[mlyle]

> Rowboats, helicopters etc. in a flood, prima facia, seem to be more in character as a deliverance from a natural disaster.

Sure. But how we define "abomination" comes down to what we're used to.

Is taking a cheap statin that will improve your length of life subverting God's will?

If we're saying something is resource intensive and you don't give much back to the world in comparison to the resources used to prolong your life, that's an economic / purely utilitarian argument.

[JetAlone]

>how we define "abomination" comes down to what we're used to.

If a person believes scripture is only a cultural document and not divine revelation then that would be the definition of abomination. I have to personally disagree with that assessment.

>Is taking a cheap statin that will improve your length of life subverting God's will?

It could be, depending on what it means in the bigger picture. I believe we know very little of God's will in any given moment because of how fallen we are. We benefit from being humble and willing to submit to it, using our provided minds well but never allowing them to be the final authority.

>that's an economic / purely utilitarian argument

I place economics and utilitarianism as a subordinate agent to the higher principles. A utilitarian framework is one of many that can help me see a stronger meaning in letting someone else have the resources, and accepting death if it appears to be the due time for it anyways.

[mlyle]

> > how we define "abomination" comes down to what we're used to.

> If a person believes scripture is only a cultural document and not divine revelation then that would be the definition of abomination. I have to personally disagree with that assessment.

That's not what I claimed. But to claim something is "abomination" based on your own personal recoil from it isn't very useful as a moral framework.

> and accepting death if it appears to be the due time for it anyways.

What's the "due time", though? Biblical figures lived for hundreds of years, supposedly. And it takes extraordinary efforts to have as low of an infant mortality rate as we do.

Surely the heroics in the NICU are how we move the time of death from what would happen on its own the most, and some of the more expensive medical care given. Hey, many of those babies will never repay to society the resources they consume.

What you seem to be saying is that it comes down to some mix between a reflexive judgment and cold utilitarianism.

[JetAlone]

>But to claim something is "abomination" based on your own personal recoil from it isn't very useful as a moral framework.

I said that something could possibly be an abomination, that being a human being with pig guts installed in place of their human guts. Is that my own personal recoil? I don't know 100% it seems to me that there's room to discuss how a "chimeric" transplant could symbolically be that. My entire purpose for mentioning it as such was ultimately to point to how a non materialist viewpoint _could_ point away from taking the operation even where strict religious dietary laws are not at play.

>What's the "due time", though?

Determined on a very personal level, not something I can prescribe here and now. I've done my best in these comments to point to the sort of meanings that may help me decide that for myself, but the responders don't seem to be terribly pleased with them.

>What you seem to be saying is that it comes down to some mix between a reflexive judgment and cold utilitarianism.

No, those are just some of the tools I have, the ones accessible to me right now.

[mlyle]

> I don't know 100% it seems to me that there's room to discuss how a "chimeric" transplant could symbolically be that.

Anything that tampers with nature taking its course on its own could be an abomination. Like putting blood from another being into an infant and hooking them up to crazy machines and causing pain to the infant to save their life.

Of course, any failure to save someone's life which is readily saved could also be an abomination.

It all comes down to what one weighs as important.

> even where strict religious dietary laws are not at play.

Most strict dietary laws would allow one to eat the item, or have it put into your body, to survive. The systems with these doctrines largely have exceptions for literally millennia, because we understand that people being able to choose to live trumps artificial restrictions. (Indeed, some reach further to say that extending ones life in violation of these laws is not just permissible, but a duty).

> Determined on a very personal level, not something I can prescribe here and now.

It's fair to say "eh, I've had a good run-- why go further?" I've argued as such here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29432560 One's religious views are even a reasonable way to weigh things.

But I do think that once you reach beyond, to say that readily available care that has become routinely used to extend life (like a pacemaker) might be far outside of God's will and that this is a reasonable reason to reject it in itself-- and we can hardly ask God what He wants-- I think the argument becomes dubious.

