"Thou shalt not kill" should be changed to "Thou shalt preserve life"

Full Resolution: The Christian commandment, "Thou Shalt not kill" should be changed to "Thou shalt preserve life". Sources: Any sources, particularly the Bible, are allowed. ==== Definitions === 10 Commandments: http://en.wikipedia.org... In this context, we will use the Lutheran and Catholic version as listed above. Life: The animate existence or period of animate existence of an individual The period of existence, activity, or effectiveness of something inanimate, as a machine, lease, or play [http://dictionary.reference.com...] Preserve: To keep alive or in existence; make lasting [http://dictionary.reference.com...] Kill: To deprive of life in any manner; cause the death of [http://dictionary.reference.com...] === Difference === According to the definitions I have given, there is a key difference between "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt preserve life". "Thou shalt not kill" specifically implies you must not deprive something of life in any way under any circumstance "Thou shalt preserve life" means that, to your fullest extent, you should save life by any means as long as it maximises the most life possible. === PRO ARGUMENT === #1: "Thou shalt preserve life" overall maximises the preservation of life more than "Thou shalt not kill" Let's look at three moral dilemma's: DILEMMA #1: Murderer In this dilemma, you see a well known serial killer approach a house with a family of four in it. You outright know the serial killers means, to kill the family. Ergo, if you follow "Thou shalt preserve life", you can take down the serial killer and prevent the deaths of 4 people by killing one person. ] The net gain of immediate life here, is ultimatley, 3 people. More people could have been killed by this person, but it is unknown, ergo, the net amount is 3 people. If you followed "Thou shalt not kill", you would have to call the police. By the time they arrive, the serial killer will have killed the family inside. The serial killer may or may not be stopped, but ultimatley, the net loss is 4 people, and possibly more. Ergo, "thou shalt preserve life" prevails DILEMMA #2: Abortion A mother is pregnant. However, the baby will kill her and subsequently, itself. Doctors can do nothing. If you follow "thou shalt preserve life", you can abort the child, and save the life of the woman, giving a balance of losing and gaining 1 life. If you, however, follow "thou shalt not kill", you cannot morally abort the baby, as it is killing. Ergo, the mother and the child die with a net loss of 2 lives. Therefore, if you follow "Thou shalt preserve life", you stop the death of 2 people and only cause the death of 1 to save the other. DILEMMA #3: Train In this dilemma, a train is heading towards a group of 5 men strapped to the rails with no means of escape. You do, however, have the ability to force the train to change tracks, and instead run over 1 person. Should you follow Thou shalt preserve life, you lose 1 life but save 5 lives, giving a net benefit of 4 lives. Should you follow thou shalt not kill, you cannot change the trains tracks as you would be murdering the one man. Even if you don't change the tracks, you are not responsible for the deaths of those 5 men. However, overall, you have lost 4 lives. Ergo, there is a net loss of 4 lives. I wish good luck to whoever takes this.