🚀 go-pugleaf

Peter Merel <pete@zip.com.au> wrote:

>>Peter Merel <pete@zip.com.au> wrote:
>>There is certainly a risk that such an atrocity may occur. The risk of 
>>this atrocity, however, does not justify the certainty of many others: 
 
I wrote:

>>I guess this assessment is the crux of my opposition to VE (and
>>perhaps one of the main objections to having it legalised).  

>That its risk is outweighed by the horrible certainty of the consequences
>without it? I'm afraid you're not making yourself clear - I infer but do
>not understand how you imagine the risk outweighs the certainties - explain
>please.

Sorry, I guess my earlier postings stay fresh in my mind while
forgotten by others.  From a Christian perspective of eternity the
legalisation of VE will see people dying sooner.  From a perspective
of evangelisation this means that the chances of someone dying before
hearing and accepting the gospel are increased.  That means more
people will miss out on eternity in Paradise because of the
legalisation of VE, and ANYTHING is better than that, even accepting
that some will therefore suffer more on earth because it is not
legalised.  Not to mention the (IMO) inevitable moral consequences on
society of becoming de-sensitised to accelerated death.


>>I'm not quite as quixotic in my conclusion as you are.

>How is hating torture quixotic? 

Peter, you are an intelligent man - I wasn't referring to hating
torture, merely your evaluation of the equation you positted.  I hate
the fact that anyone has to suffer pain and indignity at any time of
their lives.  I can't change that, but I can tell people about how
Someone has changed where they can spend eternity.

-- 
     Give away what you don't need.        |

BTW, excellent advice!


God Bless,

Patrick Canion
Pastor, Manning Assembly of God, Western Australia
pspat@iinet.net.au