Euthanasia Question

[Squishy]

And this would confirm my statement that you believe the law of the land to be the ultimate moral authority. This regardless of how that law came to be, whether through the dictates of a tyrant, majority rule, or even through the deliberations of elected representatives.
Next question, if the rulers decided you were no longer needed, would you hand yourself over to your demise? After all, it would be perfectly legal.

I think you are misunderstanding things a little bit. I was using slavery to demonstrate that the moral ideals of society change. Now do you disagree?

 

[Squishy]

Definition of corrupt drawn from dictionary.com:

**

Therefore a law characterized by the above adjective.
Examples of a corrupt laws which agree with the above definition perfectly:
Legalized Abortion
Legalized Slavery
Legalized Euthanasia
Legalized Contraception
Legalized Murder
Legalized Extermination
Legalized Theft
.
.
.
All of these marked by a serious violation of Natural Law. Before I can comment further, I would suggest learning about natural law as suggested by another poster above before trying to argue that there 'aint no such thing.**

The issue i have is that you are using the Theory of Natural Law, to make the assertaion that those laws are corrupt. Your benchmark is a philisophical belief which not everyone believes in. In fact it can be show not to be the benchmark that is used by people, such as the case of slavery. Eventually the evolving ‘natural’ laws of society made the majority of people view this as immoral. But for a long time it was considered ok by the majority of people.

 

[Squishy]

Right. In my opinion, giving marriage licenses to homosexuals is somewhat like giving driving licenses to blind people. At best, it’s pointless and insulting - at worst, it’s stupid and dangerous.

Marriage is for the purpose of limiting sex to one man and one woman who are committed to one another for life, for the purpose of bringing children into the world and raising them up to be good citizens.

By definition, persons of the same sex can’t have actual sex (since the matching body part is missing), and are unable to reproduce.

This is not the thread for this discussion. But no. A civil marriage is not for that purpose at all. Its to allow a couple of share next of kin rights.

 

[mapleoak]

I think you are misunderstanding things a little bit. I was using slavery to demonstrate that the moral ideals of society change. Now do you disagree?

The laws of a particular society are changeable. They can change to be morally sound and can change to be morally corrupt. The moral law itself does not change, societies reflection of the moral law can change. In the example, slavery is an intrinsic evil (evil by its very nature) regardless of the legality of it and regardless of a particular society’s approval of it.

 

[NTOT]

The issue i have is that you are using the Theory of Natural Law, to make the assertaion that those laws are corrupt. Your benchmark is a philisophical belief which not everyone believes in. In fact it can be show not to be the benchmark that is used by people, such as the case of slavery. Eventually the evolving ‘natural’ laws of society made the majority of people view this as immoral. But for a long time it was considered ok by the majority of people.

Once upon a time the majority of people became corrupt to such a degree that the world had to be destroyed.

And when God had seen that the earth was corrupted (for all flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth), He said to Noe: The end of all flesh is come before me, the earth is filled with iniquity through them, and I will destroy them with the earth.
Genesis 6:12-13

Was God in error since He disagreed with most of society?

 

[jmcrae]

This is not the thread for this discussion. But no. A civil marriage is not for that purpose at all. Its to allow a couple of share next of kin rights.

When you have a child together, and even if the child dies, you become kin to one another through that child, yes. But that doesn’t happen with homosexuals. They don’t have children together - it is not physically possible.

 

[elts1956]

The issue i have is that you are using the Theory of Natural Law, to make the assertaion that those laws are corrupt. Your benchmark is a philisophical belief which not everyone believes in. In fact it can be show not to be the benchmark that is used by people, such as the case of slavery. Eventually the evolving ‘natural’ laws of society made the majority of people view this as immoral. But for a long time it was considered ok by the majority of people.

It wasn’t the Natural Law that evolved, that can never change. It was the conscience of the people which evolved and became more sensitive to the injustice of slavery.

Many in the U.S. have been working very hard to make sure consciences here in the states have been dulled and they have succeeded greatly.

You have a problem in distinguishing absolute truths from prudential truths.And did you read Mapleoak # 84? S/he says essentially the same thing I have. You didn’t read it did you:tsktsk:

 

[Squishy]

The laws of a particular society are changeable. They can change to be morally sound and can change to be morally corrupt. The moral law itself does not change, societies reflection of the moral law can change. In the example, slavery is an intrinsic evil (evil by its very nature) regardless of the legality of it and regardless of a particular society’s approval of it.

The thing that confuses me though. If their is some unchangable set of rules written into us humans. How is it that things like slavery can exist. Surely the majority of people would realise this is against their internal moral compass. And it would never be allowed to exist in the first place.

This is why i do not believe their is such a thing as ‘Natural Law’ If their was in my view people would tend to behave themselves a lot better to fellow humans. I firmley think that the intrinsic laws that we all know are aquired through pressures that are excerted by the society that we live in. They are changeable and evolving all the time.

 

[Squishy]

Once upon a time the majority of people became corrupt to such a degree that the world had to be destroyed.
Was God in error since He disagreed with most of society?

Extreme messures of a genocidal god. Would it not have been more moral for this god to educate the people of the world in what they where doing wrong. Rather than exterminating most of life on the planet.

