Life Issues and Creator Rights

Modern debate about abortion, stem cell research, and euthanasia (remember, Terri Schiavo?) are issues concerning life. They encompass the life of a mother, the life of a child, the beginning of life at its most rudimentary biological stages, and the life of the disabled . Many believe medical practitioners are doing a good service to people troubled, threatened, or suffering. They view the issues as helping preserve a life that already is. When suffering becomes unbearable, they see the right to die as a merciful act. As long as the person has expressed their will, the right to die with dignity should be considered a good thing.

Opponents approach the same issues from the right to life and from the perspective of future consequences. The potential consequences are not merely about life after death or heaven and hell. Right-to-life advocates also consider the consequences for society in general. They see the immense value of life being diminished because of abortions that are often not real life threatening situations. The demand for perpetual creation and use of embryonic stem cells for potential cures while discounting, if not ignoring, the tremendous potential of other pluripotent stem cell sources further degrades regard for human life. Then, right-to-life advocates rightly regard these issues in light of the constitutionally guaranteed right to life.
No such right is guaranteed for death. The obvious reason is that death is a human certainty, but abuses of individual lives have been many throughout human history.

The biblical commandment "thou shall not kill" may used by advocates of life, but one party whose valid concern has not yet been heard. This party has more right to be heard than all other parties involved in the debate. That party is the Creator.

For Americans, the Creator's perspective is legally valid. As the Declaration states, it was the Creator who imbued nature with the right to life. Because life is not the work of science, government, or individuals, a long pause is necessary to consider what right does any one have to determine who lives or who does not. Abortion, stem cell research, euthanasia are all arbitrary determinations of who lives and who does not. Whether at the point of conception, at the blastocyte, embryonic, fetus, childhood, youth, adult, or elderly stage is all one continuum of human development. The Creator made it human life that way. Because human have learned how life develops does not give anyone a right to end life without just cause; otherwise, it must be considered murder in the sight of the Creator.

"Thou shall not kill" is a universal law evident in almost all cultures and societies. It means not to kill without a just cause. . Self-defense is a legitimate reason. The same is true of government executing a murder; it is a defense of a citizenry. Therefore, killing a human life at any stage without a just cause is murder.

It is also robbery. Death robs others of beneficial relations. Families, friends, associates, society, and even God are parties rob of companionship, productive activity, economic benefits, and other useful purposes when a life ends.

More important are the consequences resulting from killing and dying. If a person murders another and both are not morally right with God, they will both suffer eternal spiritual consequences. Heaven and hell are places where life and death continues. Because life and death are both relational states of being, all wrongful separations are forms of death including divorce. Ultimately, the punishment of hell is the eternal separation or alienation from God and loved ones. Heaven is the opposite. It is the continuation of beneficial relationships with God, loved ones, and others.

In the final analysis, abortion may be a necessary evil when actual life-and-death circumstances exist. Stem cell research should be encouraged and funded, but embryonic stem cells should be the very last source. It is hard to justify using live embryos when other types of stem cells are available and have resulted in actual cures not potential ones. In light of eternal justice in the Creator's world, the argument of sacrificing an unformed life for the potential end to suffering of others is not justifiable. It is not justifiable because a life sacrificed for others has already occurred. Jesus died so that human can have eternal life. His sacrifice encompasses realized promises of abundance and healing. Jesus is the means to divine healing. This is another reason why euthanasia is not justifiable in most cases. Because God is more than able to end a life suffering the pain and misery of disease, only euthanasia--if it can be called that--of non-responsive patients on life support could possibly be justified.

The issue comes down to whether society will continue on the path of rejecting God and defying the natural order. The ultimate decision is whether it is worth the risk of facing the judgment of God and an eternity of alienation and suffering.

What deniers cannot prove is that no God exists nor that an afterlife does not await all people. Science cannot provide any evidence to the contrary. Medical science has provided corroborating evidence of God's existence evidenced by healing of terminal illnesses and a great many testimonies to medical examiners of experiences of life while people were clinically dead.