Respect For Life

[nbcrusader]

Originally posted by Sparkysgrrrl
As for soul, I don't think that is something that is uniquely human, if humans have a soul, I see no reason for animals to not have a soul and that gets into our own personal beliefs, not something that is scientifically proven or should be used to make laws.

As a Christian, I do not consider my faith a “personal belief”. That implies that faith is on par with personal opinions. It may look that way for those who do not live by faith, but for believers, it is much more.

God’s Word already shapes our laws and has done so for thousands of years. And we have done this in the US without establishing a state religion.

[oliveu2cm]

Originally posted by nbcrusader


As a Christian, I do not consider my faith a ?personal belief?. That implies that faith is on par with personal opinions. It may look that way for those who do not live by faith, but for believers, it is much more.

God?s Word already shapes our laws and has done so for thousands of years. And we have done this in the US without establishing a state religion.

Excellent post. I feel like I'm a little strung out from thinking so much about this, but - maybe I shouldn't have dismissed in my last post the "sorry this is another discussion entirely." I think the abortion issue is coming down to "where does human life start" and to answer that question you must take into account God.

If you don't then you're saying "there is no God" and if there is no God then anyone can do whatever the heck they want, kill or not kill, they can act nice but there is no reason to, they may feel they have a moral obligation to follow the laws but they really don't if there is no God. If there is no God then none of this even matters, and everything can be legalized. (Of course not everything is legalized- like nbcrusader says, God has shaped our laws without the US ever establishing a state religion.)

It comes down to this fact: You can't prove anything besides the thoughts in your head. Are you hooked up to a computer, or is your world some kid's science project, or did another higher being create the world we live in? The true answer to this question will reveal the answer to if abortion is okay or not.

[Sparkysgrrrl]

It is scientifically proven lol
Read up on it, it's not a theory that our brains have different functions and parts than any other being on this planet, it's quite fascinating.

(not saying that I believe that thinking is what should define human's as beings, just bringing in that idea, BUT the ability to think for ourselves in terms other than basic "food, shelter, warmth" is what seperates us from other life forms on this earth)

This can turn into a whole other debate about science, mabey I'll make a thread on that sometime (when I've got my books and not just my scattered brain )
But I don't understand what you are saying, claiming that nothing is scientifically proven is quite a bold statement.

nbcrusader - I do believe that faith is someones own personal thoughts, convictions, what have you and that everyone is free to choose whatever religion that the feel closest to (or to not choose one at all) To use as the basis for a law "I'm so-and-so religion and I believe this, therefore it is the only truth" is what I'm saying is wrong.

[ouizy]

to answer that question you must take into account God.

...I for one disagree...

[oliveu2cm]

Originally posted by Sparkysgrrrl
It is scientifically proven lol
Read up on it, it's not a theory that our brains have different functions and parts than any other being on this planet, it's quite fascinating.

(not saying that I believe that thinking is what should define human's as beings, just bringing in that idea, BUT the ability to think for ourselves in terms other than basic "food, shelter, warmth" is what seperates us from other life forms on this earth)

Ok sorry this is where i was getting confused. I understand different part of our brains perform different functions- but i didn't agree that thinking is the moment when a baby is considered a human.

This can turn into a whole other debate about science, mabey I'll make a thread on that sometime (when I've got my books and not just my scattered brain )
But I don't understand what you are saying, claiming that nothing is scientifically proven is quite a bold statement.

Good idea, I'd need my notes too. The whole "you can't prove anything" takes some explaining but in a nutshell:

You can't see anything, since what you see is just an image reflected in your eye. the same correlations can be drawn between all the senses- and basically it can be whittled down to the fact that you cannot prove anything except yourself exists (sayin "I see it, it must exist" is not enough since we are not actually SEEING a tree-for example- but an image of that tree that has been reflected in our eyes). If you follow me, you see how science is a leap of faith too.

obviously you can't walk around assuming no one else exists or that you can't see anything- we operate under basic laws that we assume to be true (that other people are alive, not stimulated inside my brain). but you can't PROVE someone else exists. Amazing isn't it?

... like you said, this'd be good for another thread.

