I know if I had a child who was born with some type of defect that was going to kill them very quickly, I would not want that child to be hooked up to every machine possible to keep him/her alive for a few days or weeks. I would put it into God's hands and trust him to do what he knows is best. If the child dies, then they would be in heaven. If God decided to heal the child, then I would be grateful beyond words.
That said, I would not advocate killing a child because they're blind, deaf, missing an arm or leg, or something along those lines. That would be murder.
I agree with you.
I don't think so. The example they used was of a child that is now THREE years old.
But, it wouldn't matter.
God is the only one who decides between life and death. If we do the right thing and try to help, that baby will not live one second longer nor one second less than God will decide.
Our job is to respond to the "good works that God has prepared ahead of time for us to do."
You and I are on the same page...thank you for some rational thoughts...
They are not talking about machines. They're talking about a Terri Schiavo redux.
"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.
Thank you for your reasoned comments amid the hysteria.
Thank you.