I'll try not to be snide about this. But it's hard. The Anglican Church has decleared that it's a "Christian duty" to allow your still-living body to be cut up for other people's benefit if doctors decide you're close enough to death to suit them.
One of the Christian charities is to comfort the dying. And I fail to see how one can fulfil that duty by forcing that person to be strapped down to a table, paralyzed with drugs but not anesthetized, while cut open for his organs.
This is so wrong on so many levels.
If somebody wants to willingly consent to this, that's one thing. But to mandate it? As a religious body. Jesus said, "As you did unto these, the least of my brothers and sisters, you did to me."
And I'm not the only one objecting to treating the dying as if they're already stone cold dead. And I'm not the only one pointing out that "brain dead" people are not really dead.
9 comments:
I was baptized Anglican, then born again as an Evangelical at 19 and recently confirmed a Catholic at 26- and I tell ya, I get more an more disturbed as I see the link between Anglicans and orthodox ecumenical downfall.
It was Anglicans that first declared that birth control is perfectly moral (before that, all Christian denominations universally opposed it as the sin of Onan). Soon after, to Margaret Sanger's glee, all Protestant denominations starting accepting birth control as a part of everyday life. Then came a host of other liberal moral stances ushered in by the Anglicans, including the support of abortion-on-demand on major religious platforms. Now the Catholics, Orthodox and Southern Baptists (along with a contingent of free-stylers like non-denominational evangelicals) are the only ones left declaring murder of the pre-born immoral.
I'm not surpised that the Anglicans would decree that murder for organs is morally obligatory. I'm waiting for them to insist on a moral obligation to have yourself denied food or water if you're ever brain injured. I'm waited for them to support euthanasia and assisted suicide as Christian charity.
If my rant is inappropriate, please delete it, but this whole thing disgusts me.
My understanding of the Biblical text is that Onan's sin was that he got the fun of having sex with his brother's widow without also providing her with a son to care for her in her old age. He was using her -- she had no say in the matter -- and refusing a specific obligation to his brother.
So I can't see any specific Biblical ban on use of any particular birth control method, there obviously is a great moral danger in it because of the fruits we see. (Jesus said you'd know a tree by its fruits.) We see a casual attitude toward sex, a sense of entitlement to sex without any pair bond or parental responsibilities, etc. Which is a sign that a contraceptive mindset is not a good thing.
I also don't see "your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit" being served well by any sort of abuse of the body, including treating a healthy body as if it's sick, which is something you do when you pump it full of dangerous chemicals or perform surgery to correct normally functioning organs.
I'd say, "Huge grey zone here. Enter with trepidation" rather than "Instant Sin."
I see your point, but Onan aside, the Bible is clear that children are a heritage from the Lord, a blessing. So jacking with our bodies medically or mechanically so we can have sex for what we want from it, while scoffing at God's attempt to bless us with fruit of a loving union is pretty crappy. It also turns children into "accidents" or "mistakes" when children are always a good thing, not to mention the sign that something went right, not wrong. Infertility is a sign of something not working right- not a bundle of joy. So I think, unhealthy of no, denying God the opportunity to create eternal beings to bless us because we don't want to care for them is kind of like giving Him the finger.
I came to this conclusion while a hardcore evangelical when I realized that all Christian denominations opposed contraception prior to the sexual revolution. That's when I asked myself, "Did God change His mind? Or did some denominations cave to popular opinion?" When I see abortion supported in major denominations (as well as openly-gay ordained ministers despite the Bible's clear prohibition of gay sex), I see that some churches have let popular opinion dictate their theology.
I agree with you on the fruits. I think Humana Vitae hit this hit on the head when he predicted that contraceptive use would lead to more premarital sex, out-of-wedlock births, extra-marital affairs, abortions, and governments using birth control to try to address social problems (like the UN does in Africa).
I do think this all started when the Anglican's declared, "Sure! Take what you want from sex and try to thwart the natural consequences" the fruit of that is "And if that didn't work, you can still have that baby "taken care of." So to see that the Anglicans are now demanded people be vivisected and their organs redistributed is no surprise to me. False compassion takes many different forms.
P.S. To be downright tacky, I'm not surprised that this began with a denomination that solely exists because King Hevy VII wanted a divorce and Catholic morality forbid it. The very basis was an afront to morality, and apparently the tradition continues.
