Mormonism and Euthanasia

[Miriam1947]

It has only taken about 30 years for society in general to accept, and promote death of the unborn.

As late as the mid 1970’s, the medical community’s primary concern was to save/preserve life. Now they, and we as a society seem to not even flinch and terminate it.

Back in the 1970’s, everything was done to preserve the life of the unborn, and the mother. Once medical “professionals” could do more, they would leave it in God’s hands.

That is not the case anymore. The medical community, and society in general is all to eager to terminate a human life they don’t think is worth saving. Already born, or not!

How many Einstein’s, Michaelangelo’s, Martin Luther King’s have already been aborted?

What people seem to forget is that the medical community has made, and continues to make misdiagnosis with pregnancies all the time. How many healthy viable babies have been aborted due to a misdiagnosis?

While some of the hardest funerals for me to attend have been for babies and children, I would rather do that, than to spend the rest of my life wondering “What if?”.

We had a young couple in our Diocese a few years ago that told their baby would be born without a brain. It would only have the brain stem, and were told the baby wouldn’t survive more than a few minutes outside of the womb. They were given the option to “terminate” the pregnancy, but declined. They were able to spend several hours with their child before God called him back home.

What a blessing, not to mention an inspiration.

Euthanasia is abortion done at the end of life instead of at the beginning.

It is still murder.

There was a science fiction story about a man in love with an old woman who he saw becoming young and losing the hallmarks of age and he was sorrowful because she would become a fetus. I cannot for the life of me remember the title. Weird story. Need some help here if anyone has a clue about this.

 

[twopekinguys]

Euthanasia is abortion done at the end of life instead of at the beginning.

It is still murder.

I couldn’t agree more. Life is the most precious gift we have. From natural beginning, to natural end.

 

[ParkerD]

Then discuss the point of the thread, that the LDS church allows euthanasia in the case of unborn infants with terminal birth defects but not in the terminally ill.

Zaffirborant,

I already did. My point was that medical technology has moved far beyond what someone described as “natural birth”, to the situation we have that if taken to its logical conclusion, could arrive at the result that “there should be no miscarriages–let us monitor every stage of embryo development and keep alive every embryo to birth and beyond”.

God has allowed miscarriages to be a part of what happens on this earth. That means God is a participant by non-action, in whether a baby is born, or not. He has also blessed this world with knowledge about human development in the womb. It means there are complexities that people can ignore, or whatever, but they are there–the technology and the knowledge base have moved beyond “natural birth” and into “we can preserve life for just about anyone, with the technology we have”. That applies to end-of-life scenarios also, and I guess if I’m understanding Soren’s position, then medical technology is used in Catholic hospitals to keep alive every person, absolutely, until no medical technology could keep the person, however non-functioning and regardless of what the family sees as “natural causes incident to age”, alive through technological intervention.

 

[Crdl2Grv]

Soren1,

Because of the fact that the unqualified statement you presented is untrue as regards the Latter-day Saint position on abortion, and the fact that any conversation on this topic that does not come to terms with root causes and with what would need to be done to deal with the root causes before attributing to God a kind of law that just says in effect “so sorry–too bad–deal with it” as regards the heinous crime committed that would cause the condition of a pregnancy from rape or incest–**I see no point in having the kind of conversation you have pursued. **

Or, to put it another way…

If you wish to address the basic problem, you must show either why the two statements are compatible or that they are not both Church teachings, but here I think **you have an impossible task. **Little wonder you have not attempted it.

This discussion follows the usual pattern I’ve noticed when certain LDS posters encounter objectively irreconcilable aspects of LDS teachings:

1. Raise a transparently irrelevant point and claim that the OP is “ignoring” it.
2. Refuse to deal directly the actual arguments the OP makes.
3. (Optional) Make passive-aggressive reference to how great it is that God allows dummies to be so dumb.
4. Declare intention to retire from further discussion because OP refuses to engage in discussion of the irrelevant point (even if OP addresses and effectively refutes original point).
5. Ignore previous declaration regarding the pointlessness of further debate and return to discussion of irrelevant points.
6. Repeat 4 & 5 as needed.

 

[twopekinguys]

Or, to put it another way…

This discussion follows the usual pattern I’ve noticed when certain LDS posters encounter objectively irreconcilable aspects of LDS teachings:

1. Raise a transparently irrelevant point and claim that the OP is “ignoring” it.
2. Refuse to deal directly the actual arguments the OP makes.
3. (Optional) Make passive-aggressive reference to how great it is that God allows dummies to be so dumb.
4. Declare intention to retire from further discussion because OP refuses to engage in discussion of the irrelevant point (even if OP addresses and effectively refutes original point).
5. Ignore previous declaration regarding the pointlessness of further debate and return to discussion of irrelevant points.
6. Repeat 4 & 5 as needed.

