In Perspective.

[exxxys]

The following is an example, Goddess Forbid anyone come down with cancer


Mary is sick. Mary has cancer. It's fully operable, they just need to go in a remove a tiny tumour from her lung. With proper chemo and treatment, Mary should make a full recovery. But with one obstacle.

Many Christian groups are now AGAINST the removal of tumours and other growth in the human body. After all, a tumour is a thing inside your body, living off of your nutrients, has all of your DNA, and is essentially a living being.

These groups want to stop Mary from removing the tumour from her body, because it is alive.

^This is fiction, I don't know of any Christian groups who are agaisnt the removal of tumours. However, what happened to all life being sacred, be it cancerous or not?

If all life is sacred, why not this tumour?


BTW-I'm pro choice, just to clear up the issue of me here.

 

[JudyB1169]

Ohmygosh! You are joking right??? Tumors were not created in God's image, babies are. Common sense would see this. Is this a trick thread???

 

[exxxys]

Nope, I'm not joking.

Tumours are created from humans. From our DNA. Doesn't that make them in OUR image, who in turn, comes from God's image (I personally don't believe this, but that's for a different debate)?

 

[JudyB1169]

No, it doesn't. It doesn't have eyes, nose, a brain, a heart, a SPIRIT and was not died for. That, the way I see, is what "image" means. Not sure what else to add...so I won't!

*I realize Christ did not die for Himself...

 

[exxxys]

Tumours often contain teeth, cartilage, bone, hair... etc.

Just like a baby.

 

[JudyB1169]

Actually yes, dermoid cysts. They are pretty cool! But, I digress. the point I am trying to get across is that humans have a brain, cysts do not and thus do not have the ability to choose life or death. This is what separates us from lumps of this or that. This is what Christ died for. Now, you may mention those in a vegetative state, but they were not always in that state, and thus, HAD the ability to make spiritual decisions about their future and whatnot.

 

[exxxys]

But what happens when the fundamentalist, or whoever decide that tumours are living, so why not do away with their removal? Why not let them continue?

You may say "Tumour kill, children don't". But children born into broken homes, or left to fend for themselves in the foster care system, become damaged beyond repair more often than not.

 

[Hentenza]

Nope, I'm not joking.

Tumours are created from humans. From our DNA. Doesn't that make them in OUR image, who in turn, comes from God's image (I personally don't believe this, but that's for a different debate)?

A tumor, if left alone, will NOT grow to be a human being. Nuff said.

 

[exxxys]

So? It is still alive.

 

[Hentenza]

So? It is still alive.

If it is benign yes but if it is not then it will kill the person. Tumors are not children.

 

[exxxys]

As I have mentioned before, children raised in abusive homes or foster care often become incredibly violent.

At this point in my life, if I were to become pregnant, I feel I would have no choice but to abort. I have nothing to offer a child, and I wouldn't want them going through the foster care system.

Hopefully in their next life, their parents would be able to give them more.

 

[Hentenza]

As I have mentioned before, children raised in abusive homes or foster care often become incredibly violent.

At this point in my life, if I were to become pregnant, I feel I would have no choice but to abort. I have nothing to offer a child, and I wouldn't want them going through the foster care system.

Hopefully in their next life, their parents would be able to give them more.

You are only 15 so, you are right, don't become pregnant. You will have much more to give them later on in life.

BTW- Many children raised in abusive homes do not become violent.

 

[Eleveness]

No, it doesn't. It doesn't have eyes, nose, a brain, a heart, a SPIRIT and was not died for. That, the way I see, is what "image" means.

A zygote (i.e. a single-celled fertilized egg with full human DNA) doesn't yet have eyes, nose, a brain, etc. and yet pro-life people constantly argue that such a cell is still a human life.

A tumor is much more a human life than a zygote. Why do you not rise to the defense of a tumor?

Remember that approximately half of all pregnancies end in miscarriage, so there is no guarantee that a zygote will develop into a baby (as another poster tried to claim). If it is possible to quantify an entity's potential to be a human being, it may very well turn out that a tumor has more potential than a fertilized egg (given the likelihood that the egg will die). How can it be, then, that pro-life people are so eager to kill tumors, but protect zygotes? (And yes, this is a serious question, I'm not trolling, etc.)

