Posted on 09/05/2020 8:35:17 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Change that to an emphatic, YES!
I misread your question.
RE: When one denounces an evil act only by their words...
...but profits from an evil act by their actions...
...then one is endorsing the evil act.
and also this:
RE: If the scientist uses the organ for his own purposes, he implicitly approves the actions of the provider of his source,
1) I am trying very hard to see the connection between using an already dead person’s organs to find cures for diseases with : a) Profiting from it ( as in making money off it instead of healing humanity ); b) approving the actions of the provider.
One can vehemently support the PUNISHMENT of anyone who kills an innocent person ( adult or fetus ), support laws that criminalizes abortion or harvesting of organs for selling like Planned Parenthood does, but still make use of an already deceased person’s organs to find cures for dreaded diseases. The person is dead — you can either bury the person, or make use of his organs to help humanity. If you make use of his organs, I don’t see how you are endorsing his murder. You never wanted, rejoiced or encouraged the murder. You can condemn and punish his murderer while still bring some good out of the alas, already done evil deed.
The Bible tells us that what matters are our SOUL and SPIRIT. Our body decays and will be rebirthed in the last day. Jesus said: “The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing.” ( John 6:63 ).
2) Take the case of Medical Schools all over the country — they make use of dead people -— CADAVERS ( dead humans ) to study anatomy, identify disease sites, determine causes of death, and provide tissue to repair a defect in a living human being.
I have friends who are doctors who tell me that many of these cadavers were homeless victims of murders, drunk driving, etc.
What does that make of all Medical Schools? Profiteers from murder and drunk driving?
By your argument every single doctor who went to medical school were beneficiaries of evil or irresponsible acts and by your definition, endorsing the evil act.
How many people are outraged at the standard use of Cadavers for medical studies?
You’re comparing apples to oranges and you claiming the Bible supports your position is pathetic.
So I guess you're OK with cannibalism?
Haunted by cannibalism: ‘I will never forget that first incision’
RE: So I guess you’re OK with cannibalism?
If I were desperately hungry and starving in a desert, and need to survive, what choice do I have? What choice do YOU have?
But of course,I won’t kill someone just to eat him even if I were starving in a desert.
The moral culpability for your acts are determined by 3 things — The act itself ( killing someone simply to be able to harvest his organs is evil ), the motive (do you do it for greedy profit, or do you do it for good?), the situation ( how desperate ).
RE: You’re comparing apples to oranges and you claiming the Bible supports your position is pathetic.
Explain to me why it is pathetic. Simply saying so does not make it so unless you can give me good reasons.
RE: You’re comparing apples to oranges
In what way? How are using Cadavers in medical training different from harvesting organs of an already dead fetus different?
My choice would be to succumb to God's will and accept death. Not cannibalize my team mate or accept a vaccine from a murdered baby.
Death does happen. Why prolong our own lives by nefarious means?
Are we that superficial and selfish?
I'm not.
That statement makes me sick to my stomach.
RE: That statement makes me sick to my stomach.
It makes me sick to my stomach too. But you asked the question. I try to be logically consistent.
Our choice, die or eat.
Either way, I don’t see how you can be morally culpable.
RE: My choice would be to succumb to God’s will and accept death.
And if I ate his flesh, would I be morally culpable if someone else killed him? If so, why?
RE: Death does happen. Why prolong our own lives by nefarious means?
Explain to me why it is nefarious if — 1) You did not kill the person; 2) You support and want the punishment of the killer; 3) Are against the harvesting of organs for profit and support laws against doing it; yet 4) Have to use that person’s organs ( AFTER A CRIME IS COMMITTED AND THE PERSON IS *ALREADY DEAD* ) for curing diseases.
Your use of the word “nefarious” assumes something that you have not shown to fit the word.
Would you eat him if you were stranded in the desert with Hannibal Lecter who had just killed the third person in your party and then offered you the victm's leg?
Did you see the movie, "Unbroken"? The downed airmen were in the sea for 47 days, one died on Day 33 but his surviving buddies didn't eat him.
Let me say this as a middle ground route... I will only support scientists using aborted fetuses tocdrvelop vaccines *IF* there were no other viable alternatives.
If there are other viable alternatives, of course I would much prefer those.
Now you're talking like a crazy man. I didn't realize how far out there you are.
I don't think I could ever order again from Uber Eats; it'll remind me of you.
I know my choice; unfortunately, it appears your's may not be the same as mine.
Thank you ebb tide!
Great answer!
Seriously ?
Would you cannibalize members of your family?
Yes those men had been brought up to attend church and their common decency prevented them from cannabilizing.....I’m sure they looked upon it as a sin and wouldn’t consider it.
One of them had a soul cleansing encounter with the Creator after the War ended......he was born again!
I loved the book.....
.....
In Catholic teaching, based on remote material cooperation, it is permitted under certain circumstances.
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.