You noticed that too.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Zaffirborant,

I already did. My point was that medical technology has moved far beyond what someone described as “natural birth”, to the situation we have that if taken to its logical conclusion, could arrive at the result that “there should be no miscarriages–let us monitor every stage of embryo development and keep alive every embryo to birth and beyond”.

God has allowed miscarriages to be a part of what happens on this earth. That means God is a participant by non-action, in whether a baby is born, or not. He has also blessed this world with knowledge about human development in the womb. It means there are complexities that people can ignore, or whatever, but they are there–the technology and the knowledge base have moved beyond “natural birth” and into “we can preserve life for just about anyone, with the technology we have”. That applies to end-of-life scenarios also, and I guess if I’m understanding Soren’s position, then medical technology is used in Catholic hospitals to keep alive every person, absolutely, until no medical technology could keep the person, however non-functioning and regardless of what the family sees as “natural causes incident to age”, alive through technological intervention.

There is nothing logical in the turns you take here, nowhere has anyone said anything remotely like, there should be no miscarriages or that medical technology should be applied to keep every person alive. Just as there is nothing logic in the LDS position that euthanasia is allowed when it involves the unborn but not allowed for those who have been born.

If I’m understanding Soren’s position you are so far of that is seems impossible to believe it’s not intentional, since you are not stupid.

 

[Miriam1947]

Zaffirborant,

I already did. My point was that medical technology has moved far beyond what someone described as “natural birth”, to the situation we have that if taken to its logical conclusion, could arrive at the result that “there should be no miscarriages–let us monitor every stage of embryo development and keep alive every embryo to birth and beyond”.

God has allowed miscarriages to be a part of what happens on this earth. That means God is a participant by non-action, in whether a baby is born, or not. He has also blessed this world with knowledge about human development in the womb. It means there are complexities that people can ignore, or whatever, but they are there–the technology and the knowledge base have moved beyond “natural birth” and into “we can preserve life for just about anyone, with the technology we have”. That applies to end-of-life scenarios also, and I guess if I’m understanding Soren’s position, then medical technology is used in Catholic hospitals to keep alive every person, absolutely, until no medical technology could keep the person, however non-functioning and regardless of what the family sees as “natural causes incident to age”, alive through technological intervention.

You haven’t read much about the end of life issues as regards Catholicism have you? Extraordinary means are not used because we do acknowledge ‘a time to live, a time to die’.

Or are you being snarky in order to justify Mormon beliefs.

 

[Telstar]

You haven’t read much about the end of life issues as regards Catholicism have you? Extraordinary means are not used because we do acknowledge ‘a time to live, a time to die’.

Or are you being snarky in order to justify Mormon beliefs.

He has a master’s degree.

 

[Miriam1947]

He has a master’s degree.

In snark?

 

[Telstar]

In snark?

Well, it’s actually in English. But, since snarky is an ‘English word’ and he’s speaking English, then he has to be an expert in snarkiness, too, because snark, snarky and snarkiness are all conjugated forms of snarky.

 

[ParkerD]

You haven’t read much about the end of life issues as regards Catholicism have you? Extraordinary means are not used because we do acknowledge ‘a time to live, a time to die’.

Miriam,

I haven’t at all. All I have read on that topic is the comments by Soren1, which seem to have differentiated Catholic beliefs, such as the following question:

All that this shows is that often we can have reasonable certainty that a child will die. If you think that can justify aborting it, why not extend that same logic to the elderly on their death-beds?

So that question resulted in a logical conclusion (or why ask the question?) that Catholics, based on that analogy, would use whatever medical and technological means are necessary, since God has allowed that progress in medical science and technology on this earth, to keep the “elderly on their death beds” alive through all possible means and technological life support systems, until God takes them.

 

[Miriam1947]

Miriam,

I haven’t at all. All I have read on that topic is the comments by Soren1, which seem to have differentiated Catholic beliefs, such as the following question:

So that question resulted in a logical conclusion (or why ask the question?) that Catholics, based on that analogy, would use whatever medical and technological means are necessary, since God has allowed that progress in medical science and technology on this earth, to keep the “elderly on their death beds” alive through all possible means and technological life support systems, until God takes them.

Oh I see. So based on a question which was sarcasm (the way I read it) you have decided that Catholics keep people alive using extraordinary means even though there is a time to die.

You could check the Catechism on line to find out what we really believe. That is if you want to take the trouble to have an honest discussion about life issues.

 

[ParkerD]

Oh I see. So based on a question which was sarcasm (the way I read it) you have decided that Catholics keep people alive using extraordinary means even though there is a time to die.

You could check the Catechism on line to find out what we really believe. That is if you want to take the trouble to have an honest discussion about life issues.

