That euthanasia should be accepted and allowed
#41
(09-14-2010, 08:21 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: If there is a God, and if it was God's authority that willed us into existence, then it is by His authority that we exist. If it is only by His authority that we exist, there is no reason to think we have the authority to will ourselves out of existence.
Well clearly there is that assumption as he gave us will over ourselves and sent his son to tell us to act in all ways as loving as possible. Since euthanasia is a willed act and is in the way of love it should be accepted.

(09-14-2010, 08:21 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: To do so would be to reject His authority.
Not at all - rather to accept and embrace it.

(09-14-2010, 08:21 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: Our power of free will was given to us to be executed according to God's authority - that is, we are to choose to submit to God's authority.
Indeed which must be through love, and hence euthanasia is in the way of God.

(09-14-2010, 08:21 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: Our power of free will was not given to us to reject the authority of God and establish ourselves as that authority.
Euthanasia does not do this, rather it embraces this fact.
Reply
#42
(09-17-2010, 09:40 AM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
Quote:Killing is not wrong in Catholicism - as long as it is for a good reason.

You need a stronger premise than such a vague statement "for a good reason". Otherwise, you should be ignored.
Indeed, which is why i have repeatedly so far explained how I mean good - to mean in the way of love. If we kill for love, both of those we kill and those whoa re effected, then we are right. If we kill someone who does not want to die, then that is murder and not in the way of love as it is not love of the person being killed. Since euthanasia is consented to and in the way of love as it benefits all and they want it, then it is not only acceptable but should be endorsed.
Reply
#43
(09-17-2010, 08:02 PM)glgas Wrote:
(09-17-2010, 02:25 PM)wallflower Wrote: I think someone already mentioned this but the examples you are presenting have nothing to do with euthanasia.

If a women ask to abort her 6th child because this would make hardship for the rest of the family, is it abortion or not?
It is abortion and is murder, because it forgets love of the child.

(09-17-2010, 08:02 PM)glgas Wrote: Same thing with old age suicide.
Not at all.

(09-17-2010, 08:02 PM)glgas Wrote: The morality lays not in the intention but in the act itself,
No it leis in both.

(09-17-2010, 08:02 PM)glgas Wrote: except extreme cases, like suicide to avoid apostasy from the faith under excess torment.
Incorrect. That is exactly the same - love of oneself, to avoid pain and suffering that is pointless.

(09-17-2010, 08:02 PM)glgas Wrote: The real problem with the euthanasia is not with the well to do, who kill themselves for their own comfort, but the hierarchy of the values, how the individual human life relates to the interest of the whole community around the individual.
Indeed, as euthanasia requires consent it shifts rights form moral theocracies and book, to the decisions of the actually person. Thus the social reality is creates is both superior and good.
Reply
#44
(09-16-2010, 02:29 AM)Norbert Wrote: the problem here is that while this makes a compelling argument for legalizing suicide and illegalizing euthanasia, this isn't about legality at all, it's about church teaching, which condemns suicide as well.  So, playing devil's advocate, why couldn't someone say that your argument proves church teaching should permit suicide?

It makes a compelling argument for suicide if one feels that this life is the total of our existence. The Church, by nature, would condemn suicide, because the suffering or pleasures in this world is not eternal. So, living for pleasures of the body or avoidance of pain is rejected by nature.
Reply
#45
(09-17-2010, 02:16 PM)glgas Wrote: It is only in the West and now that the basic necessities for the life are provided for everyone. For the reso of the time and space those are scarcity.

This is false. You used small examples from small cultures and you say that only now, and only in the West, is this not needed?

And you are wrong. For example, this is not found in Ancient Rome, Greece, Persia, China or the other Native American cultures.
Reply
#46
(09-18-2010, 08:19 AM)MetallicaFan Wrote:
(09-14-2010, 09:02 PM)Herr_Mannelig Wrote: Killing in defense is to prevent a greater evil.
Thus killing for defense is an act of love for others - as is euthanasia.
Fine, which one of your loved ones would you kill first?

