The Bible : God Is The Creator Of Life

The biblical metanarrative touches the storyline of the main book, the Bible, from the beginning from Genesis to the end of Revelation. Throughout the bible there are many stories that have a message and come across to Christians that relate to their life. The bible is one book with many events that tells one big story. There are five acts of the biblical metanarrative consists of which are, Act I: The God of Creation, Act II: Sin Enters the World, Act III: God Covenants with Israel, Act IV: Jesus and the New Covenant, and Act V: The Fellowship of believers. Each of these Acts have stories about the life of Jesus that has a meaning Christians relate to.

The Bible; I believe the Bible is the source of God's Word to all. It was written by human authors under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It is where we should look to for the source of truth for our Christian beliefs and living. (2 Timothy 3:15–17) I also believe it is our truth without any error that while we as humans misread it the text and book itself is always right and true.( Joshua 1:8)

In this essay, the morality of the abortion of a fetus will be discussed in a drama involving a married couple named Deb and Derek (Smolkin, Bourgeois & Findler, 2010). For clarification purposes, we must first define the topic of this discussion; abortion is defined as the act in which a female voluntarily terminates her pregnancy where this act is legally permitted (Warren, 1973). Deb who is 16 weeks pregnant discovers that the fetus she is carrying will most likely be born mentally challenged (Smolkin et al., 2010). As the drama unfolds, the couple ponders the negative impact this child will have on their business, marriage as well as the quality of life that their child will experience if it is carried to term (Smolkin

The pro-life stance on abortion is often associated with and defended by traditional Christian beliefs , ; however, this paper will argue that it can and should be defended with secular arguments that appeal to reason and our shared human condition. This paper will try and counter the notion that the argument is simply another battlefield where religion and secular thought meet. Rather, it is an important issue that carries with it heavy implications not only for the religious but also for the secular. The major arguments discussed include the emotional and physical toll on the mother, the societal toll of having abortion legalized, and the rights attributed to every human being; first, however, the stance

Why should they not give us the right to decide if we want to live or not? That should be the first right before all the ones I have mentioned. It is not logical that we can choose in all those other decisions if we cannot first choose to live or die.

Suffering is a horrible thing. Lying in agony and pain because of a disease or sickness is completely dismaying. Sensing death in the air may be the single-most fearful emotion someone could feel. Many people are against euthanasia or assisted suicide because it seems morally and religiously wrong. Those against the issue feel God alone decides who lives and dies. However, keeping patients alive on machines is completely unnatural or artificial even. Euthanasia or assisted suicide, is ethical due to the fact everyone is guaranteed civil rights under the 14th Amendment, ill or competent people should have the right to choose to be euthanized and if deliberate killing takes place outside of self-defense, protection

In Roe vs. Wade abortion was deemed not only legal but morally acceptable. One might be surprised to know that not only this decision but our entire outlook on life is influenced and shaped by a cultural ideology. These ideologies serve as a lense through which our entire life is tinted. While not all ideologies are destructive, the real harm is done when on can not identify it and evaluate its morals and principles individually. This paper will seek to explore how how secular humanism extends to abortion, why this is detrimental, and how Christianity provides a better ideology.

For the most part, everybody throughout the world views life as sacred. In America, we see this in our laws which serve justice to those that have killed, and in our constitution alongside liberty and the pursuit of happiness as an inalienable right. It is generally agreed upon that most everybody would rather not die, and for that matter, would rather not see other people die as well. In short, barring serial killers and psychopaths, almost everybody supports life. However, when discussing the death and life of certain people, such as terminally ill patients and those sentenced to die by the court (capital punishment), a fair deal of disagreement arises. Within the politically fueled discussions that seem to dominate today’s discourse, we

Over the course of time, selective infanticide has been heavily debated and surrounded by much controversy. Harriet Johnson’s piece “Unspeakable Conversations” navigates through the discourse between Johnson and selective infanticide advocate Peter Singer. Real world applications of the social and medical model of disability are embedded all throughout Johnson’s personal account of her encounters with Singer, causing audiences to think of these models in ways other than textbook applications. The work written by Johnson was published very recently, and it is evident that the controversy surrounding selective infanticide at the time of its publication is still present today. Johnson’s piece on selective infanticide offers a stance on the matter that should not be ignored because it is coming from someone disabled. Further analyzation of the text provided will support this claim.

Indubitably, the topic of abortion has been enveloped with controversy since the 1960s. The divisive topic presents two sides: anti-abortionist and pro-choice. Anti-abortionist believe that it is immoral to abort the fetus. Pro-choice believe that the fetus is not yet a person therefore it is moral to abort the fetus. Nonetheless, Marquis presents an argument that states abortion is immoral; he presents a logical and convincing argument that works to an extent. After scrutinizing Marquis’ argument, it is prevalent that he does not address the wrongness in killing those who are mentally ill or are disabled as they do not have a future like ours. His failure to do so could leads us to the conclusion that it is morally permissible to kill fetuses that show signs of future mental illness or disability.

Most of the issues involved with wrongful conception cases have been adjudicated through the state courts from the 1960s to the present. Almost always they have ruled that parents cannot collect damages for the birth of a normal, healthy child, even as the result of medical malpractice through defective sterilization and contraception procedures or failure to carry out correct genetic testing or fully inform parents of the results. Nor have the courts ruled that the birth of a handicapped child is a life unworthy of living, and instead have argued for judicial restraint in making such legal and moral determinations. Even in the case of the severely handicapped, such as children with Down syndrome, American courts have not ruled that nonexistence would be preferable to living a limited life. On the other hand, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that parents can collect personal injury damages as the result the birth of an impaired or unplanned child, at least in the recovery of medical costs if not all the expenses of rearing the child to adulthood. State courts also allow the recovery of damages for medical expenses, training and treatment for handicapped children born as the result of failed abortion, contraception or sterilization. Due to the Roe v. Wade case of 1973, parents have the right to determine whether a child will be born or not, although recent efforts in

The contention over fetus removal and premature birth rights is an ideal case of the difference amongst liberalism and conservatism. Individuals supporting premature birth rights call themselves ace decision since they say that there is no goal, non-religious approach to settle the subject of whether an embryo has the ethical status of a person. This position is one of good liberalism, that there is no standard higher than the individual inner voice. Conservatives contradict premature birth rights since they restrict fetus removal itself. As their self-assignment recommends, individuals that are genius life contend that since premature birth is equitably detestable, what is important isn't who settles on the decision, yet rather that the correct

opposite claim; that the unborn child, because it is a developing human being, possesses a moral status

Ideally, freedom allows every person to stand up for their rights and speak for themselves regardless of whether or not they can communicate with others. John Paul II, however, describes a “perverse idea of freedom” in which individuals that are stronger make decisions for those who are weak. The unborn or terminally ill are examples of those who fall under the category of “weak” and cannot communicate on behalf of their own. In this concept of freedom, the “strong” such as the mother of the child or a family member of the sick, possesses the ability to make the decision to take the life of the other. In modern day society, this decision making concerning the life of others is legal. Our Holy Father uses the narrative of Cain and Abel to highlight

This highly debatable topic amongst families, lawyers, and doctors questions the ethical viewpoint of whether people have the right to die in a method and time of their own choosing. The right to die is the most personal choice one can make. If people can make considerably, irreversible choices like to have an abortion or a sex change, then why are they being stripped of their right to die? If