> > Now, I admit I don't always have my facts straight, but in my following of this > > case, it was my understanding the the parents and the Catholic church > > believed that God's will should prevail, meaning that they were leaving it in > > God's hands the fate of both wee ones. > > > > Regardless of what did happen, it is a gross distortion of Stephen to suggest > > that the religious authorities (who are you talking about here?) were > > unanimous in CONCLUDING THAT BOTH SHOULD DIE. Where the heck do > > you get off making such a statement? > Jim's reply provides an excellent illustration of my point: > religious belief leads one to support immoral decisions. Saying > "God's will should prevail" in this case is exactly the same as > saying "both should die." The former just sounds less brutal.
I obviously disagree. I'm sure "Let God's will prevail" has been used before, and will be used again, as an excusive for passivity. I don't see that here. > But this makes me curious about another matter. The Pro-Life > Alliance (that's who we're talking about) supported the view that > God's will should prevail. They went to court to stop a medical > procedure that could save the life of one over the certain death > of two. Perhaps you see it as a small point, but how *certain* were these deaths? After all, wouldn't certainity require a certain level of faith, given that they could only make a prediction of the most likely outcome, not the inevitable one? And we know of course that modern medicine always correctly predicts the outcome. > But why stop there? The twins were undoubtedly born by Caesarian > section in order to save the life of three individuals--mother, > Jodie, and Mary. Why was this operation permissible? Why wasn't > "God's will" allowed to take precedence here as well? Who said "God's will" cannot be accompanied by man's action? I see your very good point -- taken to its absurdity, one could argue no medical interventions are ever necessary, because it is all up to God. That is not taught biblically -- there is no biblical model of passivity. Morally one is obligated to do whatever necessary to save lives, and that includes medical procedures. > Perhaps the answer would be that at that point it appeared that > the operation could save the life of all three. But couldn't > the same argument be applied to the surgery to separate Jodie and > Mary? Couldn't we argue that the operation should first take > place, and then "God's will" would determine whether Mary (the > weaker twin) would live or die, that "her fate would be left in > God's hands" at that point? Yes, one could make that argument. But was one life terminated during the procedure, or not? That makes a big difference. > Let's review (I think I'm actually recreating a point first > raised by Jim Clark about selective appeals to God). "God's will" > can be invoked: > > a) before the babies are born, leading to the death of three > b) after birth but before separation, leading to the death > of two > or > c) after separation, leading to the death of one > > My question: Why was "God's will" only invoked after (b)? Again, who said "God's will" is simply a matter of God working and man doing nothing. There is no biblical dichotomy of such. > I'm perplexed. Perhaps Jim can help. I doubt you're perplexed, I'm sure YOU see this situation very clearly. I couldn't imagine being in such a situation, and feel terrible for all who were involved. ************************************************************************ Jim Guinee, Ph.D. Director of Training & Adjunct Professor President, Arkansas College Counselor Association University of Central Arkansas Counseling Center 313 Bernard Hall Conway, AR 72035 USA (501) 450-3138 (office) (501) 450-3248 (fax) "if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land." 2 Chronicles 7:14 ************************************************************************** --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
