Here's the case...
In front of you, there's a little 8-year old cute girl. She's very sick and she barely can open her eyes. Her parents are begging, crying and praying for months that God would heal her. You know you can heal her because you have the power, but you have to make a human sacrifice. You neighbor is happen to be an ex-criminal, who killed your best friend ten years ago. You know you can use him as the human sacrifice to heal that girl.
What would you do?
Don't answer yet.
Here's another case...
Your son/daughter is lying in hospital's bed right now. You must save him/her tonight. If you wait a little longer, he/she will die. You love him/her so much you'd trade your own life. The only sacrifice available is your doctor who just saved your life months ago from a terrible car accident. He's probably the best doctor in the city because everyone recognize his reputation.
Would you kill someone to heal someone else?
Note: You can't sacrifice yourself.
2007-11-06
02:45:13
·
16 answers
·
asked by
360°
4
in
Society & Culture
➔ Religion & Spirituality
I cannot answer to anything other than what I have seen in real life.
The medical community allows people to die every day so we can harvest their organs to save others.
If there is anything I can say about your scenarios it is that one must weigh the importance of the one who is sick against the one who can be saved. Who is more valuable to society at large, who might bring the greatest benefit if they were to live or die? You will garner as many different answers to what you mentioned as there are people who might be involved.
What you may have overlooked in your first scenario is that I would have to make a sacrifice by employing murder. Then your original question would be "Would you murder someone to heal someone else?" This enters into a whole new arena of ethics.
As for the second scenario I would let the doctor live. He can do more good in his time and if he is the best doctor in the city, then society as a whole would benefit with his life being saved. I would have to accept my daughter's end and thank the doctor for what he might be able to do for her, before the inevitable.
2007-11-06 02:56:45
·
answer #1
·
answered by fierce beard 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
To take a life to save a life.
Here is another case: You have two eight year old; one healthy the other dying. Do you use the body parts of the healthy one (thus killing him/her) to save the sick one?
Thus taking a life to save a life is a medical possibility. Do we do it?
Answer: Bombing abortion clinics that kills people in order to save the unborn is another example of taking life to save life. We call this murder. Is murder right?
2007-11-06 02:58:27
·
answer #2
·
answered by J. 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Uh...you aren't planning on attempting this perpetration of a crime are you...cuz, killing has no purpose except in defense of life and liberty? If you kill you are depriving another of these. To give your own life is noble...greater love has no man..but to take a life for selfish gain is wrong. I hope everyone here concurs. Love in Christ, ~J~
2007-11-06 02:55:25
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
No. I will kill neither of them for the simple reason that any one suffering illness is caused by his/her own deeds and now facing their destiny.I am nobody to alter their destiny.Though I possess the powers, I will not meddle with the NATURE.
2007-11-06 02:55:40
·
answer #4
·
answered by yogeshwargarg 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
what a weird question o.O
I would kill anyone to save my son. I can't imagine why I would save anyone else's children and further if they were begging me to heal their daughter I would assume they would know my powers and Grissom would eventually get it out of them.
2007-11-06 02:53:28
·
answer #5
·
answered by <Sweet-Innocence> 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
No. We shouldn't make someone suffer to alleviate the suffering of another. There's no progress there. If it is the fate of someone to die, there is no need for trading another. Otherwise, fate would have made it so. There is no need to soil our hands.
2007-11-06 02:54:48
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
You asked too lots -- cannabis and Alcohol - in simple terms via actuality some Christians say that the Bible condemns cannabis - does no longer propose they are best. Prohibition in the u . s . replace into as quickly as began on the urging of Christian activists who claimed that the Bible condemned ingesting. There are Christian companies at modern-day who declare that the "wine" of the Bible is grape juice (organic nonsense realy -- seeing via fact the equipment to make grape juice stable is an exceptionally state-of-the-artwork one) What the Bible condemns is "drunkenness" -- and it somewhat is genuine close to any psychedelic factors (such as alcohol, canabis, etc.) - "moderation" in all concerns is what's cautioned by utilising the Hebrew text cloth of the Bible. ==== related to Jesus - your timing is in ordinary terms slightly off -- the Roman Empire, the dominion of Armenia, and the Aksum Empire (Ethiopia) all accompanied Christianity as their legitimate faith around approximately 325 CE. As for why Christianity grew -- thinking all different Jewish socio-political-religious companies maintained their inner relevance to the Jewish group. in the undemanding pattern of Jewish messianic companies -- while the chief died this proved that he replace into as quickly as no longer the Jewish Messiah - so the group dissolved back into Judaism. even nonetheless -- via fact the Jewish club of the followers of Jesus waned, the leaders certainly replaced their teachings to charm to the non-Jewish Roman empire. in addition to, in case you study 2d century Roman critics, the early Christians centred very strongly on alluring to pissed off youthful adults, neglected extra suitable halves, and rebelious slaves -- very receptive audiences for subversive teachings. of direction, over the 200 years from the 2d century to the 4th, the gang widened and became an increasing style of appropriate, then popular -- then "de rigeur"
2016-10-03 11:36:54
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
If it is my child I regard that child just as important as I would myself, if not more important.
I can tell you honestly that I would kill whatever I had to if it was for the survival of myself or my children.
Your child is your problem.
2007-11-06 02:58:13
·
answer #8
·
answered by Y!A-FOOL 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
I'd be happy to kill more than one person I don't know to save one person i love... But that's me
2007-11-06 03:21:31
·
answer #9
·
answered by Vandal 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Your question is not as hypothetical as you might think. See "The Nasty Side of Organ Transplanting."
http://www.geocities.com/organdonate/
2007-11-06 03:03:04
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