I believe it is. Even though they were forced into (but as a Christian...they shouldn't ever have needed the choice to be forced) they were still there. It was up to them now, as much as I wouldn't WANT to stay and help. I think as Christian it is our duty to sustain that life. We are to help them. So just walking away should be considered murder.



I would just like to add that this is the complete opposite of a fetus. Which is related to you, and is your own blood...so this is pretty irrelevant..

Except that I do not think, even as a Christian, one is required to sacrifice one's body and autonomy in order to sustain the life of another person. It would be honorable, yes. But, I am not obligated to sustain the life of a person unless I give my consent to it. You are not obligated to sustain the life of a person unless you give your consent to it. That's why in no way is that murder. I think intent should be considered. I believe Person 2 did not have the intent to kill Person 1. Likewise, when a woman aborts a fetus in a case of rape, she has no intention to "kill" her fetus. It's merely an act to preserve her own autonomy - a self-defense mechanism, in a sense. Obviously, I do not expect you to agree, especially given your answer.



True, it could have been better to have left that detail out. Yet, at the same time, when a woman is raped, that fetus possesses the sperm of someone who the woman either was unfamiliar with or did not want to procreate with. Similarly, Person 2 is now sharing nutrients/blood/whatever with Person 1, someone they are unfamiliar with and did not want to share nutrients/blood/whatever with. Regardless, it doesn't make the analogy a false one.

What comes to mind when I hear this is WWJD. Jesus died on the cross for all of us, and we are suppose to try to be as much like him as humanly possible.



yes the fetus has someone you don't know in them... but it still has you in them.

That's nice that you think we should do it, but it is not morally required. Like I said, it would be an honorable move but hardly immoral should one decide not to do it.

i should've brought this up a long time ago. it's a hypothetical situation for AquinasD concerning humanity's God-given dignity, though everyone is free to reply.

let's say we met some aliens from another planet and we all decided to live together on Earth. these aliens are just as "conscious" as we are: they can learn our language and understand the same complex systems as we do and integregate in our human lifestyle very easily. as far as the mind goes, they are exactly like us.. but genetically, they aren't even close to being human. their DNA is absolutely not human.

do we have the God given right to use them like we use animals (domestication, testing, breeding, food)? do we humans have more intrinsic value than these aliens, even though we are at the same cognitive level and therefore just as much of a person in the philosophical sense as they are?

in regards to abortion, i feel the death of a person is what truly makes murder wrong, and since a fetus is not yet a self-established person, it is okay to abort. some would argue that the mere fact that a fetus has the inherent potential to become a self-established person is enough reason to not kill it. in response to this argument, i would like to bring up the sperm and egg argument i made before. if a fetus' potential to become a person is enough to save it, how is the potential of an egg and sperm any different? the egg and sperm have the potential to make a fetus once they are combined, which has the potential to become a person. to not attempt to combine every sperm cell with every egg is to prevent the development of a potential person in the same way as aborting a fetus. and if being human has such intrinsic value, why are christians comfortable with not attempting to combine every sperm cell with every egg to create every possible human person? do christians believe that naturally formed fetuses are more valuable in God's eyes than "test-tube babies"?