Posted on 09/27/2009 10:19:41 AM PDT by wagglebee
New guidance has been issued to clarify the law on assisted suicide in England and Wales - but it offers no guarantees against prosecution.
Instead the Director of Public Prosecutions has spelled out the range of factors that will be taken into account when deciding on cases.
The move has been welcomed by 33 year old Kelly Taylor from Bristol who is terminally ill.
In 2005 she tried to starve herself in the hope she would end her pain.
"I think the new guidelines are a breakthrough, as it gives people the knowledge when and where they're going wrong and when they could be prosecuted. It also gives people like me greater patient choice."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.bbc.co.uk ...
Same to you, and buh bye!
Again, the original word in the original text was not "kill", it was "murder." There is a difference between killing wrongdoing in a lawful manner sanctioned by the state, and murder. That is the issue here.
It sounds like you are disputing the infallibility of the Bible. Am I correct?
No, you are not correct.
Can you explain that please? At what point should one stop believing what the Bible says and why. With all due respect, it sounds to me like a convenient rationalization.
I wonder if those who oppose the existence of moral absolutes realize that the ONLY alternative is absolute moral relativism. This means that ANYTHING is acceptable if a person’s conscience permits it, this would include murder, rape, terrorism and treason.
The problem is that your moral absolutes are, in practice, a kind of moral relativism.
We (and I'll include all of us here) interpret these things according to our convenience. Now, if the commandment says, "Thou shalt not kill", I will assume that is what it means. Now, let's suppose, that no one kills i.e. not criminals, or murderers, citizens, police or soldiers of any kind....that would be a good thing, in my opinion. However, we always say, "You did it first so I am justified." Another excuse is "God is on our side" so therefore we are justified or "I am good and you are evil". Personally, as much as I support our troops, I cannot go so far as to claim that the god of this vast universe is on our side as comforting as that may be.
Ironically, since I am less of a literalist than many of you, I believe that the commandment means what it says. However, we (and I must regrettably include myself) are not willing to live by it.
It therefore would not apply to capital punishment as that is clearly permitted by Mosaic Law; nor does it apply to just war because in war the objective is to defeat an enemy, not kill the individual combatants.
However, both euthanasia and abortion (assuming you believe that life begins at conception) are deliberate acts of murder.
Here is an interesting editorial on the subject written by a rabbi:
(I pinged Zionist Conspirator because his knowledge of Hebrew and the Torah is far superior to mine.)
You've got to be kidding!
For awhile I thought that maybe God was onto something with this, "Though shalt not kill thing".
And, pray tell, who decides what a "just war" is?
That's always us right?
I'm sorry but I can't reduce God to a tool of our personal, national or political cause.
The just war theory has been a long held Christian principle. It goes back to Sts. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas.
Right now I can't think any war that was not just to someone or other.
What about World War II, would you agree that the allies were operating under the doctrines of just war in fighting the Nazis?
I may personally agree, as I do, that WWII was an appropriate cause and served the best interests of a large portion of humanity of which we are a part, but that does not mean that the commandment was not violated on a massive scale by both sides.
The Commandment was certainly violated, but the prosecution of the war by the Allies did not because it was to protect innocent life.
The commandment does not say, “Thou shalt not kill except to protect innocent life.” How many innocent German civilians were killed?
How many innocent Germans were INTENTIONALLY killed? Murder is a crime of intent, this is one of the main differences between murder and manslaughter.
Not to defend the Germans, but I would say that in the bombing of Dresden a lot of civilians were intentionally killed however you want to split hairs about it.
I would agree with that and I think even most military historians would concede that the bombing of Dresden was immoral although it might have been partly due to inaccurate Allied intelligence.
It was over whether or not the commandment, "Thou shalt not kill" as well as the other commandments should be taken literally. Although I am not a moral absolutist for the most part and also not a believer in the absolute infallibility of the Bible, I do, admittedly ironically, believe that this commandment means what it says and that, ideally at least, the world would be a better place if it were followed.
It seems ironic to me that what I believe to be absolutists here have disagreed and argued for moral relativism in the interpretation of the commandment and the moral relativist (me) has argued for absolutism.
If I have mischaracterized you on this, please forgive me.
All the best,
cerberus
I don't know why you're giving me flak. I was not the person who pushed the abuse button. I was ready to have a rational conversation (and despite your hypocrisy we had been, I thought), but if you want to turn on the hysterics and run out of the room, that's your decision.
So please do take your "It's wrong to judge who isn't and isn't a Christian, and that's why I'm using so busy judging who is and isn't a Christian" routine elsewhere.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.