1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

killing disabled newborns is acceptable

Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by Revmitchell, Sep 14, 2006.

  1. annsni

    annsni Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,914
    Likes Received:
    706
    See, the "let God take them home" is a good statement. MAKING someone live in a vegestative state is not what we're saying - but ALLOWING that person to live is more like it. You know what many people in a PVS need to live? Food, water and basic care. You know what a baby needs? Food, water and basic care. Just because one will grow out of it doesn't mean that is OK to provide for one and not the other. Now, if you're talking about keeping someone on a ventilator who will never be able to recover, I think then that's between the family and the person but many times the person is able to breathe on their own and all they need is sustinance and care. The only way to "let them go" would be to stop feeding them - and I think that's cruel and barbaric. At that point, it becomes a slippery slope, my friend.

    Ann
     
  2. npc

    npc New Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2005
    Messages:
    190
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, she said that after it is born, after it is taken home, it is a child. It's a poorly constructed sentence, and you could claim it is unclear what its status is between those two events. But she clarifies this:


    So how do you interpret the quote just above? You take some akward sentence, take its worst possible meaning (a ridiculous one at that), and then claim I'm the one spinning.
     
  3. El_Guero

    El_Guero New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,714
    Likes Received:
    0
    Back to the OP.

    Why is it that we want to keep grand parents alive in comas to see their grandkids, but we easily forget that someone wants to kill the grandkids?

    Killing babies is just wrong . . . changing the topic does not make sense to me.

     
  4. annsni

    annsni Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,914
    Likes Received:
    706
    LOL - If you're referring to my post - my mom, then you're mistaken. She was NOT in a coma but at home. When she finally WAS in a coma, we kept her fed and hydrated, kept up her morphine and she passed away 2 days later. Fortunately, we had the most awesome doctor working with us - the same doctor who was the neurologist for the Central Park jogger (Beatrice Engstrand - you can look her up. She has come to the Lord in the last 5 years too - at our church!), who guided us so gently through my mom's last days.

    You know what? When my grandmother was in the hospital after her heart attack, there was another lady who was very ill - and it was to the point of going on life support (ventilator and all). Her daughter cried and wondered what she should do but she finally decided to do it, against the doctors wishes. We didn't see her for a few days after that and we thought she died but it turns out that her body just needed rest and she was now in another room recovering - out of bed and walking! The doctors were telling the daughter less than a week before that there was no hope.

    Yes, killing infants is 100% wrong, but so is killing someone because someone doesn't deem their life worth living. Again, how do we know that they do not have a chance to turn their lives towards Christ? That the Holy Spirit won't call them then?

    Ann
     
  5. Marcia

    Marcia Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    1
    You seem to be avoiding the question I asked. Would you be willing to actively kill such a person?

    This has nothing to do with pleasing me. Red herring. I said nothing about pleasing me. This has to do with whether it is biblical or not.
     
  6. El_Guero

    El_Guero New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,714
    Likes Received:
    0
    If you want to post a new OP . . . go for it.

    Children being murdered is the topic that you continue to move away from . . .

    Personally, I state again that I am against murderers killing infants and or embryos . . .
     
  7. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    52,013
    Likes Received:
    3,649
    Faith:
    Baptist
    No what she is doing is trying to find room for partial birth abortion without being blunt. She understood the what Santorum was trying to pull her into. Which was to admit that she believes that when all but the head is delievered she still believes that the woman should still have the right to so called abort that childe which is full term and shove a tube into the back of its head and suck out its brains. This is Partial birth abortion. and she got cornered. and she couldnt dance her way out of it.
     
  8. El_Guero

    El_Guero New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,714
    Likes Received:
    0
  9. npc

    npc New Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2005
    Messages:
    190
    Likes Received:
    0
    So you are retracting this lie?
     
  10. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    52,013
    Likes Received:
    3,649
    Faith:
    Baptist

    What?

    There is no lie. She believes that abortion is legal even when delievered. It is hideous, and im surprised anyone would defend her. She supports muder of unborn and partial born children. I have nothing to retract. She said it, I have posted the quote. And I posted the link to the entire exchange.
     
