• Welcome to Talk Jesus

    A true bible based, Jesus centered online community. Join over 11,000 members today

    Register Log In

Who should determine life and death?

Users who viewed this discussion (Total:0)

Administrator
Staff Member
Please post in the proper forum. Feeback & Suggestions is regarding the site itself. I am moving this to the Ethics & Morality forum.
 
Member
Terri Shiavo, a woman of 41 years, is disabled. She can breathe on her own, her heart functions normally without life support. There is sufficiet brain activity that she does not fall within the definition of "brain death" as defined by Harvard medical school. Consequently, her death will mark a new beginning for our society. A legal definition of "the value" of an existing human life. The United States Constitution never provided for this authority in our Courts. The Courts have seized power. We, the people of the United States, control the judiciary, but only if we act to exercise that control. So ultimately, we the people of the United States, by action or by acquiescence, determine who is valuable enough to live and who should die.
 
Member
That also goes for the aborted babies (millions a day!!) that do not EVER see life.

Terri Schiavo IS in fact conscious and can move her eyes, etc...BUT her husband has been having an affair and I believe wants her dead so he can continue with this other woman. It is wrong...a sin against GOD and Terri to take her life when there is much life there. She is in a "Shell" so to speak, but her brain is NOT dead and she cannot speak...Society believes she is not worth keeping alive. It costs too much money...who's money is it? I don't know...but it also costs money to kill innocent babies as well.

Sorry murdering of babies and of human life in general gets me fired up!! I am for war (I believe it is different!!), but this killing of life that has been going on here and in other parts of the world...is breaking my heart...BUT more so breaking GOD'S heart!!

Forgive us, Father...for we know not what we do!! (Though I believe we all do!)
 
Member
Neither abortion, nor the Terri Shiavo case are black and white. Who are any of us to sit back and decide that Terri should be kept alive, or that the tube should be removed?

No one wants to pull the plug on Terri because it costs too much money to sustain her. The issue is whether or not she would've wished to remain in this state. This was taken to court, and an informed decission was made. It was determined that it is more credible that she would not have wished to live in such a state.

You can say all you want that it's the Lord's job to be the judge of who should live and die, but it won't change the fact that it's us who decides what is the "Will of God". All the "wishes" of God are flitered through what we see as truth. In all reality, we humans, for better or worse are still the ones making these choices... even those that are "guided by a higher power".
 
Last edited:
Member
Spinoza said:
Who are any of us to sit back and decide that Terri should be kept alive, or that the tube should be removed?
We are the people of the United States. We are defined by the decisions that we make as a people. The life and imminent death of Terry Shiavo has brought to the American consciousness the question: "When does life end?" The answer that the Court's have established in Ms. Shiavo's life and imminent death is at a definite point before the heart stops beating. This is a matter of grave moral concern for anyone who believes that man is created in the image of God. Are we to look at Terry Shiavo and think that God does not like what he sees?
 
Member
Withholding one's right to food is abuse. How many people in the United States have died of starvation this past year intentionally? It was horrible when starvation occured intentionally WWII, why are we reverting back to this method of killing someone in 2005.
I think the Judge presiding over this case and her husband should be in the room with Terry right now to see her deteriorate. Dr. Death would be so happy right now.
 
Member
wrong

it doesnt matter what the court decided in terris case the point is only God has a right to decide when someones life should end.even though she was in the state she was in herlife had a purpose.and people who take gods job into thre own hands will give an ccount to him
 
Member
This is pretty black and white:
Exo 20:13 Thou shalt not kill.

The Hebrew word used here is ratsach which means murder and could easily be read though shalt not murder. While capitol punishment is not murder and is biblically supported (so is war). In my opinion murder would certainly cover abortion (slaughtering innocents for convenience and profit) and the starving to death of that poor woman.
 
Member
This is pretty black and white:
Exo 20:13 Thou shalt not kill.

The Hebrew word used here is ratsach which means murder and could easily be read though shalt not murder. While capitol punishment is not murder and is biblically supported (so is war). In my opinion murder would certainly cover abortion (slaughtering innocents for convenience and profit) and the starving to death of that poor woman.
Brother, I find myself often in agreement with you on so many things, I am curious about your views on capital punishment. As for myself, Christ's forbidding of a clearly lawful execution leads me to think it unacceptable. I don't, however, mean to derail the thread.

I just wanted to comment that in retrospect it seems so strange to hear people proclaim with such certainty that Terri was conscious and could see and interact. The only possible certainty on that subject came after she died and her brain was examined in autopsy. She could not see, because both her optic nerve and the vision center of the brain had necrosed into a jelly. She could not move because her motor control centers were similarly decomposed. She could not think because the parts of the brain responsible for conscious thought we almost all completely absent, and those that were still there were so damaged as to be nonfunctional.

The truth of the matter is that careful medical observation had already drawn this conclusion. To say that the state had an obligation to force this person's body to receive food seems odd to me. Starvation may be a slow method of death, and certainly in cases like these seems to be no different than administering a fatal dose of morphene, I guess I understand that doctors make a distinction between causing to die and not causing to live. Terri, in any event, was past caring.
 

Similar threads


Top