Pro-life community just switched positions; it now supports assisted suicide!

[Bob Enyart]

You blinked, you missed it. The pro-life community just switched positions; it now supports assisted suicide! In their vital fight to save Florida’s Terri Schiavo from being starved to death by judicial decree, they foolishly hinged their position on the absence of a “written directive.” If the Hemlock Society had tried to pass a federal law legitimizing assisted suicide, pro-lifers would have stopped them. But pro-life leaders have so often compromised on “Thou shall not murder,” they no longer realize when they’re making concessions. They tried desperately to pass the Incapacitated Persons Legal Protection Act which, for the first time ever in federal law, would have legitimized state assisted suicide laws permitting “the withdrawal of food or fluids” simply with “a written advance directive valid under applicable law.” Morality does not require ventilating and pumping fluids through a virtual corpse that has no brain activity, but starving someone to death is wrong. With this development, the pro-life movement would have people looking to “pull the plug,” and when finding no plug, go ahead and assist in suicide by starvation because of a “written directive.” And now that even pro-lifers are sliding down the slippery slope, when the culture of death wants to prevent the suffering of starvation and administer a mercy-killing lethal injection, who will be left to argue?
Pastor Bob Enyart
Denver Bible Church .org

 

[servent101]

When a person has to rely on others for their life, this goes beyond what is "reasonable" - it goes beyond what God would expect - if someone cannot and is not able to feed themselves, and if the only way they can be kept alive is through a tube - this goes beyond what God would allow.

What happens to people who are able to and want to live in America - but die of poverty related issues - where is the church then?

With Christ's Love

Servent101

 

[drbrumley]

I agree Bob, this is brainless.

 

[Imrahil]

Originally posted by servent101

When a person has to rely on others for their life, this goes beyond what is "reasonable" - it goes beyond what God would expect - if someone cannot and is not able to feed themselves, and if the only way they can be kept alive is through a tube - this goes beyond what God would allow.

Do you recomend letting children to die because they are not yet able to sustain themselves?

What happens to people who are able to and want to live in America - but die of poverty related issues - where is the church then?

With Christ's Love

Servent101

What about them? What people are you referring to and what do they have to do with this situation?

 

[BChristianK]

Servent,

Matthew 25:41-46 41 "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.' 44 "They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?' 45 "He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.' 46 "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

:think:

thoughts to ponder as you support starving someone to death, huh?

 

[Sozo]

Re: Pro-life community just switched positions; it now supports assisted suicide!

Originally posted by Bob Enyart

The pro-life community just switched positions;

The James Dobson school of theology has led to all kinds of pragmatic tolerance in the church.

...it now supports assisted suicide

Are you aware of a liberal trend in mainstream denominationalim and social conservatism that hasn't been seceding from the truth?

In their vital fight to save Florida’s Terri Schiavo from being starved to death by judicial decree, they foolishly hinged their position on the absence of a “written directive.”

Yep! It's the age old "let's support pro-life in all cases accept rape, incest, and the life of the mother" switch! Instead of the church being a rock, it's become more like molten lava in the hands of it's enemies.

 

[jeremiah]

The world has become so upside down, and every life saving action requires such enormous technical, and legal requirements, that the story of the good Samaritan would now read like this.
A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among theives; who stripped him of his clothing , wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. A priest came by and reasoned that since his clothing was gone, then the man's "papers ", which would instruct others on his life saving wishes, could not be found, he could not save the man.
A Levite came by and recognized the man, and remembered that he had helped this man make out his "papers" the week before, and had "properly" advised him, according to the burden he would be to others in such a situation as this, and knew he did not have to help the man, according to his own written request.
A Samaritan came along, and since he could not find the man's papers, he felt he must assume that they would have instructed him to save his life. He saved the man, but was sentenced to death by the jury which found the original robber- murderers innocent, of attempted murder, when they were able to produce the stolen clothing, and papers which proved that once they had started to kill him, that they were innocent of murder by not finishing the job. (A reverse Catch-22, if you please).
Since everyone knows that allowing a person to die of thirst and starvation, is perfectly legal if one has signed the permission papers beforehand, which he did, with the approval of the well respected Levite.
The Samaritan was found guilty of this man's murder, because he was subsequently killed on the same road to Jericho by a robber with a sword. A fate which would never had befallen him, if he had left him to die, on that road, two years prior. Therefore he was more culpable for his death, than the robber who slew him. This robber was also found innocent, of murder, because the man legally was dead already, except for the illegal intervention of the "Good"? Samaritan. THE END!