[WildHoneyAlways]

Originally posted by oliveu2cm

If you don't then you're saying "there is no God" and if there is no God then anyone can do whatever the heck they want, kill or not kill, they can act nice but there is no reason to, they may feel they have a moral obligation to follow the laws but they really don't if there is no God. If there is no God then none of this even matters, and everything can be legalized. (Of course not everything is legalized- like nbcrusader says, God has shaped our laws without the US ever establishing a state religion.)

Please explain this. Are you being sarcastic? I can' t tell. I think human beings have been doing "whatever the heck they want" for centuries regardless if they believe in a "god." Religion has long been used as an excuse for war, death, and other immoral deeds.

[nbcrusader]

Originally posted by WildHoneyAlways
Please explain this. Are you being sarcastic? I can' t tell. I think human beings have been doing "whatever the heck they want" for centuries regardless if they believe in a "god." Religion has long been used as an excuse for war, death, and other immoral deeds.

I believe this is a matter of accountability. As a Christian, all my words and actions are done before a Holy God. God knows that humans will reject Him and do what is right in their own eyes.

The fact there is evil in the world, even evil done in the name of a religion, is more a reflection of our fallen state than the existence of a Holy God.

[ouizy]

agreed

I was a bit perplexed by that as well...

[oliveu2cm]

Originally posted by nbcrusader


I believe this is a matter of accountability. As a Christian, all my words and actions are done before a Holy God. God knows that humans will reject Him and do what is right in their own eyes.

The fact there is evil in the world, even evil done in the name of a religion, is more a reflection of our fallen state than the existence of a Holy God.

Sorry about the confusion. Thanks for clearing that up nbcrusader. I should have explained I meant accountability.

[Hallelujah Here She Comes]

Originally posted by oliveu2cm


If you don't then you're saying "there is no God" and if there is no God then anyone can do whatever the heck they want, kill or not kill, they can act nice but there is no reason to, they may feel they have a moral obligation to follow the laws but they really don't if there is no God. If there is no God then none of this even matters, and everything can be legalized. (Of course not everything is legalized- like nbcrusader says, God has shaped our laws without the US ever establishing a state religion.)

You can not believe in God but still have respect for human life. And, sorry, but people who believe in God don't have the corner on ethics. Just because someone's morals aren't dictated by God and they don't believe their actions are monitored by Him, doesn't mean that their morals don't really exist or that those morals are somehow ephemeral or invalid. It's possible to believe that killing people is wrong just because it is inherently wrong and to not kill because of that belief without God ever entering the equation. In terms of accountability, this would mean that one must answer to his or her own conscience, even if they don't believe they have to answer to God.

Also, how can you say that there is no moral obligation to follow laws without God? What if someone based their ethical system around the law? I'll concede that religion has shaped many of our laws, but a belief in God isn't necessary for belief in the law. It's possible to hold that adherence to the the law is the best thing for society without believing that the law itself has any higher moral implications.

I'd like to say that I actually do believe in God. But I don't think that someone has to believe in God to be a moral and ethical person.

[U2Kitten]

Originally posted by oliveu2cm


Like Screaming said earlier, at the moment of conception brain waves and heart beat are evident. This means life. I also agree about the soul being created at the moment of conception. Therefore, the unborn baby should be protected by the law, in the same way people who cannot fend/provide for themselves are protected by the law (the mentally retarded, for example).

I know the woman should be able to choose what's right for her body- but what about the child? Who will protect/fight for his or her life?

Thank you and God Bless you!! I was sitting here trying to think of a way to word this without getting flamed.

As far as the "CHOICE" thing goes, I have a HUGE problem with the word CHOICE being used to sugar-coat what is actually the rather brutal killing of a living thing. But it always comes down to the old 'but everyone should have a choice' thing because 'choice' is really the only leg abortion supporters have to stand on, because abortion really is the murder of a child and there is nothing else they can do to try to rationalize it as a 'right.'

I also have a problem that under the law a woman can 'choose' to have her child's life ended for her own convenience, yet the law also tells me I must put a seat belt on my body or I am in violation of the law. To me that is a sick travesty of justice. I do believe people have a choice of what to do with their own bodies, and I disagree with some I have seen, like say tongue piercings, but okay that is a choice and I accept that. THAT is the kind of situation where I would say, so that choice is wrong for me, but someone else should not be denied that choice. But not when another life is involved. I just can't see any justification for the killing of an unborn child. EVERY life is precious, because it's the only thing that can never be replaced.

