That is the argument against euthanasia and physician assisted suicide

The argument against euthanasia and physician assisted suicide is that the law says not to kill. Regarding the duty to preserve life, that’s not what the law says. We assume that what the law values is life. What the law values is holiness (which is achieved by conformance to the law). And the law says, the only way that you are holy is by keeping the law. Period. End of story. Break one and you’ve broken them all. Break one, and you’ve got to ask yourself, why am I so fired up about keeping the others?

The question of a scenario where one must break one or another law is tricky. It really comes down to the sovereignty of God. I’ve certainly never encountered such a situation. I can’t even say that I’ve heard a hypothetical situation that qualifies. I think it’s fair to say that Christ never encountered such a situation (and if God’s not sovereign, what a toss of the dice that was - please don’t suggest to me, that Jesus Christ broke a single facet of the law)

In this other post you make the statement: You have a duty to reveal the information and a duty not to lie, therefore you must remain silent. While this does rid oneself of the problem in some situations, there is always the issue when the storm troopers search your house if you remain silent. In those cases, the same difficulty arises. Sometimes there is no third choice. This is the difficulty with hypothetical situations. If God is truly sovereign, then the universe is a sequence of ordered events. In other words, read the following passage and then consider this. In what follows, the law did not necessarily preserve life, but it does tell us who, among the living and the dead, love God.

Hebrews 11:32-40 And what shall I more say? for the time would fail me to tell of Gedeon, and of Barak, and of Samson, and of Jephthae; of David also, and Samuel, and of the prophets: (33) Who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, (34) Quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens. (35) Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection: (36) And others had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment: (37) They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented; (38) (Of whom the world was not worthy:) they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth. (39) And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: (40) God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.

I think that’s all I’ve got again. I appreciate you discussing this with me on my level. You could have easily have taken the discussion into a realm of terminology where my barrier to entry would be quite high.

The woman in the above case does have partial power to affect change in that situation. She does not have full power over the situation, but she does have some. I would say that just like

I get the sense that you think that there is never a time when one only has a choice between two evils, even in non-action. It is my contention that if the woman is able to preserve life, she has a duty to do so.

I think that most Christians would maintain that there is a duty to preserve life. That is the argument against euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. The duty to preserve life overcomes the right to decide actions for one’s self.

Now, when the duty to preserve life comes into conflict with another, what is someone to do? Do you deny that there is the duty on the mother to preserve life? I liken it to the case of Christ and David when it comes to the laws on the Sabbath.

I don’t deny that the law that is written upon our hearts demands that we don’t lie and demands that we do preserve life. I don’t deny that. However, I am asking what happens when those duty’s conflict? Geisler argues for a graded absolutism. I was taking a natural philosophy approach to arguing this issue, not arguing from Scripture. I think that you can really make a successful argument on both grounds.

The world is full of such false dichotomies. The American Presidential elections is one such example. We are never obligated to cast our vote for one of the two candidates. We are never obligated to choose between what may well be two evils. If both men fail the minimum standards of the law (whatever law that may be) for office, we can vote for neither.

I guess in the end, I would return to this: the only reason we think we should preserve life is because the law that we hold to be true has told us that preserving life is good. If the same law tells us we must not lie, then we are bound to keep both points of the law or to discard it and say it is not a law at all. If we say that the law places a higher emphasis on life than lying, we must prove this and not just assert it (Take Jesus and the Pharisees when he healed the man on the Sabbath. Which of you if your ox fell in a ditch on the Sabbath would not get him out. Christ clearly attests that honoring the Sabbath is a weighted sort of thing.)

I think that’s all I’ve got. Again, I’m sorry for the ramble and I hope I’m not annoying you with my comments.

Charles Churchill

While I admire the moral stance of the mother in the example, but that is a 1:1 ratio. I would say that any of her possible actions will have equally bad outcomes. A better example of my argument, since it is somewhat based in consequences, is if a gunman asked a mother to choose between killing one child or four other children. If she answers nothing, all five children would perish. what is she to do then?

One of the major factors here is whether we have a duty to preserve life. If we do, we at once have a duty not to lie and to preserve life in my example of the Plates.

I admire the stance that the law protects one from the bad outcomes of their choices. Even granting that, which I would contest, it still does not account for situations where no matter what one does, a duty is being violated.

Take the example of the gunman who says to a mother, choose which child I should kill and I will let the other live. I say, that she must answer, I will not be part of your evil. You and I will both stand before God and answer for what we have done.

One last thing: the person who chooses to break the law to prevent a greater evil, presumes upon the future. While it would be surprising if a gunman were to rush in and shoot the murderer before he could kill either of the woman’s children, it cannot be denied that the future has yet to be accounted for. Again, I would say that the law compensates for our limited perception.

Anyway, I hope this made sense,
Take care,
Charles Churchill