Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But placing semen in a petri dish containing an egg and subsequently disposing of the contents of the dish being labeled as murder can only happen in the minds of the deranged.
Fertilizing a human egg in a petri dish and then disposing of the contents is the action of a deranged mind.
Fertilizing a human egg in a petri dish and then disposing of the contents is the action of a deranged mind.
(For the record, we're in agreement insofar as going to all that time and effort and then disposing of the very thing you were trying to create is slightly deranged )
Okay, let's use the standard argument: that life begins at conception, and abortion is the killing of an innocent person. To do that effectively, we first have to define 'person':
Quote:
Per·son:
noun 1. a human being, whether man, woman, or child: The table seats four persons.
2. a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing.
3. Sociology . an individual human being, especially with reference to his or her social relationships and behavioral patterns as conditioned by the culture.
4. Philosophy . a self-conscious or rational being.
5. the actual self or individual personality of a human being: You ought not to generalize, but to consider the person you are dealing with.
Does a fertilized egg fit the definition of 'person'? Is it a human being, or a self-concious or rational being? The answer, in every empirical test, must be 'no': there are an estimated 100 trillion cells in the human body, while a fertilized egg, at the moment of conception, consists of but one.
Additionally, a fertilized egg also fails the 'person' test when it comes to being a 'self-concious or rational being'; a fertlized egg contains as few as one hundred cells in the first four days after conception -- a far cry from the (extremely) rough estimate of 90 to 120 billion neuronal and/or non-neuronal cells required for the operation of a rational and self-concious human brain.
As the above very clearly shows, a fertilized egg, at the moment of conception, cannot be considered a 'human being' or a 'person' because of its cellular simplicity and inability to meet the criteria of 'personhood' as commonly understood.
So...in short...
Abortion is not murder, any more than taking antibiotics 'murders' bacteria.
Last edited by FredNotBob; 09-19-2011 at 10:34 PM..
Reason: Added silly comment.
Honestly, I don't think anyone will come up with a GOOD example. I certainly can't think of one.
A good example of a law that isn't an imposition?
How about the law that changed the name of Armistice Day to Veteran's Day? It didn't require anyone to do anything - we are all free to call it Armistice Day even now. But the law simply changed the official designation.
Or how about a law that names the state flower? Not really an imposition, it's ceremonial in nature without any real effect.
Laws establishing state boundery lines don't directly carry an imposition, although there are ramifications for being on one side or another.
The designation of the Star Spangled Banner as the national anthem doesn't carry an imposition, though other sections may require an obligation for military members to behave certain ways when the national anthem is played.
"Freedom of the press" doesn't carry an imposition, unless you count "not allowing the government to create an imposition" as an imposition... which I don't think most people would.
Please excuse my warped humor, but I can not resist the temptation to refute this. Actually, I suspect there are people that will consider anything, no matter how benign to be an imposition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill
A good example of a law that isn't an imposition?
How about the law that changed the name of Armistice Day to Veteran's Day? It didn't require anyone to do anything - we are all free to call it Armistice Day even now. But the law simply changed the official designation.
How about the ultra pacifist who is opposed to all military forces? this is forcing a recognition of military Veterans (BTW I am a combat Vet)
Or how about a law that names the state flower? Not really an imposition, it's ceremonial in nature without any real effect.
To a hay fever sufferer this can be seen as promoting hay fever. Instead of honoring flowers, stomp them out and rid the world of hay fever.
Laws establishing state boundery lines don't directly carry an imposition, although there are ramifications for being on one side or another.
How about the guy who lives close to the boundary line and he lives in the state he likes. but the states change the boundaries and now he is in the state he does not like.
The designation of the Star Spangled Banner as the national anthem doesn't carry an imposition, though other sections may require an obligation for military members to behave certain ways when the national anthem is played.
It's blaring music at public events is painful to us music haters. Actual for us Muslims it is sinful for us to listen to any thing that promotes Nationalism.
"Freedom of the press" doesn't carry an imposition, unless you count "not allowing the government to create an imposition" as an imposition... which I don't think most people would.
Here I actually do find it to be an imposition as it permits the publishing of what some consider objectionable. Although I oppose censorship, I do wish people would take the feelings of others into consideration when they print something. Deliberate acts of printing to arouse hatred, do impose on the freedoms of others.
Not at all. We were discussing what laws were an imposition of atheism ON YOU. Your example falls short, that's all.
In my scenario, we have a very clear distinction between two opposing views of morality. One posits murder as morally wrong in ALL circumstances. The other posits that murder is to be considered as morally acceptable under some circumstances. The latter view has been imposed on society via the SCOTUS decision. I happen to be a member of this society in which this view of morality (acceptability of murder) has been imposed. It's a DIRECT imposition upon my morals and values. Also, prior to the SCOTUS decision, the opposite view of morality was being IMPOSED upon those holding to the view that abortion does not equate to murder and should be legalized. It was also a direct IMPOSITION upon them.
