When does life start? When does life end?

[AServantofGod]

If we as Catholics believe that life begins at conception (when **God **places life on this earth) then why do we not believe that life ends when God not man decides it ends (no artificial means of support)?

What is the difference then between using artificial means to begin life and artificial means to prolong life? Artificial is artificial!

Are we as prolifers now becoming prochoicers? We not God chooses when life ends. A life would have ended naturally without artificial means. We are now playing God and deciding that we should prolong a life which God would have taken.

 

[Genesis315]

AServantofGod:

If we as Catholics believe that life begins at conception (when **God **places life on this earth) then why do we not believe that life ends when God not man decides it ends (no artificial means of support)?

What is the difference then between using artificial means to begin life and artificial means to prolong life? Artificial is artificial!

Are we as prolifers now becoming prochoicers? We not God chooses when life ends. A life would have ended naturally without artificial means. We are now playing God and deciding that we should prolong a life which God would have taken.

Who uses artificial means to begin life? I don’t follow.

 

[AServantofGod]

Sorry! Yes, my wording was confusing. I am referring to using means other that what God intended such as invitrofertilization.

 

[masterjedi747]

We not God chooses when life ends.

No. We don’t choose when to end life – that would be something much more like euthenasia. Only God can choose when to end a life. We simply choose to preserve life as best we can.

AServantofGod:

A life would have ended naturally without artificial means.

What are your examples of “artificial means”? We give medicines to people who might have otherwise died without those medicines, to help them get better. Doctors are here to care for and preserve life, and science can give us many newer and increasingly effective ways to do that. If God wants to take that person, He will. But we don’t just give up on them and decide that “they would have died anyway”…we can’t know that for certain, because we are not God.

 

[Genesis315]

AServantofGod:

Sorry! Yes, my wording was confusing. I am referring to using means other that what God intended such as invitrofertilization.

Invitro fertilization is not permitted by the Church.

 

[cathologos]

It’s a fair question, though, without answers that are always easy and obvious.

Kidney dialysis? Respirator?

When somebody is failing, do you hook up IV antibiotics to tackle an infection, even though the person’s organs are failing?

Even John Paul had to make a choice – whether to go back to Gemelli Hospital on Thursday night, into the ICU, and attempt to get past the immediate crisis brought on by his infection, to perhaps gain a little more time…or whether to accept a less-aggressive treatment regime, at home, given all the other burgeoning problems he had…and be willing to let go.

If there’s one thing that’s clear from this horrible story (Terri’s – JPII’s passing was sorrowful, for us, but certainly not horrible), it’s that we all really need to think about this. What amount of intervention – chemical, surgical, mechanical – is obligatory? Where do we cross over to “extraordinary” means, which are optional? Is this line always in the same place – or does it depend on the specific condition of the individual?

I don’t begin to have answers to these questions. I"m not sure that the Church does either, really, at this point (although maybe that’s just my lack of understanding…). But we need to develop consistent, morally sound answers.

 

[masterjedi747]

cathologos:

It’s a fair question, though, without answers that are always easy and obvious.
Kidney dialysis? Respirator?
When somebody is failing, do you hook up IV antibiotics to tackle an infection, even though the person’s organs are failing?
What amount of intervention – chemical, surgical, mechanical – is obligatory? Where do we cross over to “extraordinary” means, which are optional?

Here’s a quote I pulled out from one of the Ask An Apologist threads. Hopefully this should help answer some of your questions. Also check out this EWTN article for more information.
Michelle Arnold:

CTShyanne:

As the medical profession gets better and better at saving lives we inadvertently save some who would have died only thirty years ago under the same circumstances. Christopher Reeve would have died thirty years ago. Terri Schiavo would have died thirty years ago. Do we as humans not step into the world of playing God sometimes?

First of all, only some areas of the world have the means of treating individuals who suffer catastrophic injuries, as did Christopher Reeve and Terri Schiavo. Even today, in certain parts of the world, they would have died without the medical training and technology available in First-World countries.

For that matter, there are some “ordinary” diseases and injuries that would take the lives of Third-World people today but are easily treatable in the First World. Would you say that an American needing a heart bypass operation should be “allowed to die” because he would die anyway if he lived in some parts of Africa or Asia? Should someone suffering a treatable infection in Canada not be given routine antibiotic therapy because those medications are not readily-available in remote parts of the world?

If the means exist to treat a person, then he should be treated, regardless of whether that same treatment was available thirty years ago or is currently available thousands of miles away. Time and location should not negate an individual’s right to humane treatment should treatment options exist.

 

[AServantofGod]

I think this is a very difficult question. Our technology has come so fast and furious without guidelines to ensure morality. There are very well meaning Christians attempting to believe and act according to God’s will yet God has not made it clear in many instances.

One example of well meaning Christians being misguided are these families that allowed their children to be arrested for attempting to bring Terri Schiavo a glass of water. Think about this. Anyone in the medical field would tell you that if those people had been allowed to bring that water to Ms. Schiavo they would have been the cause of her death because she couldn’t have handled swallowing. They would have watched her aspirate what they thought was a life giving force; she would have arrested right there or would have developed aspiration pneumonia.

So often our best intended efforts are wrong.

 

[AServantofGod]

masterjedi747:

No. We don’t choose when to end life – that would be something much more like euthenasia. Only God can choose when to end a life. We simply choose to preserve life as best we can.

What are your examples of “artificial means”? We give medicines to people who might have otherwise died without those medicines, to help them get better. Doctors are here to care for and preserve life, and science can give us many newer and increasingly effective ways to do that. If God wants to take that person, He will. But we don’t just give up on them and decide that “they would have died anyway”…we can’t know that for certain, because we are not God.

I don’t think it’s choosing to preserve life but to prolong life which God would have ended. If we didn’t believe “they would have died anyway” then why are they on life support? It is because we know life would have ended without it. Maybe God did want to take that person but he has given us free will and we are refusing to let go. This is not euthinasia but allowing nature to take it’s course.

 

[Pinklady]

It starts when you’re born and ends when you die.

Next question…?

 

[NFPfamily]

Pinklady:

It starts when you’re born and ends when you die.

Next question…?

Surely you meant that it starts when you’re conceived.

 

[JimG]

When does whose life start?

A human being begins at conception and ends at death, death being when soul leaves the body.