I'm not "avoiding"--it is an irrelevant point you are trying to interject. What ifs are only useful if there is an actual possibility--by not having egg meet sperm, no "individual human being" is killed.
No, you really haven't answered my question. AL you've said so far is that potential lives are irrelevant. But think about it. What would you be doing right now if your concetion had never happened? You wouldn't even exist! And that would suck, wouldn't it? Wouldn't you rather exist than not exist?
Now imagine if you were used for stem cell research and destroyed. You would go on to the afterlife, right? And that would certainly be better than non-existence, wouldn't it?
In terms of the question of creating human life and then killing human life...it makes a HUGE difference. Again--we're back to the flaw in your premise.
What is the flaw in my premise? I don't understand what you're saying. I think my point is very simple: It is better to be killed and go to the afterlife than to not exist at all. Do you disagree with this statement?
It's all irrelevant. My position on barrier methods does not condemn them because they disrespect the sperm and eggs--they disrespect the marital relationship and in doing so subtly demean the human person....which then leaks into the way we view others and effects society at large. But the "potential lives?" Irrelevant.
How can you say that the potential lives are irrelevant? I feel more sympathy toward them than I do toward embryos used forstem cell research because at least stem cell victims have a purpose to their life. But the potential humans never even get a chance to exist. Barrier contraception prevents a life from happening. Stem cell research creates a purposeful life and then destroys it. I'm not seeing the difference between the two because they both prevent life.
I'm not "avoiding"--it is an irrelevant point you are trying to interject. What ifs are only useful if there is an actual possibility--by not having egg meet sperm, no "individual human being" is killed.
No, you really haven't answered my question. AL you've said so far is that potential lives are irrelevant. But think about it. What would you be doing right now if your concetion had never happened? You wouldn't even exist! And that would suck, wouldn't it? Wouldn't you rather exist than not exist?
Now imagine if you were used for stem cell research and destroyed. You would go on to the afterlife, right? And that would certainly be better than non-existence, wouldn't it?
No--with an abortion being the cause of your "not living"--you lived as an individual human being for a period of time and then that life was taken away from you by another's purposeful action that caused your DEATH. YOU never existed if "you" weren't conceived--"your death" can't occur because you never "lived."
EXACTLY!!!! I would prefer number 1 over number 2! I would rather live and die (even if only for a short time) than not exist at all.
It's all irrelevant. My position on barrier methods does not condemn them because they disrespect the sperm and eggs--they disrespect the marital relationship and in doing so subtly demean the human person....which then leaks into the way we view others and effects society at large. But the "potential lives?" Irrelevant.
How can you say that the potential lives are irrelevant? I feel more sympathy toward them than I do toward embryos used forstem cell research because at least stem cell victims have a purpose to their life. But the potential humans never even get a chance to exist. Barrier contraception prevents a life from happening. Stem cell research creates a purposeful life and then destroys it. I'm not seeing the difference between the two because they both prevent life.
I'm not "avoiding"--it is an irrelevant point you are trying to interject. What ifs are only useful if there is an actual possibility--by not having egg meet sperm, no "individual human being" is killed.
No, you really haven't answered my question. AL you've said so far is that potential lives are irrelevant. But think about it. What would you be doing right now if your concetion had never happened? You wouldn't even exist! And that would suck, wouldn't it? Wouldn't you rather exist than not exist?
Now imagine if you were used for stem cell research and destroyed. You would go on to the afterlife, right? And that would certainly be better than non-existence, wouldn't it?
God is justice. Perhaps this is another reason why barrier methods are immoral. Personally, potential humans don't get stopped from happening in my family--I don't have sex when I'm fertile. I let God handle my fertility and I act in accord with his design.
Actually, potential humans do get stopped in your family. Every time you have sex (or your partner masturbates) there are sperm that are killed. These all represent human beings that could have existed had there been an egg there to be fertilized. Every time sperm dies, potential lives lose their possibility for existence.
It's all irrelevant. My position on barrier methods does not condemn them because they disrespect the sperm and eggs--they disrespect the marital relationship and in doing so subtly demean the human person....which then leaks into the way we view others and effects society at large. But the "potential lives?" Irrelevant.
How can you say that the potential lives are irrelevant? I feel more sympathy toward them than I do toward embryos used forstem cell research because at least stem cell victims have a purpose to their life. But the potential humans never even get a chance to exist. Barrier contraception prevents a life from happening. Stem cell research creates a purposeful life and then destroys it. I'm not seeing the difference between the two because they both prevent life.
I'm not "avoiding"--it is an irrelevant point you are trying to interject. What ifs are only useful if there is an actual possibility--by not having egg meet sperm, no "individual human being" is killed.
No, you really haven't answered my question. AL you've said so far is that potential lives are irrelevant. But think about it. What would you be doing right now if your concetion had never happened? You wouldn't even exist! And that would suck, wouldn't it? Wouldn't you rather exist than not exist?
Now imagine if you were used for stem cell research and destroyed. You would go on to the afterlife, right? And that would certainly be better than non-existence, wouldn't it?
The dignity of the human being is assaulted when they are made for the purpose of being used for others as those others see fit. It is slavery--totally contrary to the dignity of humans.
That's one way to look at it. But if they are given the gift of existence for the sole purpose of being used as stem cells, then they are at least given a life (and maybe an afterlife) that they nrmally would never have had. God may have created life. But we have to be honest with ourselves. WE HAVE THE POWER TO CHOOSE WHICH HUMAN BEINGS ARE BROUGHT INTO EXISTENCE AND WHICH ARE NOT.
It's all irrelevant. My position on barrier methods does not condemn them because they disrespect the sperm and eggs--they disrespect the marital relationship and in doing so subtly demean the human person....which then leaks into the way we view others and effects society at large. But the "potential lives?" Irrelevant.
How can you say that the potential lives are irrelevant? I feel more sympathy toward them than I do toward embryos used for stem cell research because at least stem cell victims have a purpose to their life. But the potential humans never even get a chance to exist. Barrier contraception prevents a life from happening. Stem cell research creates a purposeful life and then destroys it. I'm not seeing the difference between the two because they both prevent life.