The Groningen Protocol:
Infant Euthanasia and the Substance View of Personhood

End of Life Issues — By on December 1, 2004 at 11:42 am

The recent news that doctors in the Netherlands have been administering lethal doses of sedatives to terminally ill newborns has received little notice in the U.S. Neither the mainstream media nor the blogosphere seems to have taken much interest in the ‘



  • Jemison Thorsby

    So many people will read the story about what’s happening in Europe and conclude “it’s only a handful of babies who won’t live long or well anyway.” And yet, many of those who ascribe to pure evolutionary theory ascribe an almost mystical desire of all living things to survive.
    We’ve reached a point it’s now OK to eliminate the weakest among us for convenience, without stopping to consider if they would find a hobbled life better than none at all. It won’t be long now before the views of people like Peter Singer, who advocates a parent’s “right” to kill their children before a certain age, becomes mainstream.
    Human life either has intrinsic value or it doesn’t. Trying to carve out a middle ground, the way we have with abortion and assisted suicide, has only cheapened it. When society decides it has no intrinsic value, God help us all.

  • Jemison Thorsby

    So many people will read the story about what’s happening in Europe and conclude “it’s only a handful of babies who won’t live long or well anyway.” And yet, many of those who ascribe to pure evolutionary theory ascribe an almost mystical desire of all living things to survive.
    We’ve reached a point it’s now OK to eliminate the weakest among us for convenience, without stopping to consider if they would find a hobbled life better than none at all. It won’t be long now before the views of people like Peter Singer, who advocates a parent’s “right” to kill their children before a certain age, becomes mainstream.
    Human life either has intrinsic value or it doesn’t. Trying to carve out a middle ground, the way we have with abortion and assisted suicide, has only cheapened it. When society decides it has no intrinsic value, God help us all.

  • Larry Lord

    Joe writes
    “For the past thirty years almost all Western nations have embraced some form of abortion and in doing so have accepted the premise that human life in not intrinsically valuable.”
    Let me get this straight: ending the suffering of a terminally ill person is anti-life, but executing a person merely because nine folks in a Texas court believe he or she is “guilty” is considered to an affirmation of the value of life.
    Whatever.

  • Larry Lord

    Joe writes
    “For the past thirty years almost all Western nations have embraced some form of abortion and in doing so have accepted the premise that human life in not intrinsically valuable.”
    Let me get this straight: ending the suffering of a terminally ill person is anti-life, but executing a person merely because nine folks in a Texas court believe he or she is “guilty” is considered to an affirmation of the value of life.
    Whatever.

  • Phil Aldridge

    Regarding the death penalty -
    I would be thunderstruck if someone truly could not see the difference between killing an infant – unborn, ill, deformed, etc – who has untapped potential, a clean slate, a chance to lead a good life and killing a criminal who has taken innocent lives. If you truly cannot make that distinction, your moral compass is broken. What possible relation could those two have, the purely innocent and the evilly guilty? I would say they are apples and oranges, but I don’t even consider them in the same food group as each other.
    We execute killers precisely because we value life. We value innocent life so much, that if you destroy that innocent life, you pay for it with your own. Murdering an innocent person repulses us at our core and the death penalty is our method of setting things right when such an egregious violation of our morals takes place. Besides atoning for such a crime, it does two other practical things: it gets rid of someone who kills people and it deters others from acting in that way. The Death Penalty proves our value on innocent life.
    As far as Netherlands scenario goes, what do you expect from Europe? Religion and morality and thus culture are on a sharp decline there. What’s to prevent Hitler’s specter from returning? It’s 1930′s Germany all over again. Life becomes less and less valuable and all it takes is for some charismatic nutjob to pop into power and it’s Auschwitz ahoy. This is not hyperbole, this isn’t lame arguing (“Hyuk, you’re a Nazi if you don’t agree!!”), this is a history lesson. Furthermore, I think one’s degree of outrage about this is a good indicator of one’s moral health. The fact that the Netherlands embraces this is frightening. First because of what it means for Europe’s culture and second because it only took about 50-60 years for nations to start flirting with Nazi ideals again. It hasn’t even been a hundred years yet and we are seeing it happen again! Hell, there are still survivors of the first Holocaust living to see the potential genesis of another one!
    If we don’t do something, it’s about to get real ugly across the pond.
    -Phil

  • Phil Aldridge

    Regarding the death penalty -
    I would be thunderstruck if someone truly could not see the difference between killing an infant – unborn, ill, deformed, etc – who has untapped potential, a clean slate, a chance to lead a good life and killing a criminal who has taken innocent lives. If you truly cannot make that distinction, your moral compass is broken. What possible relation could those two have, the purely innocent and the evilly guilty? I would say they are apples and oranges, but I don’t even consider them in the same food group as each other.
    We execute killers precisely because we value life. We value innocent life so much, that if you destroy that innocent life, you pay for it with your own. Murdering an innocent person repulses us at our core and the death penalty is our method of setting things right when such an egregious violation of our morals takes place. Besides atoning for such a crime, it does two other practical things: it gets rid of someone who kills people and it deters others from acting in that way. The Death Penalty proves our value on innocent life.
    As far as Netherlands scenario goes, what do you expect from Europe? Religion and morality and thus culture are on a sharp decline there. What’s to prevent Hitler’s specter from returning? It’s 1930′s Germany all over again. Life becomes less and less valuable and all it takes is for some charismatic nutjob to pop into power and it’s Auschwitz ahoy. This is not hyperbole, this isn’t lame arguing (“Hyuk, you’re a Nazi if you don’t agree!!”), this is a history lesson. Furthermore, I think one’s degree of outrage about this is a good indicator of one’s moral health. The fact that the Netherlands embraces this is frightening. First because of what it means for Europe’s culture and second because it only took about 50-60 years for nations to start flirting with Nazi ideals again. It hasn’t even been a hundred years yet and we are seeing it happen again! Hell, there are still survivors of the first Holocaust living to see the potential genesis of another one!
    If we don’t do something, it’s about to get real ugly across the pond.
    -Phil

  • http://www.gleefulextremist.com/blogger.html Gleeful Extremist

    I think by “ending the suffering of a” you mean “killing.”
    And by “nine folks in a Texas court believe” you mean “a jury that has witnessed all the evidence and deliberated over it decide”.
    Why do you put “guilty” in quotation marks? Do you not believe in the concept? Can you see no difference between killing an innocent child and executing a murderer? Even I, a Catholic against the death penalty, can tell the difference.
    But then, I don’t think your intent was to helpfully point out errors in Mr. Carter’s thinking. Rather I think you understand the argument he made and, in typical American leftist fashion, you reached for the “hypocrite” bludgeon. After all, if he’s a hypocrite on the death penalty then you don’t have to listen to him on infanticide, right?

  • http://www.gleefulextremist.com/blogger.html Gleeful Extremist

    I think by “ending the suffering of a” you mean “killing.”
    And by “nine folks in a Texas court believe” you mean “a jury that has witnessed all the evidence and deliberated over it decide”.
    Why do you put “guilty” in quotation marks? Do you not believe in the concept? Can you see no difference between killing an innocent child and executing a murderer? Even I, a Catholic against the death penalty, can tell the difference.
    But then, I don’t think your intent was to helpfully point out errors in Mr. Carter’s thinking. Rather I think you understand the argument he made and, in typical American leftist fashion, you reached for the “hypocrite” bludgeon. After all, if he’s a hypocrite on the death penalty then you don’t have to listen to him on infanticide, right?

  • Rob Smith

    ending the suffering of a terminally ill person is anti-life
    Since we are all terminally ill and we all suffer at some point, is there anybody who would not qualify for euthanasia? When did death become the standard method for relieving suffering? What about proper pain management? Most, if not all pain can be effectively controlled with proper medication.
    but executing a person merely because nine folks in a Texas court believe he or she is “guilty” is considered to an affirmation of the value of life.
    Let me guess, you don’t like Texas. Of course, I am sure you are aware that the process of capital punishment is a lot more complicated than nine folks in a Texas court. Even in Texas, they don’t take folks out back of the courtroom and string em’ up by the nearest tree. What are you opposed to here, capital punishment as practiced in Texas or capital punishment in general?

  • Rob Smith

    ending the suffering of a terminally ill person is anti-life
    Since we are all terminally ill and we all suffer at some point, is there anybody who would not qualify for euthanasia? When did death become the standard method for relieving suffering? What about proper pain management? Most, if not all pain can be effectively controlled with proper medication.
    but executing a person merely because nine folks in a Texas court believe he or she is “guilty” is considered to an affirmation of the value of life.
    Let me guess, you don’t like Texas. Of course, I am sure you are aware that the process of capital punishment is a lot more complicated than nine folks in a Texas court. Even in Texas, they don’t take folks out back of the courtroom and string em’ up by the nearest tree. What are you opposed to here, capital punishment as practiced in Texas or capital punishment in general?

  • Ilkka Kokkarinen

    Phil Aldridge: “As far as Netherlands scenario goes, what do you expect from Europe? Religion and morality and thus culture are on a sharp decline there.”
    This works as a nice test case, then. How long would you give until Eurore becomes a huge witches coven, ruled by Satan himself? Five years? Ten? Twenty? If after twenty years, Holland or the whole Europe are better places to live than they is today, can we conclude that their selected course was right, and having less religion did not lead to a catastrophe?
    “It’s 1930′s Germany all over again. Life becomes less and less valuable and all it takes is for some charismatic nutjob to pop into power”
    Of course, we all agree that being a “charismatic nutjob” is a bad thing for the national leader, especially if he’s from “1930′s Germany”. You know, someone who
    - despises liberals and intellectuals
    - espouses belligerent nationalism and militarization, also likes two swagger around in military uniform
    - considers the government to be an extended arm of corporations and vice versa
    - calls for “national purification” against the infestation of corrupt and immoral elements, uses metaphors of illness when talking about that, calls for a “culture war”
    - considers himself to be a personification of the nation, so that any criticism of the leader equals treason as it is criticism of Fatherland
    - demands absolute oaths of loyalty from his followers, who are happy to provide it in mass rallies in unison
    - considers nuance, shades of gray, ambiguity and reasoning to be for sissies, and believes that the leader has an ability to simply know the right course of action with his “gut feelings” since he is the leader and therefore has a direct pipeline to what God wants
    That would be quite nasty. I doubt that Holland will be the first present-day country to raise such a leader, though.

  • Ilkka Kokkarinen

    Phil Aldridge: “As far as Netherlands scenario goes, what do you expect from Europe? Religion and morality and thus culture are on a sharp decline there.”
    This works as a nice test case, then. How long would you give until Eurore becomes a huge witches coven, ruled by Satan himself? Five years? Ten? Twenty? If after twenty years, Holland or the whole Europe are better places to live than they is today, can we conclude that their selected course was right, and having less religion did not lead to a catastrophe?
    “It’s 1930′s Germany all over again. Life becomes less and less valuable and all it takes is for some charismatic nutjob to pop into power”
    Of course, we all agree that being a “charismatic nutjob” is a bad thing for the national leader, especially if he’s from “1930′s Germany”. You know, someone who
    - despises liberals and intellectuals
    - espouses belligerent nationalism and militarization, also likes two swagger around in military uniform
    - considers the government to be an extended arm of corporations and vice versa
    - calls for “national purification” against the infestation of corrupt and immoral elements, uses metaphors of illness when talking about that, calls for a “culture war”
    - considers himself to be a personification of the nation, so that any criticism of the leader equals treason as it is criticism of Fatherland
    - demands absolute oaths of loyalty from his followers, who are happy to provide it in mass rallies in unison
    - considers nuance, shades of gray, ambiguity and reasoning to be for sissies, and believes that the leader has an ability to simply know the right course of action with his “gut feelings” since he is the leader and therefore has a direct pipeline to what God wants
    That would be quite nasty. I doubt that Holland will be the first present-day country to raise such a leader, though.

  • http://www.xanga.com/miss_o_hara Miss O’Hara

    I cannot say I’m surprised by the lack of notice in the MSM, but as far as the blogosphere goes, I am a little puzzled by the general lack of concern. I posted it, but frankly, was so upset and befuddled by those who consider this defensible – despite the desire to live, as someone else noted – I didn’t really know what to say.
    Perhaps the lack of…the lack of any sort of rumbling might be due to the fact that many people don’t know how to fight against it? That is, they don’t really have a firm grasp on the idea that human life is inherently valuable for the reasons you note.
    Still, it is interesting that those who are most vocally supportive of people with disabilities of any sort and so forth couldn’t care less about a baby, whose life is just beginning, who might still have a chance! – who has those same disabilities.

  • http://www.xanga.com/miss_o_hara Miss O’Hara

    I cannot say I’m surprised by the lack of notice in the MSM, but as far as the blogosphere goes, I am a little puzzled by the general lack of concern. I posted it, but frankly, was so upset and befuddled by those who consider this defensible – despite the desire to live, as someone else noted – I didn’t really know what to say.
    Perhaps the lack of…the lack of any sort of rumbling might be due to the fact that many people don’t know how to fight against it? That is, they don’t really have a firm grasp on the idea that human life is inherently valuable for the reasons you note.
    Still, it is interesting that those who are most vocally supportive of people with disabilities of any sort and so forth couldn’t care less about a baby, whose life is just beginning, who might still have a chance! – who has those same disabilities.

  • http://www.xanga.com/miss_o_hara Miss O’Hara

    I cannot say I’m surprised by the lack of notice in the MSM, but as far as the blogosphere goes, I am a little puzzled by the general lack of concern. I posted it, but frankly, was so upset and befuddled by those who consider this defensible – despite the desire to live, as someone else noted – I didn’t really know what to say.
    Perhaps the lack of…the lack of any sort of rumbling might be due to the fact that many people don’t know how to fight against it? That is, they don’t really have a firm grasp on the idea that human life is inherently valuable for the reasons you note.
    Still, it is interesting that those who are most vocally supportive of people with disabilities of any sort and so forth couldn’t care less about a baby, whose life is just beginning, who might still have a chance! – who has those same disabilities.

  • http://www.xanga.com/miss_o_hara Miss O’Hara

    I cannot say I’m surprised by the lack of notice in the MSM, but as far as the blogosphere goes, I am a little puzzled by the general lack of concern. I posted it, but frankly, was so upset and befuddled by those who consider this defensible – despite the desire to live, as someone else noted – I didn’t really know what to say.
    Perhaps the lack of…the lack of any sort of rumbling might be due to the fact that many people don’t know how to fight against it? That is, they don’t really have a firm grasp on the idea that human life is inherently valuable for the reasons you note.
    Still, it is interesting that those who are most vocally supportive of people with disabilities of any sort and so forth couldn’t care less about a baby, whose life is just beginning, who might still have a chance! – who has those same disabilities.

  • BlueDevils

    Wow, it only took six comments to get the Bush = Hitler in a post about killing infants. That has to be some kind of record.
    Of course, we all know that Bush was going to engineer another terrorist attack so as to postpone the election and seize power. Wait that didn’t happen. Of course he was going to round up all liberals, homosexuals and abortion doctors on trains and put them in concentration camps. Oh, that hasn’t happened either. Maybe he is going to declare that black people (especially black democrats) are not fully human and not worthy of life. Don’t think that is on the table either.
    Look at which group is declaring people “unfit” for life. Who say that this group does meet certain qualifications for a good “quality life?” Who says that you have to meet certain conditions to be considered fully human?
    It is ridiculous to go down the Nazi route. Conservatives aren’t Nazis and neither are liberals, but only one doesn’t see a problem of killing people based on their ideals of life.
    But if Bush cancels the 08 elections and becomes national dictator, then we can have that discussion. But until then, let’s get back to the point of the post, the Netherlands killing children because they deem them unworthy of life. That is the point and the issue to debate, not who looks like a Nazi.

  • BlueDevils

    Wow, it only took six comments to get the Bush = Hitler in a post about killing infants. That has to be some kind of record.
    Of course, we all know that Bush was going to engineer another terrorist attack so as to postpone the election and seize power. Wait that didn’t happen. Of course he was going to round up all liberals, homosexuals and abortion doctors on trains and put them in concentration camps. Oh, that hasn’t happened either. Maybe he is going to declare that black people (especially black democrats) are not fully human and not worthy of life. Don’t think that is on the table either.
    Look at which group is declaring people “unfit” for life. Who say that this group does meet certain qualifications for a good “quality life?” Who says that you have to meet certain conditions to be considered fully human?
    It is ridiculous to go down the Nazi route. Conservatives aren’t Nazis and neither are liberals, but only one doesn’t see a problem of killing people based on their ideals of life.
    But if Bush cancels the 08 elections and becomes national dictator, then we can have that discussion. But until then, let’s get back to the point of the post, the Netherlands killing children because they deem them unworthy of life. That is the point and the issue to debate, not who looks like a Nazi.

  • Lump

    Phil – Can you find any stats that show the death penalty actually deters crime? I sure can’t. And I’ve been working in law enforcement for six years.
    As a Christian, I’m pretty sure I’ve heard of a Commandment that orders “Thou Shalt Not Kill.” Seems to me that the death penalty flies directly in the face of that one.

  • Lump

    Phil – Can you find any stats that show the death penalty actually deters crime? I sure can’t. And I’ve been working in law enforcement for six years.
    As a Christian, I’m pretty sure I’ve heard of a Commandment that orders “Thou Shalt Not Kill.” Seems to me that the death penalty flies directly in the face of that one.

  • Larry Lord

    Phil and Gleeful
    Thanks for expressing the sentiment I alluded to. For a moment I wondered if the life-affirming aspects of state execution were no longer an important part of conservative Christian support for the practice. I need wonder no more!
    But Miss O’Hara and others here are pretending (again) not to be aware of the fact that many infants are born all the time which do not have a chance.
    Extreme cases of trisomy 18 are a classic example.
    http://www.trisomy.org/html/trisomy_18_facts.htm
    A relative of mine gave birth to a severe trisomy 18 baby. After weeks in an incubator, the doctors let them take it home. It died within 24 hours, in their arms. Would it have died if they’d kept the baby on life support in the incubator. Nope. They killed it.
    Was it right for them to kill it? Of course it was. Is theirs an unusual case? Nope. Happens all the freaking time. Every day.
    Their second child is due to be born any day now. Had they kept their previous child alive by any means necessary they would not have been able to raise a second child properly. They don’t have the time or money.
    It’s called the real world, folks. Have a taste.

  • http://www.brainshavings.com/mt/archives/001487.html Brain Shavings

    The Groningen Protocol

    I heard something frightening on Hugh Hewitt’s show yesterday. Low-key news coverage reveals that systematic euthanasia of children has begun in the Netherlands: A hospital in the Netherlands – the first nation to permit euthanasia – recently proposed …

  • Larry Lord

    Phil and Gleeful
    Thanks for expressing the sentiment I alluded to. For a moment I wondered if the life-affirming aspects of state execution were no longer an important part of conservative Christian support for the practice. I need wonder no more!
    But Miss O’Hara and others here are pretending (again) not to be aware of the fact that many infants are born all the time which do not have a chance.
    Extreme cases of trisomy 18 are a classic example.
    http://www.trisomy.org/html/trisomy_18_facts.htm
    A relative of mine gave birth to a severe trisomy 18 baby. After weeks in an incubator, the doctors let them take it home. It died within 24 hours, in their arms. Would it have died if they’d kept the baby on life support in the incubator. Nope. They killed it.
    Was it right for them to kill it? Of course it was. Is theirs an unusual case? Nope. Happens all the freaking time. Every day.
    Their second child is due to be born any day now. Had they kept their previous child alive by any means necessary they would not have been able to raise a second child properly. They don’t have the time or money.
    It’s called the real world, folks. Have a taste.

  • http://www.brainshavings.com/mt/archives/001487.html Brain Shavings

    The Groningen Protocol

    I heard something frightening on Hugh Hewitt’s show yesterday. Low-key news coverage reveals that systematic euthanasia of children has begun in the Netherlands: A hospital in the Netherlands – the first nation to permit euthanasia – recently proposed …

  • Jonny

    Why is it necessary for Christians to believe that human life is intrinsically valuable to the extent that ending it to alleviate pointless suffering is by definition wrong? I see the intuition, but not the actual connection.

  • Jonny

    Why is it necessary for Christians to believe that human life is intrinsically valuable to the extent that ending it to alleviate pointless suffering is by definition wrong? I see the intuition, but not the actual connection.

  • Phil Aldridge

    Ilkka: “If after twenty years, Holland or the whole Europe are better places to live than they [are] today”…
    I suppose we will have to agree on what defines “better” in twenty years. The trend at this time is towards Socialism (ask Russia how that went for them), Ultra-utilitarian Eugenics (ask Germany how that went for them), and Anti-Semitism. I’m not saying it will stay that way, but to fuel these trends they are burning religion and culture. (I suppose it is a bit misleading to say that religion is on the decline when radical Muslims are flocking to Europe in droves, but the European elite’s attitude is one of disdain for religion).
    Frankly, I don’t think I could name a successful modern free country that was socialist and anti-semetic, and though ultra-utilitarian eugenics is somewhat new, it doesn’t have a good track record either. But hey, maybe Holland will conquer history and reason after all!
    -Phil

  • Phil Aldridge

    Ilkka: “If after twenty years, Holland or the whole Europe are better places to live than they [are] today”…
    I suppose we will have to agree on what defines “better” in twenty years. The trend at this time is towards Socialism (ask Russia how that went for them), Ultra-utilitarian Eugenics (ask Germany how that went for them), and Anti-Semitism. I’m not saying it will stay that way, but to fuel these trends they are burning religion and culture. (I suppose it is a bit misleading to say that religion is on the decline when radical Muslims are flocking to Europe in droves, but the European elite’s attitude is one of disdain for religion).
    Frankly, I don’t think I could name a successful modern free country that was socialist and anti-semetic, and though ultra-utilitarian eugenics is somewhat new, it doesn’t have a good track record either. But hey, maybe Holland will conquer history and reason after all!
    -Phil

  • Ilkka Kokkarinen

    Hugh Hewitt: “MSM does not care to cover this.”
    I followed the links from Hewitt’s original posting, and it seems that he got this piece of news from mainstream media (the article he links to is “Copyright 2004 Associated Press”), and not from some blogger reporting what is going on in Holland.

  • Ilkka Kokkarinen

    Hugh Hewitt: “MSM does not care to cover this.”
    I followed the links from Hewitt’s original posting, and it seems that he got this piece of news from mainstream media (the article he links to is “Copyright 2004 Associated Press”), and not from some blogger reporting what is going on in Holland.

  • Scott Buttes

    Lump wrote:
    As a Christian, I’m pretty sure I’ve heard of a Commandment that orders “Thou Shalt Not Kill.” Seems to me that the death penalty flies directly in the face of that one.
    Lump, first thanks for your service in law enforcement. I had a point of disagreement that although the 10 Commandments state, “Thou Shalt Not Kill,” the Law then turns around and gives the Nation of Israel specific directions to execute Jews for particular offenses. (I would be more than happy to provide references if you want me to). You must therefore either recognize that Scripture distinguishes an individual’s right to kill from a state’s right to kill, or you must give up innerrancy and infallibility. Unless I am missing something here, which of the two alternatives do you choose?

  • Scott Buttes

    Lump wrote:
    As a Christian, I’m pretty sure I’ve heard of a Commandment that orders “Thou Shalt Not Kill.” Seems to me that the death penalty flies directly in the face of that one.
    Lump, first thanks for your service in law enforcement. I had a point of disagreement that although the 10 Commandments state, “Thou Shalt Not Kill,” the Law then turns around and gives the Nation of Israel specific directions to execute Jews for particular offenses. (I would be more than happy to provide references if you want me to). You must therefore either recognize that Scripture distinguishes an individual’s right to kill from a state’s right to kill, or you must give up innerrancy and infallibility. Unless I am missing something here, which of the two alternatives do you choose?

  • Lump

    Scott – I’ve heard your explanation before. However, I’m a Catholic and as such, don’t really put as much credence in what the Bible tells the state of Israel can and can’t do. I try to live my life as Jesus taught. I don’t believe the death penalty is in agreement with those teachings. While this may seem indefensible from a strict Biblical sense, i.e, you could poke holes into it with plenty of cited verses, that’s what I believe. And what many Catholics believe.
    From a more secular viewpoint, I haven’t seen where the death penalty does much good, other than sating a need for revenge and hatred (again, both sins?). The family of the murdered still grieves.
    Most criminals commit murder without thinking about the consequences and don’t really think about the death penalty – especially the real sickos, the ones that most people want to see executed.

  • Lump

    Scott – I’ve heard your explanation before. However, I’m a Catholic and as such, don’t really put as much credence in what the Bible tells the state of Israel can and can’t do. I try to live my life as Jesus taught. I don’t believe the death penalty is in agreement with those teachings. While this may seem indefensible from a strict Biblical sense, i.e, you could poke holes into it with plenty of cited verses, that’s what I believe. And what many Catholics believe.
    From a more secular viewpoint, I haven’t seen where the death penalty does much good, other than sating a need for revenge and hatred (again, both sins?). The family of the murdered still grieves.
    Most criminals commit murder without thinking about the consequences and don’t really think about the death penalty – especially the real sickos, the ones that most people want to see executed.

  • Chris Lutz

    I think there is confusion between euthanasia and the withholding of medical treatment. The former actively kills the person. The latter is a decision based on several factors. Larry Lord’s story is not euthanasia, it is a withholding of treatment. Withholding treatment is not by default morally wrong. Euthanasia however is killing by another name.

  • Chris Lutz

    I think there is confusion between euthanasia and the withholding of medical treatment. The former actively kills the person. The latter is a decision based on several factors. Larry Lord’s story is not euthanasia, it is a withholding of treatment. Withholding treatment is not by default morally wrong. Euthanasia however is killing by another name.

  • Larry Lord

    Scott writes
    “You must therefore either recognize that Scripture distinguishes an individual’s right to kill from a state’s right to kill, or you must give up innerrancy and infallibility.”
    Thus sayeth Scott. Where in your holy book does it say that the text is “inerrant” and “infallible”? Does your holy book make that guarantee for any translation, no matter who performs the translation? What is the name of the individual who translated the version of your holy book that you rely on? Was the translation approved? What is the name of the individual who approved the translation? Are the translators and individuals who approved the translation infallible and inerrant as well? Did they work in every case from the original texts in the original handwriting of the original divinely inspired authors? Or is anyone who writes a version of your holy book imbued with infallibility and inerrancy?
    I assume you know the answer to EACH of these questions, Scott, and they must be crystal clear because you were crystal clear when you told Lump what he “must” recognize.
    Don’t let me down.

  • Larry Lord

    Scott writes
    “You must therefore either recognize that Scripture distinguishes an individual’s right to kill from a state’s right to kill, or you must give up innerrancy and infallibility.”
    Thus sayeth Scott. Where in your holy book does it say that the text is “inerrant” and “infallible”? Does your holy book make that guarantee for any translation, no matter who performs the translation? What is the name of the individual who translated the version of your holy book that you rely on? Was the translation approved? What is the name of the individual who approved the translation? Are the translators and individuals who approved the translation infallible and inerrant as well? Did they work in every case from the original texts in the original handwriting of the original divinely inspired authors? Or is anyone who writes a version of your holy book imbued with infallibility and inerrancy?
    I assume you know the answer to EACH of these questions, Scott, and they must be crystal clear because you were crystal clear when you told Lump what he “must” recognize.
    Don’t let me down.

  • http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/ Joe Carter

    Lump,
    Scott – I’ve heard your explanation before. However, I’m a Catholic and as such, don’t really put as much credence in what the Bible tells the state of Israel can and can’t do. I try to live my life as Jesus taught. I don’t believe the death penalty is in agreement with those teachings. While this may seem indefensible from a strict Biblical sense, i.e, you could poke holes into it with plenty of cited verses, that’s what I believe. And what many Catholics believe.
    While you may not personally believe in capital punishment, the Catholic Church does not forbid it:

    The infliction of capital punishment is not contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church, and the power of the State to visit upon culprits the penalty of death derives much authority from revelation and from the writings of theologians. The advisabilty of exercising that power is, of course, an affair to be determined upon other and various considerations.

  • http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com Joe Carter

    Lump,
    Scott – I’ve heard your explanation before. However, I’m a Catholic and as such, don’t really put as much credence in what the Bible tells the state of Israel can and can’t do. I try to live my life as Jesus taught. I don’t believe the death penalty is in agreement with those teachings. While this may seem indefensible from a strict Biblical sense, i.e, you could poke holes into it with plenty of cited verses, that’s what I believe. And what many Catholics believe.
    While you may not personally believe in capital punishment, the Catholic Church does not forbid it:

    The infliction of capital punishment is not contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church, and the power of the State to visit upon culprits the penalty of death derives much authority from revelation and from the writings of theologians. The advisabilty of exercising that power is, of course, an affair to be determined upon other and various considerations.

  • Larry Lord

    Hey, there was a baby with severe trisomy 18 born today in California. The doctors say it’s one of the worst cases they’ve ever seen and it’s 1,000,000 to 1 that the baby will ever utter a word, walk, or even be able to comprehend it’s surroundings.
    Any volunteers to here to pay for keeping this human being breathing and eating (through a tube of course) for as long as technology allows it to do so?
    Let me know. I’ll happily forward your information. Oh, you’ll have to eventually pay to have the whole incubator, breathing and feeding tube set up moved to your house, and you’ll have to pay someone big bucks to do round the clock care. Doctors and nurses prefer to attend to born human beings who have a reasonable chance of someday appreciating that they are actually alive. There’s only so much room in a hospital to satisfy the bizarre whims of every conservative evangelical Christian who believe that killing an innocent human being can never be justified (unless it’s one of those innocent human beings that had the bad luck to be convicted by a texas jury).

