My body, My choice

[SpidersfromMars]

I suppose for a secular response to euthanasia you could argue that it requires a doctor - someone who has taken an oath to preserve life - to become a murderer, which is morally wrong. I would not want to make someone a murderer for my sake.

 

[Rixx]

Relativism IS the new dictatorship. Pope Emeritus would agree.

I think I’d be rightly justified as describing the Pope Emeritus as an arch-conservative religious fanatic who’s later writings share many sentiments and recommendations with radical Imams.

And BiffRuffle has a point. Catholicism is not and has never really been tolerated.

• Christ is the stumbling block of the majority.

Catholicism has never really tolorated anyone else that couldn’t fight back. The Jews, The Pagans, the Unbelivers, the Heretics…Pick up a missal or hymn book from any point in history prior to Vatican II and take a look at all the prayers calling for the conversion of the insolent evil jews (The Easter prayers, the good friday Latin mass has a paticually scathing one if memory serves), holy war against heretics (Hail Glorius St Patricks second verse) and pretty much wishing death and pain upon all non-Catholics.

I’m fairly convinced the only reason Catholicism has been increasingly cordial towards Islam over the past 500 years is originally because the Papal State could not crush the Ottoman Empire and was often reliant upon it for loans. (Check any history book you like, the Papacy had regular trade and accepted a lot of Turkish money) and today reacts badly to criticism.

Please, show me a news report where Catholics have been put to death in the US or UK for their faith recently. Show me where they have been dragged through the streets tied to chariots around Pall Mall. Show me any reports of Catholic Nuns getting crucified and put on show outside the whitehouse. Show me episodes where Priests have been forbidden to possess wine for the consecration. Show me any cases where people have been forbidden from joining the Catholic Church in the secular world.

Diocletian may have persecuted Christians, but today you are not being persecuted. Not being allowed force your own way on other people is not persecution

 

[Faustinaed]

I suppose for a secular response to euthanasia you could argue that it requires a doctor - someone who has taken an oath to preserve life - to become a murderer, which is morally wrong. I would not want to make someone a murderer for my sake.

You have a good point Spider!

So if not asking a doctor to do it, but are given the opportunity (say, push this button and you will fall asleep) or are given pills and the option to take them, and the person decided to chose that option, they are given support by spouses or friends etc. who do not want them to suffer.

To me, it seems like part pride in not wanting to become less than they are, and not wanting others to have to care for them, and part despair at the thought of having to go through a time where they know they won’t have control of their faculties. It is being touted as ‘brave’ and ‘their choice’ rather than as giving up.

Is there a good way to explain why it is better to help them through it and let them suffer rather than letting them decide to take their own life to avoid the suffering? For non-Christians it seems to be logical to end their suffering, just as one person commented earlier, like we do for dogs with cancer or animals near death. Put them out of their misery,…

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Most people who have cancer, when they are nearing death are given morphine to hasten the process. In a way this is assisted suicide, but in another way it is a very humane way to ease the pain and drift into death.

 

[friardchips]

I think I’d be rightly justified as describing the Pope Emeritus as an arch-conservative religious fanatic who’s later writings share many sentiments and recommendations with radical Imams.

Not true. He got slated once for his words having been assessed as condemning the actions of Islamist fanatics.

Catholicism has never really tolorated anyone else that couldn’t fight back. The Jews, The Pagans, the Unbelivers, the Heretics…Pick up a missal or hymn book from any point in history prior to Vatican II and take a look at all the prayers calling for the conversion of the insolent evil jews (The Easter prayers, the good friday Latin mass has a paticually scathing one if memory serves), holy war against heretics (Hail Glorius St Patricks second verse) and pretty much wishing death and pain upon all non-Catholics.

I’m fairly convinced the only reason Catholicism has been increasingly cordial towards Islam over the past 500 years is originally because the Papal State could not crush the Ottoman Empire and was often reliant upon it for loans. (Check any history book you like, the Papacy had regular trade and accepted a lot of Turkish money) and today reacts badly to criticism.

