A Critique of The God Delusion - Faith and the Sanctity of Human Life - Part 2

To make this is simple as I can I will summarise some of the assertions Richard Dawkins makes in relation to sanctity of life issues in his book and provide what I believe to be a reasonable response.

How can someone be Pro-Life yet be for Capital Punishment?

In Genesis 9:6, "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man. Now taking this verse into account, what seems crystal clear is that if someone murders someone else they are at risk of having forsaken their right to live and are at risk of having there life taken from them by man. So its in this context that we understand that the command not to murder means not taking the life of someone who is innocent, and thus hasn't taken or threatened to take the life of anyone else. Nowhere in the Bible is anyone condemned for taking a life in self-defence or during a time of war, or when using lethal force to defend ones self perhaps as a police officer may have to in the line of duty. So lets make it clear what the Pro-Life claim is and isn't, it ISN'T that it is always wrong to kill another person, but it IS always wrong to kill innocent persons. Therefore someone can still being quite consistent in being Pro-Life yet in favour of Capital Punishment, lethal force and defending oneself or others. So I feel Richard Dawkins is wrong in his assertion.

Are Christians responsible for preventing medical research that could save lives, as we are against the use of embryo's for research?


While although Mr Dawkins spends way too much time hassling and complaining about George Bush, he never stops to ask himself whether or not George Bush is actually being consistent with what Jesus actually taught. So what if George Bush mocks someone or does something stupid, what place has that got in a book about God being a delusion? Should I record something stupid or ignorant an Atheist has done? I'm sure there's plenty of choice, but what would that prove if I was attempting to write a book proving the existence of God? Nothing, just silly Ad Hominem rhetoric.

Since human life should be respected, as Christians we believe that life is sacred and valuable which means we would be being inconsistent if we thought it acceptable to use human embryos for scientific research. I'm sure Richard Dawkins is glad we didn't use him for research when he was still an embryo! The majority of scientists still agree that life begins at conception, there's really no getting around it. As Dr Alfred M. Bongioanni explains..'I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood and that any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes a termination of human life..' And he's not alone in his convictions, I could reel off many, many similar quotes suggesting the same conclusion, human life begins at conception. So if this is so, surely it must be wrong to test on embryos just because they are smaller than it will be later on in its human journey? If not, why don't we use toddlers for medical research, I mean they're smaller than teenagers!

If human life is to be respected it must be at every stage of development not just the ones that suit us. There has been plenty of research suggesting that there are many other ways to harvest stem cells for research, so its not that we are against research or furthering science we're just highlighting that there is a right and ethical way to do it and using human embryos is the wrong way to go about it. In the same way we should all disagree with research done by Nazi scientists on Jews during the second world war, even if we could have learnt things that may have been beneficial for furthering science the method used was quite clearly morally wrong and was quite rightly condemned. There's absolutely nothing wrong with stem cell research in my opinion as long embryos aren't used and destroyed to further our scientific agendas, there are other ways that can be used to get stem cells that I have no problem with and fully support.

Should the Human embryo and fetus be considered a person deserving of its own rights?


I think its easy to separate ourselves from the issue at hand, if life begins at conception, that new life should be protected as much as at any stage of human development whether embryo, fetus, toddler, teenager or adult. It is the most basic of human rights that each innocent human being should have the right to life. So if the fetus or embryo aren't part of the human species at there respected stages what species are they exactly? If it can be shown that the embryo and fetus are human then surely they are persons fully deserving their own rights and to be protected.

Now, a badger is a badger because its mother and father were badgers and so therefore he is a badger, so surely what makes a human human is that his or her parents are human? When a dictionary gives the definition of a person it usually highlights that they must be a member of the human race, so where and how does the embryo or fetus not to fit into this? Randy Alcorn in his book Pro-life Answers to Pro-choice Arguments sets out three questions to ask when approaching this matter;

1) "Is it human; that is, did it come from human beings?"
2) "Is it a genetically unique individual?"
3) "Is it alive and growing?"

He says that if the answers to any of these questions are yes then they should be considered a living person worthy of human rights and protection from being killed or being used for medical research that ends with their death. I think this shows that we are all being inconsistent with the most basic of human rights and it is quite clear that the unborn deserve to be protected and not targeted! Richard Dawkins and Atheism again falls short.

Any questions or problems please feel free to leave a response and I will always promise to get back to you.