If you want to murder people, which is what you are defending, then that is YOUR CHOICE. However, remember, eternity follows.

Quote:
(09-14-2010, 09:02 PM)Herr_Mannelig Wrote: Suffering of an individual is not a great evil.
Why not?
Because death is inevitable. This life in the flesh is temporal. Its pleasures and pains are not eternal. For those who weep now, they may find eternal comfort quite soon. For those who are content, may find eternal unrest.

Quote:No, life itself is a trial. Your death is meaningless. It is not a how a man dies, but how a man lives that is important.
Yes, and it would be a grave sin to make one's final choice a rejection of life. It would also be a grave sin to take part or assist in this.

Quote:
(09-14-2010, 09:02 PM)Herr_Mannelig Wrote: You need to study theology and metaphysics before reaching this conclusion
LOL I think you should lead by example.
I have. Are you great?

Quote:How are they more wise? Given many of those same men reject science to any marginal degree and whose principles often run contrary to themselves they seem hardly wise at all. Again, I suggest you bring forward an argument. If these guys you refer to were so great, why can you not show how this is so?
What do you mean? How do they reject science? The Summa Theologica is a very great work of metaphysics and it starts out by addressing the virtues of the sciences.

Exactly what is your point? You reject much here. All it comes down to however is choice. No matter our intellect, no matter our experiences and no matter our predispositions, it is all about our choice. You are free to choose whatever you want, regardless of whether it is evil or good.
Reply
#47
MetallicaFan,
Yes, I did indicate that killing is permitted in some circumstances, but I also said quite clearly that murder, which is the direct and unjust killing of another person (cf. Right and Reason; Baltimore Catechism and Mass No. 3), cannot be permitted for any reason.

An action that is both lawful and voluntary is not always necessarily moral; one example would be abortion. And it is debatable whether or not euthanasia is beneficial to all, because as Stubborn pointed out, the patient's suffering can be a means of grace either for himself (to join his suffering with that of Christ) or for his family members (e.g., the others may be inspired to go back to Church).

Once again, euthanasia is murder because it is the direct (deliberate) and unjust killing of another person. It's unjust because the sick person isn't an evildoer. And as I already pointed out, private persons do not have the authority to carry out death sentences. Why must people be guilty to be sentenced to death? Because the killing of guilty people is an act of retribution and it restores the social order. Innocent people are not deserving of being killed by others.

"So which is it, government or God?" - Obviously, it's God Whom we are to obey.

I did not argue that the Bible teaches government law should always be followed. I said that the Bible attests to the validity of capital punishment (cf. Rom. 13:4), to the just killing of evildoers.

You have not given a convincing argument as to how or why "euthanasia is just, very and wholly justified." It is, however, the direct and unjust killing of another: murder.

Euthanasia is not morally justified and you have not proven that it is. And as I've said above, it's highly debatable whether or not it is beneficial.

"If any man will follow me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me" (Mark 8:34). Jesus said that we will undergo suffering during this life. If we cling to Him while we suffer, then we will benefit from it.

We defend ourselves from evil people and have wars to preserve our lives. Euthanasia does just the opposite: it takes away life, the life of a good person.

God has authority over life and death. We are bound to preserve our lives. You speak of directing killing people simply because they're suffering, when, on the contrary, the Gospel teaches that we can unite our sufferings with those of Christ.

"He has the ability to end his life." - Suicide (a mortal sin). And I have the ability to drive 100 MPH in a 25 MPH zone. Neither action, however, is moral. Food, water and oxygen are considered ordinary means of keeping a sick person alive. You should try reading what the Popes have said on this matter.

Finally, you have not proven your case. Instead, you have appealed to vague notions of love, notions which are not supported by Sacred Scripture. At the outset, you accepted Catholic moral theology, but you have failed to agree to its definitions (definitions which are also supported by philosophy). And you have been entirely unable to show how killing a sick person is not unjust. I have been arguing that they have done nothing wrong to deserve to be killed. In all circumstances where killing is justified, it's because those killed have done something wrong. What has a sick person done to deserve death? What sin have they committed?
Reply
#48
Metallicafan, this goes to your lack of understanding about Jesus, death, and suffering.

