Various Moral Issues

[GWH]

I suggest we begin discussing various moral issues in alphabetical order with Abortion.

Historically murder has been viewed as wrong and has been defined as unwarranted killing of a post-birth human being. In my own history, I grew up ignorant of fetal development and naively thought that "pro-choice" sounded like a good option, but then I began to think:

On one side of the debate are those who believe that pregnant women have the right to kill their fetuses until birth (“birthists”). On the opposite side of the issue are those who believe that fetuses have the right to live from conception (“conceptionists”).

The Bible does not specifically address this question, although two passages (EX 21:22-25 & LK 1:41-44) seem to suggest that an unborn baby should be considered a person at least by the time of quickening.

However, if a person studies fetal development, at some point he/she will probably contemplate two pictures: one of a seven-month-old fetus in the womb, and one of a seven-month-old premature but viable baby outside the womb.

This should lead one to understand that geographical location is not a valid basis for defining personhood. There is no qualitative change that occurs at birth, merely a difference in the mode of breathing and feeding.

And so a person will be led to consider the crucial question: when does a developing fetus become a human person with the God-given right to civil life so that to kill it is murder and warrants capital punishment?

 

[Seeker47]

First, define terms. When discussing this issue I prefer the term "Convenience Abortion". This is the most common kind, as opposed to abortions for health reasons or abortions from rape, incest, etc. The baby is killed because it is inconvenient to one or both parents.

The bible speaks very clearly about "Convenience Abortions". Sacrifices to Molech were made to insure comfort for the parents. This is forbidden and detestable to God. (See Leviticus 20:1-5). Indeed, the First Testament makes it painfully clear this is one of the most direct and serious attacks that humans can make against God.

 

[GWH]

Another topic that might be next in chronological order is that of biomedical ethics (including artificial insemination, cloning, euthanasia, genetic engineering), although the most recently discussed issue is that of Transgendering.

Again, the Bible does not specifically address this issue, unless one considers becoming a eunuch some form of becoming Trans.

So, how should we begin discussing biomedical ethics or one of its subtopics, such as transgendering?

 

[Eli1]

Good topic.
I'll add my comments on the issues i find interesting.

Transgendering is a medical/mental issue called body dysphoria which has evolved into a political issue.
I hope that when Trump is elected this insane trend will be more balanced towards common sense.

 

[Eli1]

I don't see any problems with genetic engineering, which has been already done, and medical assistance death which is also being done.
The problem with anything is that it will be misused but the principle to help others should be there and exist after many checks and balances.

Ask any gun-enthusiast about guns. They say that it's a "tool".
So, similarly these are also 'tools' to improve the human condition which involves suffering.

 

[Cameron143]

I learned this just this morning:
In 1973, laws were written to protect pre-born sea turtles. Penalties included large fines and prison time. That same year, pre-born humans were allowed to be killed. The same people who placed a high value on turtles had no respect for human life.

 

[Eli1]

I'm not really sure why animals are placed higher on the pedestal than humans in the West but that's another thing that's interesting to me.
Do people keep pets in the West because they don't get unconditional love from other humans or is it something else?

 

[MsMediator]

I'm not really sure why animals are placed higher on the pedestal than humans in the West but that's another thing that's interesting to me.
Do people keep pets in the West because they don't get unconditional love from other humans or is it something else?

People keep pets for love and companionship, and to also help the pet (to keep the pet from living on the streets). Pets are kept all over the world. What I've seen is that people either love pet animals (thinking cats and dogs), or they are indifferent or hate them (more prevelant in some cultures). It is better to be the former to always love for our own soul. Anything good is from God and that is my opinion of pet animals. We know there is no unconditional love from other humans, to be honest. People have to keep each side of the agreement in all types of relationships. Only unconditional love is from God. Most pet owners do not seek to replace people with pets, however unfortunately sometimes it is the only form of love they get (even if they have people in their lives). We should not always blame the person for this. It may also come down to people prefer pets over failed relationships.

 

[Seeker47]

People keep pets for love and companionship, and to also help the pet (to keep the pet from living on the streets). Pets are kept all over the world. What I've seen is that people either love pet animals (thinking cats and dogs), or they are indifferent or hate them (more prevelant in some cultures). It is better to be the former to always love for our own soul. Anything good is from God and that is my opinion of pet animals. We know there is no unconditional love from other humans, to be honest. People have to keep each side of the agreement in all types of relationships. Only unconditional love is from God. Most pet owners do not seek to replace people with pets, however unfortunately sometimes it is the only form of love they get (even if they have people in their lives). We should not always blame the person for this. It may also come down to people prefer pets over failed relationships.

Is there a connection? Do modern people, finding themselves further and further alienated from their true natures, turn to pets to satisfy some deeper longing? Put another way; does the explosive growth of pets in the western world indicate a vein attempt to overcome a growing sense of frustration and emptiness that goes unfulfilled?

 

[MsMediator]

Is there a connection? Do modern people, finding themselves further and further alienated from their true natures, turn to pets to satisfy some deeper longing? Put another way; does the explosive growth of pets in the western world indicate a vein attempt to overcome a growing sense of frustration and emptiness that goes unfulfilled?

I have grown up with pets so I do not know a different world view. Pets do not necessarily mean one is having an empty life. Pets add substantially to life, whether one is alone or with people, and people also feel a loss when pets are gone.

 

[MsMediator]

The question of pets is difficult to answer to one who has not felt the deep love for pets, or vice versa. It is like explaining to an orphan a mother's love, or explaining to an atheist God's love. So, I think there will always be some disagreement about the want and even need for pets.

