Science must not become criterion of good (2)VI...

Originally posted by Conrau K
But do remember that in Christianity, at least, God is the giver of life. So unlike the typical human murderer, God takes what is his. Technically not murder then, but termination of a loan.

Well, if this is what Christianity really thinks, maybe they can be so kind as to quit pretending that humans have a right to life. [Particularly in something like an abortion debate.]

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
Since a human embryo can potentially divide into two or more fetuses post-conception, how many persons are being respected as the Pope recommends when a pre-division embryo is the object of such respect?

The unborn human being(s) has(ve) the Right to Life, no matter how many seperate human beings eventually pop up.

Do you think that this fact gives you the right to disrespect the human embryo or even take away its Universal Human Right to Life .... just for your own convenience ?

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Well, if this is what Christianity really thinks, maybe they can be so kind as to quit pretending that humans have a right to life. [Particularly in something like an abortion debate.]

There is something you don't understand. Find out what it is.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
There is something you don't understand. Find out what it is.

Shrug. I can't be bothered to look if you can't be bothered to actually communicate.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Well, if this is what Christianity really thinks, maybe they can be so kind as to quit pretending that humans have a right to life. [Particularly in something like an abortion debate.]

Actually, the opposite is true. If God is the giver of life, then murder is an act of theft and a violation of the will of God. So, to a Christian, abortion must represent a grave affront to the God who formed the fetus into life.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
The unborn human being(s) has(ve) the Right to Life, no matter how many seperate human beings eventually pop up.

Do you think that this fact gives you the right to disrespect the human embryo or even take away its Universal Human Right to Life .... just for your own convenience ?

I would appreciate it if you would simply answer the question posed.

Since a human embryo can potentially divide into two or more fetuses post-conception, how many persons are being respected as the Pope recommends when a pre-division embryo is the object of such respect?

I want to explore whether the given answer to it, or the inability to answer it, bear upon the issue of whether or not an embryo is entitled to the human rights you claim it is entitled to.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
I didn't know you were a one-dimensional fundamentalist literalist.

I didn't know you were a woman-hating blastocyst worshipper.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Actually, the opposite is true. If God is the giver of life, then murder is an act of theft and a violation of the will of God. So, to a Christian, abortion must represent a grave affront to the God who formed the fetus into life.

If God is able to take life whenever he wishes, and he is morally justified in doing so, then we do not have a right to life. A right is something that I can justly claim to have.

What you are arguing is that murder is wrong not because we have a right to life, but because we are God's property. Again, if we truly had a right to life, it would be unethical for God to take that life whenever he wanted.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
If God is able to take life whenever he wishes, and he is morally justified in doing so, then we do not have a right to life. A right is something that I can justly claim to have.

What you are arguing is that murder is wrong not because we have a right to life, but because we are God's property. Again, if we truly had a right to life, it would be unethical for God to take that life whenever he wanted.

No; what I am saying is that the right to life is a right that God can declare by his own sovereignty as giver of life. He makes the rules.

And, again, it is not murder if God takes a life. He is taking what is his.

Originally posted by bbarr
I didn't know you were a woman-hating blastocyst worshipper.

I did.

Originally posted by Conrau K
No; what I am saying is that the right to life is a right that God can declare by his own sovereignty as giver of life. He makes the rules.

And, again, it is not murder if God takes a life. He is taking what is his.

Rights can be declared?! What a strange idea. And here I was thinking that rights were intrinsic.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Rights can be declared?! What a strange idea. And here I was thinking that rights were intrinsic.

Yes; I am a member of an ice-hockey club which recognises the right for a successful junior player to play in senior grades. The right is not intrinsic but one declared by the club committee. I am sure an omnipotent God can devise many rights and duties over humanity.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Yes; I am a member of an ice-hockey club which recognises the right for a successful junior player to play in senior grades. The right is not intrinsic but one declared by the club committee. I am sure an omnipotent God can devise many rights and duties over humanity.

The right to life, if it exists, is a human right. No committee or authority can give it, or take it away. Human rights, unlike your hockey team, are intrinsic.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
The right to life, if it exists, is a human right. No committee or authority can give it, or take it away. Human rights, unlike your hockey team, are intrinsic.

Obviously I, many Christians, and probably many abortionists, disagree.

And I have no idea what it means to say that a right is "intrinsic." So far, you have not explained why rights are intrinsic but rather proclaimed this loftily as a self-evident truth.

And whether intrinsic or not, Christians would still argue that no human has the right to take another life. They may accord such a privilege to God, but not to any human. So in the abortion debate they may still oppose abortion as an immoral arrogation of rights.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Obviously I, many Christians, and probably many abortionists, disagree.

And I have no idea what it means to say that a right is "intrinsic." So far, you have not explained why rights are intrinsic but rather proclaimed this loftily as a self-evident truth.

And whether intrinsic or not, Christians would still argue that no human has the right to tak ...[text shortened]... . So in the abortion debate they may still oppose abortion as an immoral arrogation of rights.

Obviously I, many Christians, and probably many abortionists, disagree.

And I have no idea what it means to say that a right is "intrinsic." So far, you have not explained why rights are intrinsic but rather proclaimed this loftily as a self-evident truth.

Well, first we had to get on the same page. Now that that's accomplished, I'll explain why I think human rights are intrinsic.

Let's examine human rights violations. America and England had legal slavery for many many years. China brutally repressed the Tiananmen square dissidents. When we label these incidents as violations, we recognize that human rights exist independent of the perspective of those in power. If human rights emanated from a sovereign authority, then these examples may possibly not be human rights violations at all, and we would have no real cause for complaint.

And whether intrinsic or not, Christians would still argue that no human has the right to take another life. They may accord such a privilege to God, but not to any human.

They need to explain why God alone gets this privilege, and they need to do better than, "He created us, so he can do with us as he wishes." Parents aren't allowed to abuse or murder their children, despite the fact that they brought the child into the world.