The Ethics of Life

[Johnny Pneumatic]

I watched something on the news last night about Stem Cell research how Bush is against it while alot of the government is for it. Anyway the talk made me think about some stuff I never have before. They had this crippled guy talk about that he'd rather die than have potential humans die to save him(doesn't want embryos used) What if his sperm could be used to save his life? Would he go for that? Those sperm are potential humans after all. Masturbation is mass murder, but so is celibacy because the sperm are kept captive to die.

Then I thought about abortion, not late term fetal abortion. I don't think that's right unless the mother is going to die or something like that. But early term. Why? Well if I'd been aborted I wouldn't be here. But if my parents hadn't boinked the day and time they did, exactly, then I wouldn't be here. So is the ethical thing to do is have sex as much as possible so as many potential humans can become human? Medicine must be unethical under this point of view because by keeping people alive, these people(the ones that would have died) are using up resources that potential humans could use to live if they were human. So the idea is to let people die so new people can live?

What do you think of my musings?

[jmercer]

Quote:

Originally posted by SkepticJ
I watched something on the news last night about Stem Cell research how Bush is against it while alot of the government is for it. Anyway the talk made me think about some stuff I never have before. They had this crippled guy talk about that he'd rather die than have potential humans die to save him(doesn't want embryos used) What if his sperm could be used to save his life? Would he go for that? Those sperm are potential humans after all. Masturbation is mass murder, but so is celibacy because the sperm are kept captive to die.

I've been seeing a lot of the same crap on TV... never mind that the embryos in question will never be placed in a womb, and will eventually be destroyed regardless. Typical fundie logic and rhetoric... anyway, your sperm comments are slightly off-base:

Sperm are not potential humans; eggs are not potential humans. Only fertilized eggs (zygotes) are potential human beings.

Quote:

Originally posted by SkepticJ

Then I thought about abortion, not late term fetal abortion. I don't think that's right unless the mother is going to die or something like that. But early term. Why? Well if I'd been aborted I wouldn't be here. But if my parents hadn't boinked the day and time they did, exactly, then I wouldn't be here. So is the ethical thing to do is have sex as much as possible so as many potential humans can become human?

According to Christianity - YEAH, BABY!

"Be fruitful and multiply" - and that little comment is the basis for all Christian opposition to abortion, birth control, etc.

FWIW, fertilized eggs are often discarded by a woman's body during menstruation... so our fundie friends could easily be told that God - by "intelligent design" of our bodies - performs more abortions every year than all of the doctors in all of history could have.

Of course, they'll eventually reply that those "abortions" are simply "God's will". It should shake them up a bit first, though.

Quote:

Originally posted by SkepticJ

Medicine must be unethical under this point of view because by keeping people alive, these people(the ones that would have died) are using up resources that potential humans could use to live if they were human. So the idea is to let people die so new people can live?

Nah. Our bodies supposedly were created by God and so are temples. We're supposed to do everything possible to keep them well, alive and functioning.

Besides, resources aren't an issue - remember the miracle of the fish and loaves? "God will provide".

Quote:

Originally posted by SkepticJ
What do you think of my musings?

Pretty good basis for discussion.

[lumos]

Very intelligent musings, SkepticJ. Each sperm and each egg is a potential human. They are the beginning. Of course, they are not a human. A fertilized egg is also a potential human in the same way but it is not a human. It depends on many other factors to become a human (just like the sperm and egg do). It's sad that our President doesn't even know what a blastocyst is and he doesn't care to know.

What happens when religion interferes with government is that you get harmful, immoral policies that don't make sense. Fortunately, other countries (like South Korea) are more enlightened than the leadership (read President) in ours and there may be hope for the world to find benefits from this science.

There was a time when religion ruled, it was called The Dark Ages.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Quote:

Originally posted by jmercer
Nah. Our bodies supposedly were created by God and so are temples. We're supposed to do everything possible to keep them well, alive and functioning.

Then that means one should use Stem Cells.



But seriously though. I'm looking for secular input on this. Creepy thinking that I might not be here if they would have aborted me, but the same goes for not having sex either. I wouldn't be the wiser though because I wouldn't exist. I'm not sure if I'm succinctly conveying what I mean....

[athon]

Small thing at this point (I'll have to give the rest some thought).

Sperm and egg are no more potential human beings than any somatic cell. A sperm cell or ova, without intervening behaviour, has 0% chance of developing into a replicating lifeform. A zygote, on the other hand, has roughly a 15 - 20% chance of developing into a replicating lifeform without intervening behaviour. I think this is the definition that most pro-lifers follow.

What meaning you attribute to such figures, well, is where the debate comes in.

Athon

[Johnny Pneumatic]

The zygote has 0% chance if it isn't in a woman, or in the future an artificial uterus. So it can't become a human, why not use that clump of cells to save someone?