:kookoo: :kookoo:

 

[Frank Ernest]

Compromise with evil (some call it "tolerance") is still evil.

 

[Crow]

I've worked with people on life support for about 15 years.

People should have advance directives. In the case of someone who is in extreme old age, dying of cancer or some other terminal illness, I see no need to even start this stuff. Death by terminal disease and old age are natural processes. Death by starvation is different.

Terri isn't a person at the end of her natural life, or a person who is dying of a disease process. Terri never indicated to anyone (unless you believe her husband, who has a very real conflict of interest in that he has started another family) that she would not want lifesaving measures. Of what I have seen of Terri, she is able to respond to other people. Terri isn't a flatliner--someone who is "brain dead." She's not on a ventilator, as many have mistakenly stated. She cannot eat normally.

If I were terminal, I wouldn't want heroics. I wouldn't want the ventilators, etc. I have a far better place to go. I have documents that state that. Hopefully, my family will follow my wishes when my end comes. If any of y'all know my family, please, remind them. If I'm dying of cancer or some other incurable disease, don't fight the inevitible. If I am so badly injured that I cannot possibly recover, let me go. I'll thank you profusely when I see you again.

But in this case, the woman was put through all of the heroics, kept alive, and now it's "Whoops, we screwed up, look what we're left with--we sure don't want to have to deal with what's left. She's alive, but not in a sense that's meaningful to me. And she's not terminally ill, so I could be stuck with this for another 40 years!":shocked:

This issue is tough for me because at this point in my life, I wouldn't want to live as Terri lives. I would have preferred that I were not brought back from the brink with a ventilator and advanced life support. I would have preferred that no heroics were done to save me. But that isn't what happened.

I believe that she has survived with some level of awareness. And I think it's as evil as hell to starve her to death because in someone's estimation that level is not acceptable to them.

This isn't a case about a person who is dying. This is a person who is stable but impaired.

On a side note, as a nurse, I find myself having increasing personal difficulties dealing with this issue. I see all sorts of invasive and fruitless and often painful measures taken to keep terminally ill people alive a few more days. I have also seen people who are stable but impaired die after X # of months and even years in that state because whoever was their power of attorney decided that they had had enough. Neither makes any sense.

 

[Crow]

In a sense, and I know this is off topic, but it does have a bearing, the medical/nursing community is schizophrenic about death related issues, and it probably does as much or more than any other body to feed into the confusion that runs rampant.

A person is in a coma. We are told to care for them and preserve human dignity and talk to them just as we would a fully alert person.

A family discusses said person with a doctor. Jointly they come to the conclusion that said person is not going to live in a meaningful capacity. In the twinkling of an eye, they go from a human being to dead meat in the eyes of society.

A doctor signs the order, and all support is pulled. The person dies.

Down, the hall, in a similar case, the family does not consent to pull life support. The person survives, and recovers to an extent. The family continues to care for and interact with that person to the extent they are able.

Terri Schaivo was dying. After heroic efforts to keep her alive and stablize her, she is stable, but damaged. It is decided that this isn't good enough, and let's starve her to death.

A woman conceives a child with a potential 80 years or more of life ahead of him. She doesn't want the baby. Medical personel kill the baby with her consent.

An old man is dying of cancer. His family decides that no effort can be spared to prolong his life. He's kept alive an extra few days, in misery or unconscious, waiting for the inevitible.

A woman takes fertility drugs and conceives 4 babies. Her doctor "selectively terminates" 2 of them.

If anyone can make any sense of this stuff, please share it with me, but not in this thread--PM me or start another. I, like more than a few of my co-workers, am having an increasingly difficult time dealing with being a nurse. And I know doctors in the same situation.

 

[Poly]

Wow, Crow, that's some interesting stuff in your last 2 posts.

I really feel for you in having to deal with some of this stuff with the field you're in.

 

[Nineveh]

Amen Mr. Enyart!

I also think the media is using Terri to desensitize the catch phrase "right to die" in the general population. I can imagine the next push will be for SCotUS to strike down all the suicide laws on state's books

 

[Sozo]

Originally posted by Poly

Wow, Crow, that's some interesting stuff in your last 2 posts.

