Quote of the Day
I read recently a comment saying that, in the future, when Christianity has largely died out in a secular and decadent West, Christians will not be known for how they worship or who they follow, but simply as that strange bunch of people who don’t kill babies and don’t kill their old people. I could live with that.
Tags: Christian Life
January 31st, 2012 at 12:02 pm
I could live with that do, but I’d much rather Christians were remembered for who they follow.
January 31st, 2012 at 4:09 pm
They will say rather, “those bigoted people who would rather ruin womens’ lives by saddling them with a foetus” and “those cruel scum who force people to keep on living”. We need not expect honesty from the age of spin.
January 31st, 2012 at 5:21 pm
Good concluding thoughts but why spoil them by quoting half-baked opinion?
I won’t and don’t need to live with that comment because the secular decadent West is spiritually and morally dead. So too, in my opinion, are various forms of church that have let the world in – BUT the parts refreshed by the Holy Spirit are and will continue to be alive and vibrant, even in the West, praise the Lord.
January 31st, 2012 at 8:12 pm
I have read the complete report by the Falconer committee, and I think it is misunderstood by the author of this quote and others.
The committee asked itself the question if assisted dying was made legal in the UK, what safeguards would be required, and under what specific circumstances should assisted dying be made legal. Sam Charles Norton’s strawmen don’t accurately reflect the findings of the report. The ‘thin end of the wedge’ argument can be quoted for just about any change to the law, but I don’t think any of us who support a change to the law would want to see the very stringent requirements envisaged by the report relaxed.
The report goes to great lengths to ensure that ‘Granny Smith’ will not be coerced, or opt for assisted dying because she feels a burden on relatives etc. Indeed the criteria to be allowed to proceed are very precise, relate only to terminal illness, and require multiple approvals.
In the past humans were largely powerless to prolong life, and death was often a swift but merciful release. Now we do have the ability to prolong life far beyond the time when a person would otherwise have died. Take for example Stephen Hawking. With constant medical intervention he has remained alive many years after he would oherwise have died.
But now that we have the means to keep very many people alive far beyond their natural demise, should we not also consider the circumstances under which this course of action becomes an intolerable situation for the person involved? Life becomes torture to them, and their death may likely be extremely painful and undignified, to the extreme distress of both them and those they love. In this situation is it not more compassionate for them to be allowed to opt for assisted dying whilst they can still retain their dignity and have a quiet and peaceful death? If most of us had the choice to end our life now, in control and with dignity, or in 6 months time wracked by pain and in huge indignity, I think we would choose now.
I know that there are religious reasons why this is unacceptable to some people. But the point I am trying to make is that those of us who are Secularists/Humanists/Non-believers do not support these kinds of changes to the law for ‘convenience’ or ‘to save bother’, but because we genuinely believe that we are promoting a more compassionate, more humane way to handle a very difficult and potentially traumatic event. Assisted dying has been with us for as long as we have been humans, but in the past it has been unregulated, and totally open to abuse.
As an aside, I am rather surprised that the US, as a largely Christian country, still maintains capital punishment in many states. Why is it right anywhere to support judicial killing and yet deny assisted death for those who plead for it?
February 8th, 2012 at 8:38 am
Simian – you have a greater degree of trust in people’s good nature than I do (which was actually the main point of my article); in particular, I am sceptical of the political motivations behind the Falconer report (see – if we allow it, we can make sure it doesn’t go wrong in ‘this’ way).
Very much agree with you about capital punishment in the US, though.
February 9th, 2012 at 8:30 pm
Perhaps I do Sam. I do believe that all humans are born fundamentally ‘good’ and that this is our default setting.