[Gestahl]

Quote:

Originally posted by jmercer
FWIW, fertilized eggs are often discarded by a woman's body during menstruation... so our fundie friends could easily be told that God - by "intelligent design" of our bodies - performs more abortions every year than all of the doctors in all of history could have.

Of course, they'll eventually reply that those "abortions" are simply "God's will". It should shake them up a bit first, though.

Not to mention miscarriages, that "undeveloped twin" phenomenon (anyone know the correct term... like that nurse on South Park?), and the occaisional death of a child in utero that must be surgically removed.

Now, when doctors help a cancer patient survive, it was God's will that the patient survived, and the doctor was part of God's plan. Yet when a doctor helps a woman have an abortion, it isn't God's will (even though he seems to do it all the time, just like helping people pull through the illness), and the doctor isn't part of God's plan?

Not to mention the obvious logical problem of anything not being within the plan of the omniscient, omnipotent creator of the people in question...

[Gestahl]

Quote:

Originally posted by athon
Sperm and egg are no more potential human beings than any somatic cell. A sperm cell or ova, without intervening behaviour, has 0% chance of developing into a replicating lifeform.

I know I am being a pedant, but that is only true statement for sperm. Parthenogenesis has been recently observed in mammals.

[Just thinking]

Quote:

Originally posted by SkepticJ
The zygote has 0% chance if it isn't in a woman, or in the future an artificial uterus. So it can't become a human, why not use that clump of cells to save someone?

You can -- and from what I believe is the case, the President is not banning embrionic stem cell research. Any corporation can do it -- they just won't receive government funding. I believe it is a fundamentally different thing to refuse govenment funding on a project as opposed to completely banning it, yet from what I read and hear (not just on this forum) many people don't seem to know the difference. Many corporations spend big bucks on research that never pans out (believe me, I worked for more than one), so if stem cell research has the potential that many feel it has to offer, they'd be fools not to invest in it -- so I suspect the private sector will go after whatever it feels profitable. Besides, do you really want big brother with its fingers in this type of research, regardless whether it's a democrat or republican at the helm?

[Kitty Chan]

(I asked a question about stem cells in the cloning thread) but the abortion side if Im to understand is the source of stem cells?

So some food for thought on abortion for a source. What eveyones said about life and starting is a point but not the only one.

What about how we treat a life? Do we grow whatever to supply us? What if it doesnt pan out quick enough. Theres enough unwanted pregancies across the world. If certain farming families will sell their grown daughter into sex slavery. Then why not sell her to research, or better yet, raise the daughter to supply the research department.

The boy you had is missing a arm so oh well. Then there is the mentally handicapped that would be even better, kill 2 birds sort of thing. End a life that is felt to be pointless for one that will have a point.

If anyone thinks this is extreme its been done or tried before. Its all not new. Its what happens when life is not cherished. (Not in a stupid every sperm is sacred sort of way). But when our needs trump the others needs. And we dont have the time to take care of anyone but ourselves.

Thats when we have to look at just where is society going? What kind of a people are we? How do we treat and care for one another?

I think society as a whole gets a narrow focus on abortions and is forgetting these larger pictures.

[Yahweh]

Quote:

Originally posted by Gestahl
Not to mention miscarriages, that "undeveloped twin" phenomenon (anyone know the correct term... like that nurse on South Park?), and the occaisional death of a child in utero that must be surgically removed.

In the interests of appropriate terminology, if abortion is murder, then miscarriage is manslaughter.

(The South Park woman was a "conjoined twin", there is another undeveloped-twin disorder called "foetus in foetu".)

[Yahweh]

Quote:

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
If anyone thinks this is extreme its been done or tried before. Its all not new. Its what happens when life is not cherished. (Not in a stupid every sperm is sacred sort of way). But when our needs trump the others needs. And we dont have the time to take care of anyone but ourselves.

Kitty, I think your own comment "not in a stupid every sperm is sacred sort of way" gives away a basic moral fact, that life in and of itself isnt valuable. If you take it for granted that killing sperm, eating animals, disinfecting your counters, taking anti-biotics isnt immoral dispite the loss of life, then clearly you dont believe that something meeting the definition "living organism" gives it any moral worth.

This means life isnt sacred, but really only instrumentally valuable when it possess certain characteristics (please dont take my bluntness and directness as implying that we can kill things indiscriminately). Ask yourself "on what basis is it wrong to deprive something of future life", and you'll be really surprised how difficult that question really is to answer.

When I answer the question, I usually fall back on utilitarian appeal: that it is ethical to respect a beings interest in continued existence, and that it is unethical to causes it to suffer without any real benefit - but an unborn person or a zygote dont have theses interests or any capacity to suffer (at least not for the first few months). This is a logical way to answer the question, and in no way does it lead to the slippery slope where we'd be killing disabled babies.