  • Larry Lord

    Hey, there was a baby with severe trisomy 18 born today in California. The doctors say it’s one of the worst cases they’ve ever seen and it’s 1,000,000 to 1 that the baby will ever utter a word, walk, or even be able to comprehend it’s surroundings.
    Any volunteers to here to pay for keeping this human being breathing and eating (through a tube of course) for as long as technology allows it to do so?
    Let me know. I’ll happily forward your information. Oh, you’ll have to eventually pay to have the whole incubator, breathing and feeding tube set up moved to your house, and you’ll have to pay someone big bucks to do round the clock care. Doctors and nurses prefer to attend to born human beings who have a reasonable chance of someday appreciating that they are actually alive. There’s only so much room in a hospital to satisfy the bizarre whims of every conservative evangelical Christian who believe that killing an innocent human being can never be justified (unless it’s one of those innocent human beings that had the bad luck to be convicted by a texas jury).

  • Chris Lutz

    Larry Lord, you are continue to ignore the difference between killing someone (euthanasia) and denying treatement. Denying treatment to the child you describe sounds morally defensible, but that is not euthanisia.

  • Chris Lutz

    Larry Lord, you are continue to ignore the difference between killing someone (euthanasia) and denying treatement. Denying treatment to the child you describe sounds morally defensible, but that is not euthanisia.

  • hobgoblin

    Lump:
    The commandment is properly: Thou shalt not murder. At least if translated with fidelity to the original Hebrew.
    Big difference.
    Killing the morally culpable is simply different than euthanasia (one of the most despicable misnomers ever).
    If you could discrd either your moral equivalency or your blindingly bitter partisanship, perhaps you could recognize that.
    And I am Catholic as well. The Magestrium allows for capital punishment in certain limited circumstances. It does not allow for abortion or euthanasia ever. How faithful are you to that teaching, or are you simply in the line for the cafeteria?

  • Lump

    Joe – First, the Catholic Church has not rendered a definitive opinion on the death penalty the way it has on abortion. Second, the key to your passage is “determined upon other and various considerations.”
    From my discussions with clergy, as well as readings outside of church, these considerations are steep – much steeper than the statues we use to determine if the death penalty is warranted. It’s my understanding that, basically, the death penalty is sanctioned if the act will save innocent lives that could not be saved in any other fashion. If it is used as a method of punishment only, then it is verboten.

  • hobgoblin

    Lump:
    The commandment is properly: Thou shalt not murder. At least if translated with fidelity to the original Hebrew.
    Big difference.
    Killing the morally culpable is simply different than euthanasia (one of the most despicable misnomers ever).
    If you could discrd either your moral equivalency or your blindingly bitter partisanship, perhaps you could recognize that.
    And I am Catholic as well. The Magestrium allows for capital punishment in certain limited circumstances. It does not allow for abortion or euthanasia ever. How faithful are you to that teaching, or are you simply in the line for the cafeteria?

  • Lump

    Joe – First, the Catholic Church has not rendered a definitive opinion on the death penalty the way it has on abortion. Second, the key to your passage is “determined upon other and various considerations.”
    From my discussions with clergy, as well as readings outside of church, these considerations are steep – much steeper than the statues we use to determine if the death penalty is warranted. It’s my understanding that, basically, the death penalty is sanctioned if the act will save innocent lives that could not be saved in any other fashion. If it is used as a method of punishment only, then it is verboten.

  • hobgoblin

    Larry,
    Perhaps yopu can make the distinction between heroic (in the sense of above and beyond the normal standard of care) life saving measures and the ordinary care of the sick or injured. Here’s a discussion that might put some context on your manipulative and crass postings:
    http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0408/articles/exchange.htm
    Whether a feeding tube is a heroic measure or not is a close question.
    Whether to pump a baby full of poison (an overdose is a chemical poisoning) is not a close question.
    Your reductio ad absurdum is showing.

  • hobgoblin

    Larry,
    Perhaps yopu can make the distinction between heroic (in the sense of above and beyond the normal standard of care) life saving measures and the ordinary care of the sick or injured. Here’s a discussion that might put some context on your manipulative and crass postings:
    http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0408/articles/exchange.htm
    Whether a feeding tube is a heroic measure or not is a close question.
    Whether to pump a baby full of poison (an overdose is a chemical poisoning) is not a close question.
    Your reductio ad absurdum is showing.

  • Lump

    Hobgoblin – ease up on the caffeine or take some prozac. I’m pro-life across the board. No abortion. No euthanasia. No death penalty. I don’t remember in any of my posts where I stated that I was pro-abortion or pro-euthanasia. Nor did I state any partisan comments.
    As for your translation, I’m not arguing with it. However, how does “killing the morally cupable” jibe with Christ’s teachings? Love the sinner, hate the sin, for example? Do unto others? Just a thought.

  • Lump

    Hobgoblin – ease up on the caffeine or take some prozac. I’m pro-life across the board. No abortion. No euthanasia. No death penalty. I don’t remember in any of my posts where I stated that I was pro-abortion or pro-euthanasia. Nor did I state any partisan comments.
    As for your translation, I’m not arguing with it. However, how does “killing the morally cupable” jibe with Christ’s teachings? Love the sinner, hate the sin, for example? Do unto others? Just a thought.

  • BlueDevils

    Again, there is a difference between a family deciding not to pursue every available means to keep someone alive in a vegetable state and purposefully killing a child. The first can be debated, but switching back and forth between the two does no good in this debate, expect to make those against infanticide defend things on two fronts. But that is the point isn’t it?
    And there we go again with the “innocent human beings that had the bad luck to be convicted by a texas jury.” Apparently we can not advance anywhere in this debate because we seem to have a different definiton of the word: “innocent.” I thought someone convicted of a crime, was basically by definition not innocent. But what would you suggest our judicial system do? No jury? No Texas jury? No convictions because we don’t like them? No death penalty, but kill all the “unhealthy” children you want? Or again is this just an attempt to switch the debate to another front to make it even more difficult to get to the heart of the matter this post is about?
    This debate is not about the death penalty. (That can be debated) It is not about whether people should be forced to keep loved ones in a vegetative state. (That can be debated) The debate is: Is it ethical and moral to kill children because they do not meet a government defined (or even parent defined) standard of health or quality of life? Do we really want to give the government or health officials the authority to determine who to kill? Eventually the government (if they haven’t already) would have to set up some type of standard unless they want to give parents the right to kill their child for any reason (emotional or financial stress on the parents, the child has mental retardation, is physical deformed, or the child is not the perfect child they wanted, etc.)

  • BlueDevils

    Again, there is a difference between a family deciding not to pursue every available means to keep someone alive in a vegetable state and purposefully killing a child. The first can be debated, but switching back and forth between the two does no good in this debate, expect to make those against infanticide defend things on two fronts. But that is the point isn’t it?
    And there we go again with the “innocent human beings that had the bad luck to be convicted by a texas jury.” Apparently we can not advance anywhere in this debate because we seem to have a different definiton of the word: “innocent.” I thought someone convicted of a crime, was basically by definition not innocent. But what would you suggest our judicial system do? No jury? No Texas jury? No convictions because we don’t like them? No death penalty, but kill all the “unhealthy” children you want? Or again is this just an attempt to switch the debate to another front to make it even more difficult to get to the heart of the matter this post is about?
    This debate is not about the death penalty. (That can be debated) It is not about whether people should be forced to keep loved ones in a vegetative state. (That can be debated) The debate is: Is it ethical and moral to kill children because they do not meet a government defined (or even parent defined) standard of health or quality of life? Do we really want to give the government or health officials the authority to determine who to kill? Eventually the government (if they haven’t already) would have to set up some type of standard unless they want to give parents the right to kill their child for any reason (emotional or financial stress on the parents, the child has mental retardation, is physical deformed, or the child is not the perfect child they wanted, etc.)

  • hobgoblin

    Larry,
    The “seamless garment” is not a Magisterial teaching, and believing it is morally superior does not make it so. Speaking for “many Catholics” does not give your pronouncements authoritative weight. Sorry. There are times when the death penalty is legitimate & warranted under Church teachings(if nothing else to protect inmate populations from the most dangerous of sociopaths). It matters little that you don’t agree with that.
    There is a fundamental difference between living Christ’s teachings as an individual and having a society live Christ’s teachings. The first is required of all faithful Christians, the second would be hopeless folly.
    And to make a blanket statement that the death penalty flies in the face of the fifth commandment (our fifth, other’s sixth) demonstrates remarkable ignorance. Taking your logic, you would have us beleive that Christ would not allow killing in self defense, which is patently false.
    I’m sorry for being brusque. I simply have little patience and a sinful lack of charity when people falsely present the teachings of our Church.

  • http://jivinjehoshaphat.blogspot.com/ david

    Larry,
    Your argument equates the act of intentionally killing by providing drugs whose sole purpose is to end the life with not giving them every single treatment possible.
    This is an extremely weak argument.
    You fail to distinguish the difference between an intentional act of killing (Scott Peterson killing Laci and Connor) and not doing everything possible to save lives (Me not sending enough money to save starving children in Africa).
    They did not kill the child by “it” (was the child a boy or girl? Using the term “it” to describe a born child is a new low in my book) home. Have you ever heard of palliative care and hospice? Often times doctors realize that they can’t cure a disease and then treatment turns to making the patient as comfortable as possible.
    In your world is every patient that realizes that they are dying and wants to be kept comfortable instead of getting surgery after surgery killing themselves?

  • hobgoblin

    Larry,
    The “seamless garment” is not a Magisterial teaching, and believing it is morally superior does not make it so. Speaking for “many Catholics” does not give your pronouncements authoritative weight. Sorry. There are times when the death penalty is legitimate & warranted under Church teachings(if nothing else to protect inmate populations from the most dangerous of sociopaths). It matters little that you don’t agree with that.
    There is a fundamental difference between living Christ’s teachings as an individual and having a society live Christ’s teachings. The first is required of all faithful Christians, the second would be hopeless folly.
    And to make a blanket statement that the death penalty flies in the face of the fifth commandment (our fifth, other’s sixth) demonstrates remarkable ignorance. Taking your logic, you would have us beleive that Christ would not allow killing in self defense, which is patently false.
    I’m sorry for being brusque. I simply have little patience and a sinful lack of charity when people falsely present the teachings of our Church.

  • http://jivinjehoshaphat.blogspot.com david

    Larry,
    Your argument equates the act of intentionally killing by providing drugs whose sole purpose is to end the life with not giving them every single treatment possible.
    This is an extremely weak argument.
    You fail to distinguish the difference between an intentional act of killing (Scott Peterson killing Laci and Connor) and not doing everything possible to save lives (Me not sending enough money to save starving children in Africa).
    They did not kill the child by “it” (was the child a boy or girl? Using the term “it” to describe a born child is a new low in my book) home. Have you ever heard of palliative care and hospice? Often times doctors realize that they can’t cure a disease and then treatment turns to making the patient as comfortable as possible.
    In your world is every patient that realizes that they are dying and wants to be kept comfortable instead of getting surgery after surgery killing themselves?

  • gedi

    “The Death Penalty proves our value on innocent life.”
    Some would believe that nobody is outside the bounds of salvation. If Jesus can bring me into his flock, He can bring anybody. I for one am willing to give even a convicted murder God’s alloted time on this earth to repent and believe. Seeing as how “innocent” life is not a threat in our prison systems, life in prison should protect innocent life and give the convicted murder time to get right with Jesus.
    We might have a lot less muslim converts in our prison systems that way (thereby condemning the convict to an eternal jail) if Christians took a “life” position on their case as well as the unborn child.

  • gedi

    “The Death Penalty proves our value on innocent life.”
    Some would believe that nobody is outside the bounds of salvation. If Jesus can bring me into his flock, He can bring anybody. I for one am willing to give even a convicted murder God’s alloted time on this earth to repent and believe. Seeing as how “innocent” life is not a threat in our prison systems, life in prison should protect innocent life and give the convicted murder time to get right with Jesus.
    We might have a lot less muslim converts in our prison systems that way (thereby condemning the convict to an eternal jail) if Christians took a “life” position on their case as well as the unborn child.

  • hobgoblin

    my post above was meant for Lump, not Larry. I had a Leave it to Beaver moment of confusion (now I remember that Lumpy was Wally’s rotund friend and Larry was Beavers chubby pal).

  • hobgoblin

    my post above was meant for Lump, not Larry. I had a Leave it to Beaver moment of confusion (now I remember that Lumpy was Wally’s rotund friend and Larry was Beavers chubby pal).

  • Lump

    Hobgoblin -
    “Taking your logic, you would have us beleive that Christ would not allow killing in self defense, which is patently false.”
    I never argued against killing in self defense. I’m in law enforcement and I know it works – well. However, once you have caught the criminal and can send him to jail for life or execute him, you have moved past self defense and into punishment. Also, don’t worry yourself about sociopaths harming the general population. First, it’s usually the other way around. Second, the worst offenders are usually in solitary.
    I recommend, if possible, to tour a supermax prison. When you see the perps serving life in solitary confinement, with only 1 hour a day to walk around a small outdoor cage, you’ll see punishment in action. Most of them go crazy.
    Gedi – good points.

  • Lump

    Hobgoblin -
    “Taking your logic, you would have us beleive that Christ would not allow killing in self defense, which is patently false.”
    I never argued against killing in self defense. I’m in law enforcement and I know it works – well. However, once you have caught the criminal and can send him to jail for life or execute him, you have moved past self defense and into punishment. Also, don’t worry yourself about sociopaths harming the general population. First, it’s usually the other way around. Second, the worst offenders are usually in solitary.
    I recommend, if possible, to tour a supermax prison. When you see the perps serving life in solitary confinement, with only 1 hour a day to walk around a small outdoor cage, you’ll see punishment in action. Most of them go crazy.
    Gedi – good points.

  • hobgoblin

    Lump,
    We agree that if a murderer can be assuredly confined beyond the reach of others for life, at that point, he should not be killed. That is the teaching of our Holy Father and the Church.
    I can tell you, as a lawyer, that the problem with this proposition as a permanent bar on the death penalty stems from the word “assuredly” in the above thought. The murderer will still be a danger to the guards in any event, and given wily defense attorneys filing habeas petitions and such, the chances of a criminal serving out a life sentence are far from 100%.
    So, we have a murderously violent predator in a cage, but no assurance that the cage will hold. Do we a) institute the ultimate penalty with God himself prescribed for many offenses (the OT is still part of our God’s Holy Writ), or do we b) hope that the guy (which they almost always are) never gets the chance to touch another human being?
    The civil justice system has flaws, especially in the death penalty process, but the death penalty itself is not forbidden.
    As I recall, you wrote “As a Christian, I’m pretty sure I’ve heard of a Commandment that orders “Thou Shalt Not Kill.” Seems to me that the death penalty flies directly in the face of that one.”
    You, my friend, are wrong on that score.

  • hobgoblin

    Lump,
    We agree that if a murderer can be assuredly confined beyond the reach of others for life, at that point, he should not be killed. That is the teaching of our Holy Father and the Church.
    I can tell you, as a lawyer, that the problem with this proposition as a permanent bar on the death penalty stems from the word “assuredly” in the above thought. The murderer will still be a danger to the guards in any event, and given wily defense attorneys filing habeas petitions and such, the chances of a criminal serving out a life sentence are far from 100%.
    So, we have a murderously violent predator in a cage, but no assurance that the cage will hold. Do we a) institute the ultimate penalty with God himself prescribed for many offenses (the OT is still part of our God’s Holy Writ), or do we b) hope that the guy (which they almost always are) never gets the chance to touch another human being?
    The civil justice system has flaws, especially in the death penalty process, but the death penalty itself is not forbidden.
    As I recall, you wrote “As a Christian, I’m pretty sure I’ve heard of a Commandment that orders “Thou Shalt Not Kill.” Seems to me that the death penalty flies directly in the face of that one.”
    You, my friend, are wrong on that score.

  • Larry Lord

    BlueDevil (and a few others that refuse to acknowledge reality) writes:
    “No death penalty, but kill all the “unhealthy” children you want?”
    Bluedevil — do you believe that a baby with severe trisomy 18 is a healthy baby? I am going to assume not. The fact is that most of the world and most of the states in the United States subscribe to the position you paraphrased above, in quotes. There’s nothing inherently contradictory about it.
    I’m going to ignore the ridiculous “withholding care” versus “administering poison” distinction that a few people have raised. Perhaps those people would like to pause and use their brains before they post such worthless arguments.
    Bluedevil writes
    “The debate is: Is it ethical and moral to kill children because they do not meet a government defined (or even parent defined) standard of health or quality of life?”
    Well, in the case of severe trisomy 18 babies (and the hundreds of similar maladies that afflict babies that barely escape being still-born) it is certainly ethically and moral to kill them.
    Are we all clear what the alternative is? A lot of conservative evangelicals are really big on creating false dichotomies for people to choose from. Here’s a real one: the alternative to not putting a severe trisomy 18 baby on life support for the rest of its vegetative life is to take it off life support which is equivalent to killing the baby. Now, you can let the baby die slowly of natural causes (e.g., lung or brain infection) and maximize this human being’s pain and suffering and the trauma to its parents and its caretakers, or you can take steps to hasten a comfortable end for this human being.
    Every day, doctors and parents around the world choose the later. I think it’s obvious why. I’m not sure why you disagree unless it’s because some preacher told you to make a big stink out of this issue.
    There’s nothing in the Bible which you can use to justify your position that doesn’t contradict the position of many conservative evangelicals here who believe its okay to kill innocent human beings who are NOT suffering from terrible illnesses just because a jury found them “guilty” or because they live in a country ruled by a leader that our leader is suspicious of.
    Again, these contradictory positions are widely held by conservative evangelicals in the United States, but are not widely held by most of the rest of the world. It’d be nice if you could provide a coherent rational explanation for the positions that doesn’t rely on your holy book. After all, most people in the world don’t share your beliefs.

  • Larry Lord

    BlueDevil (and a few others that refuse to acknowledge reality) writes:
    “No death penalty, but kill all the “unhealthy” children you want?”
    Bluedevil — do you believe that a baby with severe trisomy 18 is a healthy baby? I am going to assume not. The fact is that most of the world and most of the states in the United States subscribe to the position you paraphrased above, in quotes. There’s nothing inherently contradictory about it.
    I’m going to ignore the ridiculous “withholding care” versus “administering poison” distinction that a few people have raised. Perhaps those people would like to pause and use their brains before they post such worthless arguments.
    Bluedevil writes
    “The debate is: Is it ethical and moral to kill children because they do not meet a government defined (or even parent defined) standard of health or quality of life?”
    Well, in the case of severe trisomy 18 babies (and the hundreds of similar maladies that afflict babies that barely escape being still-born) it is certainly ethically and moral to kill them.
    Are we all clear what the alternative is? A lot of conservative evangelicals are really big on creating false dichotomies for people to choose from. Here’s a real one: the alternative to not putting a severe trisomy 18 baby on life support for the rest of its vegetative life is to take it off life support which is equivalent to killing the baby. Now, you can let the baby die slowly of natural causes (e.g., lung or brain infection) and maximize this human being’s pain and suffering and the trauma to its parents and its caretakers, or you can take steps to hasten a comfortable end for this human being.
    Every day, doctors and parents around the world choose the later. I think it’s obvious why. I’m not sure why you disagree unless it’s because some preacher told you to make a big stink out of this issue.
    There’s nothing in the Bible which you can use to justify your position that doesn’t contradict the position of many conservative evangelicals here who believe its okay to kill innocent human beings who are NOT suffering from terrible illnesses just because a jury found them “guilty” or because they live in a country ruled by a leader that our leader is suspicious of.
    Again, these contradictory positions are widely held by conservative evangelicals in the United States, but are not widely held by most of the rest of the world. It’d be nice if you could provide a coherent rational explanation for the positions that doesn’t rely on your holy book. After all, most people in the world don’t share your beliefs.

  • Phil Aldridge

    Lump says: However, how does “killing the morally cupable” jibe with Christ’s teachings? Love the sinner, hate the sin, for example? Do unto others? Just a thought
    Christ taught ways for individuals to treat individuals. He did not teach countries how to operate. He even says “Give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s…” and elsewhere in the Bible (Romans, f’rinstance), we see that God allows leaders and governments a certain amount of power and exhorts Christians to obey the laws of the land. Christ’s teachings center around how individuals should live. You’re in Law Enforcement (I am as well) so you know all about having to take the lives of dangerous criminals. When Joe The Methed-Up Parolee starts firing at you because he ain’t going back to jail, you don’t “love the sinner” and “turn the other cheek”, you end his life because you are going home to your family at the end of your shift, period.
    When you shoot Joe, you are acting as an arm of the State, as is the Correctional System when they execute the other Joes of the world.
    There are plenty of decent arguments for why capital punishment is wrong (i don’t agree, but they are out there), but applying individual-oriented teachings to Government Issues is not going to fly.
    Furthermore, would you not agree that, if the Bible is true, that God probably values life more than anyone on earth because he created it? Allowing for a minute that the God of the Bible is real, wouldn’t you think he had the utmost respect for life? Why, then, would God command his people to execute various criminals in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, if execution “devalues” life? From a philosophical viewpoint, it seems that God found executions by the state to be a good thing.
    (I’m sure the next issue raised will be that since gays were executed, does that mean that we should execute gays in modern times? Of course not. I’m simply advocating a philosophy that capital punishment does not mean life is devalued, either secularly or from a Christian perspective)
    -Phil

  • Larry Lord

    David writes
    “Using the term “it” to describe a born child is a new low in my book”
    Take a hike, David. You’re clueless. Here’s life according to David …
    David: Our baby was born last night.
    Jesus: Was it a boy or a girl?
    David: You disgust me, Jesus.

  • Phil Aldridge

    Lump says: However, how does “killing the morally cupable” jibe with Christ’s teachings? Love the sinner, hate the sin, for example? Do unto others? Just a thought
    Christ taught ways for individuals to treat individuals. He did not teach countries how to operate. He even says “Give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s…” and elsewhere in the Bible (Romans, f’rinstance), we see that God allows leaders and governments a certain amount of power and exhorts Christians to obey the laws of the land. Christ’s teachings center around how individuals should live. You’re in Law Enforcement (I am as well) so you know all about having to take the lives of dangerous criminals. When Joe The Methed-Up Parolee starts firing at you because he ain’t going back to jail, you don’t “love the sinner” and “turn the other cheek”, you end his life because you are going home to your family at the end of your shift, period.
    When you shoot Joe, you are acting as an arm of the State, as is the Correctional System when they execute the other Joes of the world.
    There are plenty of decent arguments for why capital punishment is wrong (i don’t agree, but they are out there), but applying individual-oriented teachings to Government Issues is not going to fly.
    Furthermore, would you not agree that, if the Bible is true, that God probably values life more than anyone on earth because he created it? Allowing for a minute that the God of the Bible is real, wouldn’t you think he had the utmost respect for life? Why, then, would God command his people to execute various criminals in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, if execution “devalues” life? From a philosophical viewpoint, it seems that God found executions by the state to be a good thing.
    (I’m sure the next issue raised will be that since gays were executed, does that mean that we should execute gays in modern times? Of course not. I’m simply advocating a philosophy that capital punishment does not mean life is devalued, either secularly or from a Christian perspective)
    -Phil

  • Larry Lord

    David writes
    “Using the term “it” to describe a born child is a new low in my book”
    Take a hike, David. You’re clueless. Here’s life according to David …
    David: Our baby was born last night.
    Jesus: Was it a boy or a girl?
    David: You disgust me, Jesus.

  • Lump

    Hobgoblin – You still have never told me how you reconcile the death penalty with teachings of Christ. As for the OT, it also calls for the death penalty for working on the Sabbath. As a lawyer, you’ve probably done a litte work on the Sabbath, right? Willing to die for it? My point is, and as a Catholic you should know this, that the Bible calls for many punishments that we now ignore. We don’t stone adulterers, even though the Bible calls for it.
    I’m in law enforcement and trust me, I care for the welfare of the guards, just like I do for every other officer. However, you can never guard against every possibility. A convicted drug dealer or rapist is just as likely, or even more likely, to attack a guard as a murderer would. Should we just institute the death penalty for ALL violent crimes?

  • http://www.leanleft.com/ Kevin T. Keith

    This is certainly an important and complicated issue, but your post is off-base in most respects.
    First, the issue has been reported: the AP carried a detailed story just yesterday, after the main hospital in question issued a public report on the topic; earlier discussion of the policy was conducted openly among medical professionals, and reported in the British Medical Journal on September 11. Since the issue was raised in the public press (by the hospital itself) only yesterday, it’s hardly surprising that there hasn’t been much written on it yet, but it has hardly been buried. Claiming some sort of conspiracy to suppress a story that’s barely 24 hours old is rather paranoid.
    Second, both abortion and euthanasia may touch on a common concept (which, as you rightly note, is the question of the intrinsic value of the human organism), but there is no logical “slope” from one subject to the other. Some people may support both, but some who support one may perfectly rationally oppose the other, on either principled or practical grounds. “Acting consistently” with views that support one or the other of these practices may or may not lead you to support of the other – your lumping them together is much too superficial. The fact that you disapprove of both has nothing to do with whether they are linked logically.
    And, finally, your obsession with Peter Singer is a bit tiresome. You now blame him for everything anyone else does that seems vaguely similar to things he has discussed doing. He’s hardly that influential.

  • Lump

    Hobgoblin – You still have never told me how you reconcile the death penalty with teachings of Christ. As for the OT, it also calls for the death penalty for working on the Sabbath. As a lawyer, you’ve probably done a litte work on the Sabbath, right? Willing to die for it? My point is, and as a Catholic you should know this, that the Bible calls for many punishments that we now ignore. We don’t stone adulterers, even though the Bible calls for it.
    I’m in law enforcement and trust me, I care for the welfare of the guards, just like I do for every other officer. However, you can never guard against every possibility. A convicted drug dealer or rapist is just as likely, or even more likely, to attack a guard as a murderer would. Should we just institute the death penalty for ALL violent crimes?

  • http://www.leanleft.com Kevin T. Keith

    This is certainly an important and complicated issue, but your post is off-base in most respects.
    First, the issue has been reported: the AP carried a detailed story just yesterday, after the main hospital in question issued a public report on the topic; earlier discussion of the policy was conducted openly among medical professionals, and reported in the British Medical Journal on September 11. Since the issue was raised in the public press (by the hospital itself) only yesterday, it’s hardly surprising that there hasn’t been much written on it yet, but it has hardly been buried. Claiming some sort of conspiracy to suppress a story that’s barely 24 hours old is rather paranoid.
    Second, both abortion and euthanasia may touch on a common concept (which, as you rightly note, is the question of the intrinsic value of the human organism), but there is no logical “slope” from one subject to the other. Some people may support both, but some who support one may perfectly rationally oppose the other, on either principled or practical grounds. “Acting consistently” with views that support one or the other of these practices may or may not lead you to support of the other – your lumping them together is much too superficial. The fact that you disapprove of both has nothing to do with whether they are linked logically.
    And, finally, your obsession with Peter Singer is a bit tiresome. You now blame him for everything anyone else does that seems vaguely similar to things he has discussed doing. He’s hardly that influential.

  • Lump

    Phil – I’m all for self-defense. Especially in the field. However, as Gedi mentioned, once we get the criminal, would Jesus want him summarily executed? Or is there another punishment that will spare his life and allow him to (hopefully) find salvation? Life in prison w/o parole is an answer, while not perfect, that I think can serve both man and God.
    As for the functioning of the State, the state is an extension of the individuals therein, in my mind, and therefore, should not be treated any differently when examining Biblical directives. Only in totalitarian systems is the state divorced from its citizens (or subjects), as it was when Jesus said “render unto Caesar…”

  • gedi

    hobgoblin wrote, “Do we a) institute the ultimate penalty with God himself prescribed for many offenses (the OT is still part of our God’s Holy Writ), or do we b) hope that the guy (which they almost always are) never gets the chance to touch another human being?”
    So, you would institute the death penalty for marital infidelity (Leviticus 20:10)? Surely not. You would institute the death penalty for working on the Sabbath (Exodus 31:15)? Surely not. I beseech you to look upon the Old Testament laws as being fulfilled in Christ. You cannot pick and choose which laws you wish to keep around to suit your needs.

  • Septimus

    Larry Lord offers the argument that, well, caring for inconvenient, marginal lives costs money and take effort, and — per Larry, they take up too much room; so, here — YOU take care of them; otherwise, shut up and let them be killed . . .
    Didn’t Hitler use the same gambit when he loaded a ship full of Jews? You want Jews? You can have them; the more worthy people in middle Europe need their resources, they take up too much room, so either take them yourself, or shut up and let us kill them . . .
    Gee, Larry, I guess Hitler wasn’t so wrong after all, huh?
    (Larry, I couldn’t help noticing the baby you described wasn’t even a person to you — not a he or she to you — but merely an “it.”)

  • Lump

    Phil – I’m all for self-defense. Especially in the field. However, as Gedi mentioned, once we get the criminal, would Jesus want him summarily executed? Or is there another punishment that will spare his life and allow him to (hopefully) find salvation? Life in prison w/o parole is an answer, while not perfect, that I think can serve both man and God.
    As for the functioning of the State, the state is an extension of the individuals therein, in my mind, and therefore, should not be treated any differently when examining Biblical directives. Only in totalitarian systems is the state divorced from its citizens (or subjects), as it was when Jesus said “render unto Caesar…”

  • gedi

    hobgoblin wrote, “Do we a) institute the ultimate penalty with God himself prescribed for many offenses (the OT is still part of our God’s Holy Writ), or do we b) hope that the guy (which they almost always are) never gets the chance to touch another human being?”
    So, you would institute the death penalty for marital infidelity (Leviticus 20:10)? Surely not. You would institute the death penalty for working on the Sabbath (Exodus 31:15)? Surely not. I beseech you to look upon the Old Testament laws as being fulfilled in Christ. You cannot pick and choose which laws you wish to keep around to suit your needs.

