No one has the right to kill someone except god and by that we mean naturally, when you’re supposed to die but where does it stop being Gods responsibility and start becoming other people’s actions? If we think of the people who would agree with this kind of statement, it would obviously be strong religious people. Christians follow the Sanctity of life and this states life is god given meaning only god should be able to control who lives and who dies. It states how killing is murder and that life is a sacred gift from god and therefore only he has the right to take it back. Roman Catholics believe that if only god has the right to take life, this means that abortion is sinful and should not be allowed. Only god has the right to end a pregnancy and humans should not be given this power. They also believe abortion is wrong because they believe life starts at conception and therefore aborting a pregnancy however early it is is murder in the same way killing a new born baby which everyone would agree is inhumane.
Following on from this, Catholics feel that you are destroying god’s image and that is a sin. Also every human has the right to live and why is it fair to deprive humans of the remarkable opportunity of life? Regardless of what most people assume, Christians have slightly different views on topics, both believe abortion is evil but feel that it is sometimes the lesser of two evils and in all circumstances the should do the most loving thing, and if abortion is the most loving to do. So in cases such as rape, where it is not fair for the mother to live with an unwanted child, or for that child knowing it was the result of a sickening act. Or whether the birth will cause harm to the mother or child, putting either of them in risk of death or disabilities. Christians believe that life does not begin at conception and therefore by terminating a pregnancy you aren’t committing murder. Lastly, we ponder why the sanctity of life can be broken in other areas such as war and self defence and whether there could be grounds for abortion.
The only problem is that for a non-religious person, you can’t expect someone who you can’t see, can’t hear, can’t communicate in any way to, should be the one to decide whether you have to go through 9 months of agonizing pain if it causes you problems in any way. If this pregnancy was going to put your life in risk, it would be better to have an abortion and “kill” the soon to be child who know one knew, rather than die yourself and as a result, a mum, wife, sister and daughter are lost, surely its more worth it just to wait and have another child or adopt? Or in another case, if the new born child will have a life of suffering, whether that’s long term or not, it isn’t fair to bring a child up knowing they are deprived and unhappy, they may have a smile on their face but they would be in much less discomfort if never born. Although it sounds harsh making the lives of the parents so much easier, financially, mentally and physically!
Many people would agree, the thought of only god being able to control who lives and who dies, why should he? He doesn’t feel the pain that you do when all your body aches from the chemotherapy, or the hatred you feel when you want to rip the eyes out of the man who murdered your little girl, or the guilt that takes over you from when you know it was your speeding that caused you to crash and kill your wife. He doesn’t have the right, because it’s not him who has to live with the consequences. Following on from that, it’s your body therefore it should be your choice to choose whether you live or die. In the case of suicide, you have to be in such a bad place, in such a frame of mind you know there is no way out, people might think its cowardly but it isn’t their first option, without a doubt they have tried every other possibility and so if they feel that it can only be better for everyone if they ended their life, then what’s stopping them? And besides, if Gods plan has everything sorted, why would he put these people in such dark places knowing it would leave to suicide?
Suicide is forbidden in all religions, it disobeys the sanctity of life again in the sense that it is ending God’s gift and was known as the ‘mortal sin’ serious enough to prevent someone from getting a respected funeral, their head was chopped off and their family shamed, and the dead person was unable to get into heaven. However, now days, Christians have realised people’s lives are under incredible pressure and if you commit suicide you are mentally unwell and can’t be judged as harshly for your acts. Religion is still against it as it goes against God however they do understand to a certain degree but try to show people not to do it, even though no one wants to. On the other hand of the arguments, so many people agree it isn’t fair to stick to a set of rules for every situation. For example when it comes to Euthanasia, a religious person would say all types of Euthanasia are wrong. However, sometimes a person is in such agony and in such discomfort is isn’t fair to let them go through unnecessary years just to die a less dignified and painful death.
A very well known case is that of Diane Pretty; lived about 15 years of suffering and desperately struggled to get her case of euthanasia allowed so she can die with dignity like she hoped and before she lost of meaning to life. Unfortunately, that didn’t happen, and she died the way she wished not to. This is happening all the time and although illegal in the UK in some cases it will happen. Surely that is the lesser of two evils? Religious people believe the main statement applies to humans in this case, but very uncomfortable with the ideas of animal testing. They believe it is cruel; causing pain and suffering.
Makes a person cruel for doing it just because they think they don’t feel pain. But we know they do, and without anesthetic the experiments are disgusting if it is known as bad science and very few cases actually achieve something worth knowing. Also it isn’t really correct in the way that just because human testing is banned, we turned to the next best thing, and animals are so physically different to us it doesn’t make sense to use them for experiments and responses when looking for a remotely similar response from us. Roman Catholics believe it goes against the natural moral law and query why epidemiology or computers can’t do it? Christians on the other hand say that yes it is wrong however people need to accept advances in technology and understand we live in a world so complicated that sacrifices for science need to be make and it’s better to have to use hundreds of monkeys than go inhumane and use humans.
Despite their strong hatred against animal testing the original statement is contradicted by the views of Roman Catholics and other Christians when it comes to cases such as animal testing. In the sense that they believe ALL life is god given, is every animal and every plant not god given? So if someone were to believe ‘it is not a sin to kick a dog to death’ well then that’s more morally wrong than using a dog for scientific research for this could be the breakthrough that saves thousands of lives, for is it not part of gods idea for humans to develop such incredible minds to be able to find out that this could be the only way forward without human testing? We know that without the use of animal testing the world we live in today would be very different, so many lives would have been lost as a result and it is very likely for people of my generated to not even have been born because of death through ghastly diseases now cured through research such as Polio. This is a similar response when it comes to fertility treatment and cloning. All religions are against cloning because it goes against natural moral law, sanctity of life and there is no justified situation worthy enough of it.
Also because it is unethical and takes away the individuality of a person, to live in a world where you can “update” the newer version and treat a human like a phone or laptop the moment it becomes a bit worn is unimaginable. Although, we aren’t talking about humans, everyone would agree that is wrong but scientists and average people think that cloning animals by reproductive or therapeutic or DNA cloning could have major benefits as it could help with diseases and spinal cord diseases such as the original superman. When it comes to fertility treatment there are different methods and despite very low working rates they help thousands of people as one in five people can’t conceive naturally and according to the natural moral law one of the key aspects is to continue the species and if this is the only possible way, it would be necessary, similarly to the most loving thing to do from a Christians point of view is to give a couple or parents a child. So many people, especially women, feel their life is not complete without a child and it must be heartbreaking to know you can’t give your spouse a baby.
Overall I think it is a very strong statement to take, it rises so many issues such as the ones above and as a non-believer myself I can say without a doubt I disagree with it because if there is no god is my eyes then he shouldn’t be in charge of my or anyone’s life. Personally I think all of the Roman Catholic views are too harsh and if they were in the situation am sure they’d think very differently! I am not particularly comfortable with the idea of animal testing but we as people do come first. When it comes to things such as abortion, I agree with it to a certain point, there is a limit of advantage, my nan had motor neuron disease so I fully support euthanasia and my Aunt used IVF and after nine miscarriages I can fully understand how someone’s heart just feels that it isn’t fair and I know if I was in that position I would do anything in my power to get a child whatever any religious person wants to say. Until they are in that situation they can’t judge and until they know that God even exists they cannot dictate to other people what they should and shouldn’t believe and agree with!