Over the last month (yes, I'm doing a hefty catchup!) I've been debating euthanasia, abortion and right-to-life topics at length with people whom hold "sanctity of life" in the highest order.
There's a woman on a pro-life forum saying that she's totally cool with letting potentially many thousands of women each year die from ectopic pregnancy, rather than treat it - all because it will be an "abortion". Bearing in mind a tubular ectopic pregnancy has ZERO chance of the baby surviving. She justifies it: "If the mother is at risk of losing her life, that's a risk all mothers take. All mothers should be prepared to make that sacrifice." I can't agree with you. A raped woman has not made that choice.
Anyway THIS LINKIE was particular case was a breakthrough for my argument on "sanctity of life".
"The judge said that “with a heavy heart” he had to agree to the hospital’s request to withdraw life-sustaining treatment as doctors and nurses agreed that all further interventions would be futile - the child was at risk of further complications and infection as well as already being seriously ill."
This is the bit that makes me particularly sad...
"The boy’s 17-year-old sister said her brother had told her that he believed God could heal him, and it was his faith that had sustained him until now."
In this case, she's wrong. It wasn't so much faith or deity - it was medical science. They turned the machine off, he died. God didn't step in and sustain him. Your faith is commendable but, I fear, unfounded. It's one of the reasons I have a very hard time believing in a God that is omnipresent and omniscient. It's one of the reasons I prefer my fallible god.
I was extremely interested to notice that out of 213 voters on one poll on the Pastafarian forum, only two votes were against. One of which turned out to be a complete troll, and promptly blocked - and the other of which turns out to be a Christian and ID proponent.