  • Septimus

    Larry Lord offers the argument that, well, caring for inconvenient, marginal lives costs money and take effort, and — per Larry, they take up too much room; so, here — YOU take care of them; otherwise, shut up and let them be killed . . .
    Didn’t Hitler use the same gambit when he loaded a ship full of Jews? You want Jews? You can have them; the more worthy people in middle Europe need their resources, they take up too much room, so either take them yourself, or shut up and let us kill them . . .
    Gee, Larry, I guess Hitler wasn’t so wrong after all, huh?
    (Larry, I couldn’t help noticing the baby you described wasn’t even a person to you — not a he or she to you — but merely an “it.”)

  • Scott Buttes

    Lump,
    I appreciate your honesty when you wrote that you “…don’t really put as much credence in what the Bible tells the state of Israel can and can’t do. I try to live my life as Jesus taught. I don’t believe the death penalty is in agreement with those teachings.” I may disagree with your position on Scripture, but at least your logically consistent. And I respect you for that. I wasn’t trying to trip you up, but rather simply try to get out of you how much credence you put on the Bible since you quoted it for your position. By the way, you may want to look into Dennis Prager’s articles (www.dennisprager.com) on the death penalty if you want to read more sophisticated arguments that don’t hinge on Scripture. By the way, I would never pin my case for the death penalty because “Scripture tells me so.” My grounds for the death penalty are purely philosophical.
    Larry –
    I apologize if my tone sounded arrogant. That was never my intent. For the point I was trying to make, I should not have used the words “inerrancy” and “infallibility” since they raise much more convoluted issues. Scholars have exhaustively debated the various issues in inerrancy and infallibility for some time. And no matter how I try to answer your stream of questions, there will be other viewpoints that disagree with my position. By the way, CS Lewis is my favorite author and he doesn’t have the most “evangelical” views on inspiration. But all of that is beside the point. My simple point was this: either the Torah contains a contradiction when it says to kill and then says not to kill or there is a distinction between the state’s right to kill (justified killing) and an individual’s right to kill (unjustified murder). I personally accept the latter. If one wants to accept the former, that is fine with me, I just want them to acknowledge that the Bible contains a contradiction there and be consistent in their position as is the case with Lump. It was my mistake to throw in extra words that raised deeper, more-complex theological issues. I hope my clarification doesn’t let you down.

  • Scott Buttes

    Lump,
    I appreciate your honesty when you wrote that you “…don’t really put as much credence in what the Bible tells the state of Israel can and can’t do. I try to live my life as Jesus taught. I don’t believe the death penalty is in agreement with those teachings.” I may disagree with your position on Scripture, but at least your logically consistent. And I respect you for that. I wasn’t trying to trip you up, but rather simply try to get out of you how much credence you put on the Bible since you quoted it for your position. By the way, you may want to look into Dennis Prager’s articles (www.dennisprager.com) on the death penalty if you want to read more sophisticated arguments that don’t hinge on Scripture. By the way, I would never pin my case for the death penalty because “Scripture tells me so.” My grounds for the death penalty are purely philosophical.
    Larry –
    I apologize if my tone sounded arrogant. That was never my intent. For the point I was trying to make, I should not have used the words “inerrancy” and “infallibility” since they raise much more convoluted issues. Scholars have exhaustively debated the various issues in inerrancy and infallibility for some time. And no matter how I try to answer your stream of questions, there will be other viewpoints that disagree with my position. By the way, CS Lewis is my favorite author and he doesn’t have the most “evangelical” views on inspiration. But all of that is beside the point. My simple point was this: either the Torah contains a contradiction when it says to kill and then says not to kill or there is a distinction between the state’s right to kill (justified killing) and an individual’s right to kill (unjustified murder). I personally accept the latter. If one wants to accept the former, that is fine with me, I just want them to acknowledge that the Bible contains a contradiction there and be consistent in their position as is the case with Lump. It was my mistake to throw in extra words that raised deeper, more-complex theological issues. I hope my clarification doesn’t let you down.

  • Larry Lord

    Phil writes
    “Christ taught ways for individuals to treat individuals. He did not teach countries how to operate. . . [W]e see that God allows leaders and governments a certain amount of power and exhorts Christians to obey the laws of the land. Christ’s teachings center around how individuals should live.”
    I have heard this garbage so many times I’m ready to puke. Look, Phil, our leaders are individuals. For example, our Congress consists of 100 individuals. The President is an individual. The Supreme Court has nine individuals. All of these people are elected and appointed by … individuals. A government consists of individuals.
    Come back to reality and stop reciting that crappy evangelical script. It’s meaningless.
    Every time someone is executed, an individual pulls a switch. He does so because another individual told him to do it. That individual told him to do it because some other individuals told him to do it. Maybe some individuals got together and wrote a law to make some other individuals happy.
    Did you know Phil that in the few remaining US jurisdictions where the states authorize people to kill individuals who are found guilty of murder, the state often often employs several individuals to pull the switch simultaneously so that none of them know who is doing the killing.
    That is curious, I think, given the position of many people here that executing people who have been found guilty in a court of law is a noble endeavor, approved (or arguably mandated) by your deity.
    Although there have been plenty of innocent people on death row throughout history, I would guess that nearly ever one of the people who pulled the switch which killed a prisoner in Texas is a self-proclaimed Christian. I find that odd.

  • Larry Lord

    Phil writes
    “Christ taught ways for individuals to treat individuals. He did not teach countries how to operate. . . [W]e see that God allows leaders and governments a certain amount of power and exhorts Christians to obey the laws of the land. Christ’s teachings center around how individuals should live.”
    I have heard this garbage so many times I’m ready to puke. Look, Phil, our leaders are individuals. For example, our Congress consists of 100 individuals. The President is an individual. The Supreme Court has nine individuals. All of these people are elected and appointed by … individuals. A government consists of individuals.
    Come back to reality and stop reciting that crappy evangelical script. It’s meaningless.
    Every time someone is executed, an individual pulls a switch. He does so because another individual told him to do it. That individual told him to do it because some other individuals told him to do it. Maybe some individuals got together and wrote a law to make some other individuals happy.
    Did you know Phil that in the few remaining US jurisdictions where the states authorize people to kill individuals who are found guilty of murder, the state often often employs several individuals to pull the switch simultaneously so that none of them know who is doing the killing.
    That is curious, I think, given the position of many people here that executing people who have been found guilty in a court of law is a noble endeavor, approved (or arguably mandated) by your deity.
    Although there have been plenty of innocent people on death row throughout history, I would guess that nearly ever one of the people who pulled the switch which killed a prisoner in Texas is a self-proclaimed Christian. I find that odd.

  • gedi

    In order to beat you to the punch…
    I cannot reconcile the death of Ananias and Sapphira…
    This to me is a New Testament enigma which is not readily discernable to my blurry eyes. Perhaps someone can explain their deaths to me or point me to a decent commentary. While this is a churchly execution and not a governmental killing, it could certainly be argued against the Christly admonition to “love your enemies”.

  • gedi

    In order to beat you to the punch…
    I cannot reconcile the death of Ananias and Sapphira…
    This to me is a New Testament enigma which is not readily discernable to my blurry eyes. Perhaps someone can explain their deaths to me or point me to a decent commentary. While this is a churchly execution and not a governmental killing, it could certainly be argued against the Christly admonition to “love your enemies”.

  • Larry Lord

    Septimus, surely you are not responding to my 4:23 pm post. If you are, then please re-read it.

  • Larry Lord

    Septimus, surely you are not responding to my 4:23 pm post. If you are, then please re-read it.

  • hobgoblin

    Larry,
    Why post at “Evangelical Outpost” and ask people not to justify their positions by their faith?
    unless you’re simply an attention starved troll.
    With comments like “Come back to reality and stop reciting that crappy evangelical script. It’s meaningless”, I think it’s safe to assume you are a troll.
    And the Romans who crucified Christ were not murderers in the Bible. The “individuals” who act as arms of the state now are not murderers. If your myopic moral view of the world, where killing=killing regardless of the context, is your only contribution to the debate, I would kindly ask you to grow up.
    Aren’t liberals all about nuance after all?

  • hobgoblin

    Larry,
    Why post at “Evangelical Outpost” and ask people not to justify their positions by their faith?
    unless you’re simply an attention starved troll.
    With comments like “Come back to reality and stop reciting that crappy evangelical script. It’s meaningless”, I think it’s safe to assume you are a troll.
    And the Romans who crucified Christ were not murderers in the Bible. The “individuals” who act as arms of the state now are not murderers. If your myopic moral view of the world, where killing=killing regardless of the context, is your only contribution to the debate, I would kindly ask you to grow up.
    Aren’t liberals all about nuance after all?

  • hobgoblin

    And larry,
    Before your moral equivalence makes you too blind to read, just think for the moment about giving a terminally ill baby, adult, whichever, measured doses of pain medication to alleviate suffering, and waiting upon their eventual demise and putting a .45 bullet in their heads to simply end it “humanely.”
    If there’s a difference there, (when the impact and the damage by the bullet will instantly destroy the brain), and death by suffocation induced through drug overdose (which no one knows if it is painful or not), please enlighten us, O Wise One, what might that difference be?
    Why not just put bullets in the heads of trisomy babies?
    It might actually be more “compassionate.”
    To argue that there is no difference between keeping terminal patients pain free and let nature take it’s course and affirmatively killing them is mind-bogglingly ignorant and naive.

  • hobgoblin

    And larry,
    Before your moral equivalence makes you too blind to read, just think for the moment about giving a terminally ill baby, adult, whichever, measured doses of pain medication to alleviate suffering, and waiting upon their eventual demise and putting a .45 bullet in their heads to simply end it “humanely.”
    If there’s a difference there, (when the impact and the damage by the bullet will instantly destroy the brain), and death by suffocation induced through drug overdose (which no one knows if it is painful or not), please enlighten us, O Wise One, what might that difference be?
    Why not just put bullets in the heads of trisomy babies?
    It might actually be more “compassionate.”
    To argue that there is no difference between keeping terminal patients pain free and let nature take it’s course and affirmatively killing them is mind-bogglingly ignorant and naive.

  • hobgoblin

    Lump,
    you’re arguing in good faith, and I appeciate that, but you have a disturbing habit of moving the goal posts.
    You wrote to Phil about whether Christ would want criminals “summarily executed” Death penalty cases are about as far from “summary” as one can get.
    Ansd the risk to the guards is still that—a risk. The murderer, as opposed to the crack head or the thief, has PROVEN he’ll take human life. Once hthat happens, it is morally culpable to allow him to threaten any other people. The people in prison are innocent of something one assumes, so they don’t deserve to be killed by other prisoners. The guards are doing noble, but difficult work. Which of these folks deserve to be put at risk by a remorseless killer?
    As long as there is a real risk to human life, no matter how few lives or how small the risk, the death penalty is justified in certain instances.
    Please simply admit that and the rest of us can move on to beating up on Larry more.

  • hobgoblin

    Lump,
    you’re arguing in good faith, and I appeciate that, but you have a disturbing habit of moving the goal posts.
    You wrote to Phil about whether Christ would want criminals “summarily executed” Death penalty cases are about as far from “summary” as one can get.
    Ansd the risk to the guards is still that—a risk. The murderer, as opposed to the crack head or the thief, has PROVEN he’ll take human life. Once hthat happens, it is morally culpable to allow him to threaten any other people. The people in prison are innocent of something one assumes, so they don’t deserve to be killed by other prisoners. The guards are doing noble, but difficult work. Which of these folks deserve to be put at risk by a remorseless killer?
    As long as there is a real risk to human life, no matter how few lives or how small the risk, the death penalty is justified in certain instances.
    Please simply admit that and the rest of us can move on to beating up on Larry more.

  • Larry Lord

    Hobgoblin, you’ve lofted far too many strawmen up in the air. Why not address the simply situation of a severe trisomy 18 baby and the decisions you are faced with in that uncommon yet recurring real-world instance?
    As to what I expect from evangelical Christians, I expect them to understand where their faith ends and where post-hoc rationalizations to support conservative political views begins.
    When I refer to the script, I am not referring to everything that comes out of the mouths of evangelicals or another sect of Christianity. I have no truck with religion per se nor the holding of beliefs for which there is no evidentiary support in the natural world (i.e., the world you and I confront and maneuver through each day). Rather, my concern is when those faith-based beliefs are used to justify policy positions that otherwise have insufficient rational basis. In my opinion, such fundamentalism tends to be antagonistic to values that are essential to the peaceful survival of human beings on this planet: truth, fairness, justice being prime examples.
    Getting back to the “script”, there is some stuff in the Bible about rendering unto Caeser. Fine. Wonderful. But Phil’s take on that phrase amounted to nothing more than a rehashing of a particular interpretation that is recited over and over again by conservative evangelicals in the context when it suits them. Later on we’ll hear some other conservatives Christians complaining about how their taxes are too high or that all federal taxes are unconstitutional, which would seem to the ordinary reader to fall squarely within the scope of Jesus’ teaching.
    My point: if you want to quote the Bible, go ahead. Personally I prefer the New Testament and think that Jesus had a lot of great stuff to say. But the idea that he believed the death penalty was an important aspect of government is just horsehockey, as is the idea that he favored keeping sick suffering people alive as long as is technologically feasible.

  • Larry Lord

    Hobgoblin, you’ve lofted far too many strawmen up in the air. Why not address the simply situation of a severe trisomy 18 baby and the decisions you are faced with in that uncommon yet recurring real-world instance?
    As to what I expect from evangelical Christians, I expect them to understand where their faith ends and where post-hoc rationalizations to support conservative political views begins.
    When I refer to the script, I am not referring to everything that comes out of the mouths of evangelicals or another sect of Christianity. I have no truck with religion per se nor the holding of beliefs for which there is no evidentiary support in the natural world (i.e., the world you and I confront and maneuver through each day). Rather, my concern is when those faith-based beliefs are used to justify policy positions that otherwise have insufficient rational basis. In my opinion, such fundamentalism tends to be antagonistic to values that are essential to the peaceful survival of human beings on this planet: truth, fairness, justice being prime examples.
    Getting back to the “script”, there is some stuff in the Bible about rendering unto Caeser. Fine. Wonderful. But Phil’s take on that phrase amounted to nothing more than a rehashing of a particular interpretation that is recited over and over again by conservative evangelicals in the context when it suits them. Later on we’ll hear some other conservatives Christians complaining about how their taxes are too high or that all federal taxes are unconstitutional, which would seem to the ordinary reader to fall squarely within the scope of Jesus’ teaching.
    My point: if you want to quote the Bible, go ahead. Personally I prefer the New Testament and think that Jesus had a lot of great stuff to say. But the idea that he believed the death penalty was an important aspect of government is just horsehockey, as is the idea that he favored keeping sick suffering people alive as long as is technologically feasible.

  • gedi

    hobgoblin writes, “As long as there is a real risk to human life, no matter how few lives or how small the risk, the death penalty is justified in certain instances.”
    By your logic, those who have stolen have proven their propensity for kleptomania. We should, perhaps, cut off their hands so that they won’t steal again. After all, the guards might have their food stolen.
    Certainly, we thinking human beings can come up with solutions for confinement which precludes an opportunity for murder, either by the state or by the convict.
    And… as Christians, we should believe in redemption, no matter how far fetched. Saul, for instance.

  • gedi

    hobgoblin writes, “As long as there is a real risk to human life, no matter how few lives or how small the risk, the death penalty is justified in certain instances.”
    By your logic, those who have stolen have proven their propensity for kleptomania. We should, perhaps, cut off their hands so that they won’t steal again. After all, the guards might have their food stolen.
    Certainly, we thinking human beings can come up with solutions for confinement which precludes an opportunity for murder, either by the state or by the convict.
    And… as Christians, we should believe in redemption, no matter how far fetched. Saul, for instance.

  • Larry Lord

    “To argue that there is no difference between keeping terminal patients pain free and let nature take it’s course and affirmatively killing them is mind-bogglingly ignorant and naive.”
    Sometimes there is no difference. Sometimes there is.
    Look, I am married to a wonderful woman and a wonderful cat. When my cat’s kidney’s fail, I can put her on a dialysis machine or put her to sleep. On the dialysis machine, she will eventually start to suffer terribly. So what happens? At some point, when I look into my cat’s eyes and see that her suffering is intense and unbearable, I will call up the doctor who will come over and give her a lethal injection. She will fall asleep and die in my arms, the place on earth where she has always been happiest.
    Why would you allow such compassionate treatment for animals but deny it for your fellow beings? On what basis do you justify allow human beings to suffer needlessly? It looks as though you would rather that dying human beings suffer for an indeterminate period of time as “nature it’s course” rather than risk offending religious beliefs which, frankly, don’t appear in your holy book but were handed to you by some pointy-headed preacher.
    Sounds disgustingly selfish to me. You’d rather have bacteria eat me from the inside out than risk … what? You believe that God would send you to hell unless you keep me respirating for as long as technologically feasible? Where is that written in your holy book?

  • Larry Lord

    “To argue that there is no difference between keeping terminal patients pain free and let nature take it’s course and affirmatively killing them is mind-bogglingly ignorant and naive.”
    Sometimes there is no difference. Sometimes there is.
    Look, I am married to a wonderful woman and a wonderful cat. When my cat’s kidney’s fail, I can put her on a dialysis machine or put her to sleep. On the dialysis machine, she will eventually start to suffer terribly. So what happens? At some point, when I look into my cat’s eyes and see that her suffering is intense and unbearable, I will call up the doctor who will come over and give her a lethal injection. She will fall asleep and die in my arms, the place on earth where she has always been happiest.
    Why would you allow such compassionate treatment for animals but deny it for your fellow beings? On what basis do you justify allow human beings to suffer needlessly? It looks as though you would rather that dying human beings suffer for an indeterminate period of time as “nature it’s course” rather than risk offending religious beliefs which, frankly, don’t appear in your holy book but were handed to you by some pointy-headed preacher.
    Sounds disgustingly selfish to me. You’d rather have bacteria eat me from the inside out than risk … what? You believe that God would send you to hell unless you keep me respirating for as long as technologically feasible? Where is that written in your holy book?

  • hobgoblin

    Larry,
    “the idea that he favored keeping sick suffering people alive as long as is technologically feasible”
    bullsh*t. ]
    (It’s OK, I’m Catholic, I can go to confession for that)
    Why do you stubbornly insist on refusing to see the difference between “letting nature take its course” and hooking up people to machines that live for them? If a trisomy baby dies a natural death in hours or days, then fine, let nature take its course and attempt to keep the infant comfortable with pain medications. That is not morally reprehensible. Killing the baby is.
    And either killing the baby with an overdose is reprehensible or using a bullet is not. That’s no strawman, that’s a direct analogy.
    You’re adamant refusal to see that there’s a difference between letting someone die and killing them is, in its own way, more dogmatic and irrational than any faith-based argument. You would (and do) make a great religious zealot. I just don’t know quite who you’re worshipping.

  • Ken

    Before your moral equivalence makes you too blind to read, just think for the moment about giving a terminally ill baby, adult, whichever, measured doses of pain medication to alleviate suffering, and waiting upon their eventual demise and putting a .45 bullet in their heads to simply end it “humanely.”
    During one knock-down drag-out over “Death with Dignity”, I asked why “physician-assisted lethal injections”? Why not just shoot them in the head with a .45?
    The response: “That would be KILLING!”
    Apparently giving them a shot and watching them “go sleepy-sleep” isn’t Really killing. When killing becomes so Ozzie & Harriet, when nobody can say “I killed” or “I ordered the kill”, how easy can it be to kill?
    When you kill, don’t “put to sleep”, KILL!

  • hobgoblin

    Larry,
    “the idea that he favored keeping sick suffering people alive as long as is technologically feasible”
    bullsh*t. ]
    (It’s OK, I’m Catholic, I can go to confession for that)
    Why do you stubbornly insist on refusing to see the difference between “letting nature take its course” and hooking up people to machines that live for them? If a trisomy baby dies a natural death in hours or days, then fine, let nature take its course and attempt to keep the infant comfortable with pain medications. That is not morally reprehensible. Killing the baby is.
    And either killing the baby with an overdose is reprehensible or using a bullet is not. That’s no strawman, that’s a direct analogy.
    You’re adamant refusal to see that there’s a difference between letting someone die and killing them is, in its own way, more dogmatic and irrational than any faith-based argument. You would (and do) make a great religious zealot. I just don’t know quite who you’re worshipping.

  • Ken

    Before your moral equivalence makes you too blind to read, just think for the moment about giving a terminally ill baby, adult, whichever, measured doses of pain medication to alleviate suffering, and waiting upon their eventual demise and putting a .45 bullet in their heads to simply end it “humanely.”
    During one knock-down drag-out over “Death with Dignity”, I asked why “physician-assisted lethal injections”? Why not just shoot them in the head with a .45?
    The response: “That would be KILLING!”
    Apparently giving them a shot and watching them “go sleepy-sleep” isn’t Really killing. When killing becomes so Ozzie & Harriet, when nobody can say “I killed” or “I ordered the kill”, how easy can it be to kill?
    When you kill, don’t “put to sleep”, KILL!

  • hobgoblin

    gedi,
    I have a simple answer: my Church doesn’t allow for maiming as a course of punishment.
    The better answer is that the recidivism of a thief does not threaten the life of the victim (just a thief, not a robber in this example), and the only Catholic justification for the death penalty is to protect the lives of others. maiming is a red herring.
    The protection of property in Catholic though does not justify the maiming of human beings (that I know of). Though morally, I see no reason why such a punishment would be inherently immoral. You want to cut off a hand? I don’t know where the Bible or the Magesterium speak to that. The criminal on the cross, a thief, called his execution “just,” and Christ granted him paradise. I think current Church doctrine would frown on such a punishment, but short of death, one supposes most punishments aren’t specifically disapproved opf if not done to torture, but as a regulated form of punishment. Far from being the parade of horribles you’ve intended, gedi, I’d say you provoked a good question.
    But remember, as Lump noted, we’re not talking about punishment with the death penalty in Catholic thought.

  • Larry Lord

    Just fyi:
    http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/12/01/texas.inmate.ap/index.html
    Here’s some liberals working to save the life of a woman who may be innocent. It appears they have succeeded.
    Or is preventing the execution of someone not the same as saving their life?
    You tell me, folks. You’re the ones who have all the answers.

  • hobgoblin

    gedi,
    I have a simple answer: my Church doesn’t allow for maiming as a course of punishment.
    The better answer is that the recidivism of a thief does not threaten the life of the victim (just a thief, not a robber in this example), and the only Catholic justification for the death penalty is to protect the lives of others. maiming is a red herring.
    The protection of property in Catholic though does not justify the maiming of human beings (that I know of). Though morally, I see no reason why such a punishment would be inherently immoral. You want to cut off a hand? I don’t know where the Bible or the Magesterium speak to that. The criminal on the cross, a thief, called his execution “just,” and Christ granted him paradise. I think current Church doctrine would frown on such a punishment, but short of death, one supposes most punishments aren’t specifically disapproved opf if not done to torture, but as a regulated form of punishment. Far from being the parade of horribles you’ve intended, gedi, I’d say you provoked a good question.
    But remember, as Lump noted, we’re not talking about punishment with the death penalty in Catholic thought.

  • Larry Lord

    Just fyi:
    http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/12/01/texas.inmate.ap/index.html
    Here’s some liberals working to save the life of a woman who may be innocent. It appears they have succeeded.
    Or is preventing the execution of someone not the same as saving their life?
    You tell me, folks. You’re the ones who have all the answers.

  • hobgoblin

    Let’s not forget:
    the protocol “covers any child up to age 12″
    so much for only going after the trisomy babies.

  • hobgoblin

    Let’s not forget:
    the protocol “covers any child up to age 12″
    so much for only going after the trisomy babies.

  • Larry Lord

    Hobgoblin
    “Why do you stubbornly insist on refusing to see the difference between “letting nature take its course” and hooking up people to machines that live for them?”
    I don’t refuse to see the difference. Read my post and stop putting words in my mouth.
    Why don’t you respond directly to the straightforward questions I asked you?
    There is a simple two-word response when someone who claims to be a Chrisitan asks me if I believe that shooting babies in the head with a pistol is okay. I’ll let you imagine what those two words are. And then I’ll suggest that you grow up.
    Again, if you believe that withdrawing life support for a born person who needs life support to survive is not killing, that’s fine. Just stay out of my local hospitals okay? The doctors and parents there have a somewhat deeper understanding of the situation than you are capable of.

  • Larry Lord

    Hobgoblin
    “Why do you stubbornly insist on refusing to see the difference between “letting nature take its course” and hooking up people to machines that live for them?”
    I don’t refuse to see the difference. Read my post and stop putting words in my mouth.
    Why don’t you respond directly to the straightforward questions I asked you?
    There is a simple two-word response when someone who claims to be a Chrisitan asks me if I believe that shooting babies in the head with a pistol is okay. I’ll let you imagine what those two words are. And then I’ll suggest that you grow up.
    Again, if you believe that withdrawing life support for a born person who needs life support to survive is not killing, that’s fine. Just stay out of my local hospitals okay? The doctors and parents there have a somewhat deeper understanding of the situation than you are capable of.

  • Larry Lord

    Hobgoblin
    “so much for only going after the trisomy babies.”
    So much for you not being able to articulate a coherent defense for your absolutist position using a concrete real-world example that occurs every day.
    And did you just say “going after”? What do you mean by “going after” hobgoblin? That is a strange way to describe the euthanizing of people who are suffering unbearably without hope. ONe might add that is a dishonest way. But of course, lying is prohibited in your holy book so it can’t be the case that you’d intentionally use such misleading language to make your case.

  • Larry Lord

    Hobgoblin
    “so much for only going after the trisomy babies.”
    So much for you not being able to articulate a coherent defense for your absolutist position using a concrete real-world example that occurs every day.
    And did you just say “going after”? What do you mean by “going after” hobgoblin? That is a strange way to describe the euthanizing of people who are suffering unbearably without hope. ONe might add that is a dishonest way. But of course, lying is prohibited in your holy book so it can’t be the case that you’d intentionally use such misleading language to make your case.

  • Scott Buttes

    Larry,
    Just wanted to make sure you got my post at 4:37.
    Scott

  • Scott Buttes

    Larry,
    Just wanted to make sure you got my post at 4:37.
    Scott

  • hobgoblin

    these questions:
    You’d rather have bacteria eat me from the inside out than risk … what? You believe that God would send you to hell unless you keep me respirating for as long as technologically feasible? Where is that written in your holy book?
    Since you keep pushing the “machines doing the living for you” angle, and since I have repeatedly said that with the exception of a feeding tube these aren’t what I’m talking about (the feeding tube is a gray area, I’ll admit. Is it extraordinary care or not?), these aren’t questions for me.
    or these questions:
    Why would you allow such compassionate treatment for animals but deny it for your fellow beings? On what basis do you justify allow human beings to suffer needlessly?
    If you define “compassion” as deliberate killing, I think the animal/man distinction is one you might want to look into.
    And while our host undoubtedly appreciates you keeping it rated [G] in here, i suggest there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between a .45 and a syringe full of an overdose. And there are three similar words (that our Vice President may have once uttered) I would have in retort. Here’s my question to you: WHAT is the difference?
    If you don’t like a .45, how about a suppressed .22LR. That’s no noise and no mess. is it OK because the needle doesn’t make a noise? How about a needle to the spinal cord. that’s pretty instant and painless too. C’mon, buddy, you just don’t like guns, is that it? Can’t you recognize a deliberate OD is KILLING? Or maybe not an OD on pain killers, but just sodium pentathol (sp?)? Even the stupid word euthanasia means mercy-KILLING.
    I mean, were the folks in Old Yeller morally culpable because they used a gun instead of a syringe? If Fluffy’s got kidney failure, why is the .22 worse than the trip to the vet?

  • hobgoblin

    these questions:
    You’d rather have bacteria eat me from the inside out than risk … what? You believe that God would send you to hell unless you keep me respirating for as long as technologically feasible? Where is that written in your holy book?
    Since you keep pushing the “machines doing the living for you” angle, and since I have repeatedly said that with the exception of a feeding tube these aren’t what I’m talking about (the feeding tube is a gray area, I’ll admit. Is it extraordinary care or not?), these aren’t questions for me.
    or these questions:
    Why would you allow such compassionate treatment for animals but deny it for your fellow beings? On what basis do you justify allow human beings to suffer needlessly?
    If you define “compassion” as deliberate killing, I think the animal/man distinction is one you might want to look into.
    And while our host undoubtedly appreciates you keeping it rated [G] in here, i suggest there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between a .45 and a syringe full of an overdose. And there are three similar words (that our Vice President may have once uttered) I would have in retort. Here’s my question to you: WHAT is the difference?
    If you don’t like a .45, how about a suppressed .22LR. That’s no noise and no mess. is it OK because the needle doesn’t make a noise? How about a needle to the spinal cord. that’s pretty instant and painless too. C’mon, buddy, you just don’t like guns, is that it? Can’t you recognize a deliberate OD is KILLING? Or maybe not an OD on pain killers, but just sodium pentathol (sp?)? Even the stupid word euthanasia means mercy-KILLING.
    I mean, were the folks in Old Yeller morally culpable because they used a gun instead of a syringe? If Fluffy’s got kidney failure, why is the .22 worse than the trip to the vet?

  • hobgoblin

    Larry,
    “That is a strange way to describe the euthanizing of people who are suffering unbearably without hope.”
    Why is pain management not an option? Why only death? Why so eager to kill, Larry? Why so eager not to kill those who murder (like your Texas story)?
    The management of pain is the doctor’s duty. Remember the hypocratic oath–do no harm? How is deliberate premeditated killing not harm? because the ends justify the means? Where have we heard that? Stalin? Mao? Oh, yes, the glorious future awaits if we only clear away a few more “undesirables.”
    Death of innocents makes no one’s life better, least of all the ones who you kill.
    I’m quite happy with this absolutist position, Larry. Thanks for nothing.

