Posted on 09/06/2007 3:58:17 PM PDT by Sopater
Seems that way, MHGinTN. Then again, maybe it was a "trick question." :^)
Thanks so much for providing the important details!
Really? I would never have known.
"Not till fertilization does life exist. But once it occurs, it irrevocably specifies the "blueprint" of a living individual human being, from that inception (fertilization, conception) till natural death.
You missed my point. I was talking about the idea that it is impossible, because science has not defined when life starts, to make a decision on when life starts. AG was very clear in our discussion of what defines life that the continuum fallacy does not exist and had been debunked right here on FR. She in fact claimed that a pro-evo poster here invented that fallacy.
I find it very interesting that Sopater is using logic that was debunked by AG and others.
"And not coincidentally, that is the very thing the United States Constitution undertakes to protect, preserve, and defend.
The constitution protects the rights of a sperm and an ovum in their holy union? I never knew that.
The constitution undertakes to protect, preserve and defend life, but was the definition of life when the constitution was written the same as yours?
Actually, because the Constitution has substantial origins in Judeo-Christian thought, I would say: YES.
Judeo-Christian thought, as you may know, maintains that a Creator God created man and the universe; and that it is by virtue of his divine origin that man is naturally endued with unalienable rights, among which are life and liberty. It is not a coincidence nor an accident that the Declaration of Independence validates that understanding.
Where did people ever get the idea that something must remain forever unknown (and unknowable) until science weighs in? That is simply absurd! After all, scientists are living beings even befor they conduct their first experiment. Do they doubt they live, or is their status questionable, pending some future scientific finding?
I suggest you go back and read Sopater's post and my response. Sopater is the one claiming science cannot define a point where life starts.
DNA is alive?
On dead DNA whats missing?.."
Assuming you are referring to a cell containing DNA, the dead cell has reached energy equilibrium.
"Is DNA machinery? or more than that?.."
Define 'machinery'.
DNA is a large molecule made of chemicals which react to other chemicals in potentially predictable ways, just as all other molecules do.
Are you trying to say that 'living' DNA has some elusive, more than material, magical ethereal substance you label as 'life'? Is this something only those who live in the zeroth reality can observe, while those of us stuck in the materialistic first reality are doomed to never see?
"The author wants to impose his belief system's definition of marriage."
"So what's wrong with that?"
It's an increase in restrictions and a reduction of freedoms. Do you really want a reduction of freedom?
"Homosexuals want to impose THEIR belief system's definition of marriage."
They are not tying to impose their definition, they are trying to expand the current definition.
You seem to have trouble understanding the difference between expanding a definition and contracting one, or is that only with religious definitions where you believe religious considerations should override freedom?
"The constitution undertakes to protect, preserve and defend life, but was the definition of life when the constitution was written the same as yours?"
"Judeo-Christian thought, as you may know, maintains that a Creator God created man and the universe; and that it is by virtue of his divine origin that man is naturally endued with unalienable rights, among which are life and liberty. It is not a coincidence nor an accident that the Declaration of Independence validates that understanding.
What does this have to do with the definition of life accepted at that time? I wasn't arguing that man doesn't have inalienable rights, my question had nothing to do with it. Your answer doesn't address my question. Did the writers of the Constitution believe life started at conception, at birth or somewhere in between? I'm not interested in your opinion about how much Christianity loves life, or how much the originators also loved life, I am asked a very simple question - what was their definition of life? Please answer that question.
Before you decide to just repeat what you just said in slightly different language, I understand that you believe that because of our putative special place in God's eyes, conception must be the place to start. However, the Constitution, although it protects life, does not define when it starts.
"Where did people ever get the idea that something must remain forever unknown (and unknowable) until science weighs in? That is simply absurd!
Where did this come from?
"After all, scientists are living beings even befor they conduct their first experiment. Do they doubt they live, or is their status questionable, pending some future scientific finding?
Non-sequitur much?
Do you mean to say that that science cannot look at a cell that is dividing and growing and know whether or not it is alive?
Good post.
So what? You want the Lite version of a theocracy instead?
B_sharp's description of DNA is spot on. It's a chemical. What makes it 'magic?'
Do you really want a reduction of freedom?
So can I have the freedom to help myself to anything you own if I feel like it?
Can I have the freedom to end your life is I so choose because I don't like something about you?
Can I have the freedom to do whatever I like, whenever I like, without being responsible to other for the consequences to my actions?
Um, yes.
They are not tying to impose their definition, they are trying to expand the current definition.
They're trying to expand it, which is changing it. They're trying to force people to accept and approve of their definition of marriage. They are changing the definition and trying to impose it on others through the abuse of the judiciary, because every time it comes up for vote, it gets soundly trashed.
Not allowing homosexual marriage is not an increase in restrictions and a reduction of freedoms. Marriage has always been defined as between a man and woman. Keeping it that way is not increasing restrictions because it's not adding any new one. It's not a reduction of freedoms because no one is taking away a right anyone had before. Homosexuals were never *free* to marry to begin with.
"Do you really want a reduction of freedom?"
"As opposed to total anarchy?"
You are tying to slippery slope us.
We are currently in a state that is far from total anarchy. The changes suggested by the author and supported by you, if they are not imposed, will not change the current state. However, if they are imposed, current freedoms will be reduced.
To get specific to the original question, an expansion of the definition of marriage would apply to a very small portion of the population at no expense to the rest of society. The desire to keep the current definition static is based not on the affect it will have on your children, my children or society at large but on the Biblical view of homosexuals.
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —
For all the hysterical ravings about dangers of imposing a *theocracy*, would entail, there is an example of where following Judeo-Christian beliefs will get you; a document written by Bible believing men who advocated the overthrow of a corrupt and immoral government.
Belief that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed with their CREATOR with certain inalienable rights. The horrors of Christian thinking.
You can google *Constitution of the United Sates* and get another document written by those same men.
Look at Europe, for the most part a area of the world dominated by Christian thought. The freest, most civilized area of the global for hundreds of years. The most heavily Christian nations have shown the most progress in many areas.
The other thing is, a theocracy is rule by God. Not rule by religion, not rule by denomination, not rule by whacko sect leader. Without God's direct intervention, a theocracy is impossible.
All this hysteria about religious leaders wanting to impose a theocracy reminds me of the global warming alarmists who over react to every little temperature change with cries of the sky falling.
Keeping the definition of marriage limited to man and woman, saying abortion is wrong, etc. is simply wanting to go back to the standards that existed in this country for the hundreds of years of its existence. It's nothing new; it's what we lived with that gave us a stable and orderly society. It's traditional values (Christian ones at that) and they worked.
Getting rid of the moral *restraints* imposed on people by having laws based on Christian values, does not eliminate God from the picture. It may get rid of the reminder of Him that so many hate to face, but He's still there and His principles work whether society's laws reflect them or not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.