[Saracene]

Originally posted by nbcrusader


I believe this is a matter of accountability. As a Christian, all my words and actions are done before a Holy God. God knows that humans will reject Him and do what is right in their own eyes.

The problem is, people can still do all sorts of horrible things while at the same time believing in their heart of hearts that what they do is completely right in God's eyes. So I wouldn't put much trust into the whole accountability thing.

[nbcrusader]

Originally posted by Saracene
The problem is, people can still do all sorts of horrible things while at the same time believing in their heart of hearts that what they do is completely right in God's eyes. So I wouldn't put much trust into the whole accountability thing.

This has got me puzzled. Do you have any examples?

[Saracene]

Originally posted by U2Kitten


Thank you and God Bless you!! I was sitting here trying to think of a way to word this without getting flamed.

As far as the "CHOICE" thing goes, I have a HUGE problem with the word CHOICE being used to sugar-coat what is actually the rather brutal killing of a living thing. But it always comes down to the old 'but everyone should have a choice' thing because 'choice' is really the only leg abortion supporters have to stand on, because abortion really is the murder of a child and there is nothing else they can do to try to rationalize it as a 'right.'

I also have a problem that under the law a woman can 'choose' to have her child's life ended for her own convenience, yet the law also tells me I must put a seat belt on my body or I am in violation of the law. To me that is a sick travesty of justice. I do believe people have a choice of what to do with their own bodies, and I disagree with some I have seen, like say tongue piercings, but okay that is a choice and I accept that. THAT is the kind of situation where I would say, so that choice is wrong for me, but someone else should not be denied that choice. But not when another life is involved. I just can't see any justification for the killing of an unborn child. EVERY life is precious, because it's the only thing that can never be replaced.

The difference is that, for many people, the whole question on where human life begins belongs in a very grey area whereas not many people question the usefulness of enforcing the safety rules concerning seat belts. Unfortunately, our legal system mostly operates in very rigid black-and-white terms, so the "grey" issue with heaps and heaps of unproven aspects must somehow be forced into either one extreme corner or another, legal or illegal, which leads to constant dissent and debates.

I've heard many people talk about the preciosness of every life, the respect for life, and it's interesting that the "life" in question is almost always a human or at least an animal one. I mean, every cockroach or ant is a unique living organism that will never be exactly replicated again, and it certainly has a life inside it just as any other animal does, as do all the less complex organisms and plants.

[Saracene]

Originally posted by nbcrusader


This has got me puzzled. Do you have any examples?

Well, take the Spanish Inquisition. They sincerely believed that it was their duty to save a heretic's damned soul by all means possible. And if that invloved the most brutal tortures imaginable, well, in their mind the tortures of Hell would be far worse than anything the Inquisitors could inflict in their world, and would last forever. So of course they believed that their actions were justified in the eyes of God, and in accordance with Christian principles.

[nbcrusader]

Originally posted by Saracene


Well, take the Spanish Inquisition. They sincerely believed that it was their duty to save a heretic's damned soul by all means possible. And if that invloved the most brutal tortures imaginable, well, in their mind the tortures of Hell would be far worse than anything the Inquisitors could inflict in their world, and would last forever. So of course they believed that their actions were justified in the eyes of God, and in accordance with Christian principles.

I think this is an oversimplification of the Spanish Inquisition. While it is true that any pain I experience on earth is insignificant when compared to "the tortures of Hell", Scripture does not support, suggest or even imply that we can or should inflict pain to bring someone to Christ.

The Inquisition was driven largely by the political ambitions of the Spanish church, twisting Scripture to suit their own needs. To say “of course they believed that their actions were justified in the eyes of God” does not hold water.

Your example, however, shows one of the greatest evils – misuse of Scripture to further human ambitions.

[Saracene]

Originally posted by nbcrusader


I think this is an oversimplification of the Spanish Inquisition. While it is true that any pain I experience on earth is insignificant when compared to "the tortures of Hell", Scripture does not support, suggest or even imply that we can or should inflict pain to bring someone to Christ.

