Posted on 09/06/2007 3:58:17 PM PDT by Sopater
Wrong. It will have an affect on society. That's the concern which you would know if you ever really listened to any conservative Christians speak on the issue.
Homosexuals have shown a tendency to be the biggest Christian haters and bashers of any group going. They're argument about trying to have the same rights as married couples is just a smokescreen. They can use other legal means to accomplish things like inheritance, if they wish.
The only purpose to this is to destroy the meaning of the family and when the family goes, society goes.
If you read between the lines, you can answer the question for yourself: Life begins at conception, and extends until natural death. The Framers would have had no reason to believe otherwise. Also consider the unalienable right to liberty. It requires that a human person at any stage of his life should be free from external tampering that may affect his life prospects.
One man's "pathetic oversimplification" is another man's "first principle," or "foundational law."
What concerns do you think I have with "Evangelical Christians?"
The definition of 'human' life is different than for any other organism?
"If science has defined where "human" life begins, and has placed it anywhere after conception, I would venture to guess that the definition is not without serious argument."
Your original comment was an attempt to portray the author's comments as non-religious in nature and to do that you made the claim that since scientists have not been able to define human life then we have to use the most primitive point of our existence, that of conception, to define life. I used a little bit of 'reductio ad absurdum' to bring to your attention that the logic you used isn't sufficient to accomplish your goal.
Not to get into the argument of whether abortion is good or bad, the question of whether a single cell or a group of cells such as a blastocyst can be considered a human or just a potential human is not a scientific question. In a purely pragmatic sense, a cell or small group of cells is not a human, although given the right environment it may become a human. It only becomes a human worthy of protection when something additional is added to the conception such as a soul. If the original author and you believed that the soul was inserted into the baby at birth rather than at conception, I suspect we would not be arguing this point. That is why I questioned BB about the origin of the idea that life starts at conception. Her response was that the Constitution was based on Christian ideals, making my point for me. The original author's point which you supported is based in religion, not science.
I am not arguing whether abortion is a good or bad thing, I am arguing that the original author is basing his list of changes to be made not on scientific or societal grounds but on religious grounds and that his imposition of those changes based on his religion is akin to a Theocracy.
I'm sorry, should I have said it was some sort of machine?
Would you care to give a much less pathetic description of what DNA is?
The constitution undertakes to protect, preserve and defend life...
"What a pathetic oversimplification of the Constitution."
I suggest you take that up with Betty Boop, it was her point not mine.
By the way, in case you didn't notice, the question wasn't about the Constitution but about the definition of life at that time.
You must be too busy calling me pathetic to actually read the posts.
"I wonder what the authors and original supporters of the Constitution would have thought about your concerns with "Evangelical Chrsitians"."
I suspect that most of them would not want Evangelical Christians to have an inordinate influence on the political landscape. Didn't they put into motion ways of separating governance from religion?
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.
"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?"
Do we have another quote miner here?
Please, go back and the read the posts before you make any more comments. If you have any more comprehension problems at that time, please ask me and I will be happy to straighten you out.
It only becomes a human worthy of protection when something additional is added to the conception such as a soul.
How do you know? What basis do you use for that decision?
How do you know that the soul doesn't come into existence at conception? That it's *added* at some later point?
I am not arguing whether abortion is a good or bad thing, I am arguing that the original author is basing his list of changes to be made not on scientific or societal grounds but on religious grounds and that his imposition of those changes based on his religion is akin to a Theocracy.
Abortion is neither "good, nor "bad"; it's wrong. It's murder. That would be asking whether murder is good or bad.
What makes the making of laws on "scientific" or "societal" grounds any more valid a reason or any better a reason than religious reasons? Is doing something on scientific or societal grounds a superior reason than doing them on religious grounds?
No.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The restriction here is simply that imposed on Congress and what they are and are not allowed to do in regards to restricting religion.
Seems to me that what I've read of the framers of the Constitution, that if they were alive to today they would be classified (and vilified) precisely as that, Evangelical Christians.
It must be, b_sharp. For I know of no other class of living organisms that writes constitutions. Do you?
Get your nose out of your doctrine and do some original looking and thinking for a change. Please.
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.
Quote miner? You posted that statement in post 22.
Why don't YOU go back and read the post if you have that short of a memory.
You never answered the question either. I asked: "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?"
So what's your answer?
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.
First, I thought the "Laws of Nature" and "Nature's God" were heretical notions to the true, Bible believing Christian.
Second, isn't reference to a generic "Creator" kind of vague for such devout "Bible believing men"?
Third, do you have any Biblical references or antecedents for the idea that "all men are created equal"; that all men have "certain inalienable rights"; or that these inalienable rights include "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"? Frankly, I don't know what specific Biblical passages the Founders were thinking of when these words were written. Do you?
And fourth, are you advocating the overthrow of the US government?
You can google *Constitution of the United Sates* and get another document written by those same men.
A document that makes no mention of God, and indeed deliberately disavows governmental establishment of religion. Kind of an odd advertisement for theocracy.
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.
Are you suggesting that God His Own Self will be sitting in the White House? If not, then theocracy is indeed rule by "whacko sect leader." One needn't look much further than Iran for an example.
This statement would need to be rewritten as follows in order to be true and valid for the Framers' intentions:
Didn't they put into motion ways of separating governance from organized religion?
They did not mean to separate governance from the core insights and values of Western civilization which have historically been carried and transmitted by Judeo-Christianity.
If they had meant to do that, I think it is evident that the Declaration of Independence would have been differently written.
The scientific method may be wholly incapable of doing that, because its tools are completely unsuitable for that purpose. Science deals with direct observables, objects that have position in space and time. If life is not an "observable" in that precise sense, then science cannot deal with life in general, let alone explain its inception.
