8mm
Posted on 11/11/2006 6:28:10 PM PST by silverleaf
Sadly, that is what the Episcopal Church has become. Disgusting, isn't it?
I still worship in the Episcopal (well, actually, we dropped the Episcopal part out of our name already) church I grew up in, and we're part of a large group (led by Truro Church and The Falls Church) from Northern Virginia that will most likely break away before New Year's.
Sadly,I think we have not seen the bottom-not even close.I really fear the next 10 years.
I believe this was tried on the continent about 70 years ago. Dind' end well.
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
Reading carefully, I believe the title of the article is misleading. All statements in the piece itself suggest there might be time where vain attempts at treatment is actually worse than allowing the infant to pass on. A bit differently, the Royal College apparently supports active mercy killing in its separate report.
Most bizarre is arguing if they can freely kill the child after it's born, parents might not have late term abortions in order to see the infants circumstance for themselves.
This is a legacy of the "pro choice" fascists: you or I lose an innate right to live and are allowed continued lives purely at the arbitrary whim of another, separate person.
Just watch how the Left treat any abortion vs. a miscarriage, such as Pamela Anderson's. For those abortion ideologues the only difference is whether the child was wanted or not. They don't more the child itself.
Yes. Just because someone has on "holy clothes" or an honorific title, or performs some outwardly religious rituals, has no bearing on whether he is a man of God.
--The greatest and saddest irony. God made that life with a plan for it that you men decide to extinguish.--
God's plan was for it to be born without the capability of being able to survive?
Reading carefully, I believe the title of the article is misleading. All statements in the piece itself suggest there might be time where vain attempts at treatment is actually worse than allowing the infant to pass on. A bit differently, the Royal College apparently supports active mercy killing in its separate report.
Most bizarre is arguing if they can freely kill the child after it's born, parents might not have late term abortions in order to see the infants circumstance for themselves.
This is a legacy of the "pro choice" fascists: you or I lose an innate right to live and are allowed continued lives purely at the arbitrary whim of another, separate person.
Just watch how the Left treat any abortion vs. a miscarriage, such as Pamela Anderson's. For those abortion ideologues the only difference is whether the child was wanted or not. They don't mourn the child itself.
Well then. What have we come to? Let's just give the poor dears a shot to put them to sleep and harvest whatever's left that is useful. /sarcasm off
<< YMMV, but that's how it looked when I was a priest. >>
I think your vision is crystal clear.
Just sickening...
It says it would support the withdrawal of treatment only if all reasonable alternatives had been considered, “so that the possible lethal act would only be performed with manifest reluctance”.
Merely "considering" all reasonable alternatives does not justify murder. Furthermore, if "lethal act" is referring to murder, or withholding basic needs, this is a serious problem. But if "lethal act" is referring to witholding extraordinary measures, then if the conditions in question are terminal, this is not necessarily an unethical position.
But the article is far too sketchy to evaluate properly.
-A8
--But the article is far too sketchy to evaluate properly.--
The article is necessarily sketchy since the stated positions are far too sketchy.
Not that any orthodox Episcopalian Freepers (not Episcopals) are offended by that post.
God did not make death, nor does he rejoice in the destruction of the living. Wisdom 1:13
If the baby can't survive, it dies: that's natural death, and it happens to us all. And death is not God's plan: the Bible identifies death as our enemy and God's enemy.
"Active euthanasia” should be considered for the overall good of families, to spare parents adult children with better things to do the emotional burden and financial stress of caring for desperately sick infants aging parents.
Among the many other objections to this, it should be noted that not so long ago (say, 150 years ago) MOST human diseases, disabilities, and handicaps were untreatable. There was no cure for tuberculosis, no vaccine for Polio, no dietary treatment for phenylketonuria, no regimen for diabetes: basically, other than food, water, and comfort care, no nothin' for nothin'...
It was the good-faith attempt to treat, ameliorate, heal, and cure that led to every bit of medical progress which we now enjoy.
Love these babies, hold them, attempt to nurture them as well as you can. If they are so severely premature and so desperately sick, they will perhaps die on their own: there is no ""need"" to kill them.
But if you try to sustain and strengthen them, you will gain continuous skill, experience, and knowledge about how to help tiny preemies. Every FReeper who has ever been sick or injured should realize that there will be no more cures for anyone if death-as-a-treatment is accepted in our legal and medical community.
My G_d...
What a wonderful insight. I wish I could think as clearly as you do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.