The Biblical Case for Being Pro-Choice and Funding Stem Cell Research

Genesis 2.7 says, “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” Fetuses and stem-cells, on the other hand are not breathing. And until they take their first breath, they would not be considered as being alive or having a soul as indicated by Genesis 2.7 or by the law in most states. When a baby is found dead and abandoned, the test for whether it is a homicide or a stillborn is to perform an autopsy and determine if the lungs have ever been inflated. No inflation equals no breathing equals no homicide. So, it would seem that Genesis 2.7, our legal code and I all agree on the point that Abortion and Stem Cell Research are not murder.

Christians often like to refer to God as a loving and omniscient father. But if an earthly parent sees that his or her child is in a burning house that parent will try everything in order to save that child.

On the other hand, this loving God does not step in to prevent dreadful things from happening to decent people. Did he stop 9/11 or Hitler? And yet he is touted as a loving father. There is something terribly contradictory about the basis of Christian belief.

And then of course the God of the Old Testament was dreadfully ethnocentric. He certainly favoured the Jews and was quite casual about either causing or authorizing the slaughter of their enemies, even their innocent children, babies, and babies still in their mothers' wombs.

This last activity would indicate that it is okay for God to act as an abortionist; one might therefore argue that abortion is, like slavery, murder, and rape, not so bad afterall for all these activities are condoned in the Old Covenant.

On the other hand, you better avoid bacon, shellfish, and sex during or immediately after your period. A woman is unclean at this time of the month.

Of course many of you are going to say that this is all stuff that happened in the Old Testament and as such none of it really counts since it was, afterall, pre-Jesus. Well, sorry to give you the bad news but Jesus himself showed no signs of being the first Care Bear ever.

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the prophets." Matthew 5:17 NAB

"...the scripture cannot be broken." John 10:35

He was a good and pious Jew, you know. It is ironic that a lot of Christians hate Jews.

TOM, I have not read that book but I have heard and read about it (afterall, I live in the NE buckle of the bible belt), and I have read about him. I've tried but there are some books I just can't even force myself through, like Left Behind and Lord of the Rings. Following Warren's rationale - correct me if I'm wrong - god created atheists to be atheists. They must serve some purpose in present state. Maybe just practice fodder for all the determined converters out there, who knows. We were pre-determined to be this way, and it has been our fate since before Pangea broke apart. Am I accurate?

By Warren's rationale, one thing god did to alleviate his boredom was create millions upon millions of pre-arranged marriages. Even though he doesn't (I don't believe) state it that way. And therefore "love" is nothing other than a planted signal that this is the person we are supposed to be with. Like a homing beacon. Kind of takes the romance out of it, eh? Lots of people like to think of "love" as a magical event, and not the radar beeping that you've found your target. Love and attraction as we think of it ceases, and necessarily have to be a product of god's determination, because if your DNA chain was determined LONG ago, then so were your parents -- and even the exact moment of your conception.

So perhaps ED is a way of saying "you're done", in which case Viagra will really piss it off. :heh:

But then God also knew what was going to happen in Saddan and Gomarra, and what Adam and Eve ere going to do with that apple. Why did he create them to do it and then punish for doing it? Sounds like a pretty nasty God.

OR

Maybe God did give us Free-will and he didn't know what was going to happen.

You know just because someone preaches or writes a book that is widely accepted because people like the ring to it or because it is easy for them to understand and use to support their beliefs, doesn't make it true. It's just a theory or one man's way of explaining why people should live a good life. Or just one man's way to make money from publishing a book.

All this all-knowing faith that people conjur up is put into perspective for me when I hear someone pray that God will help them win a game. They pray before everything and then declare that God has "answered their prayers" if things turn out their way. If they don't win, the prayers are soon forgotten. Or they say, God has a bigger plan. We don't know what it is right now, but one day it will be revealed to us.

That's the way they explain why God would allow an innocent, beautiful 2 yr. old die from a cancer. It's God's plan. And the baby will be in a better place, next to God. We don't have to understand why, God has a plan for all of us. Or if you listen to T.O.M's point, God knew it was going to happen long ago and there is simply nothing we can do about it.

I'd rather think he's busy winning games for his favorite team than to think that he takes beautiful babies away with horrible diseases because of his bigger plan, but both of them make me less of a believer, not more.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think Warren is any more accurate or "right" than the weatherman who said it would be 80 today. :heh: It's just that - since I couldn't make it through his book, I was seeking a better understanding of his theory.

BTW, marionettes creep me out.

Well I get your point Wheetsin, but thinking about your analogy of the weatherman's predictions, our weathermen are pretty accurate because they have some science behind their predictions. I'm afraid I don't give some of those folks that much credibility. In other words, their guess is as good as mine. I really enjoyed reading some of Shirley McLaine's books. They were very entertaining and if you are open to it, her concept of reincarnation makes a whole lot of sense. But her guess is as good as mine too.

You can't give them credibility. Or - well, certainly you can. Perhaps "shouldn't" is a better word. Blind credit in anything, from religous theories to product endorsements and everything in between, can't be a great idea. Writing a book only means you have an idea. Or we wouldn't have o many books that contradict each other. I think you and I are agreeing, but probably not in a clear way.

