Posted on 11/12/2006 5:21:18 PM PST by xzins
Well , you know , this just goes to show you that some prelates just thnk they ARE God. Thats the problem. And they deserve a severe spanking by the hand of GOD.
Come think of it real reason why Henry VIII founded Church of England because Pope didn't want grant divorce from his wife of 20 years Catherine of Aragon he has good reason Pope was in custory of her nephew Holy Emperor Charles
Boy talk about family connections LOL!
There was even a parish in London, earlier this year (2006), that fought a Cardinal to "continue abortion" referrals. Rome has clamped down on many of these practices that were commonplace in the recent past, but they still continue...
The only remaining questiion is will the funeral for the Church of England be held at Westminster, or will they have it at the Captain Hook Mosque?
Well, I'd disagree, it was rotten at the beginning because Henry VII was a bad man and a bad king. The crimes involved in confiscating property of Catholics and banning Catholicism and executing many of those who would not renounce it taint the C of E to this day.
OH OKAY but originally that what Henry want second marriage with some floozie named Ann Bolyen LOL!
As soon as they find out how much money can be made like it's made here in America.
Why shouldn't it, it was founded for personal convienience.
Codifying this wisdom formally is dicy.
"Maybe I'm just reading this wrong but it almost sounds to me like they're saying that there are times that using every available method to extend life is not always the best decision. Sometimes it is better to let nature take its course."
I agree with you. Thats how I read it. I don't see it being that different from taking an elderly person who is in profound pain and who doesn't have any hope of recovery off of life support. I think in many cases it is the compassionate thing to do.
"And the Bishop of Southwark, Tom Butler, who is the vice chair of the Church of England's Mission and Public Affairs Council, has also argued that the high financial cost of keeping desperately ill babies alive should be a factor in life or death decisions."
----
The cost should belong to the family, not the state, where this problem stems.
moral absolute ping?
(socialized medicine alert)
A girl we used to work with had a baby the hospital fought to keep alive. She was in the hospital 6 months. She is blind, deaf and they believe retarded due to lack of oxygen. When I last saw her she was 18 mos., could not walk, sit up or crawl. She just laid there. Heart breaking.
There, fixed this sentence for ya.
I can't, but if I did agree with him I'd say it's a shame his mother didn't apply this standard to him...he is clearly morally disabled.
It would appear 1 pound is not enough.
Christians have long argued that life should preserved at all costs - but a bishop representing the national church has now sparked controversy by arguing that there are occasions when it is compassionate to leave a severely disabled child to die.
What the hell is this? The rebirth of the Third Reich?
I agree with you. Thats how I read it. I don't see it being that different from taking an elderly person who is in profound pain and who doesn't have any hope of recovery off of life support. I think in many cases it is the compassionate thing to do.
Ah yes...roads paven with good intentions. Problem is, who set the standards and decides exactly WHAT is compassionate.
I don't want a white coated state employee or a black-robed judge or even a collared "minister" given the power to make that distinction for me.
This is a classical slippery slope. Where does "compassion" start and end?
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.