Skip to comments.BREAKING: Feeding tube restored to immigrant woman unable to pay Jesuit hospital
Posted on 03/11/2011 3:23:18 PM PST by wagglebee
click here to read article
Yours was a well-articulated, intelligent post posing difficult questions that have yet to be answered.
Since this thread was posted last night there's been perhaps a thousand patients at hospitals across the country whose life support machines were turned off after decisions regarding their prognosis were weighed against financial concerns as well as the need of others for these expensive and very limited in availability life-supporting machines.
There's been perhaps another thousand patients who died last night because a life support machine was not available to them. It was either being used by another patient, having periodic maintenance being performed on it or in a state of disrepair and awaiting the funding needed to get it fixed.
Finally, there's most likely countless patients whose lives depend on one of these life support machines becoming quickly available and who will die if one doesn't.
Hard decisions must be made. These machines are very expensive and there's more people who need them than there are machines available to use. That's an ugly truth but a truth nonetheless.
“This thread is about the right to life”
As is my question. Despite your protestations, you continue to refuse to answer the question asked, you rather choose to personalize it and turn it into a question that makes you feel personally and morally superior.
Maybe you are morally superior, I don’t know, (except for that honesty problem you have).
The question remains:
Are there limits to charity? Should there be?
I see you have a new ally. An admirer actually. It shares your appreciation for honesty and your priorities on the value of life.
How'd you like that bit about rationing life support machines because they're in short supply? I guess the n00b was confused about the pro-life nature of this forum, after watching the culture of death promoted here. Here's what the owner of this site has to say about that. Welcome to Free Republic! America's exclusive site for God, Family, Country, Life & Liberty constitutional conservative activists! .
First of all, we are talking about a FEEDING TUBE, not life support.
Feeding tubes have been used with varying degrees of success for over FOUR HUNDRED YEARS. The early problems with them are entirely due to not having modern plastics to use and infections which are now irrelevant due to common antibiotics.
There is NO SHORTAGE of feeding tubes.
Hard decisions must be made. These machines are very expensive and there's more people who need them than there are machines available to use. That's an ugly truth but a truth nonetheless.
Actually, this isn't true at all. Feeding tubes are inexpensive to produce and cost about $700 a week to use.
You may not realize it, actually you almost certainly do, but you are pushing rationing and death panels. Your position is EXACTLY THE SAME AS OBAMA'S.
Unbelievable, I never thought I would see someone who claimed to be a conservative, or even a libertarian, suggesting that CHARITY should be limited.
Devil's advocate? How many times have we seen this method used to advance an agenda?
Maybe 0h0m0 should appoint a Limits to Charity Czar, sounds like you're the man for the job.
I don’t know why anyone wants to be a devil’s advocate; sounds like choosing the wrong team!
In this case it seems oddly appropriate.
“Unbelievable, I never thought I would see someone who claimed to be a conservative, or even a libertarian, suggesting that CHARITY should be limited.”
What in my post suggested it should be limited? I asked the question. I’m fascinated that nobody wants to answer it.
” Devil’s advocate? How many times have we seen this method used to advance an agenda?”
I don’t know what method to which you refer? I asked a question that nobody will answer directly.
“Maybe 0h0m0 should appoint a Limits to Charity Czar, sounds like you’re the man for the job.”
Fascinating group. I posited no answer to the question to lead you to this conclusion, yet you and others can only attack me personally without attempting to answer the question.
I never want to be a devil’s advocate, people often say it proudly as though it’s a good thing, I don’t get it!
Why don't you answer it? It's your question. Don't you have a point of view?
“I see you have a new ally. An admirer actually. It shares your appreciation for honesty and your priorities on the value of life. “
Again, you attack me personally without answering the question - yet you have absolutely no basis for claiming I value life less than you do, only some mistaken memory from years ago......
I don’t think you should be smack-talking about honesty, given your record on this thread.
I don’t mind your surly attacks, but your intellectual dishonesty has transcended annoying and plunged into amusing.
You could simply answer the question, rather than repeatedly claiming that you did, which seems to take a lot more effort.
Fascinating that nobody will provide an answer - preferring to attack me for asking it - which again, seems a lot more effort than just answering a simple question.
In common parlance, a devil's advocate is someone who, given a certain argument, takes a position he or she does not necessarily agree with, just for the sake of argument. In taking such position, the individual taking on the devil's advocate role seeks to engage others in an argumentative discussion process. The purpose of such process is typically to test the quality of the original argument and identify weaknesses in its structure, and to use such information to either improve or abandon the original, opposing position. It can also refer (less commonly) to someone who takes a stance that is seen as unpopular or unconventional, but is actually another way of arguing a more conventional stance.
It's not uncommon for those who are antagonistic to assume the role of "Devil's Advocate". This allows them to appear to be merely interested in debate, while in fact they are attempting to advance their agenda. In this case, the pro-death agenda.
No, you are not merely *asking a question*. You are trolling and everyone can see it despite your protestations.