  • hobgoblin

    Larry,
    “That is a strange way to describe the euthanizing of people who are suffering unbearably without hope.”
    Why is pain management not an option? Why only death? Why so eager to kill, Larry? Why so eager not to kill those who murder (like your Texas story)?
    The management of pain is the doctor’s duty. Remember the hypocratic oath–do no harm? How is deliberate premeditated killing not harm? because the ends justify the means? Where have we heard that? Stalin? Mao? Oh, yes, the glorious future awaits if we only clear away a few more “undesirables.”
    Death of innocents makes no one’s life better, least of all the ones who you kill.
    I’m quite happy with this absolutist position, Larry. Thanks for nothing.

  • Larry Lord

    Scott
    Yes I did see your post. My apologies for not acknowledging your thoughtful and sober response. It was spot on and I’m glad we didn’t go down the road where my questions were leading. Been there before. Kinda boring. ;)

  • Larry Lord

    Scott
    Yes I did see your post. My apologies for not acknowledging your thoughtful and sober response. It was spot on and I’m glad we didn’t go down the road where my questions were leading. Been there before. Kinda boring. ;)

  • Larry Lord

    Hobgoblin, you’re shooting all over yourself.
    When it comes to the death penalty, hey that person is a murderer so screw him (or her). When it comes to euthanasia, you run to the opposite extreme and it’s just like blowing a healthy person’s brains out instead of giving them aspirin.
    You’ve admitted in your comments that gray areas do exist. Difficult decisions. The issue, as I see it, is whether we (you and I) are allowed to make difficult ethical decisions or whether some ridiculous law should be passed which requires that people be maintained indefinitely on life support.
    Removing life support from people who need it to survive leads to their death. Period.
    Engaging in activities which leads people to their death is killing. Period.
    Killing people is morally acceptable under certain circumstance. Period.
    Killing people is not always a crime. Period.
    The question is whether YOU, hobgoblin, can define under what circumstances someone who is suffering unbearable pain and who is never going to be able to recover and have that pain effectively managed should be euthanized.
    If you can’t imagine any circumstances where that is acceptable to you, then you are either stupid, lazy or a frigging sadist.
    “Death of innocents makes no one’s life better, least of all the ones who you kill.”
    Wow that’s so nice of you to lecture us. Too bad you can’t articulate why you believe that is true for a trisomy 18 baby in an incubator suffering from a horrible bacterial infection that would cause the baby to scream in agony if it didn’t have a breathing tube shoved down its throat.
    Just so everyone can understand what sort of Christian you are, I’ll indulge you by answering one of your sick hypos:
    “If Fluffy’s got kidney failure, why is the .22 worse than the trip to the vet?”
    My cat’s name is Kitty. She’s 12 years old and she’s pulled through two trips to the emergency room in her life, both related to a chronic immune system disorder which I treat with prednisolone. When her time comes to die, I would rather have her die in her sleep peacefully in my arms, where she is happiest and where we have spent a great deal of time together. Why would I want to remember the sound of her brains splattered against the ground? That is why a 0.22 is worse.
    An obvious question is how stupid and asinine does someone have to be to not know the answer to such a question before hitting the post button? And what is the Christian goal of asking such a ridiculous question?

  • Larry Lord

    Hobgoblin, you’re shooting all over yourself.
    When it comes to the death penalty, hey that person is a murderer so screw him (or her). When it comes to euthanasia, you run to the opposite extreme and it’s just like blowing a healthy person’s brains out instead of giving them aspirin.
    You’ve admitted in your comments that gray areas do exist. Difficult decisions. The issue, as I see it, is whether we (you and I) are allowed to make difficult ethical decisions or whether some ridiculous law should be passed which requires that people be maintained indefinitely on life support.
    Removing life support from people who need it to survive leads to their death. Period.
    Engaging in activities which leads people to their death is killing. Period.
    Killing people is morally acceptable under certain circumstance. Period.
    Killing people is not always a crime. Period.
    The question is whether YOU, hobgoblin, can define under what circumstances someone who is suffering unbearable pain and who is never going to be able to recover and have that pain effectively managed should be euthanized.
    If you can’t imagine any circumstances where that is acceptable to you, then you are either stupid, lazy or a frigging sadist.
    “Death of innocents makes no one’s life better, least of all the ones who you kill.”
    Wow that’s so nice of you to lecture us. Too bad you can’t articulate why you believe that is true for a trisomy 18 baby in an incubator suffering from a horrible bacterial infection that would cause the baby to scream in agony if it didn’t have a breathing tube shoved down its throat.
    Just so everyone can understand what sort of Christian you are, I’ll indulge you by answering one of your sick hypos:
    “If Fluffy’s got kidney failure, why is the .22 worse than the trip to the vet?”
    My cat’s name is Kitty. She’s 12 years old and she’s pulled through two trips to the emergency room in her life, both related to a chronic immune system disorder which I treat with prednisolone. When her time comes to die, I would rather have her die in her sleep peacefully in my arms, where she is happiest and where we have spent a great deal of time together. Why would I want to remember the sound of her brains splattered against the ground? That is why a 0.22 is worse.
    An obvious question is how stupid and asinine does someone have to be to not know the answer to such a question before hitting the post button? And what is the Christian goal of asking such a ridiculous question?

  • Ken

    >Let’s not forget:
    >
    >the protocol “covers any child up to age 12″
    Or the 51st Trimester if you’re one of those Womyn’s Right To Choose types.
    If you are, South Park beat you to it — in a dream-sequence episode a few seasons ago, Cartman’s Mom seduces President Clinton to get an Executive Order okay for a 50-something trimester abortion. Don’t remember the exact number, but if you measure in trimesters instead of years, it came out to Cartman’s age plus nine months.

  • Ken

    >Let’s not forget:
    >
    >the protocol “covers any child up to age 12″
    Or the 51st Trimester if you’re one of those Womyn’s Right To Choose types.
    If you are, South Park beat you to it — in a dream-sequence episode a few seasons ago, Cartman’s Mom seduces President Clinton to get an Executive Order okay for a 50-something trimester abortion. Don’t remember the exact number, but if you measure in trimesters instead of years, it came out to Cartman’s age plus nine months.

  • Larry Lord

    http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/12/01/netherlands.mercykill/index.html
    CNN has the story. Yeah, sounds like a real covert death machine at work in Netherlands.
    “Dr. Eduard Verhagen, clinical director of the hospital’s pediatric clinic, told NPR in an interview that the babies who had been euthanized were born with incurable conditions that were so serious “(we) felt that the most humane course would be to allow the child to die and even actively assist them with their death.”
    “They are very rare cases of extreme suffering. In these cases, the diagnosis was extreme spina bifada.”
    That disorder is marked by incomplete development of the brain, spinal cord and/or their protective coverings. ….
    “What we would like to happen here in Holland is that we put the spotlight on these decisions because they need to be extremely secure, and instead of taking these positions in a kind of gray area, we want them to be in the spotlight,” the doctor said.

  • Larry Lord

    http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/12/01/netherlands.mercykill/index.html
    CNN has the story. Yeah, sounds like a real covert death machine at work in Netherlands.
    “Dr. Eduard Verhagen, clinical director of the hospital’s pediatric clinic, told NPR in an interview that the babies who had been euthanized were born with incurable conditions that were so serious “(we) felt that the most humane course would be to allow the child to die and even actively assist them with their death.”
    “They are very rare cases of extreme suffering. In these cases, the diagnosis was extreme spina bifada.”
    That disorder is marked by incomplete development of the brain, spinal cord and/or their protective coverings. ….
    “What we would like to happen here in Holland is that we put the spotlight on these decisions because they need to be extremely secure, and instead of taking these positions in a kind of gray area, we want them to be in the spotlight,” the doctor said.

  • Ken

    My cat’s name is Kitty. She’s 12 years old and she’s pulled through two trips to the emergency room in her life, both related to a chronic immune system disorder which I treat with prednisolone. When her time comes to die, I would rather have her die in her sleep peacefully in my arms, where she is happiest and where we have spent a great deal of time together. Why would I want to remember the sound of her brains splattered against the ground? That is why a 0.22 is worse.
    Because you would have to admit you had her killed and that she is dead, not “sleepy-sleep”. Death isn’t this fluffy My Little Pony thing, and “go sleepy-sleep” blurs the line into pretending it is.
    As I said above, if you’re going to kill, don’t “put to sleep”, KILL!

  • Ken

    My cat’s name is Kitty. She’s 12 years old and she’s pulled through two trips to the emergency room in her life, both related to a chronic immune system disorder which I treat with prednisolone. When her time comes to die, I would rather have her die in her sleep peacefully in my arms, where she is happiest and where we have spent a great deal of time together. Why would I want to remember the sound of her brains splattered against the ground? That is why a 0.22 is worse.
    Because you would have to admit you had her killed and that she is dead, not “sleepy-sleep”. Death isn’t this fluffy My Little Pony thing, and “go sleepy-sleep” blurs the line into pretending it is.
    As I said above, if you’re going to kill, don’t “put to sleep”, KILL!

  • Larry Lord

    “Womyn’s Right To Choose types.”
    Womyn — get it?
    HAHAHHAHHAHHAHHHAHAHAAHAHAH!!!!! You are such a funny man, Ken. HAHHAHAHHHAAHAH!!!! I can’t stop laughing. AHHAAHHAAHAHAHAHHAAHAAH!!!!!!

  • Larry Lord

    “Womyn’s Right To Choose types.”
    Womyn — get it?
    HAHAHHAHHAHHAHHHAHAHAAHAHAH!!!!! You are such a funny man, Ken. HAHHAHAHHHAAHAH!!!! I can’t stop laughing. AHHAAHHAAHAHAHAHHAAHAAH!!!!!!

  • Larry Lord

    Ken strikes me as one of those goony Christian types who says stuff like, “If it weren’t for the existence of God, nothing would stop me from blowing your head off right now because there would no basis for morality.”
    You know the type. Voted “most likely to be honorably discharged” at Davy Crocket High. That guy.

  • Larry Lord

    Ken strikes me as one of those goony Christian types who says stuff like, “If it weren’t for the existence of God, nothing would stop me from blowing your head off right now because there would no basis for morality.”
    You know the type. Voted “most likely to be honorably discharged” at Davy Crocket High. That guy.

  • Larry Lord

    And then I’m always left wondering why the peanut gallery here is so tolerant of people like Ken, who clearly represent the worst possible aspects of any form of Christianity.
    Anybody here care to defend Ken’s position that whenever killing is justified, it is preferable to kill using violent and bloody means if possible? Just curious.

  • Larry Lord

    And then I’m always left wondering why the peanut gallery here is so tolerant of people like Ken, who clearly represent the worst possible aspects of any form of Christianity.
    Anybody here care to defend Ken’s position that whenever killing is justified, it is preferable to kill using violent and bloody means if possible? Just curious.

  • Septimus

    Larry -
    No, I was commenting on your post at 3:34. Nice dodge.
    So, withholding treatment equals administering poison, eh? So when terminal cancer patients decide the next round of chemo isn’t worth it, because the last 3 rounds haven’t worked, that action is equal to their putting a gun to their head? Interesting “reasoning.” Most convenient.

  • Septimus

    Larry -
    No, I was commenting on your post at 3:34. Nice dodge.
    So, withholding treatment equals administering poison, eh? So when terminal cancer patients decide the next round of chemo isn’t worth it, because the last 3 rounds haven’t worked, that action is equal to their putting a gun to their head? Interesting “reasoning.” Most convenient.

  • hobgoblin

    Larry,
    You still haven’t answered my first question:
    Why KILL Larry, why not just provide pain killers and let nature take its course?
    Why are YOU so bloodthirsty? What is the MORAL (not aesthetic) difference between a scalpel in the brainstem and a needle full of pentathol (or in your ever-loving kindness morphine)? A .22 would be hardly bloody at all. As for Ken, he’s not advocating bloody death of the ill, he’s making fun of you.
    You write:
    The question is whether YOU, hobgoblin, can define under what circumstances someone who is suffering unbearable pain and who is never going to be able to recover and have that pain effectively managed should be euthanized.
    Answer: nothing would lead me to KILL someone who is not placing my or another’s life at risk. I would try to alleviate their pain fully and let God take them as He sees fit.
    If you can’t imagine any circumstances where that is acceptable to you, then you are either stupid, lazy or a frigging sadist.
    OR someone who believes DELIBERATELY KILLING innocents is horrid.
    Wow that’s so nice of you to lecture us. Too bad you can’t articulate why you believe that is true for a trisomy 18 baby in an incubator suffering from a horrible bacterial infection that would cause the baby to scream in agony if it didn’t have a breathing tube shoved down its throat.
    Why is DEATH your sure response? Why is pain management impossible? What makes you want to KILL those YOU find unworthy of life?
    Simply put, who the ____ made YOU God, Larry?

  • hobgoblin

    Larry,
    You still haven’t answered my first question:
    Why KILL Larry, why not just provide pain killers and let nature take its course?
    Why are YOU so bloodthirsty? What is the MORAL (not aesthetic) difference between a scalpel in the brainstem and a needle full of pentathol (or in your ever-loving kindness morphine)? A .22 would be hardly bloody at all. As for Ken, he’s not advocating bloody death of the ill, he’s making fun of you.
    You write:
    The question is whether YOU, hobgoblin, can define under what circumstances someone who is suffering unbearable pain and who is never going to be able to recover and have that pain effectively managed should be euthanized.
    Answer: nothing would lead me to KILL someone who is not placing my or another’s life at risk. I would try to alleviate their pain fully and let God take them as He sees fit.
    If you can’t imagine any circumstances where that is acceptable to you, then you are either stupid, lazy or a frigging sadist.
    OR someone who believes DELIBERATELY KILLING innocents is horrid.
    Wow that’s so nice of you to lecture us. Too bad you can’t articulate why you believe that is true for a trisomy 18 baby in an incubator suffering from a horrible bacterial infection that would cause the baby to scream in agony if it didn’t have a breathing tube shoved down its throat.
    Why is DEATH your sure response? Why is pain management impossible? What makes you want to KILL those YOU find unworthy of life?
    Simply put, who the ____ made YOU God, Larry?

  • http://pseudopolymath.blogspot.com/ Mark O

    Larry,
    Strangly enough, I’m almost agreeing with you on this point. The protocol as indicated is limited:

    After years of discussions, we made our own protocol to cover the small number of infants born with such severe disabilities that doctors can see they have extreme pain and no hope for life.

    In such cases, I don’t see a “limited” intrinsic value being placed on the child’s life. However, given that many people have moral qualms about active measures to kill a child, I fail to see why you wouldn’t also support pain medication combined with withdrawal of life support in these cases in lieu of lethal injection.
    I’m also concerned that those limits may get more “flexible” as time permits. Roe v Wade for instance, was indicated for the “health of the mother” which has come to be interpreted as “that baby might make me too financially constrained” or “a child might be inconvient right now”. I wouldn’t like a future even more squishy society than current deciding “unavoidable pain” to be the mental anguish of “looking different”, “not tall enough, being mentally deficient, or whatever eugenic philosophy is currently in vogue.
    Also troubling is the “a parent’s role is limited” phrasing largely because I’m a parent and wouldn’t want decisions concerning the fate of my child to be made without my consent.

  • http://pseudopolymath.blogspot.com/ Mark O

    Larry,
    Strangly enough, I’m almost agreeing with you on this point. The protocol as indicated is limited:

    After years of discussions, we made our own protocol to cover the small number of infants born with such severe disabilities that doctors can see they have extreme pain and no hope for life.

    In such cases, I don’t see a “limited” intrinsic value being placed on the child’s life. However, given that many people have moral qualms about active measures to kill a child, I fail to see why you wouldn’t also support pain medication combined with withdrawal of life support in these cases in lieu of lethal injection.
    I’m also concerned that those limits may get more “flexible” as time permits. Roe v Wade for instance, was indicated for the “health of the mother” which has come to be interpreted as “that baby might make me too financially constrained” or “a child might be inconvient right now”. I wouldn’t like a future even more squishy society than current deciding “unavoidable pain” to be the mental anguish of “looking different”, “not tall enough, being mentally deficient, or whatever eugenic philosophy is currently in vogue.
    Also troubling is the “a parent’s role is limited” phrasing largely because I’m a parent and wouldn’t want decisions concerning the fate of my child to be made without my consent.

  • hobgoblin

    larry,
    you advocate the nihilistic impulse taken to its perfect conclusion. Nietzche would be proud of you Larry (except that only simpletons take Nietzche as a pure nihilist).
    You pose the narcissistic aggrandizment of the morality of the self. That’s what your’re saying, bub. “I, Larry, decide what is right because I exist.” Do you really want to say it’s OK to kill a baby, even if horribly ill? Do you want to push that needle in? If it’s truly so i>merciful/i>, you should want to do it yourself. Just think of the pain you’re sparing those poor unfortunates.
    I really hope you’re not a nurse or doctor, Larry.

  • hobgoblin

    larry,
    you advocate the nihilistic impulse taken to its perfect conclusion. Nietzche would be proud of you Larry (except that only simpletons take Nietzche as a pure nihilist).
    You pose the narcissistic aggrandizment of the morality of the self. That’s what your’re saying, bub. “I, Larry, decide what is right because I exist.” Do you really want to say it’s OK to kill a baby, even if horribly ill? Do you want to push that needle in? If it’s truly so i>merciful/i>, you should want to do it yourself. Just think of the pain you’re sparing those poor unfortunates.
    I really hope you’re not a nurse or doctor, Larry.

  • http://pseudopolymath.blogspot.com/2004/12/on-groningen-protocol.html Psuedo-Polymath

    On the Groningen protocol

    On the face of it, the protocol doesn’t seem to ignore the intrinsic value of life. However, I think limiting a parent’s role seems inhumane and elitist.

  • http://pseudopolymath.blogspot.com/2004/12/on-groningen-protocol.html Psuedo-Polymath

    On the Groningen protocol

    On the face of it, the protocol doesn’t seem to ignore the intrinsic value of life. However, I think limiting a parent’s role seems inhumane and elitist.

  • Larry Lord

    Mark O.
    “I fail to see why you wouldn’t also support pain medication combined with withdrawal of life support in these cases in lieu of lethal injection.”
    I never said that I didn’t support that option if it’s deemed by someone who knows best to cause no additional suffering relative to a euthanizing treatment.
    But again, the view that pain medication and allowing nature to take its course is always the most humane option is woefully naive. There’s not only pain, but epileptic fits, bacterial infection, and a range of other god-awful stuff that happens when you let “nature take it course”. That stuff can go on for years, depending on how hands-off you want to be. There’s also the issue of not being able to know for sure that all the pain is being alleviated.
    But hobgoblin (who has clearly gone off the deep end by now) still maintains that all of these real-world facts take a back seat to his unsupportable religious belief that God would rather have people suffer interminably than allow us to behave compassionately towards our fellow humans. With animals — no problem. We are allowed to be compassionate with animals. But not humans. No sir.
    “Roe v Wade for instance, was indicated for the “health of the mother” which has come to be interpreted as “that baby might make me too financially constrained” or “a child might be inconvient right now”.”
    This is not true, Mark. The law of the land is that any laws passed which regulate abortions in the third trimester must make exceptions for the health of the mother.
    Allowing a woman to die against her will during the last trimester of her pregnancy is homicide if a doctor knows that aborting her pregancy will save her life. Do we all understand that this is the law? Does anyone here believe that killing women to save their babies is justifiable homicide? Speak up, folks. Hobgoblin and Ken are scraping rock bottom already so I assume they’re on baord with the latter proposition.

  • Larry Lord

    Mark O.
    “I fail to see why you wouldn’t also support pain medication combined with withdrawal of life support in these cases in lieu of lethal injection.”
    I never said that I didn’t support that option if it’s deemed by someone who knows best to cause no additional suffering relative to a euthanizing treatment.
    But again, the view that pain medication and allowing nature to take its course is always the most humane option is woefully naive. There’s not only pain, but epileptic fits, bacterial infection, and a range of other god-awful stuff that happens when you let “nature take it course”. That stuff can go on for years, depending on how hands-off you want to be. There’s also the issue of not being able to know for sure that all the pain is being alleviated.
    But hobgoblin (who has clearly gone off the deep end by now) still maintains that all of these real-world facts take a back seat to his unsupportable religious belief that God would rather have people suffer interminably than allow us to behave compassionately towards our fellow humans. With animals — no problem. We are allowed to be compassionate with animals. But not humans. No sir.
    “Roe v Wade for instance, was indicated for the “health of the mother” which has come to be interpreted as “that baby might make me too financially constrained” or “a child might be inconvient right now”.”
    This is not true, Mark. The law of the land is that any laws passed which regulate abortions in the third trimester must make exceptions for the health of the mother.
    Allowing a woman to die against her will during the last trimester of her pregnancy is homicide if a doctor knows that aborting her pregancy will save her life. Do we all understand that this is the law? Does anyone here believe that killing women to save their babies is justifiable homicide? Speak up, folks. Hobgoblin and Ken are scraping rock bottom already so I assume they’re on baord with the latter proposition.

  • Larry Lord

    Hobgoblin, since you have not directly addressed any of the simple straightforward questions I have thrown your way for many comments, I’ve moved on.
    Someday maybe I’ll be holding you by the hair dangling from a tall building and we’ll have a funny conversation about the definition of killing.

  • Larry Lord

    Hobgoblin, since you have not directly addressed any of the simple straightforward questions I have thrown your way for many comments, I’ve moved on.
    Someday maybe I’ll be holding you by the hair dangling from a tall building and we’ll have a funny conversation about the definition of killing.

  • hobgoblin

    If life can go on for years without mechanical or technological intervention, Larry, one can hardly be a vegetable, no?
    And the case of the LIFE of the mother, not the amorphous “health” of the mother, does permit, though not require killing the baby in utero. It seems your position would just DEMAND doctors perform abortions wherever there is risk of death, or mental anguish, or just bad feeling(since all that is “health” as determined by the sup ct). If not, please say so.
    Otherwise, just keep telling yourself that deliberate killing is “compassionate.” You know, the jihadis think the same thing. It’s “suffering” to live without the light of Islam, so it’s compassionate to kill the infidel.
    Remember Killing = Compassion. Just keep saying it over and over. Just once I’d like to see you write, “it’s better to kill the baby that let it suffer” in the context of euthanasia. Can you admit to yourself at least that they are actively killing that which would otherwise still live?
    Once you admit that, then it’s just a matter of defining at what point life does not become worth living. I could grant you terminal, pain racked patients with less than 24 hours for the sake of argumment. the problem is the arguemnt never ends there. It’s an incremental step to birth defects that aren’t fatal and mental retardation. But the Dutch would never do that, would they? Let’s wait and see on that one, OK champ?
    Why do you PREFER death as a first option, embodied in a protocol, Larry?
    I’ve been in some bad pain in my day through surgeries and such, and medication has always abated it. Why is death the better option in these cases? If a baby will die in days away from modern techniques, why not allow the baby to die naturally while keeping it numbed to the pain?
    How much more “merciful” is actively killing a nearly dead baby?
    You’re just sick, dude.
    May God have mercy on your soul.

  • hobgoblin

    If life can go on for years without mechanical or technological intervention, Larry, one can hardly be a vegetable, no?
    And the case of the LIFE of the mother, not the amorphous “health” of the mother, does permit, though not require killing the baby in utero. It seems your position would just DEMAND doctors perform abortions wherever there is risk of death, or mental anguish, or just bad feeling(since all that is “health” as determined by the sup ct). If not, please say so.
    Otherwise, just keep telling yourself that deliberate killing is “compassionate.” You know, the jihadis think the same thing. It’s “suffering” to live without the light of Islam, so it’s compassionate to kill the infidel.
    Remember Killing = Compassion. Just keep saying it over and over. Just once I’d like to see you write, “it’s better to kill the baby that let it suffer” in the context of euthanasia. Can you admit to yourself at least that they are actively killing that which would otherwise still live?
    Once you admit that, then it’s just a matter of defining at what point life does not become worth living. I could grant you terminal, pain racked patients with less than 24 hours for the sake of argumment. the problem is the arguemnt never ends there. It’s an incremental step to birth defects that aren’t fatal and mental retardation. But the Dutch would never do that, would they? Let’s wait and see on that one, OK champ?
    Why do you PREFER death as a first option, embodied in a protocol, Larry?
    I’ve been in some bad pain in my day through surgeries and such, and medication has always abated it. Why is death the better option in these cases? If a baby will die in days away from modern techniques, why not allow the baby to die naturally while keeping it numbed to the pain?
    How much more “merciful” is actively killing a nearly dead baby?
    You’re just sick, dude.
    May God have mercy on your soul.

  • Larry Lord

    “If life can go on for years without mechanical or technological intervention, Larry, one can hardly be a vegetable, no?”
    Are you joking? Please don’t tell me you are this naive.
    “It seems your position would just DEMAND doctors perform abortions wherever there is risk of death, or mental anguish, or just bad feeling(since all that is “health” as determined by the sup ct).”
    I’m sorry, you must have missed the phrase “against her will.” No surprise there. You obviously enjoy pretending not to understand any argument whose conclusion runs contrary to your script.
    ” Can you admit to yourself at least that they are actively killing that which would otherwise still live?”
    Of course and I have in nearly every one of my comments on this thread.
    Look hobgoblin, I know you disagree with my position. My question to you (which I’ve asked repeatedly and which you refuse to answer) is whether you are capable of articulating a rational explanation for why you believe that any amount of suffering is always better than death. And also whether you can explain to me why your proposition is true only for humans.
    Instead of responding to these obvious questions, you just continue to demonize me and argue with stupid sick strawmen.
    “Why do you PREFER death as a first option, embodied in a protocol, Larry?”
    See what I mean? What the hell are you talking about?
    “If a baby will die in days away from modern techniques, why not allow the baby to die naturally while keeping it numbed to the pain?”
    I’ve already explained why the simple assumptions which underlie your hypothetical don’t necessarily apply to every circumstance. It would be great if we could knew that we could keep “it” (!!!!) “numbed to the pain” for however long it took for “nature to take its course” but that’s simply the reality.
    “May God have mercy on your soul.”
    Cool.

  • Larry Lord

    “If life can go on for years without mechanical or technological intervention, Larry, one can hardly be a vegetable, no?”
    Are you joking? Please don’t tell me you are this naive.
    “It seems your position would just DEMAND doctors perform abortions wherever there is risk of death, or mental anguish, or just bad feeling(since all that is “health” as determined by the sup ct).”
    I’m sorry, you must have missed the phrase “against her will.” No surprise there. You obviously enjoy pretending not to understand any argument whose conclusion runs contrary to your script.
    ” Can you admit to yourself at least that they are actively killing that which would otherwise still live?”
    Of course and I have in nearly every one of my comments on this thread.
    Look hobgoblin, I know you disagree with my position. My question to you (which I’ve asked repeatedly and which you refuse to answer) is whether you are capable of articulating a rational explanation for why you believe that any amount of suffering is always better than death. And also whether you can explain to me why your proposition is true only for humans.
    Instead of responding to these obvious questions, you just continue to demonize me and argue with stupid sick strawmen.
    “Why do you PREFER death as a first option, embodied in a protocol, Larry?”
    See what I mean? What the hell are you talking about?
    “If a baby will die in days away from modern techniques, why not allow the baby to die naturally while keeping it numbed to the pain?”
    I’ve already explained why the simple assumptions which underlie your hypothetical don’t necessarily apply to every circumstance. It would be great if we could knew that we could keep “it” (!!!!) “numbed to the pain” for however long it took for “nature to take its course” but that’s simply the reality.
    “May God have mercy on your soul.”
    Cool.

  • http://lespritdescalier.blogspot.com/ jpe

    It’s an incremental step to birth defects that aren’t fatal and mental retardation.
    It is? Would you like to support that contention, or are you just content to look like a person in the throes of hysteria?

  • http://lespritdescalier.blogspot.com jpe

    It’s an incremental step to birth defects that aren’t fatal and mental retardation.
    It is? Would you like to support that contention, or are you just content to look like a person in the throes of hysteria?

  • Jason

    I don’t know about other papers, but the biggest newspaper in Oregon (The Oregonian) had this story on their front page today.

  • Jason

    I don’t know about other papers, but the biggest newspaper in Oregon (The Oregonian) had this story on their front page today.

  • gedi

    hobgoblin,
    Sometimes a little window opens up which lets me see how far the catholic church is from the teachings of Christ. This would be one of them. Contemplating the validity of chopping off hands for theft.. *sigh*
    Thanks for your honesty.

  • gedi

    hobgoblin,
    Sometimes a little window opens up which lets me see how far the catholic church is from the teachings of Christ. This would be one of them. Contemplating the validity of chopping off hands for theft.. *sigh*
    Thanks for your honesty.

