embryos. We made it absolutely clear that no embryo would be destroyed/aborted. If it had came to that decision of what to do, our choice was either to have more children implanted, or potentially allow them to be adopted.
Click to expand...
You've done it now, @ALAYMAN ... You've roused the ire of the Almighty Judge! Prepare to be cast as the anathema.
 
Let's muddy the waters with three letter acronyms a bit more: DNR.

Would it be morally reprehensible for me to leave instructions that in the case of cardiac arrest or other potentially life ending events I am not to be resuscitated but allowed to pass on?
 
Last edited:
DrHuk&Duck said:
Life is a gift from the Creator, not a right. Simply wanting a baby doesn’t entitle one to it. As you alluded to, IVF carries a host of potential moral questions and violations. Separating procreation from the marital act approved by God is unnatural. With better knowledge of science today, you might understand why the Alabama Supreme Court recently ruled that frozen embryos are unborn children: https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2024/the-alabama-supreme-courts-ruling-on-frozen-embryos
Click to expand...
Are you likewise opposed to improving people lives through prosthetics? Is it natural to put a plastic leg on an amputee? Or should we not allow electrostimulation of the spinal cord or brain because it is "unnatural"?

 
Last edited:
ALAYMAN said:
Are you likewise opposed to improving people lives through prosthetics? Is it natural to put a plastic leg on an amputee? Or should we not allow electrostimulation of the spinal cord or brain because it is "unnatural"?
Click to expand...
This feels like a red herring because you didn’t agree with me…or are you being serious?
 
DrHuk&Duck said:
This feels like a red herring because you didn’t agree with me…or are you being serious?
Click to expand...
Yes, I am disagreeing with you no, it's not a red herring. I'm asking for your rationale to be applied consistently to the whole of the human condition.

The reasoning is simple. You made the argument of natural usage being ordained of God. By the same logic, electronic stimulation by an external device would be an unnatural method of biological remedy. Or is the reproductive system the only thing that God deals with in regards to your reasoning?
 
abcaines said:
IDK... Perhaps this thread should revert to its original purpose: Remembering HAC alumni who have passed on...

Just sayin'.
Click to expand...
Actually, on second thought, I agree with you, but I request that you apply the same rules to others as me and move the extraneous posts to my other thread about euthanasia, which is a more appropriate setting.
 
DrHuk&Duck said:
Actually, on second thought, I agree with you, but I request that you apply the same rules to others as me and move the extraneous posts to my other thread about euthanasia, which is a more appropriate setting.
Click to expand...
"Moderating" was never my intention.
 
ALAYMAN said:
Yes, I am disagreeing with you no, it's not a red herring. I'm asking for your rationale to be applied consistently to the whole of the human condition.

The reasoning is simple. You made the argument of natural usage being ordained of God. By the same logic, electronic stimulation by an external device would be an unnatural method of biological remedy. Or is the reproductive system the only thing that God deals with in regards to your reasoning?
Click to expand...
One scenario is interference with human creation, the other is a scenario that involves the betterment of an existing human in a therapeutic manner. I suppose that intention could come into consideration. For example, if a person is getting reconstructive surgery for an accident, I’d see no ethical dilemma. If the purpose is cosmetic vanity (you can use your imagination), it might be more questionable. I’m not sure I’d be comfortable calling such “sin,” but it probably becomes a crime of conscience for some. Regardless, this really feels like apples vs oranges.
 
abcaines said:
"Moderating" was never my intention.
Click to expand...
I’ll refrain from further comment. I do agree with you on this remaining a location for its intended purpose. You can move the posts or delete them.
 
DrHuk&Duck said:
One scenario is interference with human creation, ...
Click to expand...
Just the opposite. It is not "interfering", but rather making human creation (a true God-ordained mandate, to multiply and replenish) possible for some who otherwise would not.
 
In so far as the OP, I once had a conversation on this subject with a Christian man who I respect as much as any Christian (IFB) I've ever known. It was during the height of the Kevorkian debate, and I assumed he'd take the stock conservative Christian approach on euthanasia. He surprised the socks off me when he said that if he ever found himself in the condition of not being able to care for himself that he'd take care of the problem himself. I'm not suggesting he was right with that rationale merely because I highly respect him. But he was a fine Christian, and highly intelligent. It made me pause and think about the situation in reality, not merely abstraction. At the end of my musing, I agree with Huk that through palliative care there's more ethical/Christian ways to deal with end stages of life, but it's a difficult subject.
 
abcaines said:
Let's muddy the waters with three letter acronyms a bit more: DNR.

Would it be morally reprehensible for me to leave instructions that in the case of cardiac arrest or other potentially life ending events I am not to be resuscitated but allowed to pass on?
Click to expand...
No, there is no moral dilemma in a DNR order, so long as the purpose is not to cause death, but rather just to not prolong a life with no hope of improvement with medical interventions.
 
ALAYMAN said:
Just the opposite. It is not "interfering", but rather making human creation (a true God-ordained mandate, to multiply and replenish) possible for some who otherwise would not.
Click to expand...
I think you need to put some strong thought and prayer into this topic, and perhaps separate your emotions from it. God did not intend human life to be brought forth in a Petri dish. It eliminates the “marriage act.” Again, children are a gift from God, not an entitlement to anyone who wants what God has chosen not to reward.
 
subllibrm said:
If life begins at conception(I believe it does), what is the proper way to deal with these left over lives?
Click to expand...

Ideally, if they're unused and not likely to be used, then I'd say they should be adopted out, to couples that cannot conceive on their own, and given a fair chance to live.

Realistically, I say a better solution would be to impose a moratorium on IVF until these issues can be settled. In principle, I have no problem with the idea of in vitro fertilization, but the moral side effects of what ought to be a life-affirming technology (e.g. the commoditization of offspring, the disposition of excess embryos) are a huge minefield.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top