Euthanasia And Sanctity Of Life

[ALAYMAN]

I'm going to draw a parallel to another conversation recently on the forum about alcohol. Many people try to take an abstentionist teetotler position based upon their own anecdotal evidence. I was in such a similar position at one time. Simply because I believe something's bad for me doesn't mean that it's necessarily bad for somebody else, nor is it necessarily forbidden by God for all. Many people oftentimes make that same kind of judgment in other areas, like reproductive assistance.

In other words, using an argument which cites the abuse of an innocuous thing as justification against the thing itself misses the mark. Here's an example of the Southern Baptist convention statement against IVF that perfectly demonstrates this point of how people will rally against the thing because it is abused even though the thing itself could be demonstrated as a positive, a blessing....

But the resolution goes on to state that “though all children are to be fully respected and protected, not all technological means of assisting human reproduction are equally God-honoring or morally justified.” The resolution listed many of the grave concerns about the technology of IVF, with particular reference to current standard procedures that produce untold thousands of “excess” human embryos destined for eventual destruction, often involve the selection of embryos based on quality or preferences, may involve human experimentation on embryos, and involve a host of other related issues. At the top of that list is now the reality that IVF is part of a giant human reproduction industry that turns human embryos into consumer products that are marketed to single women, same-sex couples, and a host of others. Link

 

[subllibrm]

Is the bible silent, though? Do you consider the unwanted embryos fully human? Are they human life? Are they children? Are they Alayman's children?

These are the various points that came to my mind. It obviously wasn't my intention to create a major hoohah directed at anyone specific. We are quick to say that life begins at conception (and again I agree with that position) and I have always been uncomfortable with IVF for that very reason. Remember when President Bush held a big press conference with the "snowflake babies"? It was supposed to highlight their personhood and burnish his prolife credentials. My reaction was to wonder what happens to those that aren't implanted successfully.

 

[DrHuk&Duck]

I'm going to draw a parallel to another conversation recently on the forum about alcohol. Many people try to take an abstentionist teetotler position based upon their own anecdotal evidence. I was in such a similar position at one time. Simply because I believe something's bad for me doesn't mean that it's necessarily bad for somebody else, nor is it necessarily forbidden by God for all. Many people oftentimes make that same kind of judgment in other areas, like reproductive assistance.

In other words, using an argument which cites the abuse of an innocuous thing as justification against the thing itself misses the mark. Here's an example of the Southern Baptist convention statement against IVF that perfectly demonstrates this point of how people will rally against the thing because it is abused even though the thing itself could be demonstrated as a positive, a blessing....

I think these topics often come to a matter of the conscience and culture. I don’t think drinking is a sin, but I quit drinking many years ago due to health reasons.

You asked me about birth control. I’m not sure I’d call it a sin, but if we start to really break down the ethics behind it, it becomes uncomfortable. Are we using it because we are being materialistic and not using faith for God to provide? Are we dictating how many children we want rather than God? The same principles of IVF can be applicable.

 

[voicecrying]

I do, but I’m guilty of this sin. I will one day have to answer to God.

Can you explain this more? What sins does anyone have to answer for since Jesus already has suffered for our sins?

 

[Ekklesian]

Does no one else see the elephant in the room?

 

[sword]

Do you have any idea how stupid your logic is?

The fact that he spent his career in ministry prior to committing murder and suicide doesn’t discount anything. How many preachers spent a lifetime in ministry and were later found to be pedophiles or homosexuals in the closet or any number of other things?

And yes, I am shocked, appalled and do condemn. But this isn’t just a little local story, it made TV and internet news: https://www.yahoo.com/news/man-woman-dead-apparent-murder-152459199.html

If you can’t see how Sword has taken a squishy soft response to this, then you need to get your eyes checked (or do some major praying yourself). These two quotes clearly leave ample room for “murder might be justified.” It’s curious though, that neither of you have still confronted the question of, even if his wife’s murder is justified, then where does his self-inflicted murder fit into God’s will.

Since Got Questions didn’t do you any favors, I’ll wait for the scriptural references with bated breath.