  • Septeus7

    I would like to point out that I was the one who predicted that Larry would be the first to defend killing babies by secret committee protocols. I think this confirms what we already knew; Larry’s favorite music is either http://www.geocities.com/liedderdeutschen/ or http://www.funet.fi/pub/culture/russian/html_pages/soviet.html.
    So let’s sing together for Larry ” Deutschland, Deutschland

  • Septeus7

    I would like to point out that I was the one who predicted that Larry would be the first to defend killing babies by secret committee protocols. I think this confirms what we already knew; Larry’s favorite music is either http://www.geocities.com/liedderdeutschen/ or http://www.funet.fi/pub/culture/russian/html_pages/soviet.html.
    So let’s sing together for Larry ” Deutschland, Deutschland

  • http://www.gryphmon.com/ Patrick (gryph)

    “I would be thunderstruck if someone truly could not see the difference between killing an infant – unborn, ill, deformed, etc – who has untapped potential, a clean slate, a chance to lead a good life and killing a criminal who has taken innocent lives. If you truly cannot make that distinction, your moral compass is broken.”
    My moral compass is quite fine thank you and I’m both against abortion and the death penalty. Approving of capital punishment while being “pro-life” is exactly the slippery middle ground it appears to be. You want to give a baby deformed in body a chance to lead a good life and you want to deny a man with a deformed soul of that same chance? Do you have “God” written on your personal business cards?
    There are people who commit horrific crimes for which the death penalty may in deed be a just punishment. But that is not whole story. You have to look at it in a larger context than just the crime itself. Is the practice of the Death Penalty good for society? Is it wise to give a government that much power, even with checks and balances?
    I used to be quite pro-death penalty. What changed my mind? The execution of a convict name Harrison in the early 90′s. It was the first execution in CA in many years. What changed my mind wasn’t the fact of Harrison’s death. He deserved to die. What changed my mind was seeing the people in the parking lot of the Prison popping champagne and having tailgate parties to celebrate it. It sickened me. As it should any sane human being.
    It was then that I realized that human beings were neither smart enough, emotionally mature enough, or certainly not morally pure enough, to ever to be given the right to execute someone in such circumstances where that person was no longer a threat to anyone. We don’t deserve to have that kind of power. It does exactly what Joe describes, it makes the value of life cheaper. Spits on it. Defacates on it.
    Christians always tell me I’m going to hell for various reasons, and that there are “moral absolutes” that apparently I violate. But here you go right ahead and practice your own form of moral relativity. A baby’s life is more important than a criminals life, relatively speaking.
    You know, when the guys who tortured and murdered Matthew Shepard were convicted, Matthew’s parents requested of the prosecution and presiding judge that they not consider giving or asking for a death sentence. Not because they didn’t think that the guys didn’t deserve to die, but because they knew Mathew would not have approved of it on principle. Do you have that kind of moral courage and strength?

  • http://www.gryphmon.com Patrick (gryph)

    “I would be thunderstruck if someone truly could not see the difference between killing an infant – unborn, ill, deformed, etc – who has untapped potential, a clean slate, a chance to lead a good life and killing a criminal who has taken innocent lives. If you truly cannot make that distinction, your moral compass is broken.”
    My moral compass is quite fine thank you and I’m both against abortion and the death penalty. Approving of capital punishment while being “pro-life” is exactly the slippery middle ground it appears to be. You want to give a baby deformed in body a chance to lead a good life and you want to deny a man with a deformed soul of that same chance? Do you have “God” written on your personal business cards?
    There are people who commit horrific crimes for which the death penalty may in deed be a just punishment. But that is not whole story. You have to look at it in a larger context than just the crime itself. Is the practice of the Death Penalty good for society? Is it wise to give a government that much power, even with checks and balances?
    I used to be quite pro-death penalty. What changed my mind? The execution of a convict name Harrison in the early 90′s. It was the first execution in CA in many years. What changed my mind wasn’t the fact of Harrison’s death. He deserved to die. What changed my mind was seeing the people in the parking lot of the Prison popping champagne and having tailgate parties to celebrate it. It sickened me. As it should any sane human being.
    It was then that I realized that human beings were neither smart enough, emotionally mature enough, or certainly not morally pure enough, to ever to be given the right to execute someone in such circumstances where that person was no longer a threat to anyone. We don’t deserve to have that kind of power. It does exactly what Joe describes, it makes the value of life cheaper. Spits on it. Defacates on it.
    Christians always tell me I’m going to hell for various reasons, and that there are “moral absolutes” that apparently I violate. But here you go right ahead and practice your own form of moral relativity. A baby’s life is more important than a criminals life, relatively speaking.
    You know, when the guys who tortured and murdered Matthew Shepard were convicted, Matthew’s parents requested of the prosecution and presiding judge that they not consider giving or asking for a death sentence. Not because they didn’t think that the guys didn’t deserve to die, but because they knew Mathew would not have approved of it on principle. Do you have that kind of moral courage and strength?

  • gedi

    Gedi, Larry Lord, and Patrick all against capital punishment.. politics really does make strange bedfellows.

  • gedi

    Gedi, Larry Lord, and Patrick all against capital punishment.. politics really does make strange bedfellows.

  • Larry Lord

    Nice post, Patrick.
    Septeus, if you can’t draw a distinction between Nazis killing Jews and euthanizing a baby with severe spinal bifida, then you’ve got serious problems. I might also add that such bizarre comparisons do little but fuel the stereotype that evangelicals are prone to belittle Nazi atrocities when it suits them.
    I hope some of the more rational folks here find it in their hearts to pray for you tonight, Septeus. I don’t see evidence that any natural methods of persuasion will work to cure your darkened mind.

  • Larry Lord

    Nice post, Patrick.
    Septeus, if you can’t draw a distinction between Nazis killing Jews and euthanizing a baby with severe spinal bifida, then you’ve got serious problems. I might also add that such bizarre comparisons do little but fuel the stereotype that evangelicals are prone to belittle Nazi atrocities when it suits them.
    I hope some of the more rational folks here find it in their hearts to pray for you tonight, Septeus. I don’t see evidence that any natural methods of persuasion will work to cure your darkened mind.

  • Larry Lord

    “politics really does make strange bedfellows.”
    Indeed! I’m not surprised to be in bed with Patrick, but I wasn’t expecting you to show up. :)

  • Larry Lord

    “politics really does make strange bedfellows.”
    Indeed! I’m not surprised to be in bed with Patrick, but I wasn’t expecting you to show up. :)

  • Ilkka Kokkarinen

    Hobgoblin: “The commandment is properly: Thou shalt not murder. At least if translated with fidelity to the original Hebrew.”
    I’m not disputing this, but this raises the obvious question: Since the Bible has been translated to English several times, why didn’t the people who wrote these translations ever get this one verse right?
    It’s not like those people were liberals or atheists or hippies, so why does this elementary translation error keep persisting? And it’s not just in English. For example, all Finnish translations of the Bible have exactly the same error, and I’d bet that the error exists in many/most other languages too.
    This issue also reminds me of another point that I once made in another blog. Some killings are wrong and some are not, because the killer had an acceptable reason for the act. Those killings that are wrong are called “murder”.
    Now, saying that “murder is wrong” is trivially true, so saying this conveys no more information than saying “a bachelor is not married”, since this is true by definition. As long as the dividing line between acceptable and unacceptable killings is not given, the commandment “Thou shalt not murder” is pretty meaningless. “Thou shalt not do things that are forbidden” would be another similar commandment with zero information content.
    Perhaps the correct translation would be “Thou shalt not kill without an acceptable reason”, since what else would a murder be than a killing without an acceptable reason?

  • Ilkka Kokkarinen

    Hobgoblin: “The commandment is properly: Thou shalt not murder. At least if translated with fidelity to the original Hebrew.”
    I’m not disputing this, but this raises the obvious question: Since the Bible has been translated to English several times, why didn’t the people who wrote these translations ever get this one verse right?
    It’s not like those people were liberals or atheists or hippies, so why does this elementary translation error keep persisting? And it’s not just in English. For example, all Finnish translations of the Bible have exactly the same error, and I’d bet that the error exists in many/most other languages too.
    This issue also reminds me of another point that I once made in another blog. Some killings are wrong and some are not, because the killer had an acceptable reason for the act. Those killings that are wrong are called “murder”.
    Now, saying that “murder is wrong” is trivially true, so saying this conveys no more information than saying “a bachelor is not married”, since this is true by definition. As long as the dividing line between acceptable and unacceptable killings is not given, the commandment “Thou shalt not murder” is pretty meaningless. “Thou shalt not do things that are forbidden” would be another similar commandment with zero information content.
    Perhaps the correct translation would be “Thou shalt not kill without an acceptable reason”, since what else would a murder be than a killing without an acceptable reason?

  • Ilkka Kokkarinen

    “As long as there is a real risk to human life, no matter how few lives or how small the risk, the death penalty is justified in certain instances.”
    Suppose the risk that a convicted murderer kept in solitary kills again during his lifetime is less than equal to the risk that a car owner kills somebody with his vehicle during his lifetime. (It probably is: somebody could provide the actual numbers.)
    Now, since human life is infinitely precious, what would be the logical conclusion to make here?

  • Ilkka Kokkarinen

    “As long as there is a real risk to human life, no matter how few lives or how small the risk, the death penalty is justified in certain instances.”
    Suppose the risk that a convicted murderer kept in solitary kills again during his lifetime is less than equal to the risk that a car owner kills somebody with his vehicle during his lifetime. (It probably is: somebody could provide the actual numbers.)
    Now, since human life is infinitely precious, what would be the logical conclusion to make here?

  • http://sidesspot.blogspot.com/2004/12/groningen-protocol-update.html Sidesspot

    The Groningen Protocol-Update

    Update: A lively debate is raging in the comments to Joe’s excellent post on the Groningen Protocol story at Evangelical Outpost. Provocative points are being made on both sides.

  • http://sidesspot.blogspot.com/2004/12/groningen-protocol-update.html Sidesspot

    The Groningen Protocol-Update

    Update: A lively debate is raging in the comments to Joe’s excellent post on the Groningen Protocol story at Evangelical Outpost. Provocative points are being made on both sides.

  • Larry Lord

    I assume we’ll be discussing this interesting bit of legislation soon:
    (from the NYT)
    As a result of November’s election, the next Senate will have a bigger, more conservative Republican majority and several new opponents of abortion – including some of the most intense abortion foes in politics, like Tom Coburn, a doctor and newly elected senator from Oklahoma, who campaigned as “a committed defender of the sanctity of life in all of its stages.”

    Abortion opponents say there is particularly strong support for one of their newest legislative initiatives, the proposed Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act, which would require women seeking abortions after 20 weeks to be told that Congress has determined that the fetus can feel pain and to be offered pain-relieving medication for it.
    “It would be my hope that a number of women, once informed of the pain in the womb that the child will experience, will hopefully say, ‘I just don’t want to do this,’ ” said Mr. Brownback, a sponsor of the legislation. “But if they do choose to move forward, at least it’s more humane for the child.”

  • Larry Lord

    I assume we’ll be discussing this interesting bit of legislation soon:
    (from the NYT)
    As a result of November’s election, the next Senate will have a bigger, more conservative Republican majority and several new opponents of abortion – including some of the most intense abortion foes in politics, like Tom Coburn, a doctor and newly elected senator from Oklahoma, who campaigned as “a committed defender of the sanctity of life in all of its stages.”

    Abortion opponents say there is particularly strong support for one of their newest legislative initiatives, the proposed Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act, which would require women seeking abortions after 20 weeks to be told that Congress has determined that the fetus can feel pain and to be offered pain-relieving medication for it.
    “It would be my hope that a number of women, once informed of the pain in the womb that the child will experience, will hopefully say, ‘I just don’t want to do this,’ ” said Mr. Brownback, a sponsor of the legislation. “But if they do choose to move forward, at least it’s more humane for the child.”

  • http://thehounds.blogspot.com/ ric ottaiano

    There is a cruel and outrageous irony here. The Netherlands, which has outlawed the death penalty for any crime since 1982, has created a society where it is immoral to execute the murderer of a child, but it is perfectly legitimate to execute the child.

  • http://thehounds.blogspot.com ric ottaiano

    There is a cruel and outrageous irony here. The Netherlands, which has outlawed the death penalty for any crime since 1982, has created a society where it is immoral to execute the murderer of a child, but it is perfectly legitimate to execute the child.

  • http://www.gryphmon.com/ Patrick

    Hugh Hewit says:
    “MSM does not care to cover this. You figure out why. In silence is approval, and in approval, an invitation to proceed.”
    Actually he neglected to mention that the uber-evil “liberal” media empire known as NPR covered it this morning. I grow more convinced that media bias is a figment of the imagination of people with an axe to grind.

  • http://www.gryphmon.com Patrick

    Hugh Hewit says:
    “MSM does not care to cover this. You figure out why. In silence is approval, and in approval, an invitation to proceed.”
    Actually he neglected to mention that the uber-evil “liberal” media empire known as NPR covered it this morning. I grow more convinced that media bias is a figment of the imagination of people with an axe to grind.

  • Larry Lord

    “Actually he neglected to mention that the uber-evil “liberal” media empire known as NPR covered it this morning.”
    Maybe that’s where Joe first heard about it.

  • Larry Lord

    “Actually he neglected to mention that the uber-evil “liberal” media empire known as NPR covered it this morning.”
    Maybe that’s where Joe first heard about it.

  • Chris Lutz

    Larry,
    You obviously know nothing about abortion law. Yes, the ruling in Roe v. Wade allowed states to limit abortions after the first trimester except in cases where the health of the mother was in danger. However, later cases made the health of the mother caveat so broad that there is really no limit on when an abortion can be performed.
    Debating this issue with you is useless. You believe that human beings are animals like any other. Human beings have no intrinsic value in just being human. You “rational” explanations all come from that point. The problem is that, as someone stated before, your rationality is based on what you want. Therefore, it changes as your desires change. Morality has to have set beliefs. You can’t just change them because the answers might be uncomfortable.
    Finally, human beings are not animals. Making comparisons between how we treat either are apples to oranges comparisons.

  • Chris Lutz

    Larry,
    You obviously know nothing about abortion law. Yes, the ruling in Roe v. Wade allowed states to limit abortions after the first trimester except in cases where the health of the mother was in danger. However, later cases made the health of the mother caveat so broad that there is really no limit on when an abortion can be performed.
    Debating this issue with you is useless. You believe that human beings are animals like any other. Human beings have no intrinsic value in just being human. You “rational” explanations all come from that point. The problem is that, as someone stated before, your rationality is based on what you want. Therefore, it changes as your desires change. Morality has to have set beliefs. You can’t just change them because the answers might be uncomfortable.
    Finally, human beings are not animals. Making comparisons between how we treat either are apples to oranges comparisons.

  • http://jivinjehoshaphat.blogspot.com/ david

    Larry,
    Can you come up with a rational argument? Telling me to take a hike isn’t one. Trying to equate intentionally killing someone with not doing everything possible to continue their life also doesn’t work.
    You didn’t use “it” in a question. You used “it” in a statement. So was your relative a boy or girl? Did the child have a name?
    You said “A relative of mine gave birth to a severe trisomy 18 baby. After weeks in an incubator, the doctors let them take it home. It died within 24 hours, in their arms. Would it have died if they’d kept the baby on life support in the incubator. Nope. They killed it.
    Was it right for them to kill it? Of course it was. Is theirs an unusual case? Nope. Happens all the freaking time. Every day.”
    I count 4 times you describe a born human being which you claim as a relative (which you should know if the child is a boy or girl if the child was a relative) as an “it.”
    Again, have you heard of palliative care and hospice? Do you understand the concept and how that is not killing?

  • http://jivinjehoshaphat.blogspot.com david

    Larry,
    Can you come up with a rational argument? Telling me to take a hike isn’t one. Trying to equate intentionally killing someone with not doing everything possible to continue their life also doesn’t work.
    You didn’t use “it” in a question. You used “it” in a statement. So was your relative a boy or girl? Did the child have a name?
    You said “A relative of mine gave birth to a severe trisomy 18 baby. After weeks in an incubator, the doctors let them take it home. It died within 24 hours, in their arms. Would it have died if they’d kept the baby on life support in the incubator. Nope. They killed it.
    Was it right for them to kill it? Of course it was. Is theirs an unusual case? Nope. Happens all the freaking time. Every day.”
    I count 4 times you describe a born human being which you claim as a relative (which you should know if the child is a boy or girl if the child was a relative) as an “it.”
    Again, have you heard of palliative care and hospice? Do you understand the concept and how that is not killing?

  • http://jivinhehoshaphat.blogspot.com/ david

    Larry comments on Mark:
    Mark said: “Roe v Wade for instance, was indicated for the “health of the mother” which has come to be interpreted as “that baby might make me too financially constrained” or “a child might be inconvient right now”.”
    Larry says: This is not true, Mark. The law of the land is that any laws passed which regulate abortions in the third trimester must make exceptions for the health of the mother.
    Me: Larry are you unfamiliar with Doe v. Bolton, the Supreme Court case decided with Roe v. Wade that defines “health” as ….”the medical judgement may be exercised in the light of all factors – physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health.”
    In other words, Mark is right – Larry is wrong.

  • http://jivinhehoshaphat.blogspot.com david

    Larry comments on Mark:
    Mark said: “Roe v Wade for instance, was indicated for the “health of the mother” which has come to be interpreted as “that baby might make me too financially constrained” or “a child might be inconvient right now”.”
    Larry says: This is not true, Mark. The law of the land is that any laws passed which regulate abortions in the third trimester must make exceptions for the health of the mother.
    Me: Larry are you unfamiliar with Doe v. Bolton, the Supreme Court case decided with Roe v. Wade that defines “health” as ….”the medical judgement may be exercised in the light of all factors – physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health.”
    In other words, Mark is right – Larry is wrong.

  • cdm

    Remember Christians:
    1 Cor 2:14
    14The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.
    And…
    Proverbs 26:4-5
    4Answer not a fool according to his folly,
    lest you be like him yourself.
    5Answer a fool according to his folly,
    lest he be wise in his own eyes.

  • cdm

    Remember Christians:
    1 Cor 2:14
    14The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.
    And…
    Proverbs 26:4-5
    4Answer not a fool according to his folly,
    lest you be like him yourself.
    5Answer a fool according to his folly,
    lest he be wise in his own eyes.

  • Larry Lord

    Sorry, hobgoblin, you are stuck back on your own 1 yard line. Keep playing the semantic games. Courts and lawyers know how to unravel that crap. So do I. You don’t.
    Chris Lutz, a real bigmouth, wrote
    “You obviously know nothing about abortion law. … Later cases made the health of the mother caveat so broad that there is really no limit on when an abortion can be performed.”
    You know, Chris, accuracy counts. Your characterization of the “mother caveat” is complete crap. You really think in every state in this country that a doctor can legally abort a baby at 8 months and two weeks because the woman is stressed out about having the baby? That’s what you imply. And that’s just horse hockey.
    So go screw yourself, please, before telling me that “I know nothing about abortion.”
    Jerk.

  • Larry Lord

    Sorry, hobgoblin, you are stuck back on your own 1 yard line. Keep playing the semantic games. Courts and lawyers know how to unravel that crap. So do I. You don’t.
    Chris Lutz, a real bigmouth, wrote
    “You obviously know nothing about abortion law. … Later cases made the health of the mother caveat so broad that there is really no limit on when an abortion can be performed.”
    You know, Chris, accuracy counts. Your characterization of the “mother caveat” is complete crap. You really think in every state in this country that a doctor can legally abort a baby at 8 months and two weeks because the woman is stressed out about having the baby? That’s what you imply. And that’s just horse hockey.
    So go screw yourself, please, before telling me that “I know nothing about abortion.”
    Jerk.

  • Ken

    Picked up and read one of Harry Turtledove’s latest alternate-history novels last weekend, In the Presence of Mine Enemies. New twist on the much-used “Germany won WW2″ theme — being told from the POV of secret Jews living under false ethnic identities in the Reich capital itself about 70 years after the world was Nazified and ethnically cleansed.
    How is this germane to The Groningen Protocol?
    The pediatrician recommending taking the incurable kid to the Reich Mercy Center.
    And the schoolgirl asking (upon the third Fuehrer’s death) why, if the Fuehrer was so old and sick, they didn’t take him to a Reich Mercy Center like they did her grandfather when he got too old.

  • Ken

    Picked up and read one of Harry Turtledove’s latest alternate-history novels last weekend, In the Presence of Mine Enemies. New twist on the much-used “Germany won WW2″ theme — being told from the POV of secret Jews living under false ethnic identities in the Reich capital itself about 70 years after the world was Nazified and ethnically cleansed.
    How is this germane to The Groningen Protocol?
    The pediatrician recommending taking the incurable kid to the Reich Mercy Center.
    And the schoolgirl asking (upon the third Fuehrer’s death) why, if the Fuehrer was so old and sick, they didn’t take him to a Reich Mercy Center like they did her grandfather when he got too old.

  • Larry Lord

    You know if you ask me one of the most interesting aspects of the Groningen Protocol is the possibility of performing euthanasia on an unbearably and terminally suffering infant without the consent of the parents (who might have some of the same inhumane sadistic fundamentalist hang-ups proudly on display here).
    Of course, the rights of parents in the United States are a big deal and are constantly being tested. In my opinion, parents in this country are given too much leeway when it comes to raising their children. A vast number of parents in this country are semi-morons or morons who thoughtless abuse and beat their children, just as they were thoughtlessly abused and beat by their own parents. And it is all allowed to take place under the guise of “freedom.” Of course, many kids have very little freedom from their parents tyranny, as just about any kid will tell you as long as his parents aren’t around to slap his mouth shut.
    Yes, these are all interesting issues. I think I would enjoy debating them with an articulate coherent evangelical that won’t quickly stoop into the gutter like hobgoblin or septictank.
    As I recall one of Joe Carter’s favorite books, Starship Troopers, discusses an interesting arrangement for raising kids which I think would be an improvement over the present system … I may be confusing it with another Heinlein book (Have Spacesuit Will Travel?) but I don’t think so…

  • Larry Lord

    You know if you ask me one of the most interesting aspects of the Groningen Protocol is the possibility of performing euthanasia on an unbearably and terminally suffering infant without the consent of the parents (who might have some of the same inhumane sadistic fundamentalist hang-ups proudly on display here).
    Of course, the rights of parents in the United States are a big deal and are constantly being tested. In my opinion, parents in this country are given too much leeway when it comes to raising their children. A vast number of parents in this country are semi-morons or morons who thoughtless abuse and beat their children, just as they were thoughtlessly abused and beat by their own parents. And it is all allowed to take place under the guise of “freedom.” Of course, many kids have very little freedom from their parents tyranny, as just about any kid will tell you as long as his parents aren’t around to slap his mouth shut.
    Yes, these are all interesting issues. I think I would enjoy debating them with an articulate coherent evangelical that won’t quickly stoop into the gutter like hobgoblin or septictank.
    As I recall one of Joe Carter’s favorite books, Starship Troopers, discusses an interesting arrangement for raising kids which I think would be an improvement over the present system … I may be confusing it with another Heinlein book (Have Spacesuit Will Travel?) but I don’t think so…

  • http://mt.ektopos.com/parablemania Jeremy Pierce

    Joe, your argument only works for some justifications for abortion. Those who see a fetus just before birth as a non-person better see a newborn as a non-person and shouldn’t be opposed to killing newborns (morally speaking — they may see a need for some line legally, and birth is as good as any when you have a vague reality with a line needing to be drawn).
    Those who see mercy killing as the justification for some abortions should also allow it here, as they should for someone of any age, unless they see mercy killings as ok only when you’re not dealing with a person, and then the issues in the first case come back in.
    Those who argue for abortion on the grounds that a woman’s rights outweigh those of a fetus see it the way anyone who justifies killing a person sees it. Judith Jarvis Thomson’s famous abortion paper takes this view. Her view does not justify abortion itself, but just removal of the fetus, and if that can’t be done without killing it then it justifies abortion. Her view is the most philosophically defensible of all the arguments for abortion, even though I still disagree. I don’t think her view allows mercy killings of infants, because she thinks killing a fetus near the end of pregnancy is also wrong. Since many pro-choice people take that view, you can’t make the sweeping claim that anyone who supports abortion has to support this practice. It’s just not true.

  • http://mt.ektopos.com/parablemania Jeremy Pierce

    Joe, your argument only works for some justifications for abortion. Those who see a fetus just before birth as a non-person better see a newborn as a non-person and shouldn’t be opposed to killing newborns (morally speaking — they may see a need for some line legally, and birth is as good as any when you have a vague reality with a line needing to be drawn).
    Those who see mercy killing as the justification for some abortions should also allow it here, as they should for someone of any age, unless they see mercy killings as ok only when you’re not dealing with a person, and then the issues in the first case come back in.
    Those who argue for abortion on the grounds that a woman’s rights outweigh those of a fetus see it the way anyone who justifies killing a person sees it. Judith Jarvis Thomson’s famous abortion paper takes this view. Her view does not justify abortion itself, but just removal of the fetus, and if that can’t be done without killing it then it justifies abortion. Her view is the most philosophically defensible of all the arguments for abortion, even though I still disagree. I don’t think her view allows mercy killings of infants, because she thinks killing a fetus near the end of pregnancy is also wrong. Since many pro-choice people take that view, you can’t make the sweeping claim that anyone who supports abortion has to support this practice. It’s just not true.

  • Larry Lord

    Jeremy
    How strange that in your analysis you ignore the essential aspect of the Protocol which is that a determination be made that the human being is suffering unbearably with no reasonable hope of improvement.
    I find it ironic that the fear tactic used by Christians to brow beat fellow travellers is the fear of eternal suffering after death. But, it is evidently your position and that of some others here, that enduring unbearable suffering without hope of recovery for indeterminate lengths of time is mandatory for some unfortunate people who aren’t capable of communicting a wish to return to their maker as comfortably and speedily as possible.
    How sadistically strange. You might enjoy going to your local hospitals and asking to see if there are any babies there suffering from severe spinal bifida. Perhaps you could adopt one and pay to keep it living as long as possible, so it can suffer as long as possible, which appears to be the ideal for you. Let me know if you need help finding out how to do that.
    Of course, another alternative would be to abort pregnancies as soon as the severe spinal bifida was identified. But you’d be opposed to that as well, I suppose. Better that not only the baby suffer unbearably, but also that the parents can watch their baby suffer unbearably and revel in God’s mysterious ways. Of course, they’ll be able to appreciate the show more if they have health insurance, but everybody does now that we have a President who believes in the culture of life, right?

  • Larry Lord

    Jeremy
    How strange that in your analysis you ignore the essential aspect of the Protocol which is that a determination be made that the human being is suffering unbearably with no reasonable hope of improvement.
    I find it ironic that the fear tactic used by Christians to brow beat fellow travellers is the fear of eternal suffering after death. But, it is evidently your position and that of some others here, that enduring unbearable suffering without hope of recovery for indeterminate lengths of time is mandatory for some unfortunate people who aren’t capable of communicting a wish to return to their maker as comfortably and speedily as possible.
    How sadistically strange. You might enjoy going to your local hospitals and asking to see if there are any babies there suffering from severe spinal bifida. Perhaps you could adopt one and pay to keep it living as long as possible, so it can suffer as long as possible, which appears to be the ideal for you. Let me know if you need help finding out how to do that.
    Of course, another alternative would be to abort pregnancies as soon as the severe spinal bifida was identified. But you’d be opposed to that as well, I suppose. Better that not only the baby suffer unbearably, but also that the parents can watch their baby suffer unbearably and revel in God’s mysterious ways. Of course, they’ll be able to appreciate the show more if they have health insurance, but everybody does now that we have a President who believes in the culture of life, right?

  • Septeus7

    Quote: Septeus, if you can’t draw a distinction between Nazis killing Jews and euthanizing a baby with severe spinal bifida, then you’ve got serious problems.
    And you missed the point and didn’t answer any of my questions. Why do I even try? The ending of pain does not justify the killing of innocent humans regardless of the source of the pain whether it be genetic disease or intentional torture by Nazis. Just because killing a person will theoretically end their pain it doesn’t follow that the person should be killed. Your preoccupation with pain as moral thing is a classic sign of leftist disorder. You cannot create ethical requirements based on the physical fact of pain alone. The very attempt to do so created the Nazi horror.
    Quote: I might also add that such bizarre comparisons do little but fuel the stereotype that evangelicals are prone to belittle Nazi atrocities when it suits them.
    Thats funny coming someone who is defending a Nazi-like atrocity using Nazi arguments.
    To all you folks trying to bring in the red herring…aka the capital punishment: Ask yourself this question: what parady is there between the killers and the killed in both cases? Answer: None.
    I noticed one other thing as well. The issue of pain. Where in the protocols is pain mentioned? And whose pain?

  • Septeus7

    Quote: Septeus, if you can’t draw a distinction between Nazis killing Jews and euthanizing a baby with severe spinal bifida, then you’ve got serious problems.
    And you missed the point and didn’t answer any of my questions. Why do I even try? The ending of pain does not justify the killing of innocent humans regardless of the source of the pain whether it be genetic disease or intentional torture by Nazis. Just because killing a person will theoretically end their pain it doesn’t follow that the person should be killed. Your preoccupation with pain as moral thing is a classic sign of leftist disorder. You cannot create ethical requirements based on the physical fact of pain alone. The very attempt to do so created the Nazi horror.
    Quote: I might also add that such bizarre comparisons do little but fuel the stereotype that evangelicals are prone to belittle Nazi atrocities when it suits them.
    Thats funny coming someone who is defending a Nazi-like atrocity using Nazi arguments.
    To all you folks trying to bring in the red herring…aka the capital punishment: Ask yourself this question: what parady is there between the killers and the killed in both cases? Answer: None.
    I noticed one other thing as well. The issue of pain. Where in the protocols is pain mentioned? And whose pain?

  • Larry Lord

    Septeus writes
    “The ending of pain does not justify the killing of innocent humans regardless of the source of the pain whether it be genetic disease or intentional torture by Nazis.”
    This is a conclusion, not an argument, and it’s a fairly bizarre conclusion at that. For example, I had no idea the Nazis were interested in ending pain when they tortured people.
    But you’re the Nazi expert. I’ll let you explain that.
    Then you can explain why the ending of unbearable interminable pain never justifies killing an innocent person.
    And then you can explain why, under your theory, we can nevertheless justify killing innocent people in other countries when some pussies in the white house get skeert of their leaders.
    I’m not holding my breath because I know already that you can’t accomplish this task. You’ve bitten off more than you can chew.
    Will you apologize and articulate your position more carefully?
    I won’t hold my breath for that either. Experience tells me that’s not going to happen.

