Ethical Differences Between Infanticide And Euthanasia
Lindsay Largeman
Dr. Adam Neal
Christian Ethics
7 February 2014
Infanticide And Euthanasia As Christians we face many dilemmas each day. One dilemma that is faced more often than it should be is whether or not humans have the right to end a life and who has the right over a child’s death. We view this dilemma as infanticide and euthanasia in which either choice of death can be done in an active or passive way. Infanticide and euthanasia are both unethical behaviors that go against God himself, for he is the only one who may take a life, since he created all life. The background of infanticide and euthanasia comes from some of the same arguments against abortion. Both deal with the same patient and have the same result of death. As stated in Geisler’s text, “if it is unjustified to kill an unborn human because the fetus is not wanted, might be deformed, or might not be able to function fully as a human being, then by the same logic some infants and most of elderly may be eliminated for the same reason” (Geisler 160). The two practices of infanticide and euthanasia are practiced two different ways. One way is passive, which is allowing death with holding natural means of sustaining life. The other practice is active infanticide or euthanasia, …show more content…
However, I am not against natural euthanasia, which is refusing all medical treatments that aid in a longer life. There will still always be the question of who will make the decision when others cannot. “The Bible says there is wisdom in joint decisions (Num. 35:30; Prov. 24.6)” (Geisler 176). God is able to preform miracles, and he should be sought first on behalf of the sufferer. But if after repeated prayer, medical science is not able to improve a patient’s condition and God does not preform a miracle, then we must rest assured that God’s grace is sufficient (2 Cor.
Dr. Adam Neal
Christian Ethics
7 February 2014
Infanticide And Euthanasia As Christians we face many dilemmas each day. One dilemma that is faced more often than it should be is whether or not humans have the right to end a life and who has the right over a child’s death. We view this dilemma as infanticide and euthanasia in which either choice of death can be done in an active or passive way. Infanticide and euthanasia are both unethical behaviors that go against God himself, for he is the only one who may take a life, since he created all life. The background of infanticide and euthanasia comes from some of the same arguments against abortion. Both deal with the same patient and have the same result of death. As stated in Geisler’s text, “if it is unjustified to kill an unborn human because the fetus is not wanted, might be deformed, or might not be able to function fully as a human being, then by the same logic some infants and most of elderly may be eliminated for the same reason” (Geisler 160). The two practices of infanticide and euthanasia are practiced two different ways. One way is passive, which is allowing death with holding natural means of sustaining life. The other practice is active infanticide or euthanasia, …show more content…
However, I am not against natural euthanasia, which is refusing all medical treatments that aid in a longer life. There will still always be the question of who will make the decision when others cannot. “The Bible says there is wisdom in joint decisions (Num. 35:30; Prov. 24.6)” (Geisler 176). God is able to preform miracles, and he should be sought first on behalf of the sufferer. But if after repeated prayer, medical science is not able to improve a patient’s condition and God does not preform a miracle, then we must rest assured that God’s grace is sufficient (2 Cor.