Reply
Sat 25 Nov, 2006 07:12 pm
We Like This Type of Murder?
So now, maybe someone can help One to understand something. What is the difference between those who discard the surplus frozen embryos left over from in-vitro fertilization and those who use these embryos for stem- cell research. If using the embryos for stem-cell research is murder, then isn't in-vitro fertilization considered a greater form of murder? After all, more embryos are destroyed from in-vitro than from stem-cell. And if that is the case, then by using the current reasoning of some, In-vitro fertilization "murders" to bring life into the world and stem cell research "murders" to keep life in the world. And yet when One looks around, no Christian has a problem with in-vitro fertilization.
So, how can one support in-vitro fertilization which creates a greater number of embryos to be discarded or "murdered," but at the same time reject using embryos for stem cells because it is said to be "murder?"
Secondly, if in-vitro fertilization has been creating embryos and discarding them or "murdering," as some say, then many Christians have been supporting and participating in "murder" for many years?
Thirdly, why do you like one type of murder more than the other?
Matthew 23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in [yourselves], neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
Matthew 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier [matters] of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
Luke 13:15 The Lord then answered him, and said, [Thou] hypocrite, doth not each one of you on the sabbath loose his ox or [his] ass from the stall, and lead [him] away to watering?
The right to life arseholes have been protesting all forms of IVF in this country for years. Hence this statement
Quote:And yet when One looks around, no Christian has a problem with in-vitro fertilization.
is not the whole picture.
I'm not going to search 20 years of news archives to provide you with evidence for christs sake. Short version-in Australia-every time there's a high profile birth as a result of IVF.
Wilso wrote:I'm not going to search 20 years of news archives to provide you with evidence for christs sake. Short version-in Australia-every time there's a high profile birth as a result of IVF.
Twenty years of news archives? If IVF is a more prominent issue than stem-cell then that information should not be to hard to find. As far as One can see it is not. Christians (at least in America) have been vehemently protesting stem-cell reasearch while ignoring IVF. So the question is why? Seems like a lot of political hypocrisy?
Every Christian who engages in sex risks creating an embryo that will be discarded by the body (2/3 of fertilized eggs die, 15-25% of pregnancies end in miscarriage). I don't think that any of them consider the number of "murders" they may have committed themselves when opposing IVF or stem cell research.
The rationalization seems to be that it is only murder if you take deliberate action to kill a cell, not if it dies on its own. Putting embryos in a freezer is not murder, and they can be discarded without culpability when they become non-viable.
Terry wrote:Every Christian who engages in sex risks creating an embryo that will be discarded by the body (2/3 of fertilized eggs die, 15-25% of pregnancies end in miscarriage). I don't think that any of them consider the number of "murders" they may have committed themselves when opposing IVF or stem cell research.
The rationalization seems to be that it is only murder if you take deliberate action to kill a cell, not if it dies on its own. Putting embryos in a freezer is not murder, and they can be discarded without culpability when they become non-viable.
That's not a rationalization. That's a fact.
If something dies on it's own, it's not murder, is it?
Hello?
Mindonfire wrote:Wilso wrote:I'm not going to search 20 years of news archives to provide you with evidence for christs sake. Short version-in Australia-every time there's a high profile birth as a result of IVF.
Twenty years of news archives? If IVF is a more prominent issue than stem-cell then that information should not be to hard to find. As far as One can see it is not. Christians (at least in America) have been vehemently protesting stem-cell reasearch while ignoring IVF. So the question is why? Seems like a lot of political hypocrisy?
It's not more prominent or less. It's just the news of the day. Ratbags like the right to life need a cause to grab onto. 10 years from now it will be something else. So long as their interfering in someones life and trying to force their ideology onto someone else they'll be happy.
real life wrote:
That's not a rationalization. That's a fact.
If something dies on it's own, it's not murder, is it?
Hello?
LOL! Depends on what you classify as "dying on it's own?"
Mindonfire wrote:real life wrote:
That's not a rationalization. That's a fact.
If something dies on it's own, it's not murder, is it?
Hello?
LOL! Depends on what you classify as "dying on it's own?"
No matter how you (mindy) classify "dying on it's own".....would it be the same as murder?
If you don't know....that's cool. Scary but cool.
real life wrote:
Depends on what?
Well, what do you consider "dying on your own?" Did the person who develops heart disease and dies after eating junk food for thirty years, die on his own? What can you really classify as dying on one's own?
well, Terry who has understandably disappeared from the thread, compared the taking of a deliberate action to kill another with 'one who died on his own', expressing incredulity that if no deliberate action is taken to kill then it is not called murder.
Dying of heart disease is not someone taking deliberate action to kill another, is it?
Mindy.......your killing me.
real life wrote:well, Terry who has understandably disappeared from the thread, compared the taking of a deliberate action to kill another with 'one who died on his own', expressing incredulity that if no deliberate action is taken to kill then it is not called murder.
Dying of heart disease is not someone taking deliberate action to kill another, is it?
Some of us do not immediately respond to posts because we have jobs and lives that preclude spending all of our time on the computer.
Suppose you have an elderly parent who is bed-bound in your house and cannot get food or medication for themselves. If you take no deliberate action to kill them but do not provide any food or care, would you be legally and morally responsible for their death by starvation or treatable disease?
If you deliberately conceive embryos knowing that they will most likely die, are you not morally responsible for their deaths?
Terry wrote:real life wrote:well, Terry who has understandably disappeared from the thread, compared the taking of a deliberate action to kill another with 'one who died on his own', expressing incredulity that if no deliberate action is taken to kill then it is not called murder.
Dying of heart disease is not someone taking deliberate action to kill another, is it?
Suppose you have an elderly parent who is bed-bound in your house and cannot get food or medication for themselves. If you take no deliberate action to kill them but do not provide any food or care, would you be legally and morally responsible for their death by starvation or treatable disease?
Yes.
Terry wrote:If you deliberately conceive embryos knowing that they will most likely die, are you not morally responsible for their deaths?
No. You did not starve the embryo, did you?
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace