platypus,

That's a bit convenient isn't it?

Either human life is sanctified, or it isn't.

You can't just make it up as you go along to conform to your personal mores.

If there is a sacred principle dictating the "sanctity of human life", then that principle should apply to "all" human life.

From Wiki:

"In religion and ethics, inviolability or sanctity of life is a principle of implied protection regarding aspects of sentient life which are said to be holy, sacred, or otherwise of such value that they are not to be violated.

The concept of inviolability is an important tie between the ethics of religion and the ethics of law, as each seeks justification for its principles as based on both purity and natural concept, as well as in universality of application."

Ah - "...universality of application."

Interesting concept, don't you think?

(One gets a little weary of hypocrisy)

David f, it would be easier just to bang your head against the wall, however the unevolved have the right by the constitution to believe in whatever they like:) Poor runner, still can’t see the overpopulation problems of the world even after all that I’ve high-lighted, OH dear:) Just to refresh your memory dear runner and clan, the world with 7.7 billion people, human climate change, 300 million starving to death as we speak, planet drying out… sped up by our short sightless, religious cults stopping contraception to poor nations, hence the food shortages just mentioned with the starving and growing by the second, and I can go on and on and on as we know:)
“Now the same want to trust is with their dishonest euthanasia arguments. The murdering of the unborn is a national disgrace.”
The disgrace runner, is the fact that religion needs these poor people to validate the singular reason for existing, and that the realists of this world “if they had any guts” to override ancient stupidity and bring the planet under control as quickly and quietly as possible.

David F….some people are certifiable in this world, they really are:)

Planet3

Dear platypus1900,

I didn't claim that those who believe in God are misled. I claimed that it is arrogant to claim you know what God wants and base your actions upon that.

I think I know full well what the story of Abraham and Isaac signifies. It exalts blind obedience without question. It is an ugly story that exalts the morality of the devoted slave who follows the dictates of master without question. I think it better to question and to ask if you are doing the right thing than to commit an atrocity because God told you to do it. Murdering one's son because God told you to do it is an atrocity. Of course the story ends with the son spared. However, later in the Bible Jephthah murders his daughter to fulfill an oath. Both Abraham and Jephthah to my way of thinking were insane or profoundly evil. You see a different meaning to the story. I think it is pathology to kill because God tells one to. You are right. It goes counter to a country's legal framework. It would not be admissible in a court of law as a legitimate reason. One might be found 'not guilty' by reason of insanity and confined to an appropriate institution.

I know this is not the main thrust of the thread, but I feel compelled to protest when people claim they know what God wants rather than give a good reason for their opinions or actions.

For the benefit of those who fail to understand the story of Abraham and Isaac. Abraham was a convert from polytheism to monotheism and the Hebrew text of Genesis 22 it is the elohim {Gods plural] and reflected the culture in human sacrifice current of his time. Abraham was changing his mind to sacrifice in another way, and not in the culture of his countrymen. The sacrifice of infants is an abomination to God.

the usual suspects who misrepresent God and then put themselves in His place. Quite pitiful and pathetic to see humans thinking they know better. The same people who support murdering the unborn then want to display their moral superiority. May God open their owns to their arrogrance.

platypus wrote: "I never for once will base my moral behaviour based on the legal framework of the country.
That is from an amoral basis...a humanistic and arbitrary approach."

The above is also an arrogant statement. If one's morality is not derived from your superstitious mumbojumbo then it is amoral to you. Humanistic morality is based on a respect for other human beings, oneself and the world.

http://home.alphalink.com.au/~jperkins/humoral.htm contains some principles of humanist morality.

Non-malificence: Do not harm yourself or other people.
Beneficence: Help yourself and other people.
Autonomy: Allow rational individuals to make free and informed choices.
Justice: Treat people fairly: treat equals equally, unequals unequally.
Utility: Maximize the ratio of benefits to harms for all people.
Fidelity: Keep your promises and agreements
Honesty: Do not lie, defraud, deceive or mislead.
Privacy: Respect personal privacy and confidentiality.

Some humanists disagree with the above. I question the one on justice. Humanists are very concerned with morality. However, we recognise that we cannot depend on outdated principles of a society such as that described in the Bible. That society accepted slavery.

If one has a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Is one morally obligated to kill him oneself, or should one ask the police to do it?

Of course the truth is that Jews and Christians generally have too much good sense to take the Bible seriously unless they want to use it to claim justification for their positions.

If you go to the mentioned site you may see how much humanists are concerned with morality.