Here's a little from Matthew 16:21;
From that time Jesus began to shew to his disciples, that he must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the ancients and scribes and chief priests, and be put to death, and the third day rise again. [22] And Peter taking him, began to rebuke him, saying: Lord, be it far from thee, this shall not be unto thee. [23]  Who turning, said to Peter: Go behind me, Satan, thou art a scandal unto me: because thou savourest not the things that are of God, but the things that are of men. [24] Then Jesus said to his disciples: If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. [25] For he that will save his life, shall lose it: and he that shall lose his life for my sake, shall find it.

So let's think this one over. Jesus is in occupied territory. The Romans occupy the land and are most cruel in their subjugating of the population. Crucifixion is their terrifying, excruciating, and horrible form of public execution. They crucified the Jews everywhere and displayed them on the roads so every one would see how cruel and tyrannical they were.Now here Jesus is speaking to the Apostles but the Pharisees and the Sadducee's are there in the context of this chapter. What do think went through these Jews minds when he said pick up your cross ? They knew he meant a terrible death, because if you were carrying you cross you were going to be crucified. This wasn't a firing squad, nor the electric chair, it was a protracted torture.  So when we unpack this we see Jesus is asking us to suffer and die cruel and horrid death to be his disciple.

I hope you can see now that Jesus was all about suffering and death.
tim
Reply
#49
(09-18-2010, 09:24 AM)MetallicaFan Wrote:
(09-17-2010, 09:40 AM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
Quote:Killing is not wrong in Catholicism - as long as it is for a good reason.

You need a stronger premise than such a vague statement "for a good reason". Otherwise, you should be ignored.
Indeed, which is why i have repeatedly so far explained how I mean good - to mean in the way of love. If we kill for love, both of those we kill and those whoa re effected, then we are right. If we kill someone who does not want to die, then that is murder and not in the way of love as it is not love of the person being killed. Since euthanasia is consented to and in the way of love as it benefits all and they want it, then it is not only acceptable but should be endorsed.

This is what you believe, not what the Catholic Church teaches, which is very specific. Like I said, you should be ignored.
Reply
#50
Christ and His Church do not expect us to heroically suffer our last days in agonizing pain; nor are we expected to consent to painful or expensive treatments.  We may be heavily sedated and our pain managed in such a way that not only do we not feel much, but also we succumb to death more quickly; morphine drip being turned up for a cancer patient is an example of this.  It is not suicide or euthanasia to refuse painful or expensive treatments like chemotherapy or amputation.  Yet, we do not turn our backs on those who cannot tolerate those treatments...we help them to live out their last days in as comfortable a manner as possible by managing their pain.

One of the reasons why choosing euthanasia for oneself ahead of time is not a good idea...like in the case of Terri Schaivo...is that we may find ourselves in a situation in which someone says, "Well, she didn't want to live out her days like that...so let's pull the plug," and yet at that moment we may be thinking "how lucky I am to be alive!" and not be able to rescind our death order.  It's shallow to think that the way we are now is the way we should always be...so that if some tragedy strikes us we feel utterly degraded...consider ourselves worthless...consider our life not worth living...and so despair and wish for death...which is a very different frame of mind from being in terrible pain and just wanting it to end.  That kind of thinking leads us to believe that others think and feel the same way...that should a loved one suffer a trauma (such as a brain injury) and be left paralyzed we may project our own imagined desires upon that person...and either assume or encourage that person to choose death over a life we consider not worth living.

When my sister had her brain hemorrhage, my initial reaction was disappointment that she had been saved from death's hand.  I figured that if I were in her shoes, I would not want to live out my days as a quadriplegic...so she must not either.  Over 16 years later, I am amazed at my sister's drive to live.  She may be a working mind trapped inside a damaged body, but she has persevered...and is even happy!  She laughs and loves...and I think she is at least a testament to how these two things make life worth living...and how much of a mistake it would have been to have willfully ended her life years ago.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)