• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Would you force someone to do something to save someone else?

charlie sc

charlie sc

Well-Known Member
Trailblazer said:
It was Counseling Psychology.
It was an MA.
Click to expand...
lol, as far as I'm aware, geology is not an arts degree.

Now that you've changed it from Psychology, to Counselling Psychology, even though I asked you specifically if there was more, it appears it's not an arts degree either.

:confused:
 
Trailblazer

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
charlie sc said:
lol, as far as I'm aware, geology is not an arts degree.
Click to expand...
I said Geography, not Geology.
charlie sc said:
Now that you've changed it from Psychology, to Counselling Psychology, even though I asked you specifically if there was more, it appears it's not an arts degree either.
Click to expand...
I did not know what you mean by "more." More what?
My degree was an MA in Counseling Psychology. That was back in 1994.
That University does not offer the same degree anymore.
Now they only offer a MA in Marriage and Family Counseling.
 
charlie sc

charlie sc

Well-Known Member
Trailblazer said:
I said Geography, not Geology.

I did not know what you mean by "more." More what?
My degree was an MA in Counseling Psychology. That was back in 1994.
That University does not offer the same degree anymore.
Now they only offer a MA in Marriage and Family Counseling.
Click to expand...
Ok cool. Lots of arts degrees. The link you gave is not worthy of being read. Wiki has more references and are more varying. Thanks
Learn the difference between a personal website and a published article. If you want, you can even give wiki.
 
Cooky

Cooky

Veteran Member
Trailblazer said:
I said Geography, not Geology.

I did not know what you mean by "more." More what?
My degree was an MA in Counseling Psychology. That was back in 1994.
That University does not offer the same degree anymore.
Now they only offer a MA in Marriage and Family Counseling.
Click to expand...

I like your cattitude.
 
Trailblazer

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
charlie sc said:
Ok cool. Lots of arts degrees. The link you gave is not worthy of being read. Wiki has more references and are more varying. Thanks
Learn the difference between a personal website and a published article. If you want, you can even give wiki.
Click to expand...
Here is the Wiki website:

Many members of the medical community accept fertilization as the point at which life begins. Dr. Bradley M. Patten from the University of Michigan wrote in Human Embryology that the union of the sperm and the ovum "initiates the life of a new individual" beginning "a new individual life history." In the standard college text book Psychology and Life, Dr. Floyd L. Ruch wrote "At the time of conception, two living germ cells—the sperm from the father and the egg, or ovum, from the mother—unite to produce a new individual." Dr. Herbert Ratner wrote that "It is now of unquestionable certainty that a human being comes into existence precisely at the moment when the sperm combines with the egg." This certain knowledge, Ratner says, comes from the study of genetics. At fertilization, all of the genetic characteristics, such as the color of the eyes, "are laid down determinatively." James C. G. Conniff noted the prevalence of the above views in a study published by The New York Times Magazine in which he wrote, "At that moment conception takes place and, scientists generally agree, a new life begins—silent, secret, unknown."[10]

The view that life begins at fertilization reached acceptance from mainstream sources at one point. In 1967, New York City school officials launched a large sex education program. The fifth grade textbook stated "Human life begins when the sperm cells of the father and the egg cells of the mother unite. This union is referred to as fertilization. For fertilization to take place and a baby to begin growing, the sperm cell must come in direct contact with the egg cell." Similarly, a textbook used in Evanston, Illinois stated: "Life begins when a sperm cell and an ovum (egg cell) unite."[11] Catholic philosopher Peter Kreeft goes so far as to say:[12]

This is widely accepted still today and has been verified by the scientific community.

Beginning of human personhood - Wikipedia
 
Trailblazer

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
charlie sc said:
Learn the difference between a personal website and a published article. If you want, you can even give wiki.
Click to expand...
Here is another article:

Life - when does it begin?

Human Life comes into existence in just a fraction of an instant. You have a human egg and a human sperm and their sole purpose in life is to meet each other and fuse, to create a one cell human being.

Within this single cell there is an elaborate and complete plan for development.

What do the experts say?

"The American College of Pediatricians concurs with the body of scientific evidence that human life begins at conception - fertilization…. Scientific and medical discoveries over the past three decades have only verified and solidified this age-old truth. At the completion of the process of fertilization, the human creature emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop. The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is not one of personhood but of development. The Mission of the American College of Pediatricians is to enable all children to reach their optimal physical and emotional health and well-being from the moment of conception."
When Human Life Begins, American College of Pediatricians, March 2004

"After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being...[this] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion, it is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence...." - Dr Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics at the University of Descartes, Paris, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down's Syndrome, and Nobel Prize Winner, Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"An individual human life begins at conception when a sperm cell from the father fuses with an egg cell from the mother, to form a new cell, the zygote, the first embryonic stage. The zygote grows and divides into two daughter cells, each of which grows and divides into two grand-daughter cells, and this cell growth/division process continues on, over and over again. The zygote is the start of a biological continuum that automatically grows and develops, passing gradually and sequentially through the stages we call foetus, baby, child, adult, old person and ending eventually in death. The full genetic instructions to guide the development of the continuum, in interaction with its environment, are present in the zygote. Every stage along the continuum is biologically human and each point along the continuum has the full human properties appropriate to that point."
Dr. William Reville, University College Cork, Ireland. Quote from a letter to the Irish Independent.