I came to this conclusion while a hardcore evangelical when I realized that all Christian denominations opposed contraception prior to the sexual revolution. That's when I asked myself, "Did God change His mind? Or did some denominations cave to popular opinion?"
Good point.
Though this isn't a conclusive argument. After all, it took a long time for the church to wake up to the idea that slavery wasn't such a great idea. Though a lot of that might be that what the Bible called "slavery" was more of an indentured servitude, rather than what we think of now as slavery.
Though this isn't a conclusive argument. After all, it took a long time for the church to wake up to the idea that slavery wasn't such a great idea.
Or the fact that the earth revolves around the sun and not vice versa.
Jacque, how do you feel about NFP? Does purposely avoiding sex when you are capable of conceiving not express the same desire to remove the possibility of children from sex that other forms of contraception do? Sure, people usually wrap it up in nice language about being open to God's plan -- just decreasing the odds of a child, not eliminating the possibility altogether -- but people touting the benefits of NFP often point to success rates that rival those of hormonal or barrier methods of birth control, so I'm inclined to say that if it's God's plan for you to get pregnant despite using NFP, God wouldn't have too difficult of a time blessing you with a child while you're using other methods of birth control instead. If it is merely the desire to enjoy a union with your partner without conceiving a child that is wrong, then I think you'd have to include even the vast majority of Christian pro-lifers among those you think are sinning every time they swallow a pill or check their cervical mucus.
We agree, Alexandra. (Do you hear the crackle of Hell freezing over?)
I don't use NFP, You made the assumption that I was pro-NFP. I think NFP is over-used, misused and exploited. It is allowed by the Church in severe cases (like health reasons), SEVERE CASES, not to avoid children because they are not wanted "at that moment." I'd agree that Christian pro-lifers that use NFP with a contraception mentality are likely sinning the same as a pill user (although the consequences of the pill are more grave due to the damage to the body and the abortive mechanism-and the fact that sex has just been perverted for pleasure only). So we agree? Didn't count on that did you?
The only thing you said that I disagree with is:
God wouldn't have too difficult of a time blessing you with a child while you're using other methods of birth control instead.
I could jump off a skyscraper and God could very well save me but natural law pretty much indicates that I am going to plummet to my death. It wasn't His Will for me to die, but I did things in the natural realm and there is such a thing as natural consequences. God could bless me by making me skinny, but that's not going to happen if I eat nothing but fried food and channel surf. Natural law says that if you jack with your body to make it infertile- it's gonna be infertile. Yes, God can overcome natural law ---against your free will--- and bless you with something that you've indicated that you clearly don't appreciate, but it would take a miracle, like saving me from my suicide leap. And most babies born to women on contraception are due to contraceptive failure, not God deciding to "bless that couple anyway." God isn't very well going to change the natural order of things to accomodate disobedience- so those contraceptive users must often live with the fruits of that which are few to no children and grandchildren.
Furthermore, why give God an obstacle to overcome? Why make God undo the consequences of your behavior?
And wait- maybe God DID bless a pill user with a child, thwarted the ceased ovulation and thinned cervical mucus- and she killed it with her inhospitable endometrium.
Disobedient Christians use this "God can do ______" cop-out all the time to justify all sorts of bad behaviors.
Quick question: Aren't you pro-choice? Why do you care about the much lesser sins of thwarting conception when you're fine with chopping up concieved, growing, thumb-sucking babies with abortion?
I don't use NFP, You made the assumption that I was pro-NFP.
No, I didn't. I specifically asked how you felt about NFP, because we do agree -- I see a glaring hypocrisy when people tout the benefits of NFP but count other methods of birth control as a sin.
So we agree? Didn't count on that did you?
I didn't "count" on anything, except a (hopefully polite) answer.
And most babies born to women on contraception are due to contraceptive failure, not God deciding to "bless that couple anyway."
Don't you think that contraceptive failure might count as God deciding to bless that couple anyway? People who praise NFP often give it a success rate of 95%-99%, depending on who you're asking. People who praise other methods of birth control often give those methods approximately the same percentage. Why would it be considered a blessing from God when a woman ovulates early (or late), but not when a woman ovulates despite effots not to? If a woman were to get pregnant despite using contraception, would you not believe that that child was a blessing from God? Or would you agree with her that it was a mistake and nothing more?