    #50 Revmitchell, Sep 19, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 19, 2006
  11. npc

    npc New Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2005
    Messages:
    190
    Likes Received:
    0
    You keep posting that sentence as proof of your claim even though it is nothing more than a poor choice of words. Hint: "when you bring your baby home, it is a person" means "by the time you bring your baby home, it is a person". It is not the same as "before you bring your baby home, it is not a person".

    This is made clearer when you read the whole interview, but why bother when you can just claim that she supports the killing of babies.
     
  12. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    52,013
    Likes Received:
    3,649
    Faith:
    Baptist
    She did not infact clear it up. She refused to answer his questions any further. He pushed for a clear answer to his question and she tapp danced around it not wanting to give a precise answer as to when a baby is born.

    I would say that she did at one point make mention that a baby is born when it is in its mothers arms.

    Hard to know which position she actually stands on. In the mothers arms or at home. She took both positions. Either way, however, is just as shocking, disturbing and indefensable. Hence, her felt need to not answer the question any further.

    By the way I do not just claim that she supports abortion. She does, as well as partial birth abortion. Disgusting, evil, and vile.
     
    #52 Revmitchell, Sep 19, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 19, 2006
  13. El_Guero

    El_Guero New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,714
    Likes Received:
    0
    My post had her comment that she was against banning partial birth ...
     
  14. Terry_Herrington

    Terry_Herrington New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    4,455
    Likes Received:
    1
    Revmitchell should run for political office, he sure sounds like a politician. You have repeatedly as him to admit his mistake and he continues to evade the question.
     
  15. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    52,013
    Likes Received:
    3,649
    Faith:
    Baptist

    No mistake. The quote is clear.:BangHead:
     
  16. El_Guero

    El_Guero New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,714
    Likes Received:
    0
    Her mistake was to believe that murdering God's life was politically correct . . .

    The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away . . .

    He gave her life and she squandered it . . . When He asks 'why?', I gotta wonder if she will get it . . . then.


     
  17. Gina B

    Gina B Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    16,944
    Likes Received:
    1
    It is a fine line.

    Many times, ceasing to take in nutrition is simply part of the dying process for people.
    I remember two cases that disturbed me. One because the woman was starved, the second because she was fed.

    Case one: T. Shchiavo. I think most here are aware of that full story. I believe that it was very wrong. Also, if one is going to employ that method to bring about death, go full force and go for a quick euthenasia. It was wrong in any case IMO, but it was more wrong to pretend it wasn't what it was. Lethal injection would have been more humane.

    Case two: I was caring for an elderly woman with alzheimer's. She was in the beginning stages and put into a care facility. She did not want to be there and refused attempts to care for her. Occasionally we could get her to take in liquid meals, but only enough to keep her alive and walking around saying "I want to go home". Eventually she became ill with a bug and the dying process began.

    I've seen it a number of times. They stop eating, and it's normal and natural and part of the process.

    In this case, she went down to two, maybe three more days before death. Some idiot had her taken to the hospital and given an IV and liquid nutrition because she was "dehydrated". WELL DUH

    This lady who had been dying peacefully began to suffer and writhe about in the bed as her dying body struggled to work with what they'd put in her. Instead of two-three days, she lived another week, and for the first few days after the hospital visit you could tell she was very uncomfortable.


    EVERY case has to be looked at individually. Nobody can say euthanasia is never over, or that it is always ok.

    I believe there's a time for it.
    I believe those times are extremely rare.

    But they do exist.

    I've watched some horrible lives, horrible deaths, and can only pray that someone would euthanize me in the same situations. I think the worst was a man with a certain type of cancer. He felt on fire, his body was rotting on the bed in pus and blood. For almost two weeks I heard that man's screams and just typing this I can see his face and hear him screaming for his mamma and begging me to help him die, his knuckles white every time I came in there as he clung to the siderails of the bed panting. There was absolutely no question of him living, it was only a matter of time how many days of torture until then.

    Emotional appeal? Sure. Reality IS an emotional appeal. If you can't take reality into consideration when coming up with an idea, step away from having ideas because you're dangerous!
     
  18. Tommy Jefferson

    Tommy Jefferson New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2004
    Messages:
    25
    Likes Received:
    0
    I too have watched science and technology extend suffering and horror for years beyond what would have been possible just 20 years ago.
     
Loading...