Are you reading history books published by the BBC, by any chance?

Please, show me a news report where Catholics have been put to death in the US or UK for their faith recently. Show me where they have been dragged through the streets tied to chariots around Pall Mall. Show me any reports of Catholic Nuns getting crucified and put on show outside the whitehouse. Show me episodes where Priests have been forbidden to possess wine for the consecration. Show me any cases where people have been forbidden from joining the Catholic Church in the secular world.

Diocletian may have persecuted Christians, but today you are not being persecuted. Not being allowed force your own way on other people is not persecution

Religious intolerance isn’t just in the form of black and white no holds-barred barbarity, like in Iraq and Syria, religious intolerance also lurks in the snake-filled undergrowth in the form of relativism, especially in the West, to the point of being a church of its own (of Satan), normally headed by people who call themselves ‘humanists’, who seek to poison society with their mirage of ‘equality,’ when behind the scenes they are really just trying to rinse communities of appreciation for and the upholding of the dignity of life that spread this way thanks to the sacrifices of martyrs and holy men on Christian missions trying to spread the Good News -

‘The world’ will always want to do what it pleases, when its pleases, without being answerable to Christ who is just yet merciful and who has laid down heavenly rules for love - He is a stumbling block for the selfish, for ‘the world’.

• With this came freedom of choice, but a freedom with responsibility and a duty-of-care toward the other’s life. It was Romans, Kings and Queens thereafter, and heretics, and all other manner of God-haters that used Christianity for their own ends - for power. Jews and Romans and heretics murdered Christ. Nero hung Christians throughout the streets. Christians have always been persecuted. The Catholic church has always been under fire and attack in the West also, as its merits were introduced, as a more truthful authority was being outlined. Maybe you would have preferred us to be Vikings?

Religious tolerance is not the same as relativism. In the West, did but people know it, we are undergoing what is a subtle form of communism, a mindset of despair, that is a war against Christianity and the dignity of life. Any society that tries to remove God is anti-God no matter how obvious or subtle its actions. In fact, it is worse than communism because it is more subtle and harder to fight, and so the pen comes to fight!

 

[friardchips]

To me, it seems like part pride in not wanting to become less than they are, and not wanting others to have to care for them, and part despair at the thought of having to go through a time where they know they won’t have control of their faculties. It is being touted as ‘brave’ and ‘their choice’ rather than as giving up.

A lot of it is about people wanting total control of their lives. People want to determine their outcome and be in control of everything around them. It makes them feel secure. Maybe it could be summed up as the fear of letting go - letting go of their own need to control?

Faustinaed:

Is there a good way to explain why it is better to help them through it and let them suffer rather than letting them decide to take their own life to avoid the suffering? For non-Christians it seems to be logical to end their suffering…

This film, ‘The Diving Bell And The Butterfly’, could be your answer!

 

[Rixx]

Not true. He got slated once for his words having been assessed as condemning the actions of Islamist fanatics.

I remember reading about that yes, but that doesn’t mean his writings content is not similar to the views espoused by other extreme preachers. He (thankfully) did not call for the death of the decadent westerners, but he wasn’t shy about painting the secular world as evil, depraved and worthy of utter annihilation.

All he’s missing is a machine gun, a Koran and faith in Allah, otherwise he wouldn’t look too out of place in the Iranian leadership.

Are you reading history books published by the BBC, by any chance?

They’ve gotten far less biased over the past twenty years but no, I always refer to works released from the Oxford or Cambridge University presses on matters of Religious History if I don’t have time to take works from either side of an issue.

The vast majority of BBC sponsored texts are just about enough for A Level standard but are just too simplistic and make too many generalizations for reference in academic debates.

Religious intolerance …Good News -

Right…I’m not quite sure how to break this to you but you’re making one big assumption here, that Christianity is an object that needs attacking. This isn’t so for humanists of any stripe, Theistic or Atheistic.