In a way religion (in this context of theorists, etc.) is the opposite of science. Science tries to answer "why", and tries to disprove its theories. If it fails to be able to disprove, then it will accept for consideration. Religion tries to answer "how", and then tries to prove. Few religious theorists set out with the goal of disproving their own theories.

They were very entertaining and if you are open to it, her concept of reincarnation makes a whole lot of sense. But her guess is as good as mine too.

Oh absolutely. And I would say the same thing about Erich von Däniken. Some of what he theorizes makes sense, and is definitely interesting reading, and you can gree with him, but that doesn't mean it's smart to invest.

The problem with people like Rick Warren is that many people who call themselves Christian either do not read the Bible and take these minister's sermons and books as Gospel or when they hear a quote of a verse from the Bible explained in the minister's sermons or books, they assume that the minister's interpretation is the only possible interpretation.

I wholeheartedly agree with both Wheetsin and TOM on this.

I do think that what Wheetsin said, that very few theologians try to prove that their theories are right because let's face it, they mostly cannot.

TOM speaking to the fact that many people accept books or sermons as the only possible interpretation is, I think, why some of us take exception to people who say that they "know for a fact" that some belief they have is true.

I guess that narrow mindedness is what some call "blind faith". If one is to believe with all their heart and mind that their interpretation of the Good Book is the only possibility that makes sense, then it is vital that they also understand that it may only make sense to them and not to everyone else. The fact that others have their own interpretations and beliefs shoots down the whole idea of one person making the decision to not allow the use of stem cell research or abortion for someone else. There is no scientific way to determine when a soul enters or leaves a body so that aspect at the very least, is based on an individual's beliefs.

Too bad that there are the Pat Robertsons and George Bushs who think it is perfectly okay to choose to curtail stem cell research and abortion for all of America and the rest of the free world.

To the people who believe in Adam and Eve literally: where did Cain's wife come from?

I can never get an answer to that question.

Secondly, where did people of other races come from?

I'm surprised no one would ever answer that for you. His wife was his sister. I remember years ago reading a "scientific announcement" that all people came from a common female ancestor (in this case, the journal claimed it was an ape), so there's not much dispute on this one. The gene pool has degenerated quite a bit since then, so inter-familial marriage was not only not dangerous back then, but also not uncommon. Adam and Eve lived a long time and had a lot of children, but in Jewish geneology the first son is generally the only one mentioned (which is why the Bible doesn't talk about all of the other kids).

As to other races, there is only one race, the human race. Did you hear the headline story recently about a woman who gave birth to twins, one black and one white? It's just a pigment issue.

As to other races, there is only one race, the human race. Did you hear the headline story recently about a woman who gave birth to twins, one black and one white? It's just a pigment issue.

I remember reading about that on Snopes(and yes, they verified it as true!). Both parents are from mixed families, so it's a matter of genetics.

I remember learning that physical differences between people from different parts of the world was at least in part because of adaptations to their climates.

Did you hear the headline story recently about a woman who gave birth to twins, one black and one white? It's just a pigment issue.

I saw that video, I believe it originally aired on the BBC. Quite fascinating... of course I began my college life expecting I would go into research genetics. There's not much in the genetics world that doesn't fascinate me. :rose:

I saw that video, I believe it originally aired on the BBC. Quite fascinating... of course I began my college life expecting I would go into research genetics. There's not much in the genetics world that doesn't fascinate me. :rose:

Yes, his particular case was a British woman, but of course there have been others. It is a fascinating field. I say I'm Italian in ancestry but of course none of us has a pure bloodline.

I find it particularly interesting that according to the Bible, all people have the same ancestors. It is Darwinian evolution that holds that some peoples, some cultures, are "less evolved" than others, and therefore this belief often informs "racism". And you should hear what Darwin had to say about women! Sheesh! If you're a woman and you have an inferiority complex, don't go reading his stuff.

It is Darwinian evolution that holds that some peoples, some cultures, are "less evolved" than others, and therefore this belief often informs "racism".

I have never heard that said in any of my classes, and I am getting a master's in biology. There is no such thing as "more" or "less" evolved. It isn't something you can measure. All evolution is is a change in gene or allele frequency over time and speciation based on that change. You can't look at two species and say that one is less evolved than the other. They have both evolved to fit their particular habitats and ecological niches.

Evolution has nothing to do with culture. Now, some people may use evolutionary theory to excuse their racism and bigotry, but that isn't the fault of evolution.

I have never heard that said in any of my classes, and I am getting a master's in biology. There is no such thing as "more" or "less" evolved. It isn't something you can measure. All evolution is is a change in gene or allele frequency over time and speciation based on that change. You can't look at two species and say that one is less evolved than the other. They have both evolved to fit their particular habitats and ecological niches.

Evolution has nothing to do with culture. Now, some people may use evolutionary theory to excuse their racism and bigotry, but that isn't the fault of evolution.

Then there are some things your teachers aren't telling you, or perhaps they aren't aware of themselves. Darwin is quoted as saying, about a native tribe in Tierra del Fuego, "the difference between a Tierra del Fuegian and a European is greater than between a Tierra del Fuegian and a beast." I don't think you can delve much further into racism than comparing a people to "beasts." This is just one example. Darwin was quite an elitist, a racist, and a sexist as well.