What group will be next?

Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by thjplgvp, Nov 6, 2006.

  1. thjplgvp

    thjplgvp
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2006
    Messages:
    978
    Likes Received:
    23
    Are believers standing in line to be the next group who are draining society’s finances and having no positive impact on a world turned upside down?

    For several years Fundamental Baptists and others have been stating that the often unlooked or unacknowledged result of abortion is that the next step will be euthanasia. If we can condone the murder of the unborn it will not be a problem to condone the murder of those who have no evident use in society in general and to parents in particular. Truly Hitlerish demands are being fostered and promoted by doctors who now say a disabled child disables the entire family. University College London professor Joy Delhanty states, “"I would support these views. I think it is morally wrong to strive to keep alive babies that are then going to suffer many months or years of very ill health."

    What are your thoughts?

    Thjplgvp

    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20706992-23289,00.html
     
  2. I Am Blessed 24

    I Am Blessed 24
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    44,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think someone is trying to do God's job!
     
  3. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,974
    Likes Received:
    129
    Who's Trudy Hitlerish???

    Death is inevitable.
    We live in a world where we can keep a dead body breathing for months.

    I'm not for euthinasia, but I'm also not for prolonging life at all costs.

    Rob
     
    #3 Deacon, Nov 7, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 7, 2006
  4. thjplgvp

    thjplgvp
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2006
    Messages:
    978
    Likes Received:
    23
    Deacon,

    Are you suggesting that in certain situations it is okay for a society, or a doctor, or government to determine when life valuable? I have a grand child who is autistic and it is impossible for his mother and father to live a normal (by general standards) life, and yet God has chosen them to be the parents of this amazing child. Should it be determined beforehand that this child will never have an good life or that his birth will be a burden to great for his parents to bear?

    Thjplgvp
     
  5. thjplgvp

    thjplgvp
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2006
    Messages:
    978
    Likes Received:
    23
    BTW we fired Trudy for truly messing up the statement. :laugh:
     
  6. I Am Blessed 24

    I Am Blessed 24
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    44,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's why people need a 'living will'.
     
  7. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,974
    Likes Received:
    129
    There are countries in Europe that condone euthanasia.
    They have overstepped a moral boundary and, as you say, now condone murder.

    I’m not advocating active euthanasia.
    I’m suggesting that some boundaries need to be set.
    Just because doctors can do something doesn’t mean they are obliged to do it.
    There are times when withholding medical treatment is appropriate.
    It’s something doctors deal with quite often when dealing with the aged and infirmed; it’s exponentially harder when dealing with the newly born.


    God has given each of us burdens to carry through this life.
    May we be faithful in the tasks he puts before us.

    May God bless you and your family.

    Rob
     
  8. Soulman

    Soulman
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2004
    Messages:
    1,088
    Likes Received:
    0
    I understand that if a person has a living will and chooses not to be brought back after a heart attack or doesnt want to be kept alive by life support machinery.

    But. Putting someone down with overdoses of medication or witholding food and water is wrong.

    To test prenataly and decide if a person should die due to a disability is murder plain and simple. There used to be certain lines we didn't cross. Now there are too many choices. Mabey we shouldn't have so many. :tonofbricks:
     
  9. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    If we did nothing the average age of death would be around 40.
     
  10. pinoybaptist

    pinoybaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Messages:
    8,123
    Likes Received:
    1
    The world has alwasy been, after the garden, and always will be, until Christ's rule, upside down. Every now and then believers will have a positive impact on one or some parts of the world, but the sin and corruption permeating it will always be a dark cloud.


    I don't think true believers on this board, or anywhere else, have ever, or will ever condone the murder of the unborn.




    I'm not saying this is correct and should be condoned, but in this 21st century, there are still cultures where perfectly healthy female babies are killed in preference to sometimes deformed male babies, so it's really nothing to be shocked about.

    Doctors ? I go to them when I feel ill, but, I don't believe much of what they say. Some of them are daft in the head, like this doctor/professor, notwithstanding the scholarly appearances.
    Years ago they said caffeine was bad, now they're saying it's good.

    I sure would love it if such a baby were born to her, or any of her family. I sure would like to see her kill her baby herself. Sometimes people say things they are not able to carry out when given the free hand to do it.

    All yakitty yak yak, blah blah blah, and when the time comes to put her money where her mouth is, perhaps she'll put her foot in her mouth instead and choke on it.

    Morally wrong ? Look who's talking of morals. I would probably have a wee bit ounce of respect for people like her if she would be a little more consistent and say that pedophilia is acceptable, incest is not wrong, and sodomy is a delightful lifestyle, and that people who are bound to die and have no one to make their decisions for them ought to be rounded up, slaughtered, and put on the autopsy classes for the furtherance of medicine and the "forward progress" of humanity.

    [/quote]

    Three years ago I had a quadruple bypass. It was the first time I had ever gone "under the knife", so to speak, and of course, was apprehensive. I told my wife, and put it in writing also, that if anything should go wrong and I come out a vegetable, not one line of life support is to be maintained. I am to be let go.

    That has been our agreement from then on, me and my wife. If any of us should find the other in hospital, in life supports, with no guarantee of ever coming out of it, then that one is to be let go.

    There is no sense in keeping one and the other alive in a vegetative state, with no guarantee of ever coming out of it healed fully or partly. What it does is pile up the bills, and fight God who set the "boundaries" for man, including the boundaries of his life.

    In the first place, as believers, why incur all those expenses and experience all that grief and anxiety when the best place and the best life awaits one at the last pull of that earthly breath ?

    But babies ?

    Although I do not believe that babies go to hell, and do believe that all babies who die no matter how, are elect and go to be with the Lord, I think that the very fact that in the Bible God forbade Israelites from offering up their babies in the fire like heathens do speaks of the fact that God's general will and design for babies is that they be born and live here on earth.

    This doctor's statement would be more appropriate and understandable if she were living in the time of early medicine when doctors did not wash their hands or disinfect their hospitals.
     
    #10 pinoybaptist, Nov 8, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 8, 2006
  11. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,974
    Likes Received:
    129
    Your thoughts are quite revealing.
    So once things "go wrong" who will be the one to remove the tubes and kill you?
    If you are "brain dead" it can be done, life support can be removed under legal conditions.
    But there are many points inbetween where brain damage has occurred but there is still hope.
    Doctors are very unlikely to remove life support until things have played out, and that takes time and gobs of money.

    These decisions you mention need to be made BEFORE you make the choice to have a medical procedures performed.

    Is the procedure worth the risks... and those risks include catastrophic illness that will need to be handled through the medical system.

    ...or should I not have the procedure and suffer through the problem.

    The way you describe your plans is euthanasia!
    If something goes wrong, "not one line of life support is to be maintained".
    Who has the moral authority to remove them?

    It would be like removing the lines from Terry S, which IMO was murder.

    Rob
     

Share This Page

Loading...