[toddjh]

Quote:

Originally posted by SkepticJ
But seriously though. I'm looking for secular input on this. Creepy thinking that I might not be here if they would have aborted me, but the same goes for not having sex either.

That's just...I don't know what the word is. Not anthropomorphizing, but something like that. If you hadn't been born, you wouldn't be around to care.

To put it another way, how much time do you spend every day thinking about Bob? You know, your brother who was never born? Do you miss him? Do you think he's sad he never got a chance to exist?

Jeremy

[Kitty Chan]

Quote:

Originally posted by Yahweh
Kitty, I think your own comment "not in a stupid every sperm is sacred sort of way" gives away a basic moral fact, that life in and of itself isnt valuable. If you take it for granted that killing sperm, eating animals, disinfecting your counters, taking anti-biotics isnt immoral dispite the loss of life, then clearly you dont believe that something meeting the definition "living organism" gives it any moral worth.

This means life isnt sacred, but really only instrumentally valuable when it possess certain characteristics (please dont take my bluntness and directness as implying that we can kill things indiscriminately). Ask yourself "on what basis is it wrong to deprive something of future life", and you'll be really surprised how difficult that question really is to answer.

Ack, I believe I have misused a phrase and made things unclear, Im sorry about that. The every sperm quip was a comment regarding a earlier one about a impression of having many babies and not using your head about what to do with them.

(I forget not everyone may know what I do, its from a Monty Python movie and its comment is what I just said) In this instance I was thinking that if one is having babies unchecked then they are just a guilty of not cherishing life as one that takes it.

Quote:

When I answer the question, I usually fall back on utilitarian appeal: that it is ethical to respect a beings interest in continued existence, and that it is unethical to causes it to suffer without any real benefit - but an unborn person or a zygote dont have theses interests or any capacity to suffer (at least not for the first few months). This is a logical way to answer the question, and in no way does it lead to the slippery slope where we'd be killing disabled babies.

I do agree with you here as well. Now if life is cherished, what you say is not a problem and we avoid that slope. Problem is what we agree on is not always followed. History and present times have shown that it is not always the case.

It always starts with something, a idea that grows potentialy out of control. Because the focus is on the individual and not how it affects the whole. Some of what I mentioned above has happened before, is now and will again if one is not watchful.

Im just saying its more than just abortion, sperm and lifes start, there is what I said and even then this is only a start.

[lumos]

Quote:

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
(I asked a question about stem cells in the cloning thread) but the abortion side if Im to understand is the source of stem cells?

So some food for thought on abortion for a source. What eveyones said about life and starting is a point but not the only one.

Hi Kitty Chan,

Abortion is not the source of embryonic stem cells. Embryos are created from scratch by using the egg from a female taken directly from the ovaries and the sperm from a male obtained by masturbation. The egg is fertilized using the sperm while floating on a droplet of medium (mineral oil?) in a petry dish. Sometimes the outer cell wall of the egg is pierced to aid fertilization in a procedure called ICSI. The fertilized egg is then incubated for 3-6 days. During that time, the cell splits and you get a little ball of cells called a blastocyst. They usually have 6-8 cells at this point. The blastocyst can either be frozen and preserved for later use or injected in to a female uterus for production. The blastocyst won't live and develop too far along past this stage on its own. Most blastocysts injected into a woman's uterus don't attach and die. If one attaches successfully, it becomes a normal pregnancy.

I have just described IVF or in-vitro fertilization. A wonderful procedure used to help people have children when they otherwise couldn't. Usually when IVF is performed, there are many extra blastocysts available (5-15 is a good number). Only 2-5 are injected and maybe one will grow into a human. The rest can be preserved for later or they will be trashed. Would you like to see a human embryo? See http://www.fertilitynetwork.com/arti...ticles-ivf.htm

This is where embryonic stem cells are acquired. If a person is against embryonic stem cell research, they must also be against fertility treatments and birth control. If not, they would be a hypocrite. (Using birth control prevents blastocysts that might form in the fallopian tube from adhering to the uterus.)

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Quote:

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
What about how we treat a life? Do we grow whatever to supply us? What if it doesnt pan out quick enough. Theres enough unwanted pregancies across the world. If certain farming families will sell their grown daughter into sex slavery. Then why not sell her to research, or better yet, raise the daughter to supply the research department.

Because she's human. An embryo(small clump of cells) is no more human than millions of transistors(That if you had trillions more of them, plus a power source, algorithms etc. would make a sentient computer) are a sentient computer that deserves ethical treatment.
I already said I'm against late term abortion unless the baby is going to die anyway, and possibly even take the mother with it. If you're going to abort it, do it before it's human.