Well now, that didn't take long, here I am 3 days old, all bright, new and shiny

... And from the literature...

"Development begins at fertilization when a sperm fuses with an ovum to form a zygote; this cell is the beginning of a new human being."
Moore, Keith L., The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, page 12, W.B. Saunders Co., 2003

"In that fraction of a second when the chromosomes form pairs, the sex of the new child will be determined, hereditary characteristics received from each parent will be set, and a new life will have begun."
Kaluger, G., and Kaluger, M., Human Development: The Span of Life, page 28-29, The C.V. Mosby Co., 1974

"A new individual is created when the elements of a potent sperm merge with those of a fertile ovum."
Encyclopedia Britannica, "Pregnancy," page 968, 15th Edition, Chicago 1974

"Development begins with fertilization, the process by which the male gamete, the sperm, and the femal gamete, the oocyte, unite to give rise to a zygote."
T.W. Sadler, Langman's Medical Embryology, 10th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2006. p. 11

""Although life is a continuous process, fertilization (which, incidentally, is not a 'moment') is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte."
Ronan O'Rahilly and Fabiola Müller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

upload_2019-6-30_17-54-5.png


Human embryo in the amniotic sac at 40 days, showing the umbilical cord and the early development of the head, eyes, feet, and hands.

References and Sources


When Does Life Begin | Just The Facts
 
Last edited:
Neutral Name

Neutral Name

Active Member
There is so much that can be said about this question. The most important thing to me is that "Christians" use the "you shall not kill" commandment to say that abortion is wrong yet these same people, in the past, killed abortion doctors. This is the hypocrisy of many "Christians".
 
Kilk1

Kilk1

Member
Trailblazer said:
Baha'is believe that a former Dispensation ends whenever God sends a new Manifestation of God (also referred to a Messenger or a Prophet). We believe that Moses was a Manifestation of God, so when Jesus appeared the Dispensation of Moses ended. Likewise, when Muhammad appeared, the Dispensation of Jesus ended, and when Baha'u'llah appeared the Dispensation of Muhammad ended.

The idea is that only one Dispensation can be in force at any given time in history, but that does not invalidate any of the Dispensations that came before, as they will always be the Truth from God, since they were revealed by God.

"Beware, O believers in the Unity of God, lest ye be tempted to make any distinction between any of the Manifestations of His Cause, or to discriminate against the signs that have accompanied and proclaimed their Revelation. This indeed is the true meaning of Divine Unity, if ye be of them that apprehend and believe this truth. Be ye assured, moreover, that the works and acts of each and every one of these Manifestations of God, nay whatever pertaineth unto them, and whatsoever they may manifest in the future, are all ordained by God, and are a reflection of His Will and Purpose. Whoso maketh the slightest possible difference between their persons, their words, their messages, their acts and manners, hath indeed disbelieved in God, hath repudiated His signs, and betrayed the Cause of His Messengers.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 59-60
Click to expand...

Okay, now I better understand. I agree about Moses. He himself said, "The LORD your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your midst, from your brethren. Him you shall hear" (Deut. 18:15, NKJV). It was prophesied in Jeremiah 31:31-32 of God saying there would be a new covenant—"not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt [i.e., the old covenant given to Moses], My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD."

This new covenant would replace the old one. The passage in Jeremiah about a new covenant is referenced in the New Testament, in Hebrews 8:7-13, and the point is made that because "He says, 'A new covenant,' He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away." When Jesus came to die for man's sin, He instituted the Lord's Supper. He said of the cup, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood" (1 Cor. 11:23-26, emphasis mine). His death was necessary to ratify the new covenant, as is the case with all testaments (Heb. 9:16-17).

Here's a question I have: What if a Manifestation of God teaches that he and those with him have delivered the truth once for all and that any messengers that teach anything different are accursed? Would this be a final dispensation?
 
Trailblazer

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Kilk1 said:
Okay, now I better understand. I agree about Moses. He himself said, "The LORD your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your midst, from your brethren. Him you shall hear" (Deut. 18:15, NKJV). It was prophesied in Jeremiah 31:31-32 of God saying there would be a new covenant—"not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt [i.e., the old covenant given to Moses], My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD."

