PART 8:

THOUGHT PROVOKING QUESTIONS THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED; WITH OUR RESPONSES

Sponsored link.

Interesting Emails discussed in this essay:

Is a fetus human?:

Incoming E-mail: There are studies that have shown that the level of adrenaline in a fetus' body and its heart rate increase during an abortion. This shows that they can feel fear quite early in gestation. Does this not prove that they are human?

Our response: No matter what the stage of pregnancy, a newborn, fetus, embryo and pre-embryo are definitely all human life. That is, they are alive. Unlike viruses, ova, spermatozoa, they meet all of the scientific requirements to be classified as a form of life. Also, their cells contain human DNA. So they are definitely human life.

The question underlying many of the abortion debates is when human life, in the form of a just-fertilized ovum becomes a human being. People have a great diversity of belief on this critical matter. Some people feel that it happens:

People have made cases for all of these as being the appropriate time for the transition from human life to human personhood.

There have been reports of an increase in adrenaline and an increase in heartbeat rate by a fetus in early gestation during invasive procedures. But researchers -- at last those who are not pro-lifers -- generally attribute these to automatic processes within the fetus. The fetus only becomes conscious at about 26 weeks; that is when the higher brain functions first turn on, so that the fetus can become genuinely aware of its surroundings, and might be able to feel fear, pain, etc.

Only about 1% of all abortions are done in the third trimester -- usually in cases of severe genetic malformation of the fetus or in a crisis situation. Common medical practice is to anesthetize the fetus so that it cannot feel pain, if there is any chance that it's higher brain functions are functioning at the time.

Compulsory or ethically bound parenthood:

Incoming E-mail: When does a couple choose to have a child? Contraception methods occasionally fail. When they engage in protected sexual intercourse, they both know that there is a remote possibility that a conception will occur. Haven't they already made the choice to possibly have a baby at that time?

Our response: Let's take an example. Imagine a couple whose relationship has developed to the point where they want to engage in sexual activity, but haven't yet decided to make a lifetime commitment to each other. Or suppose that they are committed to each other, they are not in a situation where they cannot afford the time, effort and/or money to have a child at this time. They engage in intercourse. Having no desire to have a child together, the woman takes birth control pills, the man uses a condom and they use a spermicide. But somehow, in spite of the odds, conception occurs. The woman discusses the situation with her boyfriend, with her physician, and perhaps her spiritual adviser. She might decide that the least worse option is to have an early abortion.

We can ask whether the couple is ethically bound to continue the pregnancy. Alternatively, we can ask whether the state should step in and prevent the woman from terminating the pregnancy and forcing her to continue the pregnancy until childbirth.

As in so many abortion-related questions, the answers depend on when one feels that human life, in the form of a just-fertilized ovum becomes a human person.

So it all comes back to when human life becomes a human person. And that is an irresolvable dilemma over which a consensus appears impossible.

Opposed to the CE/BCE notation:

Incoming E-mail: Removing A.D. from the date is just another example of 1st John 4.3 the spirit of the anti-Christ. The anti-Christ will put himself above God and claim himself to be god.

Our response: That is certainly one way of looking at it. But there is a funny thing about matters like this. One can choose a different starting point and end up with an entirely different conclusion.

Consider Jesus' prime directive: to love each other and to love God. Couple this with the Good Samaritan parable, and it is clear that "each other" means every human on earth. Then there is the Golden Rule which commands everyone to treat everyone else in a decent manner. That includes non-Christians. It includes Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Wiccans, Zoroastrians and followers of a few hundred other religions.

To better judge what this implies, imagine being a member of one of these non-Christian religions, and being faced with the notations AD (which is an abbreviation of Anno Domine; Latin for "Year of the Lord"), and BC (which is an abbreviation for "Before Christ"). The use of these notations forces one to acknowledge that Yeshua of Nazareth (Jesus) is both God and Christ, the Messiah. Imagine how you would feel. It can cause a member of one of these religions as much pain to be forced to acknowledge that Yeshua is God and the Messiah as it can for a Christian to deny that Yeshua is God and the Messiah.

Then go back and read the prime directive, Good Samaritan and Golden Rule and see if you really want to use AD and BC in the future.

I would hope that you would not.

Copyright © 2005 by Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance
Originally written: 2005-AUG-27
Latest update: 2005-MAY-07
Author: B.A. Robinson