manu1959
Left Coast Isolationist
CivilLiberty said:Prove to me otherwise.
A
you still trying to turn people away from religion? you are as bad as the door to door bible thumpers you abhore :funnyface
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
CivilLiberty said:Prove to me otherwise.
A
CivilLiberty said:Prove to me otherwise.
A
no1tovote4 said:Prove to me otherwise.
Either way it cannot be done and you know it. To attempt to discount people's spiritual belief in such a debate is simply ignoring a reality and detrimental to your own goal. In creating an answer that people could agree on for abortion it would be necessary to answer the religious questions as well or you simply have set yourself up for disappointment.
dilloduck said:How long did people believe the scientific thought that the world was flat until proven wrong?
manu1959 said:you still trying to turn people away from religion? you are as bad as the door to door bible thumpers you abhore :funnyface
CivilLiberty said:Scientific thought? The "flat earth is the center of the universe" was a concept pushed by the church who worked very hard to suppress the science that proved them wrong.
We see a similar pattern today with so called "Intelligent Design".
A
no1tovote4 said:Prove to me otherwise.
Either way it cannot be done and you know it. To attempt to discount people's spiritual belief in such a debate is simply ignoring a reality and detrimental to your own goal. In creating an answer that people could agree on for abortion it would be necessary to answer the religious questions as well or you simply have set yourself up for disappointment.
CivilLiberty said:In another related thread, in another forum, I postulated the following:
--
This soul/inhabit/body thing is a hard one to nail down. But I'd say that if our conscience and self awareness is the embodiment of the soul, then our sense of it certainly resides in the brain. If the brain is the house for the soul, then can a mass of cells without a brain house a soul?
--
Yes, this is in the sphere of religion, philosophy, and spirituality.
My personal religion and spirituality may claim one of the following:
1) The soul, if it is individualized, and if it is inhabiting a body/animal, must find it's home within the brain. And without a brain to inhabit, it cannot "move in" so to speak.
2) The soul, in the ethereal sense, is nothing but a life force energy, and is the same for all living things - from a microbe to an elephant to a human. It ebbs and flows like tides or wind. It's presence then in the zygote is no different that it's presence in a leaf of lettuce or a bird in flight.
My personal religion and philosophy may be different than yours - and yes, it is something that cannot be quantified nor ascertained.
My article was an attempt to avoid the religious aspect of the argument and concentrate on the science or aspects that were more clearly definable.
Andy
dilloduck said:also read tip 2 from your article at About.com--maybe you just forgot your own advice here a bit.
http://civilliberty.about.com/cs/activism/ht/ACT072503.htm
dilloduck said:It certainly wasn't CREATED by the church
dilloduck said:Perhaps you should remove the word "moral" from the title of your article then.
From your link:CivilLiberty said:
CivilLiberty said:Hmmm. Not sure. To do so would imply that I believe that morals are the exclusive domain of religion, and I don't think that religion and morals are inseparable - in fact, I think one could make the case that religion and moral values are indeed separate issues.
A
(bump)Merlin1047 said:I'm going to duck the issue of viability and when a fetus is actually considered a human being. I lack the knowledge both biblically and medically to make an educated statement on that.
But to put the argument into an existing context, look at the California law which allows a person who kills a pregnant woman to be charged with two counts of murder.
Isn't it more than just a little hypocritical for the state to say on the one hand that a woman may kill a fetus because it isn't human and has no rights while on the other hand charging someone with murder if they should be responsible for the death of that fetus?
So it seems to me that the first thing needed here is some consistency. Once we achieve that, perhaps we can proceed to an argument based on a firmer foundation.
CivilLiberty said:In another related thread, in another forum, I postulated the following:
--
This soul/inhabit/body thing is a hard one to nail down. But I'd say that if our conscience and self awareness is the embodiment of the soul, then our sense of it certainly resides in the brain. If the brain is the house for the soul, then can a mass of cells without a brain house a soul?
--
Yes, this is in the sphere of religion, philosophy, and spirituality.
My personal religion and spirituality may claim one of the following:
1) The soul, if it is individualized, and if it is inhabiting a body/animal, must find it's home within the brain. And without a brain to inhabit, it cannot "move in" so to speak.
2) The soul, in the ethereal sense, is nothing but a life force energy, and is the same for all living things - from a microbe to an elephant to a human. It ebbs and flows like tides or wind. It's presence then in the zygote is no different that it's presence in a leaf of lettuce or a bird in flight.
My personal religion and philosophy may be different than yours - and yes, it is something that cannot be quantified nor ascertained.
My article was an attempt to avoid the religious aspect of the argument and concentrate on the science or aspects that were more clearly definable.
Andy
Merlin1047 said:But to put the argument into an existing context, look at the California law which allows a person who kills a pregnant woman to be charged with two counts of murder.
Isn't it more than just a little hypocritical for the state to say on the one hand that a woman may kill a fetus because it isn't human and has no rights while on the other hand charging someone with murder if they should be responsible for the death of that fetus?
CivilLiberty said:Biblical cosmology - NOT science.
A
no1tovote4 said:Without answering the major question of people's beliefs, but simply trying to convert them to yours you will untimately find yourself on the losing side of the spectrum when attempting to gain a middle ground on which all people can agree.