Or, do you think that children conceived by parents practicing NFP are not blessings from God, either? That God only blesses people who actively seek His blessing? How to explain all the unplanned pregnancies, if this is the case? Is there such a thing as a child who is NOT a blessing from God? A child who is MERELY a contraceptive failure, nothing more?
God isn't very well going to change the natural order of things to accomodate disobedience- so those contraceptive users must often live with the fruits of that which are few to no children and grandchildren.
Many women get pregnant while on birth control; many pro-lifers point to this demographic as evidence that birth control doesn't work reliably enough to be worth the risk, but you insist that it must be a "miracle." If birth control is indeed reliable enough that only a miracle can stop it, I think I'd know far fewer people who had unplanned pregnancies.
And wait- maybe God DID bless a pill user with a child, thwarted the ceased ovulation and thinned cervical mucus- and she killed it with her inhospitable endometrium.
Maybe God blessed a non-contracepting woman -- using NFP or not -- with a child, but because she'd had sex at the wrong time in her cycle it could not implant properly despite fertilizing. Did she kill it by having sex at the wrong time? Should we consider her a sinner for her careless lack of planning, for throwing God's gift back?
Quick question: Aren't you pro-choice? Why do you care about the much lesser sins of thwarting conception when you're fine with chopping up concieved, growing, thumb-sucking babies with abortion?
I'm sorry; I care about your opinions because I find you interesting and worth having a conversation with. I apologize if my efforts to converse with you just for the sake of hearing a point of view different from my own seems so suspicious or offensive. I will not ask your opinions in the future, if that is the case; please let me know.
I see a glaring hypocrisy when people tout the benefits of NFP but count other methods of birth control as a sin.
While we agree in part, there are distinct differences between manipulating or mutilating one's body to have sex without consequences vs. abstaining from sex with avoid consequences. One perverts the sex act and assaults its integrity- the other does not. The sex act remains natural and holy, while the behavior of the people are what has changed. I see a difference in gravity between offending God by not trusting Him, harming one's body and perverting the sex act- and simply offending God by not trusting him and receiving what He desires to bless you with stewardship of as two different things. It's like rape, torture and murder vs. just a quick and painless murder. Both the victims are equally dead, but the evil was magnified in the first scenario. While the "results" are the same with contraceptive-minded NFP users and contraceptors, the consequences are worse with contraceptors. That's why I see a difference in culpability between the two.
Is there such a thing as a child who is NOT a blessing from God?
No, there's not. I misrepresented myself or you misunderstood me. Children are never MISTAKES. Children are ALWAYS a blessing from God. Like flowers, sunshine, and rain, only better and eternal. The Bible says, "The rain falls on the just and the unjust" (Matt. 5:45) meaning that God gives problems (and blessings) to both the wicked and the righteous. So, I don't have a child because I'm a good person, I have a child because my ovaries spat out a viable egg, my husband spat out some viable sperm, etc. etc. Now, if I did not have viable egg, etc., God could very well answer my prayers and heal me so that I do. God is limited by his respect for our free will and the divine/natural law that He designed.
Nature plays a substantial role in baby-making aside from our motives. This is why the crack-addicted prostitute can concieve and abandon baby after baby, and another woman with aching arms and an already decorated nursery can be childless for her whole life. While some children are the product of divine intervention in divine and natural law, most children are a natural blessing created through natural means that God designed. Even then, people must ACT to make babies; God doesn't typically spontaneously create them (except in the case of the Blessed Mother Mary and Jesus Christ). The couple that God wants to bless with a child despite their contracepting still have to exercise their free will and have sex. My point is- God designed nature and we are limited by it. Nature says if a and b unite in the right circumstances, c will be produced. Contracepting couples thwart that by jacking with a and b, cutting off the avenue that God has chosen to bless them. Since God designed and respects that avenue, saying that He readily changes it to bless disobedient children is illogical.
Here's an example of how this is illogical. Like babies, flowers are a blessing. If put up a tarp to deny water and sunshine to God's blessing of flowers, they'll wither and die. Don't you think saying, "If God wanted to bless me with flowers, He could do it anyway, despite me denying the flowers water and sunshine?" That's what Christians who put tarps on their penises and pills in their bodies are saying. If you take God's blessing of a functional reproductive system and sabotage that, babies typically will not ensue any more than those flowers will thrive.
I can't begin to presume whether contraceptive failure is a divine intervention or not, but the bottom line is that by plotting against his natural, divine law, you're plotting aginst His will.
