I did not say one should blame him.. What Stu claims is that valuing one life over the other is evil, and that he does not value one life over the other. I made few examples to prove him wrong, where he would brake the rule and do value one life over the other....

Cause I would harvest all your other organs and sell them to needy people in order to have enough money buy the pretty cocktail waitress a fur coat instead of a shrimp cocktail. You simply wouldn't wake up and I would have blue body parts.

Of course I am making a bad joke....only Sklansky will remember fekali and I doubt he will read this thread.

what about the other half of the holy book , the old testament.. Does the old testament "teaches us that all life has intrinsic value, and that human life is not ours to take. "?

No? Lot of potential human beings have just been exterminated.

NOBODY gives a flying f about the value of a human life. Not even God. There's just this"protect the fetus" thing and nobody looks into whether this kid will be healthy, will get a fair chance in society, will it suffer more rather than enjoy life. "Value of a human life" is just an empty statement designed to make the ones using it look as if they are more humanistic. Why don't you first make sure that everybody has in fact equal opportunity in life or meet some broadly accepted minimal criteria before before denying women their rights in favor of their unborn children?

Why not? In both cases you deny somebody a life. And the church does frown upon birth control, so the church seems to agree, the Catholtic one that is.

No, I wouldn't agree. I don't know that the NT ever says anything clearly relevant to discussions about the moral status of the embryo.

What makes it the woman's right? And since when has the government cared about that?

Now wait a second. I didn't say anything about the status of the embryo. I said the NT makes it clear that human life has intrinsic value.

Do you disagree with that statement?

would you call , life after death "life" ?

It's her body, end of story. You like it or not, it is her body, she has the right to manipulate it however she wants to. It's not like you shoved a mini baby up her vag and that baby is your properteh.

There are elections that get decided b/c of topics like that.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "human life."

Great question. Yes I would.

Maybe you can clarify on what different forms of interpretation one could make of "human life"

in that case, killing someone is not really ending life...

I wonder, if Christians truly believe in life after death, and that life is so great and amazing, then why are they so against ending life of a 3 month old fetus which will grow to a (for example) paralyzed adult , or a human that will require constant medical attention, or a child that would have to grow up in violence and environment where starvation and disease is a given... Wouldn't letting these kids die be actually doing good for them? preventing suffering?

It makes more sense for life to be very precious if it was only once and here on earth...but since Christians believe in infinite life after death then what's the problem of killing babies in order to prevent them from suffering?

Primarily, I'm not sure if you mean the biological definition of "life" or the legal/moral definition of "person."

Edit: I'm going to be away from my computer for a bit, so I'll pick this up later.

How can you know that these would be the outcomes?

Catholicism, according to their interpretations of the bible, says Yahweh killed and ordered the killing of pregnant women. So Catholicism says abortion is acceptable if God does or orders it.

I got no idea, i'm not the one claiming that there is life after death and that life is infinite. Those who make these claims on the other hand don't act as if they truly believe in it since they try to act as if every life on earth is extremely precious , while knowing that in their reality there is no end of life... Life continues after this one...

I want to step back for a second. I want to make sure that we agree that it is a defensible position to state that the NT says human life has intrinsic value even if we just use a broad sense of the term. Because if we do not agree on that, then the definition of "human life" really doesn't matter.

Are you saying that only the NT has the right definition of a human life?

How much value does a human life in hell actually has , the life that is constantly exposed to pain and suffering which would continue for infinity? Would anyone chose life in hell over the end of their own existence? Would you like to suffer for infinity or rather seize to exist?

You'd be surprised...

But back to your original point. I'll ask you again a question I asked awhile back. I have a friend who needs a new kidney - otherwise they will die. It's not important how I know, but it turns out that you are the only match on Earth. Either you donate a kidney, or my friend dies. Must you donate?

Would the religious guys here agree that a fetus doesn't give a **** if it lives or dies or that at least it's ability to care about it or suffer is extremely small? If the fetus doesn't care and the mother doesn't want it, who are you protecting by preventing the woman from getting an abortion?

To the person who says, “personally, I am against abortion, but then, if people want to do it, I leave them free,” you could say, “you are a member of the Senate or the Congress; personally, I am not in favour of shooting the whole lot of you, but if someone else wants to shoot all of you in the Senate or all of you in Congress, it’s just pro-choice for that! But personally, I’m not in favour…

- Cardinal Arinze