Why are fundies against abortion if you think about it? They believe(as do most liberal religious people also) that people have souls. An innocent baby or child before their Age of Accountability goes to Heaven when they die. No possibility to sin or go to Hell. Abortions are actually saving them from possible eternal damnation.

[Kitty Chan]

Thank you very much for the explaination, see proof the news is out to make us stupid, after all they hate these little chat sessions we all have. we can actually learn something.

Quote:

Originally posted by lumos
Hi Kitty Chan,

The blastocyst won't live and develop too far along past this stage on its own. Most blastocysts injected into a woman's uterus don't attach and die. If one attaches successfully, it becomes a normal pregnancy.

So to be clear, they are using the blastocysts in stem cell research? and these are not injected into a uterus?

A slight derail on this my friend has gone through this and just short of standing on her head reading baby books and still not pregnant.

Quote:

This is where embryonic stem cells are acquired. If a person is against embryonic stem cell research, they must also be against fertility treatments and birth control. If not, they would be a hypocrite. (Using birth control prevents blastocysts that might form in the fallopian tube from adhering to the uterus.)

And thus one of the reasons for the dislike of birth control. Its somehow deemed to be stopping God. (as if He could be stopped ) But it leads to the every sperm section that got me in trouble to begin with.

So if Im following this correctly, what were dealing with is the idea of when is it a human? Those that say when its born then its human or perhaps like SkepticJ said in the last trimester for example. ok no problem with any of this, that parts easy.

Conception at birth hmm When my friend set out to do this, they had baby in mind. So even though the sperm and egg are meeting in a dish, they are going back to the source. But even though they met in a dish I have this crazy notion that its still not life til it gets in the womb then actually attatches and begins to grow.

My thoughts are this is when life has begun. This would make sense in relation to God as one has to choose to allow their "seed" to start, once thats happened then as its said God knows you when you are in the womb.

So until that point there is no "life" there to worry about. If stem cells avoid the last step I would have to see more of why they are objected to, because at this point Im fine with it. Unless theres somethings Im missing.

So Im assuming there is egg and sperm donors just like blood donors.??

[Kitty Chan]

Quote:

Originally posted by SkepticJ
Why are fundies against abortion if you think about it? They believe(as do most liberal religious people also) that people have souls. An innocent baby or child before their Age of Accountability goes to Heaven when they die. No possibility to sin or go to Hell. Abortions are actually saving them from possible eternal damnation.

Fundies and I would rather just say people (and avoid the labeling), are against abortion for perhaps what I said that once life begins God acknowledges it. And there is a hope for each life.

Please dont say that its better to abort then you assure someone of Heaven, anyone who takes God seriously I assure you does not take that view.

Do you really want to be caught saying kill them all theyre going to see Jesus anyway???

This is why Im on about how we treat each other, it lays the foundation to stay away from slippery slopes. We tend to find our selves drawn time and time again to the same paths.

[Swishy McJackass]

I often tell my wife that the mole on my chin is the conjoined twin that never made it. So, whenever I slice off a bit of it while shaving, I like to make a big deal about my "brother" bleeding to death.

For some reason, she's not amused.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Quote:

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
Please dont say that its better to abort then you assure someone of Heaven, anyone who takes God seriously I assure you does not take that view.

Probably because they never thought of it, or it makes Christianity's foundation crumble. It's the moral thing to do if Christianity's tenets of Heaven and Hell are true. If God doen't want them to be aborted then he can stop it with his omnipotence. The lack of action on his part means he approves or doesn't exist.

[lumos]

Kitty Chan,

The blastocysts are used in stem cell research and never have nor will be placed into a uterus. See http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics3.asp for more information.

These blastocysts contain the stem cells. Cells that have the ability to grow into any type of cell in the human body. (They have to, an entire human is produced from these cells.) This could enable the repair of spinal cords in quadraplegics, building replacement hearts for people that need a new one (even children), and repair brain damage (like Terry Schiavo). This concept and technology is very difficult for the average person to understand so they come to an opinion while ignorant of the true facts. Of course, religious fundies (and most people) are already guilty of doing that on a large number of issues.

Regarding life, a sperm is life. An egg is life. A blastocyst is life. An embryo is life. Your skin is life. But, are they a person? Are they human? They are all human life but are they a human? The answer, of course, is no. They are not sentient nor are they concious. The pork (or beef) you ate for dinner last night came from a sentient and concious, living being. (No, I'm not saying we should eat people. I'm just making a point about the value of life.)

It will soon be possible to grow an entire human outside the womb. Then we could truly get a child conceived by immaculate conception.

[lumos]

Quote:

Originally posted by SkepticJ
Probably because they never thought of it, or it makes Christianity's foundation crumble. It's the moral thing to do if Christianity's tenets of Heaven and Hell are true. If God doen't want them to be aborted then he can stop it with his omnipotence. The lack of action on his part means he approves or doesn't exist.