Conservatives on FR have had plenty of experience dealing with trolls who push an agenda by simply *asking questions*. It's a common tactic.
Nor has anyone asked you to be our conscience, or to help us think through situations, or to answer to you, or any plethora of excuses people who set themselves up as some kind of moral guidepost or authority seem to think they're appointed to.
Questions like that are baiting, plain and simple, for the purpose of attempting to turn the debate around and attack the conservatives or get us at each other's throats. Or to set the stage for moral relativism.
It's just a red herring set up by someone to get the attention off themselves and their agenda.
Been there, seen that. Not buying it again.
Well said, metmom.
“Why don’t you answer it? It’s your question. Don’t you have a point of view?”
Of course I do. I’d be happy to provide my answer but at the moment I’m rather amused that nobody seems to want to answer - and instead attack me for asking!
I think I know why nobody wants to answer, but I suppose that doesn’t matter at this point.
None of you who criticize me for asking a reasonable question should assume that I have one position or another on this specific case, other than the one I’ve already expressed.
“You are trolling and everyone can see it despite your protestations.”
What is my supposed agenda? I assure you that I am not “trolling”. I posited the question seriously, intending to discuss the very real issues around this case.
My question makes you uncomfortable. That’s the real problem, isn’t it?
Why should there ever be any limits to anyone’s personal charity? Anyone who wants to give to any cause should never have external limits imposed by others.
Up to each person, family or private charity what they want to do with their own money or funds.
Until you post otherwise, it certainly sounds as though you don’t share this POV.
The fact that anyone would even THINK to ask such a question tells us all that we need to know about the questioner.
I can't imagine that it would even cross the mind of someone with a shred of humanity or decency to even think to ask the question in the first place.
If it occurred to you to ask it, then I'd have to say, yes, BB is morally superior to you.
What makes me uncomfortable is:
1. Your dishonesty
2. Your attempts to insinuate (something) and manipulate others
3. Your offensive and fetid stench of “I’m the smartest person in the room” sense of superiority
4. Your complete lack of any compassion for suffering people
5. Your attitude that this whole discussion is some kind of intellectual debate and your aim is to “win” it by being intellectually superior, all the while hiding and obfuscating your real points of view.
Perhaps if I read more of your comments I’ll come up with some other reasons why your word jugglery makes me uncomfortable. Uncomfortable meaning disgusted.
In a word.
Projecting is also revealing of a person's character.
I am a Christian. I believe God is still God. I do not think we should do things that keep people ARTIFICIALLY alive, and have a "living will" that agrees with that sentiment.I wonder at thoseon this board who so viciously attack those who disagree (and they do get VICIOUS!). They're reacting with emotion and intellect, not a belief in the supernatural power of His Spirit to provide life. It is a reflection of a profound lack of faith, in my mind. It especially makes little sense whether Charity is or is not an issue. In my Bible, Charity is another term for love. In Jesus name, anything can happen, but God must be allowed to do it HIS way!!!
Lazarus was DEAD when Jesus called him out of the TOMB! I see a bunch of people who love their loved ones (+ strangers who they think need those thoughts) and want to fight against the WILL OF GOD, and rely on medical science instead of faith! That is not a sign of faith in GOD, but in man (or woman, if the shoe fits).
Just my two pennies worth!
Luke 7:2-9 (New International Version, ©2011)
2 There a centurions servant, whom his master valued highly, was sick and about to die. 3 The centurion heard of Jesus and sent some elders of the Jews to him, asking him to come and heal his servant. 4 When they came to Jesus, they pleaded earnestly with him, This man deserves to have you do this, 5 because he loves our nation and has built our synagogue. 6 So Jesus went with them.
He was not far from the house when the centurion sent friends to say to him: Lord, dont trouble yourself, for I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. 7 That is why I did not even consider myself worthy to come to you. But say the word, and my servant will be healed. 8 For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, Go, and he goes; and that one, Come, and he comes. I say to my servant, Do this, and he does it.
9 When Jesus heard this, he was amazed at him, and turning to the crowd following him, he said, I tell you, I have not found such great faith even in Israel. ...
“Nor has anyone asked you to be our conscience, or to help us think through situations, or to answer to you, or any plethora of excuses people who set themselves up as some kind of moral guidepost or authority seem to think they’re appointed to.”
Who said I wanted to be anyone’s conscience. I expressed an opinion on the woman’s situation - which I’m guessing you never read (we probably agree), and then asked a question that is relevant to the case.
I acknowledged the question contains a moral quandary from the beginning did I not?
It was no set up. It was a question that I expected someone to have an answer to, or perhaps a philosophical twist to. However, I received personal vitriol rather than any attempt at reason.
That is of interest to me.
“Questions like that are baiting, plain and simple, for the purpose of attempting to turn the debate around and attack the conservatives or get us at each other’s throats. Or to set the stage for moral relativism.”
