Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by Bro. Curtis, Oct 30, 2014.
The court ruled it legal. So there is no discussion to be had. So, no more comments as they would be hypothetical.
A better discussion would be to discuss what extreme, if any measure should be taken to keep a person alive.
Is taking extreme measures a violation of God's will?
"Legal" does not mean "right"; or even "moral."
"Legal" does not circumvent God's gift of life.
So the discussion is far from over.
And your implication that a court of human beings overrides God's edicts against murder--is the most troubling part of this discussion.
Yes of course and the debate over global warming is over and evolution is over. Typical liberal tactic.
You don't get to decide that. If you don't want to participate, don't.
What does Jesus say about children in need ? Does he make any such caveats ? Do you only want to care for the kids that don't make you feel icky ? I don't think that's what he wants. Show me where Christ said it was OK to leave children to dehydrate to death. Then I'll be on your side.
Stupid, off topic question. Is curing disease by experimenting on animals extreme ?
Did you, or did you not say this?-- "How can you be pro-life and believe it is all right to allow people not to have medical care, poor food, poor housing, poor education. How does this show Christ-like love to them?"
Answer your own question.
And legalised prostituion in Nevada brothels is just as moral.
Nothing pro-life about this post.
Legality and morality are two very different animals. Throughout history many immoral laws have made immoral acts legal ... but they were still immoral.
You are very right. This liberal way of thinking that just because the court says "Yea" does not make it right in the eyes of God. The courts approve the killing of unborn babies. They approve same gender marriage. To name a few...but according to the highest law a believer is to abide with and follow is the written Word.
No argument here. The justices will one day have to answer to the high court of judgement, and they will be held accountable for all their earthly rulings. raying:
The ruling in this case is absolutely the most disgusting thing I've read in a long time. To think that now judges can decide what constitutes a life worthy of living and that actively causing the death of someone is just beyond the pale of humanity.
But then again, what is their god? It certainly isn't the God who gives life.
I think you mean "Who is their god?", and I think that is very evident, even though they would self-righteously deny it!!
I've always held to the idea that a person should hold out as long as humanly possible when facing a medica death sentence. If it were me, I'd be thinking that each day I live puts me closer to the day some discovers a cure for what ails me! So, while I respect a persons right to deny chemo and radiation as well as surgery or heroic attempts to keep them alive, I would personally want to hang around with the hope that it ain't over until the fat lady sings, and I mean sing at my funeral!
This by no means, I am afraid to die. I know where I am headed. It just means that for my loved ones that will be left behind, I want to make sure I shook every tree branch and kicked every bush to see if a cure was hiding there! :smilewinkgrin: