The only escape is inconsistency.
Euthanasia And Sanctity Of Life
- Thread starter Bruh
- Start date
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 10,347
- Reaction score
- 3,600
- Points
- 113
How's that?
My question was, do you feel that a human embryo is a child?
I don't think that was the case.
Let's put it this way. In many cases with IVF, multiple embryos are introduced to a uterus in the hopes that one or more, but not many more, will attach. In such cases it is almost certain many will not attach and die, but risking a 'child's' life is allowed because the couple really want a biological child. Here the welfare of the child is sacrificed for the desire of the parent(s). How is that more acceptable than sacrificing the welfare of a child for the desires of the mother in the cases of rape and incest?
Last edited:
In considering the embryo less of a child than one that was brought to full term.
Yes. As I said, the science today proves that very conclusively. The science twenty years ago wasn’t as conclusive, hence the reason why large organizations like the SBC are now formally anti-IVF.
What does science have to do with the soul? Let me ask the question this way...do you believe it is a living soul, as Adam became a living soul? When Adam was first formed, all the chemistry was there...there were nostrils in which to breathe life...but he was not yet a living soul. Do you feel one becomes a living soul at conception?
Last edited:
I’m not sure at which stage there is a soul, but nothing catches God by surprise, so perhaps the soul does begin at conception. Honestly, I have never put any thought or research into the topic.
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 7,533
- Reaction score
- 508
- Points
- 113
Not to ding you personally.
I find it sad that the issue of the soul isn't the first point in the conversation. What is a human without a soul? Minus a soul the glob of cells argument ins't as awful as we want it to seem.
The main reason why our laws aren't able to settle this issue is because of the lack of a definition of what constitutes a "person". More to the point, without a point at which the life is legally determined to be a person the debate will continue. The trimester/viability rulings were just as much a kick the can down the road answer as all the compromise decisions regarding slavery.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 12,866
- Reaction score
- 3,335
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
I took a philosophy course in contemporary ethical issues in university c. 1995-96,with a section on new reproductive technologies including IVF. The arguments 30 years ago were the same.
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 10,347
- Reaction score
- 3,600
- Points
- 113
I thought you were saying that my arguments were inconsistent, but I never made any such argument that said that the embryo (at any age in the stage of development) is less of a child than a full-term baby. So who are you saying is making that inconsistent argument?
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 10,347
- Reaction score
- 3,600
- Points
- 113
The majority reason why the SBC said that they are against it, in their resolution, was abuses of it, like homosexuals using it, or the destruction of leftover embryos. Albert Mohler is a main SBC detractor, and much of his argument consists of the issue of how it has become big economic business, and not a gift used by heterosexual married couples to assist in their own struggles. I understand why people have questions about the ethics, but frequently their arguments boil down to what I've already said, abuses of the procedure, not legitimate (moral) uses.
My point isn't when life begins.
My point is, if one argues that an embryo is as much a child as is, say, a two-year-old is, then what one feels about the priority of the embryonic child's welfare over the wishes and liberty of the parents should be the same as what one feels about the priority of the welfare of a toddler.
In practice it isn't. Those who intervene in a crackhead's savage abuse of an infant or toddler are heroes. Those who intervene in an elitist mother's attempt to carry her unborn child into a clinic to be similarly savaged are criminals.
With IVF, the welfare of the child, if an embryo is a child, is likewise sacrificed to the whims, however noble some may be, of the parents. Christians assert that once an egg is fertilized, a child comes into being. Setting aside the ethical quagmire formed by the 'creation' of the human test tube embryos to begin with, with the creation of the embryos the moral duty of the parent has now shifted from one of maximizing one's chances of "having a child" (they now have 10 or 20), to one of maximizing each child's chances of survival.
The parents now have the duty of Ephesians 6:4 imposed upon them. It is their duty to bring each one up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, meaning, depending upon the circumstances for which one is attempting to compensate with IVF, NOT taking unacceptable risks with their children's lives with less than optimum incubation, and going "outside the couple" if necessary to find a more hospitable uterus.
So, you see, the Scriptures are NOT silent, and the issue is as far above a matter of conscience as the sky is above the earth...
...unless the embryos are not children.
And if the embryos are not children, and IVF is a matter of conscience, then so is abortion in the early weeks of pregnancy.
There is no way around it.
Last edited:
See above...
Last edited:
But...granting that human embryos are human children, that is, individual souls with an eternal destiny, if 'grace' is granted to play dice with human lives for the sake of the desires of the parents,
The same grace must be extended to victims of rape and incest.
OK, but in all fairness, when does the soul begin with any viewpoint?
But your argument centers around the soul, and when it comes into existence. How do we define soul. Furthermore, when does soul begin? This isn’t a new question, nor is it really addressed in the Bible (correct me if I’m wrong).
Pre-Christianity, Aristotle defined the soul as “the first actuality of a natural body that has life potentially.” According to Aquinas, the soul is “the substantial form of a living being, providing its animating principle, identity, and capacity for life.”
In your view, I think it’s a slippery slope that can lead to a view of the soul as exists in Hinduism, in which the soul is seemingly present before the formation of the body. I’m not referring to God’s foreknowledge, but the actuality of existence.
I'm not sure. It always seemed right that conception was the point at which one became an individual soul with an eternal destiny, because of the angel's words to Mary, "That which is conceived in you is of the Holy Ghost." That is the moment in time when the Word became flesh...it seems to me.
And as Christ was in all ways made like unto His brethren according to the flesh, (Hebrews 2:17), it seems to me to follow that His human brethren become individuals at their conceptions as well.
I always believed that by the virtue of 'coming into being,' one was innocent...as far as the world was concerned. Not sinless, or free of original sin...but innocent as far as the world is concerned. This discussion has me rethinking that.
One just doesn't have a soul. One is a soul. One has a body, and one has a mind, but one is a soul.
And though it's not directly addressed, it is addressed in the Bible. But more than that, the moment at which life begins seems only to become an issue when one's desires appear to depart from God's ways. For example, in the context of fertility, one desires sexual activity, but wishes to avoid marriage and the fruit thereof.
There are some superstitious notions out there, to be sure.
But what can be more real than to exist in God's mind? What is more sure of one's existence than the fact that God's thoughts are on him?
A sparrow can't fall to the ground outside the mind of God.
But then the real question is this...can one exist upon whom God has had no thought?
The questions posed about fertility, reproduction, birth control, and abortion are existential questions. The answers to them will be found in the doctrines, purposes, and laws of marriage. Human society began with a marriage. Genesis 2:18-25.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 10,347
- Reaction score
- 3,600
- Points
- 113
Which part of that treatise applies to what I've said?
Embryo is a child vs 'innocuous thing.'
If you can’t answer the question, I don’t think you can equate IVF with early term abortion.
LOL. I DID answer the question. What is becoming evident is that you know nothing about IVF, or of the abortion/IVF debate, and you're not willing to learn.