It’s quite the reverse, The Church is viewed as any other instution with a hand in politics and social justice. When it does something for the good of society it will get praised (for example there are several Catholic directed programs around the country providing higher education for poorer students, this is admirable). By the same token, when it does something shameful (i,.e: “Kill the gays” in Uganda) it will quite rightly get vilified.

The humanist movement has far bigger fish to fry than the Catholic Church, it is not a unified force with any political clout in America or Europe, and in South America it too is waning from the political level. Perhaps it is different elsewhere, but from what I can gather from some humanist publications Islam and Misogyny require attention, Catholic Church doctrine does not since people are not obliged to join.

‘The world’ will always want to do what it pleases, … ‘the world’.

Just as the Catholic Church has a blank check to do whatever it likes? I hope it’s willing to accept the skyrocketing AIDS statistics since it managed to get contraception banned in the Philippines. It has much to answer for the ego trip there.

• With this came freedom of choice, but a freedom with responsibility and a duty-of-care toward the other’s life. It was Romans, Kings and Queens thereafter, and heretics, and all other manner of God-haters that used Christianity for their own ends - for power.

…Just like the Papacy did when it forged the Donation of Constantine and committed the single biggest case of fraud in the history of mankind by stealing the Western Roman Empire from Byzantium?

Jews and Romans and heretics murdered Christ. Nero hung Christians throughout the streets. Christians have always been persecuted. The Catholic church has always been under fire and attack in the West also, as its merits were introduced, as a more truthful authority was being outlined. Maybe you would have preferred us to be Vikings?

A strange comparison, and the Catholic Church has not always been under attack, for centuries after Constantines time anyone who dared so much as question the Church would be lynched. People do not complain about anything without provocation.

Religious tolerance is not the same as relativism. In the West, did but people know it, we are undergoing what is a subtle form of communism, a mindset of despair, that is a war against Christianity and the dignity of life. Any society that tries to remove God is anti-God no matter how obvious or subtle its actions. In fact, it is worse than communism because it is more subtle and harder to fight, and so the pen comes to fight!

Again, would you rather we all just begin to murder each other until one side wins out? By all means not all religions are this way, but many of the “missionary” religions (Islam and Christianity are the worst offenders but by no means the only ones) have at some point in their history called for the annihilation of all non believers.

We’ve only got one rock to live on for the time being, and if we want to do it without creating a bloodbath we’ve just got to accept that sometimes we’re going to have to agree to disagree. The easiest way to do this is to keep controversial ideology (Religion being one of the biggest) out of the public arena. By all means keep your teachings, don’t attend gay weddings, don’t buy condoms…But so long as you want to be able to take the Eucharist every Sunday and preform the mass, the same mass which is sinful to several other religions without getting executed for heresy…This is how it has to be.

The Church had centuries to perfect Theocracy in it’s tenue as the Lord and Master of Central Italy and even then , it failed, the Italians drove the Papal Goverment out. Theocracy, in the name of any religion does not work.

 

[buffalo]

Our bodies are a gift from God and only He has the authority to end life. As far as a person experiencing dementia we really do not know what their soul is experiencing. It may not be the same as what we see.

 

[friardchips]

I remember reading about that yes

Exactly. And I am not going to dignify this attempt to recklessly tarnish another’s character, especially that of such a holy man, with a response.

They’ve (BBC) gotten far less biased over the past twenty years

No, they haven’t. Opposite is true. Again, no more needs to be said.

you’re making one big assumption here, that Christianity is an object that needs attacking.

You’ve taken my words purposefully out of context just as you take Catholicism out of context.

Just as the Catholic Church has a blank check to do whatever it likes? I hope it’s willing to accept the skyrocketing AIDS statistics…

What religion are you?

…Just like the Papacy did when it forged the Donation of Constantine and committed the single biggest case of fraud in the history of mankind by stealing the Western Roman Empire from Byzantium?

No wonder you like the BBC, they love to twist history to suit their agenda too.

for centuries after Constantines time anyone who dared so much as question the Church would be lynched.