If birth control is indeed reliable enough that only a miracle can stop it, I think I'd know far fewer people who had unplanned pregnancies.
Fine, I'll retract "miracle" in this instance and replace it with an analogy: If my flowers thrived despite the tarp I put over them to keep water and sunlight away, would you think it's a miracle? You'd first check for a hole in the tarp, right? Then you'd look for other natural ways that those flowers were watered and given sunlight. No hole in the tarp, no intervention, and blooming roses- That's a miracle! The more likely explanation is that there was a hole in the tarp rather than God thwarting me and growing flowers. So I think that a logical explanation for babies born to contracepting parents is likely more in failure of the contraceptive or failure to use the contraceptive as intended. Since I was born to contracepting parents, I'd like to think that God wanted me so much to be created that He undid everything my parents did, changed nature- just for me. He might very well have (He loves me so), but Occam's razor suggests otherwise. Therefore, I don't think miracles are the cause to every child concieved to contracepting parents, but likely failure of the contraception. Think about it: If the contraception worked and she didn't ovulate, and no sperm exited the condom, and a baby was still made- I'd say THAT was a miracle, wouldn't you?
Now, that being said, I think all human beings are miracles. I don't think it's some crude "one-plus-one" as I might have sounded. Human beings are unique and so much must go into to creating that one and only. God makes a miracle everytime a person is created. Look at your fingerprints- no one else will ever have that! But God creates those miracles through the natural law he designed and with the cooperation of people. People don't cooperate and the miracle of human life may not happen.
Maybe God blessed a non-contracepting woman -- using NFP or not -- with a child, but because she'd had sex at the wrong time in her cycle it could not implant properly despite fertilizing.
I once again invoke natural law. Babies die at conception, in the womb, at birth, ad nasuem. People die naturally all the time. In fact, only 1 in 4 embryos successfully implant in nature. I don't know why this is, like I don't know why kids get cancer, but a woman that didn't do unnatural things to her body (like contraception) who loses a baby for whatever reason is not responsible for that baby's death. That baby died a natural death.
I apologize if my efforts to converse with you just for the sake of hearing a point of view different from my own seems so suspicious or offensive.
It's neither suspicicious nor offensive- just a little perplexing. I don't understand how someone can refer to conception as a unilateral blessing and be fine with the legal dismemberment of said blessings. Normally, arguments about the morality of preventing conception are held between people that, at the least, accept that children that are concieved have the right to live. This is why I'm perplexed. Having a discussion about contraception morality with a pro-choicer is like debating sprinkling vs. immersion types of Baptism. So why would one care about the immorality of refusing to create life when they think it's perfectly fine to kill already-created life. That's why this conversation seems back-asswards.
The more likely explanation is that there was a hole in the tarp rather than God thwarting me and growing flowers.
I suppose I'm not understanding the difference between contraceptive-failure conception -- a hole in the tarp -- and non-contracepted conception, with regards to whether or not the child conceived is a blessing. You said that God does not bless contracepting couples, but there are a whole heck of a lot of contracepting couples who find themselves pregnant. I would think it more likely that contraceptive failure might, in itself, be a blessing from God, following the logic of most other Christian approaches to unintended and/or undesired events that later turn out to have been blessings.
I guess what I don't understand is the reconciliation of these two statements:
Children are ALWAYS a blessing from God.
And:
Since God designed and respects that avenue, saying that He readily changes it to bless disobedient children is illogical.
----------
So why would one care about the immorality of refusing to create life when they think it's perfectly fine to kill already-created life.
Well, naturally, although we agree on the linking of NFP and other forms of birth control, I don't think it's immoral to not want to create life. So it's not that I "care about the immorality" of this frame of mind, since I don't consider it immoral -- I don't NOT care either, though, because your thoughts are valuable and interesting. I've arrived at my own opinions not by parroting what others told me, but by fully considering and exploring various points of view re: a situation and finding that each new lesson either changes my mind or strengthens my previously-held opinions. Having a conversation like this with you adds another layer of depth to my own opinions on various subjects -- and who knows, perhaps one day I will have a conversation with someone about such a subject that will end up changing my mind! If it's possible for my mind to be changed -- and I think a mind is almost always capable of being changed -- I want to open it to that possibility as much as I can, because I want to know that I believe what I believe not for lack of understanding or lack of intellectual/moral curiosity but precisely because of an insatiable curiosity and desire for further understanding.
Post a Comment