That's not to say that we can't instantly tell whether something is alive or dead. We can.
But you don't need science to tell you that. You might need science to tell you the cause of death; but that's completely after the fact: the life is already gone.
I highly recommend you read Niels Bohr's magnificent article, "Light and Life" (1933) for the relevant corroborating insights. If you like, I'll be glad to provide them here in a future post. Just let me know.
On second thought, what the heck? Here's the jist:
The recognition of the essential importance of atomistic features in the mechanism of living organisms is in no way sufficient, however, for a comprehensive explanation of biological phenomena. The question at issue, therefore, is whether some fundamental traits are still missing in the analysis of natural phenomena before we can reach an understanding of life on the basis of physical experience. Notwithstanding the fact that the multifarious biological phenomena are practically inexhaustible, an answer to this question can hardly be given without an examination of the meaning to be given to physical explanation still more penetrating than that to which the discovery of the quantum of action has already forced us. On the one hand, the wonderful features which are constantly revealed in physiological investigations and which differ so markedly from what is known of inorganic matter have lead biologists to the belief that no proper understanding of the essential aspects of life is possible in purely physical terms. On the other hand, the view known as vitalism can hardly be given an unambiguous expression by the assumption that a peculiar vital force, unknown to physics, governs all organic life. Indeed, I think we all agree with Newton that the ultimate basis of science is the expectation that nature will exhibit the same effects under the same conditions. If, therefore, we were able to push the analysis of the mechanism of living organisms as far as that of atomic phenomena, we should not expect to find any features foreign to inorganic matter. In this dilemma it must be kept in mind, however, that the conditions in biological and physical research are not directly comparable, since the necessity of keeping the object of investigation alive imposes a restriction on the former which finds no counterpart in the latter. Thus, we should doubtless kill an animal if we tried to carry the investigation of its organs so far that we could tell the part played by the single atoms in vital functions. In every experiment on living organisms there must remain some uncertainty as regards the physical conditions to which they are subjected, and the idea suggests itself that the minimal freedom we must allow the organism will be just large enough to permit it, so to say, to hide its ultimate secrets from us. On this view, the very existence of life must in biology be considered as an elementary fact, just as in atomic physics the existence of the quantum of action has to be taken as a basic fact that cannot be derived from ordinary mechanical physics. Indeed, the essential non-analyzability of atomic stability in mechanical terms presents a close analogy to the impossibility of a physical or chemical explanation of the peculiar functions characteristic of life.(I added the itals and bolds....)
A return of context:
"The author wants to impose his belief system's definition of marriage."So what's wrong with that? Homosexuals want to impose THEIR belief system's definition of marriage.
"The authors definition of marriage is the universally accepted one. He's not trying to impose just HIS view.
Universal? Where?
Massachusetts has legal gay marriage. Connecticut, Vermont, New Jersey, California, and New Hampshire have legal gay unions.
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?
Slip-n-slide....
Do you have that freedom now? No. Am I advocating universal freedom? Only in your strawman.
"Can I have the freedom to end your life is I so choose because I don't like something about you?
Are you suggesting that the restriction of freedom when it comes to unauthorized killing is on the same scale as restricting marriage partners? You have no subtlety.
"Can I have the freedom to do whatever I like, whenever I like, without being responsible to other for the consequences to my actions?
See above. Please.
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.
When did the question become simple change rather than directional change? You are adding in crap in an attempt to confuse the issue
"They're trying to force people to accept and approve of their definition of marriage. "
They are not trying to impose gay marriages on you. Your rights and freedoms are not affected in the least if the definition is expanded. It might be if it were to be restricted. They are looking for the same rights you and I currently have to marry who we love. It's as simple as that.
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.
It obviously hasn't been soundly trashed in those States mentioned above.
At one time, from 1863 to 1967, it was illegal for a man and a woman of different races to marry. Activists of the time campaigned for changes to the laws and were successful. Are you upset that they 'imposed' their ideas of marriage on the society of the time? That they are using the courts is irrelevant. The point is, is the expansion of freedom, or the continued restriction a better choice.
"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.
Only in those states where it is currently illegal. In other states it is a restricting of freedoms.
You earlier agreed that this restriction is an imposition of a specific belief set over others. (see quotes above) You wanted to know what was wrong with imposing one belief system over another and then complained that gay marriages imposes one groups beliefs on you. I think you answered your own question.
"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.
That is true, for the most part. However, there are some States where it would be a restriction and in all others it is an arbitrary constraint to individual freedoms which I believe the Constitution also protects. If constraints are developed based on societal needs, that weigh the consequences of individual rights, then the constraints are warranted. Sometimes this will correspond to religious beliefs, sometimes not. Basing constraints purely on religious grounds will not better society, nor individual lives and so should be avoided. A Theocracy wants to impose constraints not in an attempt to better society, and consequently lives, but to limit actions to a very narrow, easily controlled range. Authority is useful and necessary, but damned scary in the hands of religions.
Just how does a strand of DNA, coupled with the appropriate development environment, produce different cell types? Is it a chemical interaction, or is it something more? Do those different cell types line up in a specific place because of a chemical gradient, or through some special 'feature' you allude to but have yet to define specifically? Are specific sections of DNA enabled or disabled by the chemical 'soup' they find themselves in or is there some master hand poking around in each and every cell?
You know, in your entire post I see no definition of DNA whatsoever. And you call me pathetic.
Where did people ever get the idea that something must remain forever unknown (and unknowable) until science weighs in?
Umm ... maybe from the fact that the "something" is in the realm of biology?
Best wishes,
d
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.