 

[Hentenza]

A zygote (i.e. a single-celled fertilized egg with full human DNA) doesn't yet have eyes, nose, a brain, etc. and yet pro-life people constantly argue that such a cell is still a human life.

A tumor is much more a human life than a zygote. Why do you not rise to the defense of a tumor?

Remember that approximately half of all pregnancies end in miscarriage, so there is no guarantee that a zygote will develop into a baby (as another poster tried to claim). If it is possible to quantify an entity's potential to be a human being, it may very well turn out that a tumor has more potential than a fertilized egg (given the likelihood that the egg will die). How can it be, then, that pro-life people are so eager to kill tumors, but protect zygotes? (And yes, this is a serious question, I'm not trolling, etc.)

Because a zygote has all of the DNA necessary to develop into a human being while a tumor does not.

 

[Eleveness]

As I have mentioned before, children raised in abusive homes or foster care often become incredibly violent.

At this point in my life, if I were to become pregnant, I feel I would have no choice but to abort. I have nothing to offer a child, and I wouldn't want them going through the foster care system.

This adds an entirely new dimension to the debate on abortion, and raises an excellent point: What of the already-living?

One can easily argue that a newborn baby negatively impacts the lives of those who were born before the baby; for instance, raising the baby will consume resources (particularly money) that could have been spent on others who are already alive. If there were plenty of money to go around, then this would not be a problem, but what if the money and other resources could not be spared?

In such a case, raising and caring for the newborn would come at a cost to the already-living, particularly the mother. What if those who were already alive do not wish to devote resources to taking care of the new baby? After all, those resources are owned by them; if we were to seize their resources, or otherwise dictate how those resources are to be spent, such would be a breach of property rights.

I hold that we have no right to dictate how the resources (e.g. money) of another person are spent. Not only does this apply to the resources in the bloodstream of the pregnant mother (e.g. oxygen and nutrients), but this also applies to the financial resources of those who would have to underwrite the development of the baby.

Now, one can argue that if a woman chooses not to have an abortion, then such a decision implies that she has earmarked certain resources for the development of her child. In this case, she would be morally bound to spend those resources (both the time and the money) on the care of the new baby, and if she were to fail in her duty, she would be guilty of infanticide. This only highlights the importance of the option of abortion: If a woman has the option of abortion but chooses against it, she is obligated to care for the child; but if she never had the option of abortion in the first place, she has an "out" when called upon to care for the baby.

 

[Eleveness]

Because a zygote has all of the DNA necessary to develop into a human being while a tumor does not.

Hmm, perhaps my understanding of a tumor is flawed, then. Unfortunately, the Wikipedia article "tumor" does not comment on the DNA present in a tumor.

However, the Wikipedia article regarding "cancer" (I cannot link it since I haven't yet posted 50 comments):
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer
reads in part: "Cancer (medical term: malignant neoplasm) is a class of diseases in which a group of cells display uncontrolled growth (division beyond the normal limits), invasion (intrusion on and destruction of adjacent tissues), and sometimes metastasis (spread to other locations in the body via lymph or blood)." This seems to imply that cancer comes from pre-existing cells--which have full DNA.

Now, I understand that there is a difference between a tumor and cancer. Perhaps the original poster should have been more precise regarding whether the tumor contained full DNA (since not all tumors do, as you have pointed out).

The commentary of a true medical doctor (since my knowledge of medicine is quite limited) would be much appreciated at this point.

 

[Hentenza]

This adds an entirely new dimension to the debate on abortion, and raises an excellent point: What of the already-living?

One can easily argue that a newborn baby negatively impacts the lives of those who were born before the baby; for instance, raising the baby will consume resources (particularly money) that could have been spent on others who are already alive. If there were plenty of money to go around, then this would not be a problem, but what if the money and other resources could not be spared?

In such a case, raising and caring for the newborn would come at a cost to the already-living, particularly the mother. What if those who were already alive do not wish to devote resources to taking care of the new baby? After all, those resources are owned by them; if we were to seize their resources, or otherwise dictate how those resources are to be spent, such would be a breach of property rights.