Constantine is not recognised as a Saint in the CC.

By all means keep your teachings, don’t attend gay weddings, don’t buy condoms…But so long as you want to be able to take the Eucharist every Sunday and preform the mass, the same mass which is sinful to several other religions without getting executed for heresy…This is how it has to be.

Is this not a Catholic website?

You are simply trying to insult everyone’s intelligence, from the top down, and not fooling anyone with these arguments that are used by aggressive athiests in all walks of life.

The thread is one I find interesting but this dialogue is not.

You have not understood what I meant in my posts so please move along or I will and if you want to attack people then state your name and do it publically, rather than doing it cowardly behind a username, on a forum that you obviously hate.

 

[Faustinaed]

Rixx, please take that conversation to another thread. It has nothing to do with the question I was asking.

 

[Rixx]

Rixx, please take that conversation to another thread. It has nothing to do with the question I was asking.

Alright, I’ll happily take up this debate with anyone on another thread, but I’ll PM Friar with my response.

 

[mikekle]

I have no problem ending the suffering of an animal, in fact, it is our responsibility to do so rather than allow them to endure senseless pain.

Have you considered that Christ must have gasped for breath with not the slightest chance of recovery when He hung on the cross? Have you considered that this bodily life on earth is but a prelude of that which is to come? Have you considered that we have been promised endless happiness if we follow our Redeemer or endless suffering if we do not? I don’t see it as a tough question at all. What is needed is faith.

Yes, and Christ died that SAME DAY…sure he suffered, but he also died on the same day, I have known a few older people with terminal illnesses that I have watched die VERY SLOWLY, takes months and sometimes years of DAILY suffering, day and night, sometimes the pain is so bad they cant sleep, so they suffer every minute of every day! This is not right, if they have NO POSSIBLE hope of getting better, and this is verified, then I dont think we should allow that kind of suffering to continue, and really, we should wonder why God is allowing it to go on for so long, he is not supposed to give someone more than they can bear, but since many many people have committed suicide due pain, we know for a fact, they did receive more than they could bear, as they killed themselves, what more proof does anyone need?!

 

[friardchips]

… we should wonder why God is allowing it to go on for so long, he is not supposed to give someone more than they can bear, but since many many people have committed suicide due pain, we know for a fact, they did receive more than they could bear, as they killed themselves, what more proof does anyone need?!

With all due respect to you, and the things you have witnessed, please try reading about the end of St. Therese of Lisieux’s life and discover what people can bear with trust in God. It is truly astounding.

 

[BiffRuffle]

One way to consider euthanasia from a non-religious angle is to look at methods of euthanizing people. Would there be an outrage if a doctor pulled out a gun and shot the ill person? Or maybe if he used piano wire and strangled the patient to death? Of course there’d be outrage. The question, then, is why? Why would there be outrage over one way of killing someone, and not over another? Could it be because humans, regardless of their age or state of health, have an objective worth that requires respect? Clearly, then, the ultimate goal, whether those in favour of euthanasia realize it or not, is not the death of the person, but the reduction of pain/suffering, which can be done medically without causing the person’s death. Therefore, those methods, where the person’s pain is reduced without death, must be used.

 

[friardchips]

The question, then, is why? Why would there be outrage over one way of killing someone, and not over another? Could it be because humans, regardless of their age or state of health, have an objective worth that requires respect? Clearly, then, the ultimate goal, whether those in favour of euthanasia realize it or not, is not the death of the person, but the reduction of pain/suffering, which can be done medically without causing the person’s death.

If the word ‘respect’ is used, people would argue that respecting that person is to respect their option to die. However, if you replaced the word ‘respect’ with ‘preservation’, maybe you have an argument?

But in all honesty, I think that the only way that a society who will not listen to wise reasoning along the lines of sanctity of life will only pay attention to people who they themselves have overcome death, or stories of families whose loved ones died in dignity despite the improbable odds of a peaceful death. They need to come forward.