This new covenant would replace the old one. The passage in Jeremiah about a new covenant is referenced in the New Testament, in Hebrews 8:7-13, and the point is made that because "He says, 'A new covenant,' He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away." When Jesus came to die for man's sin, He instituted the Lord's Supper. He said of the cup, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood" (1 Cor. 11:23-26, emphasis mine). His death was necessary to ratify the new covenant, as is the case with all testaments (Heb. 9:16-17).
Click to expand...
I am with you so far, and I agree, this is what happened.
Kilk1 said:
Here's a question I have: What if a Manifestation of God teaches that he and those with him have delivered the truth once for all and that any messengers that teach anything different are accursed? Would this be a final dispensation?
Click to expand...
If a Manifestation of God said he had delivered the truth once and for all, we would have to believe Him, but no Manifestation of God ever said that His Revelation was final. If the scriptures are understood correctly, each Manifestation of God prophesied the coming of another. Jesus said:

John 16:12-13 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

Please note the similarity between these verses below.

Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

Galatians 1:8-9 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

Moses said that nothing could be added yet the New Testament is what Moses prophesied. So what do these verses mean? They mean that nothing should be added to the scriptures of those Prophets once they have been finalized. Nothing should be added to the Old Testament or the New Testament.

The New Testament was not an addition to the Old Testament, it was a New Testament.
There is only one gospel, the gospel of Jesus Christ, and nothing should ever be added to the gospel, nor should anyone preach another gospel. However, the Qur'an and the Writings of Baha'u'llah are not another gospel, they are separate Revelations from God, just as the Revelation of Moses was separate from the Revelation of Jesus Christ.

Each new Revelation from God supersedes the former Revelation and abrogates the previous Dispensation.
 
Last edited:
Kilk1

Kilk1

Member
charlie sc said:
Indeed, but I'm unsure if it's even indirectly killing. If we were to rephrase and say if you removed yourself from it, is it still indirectly killing? All I've done here is move the words around but the scenario is still the same. Let's think of a more human scenario. Let's assume someone is depressed and they say to their girlfriend that they'll kill themselves if they leave. The girlfriend, or partner, leaves. This person who said they'll commit suicide now commits suicide. Is the partner indirectly killing them?
Click to expand...
In this case, I agree with you. If a boyfriend threatens to kill himself if his girlfriend leaves, she isn't killing him by leaving; he's the one killing himself. In our other scenarios, however (and in abortion), the one dying has no control over what happens. Furthermore, the more you think about it, how much do these hypothetical scenarios resemble abortion anyway? More on this below.

charlie sc said:
Consider then, in what hypothetical its amoral and immoral. And, which of these are deemed worthy of punishment or enforceable responsibility.
Click to expand...
I'm a little confused whether you're asking me a question, you're telling me to draw the line between amoral and immoral, or something else. A person who'd let go of someone who's grabbing onto their arm and is about to fall off a cliff, either has no regard for morals (i.e., is amoral) or is simply evil (immoral). Really, neither is good, and I'd group them both outside what is moral.

charlie sc said:
Kinda. There may be implicitly implied morals. For instance, living among other people, we have all implicitly agreed, even if we know it or not, not do unnecessary harm unto other people. Nonetheless, I don't know of any implicitly implied morals where one person has to save another. To be fair, I can think of extreme situations where this applies and ones agreed upon before hand. However, having these kind of enforceable morals opens up a can of worms. One I can think of is it makes a necessarily voluntary and self-rewarding act now compulsory. I can think of numerous bad consequences of this.

Interesting, but would you enforce someone to save you or someone else? Want/expect and enforcing behaviour are two different things.
Click to expand...

Should choosing not to save someone be illegal? To be honest, I don't know, at least not right now; it may depend on the circumstance. However, I've been thinking about our hypotheticals, and the more I think about them, the more I doubt they're sufficiently parallel to abortion anyway. Would you agree that most abortion procedures better parallel me directly, actively killing a leech than simply barring it from my nutrients? Would you agree that most of the following qualifies as direct killing?


charlie sc said:
Sure, let's start it up again. ;)
Click to expand...
After considering the hypothetical scenarios more, it may not be a worldview-wide disagreement. But if you still want to resume our discussion, just reply to my last response in that old thread, and we'll be good to go!
 
C

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
Trailblazer said:
I would agree. Abortion is taking a human life. Therefore, abortion is murder. :(
Click to expand...
This is why I find the word murder unhelpful to the discussion. It's just too subjective. Which killings are murder varies from place to place and person to person. So, the most objective definition of murder is deliberate extralegal killings. But laws vary as well.
At the moment, in the USA, the huge majority of abortions are legal.
Tom
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top