ACCIDENTALLY PUT THIS ON ANOTHER POST AND REALLY FELT I SHOULD COPY IT TO HERE.
I just finished defending the church’s position on Terry Shiavo.
Sadly, it was with church members at my parish. It took me 2 hours to explain the reasoning behind the churches position.
Here are the justifications I heard from many:
1. She is suffering just let her die in peace.
2. That’s no person, its just a body.
3. It was her will to terminate her life if she was ever in that situation.
Here is my responses according to my understanding of the churches position:
1. If suffering is a means of justificaition to end a life, then may God bless us because I can name many that suffer. Although I would say that if number 2 is really true, then how could they be suffering if it’s just a bag of skin with bones.
2. Boy is that a scary comment. Men seem to want to define on their own when life starts, when it ends. and when someone is actually human. They seem to think that life starts when:
1. I see growth (few actually said this though)
2. I attach emotions to it
3. I see a concious person
Problem is that it leaves out the following people:
1. Severe Down Syndrome people stop mentally growing at some point.
2. Many can’t and don’t attach emotions to people they never seen or people they don’t like.
3. I suppose an infant or a 2 week old fetus is not conscious.
Let’s end all these peoples lives, right?
I also asked them the following questions and they responded with the following:
Q: I suppose if a mother decides to stop feeding her baby it would be ok right?
A: That’s different cause you get attached to a baby.
Q: Ok then, how about people you don’t get attached too, can you end their life?
A: Well no, because those people show signs of growth and they look conscious.
Q: So growth indicates that your human then right?
Q: Then should we rid ourselves of old people with diseases such as Alzheimer’s and people who are not mentally compontent?
A: Yah but they look concious.
Q: So when is someone conscious?
A: When their brain is atleast working.
Q: Was that the case with Terry Shiavo?
A: I don’t think so.
Q: You seem be unsure, are you sure?
A: Well we don’t really know the details of how the human conscious exactly works with the physical brain. Science is barely scratching the surface. Ther is alot of mystery behind that.
Q: So we are making a decision on something we don’t know much about?
A: Ummm. I see what you mean.
Thankfully I was able to convince two good friends of mine.
By the way this goes into several other topics like abortion, euthanasia, death penalty and so on.
To conclude this is what I told them the Churches position was from my understanding….
Any physycal matter that is directly and crucially involved with the production of a human life cannot be terminated by human intervention. Unless, in the rare case that an incarcerated person is still causing grave damage to human lives by continuing to kill because the government is unable to contain him/her. His life may be terminated. Intervention with someone who is dieing by natural means (starving to death is not natural) is permissible IF it has been decided there is no remedy or solution for the person.
This pretty much covers alot of topics like:
4. Death Penalty
I think as a human race we have repeatedly shown to be unable to choose and define when a life starts, when it ends, at what it means to be human. Aren’t you glad God defined it for us?