I hold that we have no right to dictate how the resources (e.g. money) of another person are spent. Not only does this apply to the resources in the bloodstream of the pregnant mother (e.g. oxygen and nutrients), but this also applies to the financial resources of those who would have to underwrite the development of the baby.

Now, one can argue that if a woman chooses not to have an abortion, then such a decision implies that she has earmarked certain resources for the development of her child. In this case, she would be morally bound to spend those resources (both the time and the money) on the care of the new baby, and if she were to fail in her duty, she would be guilty of infanticide. This only highlights the importance of the option of abortion: If a woman has the option of abortion but chooses against it, she is obligated to care for the child; but if she never had the option of abortion in the first place, she has an "out" when called upon to care for the baby.

Actually the woman made the choice when she decided to have sex with the knowledge that she could get pregnant.

 

[Eleveness]

Actually the woman made the choice when she decided to have sex with the knowledge that she could get pregnant.

There are reasons for wanting to have sex besides procreation.

While it is true that lesser animals have sex solely for procreation, there are additional reasons that humans may wish to have sex that are rooted in the differences between humans and lesser animals. Other animals are not capable of love (not mere affection, infatuation or lust, but true love), while humans are.

When two people love each other, they seek to express their love for each other as best they can. Sex is, by far, the best way for two people to accomplish this. To deny two lovers sex is to cripple--unnecessarily, in my opinion--their capacity to communicate their love for each other.

It is certainly possible that two people may wish to express their love without wishing to conceive a child. Various forms of contraception are available to fulfill this wish, but they may fail. It's even possible for a vasectomy to fail. (I suppose a hysterectomy--i.e. surgical removal of the uterus--is an absolute prevention of conception, but to suggest that a woman who does not wish to conceive should have a hysterectomy is a bit much, in my opinion.)

If we outlaw abortions, we may as well outlaw love, since sex is the natural expression for love (and since conception is always a possibility when a man and woman have sex, unless the woman has had a hysterectomy). Why not accommodate something as quintessentially human as true love as best we can?

 

[Hentenza]

There are reasons for wanting to have sex besides procreation.

While it is true that lesser animals have sex solely for procreation, there are additional reasons that humans may wish to have sex that are rooted in the differences between humans and lesser animals. Other animals are not capable of love (not mere affection, infatuation or lust, but true love), while humans are.

When two people love each other, they seek to express their love for each other as best they can. Sex is, by far, the best way for two people to accomplish this. To deny two lovers sex is to cripple--unnecessarily, in my opinion--their capacity to communicate their love for each other.

It is certainly possible that two people may wish to express their love without wishing to conceive a child. Various forms of contraception are available to fulfill this wish, but they may fail. It's even possible for a vasectomy to fail. (I suppose a hysterectomy--i.e. surgical removal of the uterus--is an absolute prevention of conception, but to suggest that a woman who does not wish to conceive should have a hysterectomy is a bit much, in my opinion.)

If we outlaw abortions, we may as well outlaw love, since sex is the natural expression for love (and since conception is always a possibility when a man and woman have sex, unless the woman has had a hysterectomy). Why not accommodate something as quintessentially human as true love as best we can?

There is no greatest love than that of a child. People that kill children for convenience are robbed of this love. Also, this sets a precedence that one can get rid of the unwanted. If we continue to allow abortion for an unwanted pregnancy, we will be destroying vast numbers of children who, by the time of their birth and through their childhood, would have been very dearly wanted and deeply loved children.

 

[Eleveness]

There is no greatest love than that of a child. People that kill children for convenience are robbed of this love. Also, this sets a precedence that one can get rid of the unwanted. If we continue to allow abortion for an unwanted pregnancy, we will be destroying vast numbers of children who, by the time of their birth and through their childhood, would have been very dearly wanted and deeply loved children.

For some, there are more pressing matters than the love of another--matters such as survival. If a newborn baby would make it more difficult for the potential mother to survive, we cannot in good conscience force the mother to carry the fetus to term. Newborn babies are not necessarily wanted or loved, particularly if they present too great a burden on already strained resources.

I have already spent some paragraphs discussing the impact that a baby may have on limited resources; see my post that begins, "This adds an entirely new dimension to the debate on abortion, and raises an excellent point: What of the already-living?"