The foundation of Christianity has already crumbled, time and time again. In fact, it's dust, there is no foundation. It is only supported by the blind faith that christians place in their leaders.

It's funny how christians are sad and mourn when people die. It's funny how unintended deaths are labeled a tragedy. You'd think they would celebrate and have parties if they truly believed the tripe they preach. Since they are all "saved" they should be happy that their loved ones are in heaven! I'm surprised they don't all try to die so that they can finally find paradise with their lord and savior.

I suppose their natural instict and will to live that evolved with all life overcomes their false beliefs when reality hits.

[Just thinking]

Quote:

Originally posted by SkepticJ
Because she's human. An embryo(small clump of cells) is no more human than millions of transistors(That if you had trillions more of them, plus a power source, algorithms etc. would make a sentient computer) are a sentient computer that deserves ethical treatment.

Not that I'm against embrionic stem cell research (I'm clearly not), but the argument above is somewhat weak and perhaps not even analogous. The embrionic cells when placed in a proper environment will, on their own accord, develop into a human being -- I know of no environment where the transistors, etc., will, on their own, develop into a sentient computer.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Quote:

Originally posted by Just thinking
Not that I'm against embrionic stem cell research (I'm clearly not), but the argument above is somewhat weak and perhaps not even analogous. The embrionic cells when placed in a proper environment will, on their own accord, develop into a human being -- I know of no environment where the transistors, etc., will, on their own, develop into a sentient computer.

An embryo needs outside help, the mother to feed it through the umbilical. Transitors in the proper nanotech environment could one day be made into a sentient computer. Without that environment they can't. Without a womb a zygote cannot even come close to developing into a complex fetus.

[Kitty Chan]

Originally posted by lumos

Quote:

These blastocysts contain the stem cells. Cells that have the ability to grow into any type of cell in the human body. (They have to, an entire human is produced from these cells.) This could enable the repair of spinal cords in quadraplegics, building replacement hearts for people that need a new one (even children), and repair brain damage (like Terry Schiavo). This concept and technology is very difficult for the average person to understand so they come to an opinion while ignorant of the true facts. Of course, religious fundies (and most people) are already guilty of doing that on a large number of issues.

Thank you for the info, Im diabetic and I hear I could benefit from this as well. (I thought the jurys out on Terrys brain, havent heard the update on that) You are right thank you for saying people and not just fundies, its more accurate. I agree.

Quote:

Regarding life, a sperm is life. An egg is life. A blastocyst is life. An embryo is life. Your skin is life. But, are they a person? Are they human? They are all human life but are they a human? The answer, of course, is no. They are not sentient nor are they concious. The pork (or beef) you ate for dinner last night came from a sentient and concious, living being. (No, I'm not saying we should eat people. I'm just making a point about the value of life.)

Im with you like I said above, I believe when in the womb life would start. Now, to my view it does not leave out God knowing the potential of those cells but I agree they are just that potential.

Quote:

The blastocysts are used in stem cell research and never have nor will be placed into a uterus. See http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics3.asp for more information.

It will soon be possible to grow an entire human outside the womb. Then we could truly get a child conceived by immaculate conception.

Im trying to figure what for instance Mr Bush has a problem with. He isnt the best example as president there is probably 50 other issues to do with this that we are not aware of. But as a start to understand the conterversy, perhaps its circling around what you have said here.

Yes, they will not be placed in a uterus. But maybe its the next part, the half not talked about in the news thats getting everybody. Im not sure just my guess.

If its true and they create a life outside a womb then that would have alot cranked. But perhaps for good reason, just check out the clone issue. Yes, the stem cells are for good science as you have said. But then if we create a life outside a womb then get ready for the slippery slopes to get worse.

Kind of like the line from Jurassic Park, "scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should".

So Im starting to see possibly what the actual conterversy is about. The news certainly wouldnt report it.

[Just thinking]

Quote:

Originally posted by SkepticJ
An embryo needs outside help, the mother to feed it through the umbilical. Transitors in the proper nanotech environment could one day be made into a sentient computer.

Again ... BIG difference -- you even point it out yourself.

Needing help and be made into are two entirely different things. Transistors do not have built in codes (DNA) telling them how to assemble themselves. Will they ever? Perhaps, but without it presently existing (or knowing that it can exist), it makes a weak point to argue. The womb does not assemble the developing embrio into a human being -- it merely provides an environment for it to do so by itself. All the information that makes the embrio into a human is in the embrionic cells themselves. In fact, I believe it already has been done where the developing embrio of one species has come to term within the womb of another.

[jmercer]

FYI, folks - many Christian sects (including Catholicism) have problems about where unbaptized babies go when they die... which is another reason they have a strong aversion to abortion.

