Abortion Vs Terminally Ill

It should, because you're still "Playing God". But because humans are selfish in nature and frightened of death, any procedure that allows you to stay alive or allows you to keep your loved ones alive is of course approved of. Picking and Choosing.

I don't think I've understood the question. How can you compare ending a life with extending a life?

Because both are "playing god" and "interfering with nature".

OK, I see. Sorry, I had totally flew past that. The Bible speaks of considering life precious and Jesus himself taught that laws may be broken to save life - he saved a life by helping a man, despite the fact that it broke the rules of Sabbath rest. Hence I still cannot see the link between ending and extending a life. Anybody with a shred of biblical knowledge will know how theists view life, as it is refleected in their stance on abortion.

Having said that, I guess biblical laws may also see abortion as acceptable when both the mother's and the baby's lives are at fatal risk. Saving one life, rather than losing two (even though one life had to be purposely terminated to accomplish this) is surely better? I would imagine that abortion would be avoided wherever possible. Let's hypothesise: a woman has discovered that her pregnancy is a fatal danger to both her and her child's lives if it continues. I would imagine that the church would advise her to continue the pregnancy until some time after viability period and then induce the birth. Therefore, even if the chances of the child's survival are relatively low, given that it is both ill and premature, it is given the natural chance to survive with modern equipment. If the baby dies, then the woman has pleased God by allowing the baby to live, although for such a short time.

I guess ectopic pregnancies would have to be aborted as survival is next to impossible? Or they would encourage that the foetus be moved to the womb (which is,, as far as I know, impossible or at least carries a miniscule percentage of success? Enlighten me, learned ones!), which, again, even though the foetus is sure to die, it has occurred via natural miscarriage rather than intended killing.

I've just realised this is sooo off-topic. Oops!

With that listed, I can see how "playing God" to extend life is acceptable. Jesus did resurrect himself and a few other people from the dead.

KYPROS- There is NO WAY we can move an ectopic pregnancy into the uterus, there are way too many issues to make it even probable.

ONE being attaching a placenta to the uterus, that would require TEDIOUS microsurgery on blood vessels, which we cannot do without open uterine surgery.

WHEN doctors operate or medicate an ectopic pregnancy for removal, they are intending to kill the fetus.

That is the point, to remove the pregnancy, and fetal death is the only way to do that.

I think it's yet another fun semantic 'social versus technical' definition issue.

A sensitive doctor may be aware of this and avoid using the term "abortion" in the tx of an etopic pregnancy.

I understand the removal of an etopic pregnancy is done differently than vacuum curettage so perhaps that's another difference as well. I could be wrong, though.

I think that some view life to be prescious and should be extended at any cost. I support an individual's and family's choice to terminate the life of a terminally ill individual. I don't want a lot of heroics gone to if something unforseen happens to me. I guess I'm sort of an all or nothing kind of gal. If I can't make it back from the tunnel of light on my own, or if i choose to go toward it, I would be ticked off if somebody interefered with my choices. Since we don't know what happens on the other side, I think we ought to leave that choice up to the individuals involved.

Personally, I don't think very very ill people should be saved, especially if they are capable of reproducing - not only to prevent them from passing on their defective genes to another person and dooming them to suffering or death, but also in the event that sick person dies, they may end up orphaning their child. I think it's okay to medicate people to be comfortable if death from illness is inevitable, but I don't think extreme measures should be taken to prolong a person's life. By extreme, I mean the use of life support, transplantation of organs with high rejection rates, years and years of chemo (since I think that kills the person as much as the cancer). And a large part of me wishes those who are incredibly mentally unstable could just get taken out behind a shed and shot - people that nuts serve no purpose and are better off dead...and I mean the real nutjobs, not someone with ADHD or chronic anxiety.

The reason medical care is so expensive is because we save far too many people and don't even offer those in the mose pain a means of passing on with dignity (euthanasia). When a person is beign kept alive by machines, tubes, wires and medical staff, they cross the line of being a patient and enter the realm of being an experiment and a cash cow for the hospital. Most people do not want to let their loved ones go, and I realize that...hospitals do too and they will milk a family for all they're worth when they are most vulnerable. If we didn't save people who were going to die regardless of what was done, medical costs would not be quite so high; I don't mean a dramatic drop in prices, but at least a 5 percent decrease.

I think if the person is capable of living a fairly normal life after the heart attack or the stroke or what-not, then they should be helped be saved. But if they end up being paralyzed from the neck down, or they become retarded or anything else that pretty much renders them useless, then it is probably more humane for that person and their families for that person to be allowed to pass on or undergo euthanasia (if it were legal for people).

I know someone personally who suffered numerous health problems and lives a normal life. He was born with a heart defect that could have killed him (it was fixed), had a stroke when he was 14 and was comatose for two months afterwards, and he's blind in one eye and has severe allergies that caused him the loss of a lung. And yet, he does perfectly fine and one would never guess he had so many brushes with death. I think he is one of the lucky ones to recover completely (or as close to it as one can get) from a stroke, and I would not advocate someone who can mostly or totally recover being left to die.

The fact of the matter is that people play God every day. If you pop an aspirin for a headache, then you're playing God. If you get a piercing, you're playing God. If your God wanted you to be headache-free and have a bolt through your nose, s/he would have given it to you. I don't see a problem with people interfering with nature a little, nor do I see a problem with prolonging one's life if they are healthy and physically capable of living happily and to the fullest.

Abortion can be interpreted as a means of prolonging a woman's life - her social life, her mental stability, her paychecks, her relationship or marriage, her physical appearance, and so forth. By ending an unwanted pregnancy, a woman can save herself from the little death that parenthood causes in every mother and father.

[quote="Cambion"]Personally, I don't think very very ill people should be saved, especially if they are capable of reproducing - not only to prevent them from passing on their defective genes to another person and dooming them to suffering or death, but also in the event that sick person dies, they may end up orphaning their child. I think it's okay to medicate people to be comfortable if death from illness is inevitable, but I don't think extreme measures should be taken to prolong a person's life. By extreme, I mean the use of life support, transplantation of organs with high rejection rates, years and years of chemo (since I think that kills the person as much as the cancer).

The reason medical care is so expensive is because we save far too many people and don't even offer those in the mose pain a means of passing on with dignity (euthanasia). When a person is beign kept alive by machines, tubes, wires and medical staff, they cross the line of being a patient and enter the realm of being an experiment and a cash cow for the hospital. Most people do not want to let their loved ones go, and I realize that...hospitals do too and they will milk a family for all they're worth when they are most vulnerable. If we didn't save people who were going to die regardless of what was done, medical costs would not be quite so high

I completely 100% agree with you on this!

Lol i would trust anyones spelling but my own