Miriam,

I saw no sarcasm in the analogy or the question by Soren1. Any “honest discussion about life issues” has to deal with the modern medical technology issues which I attempted to raise, which Soren1 seemed to call “utilitarian ethics” and instead he posed the question he posed.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Miriam,

I haven’t at all. All I have read on that topic is the comments by Soren1, which seem to have differentiated Catholic beliefs, such as the following question:

So that question resulted in a logical conclusion (or why ask the question?) that Catholics, based on that analogy, would use whatever medical and technological means are necessary, since God has allowed that progress in medical science and technology on this earth, to keep the “elderly on their death beds” alive through all possible means and technological life support systems, until God takes them.

How does not willfully taking action to kill a person equal “keep the “elderly on their death beds” alive through all possible means and technological life support systems, until God takes them”? This “logical conclusion” of yours is a red herring thrown out to avoid the fact that your church is filled with contradictions when it comes to life issues.

 

[ParkerD]

How does not willfully taking action to kill a person equal “keep the “elderly on their death beds” alive through all possible means and technological life support systems, until God takes them”? This “logical conclusion” of yours is a red herring thrown out to avoid the fact that your church is filled with contradictions when it comes to life issues.

I don’t understand your question, and I think I raised valid points–not red herrings.

I disagree with the Catholic position that leads people to call a woman and her doctor the term that I have seen used, especially in the twins in the womb case that was posed and that Soren1 addressed.

The world is filled with complexities regarding “life issues”, and here we are in this world created by God. His plan included that there are miscarriages, which means the Master Teacher has chosen to have those possibilities exist, and for medical doctors to learn from those kinds of occurrences and try to apply their knowledge for the benefit of their patients, including the unborn such as that twins case that was presented.

 

[zaffiroborant]

I don’t understand your question, and I think I raised valid points–not red herrings.

Abortion is taking action to kill an infant in utero, euthanasia is taking action to kill a person outside the womb. LDS are allowed to take action against people in utero who have terminal illnesses, but not against people who are living outside the womb. You want to change the conversation from actively killing people to available medical treatment. The two are not the same killing someone is not the same as eschewing treatment.

I disagree with the Catholic position that leads people to call a woman and her doctor the term that I have seen used, especially in the twins in the womb case that was posed and that Soren1 addressed.

What term?

The world is filled with complexities regarding “life issues”, and here we are in this world created by God. His plan included that there are miscarriages, which means the Master Teacher has chosen to have those possibilities exist, and for medical doctors to learn from those kinds of occurrences and try to apply their knowledge for the benefit of their patients, including the unborn such as that twins case that was presented.

Well I don’t know what to say to someone who thinks that willfully aborting a child is equivalent to and carries the same moral weight as a miscarriage. Even my partying atheist next door neighbors who believe abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare” acknowledged that it was an act against what is at least a “potential” human being. That appears to be more than you give on the issue.

By the way we were presented with a similar situation with twins, the idea of killing one child in front of the other was utterly horrifying to us, it was not an option. At that point we’d lost more children than we had, while losing them was awful, the though of killing one was far and away worse. I absolutely can not understand equating miscarriage and abortion.

 

[ParkerD]

Abortion is taking action to kill an infant in utero, euthanasia is taking action to kill a person outside the womb. LDS are allowed to take action against people in utero who have terminal illnesses, but not against people who are living outside the womb. You want to change the conversation from actively killing people to available medical treatment. The two are not the same killing someone is not the same as eschewing treatment.

Zaffiroborant,

If you are talking about LDS gynecologists, then what they can “take action” to do is to do what they have learned from studying what God does, which is why I raised the very central issue of miscarriages. Since God has provided humankind with the know-how to study and figure out why miscarriages happen and why still-born births happen, then He has provided the way that the kind of case that was presented as the “twins in the womb” case earlier on this thread, is the kind of case where God has provided the know-how, through available medical knowledge and case histories that are known, that that kind of decision is not a hard-to-figure-out decision: preserve the life of the baby who is healthy rather than have the baby who cannot survive cause the death of the baby who otherwise could survive birth.

But as one Catholic woman noted on this thread, what she (and I assume other Catholic expectant mothers would do also given their dilemma) is not have any tests at all that tell about the health of their baby and monitor their development in the womb–if they even choose to go to the doctor at all (which sounds iffy).

I don’t call that using the God-given knowledge and experience (case histories) for the betterment of humankind, including the unborn. It means the person making that choice about twins chooses that the case histories be ignored and that both children die because of refusing to allow a doctor to provide medical advice through examining the babies in the womb, using medical knowledge and case histories.

What term?

You used it. It starts with a “k”, and others use the word that starts with an “m”, and thus “cast the first stone”. (John 8:7)

Well I don’t know what to say to someone who thinks that willfully aborting a child is equivalent to and carries the same moral weight as a miscarriage.

