Perhaps we could work backwards from the situation where someone is declared to be brain-dead after massive head injuries, but the machines are keeping the body breathing and the cells alive. Although there is no potential for conscious life, and if the machines are turned off, the body will likely die, are we committing murder when we switch off the machines? (And, please, we've all heard of the exceptions - where someone has survived in spite of the best medical advice. But this is noteworthy only because of its rarity.) Here we have much more than a few cells in a petri dish. We have the completed human, with a history. And yet, without brain function, we know there is no person left.

If, therefore, we use cells formed prior to the brain's formation, have we murdered someone?

A seed is not a tree. But if allowed to develop, at some point it transforms from a seed into a sapling, then a tree.

Zyph:

This is exactly the type of issue that people who work in hospitals, like me, have to deal with. In medecine we face times where there is no good answer. Every possible answer has a negative aspect to it. A simplistic response is sometimes that we ought to step back, do nothing, and leave it in the hands of God. My response to that is that I beleive that in some of these occasions we have a moral (ethical) responsissbility to take action, and that God expects us to do so.

However, changing the direction of this post a little: I will suggest that sincere Christians may disagree on some of these issues. I would hope that even if we do that we can agree that we each may be sincere, and dedicated to the Lord. I think that it is good to discuss issues such as these. But, I have a problem with such discussions when there is an implication that all who disagree with a stated position are outside of the family of God. [NOTE: I do not intend to imply that this has happened here.]

Something to think about. . . .

In a few days, the world will celebrate Christmas, looking back at the birth of Christ. Jesus came to this world as a baby. He was born from a woman, a woman who had carried Him in her womb for nine months.

All right, if Jesus started life as a baby, He had to start life as an embryo, first as a single cell, then as that cell divided, becoming more and more cells, until be became a fully formed child, capable of living outside the womb.

When he was only a couple of cells, was He God?

Or had He ceased to be God until He had a functioning brain?

Was divinity put on hold until he had become enough cells to be called a fetus?

Linda, I believe the answer to your question is "yes". Divinity was put on hold while Jesus lay in the grave, wasn't it?

And it's not possible to surmise about this subject from Jesus' conception. After all, He wasn't conceived as we are, and only part of Him was human. (I know the statement about Him being ALL man and ALL God. I'm just referring to the facts surrounding his conception.) He was sinless at birth. We are not.

Interesting point, Linda!

I never previously thought of Christ's human beginnings like that as he also began to become a human being as I did. In other words, He went through the same process of being born as I did.

This throws a new twist into our topic as life is life no matter what stage it is at.

[ December 20, 2001: Message edited by: Daryl Fawcett ]

Yes. I have attended lectures sponsored by another well-known denomination which took the same point that Linda made. They then carried it beyond what she has done. They suggested that no abortion should be done today as the result might be the death of the Christ--on the assumption that God might send Christ to be born as a baby again.

[I do not mention the denomination as someone might say that this is not official doctrine.]

Daryl, if the issue is just life - then the sperm and the egg are every bit as alive before conception as after it, and it must naturally follow that birth control is murder.

That is also an excellent point that zyph made.

I wonder if there are any clear principles from the Word and/or the SOP about this?

Daryl:

Like I said on 12/17 at 0629, it is for this reason that one denomination rejects comon forms if birth control. They kill the sperm/egg.

Ellen white probably does not deal with this issue in the manner in which we face it today. It was not an issue then. We had neither the technology, or the pharmaciticals that we have today. I doubt that she could even think of our present situation.

As to the Bible: It speaks in general principles. Some can not agree on what these are. Some see conflict between principles. Others disagree on the apaplication of these principles to life today.

Perhaps you, or someone should obtain the published statements, and Biblical understandings, on this subject, and then start a thread where these are discussed.

I do not have these readly available to me. Perhaps one might contaact the Loma Linda University Ethics Center and ask for an SDA bibliography on the subject. This would at least tell us what the thinking of the SDA Church is on the susbject. Now, I would never place the authority of the SDA Chruch over the Bible. But, this is a forum primarily for members of the SDA Church. As such, it is well to temper our discussions with a knowledge of what the thinkign of the SDA Chruch is on the subject.