[lumos]

Quote:

Originally posted by jmercer
FYI, folks - many Christian sects (including Catholicism) have problems about where unbaptized babies go when they die... which is another reason they have a strong aversion to abortion.

I was told that baptism is used to clean the "orginal sin". This sin is apparently being born. They think that since you are coming out of a vagina, you are evil. Somehow baptism takes care of this. This also means that babies who enter via c-section wouldn't need baptism. I am just repeating heresay, however, and it may be wrong. Maybe somebody can clear up my perception.

Religious people need to get over the fear of the human vagina!

[lumos]

Quote:

Originally posted by Kitty Chan

Im trying to figure what for instance Mr Bush has a problem with. He isnt the best example as president there is probably 50 other issues to do with this that we are not aware of. But as a start to understand the conterversy, perhaps its circling around what you have said here.

One problem with George Bush was summed up during the presidential debates with Kerry:

BUSH: If I believe something to be the case, that's the way it should be for everybody and that's what I will try to do

KERRY: I don't believe in it, I don't agree with it, but if it's the best option for the well being of the nation, that's what I'll try to do.

George Bush's approach is immoral and dangerous.

[Just thinking]

Quote:

Originally posted by lumos
One problem with George Bush was summed up during the presidential debates with Kerry:

BUSH: If I believe something to be the case, that's the way it should be for everybody and that's what I will try to do

KERRY: I don't believe in it, I don't agree with it, but if it's the best option for the well being of the nation, that's what I'll try to do.

Can you please put these two quotes into their proper context? -- to not do so can be very misleading for each. I can actually see each one making the same point.

Thank you.

[lumos]

Quote:

Originally posted by Just thinking
Can you please put these two quotes into their proper context? -- to not do so can be very misleading for each. I can actually see each one making the same point.

Thank you.

I don't have the scripts from the debates and I'm not going to spend time to try to find them. I had paraphrased their statements based on what I remember from watching the debates prior to the election. The topic at the time was abortion. The statements I presented, however, show a general attitude of the individual and the approach they take in leading the nation. I have heard Bush reply many, many times that his way is the only way, the right way. Kerry was referring to his catholic beliefs and ensuring the public he would not let them get in the way of his presidency.

[Kitty Chan]

Quote:

Originally posted by jmercer
FYI, folks - many Christian sects (including Catholicism) have problems about where unbaptized babies go when they die... which is another reason they have a strong aversion to abortion.

For the record my vote is innocent is innocent. Didnt know anyone thought that way. Dont need to clean sin. Besides to answer lumos water does not clean sin away. Thats Christ's job.

[jmercer]

Quote:

Originally posted by lumos
I was told that baptism is used to clean the "orginal sin". This sin is apparently being born. They think that since you are coming out of a vagina, you are evil. Somehow baptism takes care of this. This also means that babies who enter via c-section wouldn't need baptism. I am just repeating heresay, however, and it may be wrong. Maybe somebody can clear up my perception.

Religious people need to get over the fear of the human vagina!

Well... if you wanna get technical... it's not the process of birth that is considered original sin. The original sin was eating of the tree of knowledge, so that the difference between good and evil were known to us.

Birth - and the travails of birth - are the punishment God placed upon women for eating the rule(8) apple. Until Adam and Eve partook of the apple, they didn't even know they were nekkid... nor were they popping out babies until they were clothed in animal skins and kicked out of Eden. So in actuality, the original sin isn't incurred at the moment of birth, but at the moment of conception.

Which is really kinda sick when you think about it - here God supposedly sticks a brand-new soul into a fertilized egg, and while He's at it, He also adds a little curse that will send that soul to either Hell or Purgatory (not a nice place, either - essentially it's Hell with a time limit!) if they don't get born to the right parents with the right religion, or in the right culture - or if they die before being baptized.

And for the record, I'm not afraid of vaginas. Well, some, anyway.

[Kitty Chan]

Quote:

Originally posted by jmercer
[b]Well... if you wanna get technical...He also adds a little curse that will send that soul to either Hell or Purgatory (not a nice place, either - essentially it's Hell with a time limit!) if they don't get born to the right parents with the right religion, or in the right culture - or if they die before being baptized.

Hmm since were being technical . . . you were doing great until this part.

This part is speculation with no base. I can trot out many verses that convey Gods thoughts on this. His desire is for no one to go to hell, period. Hes working with the cards that are dealt and set in motion. God did not set out for any of this to happen, thats the other department, satan (whatever one wants to call him by)

satan was the one whom tempted Eve and Adam with thoughts of being like him and set this thing in motion. If God was to end it He could have right there but we wouldnt have been talking about it today. Thing is even the angels have free will because one third felt like lucifier had the big idea. Now, Gods gonna let it play out and let everyone else have the chance to decide.

