More on Abortion, Euthanasia, the Pope, etc... Also: Claire's Bible Studies
Claire E. O'Connor claireoc@softdisk.com
Sat, 22 Nov 1997 18:40:48 -0600 (00880267248, 34777B90.1D61@softdisk.com)
***************************************************************************
More on Abortion, Euthanasia, the Pope, etc... Also: Claire's Bible
studies
***************************************************************************
> RALPH NIELSEN {Assisted Suicide}
> ...Millions of people in this country can't any
> afford health insurance at all.
> In the Netherlands, where there is universal health care, very few people
> choose suicide. And then it is mostly to avoid becoming a undignified
> vegetable or suffering unbearable pain. My 97-year old father in Victoria,
> BC, Canada, doesn't have to worry about who will pay his medical bills,
> either, but he would prefer to be put to sleep like a dog or a cat, rather
> than to be a helpless, "living corpse" in his last days.
> Euthanasia is to be available in Oregon only to those who have 6 months or
> less to live, so where does the Catholic Church get the idea that assisted
> suicide will be forced on people?
> One of the propaganda ploys of that church in the Oregon campaign was to weep
> crocodile tears over the possibility that the lethal dose might not work
> quickly and the patient might linger on in suffering rather than die right
> away. To which remark I would ask, "Isn't that exactly what you want them
> to do anyway?"
> Isn't it weird that the Xians, who claim there is a wonderful life after
> death, should be so reluctant to allow poor sick suffering people to go
> there as soon as possible?
> A few years ago a student here at the University of Idaho hit the nail
> right on the head. "These people who claim they are pro-life are really
> pro-suffering."
CLAIRE
The pro-assisted suicide forces were using a few propaganda ploys of
their own. I have a link to an article about the referendum from the
Nov. 10 issue of US News and World Report. I found it interesting what
the article said about the wording of the referendum:
"Studies suggest that when voters are presented with a repeal measure,
in which a "Yes" vote is a "No" to the original law, and vice versa, as
many as 25 percent accidentally vote against their own preferences. This
effect is likely to be exacerbated by Oregon Right to Die's decision to
copy the repeal effort's catch phrase and emblem."
I think that Oregon Right to Die may have fooled more than a few voters.
You can read the entire text of the article here:
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/971110/10poli.htm
>> CLAIRE {Assisted Suicide, widows & orphans} - 11/8 -repeated
>> I think 4 million dollars against an assisted-suicide initiative was
>> money very well spent. What I find tragic is that the Catholic Church
>> lost this one. I dread the future if assisted suicide becomes
>> commonplace. The ones who will be expected to commit suicide will most
>> likely be the poor who cannot afford good insurance. Also, I would guess
>> that women would be more likely to feel pressure to commit suicide, so
>> they won't be a "burden" to anyone. Most of the good Dr. Kevorkian's
>> "patients" have been women.
> RICHARD {Assisted Suicide, Widows & Orphans}
> Sorry to confront your fears with the cold light of reality, but Australia
> had in place legislated euthanasia laws which were used on three occasions
> before the Armies of the Night (i.e. the christian churches) successfully
> lobbied to repeal them.
CLAIRE
I said before that I dreaded the future if assisted suicide became
commonplace. Well, it couldn't have become commonplace in Australia yet
- the laws had hardly been passed before they were repealed! That "cold
light of reality" didn't have had much of an opportunity to shine on my
fears.
> RICHARD:
> The act of euthanasia was initiated by the patient by following instructions
> on a computer. At all times the patient could abort the procedure. Before
> the procedure could occur, the patient's own doctor had to certify the
> patient's condition was imminently terminal (i.e. a matter of weeks), the
> patient was in agony, and the agony could no longer be treated by palliative
> methods. A specialist in the patients disease had to independently confirm
> this diagnosis. Finally an independent psychiatrist had to certify that the
> patient was sane, was not suffering from treatable depression, and was not
> being pressured by family to euthanize himself.