 

[freeRadical]

If someone wants to end their life, do we really have the right to use physical force to stop them from doing so?

 

[powerofk]

I don’t know how much this will help your answer, Faustinaed, but… part of the problem in much secular society is that relativistic humanism is based upon the utilitarian philosophy. According to humanists, a person’s worth is dependent on “how much is that person contributing (economically) to society?” People who are considered to contribute less to the economy are considered less worthwhile in secular humanism. Many secular humanists consider household pets to contribute more to society than people with significant disabilities, the unborn, the elderly, and even people on welfare. Seriously.

The whole idea of “I don’t want to live if I’m a burden to my family” is actually a statement of, “if I’m in severe suffering, then my worth as a person is so significantly reduced that I don’t think I deserve to live, because I wouldn’t be able to provide to society anymore.” It’s actually showing a of fear of thinking that they will be unwanted by the family due to not being “useful” anymore. The argument in return should be that everyone has something to provide to society, and sometimes it is in suffering that we show others love, courage, and perseverance. If a person who is suffering severely is willing to take on that suffering with courage, it helps others suffering from much milder problems to persevere. On the other hand, if a person who is suffering severely decides to take his/her own life, it teaches others that any kind of suffering should be avoided at all costs.

 

[vsedriver]

Yes, and Christ died that SAME DAY…sure he suffered, but he also died on the same day, I have known a few older people with terminal illnesses that I have watched die VERY SLOWLY, takes months and sometimes years of DAILY suffering, day and night, sometimes the pain is so bad they cant sleep, so they suffer every minute of every day! This is not right, if they have NO POSSIBLE hope of getting better, and this is verified, then I dont think we should allow that kind of suffering to continue, and really, we should wonder why God is allowing it to go on for so long, he is not supposed to give someone more than they can bear, but since many many people have committed suicide due pain, we know for a fact, they did receive more than they could bear, as they killed themselves, what more proof does anyone need?!

so you believe God is an evil torturer?

perhaps we should be giving these people real hope. all our earthly sufferings if offered up to God will shorten the sufferings we will endure in purgatory. Perhaps if people saw that there suffering had real value they would have a different outlook. Perhaps one more day of suffering would bring them closer to understanding the suffering of our Lord on the Cross. But we live in a society that says suffering is unnecessary. Pleasure is what we deserve and if we are suffering it should be ended even if that means ending our lives.

Ministering to the suffering is difficult and a cross of a different sort. But it also helps us store up treasure in heaven.

 

[phil_at_dayboro]

Yes, and Christ died that SAME DAY…sure he suffered, but he also died on the same day, I have known a few older people with terminal illnesses that I have watched die VERY SLOWLY, takes months and sometimes years of DAILY suffering, day and night, sometimes the pain is so bad they cant sleep, so they suffer every minute of every day! This is not right, if they have NO POSSIBLE hope of getting better, and this is verified, then I dont think we should allow that kind of suffering to continue, and really, we should wonder why God is allowing it to go on for so long, he is not supposed to give someone more than they can bear, but since many many people have committed suicide due pain, we know for a fact, they did receive more than they could bear, as they killed themselves, what more proof does anyone need?!

Thank you for your Sensible opinion ,

 

[Petaro]

Our bodies are sacred. A temple of the Holy Spirit.

1 Corinthians 6:20

This I believe is a short, beautiful quotation that sets out our belief in the dignity of Man in the eyes of God and why we do not have the right to end what we don not own or cannot give.
However, we must be aware of the secular arguments that put us at the same level as the whales etc. and sees no issue with ending a life of misery. This is often founded in compassion and love and is very difficult to counter at a purely empirical level.
The only argument that I think might give people cause to think is the slippery slope argument, especially with regard to assisted euthanasia.
If we destroy all those that need our care and love then we diminish our community, and reinforce the individualism and isolation that our culture seems to encourage.
However as a Catholic we have no right to act contrary to the will of God in determining the hour of our death.