As for those not born in the right place and time Gods covered it. He does not condem the innocent, or those that never heard of Him.

Alot here is mentioned about hell but not much on the judgement part. God is fair, true, just He does not look if someone said hail marys, sold their house, went to church, went to a particular church, were poor, rich, of any colour, or race. Or were baptised, took communion, spoke in tongues, or whatever have you.

This is peoples reasons trying to remove responsibility on their actions by being something, or doing something or blaming anybody but themselves, including God. Hes gonna look at the heart or how you actually were to another, thats gonna decide fate. Its just the decision time will be over. We actually decide our path, Gods gonna open the gate and put us on it.

just to be clear to discuss the entire issue rather than part.

[Skeptical Greg]

Quote:

Originally posted by Kitty Chan


This part is speculation with no base. I can trot out many verses that convey Gods thoughts on this. His desire is for no one to go to hell, period.


Uhh, excuse me.. If this was his desire, all he would have to do is not send anyone there.


Alot here is mentioned about hell but not much on the judgement part. God is fair, true, just He does not look if someone said hail marys, sold their house, went to church, went to a particular church, were poor, rich, of any colour, or race. Or were baptised, took communion, spoke in tongues, or whatever have you.

You are not saying God judges us soley on our behaviour, are you? Yes, that would be fair, but most Christians do not agree with you.


And I can trot out many verses that dispute your claim that ' God is fair, true & just '...


Wanna duel ?

[Kitty Chan]

Originally posted by Kitty Chan

This part is speculation with no base. I can trot out many verses that convey Gods thoughts on this. His desire is for no one to go to hell, period.

Quote:

Uhh, excuse me.. If this was his desire, all he would have to do is not send anyone there.

Read the rest of what I wrote the answer is in there

Quote:

You are not saying God judges us soley on our behaviour, are you? Yes, that would be fair, but most Christians do not agree with you.

Then bring them to me and I will have a word with each of them. God knows our heart and does not judge us anyway else, period.

Quote:

And I can trot out many verses that dispute your claim that ' God is fair, true & just '...

Kitty dont do *issing contests, just gross.

When I said trot out I dont mean that as a challenge, trotting out is not a complimentary statement.

Besides its said enough how unfair God is, Im just putting forth there is another side to the issue not spoken of too much. Its all about understanding all sides of issues isnt it?

[Skeptical Greg]

Quote:

Originally posted by Kitty Chan




Besides its said enough how unfair God is, Im just putting forth there is another side to the issue not spoken of too much. Its all about understanding all sides of issues isnt it?

The other side of fair is ' not fair '..


Explain to me how God is fair..


We had a long thread not to long ago, where we were challenged to show how God had demonstrated that he loved anyone. I don't remember that anyone came up with a reasonable example...

[jmercer]

Quote:

Originally posted by Kitty Chan

This part is speculation with no base. I can trot out many verses that convey Gods thoughts on this. His desire is for no one to go to hell, period. Hes working with the cards that are dealt and set in motion. God did not set out for any of this to happen, thats the other department, satan (whatever one wants to call him by)

satan was the one whom tempted Eve and Adam with thoughts of being like him and set this thing in motion.

Kitty, I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to challenge you on all of this.

First off - it is a major bone of theological contention about what happens to unborn babes and newborns who die prior to baptism. Ever see illustrations of Cherubs? They were invented during the middle ages in an attempt to suggest that God takes these little ones and transforms them into Cherubim. (A whole class of angels expressly named just for this purpose.)

While scripture neglects to explicitly describe what happens to these lost children, it is very clear on what happens to those who are not baptized and/or accept Jesus. Hell-bound they go, for all eternity. Unfortunately - since there's no other provisions - that includes unbaptized babies, still-borns and pre-borns that die. (Including "heathen" babies that don't believe in Christ.) If you don't agree with that, fine - show me the scripture that sends them to heaven.

Regarding Satan and the garden of Eden - first, a quibble. Nowhere in Genesis does it say the serpent is Satan. Now, on to the meat of the matter:

1) God is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient. He can do anything, and knows all that has happened, is happening, and will happen.

2) God plops down the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in the center of the Garden of Eden. (Right next to the Tree of Life.) Accessible, viewable, and all that. With all His Omnipotence - even unto posting an angel with a flaming sword in front of Eden's gates a bit later - God doesn't put this thing in a safe place. Instead, He leaves it there, right out in the open. If you left a canister of poison open on the floor with a toddler around, what would your moral position be?

3) God SHOWS the tree to Adam and Eve. Points OUT the temptation to them, tells them "no". Tells them point-blank that they can have anything they want but this. Now... I ask you... God created us like innocent children, or even teenagers. How could he not know what our reaction would be to being denied ONE thing and one thing only? Not very "omniscient", "loving" or "parental".