 

[Squishy]

When you have a child together, and even if the child dies, you become kin to one another through that child, yes. But that doesn’t happen with homosexuals. They don’t have children together - it is not physically possible.

No, a marriage allows for a couple to be treated as next of kin in a legal sense. With regards to such things as hospital visitation rights, inheratences ect. Its got absolutly nothing to do with making babys.

 

[Squishy]

It wasn’t the Natural Law that evolved, that can never change. It was the conscience of the people which evolved and became more sensitive to the injustice of slavery.

Many in the U.S. have been working very hard to make sure consciences here in the states have been dulled and they have succeeded greatly.

You have a problem in distinguishing absolute truths from prudential truths.And did you read Mapleoak # 84? S/he says essentially the same thing I have. You didn’t read it did you:tsktsk:

Of course i have read his post. S/He is probebly the person giving me the most ‘food for thought’ in a number of different areas. As this is essentially the same thing have a look at my reply.

 

[jmcrae]

No, a marriage allows for a couple to be treated as next of kin in a legal sense. With regards to such things as hospital visitation rights, inheratences ect. Its got absolutly nothing to do with making babys.

Marriage has got absolutely everything to do with making babies. Making babies together in a committed, binding relationship (aka a marriage) is the essense of the family, which is the building block of society.

If someone wants his friend who is of the same sex to be his heir and his executor, all he has to do is write it into his will and make sure his lawyer knows who the person is and how to get in touch with him. Marriage is not about that. I have people in my will who are not related to me by blood or by marriage, and it’s perfectly legal - I don’t have to go through a legal sham and pretend that I am “married” to them.

 

[Squishy]

Marriage has got absolutely everything to do with making babies. Making babies together in a committed, binding relationship (aka a marriage) is the essense of the family, which is the building block of society.

If someone wants his friend who is of the same sex to be his heir and his executor, all he has to do is write it into his will and make sure his lawyer knows who the person is and how to get in touch with him. Marriage is not about that. I have people in my will who are not related to me by blood or by marriage, and it’s perfectly legal - I don’t have to go through a legal sham and pretend that I am “married” to them.

A couple who cannot conceive a child should have their marriage annuled? Or an elderly couple?

 

[fix]

The thing that confuses me though. If their is some unchangable set of rules written into us humans. How is it that things like slavery can exist. Surely the majority of people would realise this is against their internal moral compass. And it would never be allowed to exist in the first place.

This is why i do not believe their is such a thing as ‘Natural Law’ If their was in my view people would tend to behave themselves a lot better to fellow humans. I firmley think that the intrinsic laws that we all know are aquired through pressures that are excerted by the society that we live in. They are changeable and evolving all the time.

That people misperceive the standard is not proof there is no standard. In fact, it is proof there is one.

 

[Cracker_Mom]

A couple who cannot conceive a child should have their marriage annuled? Or an elderly couple?

Purposes of marriage are procreation *and * companionship. The Catechism states it much better.

 

[jmcrae]

A couple who cannot conceive a child should have their marriage annuled? Or an elderly couple?

No, of course not. They are open to the possiblity of children, even if God chooses not to send them a child. Remember Abraham and Sarah.

 

[JuneBug72]

Isn’t the topic of this tread Euthanasia?

 

[mapleoak]

The thing that confuses me though. If their is some unchangable set of rules written into us humans. How is it that things like slavery can exist. Surely the majority of people would realise this is against their internal moral compass. And it would never be allowed to exist in the first place.

This is why i do not believe their is such a thing as ‘Natural Law’ If their was in my view people would tend to behave themselves a lot better to fellow humans. I firmley think that the intrinsic laws that we all know are aquired through pressures that are excerted by the society that we live in. They are changeable and evolving all the time.

Ponder these:
Is it morally acceptable to kill ones neighbor? Why/why not?
Would you say it has to do with society in general being conditioned that such is wrong?

Assume the only two people in the world were you and your neighbor. Now would it be morally acceptable then that there is no ‘society’? Why/why not.

Assume there is only one apple, both of you need to eat. Would it be acceptable to kill your neighbor so that you get the apple?

If it were morally acceptable, should your neighbor then willingly offer himself to you to be killed, since if it is not wrong he has no reason to resist?

If he has reason to resist, is it because he believes it wrong for you to kill him?

Which one of you is right? Either one is right and the other wrong, but both cannot be right.

Ultimately, Truth can only be absolute. That truth is unchanging is absolute.

 

[magdelaine]

How is it that things like slavery can exist.

Free Will.

 

[JuneBug72]

Hi, I just finished re-reading A Canticle for Leibowitz, in which there is a scene at the end of the book where the Abbot confronts the government “radiation” workers who are cleaning up after a nuclear blast about offering to euthanize folks who have been “red-tagged”, or slated for dying.

Now, according to my hubby who works in radiation safety, it can take several weeks to die of exposure to radiation, and that the process is bloody and painful. He also says it can be difficult to tell whether someone has been given a lethal dose. However, lets say that you unequivocally could tell that someone **was **going to die from radiation exposure. Of course, my first thought is that the Church would never condone “mercy killing”, and rightly so, but might this be a special case? I sense this was a bone of contention for the author personally.

This is a personal decision. As long as the individual is sane his wishes should be respected.