Let's add hospice to the mix. I strongly suspect that the hospice nurses administer drugs to hasten death. I have been at both my dad's and my father-in-law's bedsides when they died. Both very shortly before taking their last breaths were given injections by the hospice nurse. They say it is for the pain, but is there more to it than that?

The hospice nurses I know all strongly disagree with your suggestion they often take matters into their own hands. Their experience is strictly anecdotal as is yours, but I personally believe their calling and philosophy is to allow nature to take its course naturally. If your belief is true then there would not be so many hospice patients right at the verge of death (shallow breathing, weak heartbeat, slowing dropping pulse ox ect.) if their answer was to help things along. Never have I heard of this being the case. We each have our own experiences but to paint hospice with such a broad brush, just seems unjustified.

On the same note throughout history Army medics have always tried to allow severly injuried soldiers die with dignity and comfort by giving high levels of morphine without ending the soon to be gone life. This clearly can be a delicate balance on the battle field but training and experience is all they have.

 

[DrHuk&Duck]

Can you explain this more? What sins does anyone have to answer for since Jesus already has suffered for our sins?

2 Corinthians 5:10 - “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.”

 

[voicecrying]

2 Corinthians 5:10 - “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.”

So what does this mean regarding sins of believer? Is there a future punishment? A future shaming?

 

[subllibrm]

Does no one else see the elephant in the room?

Is it a sick elephant with an incurable disease?

 

[Ekklesian]

At about age 25 we first began to desire beginning of a family. After several years we realized something was wrong. We got tested. After being poked and prodded they declared no determination could be made for the reason of our difficulty conceiving.

So About the age of 30, we began investigating IVF, and out of fear that the biological clock was ticking we agreed to go down the IVF path. The numbers of successful pregnancy start dropping precipitously the older a woman gets. As she approaches the age of 40 the viability of the egg in her uterus becomes greatly impaired and the risks of abnormalities skyrockets. Back then they said that the age which we should be concerned about was about 36.

So we had several unsuccessful implantations in our mid-thirties in one IVF trial. A total of 19 embryos were created and they were eventually implanted (multiple at a time in 3 implantations). Some of the embryos stopped dividing and weren't viable for implantation. We never had to face the dilemma of putting our <frozen> children up for adoption. It was very costly financially and after that unsuccessful effort, coupled with the entire process being extremely emotionally draining, we decided that we would not do IVF anymore, and if it was the Lord's will that we have children that we would adopt.

We looked into various credible agencies, like one that Jerry Falwell had sponsored, and prayed and waited for the Lord's leading. That was when I was about 35. It was Christmas Eve of 2004 when my wife told me that she was late, about 2 months. We had had this happen before, so we were cautious and nervous to say the least, but excited. The rest is history, and we can't put him back.

Psalm 127:3

I'm going to draw a parallel to another conversation recently on the forum about alcohol. Many people try to take an abstentionist teetotler position based upon their own anecdotal evidence. I was in such a similar position at one time. Simply because I believe something's bad for me doesn't mean that it's necessarily bad for somebody else, nor is it necessarily forbidden by God for all. Many people oftentimes make that same kind of judgment in other areas, like reproductive assistance.

In other words, using an argument which cites the abuse of an innocuous thing as justification against the thing itself misses the mark. Here's an example of the Southern Baptist convention statement against IVF that perfectly demonstrates this point of how people will rally against the thing because it is abused even though the thing itself could be demonstrated as a positive, a blessing....

It won't matter that I will say I'm not pronouncing damnation on anyone. It's the truth, but it won't matter, and since I'm the bad guy here anyway...

Children are not food and drink.

I'm surprised this needed to be said.

Therefore, their welfare is not a questionable matter, and the instructions concerning the liberty in consuming certain meats and wines have no bearing on the subject. It's not even close.

The position commonly taken here is that a fully human life begins at conception, and a human embryo is a human child.

Proceeding from that premise, and knowing full well that the risk of failure to implant, resulting in the certain death of the child, is high...which is why so many eggs are fertilized to begin with...

How is IVF not, at the very least, child endangerment, and child abuse? How is it not murder or manslaughter?