A doctor being confronted with that kind of decision-making (the twins case, for example) would consider that miscarriages and still births happened exactly under the same conditions before medical technology advanced to the point of saving more babies’ lives and thus having the situation of making “life” decisions that in previous history, were not made because those decisions were already made by God through what happened in the womb or at birth.

By the way we were presented with a similar situation with twins, the idea of killing one child in front of the other was utterly horrifying to us, it was not an option. At that point we’d lost more children than we had, while losing them was awful, the though of killing one was far and away worse. I absolutely can not understand equating miscarriage and abortion.

I am sorry that happened to you. I hope they both miraculously survived and are well and have been blessings in your lives. (I don’t know if you were saying they didn’t survive, and if not then I didn’t glean that from your comment and I just guess different mothers might make a different decision considering what happens with miscarriages. I am not judging your decision–which was yours to make, and was certainly right for you of course.)

 

[RebeccaJ]

If a person falls of a cliff and dies, does that mean it is ok for me to push someone off a cliff because I can see that is what God might have done anyway?

Is killing an unborn person a form of justice for you ParkerD?

 

[zaffiroborant]

Zaffiroborant,

I am sorry that happened to you. I hope they both miraculously survived and are well and have been blessings in your lives. (I don’t know if you were saying they didn’t survive, and if not then I didn’t glean that from your comment and I just guess different mothers might make a different decision considering what happens with miscarriages. I am not judging your decision–which was yours to make, and was certainly right for you of course.)

By the way we were presented with a similar situation with twins, the idea of killing one child in front of the other was utterly horrifying to us, it was not an option. At that point we’d lost more children than we had, while losing them was awful, the though of killing one was far and away worse.

I meant to fix the last sentence, this would have been clearer.

At that point we’d lost more children than we had,* while the thought of* losing them was awful, the though of killing one was far and away worse.

Both of them are fine now, blessings, yes they are a constant source of wonder, amazement, even humbling awe, I really think all my kids are better people than I was at their age.

The test that first brought this up was redone, results still bad, a bit of wait and see other less invasive tests done and the initial fear was put to rest. Mind you all of the discussion about sacrificing one for the other was more of a “theoretical” discussion, a laying out of possible actions in light of further bad news so we were never really faced with that dilemma. It was more of a preparation for a worse case scenario. But in our minds it really was not an option, we would not kill one of our children “in plain view” of the other. Other problems showed up later making it look like early delivery of both might be necessary for the sake of one, one twin had the same problem one of our older kids had, but in the end (with months of bed-rest) we went to 38 weeks(full term for a singleton).

 

[zaffiroborant]

Zaffiroborant,

If you are talking about LDS gynecologists, then what they can “take action” to do is to do what they have learned from studying what God does, which is why I raised the very central issue of miscarriages. Since God has provided humankind with the know-how to study and figure out why miscarriages happen and why still-born births happen, then He has provided the way that the kind of case that was presented as the “twins in the womb” case earlier on this thread, is the kind of case where God has provided the know-how, through available medical knowledge and case histories that are known, that that kind of decision is not a hard-to-figure-out decision: preserve the life of the baby who is healthy rather than have the baby who cannot survive cause the death of the baby who otherwise could survive birth.

But as one Catholic woman noted on this thread, what she (and I assume other Catholic expectant mothers would do also given their dilemma) is not have any tests at all that tell about the health of their baby and monitor their development in the womb–if they even choose to go to the doctor at all (which sounds iffy).

I don’t call that using the God-given knowledge and experience (case histories) for the betterment of humankind, including the unborn. It means the person making that choice about twins chooses that the case histories be ignored and that both children die because of refusing to allow a doctor to provide medical advice through examining the babies in the womb, using medical knowledge and case histories.

A doctor being confronted with that kind of decision-making (the twins case, for example) would consider that miscarriages and still births happened exactly under the same conditions before medical technology advanced to the point of saving more babies’ lives and thus having the situation of making “life” decisions that in previous history, were not made because those decisions were already made by God through what happened in the womb or at birth.

So you have a single baby that is not going to make it more than a few moments past birth, and the doctor and parents see that God ends non-viable life through miscarriage quite often so they decide to do the same by terminating the pregnancy (since you don’t like the word kill here) and that’s okay. After all God does this all the time, there are probably hundreds of thousands of pregnancies ended this way annually.

Why then does this same rationalization not apply to the terminally ill (and suffering) cancer patient? After all we know they will die from this illness (God has thousands of people die annually this way) why then, if it’s okay in the case of the non-viable (won’t live) infant to end their life, why is it not acceptable in the case of the terminal (death is inevitable) suffering cancer patient?