Comments about ‘European court recognizes human life from the moment of conception’

Since "embryonic stem cell research is out of business", bring all that "cutting-edge biotechnical research" to America!

As man now is, God once was; as God is now man may be.

God created every single human being on THIS Earth. We have always existed as spirits, but got created our physical body.

God* instead of got

To Portland Trail Blazers | 6:01 p.m. Oct. 27, 2011

You're right -- we always existed as spirits. We became mortal/human life when we were born and our spirits joined the bodies creeted for us through pregnancy, which happened at birth. That's why the vicarious ordinances of the LDS Church, available only to those who have lived, can be performed only for people who have been born and who have drawn at least one breath.

The decision by the European court is not well based.

Is this the end of in vitro-fertilization too?

RE: Furry1993

There is no church doctrine about the spirit joining the body at birth,
there is no church doctrine about drawing a a breath,

Proxy ordinanaces are done for who have lived and died, and has noting to do about breathing, the are simply performed for those have lived here.

there is no official doctrine about babies lost before coming to term,

Please stop making stuff up to justify adhereing to a particular view.

Since this came from a socialist liberal court, according to the left the decision must be correct.

What a shame that this ruling will affect stem cell research in Europe.

From the article:

"It is very much to be regretted that the court has taken this view," said Sir Ian Wilmut from the MRC Centre for Regenerative Medicine, University of Edinburgh. "It will unfortunately make it less likely that companies in Europe will invest in the research to develop treatments to use embryonic stem cells for treatment of human diseases."

-------

Utilitarianism and Consequentialism can not be applied to the question of whether something constitutes murder or not, which potentially grants or denies life- as this is the ultimate factor in such a question. 'Does an unborn fetus or child have an inherent right to life, as we claim for ourselves?'

If such an ethical paradigm was used to pass such a judgement, then we must discard all inherent rights, such as freedom, religion, speech, life, and so on for everyone else. (Thereby destroying any such morality that could have existed). One cannot justify removing 'rights' from a this moral issue as that is indeed the point in question. "IS there a right?" Otherwise, human rights cease when others can demand based on what they claim they need.

My rights don't depend on others, they are inherent to my existence.

No, life begins at conception. What force is moving the child in womb if not spirit?

This effects embryonic stem stell research. Can do what you like with adult stem cells and cord blood. Every child born has cord blood. Plenty of stem cells in there without needing to terminate pregnancy to get them. And stem cells from those sources actually led to treatments. Leukemia for instance is treated with cord blood or through living donor. There is cure or remission. People should donate blood and blood products regularly if they are medical able to donate.

I was under the impression if a child died before the age of baptism they would go directly to heaven and attain the celestial kingdom. I thought that was what made the LDS church so attractive compared to other faiths. No limbo for unbaptised babies?

K, "What force is moving the child in womb if not spirit?" is a fascinating point to make. But your point regarding LDS Church doctrine is without substance. 1- The LDS Church doesn't 'choose' doctrine 'based on popularity' but teaches revelation. With that understanding, your phrasing could have been different to adequately represent the Church's actual stances. 2- LDS doctrine regards infants as perfect, without sin, etc. God would not condemn them if they are indeed alive and if not, then it would be irrelevant. I'm just missing your point regarding this...?

Personally, IF an abortion is underway and the unborn baby will not suffer any differently through the procedure- then I accept stem cell research as morally acceptable.

However, I do remember reading an article mentioning a Harvard finding regarding adult stem cells and skin cells being proven to be able to be used for the very same research as what stem cell research is currently doing. The only difference was that it was at a much slower rate. However, if all moral issues can be put aside by a skin test, I would ask "Why on Earth are we even debating this anymore?" Just a thought...

The Supreme Court indicated that they are waiting for someone to define life at conception so they could review Row vs. Wade. Some states have started the process and maybe this action in Europe will accelerate the pace.

I don't think that Stem Cell research will actually be seriously affected. They will just redouble their efforts to create stem cells from adult cells instead of taking the simpler path of using embryos.

"What force is moving the child in womb if not spirit?"

The mother's body nurturing the growing fetus is the 'force'.

Animals move in utero as well. Do animals have spirits? According to the Bible, thou shalt not kill. This refers to humans, not animals.

Fish larvae move.

Christy: Does nurturing a fetus make it kick? If that were the case, there would be a direct correlation between nurturing and kicking times, and there isn't. What pregnant women would say that their baby has no personality in the womb? In fact, MANY studies have been done on the relationship to behavior in the womb to later behaviors after birth. But I guess those are all wrong because you say otherwise?

Freedom-In-Danger | 8:16 p.m. Oct. 27, 2011

Christy: Does nurturing a fetus make it kick? If that were the case, there would be a direct correlation between nurturing and kicking times, and there isn't.

===========

What?

Which part of a pregnancy is nurturing time, and which isn't?

Do animals not move in utero? Do fish larvae not move? I'd like to think I'll see my precious dog in Heaven, but does every fish have a spirit?

I am refuting the idea that a fetus moves because it has a spirit.

That is a fantastic ruling. That is something most of us know anyway. Stem cell research has been going great with adult stem cells. So many new things are coming up and none of them have to do with harming unborn babies.

Well, this creates an interesting dilemma for Conservatives.

For years now they have been claiming that European law has no place in American Courts.

Now that there is a ruling they like, will they stick with their original position, or will they flip?

My guess is they will flip for this issue but flop back again when it is something they don't like....

A doctor who does stem cell research actually said that using your own cells (from your back or skin) is far more efficient and effective than embryonic stem cell research. Plus there is no question of ethics. Why not do that?

And to answer the question about Republicans "flip-flopping", they will probably emphasize the fact that a highly liberal place such as Europe is even able to recognize the sanctity of life, from conception, then that's huge.

As I understand LDS theology, EVERY LIVING THING has a spirit - fish and larvae, too. Even the earth itself has a spirit. As to whether unborn children have a spirit, I certainly felt my children's spirits when I was pregnant with them. The spirit may not be entirely fused with the body until birth, but it's certainly not absent.

And this ruling is welcome not only because it recognizes the zygote, embryo and fetus as an individual, but also because it prevents the making of money off patents on human life. We can't legally sell other human beings after they are born - that's slavery. We shouldn't be able to sell other human beings before they are born, either.

Amazing. All these years the argument has been the child and mother are separate and that is why its okay to abort. Now the mothers nurturing allows independent kicking in response to environment.

Animals have a spirit. They just don't have the ability to reason good and evil.

To the truth | 6:38 p.m. Oct. 27, 2011

Then please tell me why that explanation and criterion was used when my husband and I wanted to have our miscarried fetuses sealed to us when we had our temple sealing and had our (living) sons sealed to us. Please tell me why, when I was doing my family geneology, that explanation and criterion was used when I was denied the right to have stillborns in my ancestral line sealed to their families. Please tell me why, when I contacted the Family History office to revisit the issue, the same explanation and criterion was used then (and that was within this year).

I stand by my statements.