I really feel for you in having to deal with some of this stuff with the field you're in.

Crow in her field! :crackup:

 

[the Sibbie]

Originally posted by Crow

If I were terminal, I wouldn't want heroics. I wouldn't want the ventilators, etc.

But I'm guessing that while your life is slowly diminishing you wouldn't want to be starved to death in the meantime, am I right Crow?

 

[servent101]

Imrahil

What about them? What people are you referring to and what do they have to do with this situation?

I hoped someone would ask – and the answer is in the question I posted…

What happens to people who are able to and want to live in America - but die of poverty related issues - where is the church then?

The people who die of poverty are left out of the current prosperity gospel that is being taught at the church – The original post had to do with

The pro-life community just switched positions; it now supports assisted suicide

– and as well what I posted in no way suggests as you seem to think I did

Do you recomend letting children to die because they are not yet able to sustain themselves?

How on earth you got that from what I posted? – the original post was on assisted suicide – and you think I am posting in support of letting children die? – But not your fault all together – and thank you for trying to understand what I posted… the idea of keeping a person alive by extraordinary means – when a person is in a vegetable state, simply kept alive by machines – if one disconnects the machines – the people who do are then accused of assisted suicide? – where does one draw the line?

I know I did not make clear exactly what I was commenting on – but the original post is on (again)

The pro-life community just switched positions; it now supports assisted suicide

I just wonder why there are so many people not being noticed in America dying of poverty related issues – and the church seems to be too busy on issues like the one Bob brings up, or homosexuals or abortions… not that these are not important – it is just that no one seems to post on death due to poverty or debilitating poverty in the good old U.S. of A.

I have always maintained that making the world a place where people would want to bring children into is the best way to stop abortion.

With Christ's Love

Servent101

 

[servent101]

BCK- same old same old - take what I say and try to make it say something else - some day you will want to stop this kind of slander and your mind will not be able too - repent if you still can. Stop filling up threads with your useless attempts to discredit everything I and a lot of other people say. You simply misquote and malign what some people say – and this is in no way representing what the Lord taught us… I know you are much better than this type of behavior - please stop…

With Christ's Love

servent101

 

[Crow]

Originally posted by the Sibbie

But I'm guessing that while your life is slowly diminishing you wouldn't want to be starved to death in the meantime, am I right Crow?

Truthfully, Sibbie, I wouldn't want artificial feeding or heroics started in the first place.

When I die, if it is not sudden, and it is evident that I am dying, I want to be given medications to control my pain. I want to live in as much comfort as possible. If I am still able to eat, I don't want to be told how much fat and sodium and sugar something contains.

When people are in the process of dying from a disease process, they are rarely hungry. If anything, a kind of anorexia sets in.

That's what is so barbaric about this woman's situation. She is relatively stable and not dying from a disease process, so she may well be able to feel herself starving to death.

 

[Imrahil]

Originally posted by servent101
How on earth you got that from what I posted? – the original post was on assisted suicide – and you think I am posting in support of letting children die?

I was wondering how far you take this idea:

When a person has to rely on others for their life, this goes beyond what is "reasonable" - it goes beyond what God would expect - if someone cannot and is not able to feed themselves, and if the only way they can be kept alive is through a tube - this goes beyond what God would allow.

I have not yet met a young child who is capable of living apart from assistance from other people. A young child completely depends on other people to provide the basic necessities to sustain life. I am simply taking your idea to the next step.

when a person is in a vegetable state, simply kept alive by machines

Who says she is kept alive only be machines? She isn't on a respirator or anything other than a tube that gives her food and water because she is unable to swallow. I need food and water to survive too. Am I next? She's simply handicapped and to kill her for that reason is barbaric.

 

[BChristianK]

Originally posted by servent101

BCK- same old same old - take what I say and try to make it say something else - some day you will want to stop this kind of slander and your mind will not be able too - repent if you still can. Stop filling up threads with your useless attempts to discredit everything I and a lot of other people say. You simply misquote and malign what some people say – and this is in no way representing what the Lord taught us… I know you are much better than this type of behavior - please stop…

With Christ's Love

servent101

You support starving a woman to death.

That's evil.

You need to repent.

 

[Lawless]

What a strange paradoxical world we live in!


As a firefighter life is pretty simple. If there is "any" chance for life, save any, or all you can. Never give up at any cost.