> > Okay. Let's just be intellectually honest and admit that > > there was no certainty that the twins would have died, and therefore > > believing it was God's will that no medical intervention be done is not > tantamount > > to voting for certain death. > > Wait a second here... So unless we have certainty, we have nothing?
No, that's not what I am saying. > I can act however I want*, and as long as there is a remote chance that bad > outcomes will not result, my actions are not immoral? I didn't say that. Apparently I started something that will not get a satisfactory response. I have argued over and over that I see a gross distortion in the claim that the church and the parents decided that both children should die. I think that is a false characterization. That has been my whole point. If you disagree, well, let's just leave it at that... [snipping good arguments from Paul] > I agree with the earlier comment that a single example of a moral > dilemmas may not be the best way to judge the morality of a standard. > However, I think that Jim has backed himself into a corner in this > discussion in trying to defend what looks like an indefensible stand taken > in the name of religious "morals" with respect to this situation. You're probably right. I chose to try and construct a cogent defense for that the parents and the church decided. Part of the problem with doing this is that somewhere along the way some individuals began to believe I absolutely agreed with that they decided about the children. I humbly apologize for misleading you and others, or confusing the issue more than it needed to be. Some of your good arguments might have been unnecessary had I been more clear from the beginning what I knew, what I thought, and what I was specifically arguing for. At no point have I ever stated my agreement with their decision! As the self-appointed little TIPS apologist, I thought perhaps there was something more defensible in the church and the parents than our anti- religious psychological society *seemed* willing to search for. However, digging through more facts that defense seems weaker and weaker. See below... > We can take the "intellectually honest" step that he suggests above, > and what we're left with is this: > > "The twins would almost certainly have died, and therefore believing > that it was God's will that no medical intervention be done is tantamount to > voting for almost certain death". > > I don't see how one could argue that corrected statement helps the > religious stance with respect to this situation. Even if "almost certainly" > were softened to "probably" (which strikes me as intellectually dishonest in > this situation, given the high probability of death), it doesn't help much. Given that I was somehow led, or more likely assumed, that one of the two children was deliberately terminated AND later learning that there was no deliberate action of this sort, but every effort was done to save both lives, then there is a huge difference in arguing for the morality of what the church and the parents saw as a the correct course of action, or inaction, as the case may be. > The religious stance in question is still the immoral one. Based on what I think I know about this case -- please note I am still trying to suspend judgment -- I will certainly side with you that I do not agree with the decision of the church and/or the parents. I see nothing unbiblical about allowing the doctors to do their utmost to save the lives of both children. Since I cannot fathom why the parents or the church saw some religious rationale for preventing medical intervention, I assumed there was something missing here that would take away the black eye of religion. Until I find a statement from the parents or the church, I'd still like to believe there is more here. Certainly Stephen is right in saying that religious reasoning can lead to an immoral decision. In this case, the source of the problem may be the difference between a biblical and religious interpretation. What happens when a church declares the moral course of action, based on an interpretation that lacks not only moral sense but religious as well? This reminds me of the Jehovah Witnesses (who are not Christians), who refuse blood transfusions, for themselves, and their children. The religious rationale for this is completely illogical -- somehow they take the OT admonition not to drink animal blood and apply that to refusing a transfusion from a human. No wonder this gets so confusing. ************************************************************************ 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]
