From: Brent Allsop (allsop@swttools.fc.hp.com)
Date: Fri Aug 08 1997 - 14:29:48 MDT
den Otter <otter@globalxs.nl> had some great comments and asked:
> Pps: question for the audience: HOW FAR WOULD *YOU* GO TO SAVE A
> RELUCTANT LOVED ONE?
I'm only in the process of getting signed up. Once I do get
signed up and have necessary funds allocated, I plan on working on
allocating some funds for just such a purpose. When asking reluctant
friends and family about it I often ask them if they would accept it
if it was paid for by someone else or given to them for free. Hopping
that they read between the lines and see that I'm more or less asking
them if they would accept it if I payed for it.
I think it should be like government provided paramedics at
the scene of an accident. The default is, they try to save your life.
But of course it is always possible to decline their treatment with an
exceptional specific request. If I could afford it for everyone, I
would pay for it all. It's just unfortunate that such funds obviously
compete with money that should be additionally donated to perform
critically necessary research...
Look at the Mormons when they go to great lengths and efforts
to perform "necessary" ordinances for ALL the dead! ;) The default is,
you have the exaltation enabling ordinances for the dead performed,
unless someone exceptionally and specifically request otherwise. As
in the case when certain Jews have complained about Mormons doing
temple ordinances and keeping records for Jews killed in the
Holocust... ;)
Brent Allsop
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:44:42 MST