Burning Building Scenario

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' post='1280931' date='May 24 2007, 08:51 PM']And wouldn't pouring water over frozen cells actually KILL them and wash them away?[/quote]

OK, while pronouncing the words I would only pour three drops on each cell to make sure they didn't die.

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1280939' date='May 24 2007, 09:59 PM']OK, while pronouncing the words I would only pour three drops on each cell to make sure they didn't die.[/quote]
Sorry. I don't mean to make a huge issue of this. These microscopic cells are kept in dry ice... three drops of water would kill them. There is no way to baptize them without killing them.

[Sojourner]

yeah I would go with the baptism of desire on this one, rather than killing them by baptizing them

[Jesus_lol]

this is much like a scenario in which you can either choose to kill an infant or let 10 people be killed. logically you should choose the ten people. but i dont think i would. serving the greater good is not always the most ethical solution.
there is no question that i would save the infant girl in your situation. some decisions have to be made with your heart, not your head

[dUSt]

This is a dumb poll.

I'd probably save the girl, but statistically speaking, I suppose I should take the crate.

But, like an earlier point, this is no "proof" that saving the girl would be morally correct--because in a similarly stupid hypothesis, if the girl was my daughter, and there were five 1-year old babies in a crib, I'd probably save my daughter first. Does this make me morally correct? Who knows.

Dumb poll.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1280974' date='May 24 2007, 09:44 PM']yeah I would go with the baptism of desire on this one, rather than killing them by baptizing them[/quote]

Yeah... according to the catechisms and theology books I've read... you can only get a baptism of desire for yourself...

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]This is a dumb poll.

I'd probably save the girl, but statistically speaking, I suppose I should take the crate.

But, like an earlier point, this is no "proof" that saving the girl would be morally correct--because in a similarly stupid hypothesis, if the girl was my daughter, and there were five 1-year old babies in a crib, I'd probably save my daughter first. Does this make me morally correct? Who knows.

Dumb poll.[/quote]

That fact that you don't know shows that your statements are what are dumb. If you don't know, the only way you can know is to think about it and discuss it.

The guy just before you said that he's thinking with his heart instead of his head, which means that he should be aware of these things before they start. If you think you'd take the girl, but should have taken the crate, you now can know better should this arise. If anything else, it makes you think more with your head than with your heart for the great majority of us who never will see the hypothetical.

It's not like the answers to these questions are inherently unknowable. People just like to think with their gut, just like you. That's what's dumb.

Edited May 25, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[KnightofChrist]

Ah but in the Church parents who desire their child to be baptized can have their child baptized, and that is a true holy baptism. But what of children who's parents desire their child to be baptized but their child dies before that can happen, does the child have baptism of desire? Why not? If the parents can desire their child to be baptized, and have it done, that same kind of desire does not count if the child dies before baptism?

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1281107' date='May 25 2007, 12:51 AM']That fact that you don't know shows that you're statements are what are dumb. If you don't know, the only way you can know is to think about it and discuss it.

The guy just before you said that he's thinking with his heart instead of his head, which means that he should be aware of these things before they start. If you think you'd take the girl, but should have taken the crate, you now can know better should this arise. If anything else, it makes you think more with your head than with your heart for the great majority of us who never will see the hypothetical.

It's not like the answers to these questions are inherently unknowable. People just like to think with their gut, just like you. That's what's dumb.[/quote]


Using "that" instead of "the" is dumb, and putting down the man of the Phatmass is dumb...

[Aloysius]

I'd save the girl first, then get Superman to speed around the world 7 times to get back in time and save the test tube babies too.

impossible? so is this scenario. haha.

as was said: would you save your own child or ten stranger's children if given the choice? the human answer is save your own child, and no one would be culpable for any sin if they chose to do so.

for that reason, most of us would save the girl. most humans would save the girl. this anectdote, however, proves nothing. for you see, we would be doing an intrinsically good act (saving a human girl) and the double effect would be that we do not have the time to save the test tube babies. None of it justifies doing an intrinsically evil act (killing embryos).

If the only way to save one human life would indirectly cause the death of another, it can be morally permissable to do so, so long as the death is indirectly caused and not intended.