  • Larry Lord

    Septeus writes
    “The ending of pain does not justify the killing of innocent humans regardless of the source of the pain whether it be genetic disease or intentional torture by Nazis.”
    This is a conclusion, not an argument, and it’s a fairly bizarre conclusion at that. For example, I had no idea the Nazis were interested in ending pain when they tortured people.
    But you’re the Nazi expert. I’ll let you explain that.
    Then you can explain why the ending of unbearable interminable pain never justifies killing an innocent person.
    And then you can explain why, under your theory, we can nevertheless justify killing innocent people in other countries when some pussies in the white house get skeert of their leaders.
    I’m not holding my breath because I know already that you can’t accomplish this task. You’ve bitten off more than you can chew.
    Will you apologize and articulate your position more carefully?
    I won’t hold my breath for that either. Experience tells me that’s not going to happen.

  • Larry Lord

    Septeus
    ” Where in the protocols is pain mentioned? And whose pain?”
    Unbearable pain is one of the factors in the Dutch standard for euthanasia. Note that those standards were designed for doctor-assisted suicide where the pain is articulated in some way by the patient. THere is no question that this raises issues when the patient is incapable of finely articulating his pain levels (because the patient’s ability to “articulate” anything other than comfort/discomfort is absent at birth).
    Again, this is nuance. You need to be capable of arguing like a sober adult if you want to tread into sub-topics like this. Are you up to the task Septeus?
    Maybe later we can talk about the merits of “slippery slope” argumentation generally. That might be fun.

  • Larry Lord

    Septeus
    ” Where in the protocols is pain mentioned? And whose pain?”
    Unbearable pain is one of the factors in the Dutch standard for euthanasia. Note that those standards were designed for doctor-assisted suicide where the pain is articulated in some way by the patient. THere is no question that this raises issues when the patient is incapable of finely articulating his pain levels (because the patient’s ability to “articulate” anything other than comfort/discomfort is absent at birth).
    Again, this is nuance. You need to be capable of arguing like a sober adult if you want to tread into sub-topics like this. Are you up to the task Septeus?
    Maybe later we can talk about the merits of “slippery slope” argumentation generally. That might be fun.

  • gedi

    Larry Lord wrote, “Unbearable pain is one of the factors in the Dutch standard for euthanasia.”
    I have met people in going about the ministry who seek death, ask for it in fact. This typically occurs following either the loss of a loved one or major surgery (accompanied by heavy medication). They do so because they have the hope in Christ, who will wipe away every tear from their eyes and lead them into eternal bliss upon death. They have no doubts.
    After a time (varying per individual), their pain is eased and the thought of ending it all subsides. They still know that Christ will lead them into Heaven, but they have regained their trust in God for the purpose He has for them in this life.
    I wonder if their suicidal tendencies would be an unbearable enough pain in the Netherlands to kill them and deprive this depraved world of their presence?

  • gedi

    Larry Lord wrote, “Unbearable pain is one of the factors in the Dutch standard for euthanasia.”
    I have met people in going about the ministry who seek death, ask for it in fact. This typically occurs following either the loss of a loved one or major surgery (accompanied by heavy medication). They do so because they have the hope in Christ, who will wipe away every tear from their eyes and lead them into eternal bliss upon death. They have no doubts.
    After a time (varying per individual), their pain is eased and the thought of ending it all subsides. They still know that Christ will lead them into Heaven, but they have regained their trust in God for the purpose He has for them in this life.
    I wonder if their suicidal tendencies would be an unbearable enough pain in the Netherlands to kill them and deprive this depraved world of their presence?

  • Great White Wonder

    Gedi
    “I wonder if their suicidal tendencies would be an unbearable enough pain in the Netherlands to kill them and deprive this depraved world of their presence?”
    I believe that the use of psychological “pain” is one of the hotly debated issues in the Netherlands (strangely enough, if the Dutch are all just a bunch of “Nazis” as some people here believe).
    I would be very impressed if you could show me an example of a Dutch doctor killing a patient immediately after the patient’s mother passed away because the patient told the doctor that he “wanted to die.”
    I’ve been to the Netherlands. I have some good friends who live in Rotterdam with their children. Nice people. They aren’t bloodthirsty killers who don’t respect life. On the contrary, on the whole they are some of the healthiest and most caring people on the planet, as evidenced by the average heights of the people who live there. The Dutch know how to watch out for each other and care for each other. It’s called socialized medicine.
    Let me know if you start looking for those eager-to-kill doctors, gedi. I need to set my stopwatch. ;)

  • Great White Wonder

    Gedi
    “I wonder if their suicidal tendencies would be an unbearable enough pain in the Netherlands to kill them and deprive this depraved world of their presence?”
    I believe that the use of psychological “pain” is one of the hotly debated issues in the Netherlands (strangely enough, if the Dutch are all just a bunch of “Nazis” as some people here believe).
    I would be very impressed if you could show me an example of a Dutch doctor killing a patient immediately after the patient’s mother passed away because the patient told the doctor that he “wanted to die.”
    I’ve been to the Netherlands. I have some good friends who live in Rotterdam with their children. Nice people. They aren’t bloodthirsty killers who don’t respect life. On the contrary, on the whole they are some of the healthiest and most caring people on the planet, as evidenced by the average heights of the people who live there. The Dutch know how to watch out for each other and care for each other. It’s called socialized medicine.
    Let me know if you start looking for those eager-to-kill doctors, gedi. I need to set my stopwatch. ;)

  • Larry Lord

    An interesting article by a Christian re suffering:
    http://www.google.com/search?q=christians+on+prozac&hl=en&lr=&start=10&sa=N

  • Larry Lord

    An interesting article by a Christian re suffering:
    http://www.google.com/search?q=christians+on+prozac&hl=en&lr=&start=10&sa=N

  • Great White Wonder

    Larry writes
    “I’ve been to the Netherlands. I have some good friends who live in Rotterdam with their children.”
    So do I. Small world.

  • Great White Wonder

    Larry writes
    “I’ve been to the Netherlands. I have some good friends who live in Rotterdam with their children.”
    So do I. Small world.

  • http://www.elispot.cn/ elispot

    Criminy. This is just wrong. So very, unspeakably wrong.

  • http://www.elispot.cn elispot

    Criminy. This is just wrong. So very, unspeakably wrong.

  • gedi

    GWW wrote, “I believe that the use of psychological “pain” is one of the hotly debated issues in the Netherlands (strangely enough, if the Dutch are all just a bunch of “Nazis” as some people here believe).”
    This would be the next logical step on the slippery slope.
    GWW wrote, “I would be very impressed if you could show me an example of a Dutch doctor killing a patient immediately after the patient’s mother passed away because the patient told the doctor that he “wanted to die.”"
    Yep, just the potential for the theoretical should give those who love life reason to pause.
    GWW wrote, “I’ve been to the Netherlands. I have some good friends who live in Rotterdam with their children. Nice people. They aren’t bloodthirsty killers who don’t respect life. On the contrary, on the whole they are some of the healthiest and most caring people on the planet, as evidenced by the average heights of the people who live there.”
    I have white friends, too. Nice people, even if they are typically shorter than me.
    GWW wrote, “The Dutch know how to watch out for each other and care for each other. It’s called socialized medicine.”
    Someone probably should have told Theo Van Gogh that he was slain by people who watch out for each other and care for each other. Socialized medicine.. *sigh*. That’s just too easy. I will let that one go.
    Thanks for the info, Great White Wonder.

  • gedi

    GWW wrote, “I believe that the use of psychological “pain” is one of the hotly debated issues in the Netherlands (strangely enough, if the Dutch are all just a bunch of “Nazis” as some people here believe).”
    This would be the next logical step on the slippery slope.
    GWW wrote, “I would be very impressed if you could show me an example of a Dutch doctor killing a patient immediately after the patient’s mother passed away because the patient told the doctor that he “wanted to die.”"
    Yep, just the potential for the theoretical should give those who love life reason to pause.
    GWW wrote, “I’ve been to the Netherlands. I have some good friends who live in Rotterdam with their children. Nice people. They aren’t bloodthirsty killers who don’t respect life. On the contrary, on the whole they are some of the healthiest and most caring people on the planet, as evidenced by the average heights of the people who live there.”
    I have white friends, too. Nice people, even if they are typically shorter than me.
    GWW wrote, “The Dutch know how to watch out for each other and care for each other. It’s called socialized medicine.”
    Someone probably should have told Theo Van Gogh that he was slain by people who watch out for each other and care for each other. Socialized medicine.. *sigh*. That’s just too easy. I will let that one go.
    Thanks for the info, Great White Wonder.

  • Larry Lord

    “Yep, just the potential for the theoretical should give those who love life reason to pause.”
    By all accounts, it looks like the Dutch have spent a great deal of time discussing the issue and I’m sure your point of view was and is argued vigorously on a regular basis. I don’t know if English translations of the proceedings of the various councils are available. You could provide yourself with a superb education on the Dutch “controversy.” Maybe one of your white friends can translate Dutch for you.
    Or I suppose we could just invade the Netherlands and rescue those “retarded” babies that the Dutch are executing. Too bad they don’t have any oil.

  • Larry Lord

    “Yep, just the potential for the theoretical should give those who love life reason to pause.”
    By all accounts, it looks like the Dutch have spent a great deal of time discussing the issue and I’m sure your point of view was and is argued vigorously on a regular basis. I don’t know if English translations of the proceedings of the various councils are available. You could provide yourself with a superb education on the Dutch “controversy.” Maybe one of your white friends can translate Dutch for you.
    Or I suppose we could just invade the Netherlands and rescue those “retarded” babies that the Dutch are executing. Too bad they don’t have any oil.

  • http://www.happymills.com/ Brad Mills

    Am I too late to join the dialogue…
    There were several requests for Scriptural proof that Capital Punishment is consistent with the Bible. I realize those requests were for New Testament Scriptures only, however, I prefer to consider all Scriptures “God breathed.” So here is my shot at the topic, with Scriptural proof.
    Gen. 9:6&7 “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed; for in the image of God He made man. And as for you, be fruitful and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth and multiply in it”
    Our love for life is the very reason that Capital Punishment is encouraged. Sounds like God was Pro-Life and for Capital Punishment. What a hypocrite!
    Ex. 20:13 “Thou shalt not kill (murder)”
    I believe Larry said that the individual performing the execution should also be considered a murderer. Yet God seems to disagree…
    Num. 35:31 “Moreover you shall take no ransom for the life of a murderer who is guilty of death, but he shall surely be put to death.”
    Lump said that Capital Punishment is not consistent with the teachings of Christ such as “love your enemies.” Would you consider Paul a worthy interpreter of Christ’s teachings?
    Rom.13:4 “For he (governing authority) is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.”
    Acts 25:11 “For if I am an offender, or have committed anything deserving of death, I do not object to dying…”
    In the OT, Israel ran as a Theocracy. Today we live in a Democracy. Both affirm Capital Punishment, and Scripture allows it.

  • http://www.happymills.com Brad Mills

    Am I too late to join the dialogue…
    There were several requests for Scriptural proof that Capital Punishment is consistent with the Bible. I realize those requests were for New Testament Scriptures only, however, I prefer to consider all Scriptures “God breathed.” So here is my shot at the topic, with Scriptural proof.
    Gen. 9:6&7 “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed; for in the image of God He made man. And as for you, be fruitful and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth and multiply in it”
    Our love for life is the very reason that Capital Punishment is encouraged. Sounds like God was Pro-Life and for Capital Punishment. What a hypocrite!
    Ex. 20:13 “Thou shalt not kill (murder)”
    I believe Larry said that the individual performing the execution should also be considered a murderer. Yet God seems to disagree…
    Num. 35:31 “Moreover you shall take no ransom for the life of a murderer who is guilty of death, but he shall surely be put to death.”
    Lump said that Capital Punishment is not consistent with the teachings of Christ such as “love your enemies.” Would you consider Paul a worthy interpreter of Christ’s teachings?
    Rom.13:4 “For he (governing authority) is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.”
    Acts 25:11 “For if I am an offender, or have committed anything deserving of death, I do not object to dying…”
    In the OT, Israel ran as a Theocracy. Today we live in a Democracy. Both affirm Capital Punishment, and Scripture allows it.

  • gedi

    Brad wrote, “I realize those requests were for New Testament Scriptures only, however, I prefer to consider all Scriptures “God breathed.”
    Ditto.
    God certainly hates murder. And yet, God did not require the blood of Cain when he slew his brother Abel.
    In context Genesis 9:4-7, “But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. Surely for your lifeblood I will demand a reckoning; from the hand of every beast I will require it, and from the hand of man. From the hand of every man’s brother I will require the life of man. Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed; for in the image of God He made man..”
    Do you refrain from eating steak which may be a little pink, for fear of angering God over your eating flesh with the lifeblood in it?
    “Lump said that Capital Punishment is not consistent with the teachings of Christ such as “love your enemies.” Would you consider Paul a worthy interpreter of Christ’s teachings?”
    I would.
    “Rom.13:4 “For he (governing authority) is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.”
    Capital punishment is not ruled out, no.
    Acts 25:11 in context, “For if I am an offender, or have committed anything deserving of death, I do not object to dying; but if there is nothing in these things of which these men accuse me, no one can deliver me to them. I appeal to Caesar.”
    Not precisely a rousing endorsement of capital punishment. If you must, fine I will die for Christ, but, really, come on, there grounds are baseless.
    “In the OT, Israel ran as a Theocracy. Today we live in a Democracy. Both affirm Capital Punishment, and Scripture allows it.”
    All things are permissable, not all things are profitable. Certainly a secular government may wield the sword with impunity. Is it permissable for a Christian government?
    The goal of every Christian action should be the salvation of souls through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. How is killing someone, no matter how heinous a sinner, profitable for his salvation? How is killing someone, no matter how heinously he has wronged another, profitable for the souls of the ones whom he has been wronged? Is it good for the eternal souls of the relatives of the victims that they should harbor vengeance in their hearts, or forgiveness? Does executing the murderer bring about forgiveness or justice? I would say the latter.
    “Now it came to pass, when the time had come for Him to be received up, that He steadfastly set His face to go to Jerusalem, and sent messengers before His face. And as they went, they entered a village of the Samaritans, to prepare for Him. But they did not receive Him, because His face was set for the journey to Jerusalem. And when His disciples James and John saw this, they said, “Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them, just as Elijah did?”
    But He turned and rebuked them, and said, “You do not know what manner of spirit you are of. For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives but to save them.” And they went to another village. (Luke 9:51-56)
    Jesus said, “But go and learn what this means: “I desire mercy and not sacrifice.’For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.’” (Matthew 9:13)

  • gedi

    Brad wrote, “I realize those requests were for New Testament Scriptures only, however, I prefer to consider all Scriptures “God breathed.”
    Ditto.
    God certainly hates murder. And yet, God did not require the blood of Cain when he slew his brother Abel.
    In context Genesis 9:4-7, “But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. Surely for your lifeblood I will demand a reckoning; from the hand of every beast I will require it, and from the hand of man. From the hand of every man’s brother I will require the life of man. Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed; for in the image of God He made man..”
    Do you refrain from eating steak which may be a little pink, for fear of angering God over your eating flesh with the lifeblood in it?
    “Lump said that Capital Punishment is not consistent with the teachings of Christ such as “love your enemies.” Would you consider Paul a worthy interpreter of Christ’s teachings?”
    I would.
    “Rom.13:4 “For he (governing authority) is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.”
    Capital punishment is not ruled out, no.
    Acts 25:11 in context, “For if I am an offender, or have committed anything deserving of death, I do not object to dying; but if there is nothing in these things of which these men accuse me, no one can deliver me to them. I appeal to Caesar.”
    Not precisely a rousing endorsement of capital punishment. If you must, fine I will die for Christ, but, really, come on, there grounds are baseless.
    “In the OT, Israel ran as a Theocracy. Today we live in a Democracy. Both affirm Capital Punishment, and Scripture allows it.”
    All things are permissable, not all things are profitable. Certainly a secular government may wield the sword with impunity. Is it permissable for a Christian government?
    The goal of every Christian action should be the salvation of souls through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. How is killing someone, no matter how heinous a sinner, profitable for his salvation? How is killing someone, no matter how heinously he has wronged another, profitable for the souls of the ones whom he has been wronged? Is it good for the eternal souls of the relatives of the victims that they should harbor vengeance in their hearts, or forgiveness? Does executing the murderer bring about forgiveness or justice? I would say the latter.
    “Now it came to pass, when the time had come for Him to be received up, that He steadfastly set His face to go to Jerusalem, and sent messengers before His face. And as they went, they entered a village of the Samaritans, to prepare for Him. But they did not receive Him, because His face was set for the journey to Jerusalem. And when His disciples James and John saw this, they said, “Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them, just as Elijah did?”
    But He turned and rebuked them, and said, “You do not know what manner of spirit you are of. For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives but to save them.” And they went to another village. (Luke 9:51-56)
    Jesus said, “But go and learn what this means: “I desire mercy and not sacrifice.’For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.’” (Matthew 9:13)

  • http://www.happymills.com/ Brad Mills

    Gedi said…
    “God certainly hates murder. And yet, God did not require the blood of Cain when he slew his brother Abel.”
    I guess all of the reasons for capital punishment in Numbers 35 are just suggestions never to actually be meted out. Gen. 38:7 “But Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the LORD, and the LORD put him to death.” When his brother Onan displeased the Lord, he was put to death as well. I’m sure we can go back and forth with passages where God shows mercy and passages where God pursues justice. God does as He wills. The problem is…you are saying that “mercy” is ALWAYS the path we must take as Christians. On a personal level I agree, on an issue of government policy…I’ll stick with Paul’s convictions.
    “Do you refrain from eating steak which may be a little pink, for fear of angering God over your eating flesh with the lifeblood in it?”
    No, I tend to like my meat medium-well. I also shave my beard and don’t wear phylacteries on my forehead and left arm. I am not a Jew. I have never lived during a Theocracy form of government, so God requires that I submit to the governing authorities He has put over me. It is clear from Scripture that it is the governing authorities responsibility to met out punishment for evil (Rom.13:1-4).
    “Not precisely a rousing endorsement of capital punishment (referring to Acts 25:11). If you must, fine I will die for Christ, but, really, come on, there grounds are baseless.”
    Yet, he clearly states, if the crime is legit, he should die. He was defending himself against charges that were false. Luke 23: 39-43 “One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him, saying, “Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!” But the other rebuked him, saying, “Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.” And he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” Why didn’t Jesus use this opportunity to correct the man’s misunderstanding that what he had done deserved death?
    “The goal of every Christian action should be the salvation of souls through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. How is killing someone, no matter how heinous a sinner, profitable for his salvation?”
    When a person is convicted of their sin, they are ready to receive Jesus as their savior…not a second before. Being sentenced to death can definately bring about a repentant spirit. Just ask Jeffrey Dahmer. Should he be forgiven of his sins? Absolutely! Should he be punished still? Absolutely!
    “But He turned and rebuked them, and said, “You do not know what manner of spirit you are of. For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives but to save them.” And they went to another village. (Luke 9:51-56)”
    They were wanting to destroy a city for not accepting the truth, not because the city was guilty of murder. Quite a difference if you ask me.

  • http://www.happymills.com Brad Mills

    Gedi said…
    “God certainly hates murder. And yet, God did not require the blood of Cain when he slew his brother Abel.”
    I guess all of the reasons for capital punishment in Numbers 35 are just suggestions never to actually be meted out. Gen. 38:7 “But Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the LORD, and the LORD put him to death.” When his brother Onan displeased the Lord, he was put to death as well. I’m sure we can go back and forth with passages where God shows mercy and passages where God pursues justice. God does as He wills. The problem is…you are saying that “mercy” is ALWAYS the path we must take as Christians. On a personal level I agree, on an issue of government policy…I’ll stick with Paul’s convictions.
    “Do you refrain from eating steak which may be a little pink, for fear of angering God over your eating flesh with the lifeblood in it?”
    No, I tend to like my meat medium-well. I also shave my beard and don’t wear phylacteries on my forehead and left arm. I am not a Jew. I have never lived during a Theocracy form of government, so God requires that I submit to the governing authorities He has put over me. It is clear from Scripture that it is the governing authorities responsibility to met out punishment for evil (Rom.13:1-4).
    “Not precisely a rousing endorsement of capital punishment (referring to Acts 25:11). If you must, fine I will die for Christ, but, really, come on, there grounds are baseless.”
    Yet, he clearly states, if the crime is legit, he should die. He was defending himself against charges that were false. Luke 23: 39-43 “One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him, saying, “Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!” But the other rebuked him, saying, “Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.” And he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” Why didn’t Jesus use this opportunity to correct the man’s misunderstanding that what he had done deserved death?
    “The goal of every Christian action should be the salvation of souls through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. How is killing someone, no matter how heinous a sinner, profitable for his salvation?”
    When a person is convicted of their sin, they are ready to receive Jesus as their savior…not a second before. Being sentenced to death can definately bring about a repentant spirit. Just ask Jeffrey Dahmer. Should he be forgiven of his sins? Absolutely! Should he be punished still? Absolutely!
    “But He turned and rebuked them, and said, “You do not know what manner of spirit you are of. For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives but to save them.” And they went to another village. (Luke 9:51-56)”
    They were wanting to destroy a city for not accepting the truth, not because the city was guilty of murder. Quite a difference if you ask me.

  • http://www.gryphmon.com/ Patrick

    Gedi says:
    “I believe Larry said that the individual performing the execution should also be considered a murderer. Yet God seems to disagree…
    Num. 35:31 “Moreover you shall take no ransom for the life of a murderer who is guilty of death, but he shall surely be put to death.”"
    ________________
    It’s a perfect example of why I say sometimes the Bible is flat out wrong.
    This passage refers to revenge killing. It posits that I am morally free from sin if I go out and kill the person who killed my brother.
    This is a cultural edict of the tribal-based middle eastern cultures at the time of the Bible’s writing, thousands of years ago. It’s still around today as expressed in Islam. It’s given as the justification by terrorists for suicide bombings and beheadings. It’s part of the whole tribal revenge killing cycle that is so barbaric. And it’s why a number of American and British Soldiers and Marines have died in Iraq, at the hands of people who’s family members had been killed in the War.
    But you want me to adopt its murderous and sick version of morality as God-given. Sorry, but I think God has higher moral standards than that. And if he doesn’t, I certainly do.

  • http://www.gryphmon.com Patrick

    Gedi says:
    “I believe Larry said that the individual performing the execution should also be considered a murderer. Yet God seems to disagree…
    Num. 35:31 “Moreover you shall take no ransom for the life of a murderer who is guilty of death, but he shall surely be put to death.”"
    ________________
    It’s a perfect example of why I say sometimes the Bible is flat out wrong.
    This passage refers to revenge killing. It posits that I am morally free from sin if I go out and kill the person who killed my brother.
    This is a cultural edict of the tribal-based middle eastern cultures at the time of the Bible’s writing, thousands of years ago. It’s still around today as expressed in Islam. It’s given as the justification by terrorists for suicide bombings and beheadings. It’s part of the whole tribal revenge killing cycle that is so barbaric. And it’s why a number of American and British Soldiers and Marines have died in Iraq, at the hands of people who’s family members had been killed in the War.
    But you want me to adopt its murderous and sick version of morality as God-given. Sorry, but I think God has higher moral standards than that. And if he doesn’t, I certainly do.

  • http://www.happymills.com/ Brad Mills

    Patrick,
    “This passage refers to revenge killing. It posits that I am morally free from sin if I go out and kill the person who killed my brother.”
    That passage is not teaching revenge killing. It is teaching proper government authority for Israel who was living in a Theocracy. Here is God’s teaching on “personal revenge.” And it’s even from the OT. Who would have ever thought there was any consistency there?
    Lev. 19:17-19 “You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason frankly with your neighbor, lest you incur sin because of him. You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD.”

  • http://www.happymills.com Brad Mills

    Patrick,
    “This passage refers to revenge killing. It posits that I am morally free from sin if I go out and kill the person who killed my brother.”
    That passage is not teaching revenge killing. It is teaching proper government authority for Israel who was living in a Theocracy. Here is God’s teaching on “personal revenge.” And it’s even from the OT. Who would have ever thought there was any consistency there?
    Lev. 19:17-19 “You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason frankly with your neighbor, lest you incur sin because of him. You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD.”

  • gedi

    Brad wrote, “I’m sure we can go back and forth with passages where God shows mercy and passages where God pursues justice. God does as He wills. The problem is…you are saying that “mercy” is ALWAYS the path we must take as Christians. On a personal level I agree, on an issue of government policy…I’ll stick with Paul’s convictions.”
    I agree, we could go back and forth. However, with the exception of Ananias and Sapphira, the New Testament has no references to capital murder. And I still disagree with you on Paul. He is not *condoning* capital murder by saying if you want to kill me, fine. He is simply living under the rules of the state he lived in. It is your prerogative as a Roman province to try to kill me, but I beg for Caesar’s mercy. Thus, off to Rome. Even the pagans showed mercy to those under the sentence of death…
    Brad wrote, “No, I tend to like my meat medium-well. I also shave my beard and don’t wear phylacteries on my forehead and left arm. I am not a Jew. I have never lived during a Theocracy form of government, so God requires that I submit to the governing authorities He has put over me. It is clear from Scripture that it is the governing authorities responsibility to met out punishment for evil (Rom.13:1-4).”
    Thanks for making my point for me. Some things are fulfilled. Submitting to the governing authorities does not necessarily mean that you agree with everything the governing authorities do, nor is it a “get out of jail free” card for the government. Good German Christians expressed disagreement with Hitler in the 30′s and 40′s and were gassed right along side Jews. Was Hitler right for wielding the sword in this way because God ordained him to rule Germany during the 30′s and 40′s. I think not.
    “Luke 23: 39-43 snipped. Why didn’t Jesus use this opportunity to correct the man’s misunderstanding that what he had done deserved death?”
    Hanging on the cross and dying is probably not the best time for a discourse on capital punishment, particularly when He had *already* done so with the woman caught in adultery John 8. I am not going to second guess Jesus. “He who is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone”. Couple this with the sermon on the mount “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘Do not murder’, and whoever murders will be in danger of judgment. But I say to you whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment.” (Matthew 5:21-22) and you start to see that he who claims to be without sin with regards to murder and therefore able to cast the first stone at the murderer is nothing more than a Pharisee.
    “When a person is convicted of their sin, they are ready to receive Jesus as their savior…not a second before. Being sentenced to death can definately bring about a repentant spirit. Just ask Jeffrey Dahmer. Should he be forgiven of his sins? Absolutely! Should he be punished still? Absolutely!”
    No question about it. Does one need to be threatened with death to receive conviction from the Law? I should think weekly preachers would be out of a job if this were the case. Does one need to be killed to be punished. I should think not.
    “They were wanting to destroy a city for not accepting the truth, not because the city was guilty of murder. Quite a difference if you ask me.”
    We are all guilty of murder, brother. There is no difference. God bless you, Brad!

  • gedi

    Brad wrote, “I’m sure we can go back and forth with passages where God shows mercy and passages where God pursues justice. God does as He wills. The problem is…you are saying that “mercy” is ALWAYS the path we must take as Christians. On a personal level I agree, on an issue of government policy…I’ll stick with Paul’s convictions.”
    I agree, we could go back and forth. However, with the exception of Ananias and Sapphira, the New Testament has no references to capital murder. And I still disagree with you on Paul. He is not *condoning* capital murder by saying if you want to kill me, fine. He is simply living under the rules of the state he lived in. It is your prerogative as a Roman province to try to kill me, but I beg for Caesar’s mercy. Thus, off to Rome. Even the pagans showed mercy to those under the sentence of death…
    Brad wrote, “No, I tend to like my meat medium-well. I also shave my beard and don’t wear phylacteries on my forehead and left arm. I am not a Jew. I have never lived during a Theocracy form of government, so God requires that I submit to the governing authorities He has put over me. It is clear from Scripture that it is the governing authorities responsibility to met out punishment for evil (Rom.13:1-4).”
    Thanks for making my point for me. Some things are fulfilled. Submitting to the governing authorities does not necessarily mean that you agree with everything the governing authorities do, nor is it a “get out of jail free” card for the government. Good German Christians expressed disagreement with Hitler in the 30′s and 40′s and were gassed right along side Jews. Was Hitler right for wielding the sword in this way because God ordained him to rule Germany during the 30′s and 40′s. I think not.
    “Luke 23: 39-43 snipped. Why didn’t Jesus use this opportunity to correct the man’s misunderstanding that what he had done deserved death?”
    Hanging on the cross and dying is probably not the best time for a discourse on capital punishment, particularly when He had *already* done so with the woman caught in adultery John 8. I am not going to second guess Jesus. “He who is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone”. Couple this with the sermon on the mount “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘Do not murder’, and whoever murders will be in danger of judgment. But I say to you whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment.” (Matthew 5:21-22) and you start to see that he who claims to be without sin with regards to murder and therefore able to cast the first stone at the murderer is nothing more than a Pharisee.
    “When a person is convicted of their sin, they are ready to receive Jesus as their savior…not a second before. Being sentenced to death can definately bring about a repentant spirit. Just ask Jeffrey Dahmer. Should he be forgiven of his sins? Absolutely! Should he be punished still? Absolutely!”
    No question about it. Does one need to be threatened with death to receive conviction from the Law? I should think weekly preachers would be out of a job if this were the case. Does one need to be killed to be punished. I should think not.
    “They were wanting to destroy a city for not accepting the truth, not because the city was guilty of murder. Quite a difference if you ask me.”
    We are all guilty of murder, brother. There is no difference. God bless you, Brad!