3) The serpent comes along and tempts Eve. Tells her that God doesn't want her and Adam eating the fruit because they'll become Godlike if they do, and He fears that. So... where's God's omnscience and omnipresence during all of this? Is He hiding, listening and watching while the serpent seduces Eve into doing something he basically challenged her to do anyway?

Well, if you believe in an omniscient and omnipresent God, the answer to that little riddle is "Yes". He did indeed know what was happening to this innocent young woman; further, He deliberately allowed it to happen.

4) Eve bites the apple, her eyes light up, and off she trots to do to Adam what the snake did to her. And God is... what? Watching? Waiting? Off playing golf? Again, if He's omniscient and omnipresent, He's watching the whole deal go down... and isn't lifting even his immortal pinky to prevent it.

5) Adam eats the apple... then he and Eve suddenly become ashamed, run, hide, cover their privates with fig leaves, and try to avoid God. God finally finishes his 18 holes (or whatever), and goes looking for his favorite pets... but He doesn't know where they are, so he calls for them. They reluctantly slink out of hiding, and God gets all upset when he sees their fig leaves. He asks them why they're cowering, covered up, etc... and of course, is upset by the answer.

Hmm. Well, now - if He's omniscient and omnipresent, why couldn't He find them? And why didn't He know what they'd been up to? Why did he have to ask them what they'd done?

6) Ok, so now God's royallty pissed off. First thing he does is turn to his second in command and tell him that we gotta get rid of these two before the eat of the Tree of Life, and become like us. (Sounds like the serpent might have been onto something here...) So God kills a few animals; dresses the kids up in raw animal skins... curses them with childbirth and death, and then kicks them out of Eden. He also puts a giant angel with a flaming sword at the gate to keep them from sneaking back in. (Which would have been a nice addition to the Tree of Knowledge a bit earlier. It certainly would have saved a lot of trouble, no?)

Oh, yes... and the serpent? What's his punishment? Oh, he gets sent out of Eden with Adam and Eve, with explicit instructions to torment them every chance he gets. Some punishment... especially if you're right and the serpent is Satan.

Quote:

Originally posted by Kitty Chan

As for those not born in the right place and time Gods covered it. He does not condem the innocent, or those that never heard of Him.

Scriptual quotes, please?

Quote:

Originally posted by Kitty Chan

Alot here is mentioned about hell but not much on the judgement part. God is fair, true, just He does not look if someone said hail marys, sold their house, went to church, went to a particular church, were poor, rich, of any colour, or race. Or were baptised, took communion, spoke in tongues, or whatever have you.

Oh, the judgement part is simple enough. It's a two-part question:

1) Have you accepted Jesus as your savior?
2) Have you asked for forgiveness for your sins?

Anything other than a double yes will land you in Hell.

Baptism just gives you a free ticket out of Hell until you're old enough to make your own choices - "confirmation". If you fail to get baptized or fail to be confirmed... well... hope you like your barbeque blackened cajun-style, because you're going on an eternal diet of it.

Quote:

Originally posted by Kitty Chan

This is peoples reasons trying to remove responsibility on their actions by being something, or doing something or blaming anybody but themselves, including God. Hes gonna look at the heart or how you actually were to another, thats gonna decide fate. Its just the decision time will be over. We actually decide our path, Gods gonna open the gate and put us on it.

Nope. Nice fantasy, but that's not what the scripture says in the New Testament... which, by the way, supersedes the O.T. rules.

Quote:

Originally posted by Kitty Chan

just to be clear to discuss the entire issue rather than part.

Exactly.

Your serve, I believe?

[Kitty Chan]

Love a challange like to learn myself.

Didnt grow up in church dont have certain ideas. If it all gets confusing I go by what the red words said.

Just as a onset Im not baptised, or have spoke in tongues, only had communion several times, never confessed to a priest, the pope is no more than me, just like any other preacher, I tend to disagree with band wagons. Which probably puts me out on the front step to begin with, but thats fine with me.

If thats ok with you, to quote a old blues singer I never went to Seminary but Ive been to Calvary. So if good then give me a bit of time, regular life interfers sometimes.

[jmercer]

Quote:

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
Love a challange like to learn myself.

Didnt grow up in church dont have certain ideas. If it all gets confusing I go by what the red words said.

Just as a onset Im not baptised, or have spoke in tongues, only had communion several times, never confessed to a priest, the pope is no more than me, just like any other preacher, I tend to disagree with band wagons. Which probably puts me out on the front step to begin with, but thats fine with me.

If thats ok with you, to quote a old blues singer I never went to Seminary but Ive been to Calvary. So if good then give me a bit of time, regular life interfers sometimes.

Absolutely. I don't take this stuff too seriously, anyway.