Euthanasia
There are certainly many controversial topics in the world of modern science. These topics are not just controversial to the Christian, but also to the secular world. One of these controversial topics is euthanasia. Here, we will be taking a look at both sides of the argument. Now, while we will be looking at both sides of the topic, arguments for and against, in the conclusion we will be looking to scripture to see what God‘s Word says about the issue. As men and women who thirst for knowledge we must always remember to look through the lens of scripture to help us come to a God honoring conclusion.
Definition of Euthanasia and Arguments in Support
The word euthanasia is Greek, and means, “good death”. It is often referred …show more content…
He says that the sanctity of life is where the arguments for and against find their common ground. However, there are two extremes that give sanctity of life a bad name. Vitalism, the first, says that we should never stop to keep someone alive no matter the costs, then there is the utilitarian argument that only looks at the usefulness of under treatment. The danger here is under treatment (Gula). He goes on to explore what he calls the middle condition, that our dominion over life is limited. He promotes three principals of this middle ground argument. 1.) There is no moral difference between killing, and allowing to die. 2.) Autonomy of the self, we like to think that we are in control of our own lives, and feel that we are entitled to take what is ours even to the point of taking the life we own. 3.) The common good principal, basically how will my private death contribute to society, and my families emotional and financial health …show more content…
The sanctity of life seems to be at the forefront of the the argument in general, in that all life is to be valued. It is a gift from God, and it is useful (BBC). To put our own selves to death is to lose respect for ourselves, and basically tell the world that your life really does not matter. There is also the principal of the “slippery slope”. If we allow voluntary euthanasia to become legalized then how long before involuntary euthanasia is introduced, and then all of a sudden we are living in feudal Japan where the Shoguns would send the samurai to kill people in the villages that could no longer contribute to society. I know that may be a crude comparison, but really the swords can be replaced with lethal injection, and makes life utilitarian, and Darwinian philosophy reigns through a new moral code, or lack thereof. Non-Religious people would say that there is wisdom, compassion, and character
There are certainly many controversial topics in the world of modern science. These topics are not just controversial to the Christian, but also to the secular world. One of these controversial topics is euthanasia. Here, we will be taking a look at both sides of the argument. Now, while we will be looking at both sides of the topic, arguments for and against, in the conclusion we will be looking to scripture to see what God‘s Word says about the issue. As men and women who thirst for knowledge we must always remember to look through the lens of scripture to help us come to a God honoring conclusion.
Definition of Euthanasia and Arguments in Support
The word euthanasia is Greek, and means, “good death”. It is often referred …show more content…
He says that the sanctity of life is where the arguments for and against find their common ground. However, there are two extremes that give sanctity of life a bad name. Vitalism, the first, says that we should never stop to keep someone alive no matter the costs, then there is the utilitarian argument that only looks at the usefulness of under treatment. The danger here is under treatment (Gula). He goes on to explore what he calls the middle condition, that our dominion over life is limited. He promotes three principals of this middle ground argument. 1.) There is no moral difference between killing, and allowing to die. 2.) Autonomy of the self, we like to think that we are in control of our own lives, and feel that we are entitled to take what is ours even to the point of taking the life we own. 3.) The common good principal, basically how will my private death contribute to society, and my families emotional and financial health …show more content…
The sanctity of life seems to be at the forefront of the the argument in general, in that all life is to be valued. It is a gift from God, and it is useful (BBC). To put our own selves to death is to lose respect for ourselves, and basically tell the world that your life really does not matter. There is also the principal of the “slippery slope”. If we allow voluntary euthanasia to become legalized then how long before involuntary euthanasia is introduced, and then all of a sudden we are living in feudal Japan where the Shoguns would send the samurai to kill people in the villages that could no longer contribute to society. I know that may be a crude comparison, but really the swords can be replaced with lethal injection, and makes life utilitarian, and Darwinian philosophy reigns through a new moral code, or lack thereof. Non-Religious people would say that there is wisdom, compassion, and character