> The controls were so strict most patients died in agony from their terminal
> disease before the necessary euthanasia paperwork could be completed. But
> one thing which the active use of these laws did NOT show was their
> avoidance by wealthy males to make room for their use by poor females. Sorry.
> Thanks to the wealthy tax exempt churches, these people now die in agony the
> way the churches demand - their intravenous lines are removed and they are
> allowed to dehydrate and starve to death over a period which can last
> anything up to 10 days. And your church considers THAT to be preferable to a
> quick and painless end. Shame on you. Shame on you.
CLAIRE
The Catholic Church has NEVER approved of allowing people to be starved
or dehydrated to death! Also, I firmly believe that we will be headed
down a "slippery slope" once the initial battles to legalize euthanasia
and assisted suicide are successful. The strict controls will be
relaxed, bit by bit, especially if there is a financial incentive to
perform euthanasia, rather than giving non-lethal treatments for a
patient's condition.
> RICHARD:
> Why are christians so terrified of death?
CLAIRE
Why are some atheists in such a rush to die, if there's no afterlife?
> RALPH NIELSEN {Population Issues}
> Someone asked Mother Teresa if she didn't think that lepers should be
> forbidden to have children because the offspring would only live about 4
> years in pain and then die. The old pro-suffering biddy declared that even
> lepers should have the joy of bringing children into the world. That's how
> much people like her care about suffering children. No wonder the church
> wants to make her a saint.
CLAIRE
Nowadays, leprosy is very treatable. People can have their leprosy cured
with multi-drug therapy. I don't see a public-health reason for
forbidding lepers to have children. I have been looking up leprosy on
the Internet, but I have been unable to find an article which supports
what you say about the offspring only living for four years. Could you
direct me to one? I have a couple of links about leprosy here:
http://foundation.novartis.com/leprosy.htm
This one is from the 1992 edition of the Merck Manual about recommended
treatments for leprosy (including treatment of small children).
http://www.merck.com/!!tsxlX00a1tsxmv18lY/pubs/mmanual/html/klkemjge.htm
(Note: In order to get to the Merck Manual page on leprosy, you will
have to copy and paste the entire address into your browser. For some
reason, I can't get it to just work as a direct link. But the address is
valid.)
>CLAIRE
>> Now for the population explosion: Throwing abortion or contraceptive
>> services at people is not going to reduce the birth rate unless the
>> underlying incentives to have many children are removed.
> RALPH {Population Issues}
> Claire, has it ever occurred to you that no woman can abort a pregnancy if
> she isn't already pregnant? Isn't that what contraceptives are for? No
> woman would rather undergo abortions than prevent unwanted pregnancies in
> the first place. Isn't this obvious? Do you know that in the former Soviet
> Union contraceptives are almost impossible to obtain, so nearly all
> unwanted pregnancies are aborted - without anesthetics? Do you and your
> pope imagine they do this for the fun of it?
CLAIRE
Ralph, may I ask you what influence a staunchly anti-Communist Catholic
Pope had on family- planning policies in the former Soviet Union, which
has been governed by atheists? The government should have spent money on
importing better condoms rather than in funding abortion clinics. I
did once read in US News and World Report that the average Soviet
(Russian) woman underwent seven abortions during a reproductive lifetime
(before the breakup of the Soviet Union), and there were many women who
had 14 or more abortions. Abortions were fully paid for. I have never
heard that they did not use anaesthetics in Soviet abortion clinics. Can
you provide me with a link or other reference about that?
> RALPH
> For 12 years, during the Reagan-Bush era, the US sent no contraceptives to
> Mexico and the rest of Latin America to please your pope and his minions.
> Now the very same politicians are screeching and yelling about millions of
> illegal immigrants trying to cross the Rio Grande into the USA. Now, I
> think this is just about the most damnable hypocrisy imaginable.
CLAIRE
Isn't it amazing how much temporal power the pope has? All the leaders
of the world bow down to him! Are you serious, or are you just trying to
make me angry? If you're trying to make me angry, it won't work.