How would this process be any less dastardly than if, for adoptive parents, three or four orphans were sent down a giant slide where only one might land safely in a feather bed while the rest were sent to their deaths in a deep canyon at the bottom of the slide?

Unless the embryos are not really children, and their progenitors are not immediately subject to the divine imperative to protect them and to bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, where is the escape from those indictments?

 

[DrHuk&Duck]

So what does this mean regarding sins of believer? Is there a future punishment? A future shaming?

I guess that depends on who you ask and which church you’re mingling with. I’ve heard some strange ideas over the years. I recall one visiting preacher saying that he thought our sins would be played in heaven on something similar to a movie theater screen. I recall another preacher saying it would be replayed more in our minds in heaven while standing in front of God. I don’t think anyone can answer your questions since none of us have passed away and experienced what comes after death.

 

[voicecrying]

I guess that depends on who you ask and which church you’re mingling with. I’ve heard some strange ideas over the years. I recall one visiting preacher saying that he thought our sins would be played in heaven on something similar to a movie theater screen. I recall another preacher saying it would be replayed more in our minds in heaven while standing in front of God. I don’t think anyone can answer your questions since none of us have passed away and experienced what comes after death.

I'm not asking for someone's vivid imagination and false teaching.

Did Jesus answer for every single sin? If so, why do you think you'll have to answer for them too? Isn't that double jeopardy?

 

[abcaines]

I recall one visiting preacher saying that he thought our sins would be played in heaven on something similar to a movie theater screen.

The guy obviously got his theology from J.T. Chick tracts.

 

[Ekklesian]

It won't matter that I will say I'm not pronouncing damnation on anyone. It's the truth, but it won't matter, and since I'm the bad guy here anyway...

Children are not food and drink.

I'm surprised this needed to be said.

Therefore, their welfare is not a questionable matter, and the instructions concerning the liberty in consuming certain meats and wines have no bearing on the subject. It's not even close.

The position commonly taken here is that a fully human life begins at conception, and a human embryo is a human child.

Proceeding from that premise, and knowing full well that the risk of failure to implant, resulting in the certain death of the child, is high...which is why so many eggs are fertilized to begin with...

How is IVF not, at the very least, child endangerment, and child abuse? How is it not murder or manslaughter?

How would this process be any less dastardly than if, for adoptive parents, three or four orphans were sent down a giant slide where only one might land safely in a feather bed while the rest were sent to their deaths in a deep canyon at the bottom of the slide?

Unless the embryos are not really children, and their progenitors are not immediately subject to the divine imperative to protect them and to bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, where is the escape from those indictments?

Thinking people want to know.

 

[DrHuk&Duck]

The guy obviously got his theology from J.T. Chick tracts.

I give the guy credit though, because I’ve remembered his example from the pulpit over thirty years later. There are very few statements from the pulpit I can pull to mind from that far back. But yes, even as a teenager I thought it sounded strange.

 

[DrHuk&Duck]

I'm not asking for someone's vivid imagination and false teaching.

Did Jesus answer for every single sin? If so, why do you think you'll have to answer for them too? Isn't that double jeopardy?

I believe he died for our sins prior to salvation. Once saved, we are accountable for our sins again before God after death.

 

[DrHuk&Duck]

Therefore, their welfare is not a questionable matter, and the instructions concerning the liberty in consuming certain meats and wines have no bearing on the subject. It's not even close.

What does this mean??

 

[Ekklesian]

What does this mean??

This wasn't an allusion to Romans 14 with an emphasis on verse 21? (xref 1 Cor. 8)

I'm going to draw a parallel to another conversation recently on the forum about alcohol. Many people try to take an abstentionist teetotler position based upon their own anecdotal evidence. I was in such a similar position at one time. Simply because I believe something's bad for me doesn't mean that it's necessarily bad for somebody else, nor is it necessarily forbidden by God for all. Many people oftentimes make that same kind of judgment in other areas, like reproductive assistance.

 

[illinoisguy]

Page 8

Page 9

Page 10

Page 11

 

[abcaines]

Page 8

Page 9

Page 10

Page 11

BOO-YAH!