Stephan, Fri 2 March, 12:46pm

I haven't made any attempt to "try to defend baby killing", let alone "for the most absurd of reasons".

There is no baby killing, let alone any widespread "defending of baby killing".

I have nothing to be ashamed of, let alone be "UTTERLY ashamed of".

The unique DNA code formed when the genetic material of the mother and father fuse is *often Not* genetically 100% equal to the information in an adult. As I stated, up to 50% of conceptuses die soon after conception, often because their genetic code cannot produce a viable foetus. Therefore, one might say creation is "deliberately destroying that information to achieve the point where it cannot live any more is murder."

"Draw the line of the beginning of life at any other point other than conception and you are on a road to hell."

Well, I do not draw a line "of the beginning of life" for philosophical, biological reasons I outlined above -

>>Conception, in sexual reproduction, is a *continuation of life*: a single living cell - a sperm - enters another living cell - an egg [ovum] ... <<

The FULL ARTICLE under discussion is HERE -

http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/02/22/medethics-2011-100411.full.pdf+html

Oh, and hell is an unsubstantiated notion.

Having read the article in the BMJ I can't help but feel that the author of this opinion piece may have misconstrued it. It is in fact a fairly powerful argument about why abortion is wrong. If one can't find a moral distinction between a fetus and a newborn then if it is wrong to kill a newborn then it must also be wrong to kill a fetus. As much as the article did advocate killing unwanted babies, it would not surprise me if it was written tongue in cheek, to make those supporters of abortion reconsider their moral position.

The rush to rationalise the murder of babies is not surprising. Self righteousness and moral relativism go hand in hand.Those killing Jesus thought they were doing the world a favour and moral relativism allows proudful self righteous men and woman to condone any behaviour in order to live sin filled guilt free lifestyles. No wonder drug usage and suicide is at epidemic levels. Some are dumb enough to ask why.

Maybe that's what's happened *Runner* Oh dear, the re-Incarnation of the *Christ Jesus* summarily ended by the vacuum and medical waste practitioners.

;-)

..

Perhaps you ought consider the Islamic concept of God to ease any anxiety that you may have over the issue.

..

But, come now, I think of greater concern is the vile preaching of some homophobes which has acted as a not insignificant factor in the suicide of vulnerable persons of the *Gay* persuasion.

..

Clearly, for those who choose to subscribe to the "New Covenant," there is a great divergence of opinion as to both what it means and how it should be applied.

"Murder applies to people and as we have shown and concluded, zygotes
are not people. "

You have shown no such thing. The truth is a zygote is as fully human and deserving of basic rights as an adult, else you slip into the moral quicksand. Civilised people (and civilisation means being above nature - you do know this, don't you?) do this because they understand that ultimately it protects THEM. There is no such protection in "nature". All you have shown is you have the exact same morality of the Nazis who gassed and experimented on people.

"Personally I am for a world with less suffering, misery and poverty and as Darwin made clear, far more of any species will be created, then can ever survive. He was correct of course, the limitation is on resources to raise the offspring, not on creating them."

Wow o wow! Have you ever watched any of the Nazi propaganda films? Because that statement above is indistinguishable from some of their reasoning.

And please don't quote me Godwin. Adults debate, children play games. And ESPECIALLY evil children play word games and cite jokes when the discussion is about people's lives.

Yabby has declared himself in public to have the equivalent moral compass of a Nazi - and is proud of it!
___________
"Now: is it always wrong to take a life?"

The mere fact you need to ask this, Tony, would be sufficient to appall the vast majority of people, since we are discussing not just any life, but NEWBORN CHILDREN.

I'm staggered at the moral blackness of some people here. It is FULLY EVIL to merely approve of the killing of the innocent - not just do the deed - do you not get that? End of story. END of story. The difference between the two is civilisation or anarchy since even tacit approval - and I would even add - failure to condemn - facilitates monsters.

The likely personal perception this is a 'detached intellectual discussion' masks the fact it is morally evil to even consider it.

*You have shown no such thing*

I certainly have Stephan, but all that you are showing is that
you are unable to use a dictionary. A zygote is a human organism,
not a person. No human brain = no person. The brain stops and you
have a corpse. The word murder applies to people, not to organisms.

Off you run, check your dictionary and then admit that you are wrong.

Mankind is certainly not above nature, we remain part of nature.
I remind you, you were created quite naturally, no supernatural input.

Perhaps biology 101 could be another subject to enlighten you.

Nazis? You mean a bit like those religious folks who used to burn
people like me at the stake? Last time I checked, Hitler was
a Catholic.