So I’m not conservative for asking a question? What does that make you for not answering it - and instead of ignoring it - attacking me just for asking?
Your post is a classic trolling technique.
Okay, I read a few more of your comments.
Your underhanded passive/aggressive (but less on the passive side) nastiness especially towards BykrBayb makes me very uncomfortable - aka as disgusted and angry.
I notice that leftists in general and those who are often (over)educated in fields such as psychology often accuse others of being made “uncomfortable” because the (over)educated smart one is trying to get them to open their minds to “truth” etc. IOW, you’re a regular leftist smartass trying to “help” us knuckledragging rubes see reason, in a sort of psychological frog testing way.
Yeah, that makes me uncomfortable, aka as disgusted.
I most certainly DID answer you. It wasn't the answer that you wanted so you ignored it.
I gave you a link and definitions for charity. Second to thelast line in my post: Well golly! That looks like the answer is "No".
“Projecting is also revealing of a person’s character. “
I asked a question that nobody wants to answer - you posited a bunch of theories on my motives for asking - none of which were supported by anything of substance - only vitriol.
So exactly who was project what to whom?
I asked the question “Are there limits to charity? Should there be?”
It was that simple. Now you’ve extrapolated all sorts of garbage from your unwillingess to answer an honest question. Who’s character should be called into question? Mine?
Lj, that is a great post!
Really? FOOD and WATER are keeping people "artificially alive"?
You think that if a person is unable to EAT or DRINK and we have the means to help them that we should just leave it to God?
I believe that in Matthew 25:31-46 our Lord tells us EXACTLY how we are to treat those in need. Perhaps your Bible omits it.
 And when the Son of man shall come in his majesty, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit upon the seat of his majesty.  And all nations shall be gathered together before him, and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats:  And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left.  Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.  For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in:
 Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me.  Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink?  And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee?  Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee?  And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.
 Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels.  For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink.  I was a stranger, and you took me not in: naked, and you covered me not: sick and in prison, and you did not visit me.  Then they also shall answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to thee?  Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me.
 And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting.
I used some coarse language though.
I did not ignore you - you closed the discussion with your answer by saying “goodnight”
You posted definitions, and said “no”, which is as close an answer as I’ve gotten. I’m sure you had a deeper point, but you didn’t wish to discuss it. So I didn’t.
Who's is a contraction of "who is" .
Your arrogance is showing. It's completely unjustified, given the above. It's been clear from the very beginning that you have an agenda here, and it's not pro-life.
What a wagon load of garbage. I answered you. There was NOTHING to debate. Charity has no limits.
I’m off for the evening, but I’ll get to your post later.
I think you’ll find you’re off base, and that my nastiness was only returning fire in kind.
I can take it and I can dish it out. So what?
Your purpose is obviously to cause ire and disturbance, use tricksterism to befoul the discussion, keep the attention on acrimony (created by yourself) between you and others, while pushing your agenda by stealth. You keep the discussion focused not on the topic at hand but on yourself as the star/victim of the show, and I am very familiar with those tactics. Leftists, especially (over)educated ones, do this all the time.
You are extremely dishonest in both tactics and purpose and I will not engage with you again, just as I avoid piles of dog poo on the sidewalk.
You use the Bible to justify murdering the helpless? That’s simply unbelievable.
I respect your mind , but I see a lack of faith. If it so important TO YOU, send the money to the hospital, and forget God and His power.
Jesus words were for comfort, and His actions were all Godly. Are we not JOINT HEIRS able to call on our Father, in Heaven, not the resident Dr...
We can argue, but your faith is obviously in a different place. Sorry to bother your consciences with God! Keep complainiing about us and don’t bother replying to me. Preach to your choir! They all have the same mind... But it does NOT seem like the mind of God, to me.
Good night and may you know the Mind of God!
There are times that coarse language is justified, friend.
Grow up and gain a little wisdom before you make such claims.
I’m not debating such childish thoughts... and hope you learn to learn...
Our Lord told us to give food and drink to the hungry and thirsty, comfort the sick, I believe Him and you call that a lack of faith?
Jesus words were for comfort,
Correct, He said that if we did these things we would have everlasting life, that is comforting. Unfortunately, YOU advocate not doing them.
We can argue, but your faith is obviously in a different place.
Yes, your faith and mine is quite obviously in a different place.
Preach to your choir! They all have the same mind... But it does NOT seem like the mind of God, to me.
"To me," is the operative statement in what you wrote.
Really? Do you play with snakes?
Jesus' words are to be taken literally.
And the knowledge to heal comes from God. My God is a huge God that can work through doctors. I don't keep Him in a box. It's too bad your god is only allowed to work within your parameters.
This is a blood curdling thread.
It is. And it’s amazing that anyone would suggest God can only heal in one way, THEIRS. God does amazing things and uses His people to do them.
With God all things are possible.
The way HE wants them to happen, and when.
All we can really do, as tiny souls, is to decide Who to serve, or what to serve.
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.