  • gedi

    Brad wrote, “I’m sure we can go back and forth with passages where God shows mercy and passages where God pursues justice. God does as He wills. The problem is…you are saying that “mercy” is ALWAYS the path we must take as Christians. On a personal level I agree, on an issue of government policy…I’ll stick with Paul’s convictions.”
    I agree, we could go back and forth. However, with the exception of Ananias and Sapphira, the New Testament has no references to capital murder. And I still disagree with you on Paul. He is not *condoning* capital murder by saying if you want to kill me, fine. He is simply living under the rules of the state he lived in. It is your prerogative as a Roman province to try to kill me, but I beg for Caesar’s mercy. Thus, off to Rome. Even the pagans showed mercy to those under the sentence of death…
    Brad wrote, “No, I tend to like my meat medium-well. I also shave my beard and don’t wear phylacteries on my forehead and left arm. I am not a Jew. I have never lived during a Theocracy form of government, so God requires that I submit to the governing authorities He has put over me. It is clear from Scripture that it is the governing authorities responsibility to met out punishment for evil (Rom.13:1-4).”
    Thanks for making my point for me. Some things are fulfilled. Submitting to the governing authorities does not necessarily mean that you agree with everything the governing authorities do, nor is it a “get out of jail free” card for the government. Good German Christians expressed disagreement with Hitler in the 30′s and 40′s and were gassed right along side Jews. Was Hitler right for wielding the sword in this way because God ordained him to rule Germany during the 30′s and 40′s. I think not.
    “Luke 23: 39-43 snipped. Why didn’t Jesus use this opportunity to correct the man’s misunderstanding that what he had done deserved death?”
    Hanging on the cross and dying is probably not the best time for a discourse on capital punishment, particularly when He had *already* done so with the woman caught in adultery John 8. I am not going to second guess Jesus. “He who is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone”. Couple this with the sermon on the mount “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘Do not murder’, and whoever murders will be in danger of judgment. But I say to you whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment.” (Matthew 5:21-22) and you start to see that he who claims to be without sin with regards to murder and therefore able to cast the first stone at the murderer is nothing more than a Pharisee.
    “When a person is convicted of their sin, they are ready to receive Jesus as their savior…not a second before. Being sentenced to death can definately bring about a repentant spirit. Just ask Jeffrey Dahmer. Should he be forgiven of his sins? Absolutely! Should he be punished still? Absolutely!”
    No question about it. Does one need to be threatened with death to receive conviction from the Law? I should think weekly preachers would be out of a job if this were the case. Does one need to be killed to be punished. I should think not.
    “They were wanting to destroy a city for not accepting the truth, not because the city was guilty of murder. Quite a difference if you ask me.”
    We are all guilty of murder, brother. There is no difference. God bless you, Brad!

  • gedi

    Patrick,
    Gedi says:
    “I believe Larry said that the individual performing the execution should also be considered a murderer. Yet God seems to disagree…
    Num. 35:31 “Moreover you shall take no ransom for the life of a murderer who is guilty of death, but he shall surely be put to death.”"
    I believe you miss quoted me, brother. I am not the one trying to argue Old Testament laws which were fulfilled in Christ should be applied to American society today. God bless you, Patrick!

  • gedi

    Patrick,
    Gedi says:
    “I believe Larry said that the individual performing the execution should also be considered a murderer. Yet God seems to disagree…
    Num. 35:31 “Moreover you shall take no ransom for the life of a murderer who is guilty of death, but he shall surely be put to death.”"
    I believe you miss quoted me, brother. I am not the one trying to argue Old Testament laws which were fulfilled in Christ should be applied to American society today. God bless you, Patrick!

  • gedi

    Patrick,
    Gedi says:
    “I believe Larry said that the individual performing the execution should also be considered a murderer. Yet God seems to disagree…
    Num. 35:31 “Moreover you shall take no ransom for the life of a murderer who is guilty of death, but he shall surely be put to death.”"
    I believe you miss quoted me, brother. I am not the one trying to argue Old Testament laws which were fulfilled in Christ should be applied to American society today. God bless you, Patrick!

  • Larry Lord

    For what it’s worth, I never said that “the individual performing the execution should also be considered a murderer.”
    As for the game playing which followed, shame on you Brad for pretending that the patently ambiguous texts you recited are “clear” statements about the fairness and ethicality of capital punishment.
    I won’t bother to make the obvious point that whether or not God or the Constitution allows it now, the number of people being executed yearly in the US is going to decrease to zero within the next fifty years. At that time, we’ll have reached the state of grace and forgiveness that our neighboring industrialized countries (and many individual states in the US) have reached.
    Mark my words.

  • Larry Lord

    For what it’s worth, I never said that “the individual performing the execution should also be considered a murderer.”
    As for the game playing which followed, shame on you Brad for pretending that the patently ambiguous texts you recited are “clear” statements about the fairness and ethicality of capital punishment.
    I won’t bother to make the obvious point that whether or not God or the Constitution allows it now, the number of people being executed yearly in the US is going to decrease to zero within the next fifty years. At that time, we’ll have reached the state of grace and forgiveness that our neighboring industrialized countries (and many individual states in the US) have reached.
    Mark my words.

  • Larry Lord

    For what it’s worth, I never said that “the individual performing the execution should also be considered a murderer.”
    As for the game playing which followed, shame on you Brad for pretending that the patently ambiguous texts you recited are “clear” statements about the fairness and ethicality of capital punishment.
    I won’t bother to make the obvious point that whether or not God or the Constitution allows it now, the number of people being executed yearly in the US is going to decrease to zero within the next fifty years. At that time, we’ll have reached the state of grace and forgiveness that our neighboring industrialized countries (and many individual states in the US) have reached.
    Mark my words.

  • http://www.happymills.com/ Brad Mills

    Gedi,
    “I am not the one trying to argue Old Testament laws which were fulfilled in Christ should be applied to American society today.”
    Neither am I. I am saying that if God commanded capital punishment under a Theocracy, and the NT allows for it under a Democracy, then no one can claim that ALL Christians must be against capital punishment. If your personal conviction is that no one should ever be sentenced to death, it is personal, not Biblical.
    “However, with the exception of Ananias and Sapphira, the New Testament has no references to capital murder. And I still disagree with you on Paul.”
    If the only references to capital punishment (not “capital murder” – The Bible makes a distinction so we should to. Num.35:31 “put to death” can not be interpreted as “murder”) in the NT neither condemn nor approve of capital punishment then why do you assume capital punishment is anti-Christian?
    “Good German Christians expressed disagreement with Hitler in the 30′s and 40′s and were gassed right along side Jews. Was Hitler right for wielding the sword in this way because God ordained him to rule Germany during the 30′s and 40′s. I think not.”
    God trumps the government every time. If the government is commanding us to act unethically, we obey God not the government. That’s not the point. What I am saying is that you have not proven that Scripture disallows capital punishment. If Scripture were clearly anti-capital punishment, I would completely agree with you. But that’s not the case. It’s merely a misunderstanding of Jesus’ commands in the sermon on the mount.

  • http://www.happymills.com/ Brad Mills

    Gedi,
    “I am not the one trying to argue Old Testament laws which were fulfilled in Christ should be applied to American society today.”
    Neither am I. I am saying that if God commanded capital punishment under a Theocracy, and the NT allows for it under a Democracy, then no one can claim that ALL Christians must be against capital punishment. If your personal conviction is that no one should ever be sentenced to death, it is personal, not Biblical.
    “However, with the exception of Ananias and Sapphira, the New Testament has no references to capital murder. And I still disagree with you on Paul.”
    If the only references to capital punishment (not “capital murder” – The Bible makes a distinction so we should to. Num.35:31 “put to death” can not be interpreted as “murder”) in the NT neither condemn nor approve of capital punishment then why do you assume capital punishment is anti-Christian?
    “Good German Christians expressed disagreement with Hitler in the 30′s and 40′s and were gassed right along side Jews. Was Hitler right for wielding the sword in this way because God ordained him to rule Germany during the 30′s and 40′s. I think not.”
    God trumps the government every time. If the government is commanding us to act unethically, we obey God not the government. That’s not the point. What I am saying is that you have not proven that Scripture disallows capital punishment. If Scripture were clearly anti-capital punishment, I would completely agree with you. But that’s not the case. It’s merely a misunderstanding of Jesus’ commands in the sermon on the mount.

  • http://www.happymills.com Brad Mills

    Gedi,
    “I am not the one trying to argue Old Testament laws which were fulfilled in Christ should be applied to American society today.”
    Neither am I. I am saying that if God commanded capital punishment under a Theocracy, and the NT allows for it under a Democracy, then no one can claim that ALL Christians must be against capital punishment. If your personal conviction is that no one should ever be sentenced to death, it is personal, not Biblical.
    “However, with the exception of Ananias and Sapphira, the New Testament has no references to capital murder. And I still disagree with you on Paul.”
    If the only references to capital punishment (not “capital murder” – The Bible makes a distinction so we should to. Num.35:31 “put to death” can not be interpreted as “murder”) in the NT neither condemn nor approve of capital punishment then why do you assume capital punishment is anti-Christian?
    “Good German Christians expressed disagreement with Hitler in the 30′s and 40′s and were gassed right along side Jews. Was Hitler right for wielding the sword in this way because God ordained him to rule Germany during the 30′s and 40′s. I think not.”
    God trumps the government every time. If the government is commanding us to act unethically, we obey God not the government. That’s not the point. What I am saying is that you have not proven that Scripture disallows capital punishment. If Scripture were clearly anti-capital punishment, I would completely agree with you. But that’s not the case. It’s merely a misunderstanding of Jesus’ commands in the sermon on the mount.

  • http://sddc.blogspot.com/ corrie

    It’s interesting how the point of the original article – the Groningen Protocol – has gotten hijacked into an “Are too! Am not!” tiff over non-Christian’s opinions of how Christians should view capital punishment, and people who think that the Bible is a bunch of fairy tales quoting it in support of their position.
    Deflect. Divert. Distract.
    A tie-in I have yet to see is the connection between the Groningen Protocol and Susan Smith. You remember her, right? She’s the young mother – excuse me, that should be “young woman” – who murdered – excuse me, that should be “exercised her reproductive rights” her young children – excuse me, that should be, “products-of-conception” – by strapping them into their car seats and pushing the car into a pond – excuse me, that should be, “creatively utilizing the methods available to her”.
    The reason she did that, she said at her trial, was that the young boys had become an inconvient drag on her social calendar. IOW, they adversely impacted her quality of life and mental health.
    I still don’t understand why “reproductive rights” advocates are not agitating for her release. I’m certain that supporters and apologists for the Groningen Protocol will come to her aid. She’s quite a heroine to the cause of individual freedom, wouldn’t you say? Certainly not the cold-blooded child murderer she’s been portrayed as.
    /swiftian sarcastic irony, for the clueless

  • http://sddc.blogspot.com/ corrie

    It’s interesting how the point of the original article – the Groningen Protocol – has gotten hijacked into an “Are too! Am not!” tiff over non-Christian’s opinions of how Christians should view capital punishment, and people who think that the Bible is a bunch of fairy tales quoting it in support of their position.
    Deflect. Divert. Distract.
    A tie-in I have yet to see is the connection between the Groningen Protocol and Susan Smith. You remember her, right? She’s the young mother – excuse me, that should be “young woman” – who murdered – excuse me, that should be “exercised her reproductive rights” her young children – excuse me, that should be, “products-of-conception” – by strapping them into their car seats and pushing the car into a pond – excuse me, that should be, “creatively utilizing the methods available to her”.
    The reason she did that, she said at her trial, was that the young boys had become an inconvient drag on her social calendar. IOW, they adversely impacted her quality of life and mental health.
    I still don’t understand why “reproductive rights” advocates are not agitating for her release. I’m certain that supporters and apologists for the Groningen Protocol will come to her aid. She’s quite a heroine to the cause of individual freedom, wouldn’t you say? Certainly not the cold-blooded child murderer she’s been portrayed as.
    /swiftian sarcastic irony, for the clueless

  • http://sddc.blogspot.com corrie

    It’s interesting how the point of the original article – the Groningen Protocol – has gotten hijacked into an “Are too! Am not!” tiff over non-Christian’s opinions of how Christians should view capital punishment, and people who think that the Bible is a bunch of fairy tales quoting it in support of their position.
    Deflect. Divert. Distract.
    A tie-in I have yet to see is the connection between the Groningen Protocol and Susan Smith. You remember her, right? She’s the young mother – excuse me, that should be “young woman” – who murdered – excuse me, that should be “exercised her reproductive rights” her young children – excuse me, that should be, “products-of-conception” – by strapping them into their car seats and pushing the car into a pond – excuse me, that should be, “creatively utilizing the methods available to her”.
    The reason she did that, she said at her trial, was that the young boys had become an inconvient drag on her social calendar. IOW, they adversely impacted her quality of life and mental health.
    I still don’t understand why “reproductive rights” advocates are not agitating for her release. I’m certain that supporters and apologists for the Groningen Protocol will come to her aid. She’s quite a heroine to the cause of individual freedom, wouldn’t you say? Certainly not the cold-blooded child murderer she’s been portrayed as.
    /swiftian sarcastic irony, for the clueless

  • gedi

    Brad,
    “..and the NT allows for it under a Democracy, then no one can claim that ALL Christians must be against capital punishment. If your personal conviction is that no one should ever be sentenced to death, it is personal, not Biblical.”
    I am not sure where the NT references a Democracy. I am not claiming all Christians must be against capital punishment. We all believe ourselves to be above God’s Laws in one temptation or another. For some people, that temptation is capital punishment. Kill those “bad” people. They are not like me. They deserve it.
    However, Jesus is pretty explicit on how we should behave toward others, particularly those who are sinners, like murderers.
    I guess my disconnect is in following you down the path which dictates one set of God’s Laws for people, another for government. I can understand this separation for a dictatorship or communist regime where the people are not responsible for the actions of the government (the tried and true Hitler reference). However, a democracy is government by the people, for the people. Thus, the same set of God’s Laws should apply. Clemency should be given by some person within the hierarchy of our governmental system. Again, clemency not insofar as without punishment, but without murder. We must protect life. If the only way to do that is to isolate the one guilty of murder from any other human contact, then so be it.

  • gedi

    Brad,
    “..and the NT allows for it under a Democracy, then no one can claim that ALL Christians must be against capital punishment. If your personal conviction is that no one should ever be sentenced to death, it is personal, not Biblical.”
    I am not sure where the NT references a Democracy. I am not claiming all Christians must be against capital punishment. We all believe ourselves to be above God’s Laws in one temptation or another. For some people, that temptation is capital punishment. Kill those “bad” people. They are not like me. They deserve it.
    However, Jesus is pretty explicit on how we should behave toward others, particularly those who are sinners, like murderers.
    I guess my disconnect is in following you down the path which dictates one set of God’s Laws for people, another for government. I can understand this separation for a dictatorship or communist regime where the people are not responsible for the actions of the government (the tried and true Hitler reference). However, a democracy is government by the people, for the people. Thus, the same set of God’s Laws should apply. Clemency should be given by some person within the hierarchy of our governmental system. Again, clemency not insofar as without punishment, but without murder. We must protect life. If the only way to do that is to isolate the one guilty of murder from any other human contact, then so be it.

  • gedi

    Brad,
    “..and the NT allows for it under a Democracy, then no one can claim that ALL Christians must be against capital punishment. If your personal conviction is that no one should ever be sentenced to death, it is personal, not Biblical.”
    I am not sure where the NT references a Democracy. I am not claiming all Christians must be against capital punishment. We all believe ourselves to be above God’s Laws in one temptation or another. For some people, that temptation is capital punishment. Kill those “bad” people. They are not like me. They deserve it.
    However, Jesus is pretty explicit on how we should behave toward others, particularly those who are sinners, like murderers.
    I guess my disconnect is in following you down the path which dictates one set of God’s Laws for people, another for government. I can understand this separation for a dictatorship or communist regime where the people are not responsible for the actions of the government (the tried and true Hitler reference). However, a democracy is government by the people, for the people. Thus, the same set of God’s Laws should apply. Clemency should be given by some person within the hierarchy of our governmental system. Again, clemency not insofar as without punishment, but without murder. We must protect life. If the only way to do that is to isolate the one guilty of murder from any other human contact, then so be it.

  • http://www.happymills.com/ Brad Mills

    Larry,
    you said “As for the game playing which followed, shame on you Brad for pretending that the patently ambiguous texts you recited are “clear” statements about the fairness and ethicality of capital punishment.”
    Coming from someone who holds reasoning to higher degree than Scripture…I’m not offended.

  • http://www.happymills.com/ Brad Mills

    Larry,
    you said “As for the game playing which followed, shame on you Brad for pretending that the patently ambiguous texts you recited are “clear” statements about the fairness and ethicality of capital punishment.”
    Coming from someone who holds reasoning to higher degree than Scripture…I’m not offended.

  • http://www.happymills.com Brad Mills

    Larry,
    you said “As for the game playing which followed, shame on you Brad for pretending that the patently ambiguous texts you recited are “clear” statements about the fairness and ethicality of capital punishment.”
    Coming from someone who holds reasoning to higher degree than Scripture…I’m not offended.

  • http://sddc.blogspot.com/ corrie

    geri,
    Jesus is explicit with regard to those who sin *against us*. In the case of a murder victim, he can’t “turn the other cheek,” “offer his cloak as well,” “or walk another mile.”
    Since civilized society (as well as Scripture) enjoins the victim’s family for taking revenge, society itself is tasked with executing judgement. Jesus did not take the Pharisees to task over capital punishment, but rather for arrogant external religiousity absent true humility before God. While that particular log may be in all our eyes, it says nothing to a “Christian” reponse to murder.

  • http://sddc.blogspot.com/ corrie

    geri,
    Jesus is explicit with regard to those who sin *against us*. In the case of a murder victim, he can’t “turn the other cheek,” “offer his cloak as well,” “or walk another mile.”
    Since civilized society (as well as Scripture) enjoins the victim’s family for taking revenge, society itself is tasked with executing judgement. Jesus did not take the Pharisees to task over capital punishment, but rather for arrogant external religiousity absent true humility before God. While that particular log may be in all our eyes, it says nothing to a “Christian” reponse to murder.

  • http://sddc.blogspot.com corrie

    geri,
    Jesus is explicit with regard to those who sin *against us*. In the case of a murder victim, he can’t “turn the other cheek,” “offer his cloak as well,” “or walk another mile.”
    Since civilized society (as well as Scripture) enjoins the victim’s family for taking revenge, society itself is tasked with executing judgement. Jesus did not take the Pharisees to task over capital punishment, but rather for arrogant external religiousity absent true humility before God. While that particular log may be in all our eyes, it says nothing to a “Christian” reponse to murder.

  • gedi

    Corrie wrote, “Jesus is explicit with regard to those who sin *against us*. In the case of a murder victim, he can’t “turn the other cheek,” “offer his cloak as well,” “or walk another mile.”"
    His family can. Our society can. The woman caught in adultery. Was it just the one wronged who was picking up the stones or was it the whole crowd (i.e. society)?
    Insofar as vengeance is concerned:
    “Repay no one evil for evil. Have regard for good things in the sight of all men. If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men. Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. Therefore
    “If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
    If he is thirsty, give him a drink;
    For in so doing you will heap coals of fire on his head.”
    Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. (Romans 12:17-21)
    Vengeance is not for the godly no matter how civilized it may seem. Vengeance is for God alone. Only He is above reproach and capable of exacting judgment.
    Additionally, let us all repent for the people executed by the state who have been proven later on to not be the murderer everybody thought he was.

  • gedi

    Corrie wrote, “Jesus is explicit with regard to those who sin *against us*. In the case of a murder victim, he can’t “turn the other cheek,” “offer his cloak as well,” “or walk another mile.”"
    His family can. Our society can. The woman caught in adultery. Was it just the one wronged who was picking up the stones or was it the whole crowd (i.e. society)?
    Insofar as vengeance is concerned:
    “Repay no one evil for evil. Have regard for good things in the sight of all men. If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men. Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. Therefore
    “If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
    If he is thirsty, give him a drink;
    For in so doing you will heap coals of fire on his head.”
    Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. (Romans 12:17-21)
    Vengeance is not for the godly no matter how civilized it may seem. Vengeance is for God alone. Only He is above reproach and capable of exacting judgment.
    Additionally, let us all repent for the people executed by the state who have been proven later on to not be the murderer everybody thought he was.

  • gedi

    Corrie wrote, “Jesus is explicit with regard to those who sin *against us*. In the case of a murder victim, he can’t “turn the other cheek,” “offer his cloak as well,” “or walk another mile.”"
    His family can. Our society can. The woman caught in adultery. Was it just the one wronged who was picking up the stones or was it the whole crowd (i.e. society)?
    Insofar as vengeance is concerned:
    “Repay no one evil for evil. Have regard for good things in the sight of all men. If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men. Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. Therefore
    “If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
    If he is thirsty, give him a drink;
    For in so doing you will heap coals of fire on his head.”
    Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. (Romans 12:17-21)
    Vengeance is not for the godly no matter how civilized it may seem. Vengeance is for God alone. Only He is above reproach and capable of exacting judgment.
    Additionally, let us all repent for the people executed by the state who have been proven later on to not be the murderer everybody thought he was.

  • gedi

    I meant to say:
    “Additionally, let us all repent for the people executed by the state who have been proven later on not to be the murderer everybody thought he was just because he was black”.

  • gedi

    I meant to say:
    “Additionally, let us all repent for the people executed by the state who have been proven later on not to be the murderer everybody thought he was just because he was black”.

  • gedi

    I meant to say:
    “Additionally, let us all repent for the people executed by the state who have been proven later on not to be the murderer everybody thought he was just because he was black”.

  • http://www.happymills.com/ Brad Mills

    Gedi,
    you said “I am not sure where the NT references a Democracy.”
    I guess I should have worded that differently. The NT does not remove capital punishment from the hands of the “governing authorities” (which happens to be our democracy in America).
    “I guess my disconnect is in following you down the path which dictates one set of God’s Laws for people, another for government.”
    That’s a good point. Was I insinuating two different set’s of laws or simply advocating that punishment meted out by the government is Biblically acceptable whereas taking vengeance into my own hands is not acceptable (if that is two sets of laws then clearly, the Old Testament advocated this in Num – for capital punishment, and Lev. – against revenge). All I’m saying is that it is wrong for me to take a gun and kill someone in revenge for another’s death. However, it isn’t wrong for me to pick up a phone, dial 911, tell them where the murderer is located, watch the cops arrest him, be asked to sit in the witness chair, admit to witnessing the murder, see him convicted and sentenced to the death penalty, then vote for the politician who is in agreement with the process that took place.
    The NT never condemns “governing authorities” for using capital punishment. It seems to simply be an accepted aspect of their responsibility (again Rom.13:1-4). To blantantly label anyone who agrees with capital punishment, as agreeing with murder is definately not Scripturally warranted.

  • http://www.happymills.com/ Brad Mills

    Gedi,
    you said “I am not sure where the NT references a Democracy.”
    I guess I should have worded that differently. The NT does not remove capital punishment from the hands of the “governing authorities” (which happens to be our democracy in America).
    “I guess my disconnect is in following you down the path which dictates one set of God’s Laws for people, another for government.”
    That’s a good point. Was I insinuating two different set’s of laws or simply advocating that punishment meted out by the government is Biblically acceptable whereas taking vengeance into my own hands is not acceptable (if that is two sets of laws then clearly, the Old Testament advocated this in Num – for capital punishment, and Lev. – against revenge). All I’m saying is that it is wrong for me to take a gun and kill someone in revenge for another’s death. However, it isn’t wrong for me to pick up a phone, dial 911, tell them where the murderer is located, watch the cops arrest him, be asked to sit in the witness chair, admit to witnessing the murder, see him convicted and sentenced to the death penalty, then vote for the politician who is in agreement with the process that took place.
    The NT never condemns “governing authorities” for using capital punishment. It seems to simply be an accepted aspect of their responsibility (again Rom.13:1-4). To blantantly label anyone who agrees with capital punishment, as agreeing with murder is definately not Scripturally warranted.

  • http://www.happymills.com Brad Mills

    Gedi,
    you said “I am not sure where the NT references a Democracy.”
    I guess I should have worded that differently. The NT does not remove capital punishment from the hands of the “governing authorities” (which happens to be our democracy in America).
    “I guess my disconnect is in following you down the path which dictates one set of God’s Laws for people, another for government.”
    That’s a good point. Was I insinuating two different set’s of laws or simply advocating that punishment meted out by the government is Biblically acceptable whereas taking vengeance into my own hands is not acceptable (if that is two sets of laws then clearly, the Old Testament advocated this in Num – for capital punishment, and Lev. – against revenge). All I’m saying is that it is wrong for me to take a gun and kill someone in revenge for another’s death. However, it isn’t wrong for me to pick up a phone, dial 911, tell them where the murderer is located, watch the cops arrest him, be asked to sit in the witness chair, admit to witnessing the murder, see him convicted and sentenced to the death penalty, then vote for the politician who is in agreement with the process that took place.
    The NT never condemns “governing authorities” for using capital punishment. It seems to simply be an accepted aspect of their responsibility (again Rom.13:1-4). To blantantly label anyone who agrees with capital punishment, as agreeing with murder is definately not Scripturally warranted.

  • Dr. Jim

    Bioethicists have thoroughly discussed the subtle but important difference between withholding treatment, withdrawing treatment, and euthanasia. The conclusions that I have seen (I’m on my hospital ethics committee) seem to hinge on imminency of death. There are real differences and real guidelines. A Christian physician must always care for a patient and must never murder one.
    If a patient’s death is imminent regardless of treatment, then treatment is futile and may ethically be ended (or not begun.) So for the baby mentioned earlier with severe genetic abnormalities, comfort care only is morally acceptable. Comfort care is NOT actively killing the person, however. Note that comfort care and pain control are never optional, unless the patient refuses them.
    With strong pain medication, there is the theoretical possibility that when you reach adequate pain control the patient may stop breathing. Intent is crucial here. If your goal is to care for the patient by relieving pain and accidental death occurs, that is acceptable (again, if death is imminent.) If your intent is to kill the person, no matter how well you manage to rationalize it, you have crossed the line and it is wrong.
    So people who actually deal with the terminally ill have debated these issues. Of course there are gray areas, but medical and philosophically inclined people have concluded that there is, in fact, a moral difference between withdrawing futile care and actively bringing about the death of another human being.

  • Dr. Jim

    Bioethicists have thoroughly discussed the subtle but important difference between withholding treatment, withdrawing treatment, and euthanasia. The conclusions that I have seen (I’m on my hospital ethics committee) seem to hinge on imminency of death. There are real differences and real guidelines. A Christian physician must always care for a patient and must never murder one.
    If a patient’s death is imminent regardless of treatment, then treatment is futile and may ethically be ended (or not begun.) So for the baby mentioned earlier with severe genetic abnormalities, comfort care only is morally acceptable. Comfort care is NOT actively killing the person, however. Note that comfort care and pain control are never optional, unless the patient refuses them.
    With strong pain medication, there is the theoretical possibility that when you reach adequate pain control the patient may stop breathing. Intent is crucial here. If your goal is to care for the patient by relieving pain and accidental death occurs, that is acceptable (again, if death is imminent.) If your intent is to kill the person, no matter how well you manage to rationalize it, you have crossed the line and it is wrong.
    So people who actually deal with the terminally ill have debated these issues. Of course there are gray areas, but medical and philosophically inclined people have concluded that there is, in fact, a moral difference between withdrawing futile care and actively bringing about the death of another human being.

  • Dr. Jim

    Bioethicists have thoroughly discussed the subtle but important difference between withholding treatment, withdrawing treatment, and euthanasia. The conclusions that I have seen (I’m on my hospital ethics committee) seem to hinge on imminency of death. There are real differences and real guidelines. A Christian physician must always care for a patient and must never murder one.
    If a patient’s death is imminent regardless of treatment, then treatment is futile and may ethically be ended (or not begun.) So for the baby mentioned earlier with severe genetic abnormalities, comfort care only is morally acceptable. Comfort care is NOT actively killing the person, however. Note that comfort care and pain control are never optional, unless the patient refuses them.
    With strong pain medication, there is the theoretical possibility that when you reach adequate pain control the patient may stop breathing. Intent is crucial here. If your goal is to care for the patient by relieving pain and accidental death occurs, that is acceptable (again, if death is imminent.) If your intent is to kill the person, no matter how well you manage to rationalize it, you have crossed the line and it is wrong.
    So people who actually deal with the terminally ill have debated these issues. Of course there are gray areas, but medical and philosophically inclined people have concluded that there is, in fact, a moral difference between withdrawing futile care and actively bringing about the death of another human being.

  • http://okieonthelam.com/ OkieBoy

    The Groningen Protocol is a logical extension of the abortion activists’ position. Indeed, if you support abortion rights, especially partial birth abortion, you would not be able to make a rational argument against infant euthanasia without contradiction of your abortion views. That the mainstream media seems unwilling to address this story, either pro, con or unbiased, leads one to believe that they see the relationship between their support of abortion rights and the killing of infants and children and are afraid to admit it!

  • http://okieonthelam.com/ OkieBoy

    The Groningen Protocol is a logical extension of the abortion activists’ position. Indeed, if you support abortion rights, especially partial birth abortion, you would not be able to make a rational argument against infant euthanasia without contradiction of your abortion views. That the mainstream media seems unwilling to address this story, either pro, con or unbiased, leads one to believe that they see the relationship between their support of abortion rights and the killing of infants and children and are afraid to admit it!

  • Larry Lord

    Brad writes
    “Coming from someone who holds reasoning to higher degree than Scripture…I’m not offended.”
    Well, at least you admit it where you stand. Can we paraphrase your position? How about “God gave me a brain and the latest version of my holy book tells me not to use it.”
    Just lovely.
    As per your debate with gedi, Brad, gedi’s got you beat hands down. You sit here and judge me for my compassion-based stance with respect to the treatment of terminally suffering brainless humans while out of the other side of your mouth you gleefully defend a system that invariably results in the execution of perfectly healthy and innocent human beings, relying only on quotations from your holy book. Truly bizarre.
    Just in case you missed it the first time, here it is again. Read slowly: You sit here and judge me for my compassion-based stance with respect to the treatment of terminally suffering brainless humans while out of the other side of your mouth you gleefully defend a system that invariably results in the execution of perfectly healthy and innocent human beings, relying only on quotations from your holy book.
    It’s evangelicals like you who won’t cease judging others until you’re raptured or dead. I’ve got news for you: the latter is coming first. Place your bets, folks.