That is, dying in infancy was the norm throughout human history. The interventions we have tamper with that outcome more than anything else. And at this point implanting a pacemaker is an outpatient procedure and on the low-scale of the medical intervention ladder.

[JetAlone]

>But the second that you claim that medical choices that someone else might reasonably choose to make are an "abomination"-- you're framing things in a way that people will reasonably interpret as judgment and wanting to prohibit-- or at least denigrate-- those choices by others.

You've made a good point about how some of the other posters are feeling. I have difficulty coming up with another word I could have used to communicate what I meant that could have had a different effect. Even without using a strong word, people can be eager and are sometimes trained to perceive the slightest denigration against their choices. Given that my faith is generally seen in the present context with a high degree of disdain and contempt, I've grown pretty callous to needing to endure being treated with uncivility, particularly online, in order to speak. The only remedy for it I find is to cultivate a forgiveness of other people for their speech, even if I feel a need to challenge their speech's contents.

>But I do think that once you reach beyond, to say that readily available care that has become routinely used to extend life (like a pacemaker) might be far outside of God's will and that this is a reasonable reason to reject it in itself-- and we can hardly ask God what He wants-- I think the argument becomes dubious.

I believe that monk made the right decision for himself, and for someone else it may be correct to get the pacemaker, maybe they aren't personally ready to go, maybe they have an opportunity to take care of others. Understanding exactly what is and is not God's will in a general way, and also in particular situations requires a level of intense participation I'm not able to just go out and do right here and now. I can see what you mean, to say it seems dubious. If I were saying we could never know, it would be equivalent to saying "we're all blind, and feeling with our hands is wrong, you've got to just do nothing forever or you'll die". I do think an understanding of His will is accessible to us on a step by step basis, where we can see in front of ourselves only a few "meters", and cannot rationally construct entire argument chains that give us a perfect road map for 37 moves into the future.

>Most strict dietary laws would allow one to eat the item, or have it put into your body, to survive. The systems with these doctrines largely have exceptions for literally millennia, because we understand that people being able to choose to live trumps artificial restrictions. (Indeed, some reach further to say that extending ones life in violation of these laws is not just permissible, but a duty).

Yes, other comment chains in this section do a very good job explaining this.

[mlyle]

>You've made a good point about how some of the other posters are feeling. I have difficulty coming up with another word I could have used to communicate what I meant that could have had a different effect. Even without using a strong word, people can be eager and are sometimes trained to perceive the slightest denigration against their choices.

I don't think it's that hard.

"I can agree with the spirit in which the monk made his choice. Personally, going so far as to include parts from another species in a key location in my body: that would make me really strongly consider that my intended lifespan is at its end" --- or whatever thinks you capture the meaning better.

People still might want to argue with you about it, for various reasons. But it lacks that visceral judgment.

In turn, you've received a lot of thoughtful replies and a few pieces of visceral judgment in return (delusional, etc). I don't know if you'd have gotten the harsher judgments if you'd avoided the charged language yourself.

> Given that my faith is generally seen in the present context with a high degree of disdain and contempt, I've grown pretty callous to needing to endure being treated with uncivility, particularly online, in order to speak. The only remedy for it I find is to cultivate a forgiveness of other people for their speech, even if I feel a need to challenge their speech's contents.

I don't believe I've been uncivil-- and I don't see anything too untoward here. Some other people are out of line with the "delusional" comment.

But, you're the one taking the hard moral stance and using language that invalidates other choice.

> where we can see in front of ourselves only a few "meters"

Well, if we can only see in front of ourselves slightly, perhaps it's time to be a little more forgiving that other people may see it completely differently from you.

[mlyle]

> but the responders don't seem to be terribly pleased with them.

Just to augment my previous response, and clarify this specific thing:

You may not be attempting to apply your morality and your moral judgments to others.

But the second that you claim that medical choices that someone else might reasonably choose to make are an "abomination"-- you're framing things in a way that people will reasonably interpret as judgment and wanting to prohibit-- or at least denigrate-- those choices by others.