I saw this article mentioned on the Drudge Report this morning.
It really shouldn’t suprise anyone that a Bishop of the Church of England has made this sweeping, shocking announcement. In 1930, the Church of England decided at the Lambeth Conference of that year that birth control was acceptable in hardship cases. How many people do you know today who would ONLY accept birth control in hardship cases? How many people do you know who think abortion is ONLY acceptable in hardship cases? How many think that abortion is pretty much okay across the board?
Of my readers, or at least the ones I THINK read this, you probably don’t know that many who agree with the last statement, but look how different the world is than it was in 1930.
Back then, every church taught that contraception was wrong. Now, many, many denominations not only accept birth control across the board but have an official pro-choice stance.
I see this Bishop’s statement as frightening because history seems to indicate a slippery slope society isn’t afraid to set its sled on and go right down.
I see this society eventually getting to a point where we don’t feed our grandparents because they’re old. I don’t want to be there.
Wow! I’m glad you addressed this.
BTW: Hi Nancy. 🙂
It’s time we let God be God and return the role of doctors to what it rightfully is – our employees who are supposed to do what we ask and pay them to do. I saw my mother choose to let her life go rather than live hooked to machines for “a little while longer” – there was no hope for her to recover, and she was not in condition to receive lung/heart transplants. When my step-dad came to the end of his years, he chose the same thing – keep him comfortable, but do nothing extraordinary to prolong his life. I will choose the same – should my body give out, I don’t want to be kept going just because someone else cannot bear to see me go. I’ve been to death’s door and been sent back. When my time does come, it will be because my appointed days on this earth have come to an end, and my mission has been accomplished. I do not fear death, only dieing in pain that cannot be quelled. What they are asking for in England is to be allowed to let people go for whom there is no hope – nothing more. Wouldn’t you want to be allowed to die in peace if there were no hope for you?
My understanding of what the bishop said was not that those who would die be given extraordinary means, but that babies who are born with disabilities be actively killed or starved to death. I don’t consider feeding an extraordinary means of keeping a person alive.
I certainly hope your understanding is not correct. That would be a horrible miscarriage of justice applied under the guise of “mercy” – which it would not be at all. Thank you for pointing out that specific issue. We don’t have the right to do away with babies simply because they may have a disability – but keeping a baby alive who has no hope of life is equally wrong. At this point, all I feel we can do is pray that God’s will prevails in each instance. Again, Nancy, thank you for bringing this point to my attention. I’m deeply disturbed by that prospect. God bless you.