I'm pretty sure double effect has been explained to you before, though... I'd think you'd be able to distinguish by now the difference between allowing someone to die because of forces outside of your control and actually intentionally killing them.

On the flip side, no one would be culpable for any sin if they chose to save the test-tube babies. They would have done an intrinsically good act (saving human lives) and the unintended evil effect is that the little girl might get killed.

[jckinsman]

Dairygirl,You have a strange faSINation with this topic.Could it be personal? STM Cut it out, with the whole baptisim thing! Don't patronize a Holy Sacrament with sarcastic dialogue.JC

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1281106' date='May 25 2007, 01:45 AM']Yeah... according to the catechisms and theology books I've read... you can only get a baptism of desire for yourself...[/quote]
Then your only choices are: perform some sort of baptism on near invisible humans and, in doing so, kill them OR entrust them to a loving and merciful God.

[Aloysius]

morally, you cannot kill someone in order to baptize them, even if they would have died anyway.

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1281146' date='May 25 2007, 08:23 AM']morally, you cannot kill someone in order to baptize them, even if they would have died anyway.[/quote]
Well, that was sort of my whole point.

[Ragamuffin]

Going with the absurd scenario for a moment, I have to admit, I'd save the young girl first, then make every attempt to get back inside and save the crate. For one, if the girl dies in the fire, I know she can feel the sensation of pain and of fear and the cells in the crate, human as they are, cannot. So by saving her first, I'm not only saving a life, but preventing suffering. Plus, if I had to hear the screams of that little girl while I was rushing out with a crate of zygotes, I'd have nightmares the rest of my life.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' post='1281144' date='May 25 2007, 07:16 AM']Then your only choices are: perform some sort of baptism on near invisible humans and, in doing so, kill them OR entrust them to a loving and merciful God.[/quote]

I guess I'd just let them go to Limbus Puerorum.

Edited May 25, 2007 by StThomasMore

[jckinsman]

Okay so..........heres another scenario
You have a broken arm and a broken toe. You decided that morning to wear flame retardent clothing to work. When you saw flames in your building you spring into action. You work at a Law Firm but it just so happened tp bring your kid to work day. A woman and a man run down the stairs screaming that both of their children are trapped,surrounded by flames. One childs name is, bob the other, zygote, you can only rescue one in time before the building falls in on itself. They are both baptized. Which child do you choose? JC

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1281294' date='May 25 2007, 01:35 PM']I guess I'd just let them go to Limbus Puerorum.[/quote]

But back to post 28, what if the parents of those children fully intended and fully desired to baptize their children? Meaning absolutely the children would have been baptized, but they die, would the children in go to Limbus Puerorum? Or would they have baptism of desire and go to Paradise? If they would not have baptism of desire why not? If the parents of a child can desire their child to be baptized and have it done, being a true and most holy baptism, why does this same desire not count if the same child dies before the baptism can be preformed?

Edited May 26, 2007 by KnightofChrist

[jckinsman]

This is nuts! If a child,who is not baptized,born in the jungle,parents never knew God. The stain of mans original sin still IS THERE is it not? Okay, Do you really think that a baby born without baptism is going to fry in purgatory for years,or might it be Less then a worldly second! Is this tiny soul going to even know what happened? Our God is bigger then our small minds. Nothing unclean will enter heaven! Period! Just because something happened to this soul that barely lived, does not make him any more innocent of man's original sin! JC

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1281535' date='May 26 2007, 03:16 AM']But back to post 28, what if the parents of those children fully intended and fully desired to baptize their children? Meaning absolutely the children would have been baptized, but they die, would the children in go to Limbus Puerorum? Or would they have baptism of desire and go to Paradise? If they would not have baptism of desire why not? If the parents of a child can desire their child to be baptized and have it done, being a true and most holy baptism, why does this same desire not count if the same child dies before the baptism can be preformed?[/quote]

Baptism of desire can only be gained by someone with use of reason from himself:

[quote][b]The Catechism of Pope St. Pius X:[/b]
17 Q: Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?

A: The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by [b]an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism[/b], and [b]this is called Baptism of Desire.[/b]
[url="http://www.cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/pius/psacr-b.htm"]http://www.cin.org/users/james/ebooks/mast...ius/psacr-b.htm[/url][/quote]