  • Larry Lord

    Brad writes
    “Coming from someone who holds reasoning to higher degree than Scripture…I’m not offended.”
    Well, at least you admit it where you stand. Can we paraphrase your position? How about “God gave me a brain and the latest version of my holy book tells me not to use it.”
    Just lovely.
    As per your debate with gedi, Brad, gedi’s got you beat hands down. You sit here and judge me for my compassion-based stance with respect to the treatment of terminally suffering brainless humans while out of the other side of your mouth you gleefully defend a system that invariably results in the execution of perfectly healthy and innocent human beings, relying only on quotations from your holy book. Truly bizarre.
    Just in case you missed it the first time, here it is again. Read slowly: You sit here and judge me for my compassion-based stance with respect to the treatment of terminally suffering brainless humans while out of the other side of your mouth you gleefully defend a system that invariably results in the execution of perfectly healthy and innocent human beings, relying only on quotations from your holy book.
    It’s evangelicals like you who won’t cease judging others until you’re raptured or dead. I’ve got news for you: the latter is coming first. Place your bets, folks.

  • Larry Lord

    “The Groningen Protocol is a logical extension of the abortion activists’ position.”
    Horse hockey. People who support a women’s right to terminate her pregnancy do not do so out of concern for the unbearable interminable suffering of the fetus.
    Got it? Sheesh. Can we graduate to the fourth grade now, folks? This vapid “logical extension” argument was dead on arrival. End it.

  • Larry Lord

    “The Groningen Protocol is a logical extension of the abortion activists’ position.”
    Horse hockey. People who support a women’s right to terminate her pregnancy do not do so out of concern for the unbearable interminable suffering of the fetus.
    Got it? Sheesh. Can we graduate to the fourth grade now, folks? This vapid “logical extension” argument was dead on arrival. End it.

  • Elwood

    Larry,
    For a quick background: I used to be pro-death penalty, and now take a similar stance to Gedi. (anti death penalty) Your views sound somewhat utilitarian. Is that fair to say? Specifically, when you mentioned a family (real or not, I don’t remember) that had a severely sick and suffering child and since it would be very expensive and time consuming and wouldn’t it be better to quickly end the life of that child, which would have the added benefit of them being able to have another healthy child. Otherwise, they wouldn’t have the resources to have another child.
    To be fair, I don’t want to say you should think in the way I’m about to propose, or that you are a full-blown utilitarian, or that you should have to defend utilitarianism (unless you do want to claim that label). But utilitarian ideas have definitely been put forth in this forum by people both to support euthanasia and abortion. So let’s discuss which death-penalty position is a more logical conclusion of utilitarianism.
    A serial killer causes much death, pain, and suffering. Utism. says we should try to minimize that. One way is to lock up the killer for life. But that causes more pain & suffering for the killer because he will have an unfulfilling life knowing he’ll never leave prison. (permit me this sarcasm: We all know his life is not as fulfilling as ours because we are not in prison.) So maybe it’s better to kill him quickly rather than letting nature take its course (albeit, old age takes alot longer than cancer). Plus, all the resources it takes to keep him in prison… say $40,000/year times 50 yrs = $2,000,000. $2 mill would go a long ways toward making someone else’s life better. Either thru medical research, or paying for kidney dialysis for someone who couldn’t afford it, or buying food and clothing for someone in a famine-stricken country.
    Or, how about the animal question. You have mentioned euth. of animals for the purpose of stopping their suffering and asked why we treat humans differently. Why not humanely end suffering humans’ lives? Why the diff. you ask? I’ll answer why I personally believe there is a difference in a later post. But for now, let me turn it around. We also euthanize some animals, not because they are our beloved pet, but because they are dangerous. A pit bull that is not kept under control and attacks a child is sometimes killed because of the danger it is to others. Maybe utism. would say that was wrong, I don’t know. But, say that maximized the most pleasure and minimized the most pain for all the sentient beings affected, including the pit bull, then I think utism would say… kill the dog. So, why not kill the human who’s acting like an out of control pit bull?
    Again, I am opposed to the death penalty in this country at this time. But, I’m just probing for inconsistencies in the utilitarian arguments that have been made in favor of abortion and euth., but then some of those people still oppose the death penalty.

  • Elwood

    Larry,
    For a quick background: I used to be pro-death penalty, and now take a similar stance to Gedi. (anti death penalty) Your views sound somewhat utilitarian. Is that fair to say? Specifically, when you mentioned a family (real or not, I don’t remember) that had a severely sick and suffering child and since it would be very expensive and time consuming and wouldn’t it be better to quickly end the life of that child, which would have the added benefit of them being able to have another healthy child. Otherwise, they wouldn’t have the resources to have another child.
    To be fair, I don’t want to say you should think in the way I’m about to propose, or that you are a full-blown utilitarian, or that you should have to defend utilitarianism (unless you do want to claim that label). But utilitarian ideas have definitely been put forth in this forum by people both to support euthanasia and abortion. So let’s discuss which death-penalty position is a more logical conclusion of utilitarianism.
    A serial killer causes much death, pain, and suffering. Utism. says we should try to minimize that. One way is to lock up the killer for life. But that causes more pain & suffering for the killer because he will have an unfulfilling life knowing he’ll never leave prison. (permit me this sarcasm: We all know his life is not as fulfilling as ours because we are not in prison.) So maybe it’s better to kill him quickly rather than letting nature take its course (albeit, old age takes alot longer than cancer). Plus, all the resources it takes to keep him in prison… say $40,000/year times 50 yrs = $2,000,000. $2 mill would go a long ways toward making someone else’s life better. Either thru medical research, or paying for kidney dialysis for someone who couldn’t afford it, or buying food and clothing for someone in a famine-stricken country.
    Or, how about the animal question. You have mentioned euth. of animals for the purpose of stopping their suffering and asked why we treat humans differently. Why not humanely end suffering humans’ lives? Why the diff. you ask? I’ll answer why I personally believe there is a difference in a later post. But for now, let me turn it around. We also euthanize some animals, not because they are our beloved pet, but because they are dangerous. A pit bull that is not kept under control and attacks a child is sometimes killed because of the danger it is to others. Maybe utism. would say that was wrong, I don’t know. But, say that maximized the most pleasure and minimized the most pain for all the sentient beings affected, including the pit bull, then I think utism would say… kill the dog. So, why not kill the human who’s acting like an out of control pit bull?
    Again, I am opposed to the death penalty in this country at this time. But, I’m just probing for inconsistencies in the utilitarian arguments that have been made in favor of abortion and euth., but then some of those people still oppose the death penalty.

  • gedi

    Brad wrote, “All I’m saying is that it is wrong for me to take a gun and kill someone in revenge for another’s death. However, it isn’t wrong for me to pick up a phone, dial 911, tell them where the murderer is located, watch the cops arrest him, be asked to sit in the witness chair, admit to witnessing the murder, see him convicted and sentenced to the death penalty, then vote for the politician who is in agreement with the process that took place.”
    Fair enough. :) My only quibble is with the sentenced to the death penalty. Also, I cannot elect politicians who agree with me in my anti-state-sanctioned killing since the only people who are against this love killing babies and, now, the terminally ill. It is a matter of picking the better of two evils. As such, Republicans win hands down, even if that means having to put up with a “kill them all and let God sort them out” attitude when it comes to convicted murderers.
    Brad wrote, “The NT never condemns “governing authorities” for using capital punishment. It seems to simply be an accepted aspect of their responsibility (again Rom.13:1-4). To blantantly label anyone who agrees with capital punishment, as agreeing with murder is definately not Scripturally warranted.”
    True insofar as murder is defined as illegal killing. The state, as one who defines the legality of everything, probably cannot illegally kill someone. However, the state has made recompense for killing her citizens through monetary means to the family of executed deathrow inmates who have been exonerated. In doing so, she is, in essence, admitting guilt.

  • gedi

    Brad wrote, “All I’m saying is that it is wrong for me to take a gun and kill someone in revenge for another’s death. However, it isn’t wrong for me to pick up a phone, dial 911, tell them where the murderer is located, watch the cops arrest him, be asked to sit in the witness chair, admit to witnessing the murder, see him convicted and sentenced to the death penalty, then vote for the politician who is in agreement with the process that took place.”
    Fair enough. :) My only quibble is with the sentenced to the death penalty. Also, I cannot elect politicians who agree with me in my anti-state-sanctioned killing since the only people who are against this love killing babies and, now, the terminally ill. It is a matter of picking the better of two evils. As such, Republicans win hands down, even if that means having to put up with a “kill them all and let God sort them out” attitude when it comes to convicted murderers.
    Brad wrote, “The NT never condemns “governing authorities” for using capital punishment. It seems to simply be an accepted aspect of their responsibility (again Rom.13:1-4). To blantantly label anyone who agrees with capital punishment, as agreeing with murder is definately not Scripturally warranted.”
    True insofar as murder is defined as illegal killing. The state, as one who defines the legality of everything, probably cannot illegally kill someone. However, the state has made recompense for killing her citizens through monetary means to the family of executed deathrow inmates who have been exonerated. In doing so, she is, in essence, admitting guilt.

  • Garrettsnana

    Euthanasia has a frequently misreported history. With regards to animals, according to my son, a UCDavis veterniarian and staff member of the UC Davis Veterniary Teaching Hospital, the reason for the greatest number of dog “euthanasias” is the owners being unable to deal with the animal’s inability to be house broken. Most vets would rescue the animals brought to them to “Put down” but the law requires that if the owners want the animal destroyed it must be destroyed.
    With regards to people: Larry mentioned the epileptic fits endured by trisomy babies. One of the points often missed in these discussions is that many people who deal with serious health issues find rich rewarding lives inspite of the agonies of their problems. With regards to epileptic fits….few who experience seizures would like to have more. Few ever call them epileptic fits. (Those are for those of us with seizures fighting words.) Most have found that life is still worth living. For the babies, the distinction between actively injecting poison and allowing a natural death (and allowing for the possilbity of a miracle) is significant. Finally, please note that the first people to be euthanized in Germany were people “subjected to epileptic fits.” The doctors and government had decided their fate by 1932.
    The point is ways exist to act humanely with people who are suffering. While it is valid to try to comprehend the horror they are experiencing by imagining ourselves in their situation, it is critical to remember that we cannot know where they truly are. I watched my mother die of ALS, and with her I agonized over what she was going through. Then I watched a miracle as one day in the last spring of her life, she regained hope, and I saw her experience a joy and peace in the last months, when she could hardly move, the like of which she had never known before in her life. Can i assume to know what someone else who has a seizure syndrome is going through because I have seizures? What I have learned it that I cannot. I can only know that hope (thereby life) is a gift that can be sucked out of people by those surrounding them who have the best of intentions, and hope is where life lives. It is also easy to romanticize the mercy killing of animals and people and in the process ignore the reality of the suffering caused by euthanasia.
    Thank you to everyone who sees value in a life and to all who will do what you can to mitigate suffering. (Oh and please, avoid terms like “epileptic fits”)

  • Garrettsnana

    Euthanasia has a frequently misreported history. With regards to animals, according to my son, a UCDavis veterniarian and staff member of the UC Davis Veterniary Teaching Hospital, the reason for the greatest number of dog “euthanasias” is the owners being unable to deal with the animal’s inability to be house broken. Most vets would rescue the animals brought to them to “Put down” but the law requires that if the owners want the animal destroyed it must be destroyed.
    With regards to people: Larry mentioned the epileptic fits endured by trisomy babies. One of the points often missed in these discussions is that many people who deal with serious health issues find rich rewarding lives inspite of the agonies of their problems. With regards to epileptic fits….few who experience seizures would like to have more. Few ever call them epileptic fits. (Those are for those of us with seizures fighting words.) Most have found that life is still worth living. For the babies, the distinction between actively injecting poison and allowing a natural death (and allowing for the possilbity of a miracle) is significant. Finally, please note that the first people to be euthanized in Germany were people “subjected to epileptic fits.” The doctors and government had decided their fate by 1932.
    The point is ways exist to act humanely with people who are suffering. While it is valid to try to comprehend the horror they are experiencing by imagining ourselves in their situation, it is critical to remember that we cannot know where they truly are. I watched my mother die of ALS, and with her I agonized over what she was going through. Then I watched a miracle as one day in the last spring of her life, she regained hope, and I saw her experience a joy and peace in the last months, when she could hardly move, the like of which she had never known before in her life. Can i assume to know what someone else who has a seizure syndrome is going through because I have seizures? What I have learned it that I cannot. I can only know that hope (thereby life) is a gift that can be sucked out of people by those surrounding them who have the best of intentions, and hope is where life lives. It is also easy to romanticize the mercy killing of animals and people and in the process ignore the reality of the suffering caused by euthanasia.
    Thank you to everyone who sees value in a life and to all who will do what you can to mitigate suffering. (Oh and please, avoid terms like “epileptic fits”)

  • http://www.happymills.com/ Brad Mills

    Gedi,
    It has truly been a stimulating and enjoyable discussion. Whether you had me “hands down” (as Larry loving pointed out) was not the point. I realize I am a terrible debater and would look worse than GW Bush if I were on stage. Thankfully, being able to write everything in a post, instead of being quick-witted, gives me the time to pause and really think (or search the Scriptures) about what I am saying. I appreciate your continued stability throughout, not resorting to ad hominem or strawman arguments like I’m so used to getting. Which leads me to Larry…
    Larry,
    you said “As for the game playing which followed, shame on you Brad for pretending that the patently ambiguous texts you recited are “clear” statements about the fairness and ethicality of capital punishment.”
    Strawman
    you said “Well, at least you admit it where you stand. Can we paraphrase your position? How about “God gave me a brain and the latest version of my holy book tells me not to use it.”
    Ad Hominem
    “You sit here and judge me for my compassion-based stance with respect to the treatment of terminally suffering brainless humans…”
    Please show me where I judged you regarding your stance on youth-in-asia? I’m curious to see what you come up with as an example of “judging.”
    “…while out of the other side of your mouth you gleefully defend a system that invariably results in the execution of perfectly healthy and innocent human beings, relying only on quotations from your holy book. Truly bizarre.”
    I apologize that I never argued something that I couldn’t back-up with Scripture. Next time I will try to remember to put my God on the shelf so I can properly relate. Using your line of reasoning, your stance on euthanasia invariably results in the death of people who have the potential to make a wealth of impact in this world (the likelihood of an innocent person being executed is probably much less, than the chance that a physician assisted suicide kills a person who might of recovered – what if the baby were improperly diagnosed? What if a Trisomy 18 baby were actually a Trisomy 18p baby who will likely survive with different mental ailments? This confusion is very common for Trisomy 18p babies).
    “It’s evangelicals like you who won’t cease judging others until you’re raptured or dead. I’ve got news for you: the latter is coming first. Place your bets, folks.”
    I like how you stand on a pedestal as if you have not been “judging” anyone. It’s always the most convienient timing when the “judge not” phrase is thrown out there. Matt.7:1-2 “Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you.” If that is to be interpreted as you suggest, then there can be no such thing as sin (for who are you to tell me what’s right or wrong), or justice (who are you to say what punishment is worthy), or mercy (who are you to say what I deserve), or forgiveness (we already took “sin” out of our vocabulary). Do you see where this is leading?

  • http://www.happymills.com Brad Mills

    Gedi,
    It has truly been a stimulating and enjoyable discussion. Whether you had me “hands down” (as Larry loving pointed out) was not the point. I realize I am a terrible debater and would look worse than GW Bush if I were on stage. Thankfully, being able to write everything in a post, instead of being quick-witted, gives me the time to pause and really think (or search the Scriptures) about what I am saying. I appreciate your continued stability throughout, not resorting to ad hominem or strawman arguments like I’m so used to getting. Which leads me to Larry…
    Larry,
    you said “As for the game playing which followed, shame on you Brad for pretending that the patently ambiguous texts you recited are “clear” statements about the fairness and ethicality of capital punishment.”
    Strawman
    you said “Well, at least you admit it where you stand. Can we paraphrase your position? How about “God gave me a brain and the latest version of my holy book tells me not to use it.”
    Ad Hominem
    “You sit here and judge me for my compassion-based stance with respect to the treatment of terminally suffering brainless humans…”
    Please show me where I judged you regarding your stance on youth-in-asia? I’m curious to see what you come up with as an example of “judging.”
    “…while out of the other side of your mouth you gleefully defend a system that invariably results in the execution of perfectly healthy and innocent human beings, relying only on quotations from your holy book. Truly bizarre.”
    I apologize that I never argued something that I couldn’t back-up with Scripture. Next time I will try to remember to put my God on the shelf so I can properly relate. Using your line of reasoning, your stance on euthanasia invariably results in the death of people who have the potential to make a wealth of impact in this world (the likelihood of an innocent person being executed is probably much less, than the chance that a physician assisted suicide kills a person who might of recovered – what if the baby were improperly diagnosed? What if a Trisomy 18 baby were actually a Trisomy 18p baby who will likely survive with different mental ailments? This confusion is very common for Trisomy 18p babies).
    “It’s evangelicals like you who won’t cease judging others until you’re raptured or dead. I’ve got news for you: the latter is coming first. Place your bets, folks.”
    I like how you stand on a pedestal as if you have not been “judging” anyone. It’s always the most convienient timing when the “judge not” phrase is thrown out there. Matt.7:1-2 “Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you.” If that is to be interpreted as you suggest, then there can be no such thing as sin (for who are you to tell me what’s right or wrong), or justice (who are you to say what punishment is worthy), or mercy (who are you to say what I deserve), or forgiveness (we already took “sin” out of our vocabulary). Do you see where this is leading?

  • Bob Sharpe

    From a big picture perspective, I shudder at what we are doing. The law of unintended consequences usually takes root sooner or later, and when some of the advocates of this barbaric practice are told to make a fist…it will only sting a little, maybe then they’ll “get it.”

  • Bob Sharpe

    From a big picture perspective, I shudder at what we are doing. The law of unintended consequences usually takes root sooner or later, and when some of the advocates of this barbaric practice are told to make a fist…it will only sting a little, maybe then they’ll “get it.”

  • gedi

    Brad wrote, “It has truly been a stimulating and enjoyable discussion.”
    Indeed! :)
    Brad wrote, “Whether you had me “hands down” (as Larry loving pointed out) was not the point.”
    Hardly. You made many salient points. The issue is far from black and white and the gray area is where the thinking and good debate happens. Romans 13 is certainly a pause for discussion insofar as capital punishment is concerned.
    Brad wrote, “I appreciate your continued stability throughout, not resorting to ad hominem or strawman arguments like I’m so used to getting.”
    Likewise. God bless, Brad!

  • gedi

    Brad wrote, “It has truly been a stimulating and enjoyable discussion.”
    Indeed! :)
    Brad wrote, “Whether you had me “hands down” (as Larry loving pointed out) was not the point.”
    Hardly. You made many salient points. The issue is far from black and white and the gray area is where the thinking and good debate happens. Romans 13 is certainly a pause for discussion insofar as capital punishment is concerned.
    Brad wrote, “I appreciate your continued stability throughout, not resorting to ad hominem or strawman arguments like I’m so used to getting.”
    Likewise. God bless, Brad!

  • http://www.blogicus.com/archives/post_birth_abortions.php bLogicus

    Post Birth Abortions

    Euthanasia of newborns is already being practiced in the Netherlands. Dutch doctors are asking the Netherlands government for guidelines on so-called “mercy killings” after revelations surfaced this week that a hospital in the European nation has been …

  • http://www.blogicus.com/archives/post_birth_abortions.php bLogicus

    Post Birth Abortions

    Euthanasia of newborns is already being practiced in the Netherlands. Dutch doctors are asking the Netherlands government for guidelines on so-called “mercy killings” after revelations surfaced this week that a hospital in the European nation has been …

  • http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/archives/2004/12/if_abortion_is.php ProLifeBlogs

    Euthanasia, Murder and Post-Birth Abortion

    If abortion is so widely accepted and practiced, can infanticide be far behind? The same evolutionary rationalization used to justify abortion might also be used to justify the murder of unwanted children, specially those with birth defects or illnesse…

  • http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/archives/2004/12/if_abortion_is.php ProLifeBlogs

    Euthanasia, Murder and Post-Birth Abortion

    If abortion is so widely accepted and practiced, can infanticide be far behind? The same evolutionary rationalization used to justify abortion might also be used to justify the murder of unwanted children, specially those with birth defects or illnesse…

  • http://www.stop-the-tyrants.com/ David

    Larry Lord is too far gone, morally speaking, to have any discussion with on this or any other moral issue.
    It isn’t that he can’t make the distinction between witholding care that is hopeless and willful active killing. He simply doesn’t want to.
    He is, in a word, a monster — and that’s that.

  • http://www.stop-the-tyrants.com David

    Larry Lord is too far gone, morally speaking, to have any discussion with on this or any other moral issue.
    It isn’t that he can’t make the distinction between witholding care that is hopeless and willful active killing. He simply doesn’t want to.
    He is, in a word, a monster — and that’s that.

  • http://thepasture.blogspot.com/ sean

    To be honest, the arguing that has been going on here between some of you is annoying and a little boring. Sounds like most of you will not be convinced to change your mind anyway, no matter the argument offered by the other side. Fine. Want to hear a chilling, and I think terrifying statistic? Here’s come context for the Groningen Protocol:
    “Now in Holland, twenty years later, twenty years of de facto, legalized euthanasia, where doctors administer it, nearly twenty per cent of the deaths of that country every single year, 19.4% specifically, are a result of euthanasia. One in five people in Holland are euthanized. But here’s the terrifying statistic. That’s pretty sad. The one that is terrifying is that 11.3%, more than one in ten, of the total number of deaths in that country, every single year (14,691 according to the Dutch government’s own report on euthanasia) are cases of involuntary euthanasia. What’s involuntary euthanasia? That’s when the patient says, “I don’t want to die”, and the doctor says, “you’re dead”, zap.”
    http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/ethics/euthrts.htm
    This is the road that western society is going down. This is the outcome of devaluing human life to the point of mere utilitarianism.

  • http://thepasture.blogspot.com sean

    To be honest, the arguing that has been going on here between some of you is annoying and a little boring. Sounds like most of you will not be convinced to change your mind anyway, no matter the argument offered by the other side. Fine. Want to hear a chilling, and I think terrifying statistic? Here’s come context for the Groningen Protocol:
    “Now in Holland, twenty years later, twenty years of de facto, legalized euthanasia, where doctors administer it, nearly twenty per cent of the deaths of that country every single year, 19.4% specifically, are a result of euthanasia. One in five people in Holland are euthanized. But here’s the terrifying statistic. That’s pretty sad. The one that is terrifying is that 11.3%, more than one in ten, of the total number of deaths in that country, every single year (14,691 according to the Dutch government’s own report on euthanasia) are cases of involuntary euthanasia. What’s involuntary euthanasia? That’s when the patient says, “I don’t want to die”, and the doctor says, “you’re dead”, zap.”
    http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/ethics/euthrts.htm
    This is the road that western society is going down. This is the outcome of devaluing human life to the point of mere utilitarianism.

  • Larry Lord

    I leave this thread for a day or two and you guys go right back to the scripture reciting and the fear-mongering.
    Brad writes
    “the likelihood of an innocent person being executed is probably much less, than the chance that a physician assisted suicide kills a person who might of recovered – what if the baby were improperly diagnosed?”
    Ah, a very good question, Brad! Congratulations! I was afraid I’d have to make the argument myself.
    First, your “likelihood” argument has some holes. Every euthanized baby is innocent and every euthanized baby will be, well, euthanized. Killed. The likelihood of death is 100%.
    Recall that a jury is composed of a group of ordinary people (the minimum number varies), not experts in criminology.
    The experts that will evaluate whether a severely ill newborn is (1) suffering and (2) hopeless are trained physicians.
    Again, Brad, you keep sliding down the slippery slope and making all sorts of bogus assumptions.
    Is a human being without a cerebellum, an exposed spine, and malformed lungs going to “recover”?
    Of course not.
    Can it be kept alive for a quite a while in a state where any objective observer would say that it is suffering?
    You bet.
    If it’s removed from life support will it die immediately afterward?
    Maybe.
    If it doesn’t die immediately after it is removed from life support, will it continue to suffer?
    Most likely.
    If the baby is euthanized, will its suffering end immediately?
    Yup.
    ———-
    Please don’t give me any more crap about my use of term “it” in lieu of writing “the baby” over and over again. Thanks.

  • Larry Lord

    I leave this thread for a day or two and you guys go right back to the scripture reciting and the fear-mongering.
    Brad writes
    “the likelihood of an innocent person being executed is probably much less, than the chance that a physician assisted suicide kills a person who might of recovered – what if the baby were improperly diagnosed?”
    Ah, a very good question, Brad! Congratulations! I was afraid I’d have to make the argument myself.
    First, your “likelihood” argument has some holes. Every euthanized baby is innocent and every euthanized baby will be, well, euthanized. Killed. The likelihood of death is 100%.
    Recall that a jury is composed of a group of ordinary people (the minimum number varies), not experts in criminology.
    The experts that will evaluate whether a severely ill newborn is (1) suffering and (2) hopeless are trained physicians.
    Again, Brad, you keep sliding down the slippery slope and making all sorts of bogus assumptions.
    Is a human being without a cerebellum, an exposed spine, and malformed lungs going to “recover”?
    Of course not.
    Can it be kept alive for a quite a while in a state where any objective observer would say that it is suffering?
    You bet.
    If it’s removed from life support will it die immediately afterward?
    Maybe.
    If it doesn’t die immediately after it is removed from life support, will it continue to suffer?
    Most likely.
    If the baby is euthanized, will its suffering end immediately?
    Yup.
    ———-
    Please don’t give me any more crap about my use of term “it” in lieu of writing “the baby” over and over again. Thanks.

  • Larry Lord

    “The one that is terrifying is that 11.3%, more than one in ten, of the total number of deaths in that country, every single year (14,691 according to the Dutch government’s own report on euthanasia) are cases of involuntary euthanasia. What’s involuntary euthanasia? That’s when the patient says, “I don’t want to die”, and the doctor says, “you’re dead”, zap.”
    Now I know what the earlier commenter meant about the “checkout line” discussion. I think I saw this story reported in the Weekly World News. Except that the patients weren’t “zapped”. They were thrown into tanks of piranhas at Dutch amusement parks. Loads of fun, folks.

  • Larry Lord

    “The one that is terrifying is that 11.3%, more than one in ten, of the total number of deaths in that country, every single year (14,691 according to the Dutch government’s own report on euthanasia) are cases of involuntary euthanasia. What’s involuntary euthanasia? That’s when the patient says, “I don’t want to die”, and the doctor says, “you’re dead”, zap.”
    Now I know what the earlier commenter meant about the “checkout line” discussion. I think I saw this story reported in the Weekly World News. Except that the patients weren’t “zapped”. They were thrown into tanks of piranhas at Dutch amusement parks. Loads of fun, folks.

  • http://blogger.xs4all.nl/steeph/archive/2004/12/06/16588.aspx Steeph’s Blog

    Are the Dutch killing their babies?

    Americans are worried about euthanasia on babies in Holland. But they make a big thing out of it.

  • http://blogger.xs4all.nl/steeph/archive/2004/12/06/16588.aspx Steeph’s Blog

    Are the Dutch killing their babies?

    Americans are worried about euthanasia on babies in Holland. But they make a big thing out of it.

  • http://blogger.xs4all.nl/steeph/archive/2004/12/06/16588.aspx Steeph’s Blog

    Are the Dutch killing their babies?

    Americans are worried about euthanasia on babies in Holland. But they make a big thing out of it.

  • http://blogger.xs4all.nl/steeph/archive/2004/12/06/16588.aspx Steeph’s Blog

    Are the Dutch killing their babies?

    Americans are worried about euthanasia on babies in Holland. But they make a big thing out of it.

  • http://blogger.xs4all.nl/steeph/archive/0001/01/01/16588.aspx Steeph’s Blog

    Are the Dutch killing their babies?

    Americans are worried about euthanasia on babies in Holland. But they make a big thing out of it.

  • http://blogger.xs4all.nl/steeph/archive/0001/01/01/16588.aspx Steeph’s Blog

    Are the Dutch killing their babies?

    Americans are worried about euthanasia on babies in Holland. But they make a big thing out of it.

  • http://blogger.xs4all.nl/steeph/archive/0001/01/01/16588.aspx Steeph’s Blog

    Are the Dutch killing their babies?

    Americans are worried about euthanasia on babies in Holland. But they make a big thing out of it.

  • http://blogger.xs4all.nl/steeph/archive/0001/01/01/16588.aspx Steeph’s Blog

    Are the Dutch killing their babies?

    Americans are worried about euthanasia on babies in Holland. But they make a big thing out of it.

  • http://www.writewingconspiracy.com/archives/2004/12/screaming_in_th.html The Write Wing Conspiracy

    Screaming in the Middle of a Forest

    Instead of just avoiding the moral hellfire that I think many thoughtful people recognize to be present in this debate, we instead seek to walk as close to it as possible without falling in. Maybe I just haven’t shaken my “the other shoe is going to d…

  • http://www.writewingconspiracy.com/archives/2004/12/screaming_in_th.html The Write Wing Conspiracy

    Screaming in the Middle of a Forest

    Instead of just avoiding the moral hellfire that I think many thoughtful people recognize to be present in this debate, we instead seek to walk as close to it as possible without falling in. Maybe I just haven’t shaken my “the other shoe is going to d…

  • http://mysandmen.blogspot.com/2004/12/groningen-corollary.html My Sandmen

    The Groningen Corollary

    If existence by committee is to be the legacy of Mankind, then the silence of our lambs today may yield the soylents of necessity tomorrow.

  • http://mysandmen.blogspot.com/2004/12/groningen-corollary.html My Sandmen

    The Groningen Corollary

    If existence by committee is to be the legacy of Mankind, then the silence of our lambs today may yield the soylents of necessity tomorrow.