ClumsyMonkey.net

exactly

That's true too. So there you go! We play God everyday, and I don't see why we're making such a big deal out of doing it here. In this situation, regardless of what happens someone can turn around and say "they had no right to play God."

plus, where's the line? is wearing clothing against the weather playing god? i mean, "he" supposedly made us naked, right? and if you argue that he gave us minds to create clothing, well then, he gave us minds to create life support systems as well. not a prerogative to use them or not.

This is getting good.

happeningfish wrote:plus, where's the line? is wearing clothing against the weather playing god? i mean, "he" supposedly made us naked, right? and if you argue that he gave us minds to create clothing, well then, he gave us minds to create life support systems as well. not a prerogative to use them or not.

Maybe we don't know where the line is yet because we haven't even begun to understand out true potential.

Ah, I knew what this thread was about but wasn't in the political mood till now.

My stance on this particular situation: If her parents are willing to pay for it, then do it, they want her alive! I personally feel she is not alive in there, but how can you say for sure? If you want to end her suffering, euthenasia is the way to go, not starving her! That is completely cruel. The whole thing makes absolutely no sense whatsover.

Legalizing euthenasia: No freaking way. Just like someone pointed out. Depressed people, upset people, stupid people would want their lives taken for trivial reasons. It's an individual decision and only should be used in the most extreme of circumstances, which is why legalizing or making it illegal (I know there's a word for that but I just can't think of it) is never going to work.

God gave us minds. God gave us free agency. It's the biggest test of how we use both. Hopefully with great care, humanity, and faith. God doesn't WANT us to use our power of nuclear bombs for bad. He wants us to exercise our free agency and not do it simply because it is bad. He also wants us to use our power over techology for good.

*Plays devils advocate*

Mayve euthanizing Terry Schiavo is the "good." Pretending that I'm a theists here, who are we to say what God's will is?

the only reason shes alive in the first place is because of the feeding tube so by removing it theyre letting nature take its own course instead of prolonging it unnaturally

No I don't think so. Babies can't eat by themselves. If that was nature's course, all babies would die and that would be the natural course.

babies have functioning brains which allows them to essentially vocalize that something isnt right or that they want something, whether that be food or drink or to get their diaper changed

Not all babies. Some don't cry even when they are hungry and it doesn't allow them to specifiy what they want done.

I don't think that is the right approach. I think we should feel and clothe EVERYONE who can't, including poor and all that. You know, be a good Samaritan.

so playing god is okay too?

I wouldn't consider that playing God. If we do everything in our power to help one another. God moves mountains and destroys nations. We can't do that so we could never play God.

Well, actually we can play God. But that's a WHOLE 'nother story.

Who's to say when we're helping someone or hurting someone?

Cass wrote:I wouldn't consider that playing God. If we do everything in our power to help one another. God moves mountains and destroys nations. We can't do that so we could never play God.

Well, actually we can play God. But that's a WHOLE 'nother story.

if natural selection were allowed to run its course terri wouldve passed away a long time ago, and as sad as that is, its better than what essentially is forcing her to stay alive

I geuss that's up to her family, who in this cirucumstance want her alive.

legally speaking its upto her husband

Yes well, I'm not on either side. I know if I was her I'd want to die. Probably not by being starved to death, but if that was how it had to be, then that would be what I want. I just don't think it's playing God.

shes being forced to stay alive by "feeding" her
(which in reality is just a slurry of the minimal amount of necessary electrolytes and water to keep her "legally" alive)

I'm trying to think of a response, but I can't because I think I've already stated how I see it and any more would be going in circles.