 

[GWH]

I have grown up with pets so I do not know a different world view. Pets do not necessarily mean one is having an empty life. Pets add substantially to life, whether one is alone or with people, and people also feel a loss when pets are gone.

I agree, but I do not think people should equate pet and human life. It is okay to euthanize sick animals rather than pay for medical treatment, for example--and I question whether keeping animal ashes in an urn by the fireplace indicates family values.

 

[Eli1]

The question of pets is difficult to answer to one who has not felt the deep love for pets, or vice versa. It is like explaining to an orphan a mother's love, or explaining to an atheist God's love. So, I think there will always be some disagreement about the want and even need for pets.

I can understand and respect this.
Many cultures do different things and despite me having a hard time understanding the West's fascination with pets, i can understand that it's part of the culture despite not knowing the fine details.

 

[GWH]

Little did I imagine that the status of pets would spark discussion under the topic of Biomedical Ethics! :^)

Moving right along, here is my suggestion for a moral issue that begins with the letter "C": Criminal Justice.

The current system of criminal justice in this country (U.S.) sometime seems to be more criminal than just. If I could, I would try to reform the system, but before sharing my idea it would be good to hear yours.

 

[Tall_Timbers]

The Bible does not specifically address this question

"You shall not murder" Exodus 20:13 covers it pretty directly, IMO.

when does a developing fetus become a human person with the God-given right to civil life so that to kill it is murder and warrants capital punishment?

At conception.

 

[Cameron143]

I have grown up with pets so I do not know a different world view. Pets do not necessarily mean one is having an empty life. Pets add substantially to life, whether one is alone or with people, and people also feel a loss when pets are gone.

Animals were very useful in America for farming and hunting. Due to specialization and advances in technology, animals are less necessary, but still enjoyed. Also, relative wealth has made it easier to provide for animals that no longer pull their weight, so to speak. They also provide protection, which seems more necessary than in times past.

 

[Eli1]

Animals were very useful in America for farming and hunting. Due to specialization and advances in technology, animals are less necessary, but still enjoyed. Also, relative wealth has made it easier to provide for animals that no longer pull their weight, so to speak. They also provide protection, which seems more necessary than in times past.

This is how animals are considered where i come from. They're used for work. So a horse or a cow and a dog are considered an investment for your life, like a house or a car, but in no way they are used as some sort of emotional toy.
Also, by domesticating animals, they lose their hunting instinct while at the same time they can attack you (the owner) for no reason other than ... they're animals and they operate on instinct.
I think i have lost count of stories in the news where pitbulls maul or kill their owners or even kill babies.
I understand that this is how the culture is and it's hard to give things up, i get that.

When i go at the beach i see many people feed seagulls. So by doing that, they annoy all the people around with their noise and their poop and they lose their ability to hunt fish.
When i go to the beach, i usually gather a bunch of rocks and when seagulls come nearby i hit the leader. The leader is the one who eats first, this is a common rule in animal kingdom. Then they all leave.
People around me see me doing this and they also did the same thing after seeing me do this.
I thought it was common sense but i guess because they are laws that put animals higher than humans, people are afraid that they're going to get a fine or something and they're okay when the seagull takes their lunch from their hands.

 

[GWH]

"You shall not murder" Exodus 20:13 covers it pretty directly, IMO.



At conception.

I appreciate your opinion but have to point out that it has been a minority view throughout history.
You say killing a fetus is murder from conception, so does that mean you want women who commit abortion punished as murderers?

 

[MsMediator]

I agree, but I do not think people should equate pet and human life. It is okay to euthanize sick animals rather than pay for medical treatment, for example--and I question whether keeping animal ashes in an urn by the fireplace indicates family values.

Yes I agree euthanasia is a humane course of action for pets, which I have had to eventually do with all of my pets. I also think it is humane for people too but I don't think it is allowed. Regarding pets, I think it is still important to prolong their life as much as possible as long as they are not suffering too much. Going to pet ownership, medical expenses should be part of the budget but I agree it should not break the family's finances. However, if someone wants to spend all their money and they do not have other obligations, I would not judge them.

 

[Lynx]

I suggest we begin discussing various moral issues in alphabetical order with Abortion.

Historically murder has been viewed as wrong and has been defined as unwarranted killing of a post-birth human being. In my own history, I grew up ignorant of fetal development and naively thought that "pro-choice" sounded like a good option, but then I began to think:

On one side of the debate are those who believe that pregnant women have the right to kill their fetuses until birth (“birthists”). On the opposite side of the issue are those who believe that fetuses have the right to live from conception (“conceptionists”).

The Bible does not specifically address this question, although two passages (EX 21:22-25 & LK 1:41-44) seem to suggest that an unborn baby should be considered a person at least by the time of quickening.

However, if a person studies fetal development, at some point he/she will probably contemplate two pictures: one of a seven-month-old fetus in the womb, and one of a seven-month-old premature but viable baby outside the womb.

This should lead one to understand that geographical location is not a valid basis for defining personhood. There is no qualitative change that occurs at birth, merely a difference in the mode of breathing and feeding.

And so a person will be led to consider the crucial question: when does a developing fetus become a human person with the God-given right to civil life so that to kill it is murder and warrants capital punishment?

So... This thread is basically another platform for you to complain at length about various things you don't like?

All the things you have mentioned so far have way too many other threads already discussing them. I don't think we need another discussion about any of these.

But complainers gonna complain, so... Carry on, I guess.