My understanding is that the policy of the Reagan-Bush presidency was
not to fund family- planning programs that also provided abortion
services. The anti-abortion position has been part of the Republican
platform for a long time. As far as I know, it was not adopted to
"please [the] pope and his minions".
The economic situation in Mexico, and the fact that employers are
willing to hire illegal immigrants, has more to do with the flood of
illegal immigrants than the lack of availability of contraceptives or
abortion services.
>CLAIRE
>> First and
>> foremost, the death rate of children under 5 must be reduced. Parents
>> who see that their children are likely to die early will have a lot of
>> children just to ensure that at least a few survive.
> RALPH
> About 45,000 children die of malnutrition and starvation EVERY DAY.
> Wouldn't it be better if they were never conceived in the first place? Of
> course, that's what humanists think. Catholics and others prefer to see
> little children dying because they are pro-suffering.
>
> IAN
> I would like to know where you got this idea from also. There are men in
> some parts of the world who believe the more children you have, the more of a
> man you are. What, by the way is the death rate for children under five? Where?
> I would be willing to bet the biggest reason for a high birth rate is the Pope
> and other religious and political leaders like him. If people have children
> because the children they have are not likely to live, why in the Hell would
> they have an abortion or use a contraceptive. Who's been brainwashing you
> Claire?
>CLAIRE
>> For the cost of one
>> abortion, you could vaccinate hundreds of children against easily
>> preventable diseases, thus reducing their death rate. Leaving aside
>> "morality", abortion is simply not a viable method of birth control in
>> developing countries. Another problem is that children are viewed as
>> "assets" who can work when they are still very young and earn money for
>> their families. If children are banned from working and are instead
>> required to attend school, they will no longer be viewed as financial
>> assets, and this will reduce the incentive for parents to have many
>> children.
> RALPH
> Of course you will want them all to go Catholic schools, where they will be
> taught that they will go to hell if they use contraceptives.
CLAIRE
I think you are engaging in unwarranted speculation here. I never said
anything about having everyone attend Catholic schools.
> RALPH
> In the early sixties we had a cute little French-Canadian typist from
> Quebec in the library of the University of Alberta in Edmonton. She was one
> of a family of 15 children, but she had an uncle who was the father of 20.
> Someone suggested that if everybody in the world had that many children, we
> would all starve to death for lack of enough food to go around. Lise had
> been thoroughly brainwashed in old Quebec: she replied naively that she
> didn't believe God would allow anyone to starve to death!
CLAIRE
Do you know anyone who has said this more recently? Do you think she
spoke for all Catholics?
> IAN
> Claire, what you believe is your business. I don't know of one person
> who would want to force you into suicide, an abortion, or using a
> contraceptive. WHY do you feel you should force your beliefs on others?
> Many Christians are in favor of prayer in school but they would be the
> first to object if someone said a non-Christian prayer.
CLAIRE
If assisted suicide and euthanasia become commonplace, the beliefs of
the pro-euthanasia side will be forced on patients, especially when cost
containment is an issue. Even in the Netherlands, where cost containment
is NOT such a big issue, people are euthanized against their wishes.
As for school prayer, what I am in favor of is a "moment of silence" in
schools instead of spoken prayers said by everyone. Of course, I am
"biased" toward (Catholic) Christian prayers but I worry what could
happen if all children were forced to say them.
> IAN {Assisted suicide, overpop, etc. - Let's debate the Bible}
> Since this is a Bible errancy list, may I ask when you have read your
> Bible through? My wife knows a Presbyterian lady in her seventies who is
> reading it through for the first time and she is not happy with what she
> is reading. Of course she is only up to Samuel and not into the NT but
> the NT has its roots in the OT.
> CLAIRE {abridged version of what she wrote on 11/9 - Asst. Suicide, Overpop., etc. -
>> Let's debate the Bible}
>> I have not read the Bible through, but I have participated in several group studies.
>> Books studied: Genesis, Psalms (only 16 of them), Job, Isaiah, Infancy Narratives
>> in Matthew & Luke, Passion and Resurrection Narratives (all four Gospels),
>> Gospel of Luke (in its entirety), Acts of the Apostles, Book of Revelation.