The Inquisition was driven largely by the political ambitions of the Spanish church, twisting Scripture to suit their own needs.

That may be, but people could still believe in their own minds that they were not twisting the Scriptures in any way. Humans have a remarkable knack for self-delusion.

[Angela Harlem]

What a fascinating debate this is. As a mod, obnoxious as this may sound, thanks to all for contributing to a well discussed and civilised debate. It is much appreciated.

My own thoughts on this are fairly scattered. Where to start...lol. To me, where life begins is interesting. I dont believe there is an actual start time. We begin as a seperate egg and seperate sperm, once they meet, it is all a process of development. It takes a few weeks for the individual cells to take any form and resemble a fetus. But the fact that it becomes such a form at a specific point in time is moot to me. We are right from the start, a collection of cells and remain that until the day we die. I guess science has already argued that it becomes a human when it has a human form. I dont agree or disagree. I just see the whole thing as a process. An abortion (to me) at 6 weeks is no more or less morally right as it is at 20 weeks. That collection of cells just has more form and recognisable human characteristics. The law due to many variants, needs a boundary. Here, at the most extreme, no medical abortion is allowed past week 24 of the pregnancy. That is to allow for factors that may show chromosomal defects in the nuchal translucency scan. 22 weeks if anyone is interested, is the general cut off date, but if further tests show such severe abnormalities to warrant it, it can be extended to 24 weeks. Mostly to give a larger window of time for the parent/s to make such a choice. It is the 22-24 week mark where a fetus is also legally recognised as a human and needs due birth and death certificates registered if applicable. But like I said, I see that as more a legal aspect than anything else. As for a soul, if we do indeed have one, which I prefer to think we do, the age of the developing fetus is moot, again just my opinion. Once those cells start their process of development, we are on our journey to becoming full developed human beings - ie we have that thing called 'soul'.
I am a bit puzzled by the reactions of some that fertility drugs are not a good thing too. Granted, under any IVF or fertility treatment the chance of a multiple birth is increased, but it is not common for more than twins, or in rarer cases, triplets or quads/quins etc. I can understand that the outcome of these treatments may be deemed a problem where a multiple birth is the result, but the aim behind them is a result of brilliant medical advancements. Where a multiple conception does occur from them, and by some freak of luck more than 1 child is conceived, a medical abortion has to be carried out if the numbers of fertilised eggs is particularly high. The human body is not designed for multiple births at all. Even twins under natural circumstances are rare and any more, whether it be from fertility or intercourse, puts a massive strain on the body and chances are, some will be naturally aborted if we are talking large numbers of eggs. The resulting abortions from these are simply a case of doing what nature will do itself before complications arise. Doctors will always put the health of the mother first, as she is the one with the best chance of survival in most of these cases. The medical world in regard to conception is all about statistics. The odds of extreme numbers of eggs from these treatments is not so common that it is advised against.
As for rights, there are the rights of up to 3 individuals to consider. If we want to argue those of the unborn infant, I dont think we can write off those of the mother or even the father. As for which is the most important factor in deciding whether an abortion is morally acceptable, I dont know myself which is the 'most right' to base a decision on.

[oliveu2cm]

Originally posted by Hallelujah Here She Comes


I'd like to say that I actually do believe in God. But I don't think that someone has to believe in God to be a moral and ethical person.

I'm not saying that at all!! I want to make it clear I'm not pulling any superiority thing here.

Let's say: FACT. There is no god. If that is a FACT, then there is NO reason to be moral.

If you choose to be moral then all the more for you. But if there is no God, there is NO higher reason to be moral other than you want to.

[oliveu2cm]

Originally posted by Saracene


I've heard many people talk about the preciosness of every life, the respect for life, and it's interesting that the "life" in question is almost always a human or at least an animal one. I mean, every cockroach or ant is a unique living organism that will never be exactly replicated again, and it certainly has a life inside it just as any other animal does, as do all the less complex organisms and plants.

That's because we're talking about human rights, not animal rights. They are two completely different things.


(sidebar: I'll be out for the weekend, look forward to reading/responding more when i get back)