>> Study materials provided by _Little Rock Scripture Study_;
>> _Collegeville Bible Commentary_ Series.
>> [Claire complains about not having persuaded her group to study Exodus after
>> Genesis, or Jeremiah after Isaiah]
>> Also, at (almost) every Mass: We read one OT passage, a Psalm, a Letter excerpt,
>> and a Gospel reading. Some passages from the Bible never appear in the Mass
>> lectionary.
>> So that's my background on the Bible. I'd probably get clobbered by
>> Farrell Till, or you, or some others on this list if I tried to debate
>> the Bible. I am here to learn, and maybe ask some questions. :)
> IAN {Let's learn the Bible}
> Till wouldn't clobber you, he'd cream you. :-0) As for me, my knowledge
> is in the books of Moses although I know where to look for other parts of
> the Bible. Anyway, we know where you're coming from and I don't think
> anyone on this list feels badly towards you. We, or at least I, just
> disagree vehemently with your beliefs.
CLAIRE
I am sorry to hear about your wife's Presbyterian friend who is not
happy with what she is reading. I might not be happy either, if I were
doing it on my own. In spite of your concern that my group Bible study
is only teaching me what my church wants me to hear, I still think this
is the best way I have of learning the Bible. They are not teaching an
expurgated version of the Bible, so I do see everything that is written
in the particular book we are reading. I also enjoy the social aspects
of a group Bible study. Our study is structured enough so that we
(usually) don't get too far off track.
> IAN
> You are taking the position that the fetus is a human being with all the
> rights and privileges thereof. This of course is not the case since tax
> deductions are not given to pregnant women. Perhaps you feel they should
> get a tax deduction but you had better not come up with this idea. This
> would force the Government in every woman's bedroom and every time they
> missed a period Big Brother would be there watching. A spontaneous
> abortion would cause the police to be involved and the woman to be
> charged with manslaughter or worse for not taking care of herself.
CLAIRE
I don't see how one can argue that a fetus is not a human being five
minutes before birth, but then becomes one five minutes later.
Designating it as a person only after birth is arbitrary. A spontaneous
abortion (miscarriage) would never be grounds for prosecution, even in
the extreme "Big Brother" situation you envision. Most miscarriages
occur because of some chromosomal abnormality, or other problem
completely beyond the control of the pregnant woman.
I am not going to press for a tax deduction for pregnant women, but I
would be supportive of efforts to improve the lot of expectant families
as well as families with children already born.
> IAN
> On top of that, I understand that the laws of the Old Testament are
> passe. Do you follow the dietary rules of Leviticus? Then we have the
> penalties for breaking all these rules. Are you aware that all but two or
> three of the Ten Commandments requires the death penalty? Where does that
> leave your Thou shalt not kill?
CLAIRE
Well, of course I must admit that I don't regard every passage in the
Bible as being of equal value. I do think that all of it is valuable in
some way, if only to show how the ancient Israelites understood God at
the time a particular book was written.
> IAN
> Little Rock Scripture Study? Is that Little Rock, Arkansas? Do you live here in
> Arkansas?
CLAIRE
No, I live in Shreveport, Louisiana. But several people at my church
(St. Joseph's Church in Shreveport) have ties to Little Rock - that is
one of the reasons we are using materials from the Little Rock Scripture
Study Series.
> IAN
> You were quite right in wanting to study Exodus after Genesis. Of course,
> if they jump around all over the Bible, you lose your bearings and if the
> skip chapters here and there, you will lose more. Please don't get the
> idea they do this for your benefit. They have been teaching this for many
> many years and they know exactly what they are doing and how to
> accomplish their ends. :-)=
CLAIRE
After Farrell Till cited those passages from Exodus and Deuteronomy, I
regretted even more not having persuaded my group to study Exodus and
then go on to the other books of the Pentateuch. However, I would still
have cited "Thou shalt not kill"; I just would also have added that we
don't give equal weight to the other passages.
~Claire O'Connor