THAT'S the way our system works. IMPOSITION is an absolute MUST. It is not possible to have a society which operates in a moral vacuum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
Of course it would be different! The only way your scenario would be analogous is if women were being FORCED to have abortions. I should have thought that was obvious. It's still a poor example of secular vs. non-secular, however.
As already stated, it would be the direct imposition of a moral view with which I happen to disagree. If murder of the unborn is considered as morally acceptable, what's next? Euthanasia? ...if euthanasia is then considered moral, what then? We've seen in recent historical events, 1930's Germany for example, how such reasoning can eventually lead to genocide. If there were a way to interview these people who operated the gas chambers I think it quite likely that they would either make the argument that they were under lawful orders (secular) or that what they were doing, did not equate to murder - it's simply a natural propagation (secular) of the species.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
No, we definitely have not. I have stated over and over that this is NOT an imposition of atheism. You haven't given any more argument for why it IS an imposition of atheism other than "I don't like abortion and I don't want it to exist". A poor argument for imposition of atheism ON YOU. This is akin to me saying "I don't like Catholicism, the mere existence of people of Catholic faith is imposing a theistic world view on me". Silliness.
I somebody murdered you, would you consider it to be an imposition?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
Huh? Theists are free to "forward their view in the public square", just as atheists are. Where did I assign imposition to theists and about what? You've completely lost me.
Okay, I just want to be sure that I understand you here.
Are you saying that, for example, if a group of theists pushed for laws that restrict the practice of the gay life style and actually succeeded in getting these laws implemented through the political process (public square) and challenged and affirmed as constitutional by SCOTUS, that such laws would in fact be constitutional? You would not view this a any miscarriage of justice? You WOULD NOT equate this to the establishment of a religion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
That all depends on the law, obviously.
Secularity is in the eye of the beholder, is that what you are implying here?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
LOL You gave examples all right. Too bad none of those examples actually imposed atheism on anyone.
So you view Dred Scott as theistic imposition?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
So, upholding justice is how we "hold the government together with moral ability"? Uh, OK.....
It would depend upon how one chooses to view justice. From an atheistic perspective, can there logically be any such thing as ULTIMATE justice? If justice is viewed as relative (moral today, immoral tomorrow and vice versa) how, in the final analysis do you arrive at any concept of objectively based justice? Logically, it all equates to ultimate injustice in my book.
The Founders well understood that if the people (electorate) ever walked away from belief in objective moral values, it would be the end of our representative republic. This, by the way, happened to be the conclusion of a fellow by the name of Alexis De Tocqueville in assessing what it was that made America an exceptional nation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
What if the atheist supports the law for a reason other than the religious/God implications? Does that still make it a "pro-God theistic decision"? I would say no. Also, this does nothing to address the shared morality that you appear to assume atheists have.
The "shared" morality is with respect to the non-God view. Anyone, whether they claim to be atheist or theist, who favors advancing a non-God view, have a shared moral view. They are simply making different claims with respect to titles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
Um, you were directly referencing MY definition of secular. You said:
(bolded text mine)
That's so what.
Right, we have your opinion on what it is that equates to "secular" and which laws equate to "secular laws." So what?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
I'm not wound up over this at all. I'm just confused as to why you broached the subject only to later question its relevance. That doesn't make any sense to me.
To review, your view is that the scientific data supports the time + matter + chance explanation to existence and to life as we've come to know it. My view is that there is no scientific data to support this. With respect to philosophical speculation, all views are in play as far as I'm concerned. We apparently differ with respect to what it is that constitutes scientific data and what does not and what it is that said data would appear to indicate.
Again, how does this relate to the OP? I'm happy to have this discussion but I think we would have to take it to a different thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
I see. "...if it were..." reads, to me, as if you're agreeing that it isn't or that you don't believe it is.
Again, in my example, I stated "if it were considered to be against the law."
Perhaps there is a specific case example out there that would help me to make my point. To be perfectly honest, I'm too lazy to do the footwork. I think that my hypothetical is sufficient as far as communicating my view with respect to imposition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
The law disagrees with you. Besides, we've already established that murder is not the sole proprietorship of either theists or atheists. So, this is much ado about nothing. It may be imposition, but it is in no way the imposition of atheism.
IF God exists, and if objective moral values such as 'thou shalt no murder' exist, then we have in fact established murder as the non-God (atheist) view. Not to say that ONLY atheists support abortion, only to say that those supporting abortion are seeking to impose the non-God (atheist) view.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
All law is NOT imposition of atheism, however. In fact, you have yet to show one solid example of a law that even MIGHT be.
Well of course not ALL LAW is imposition of atheism. Very clearly, many laws impose theism. In any legitimate society, imposition is logically necessitated. Logically, the imposition (laws) will either be pro-God or anti-God.
In my scenario, we have a very clear distinction between two opposing views of morality. One posits murder as morally wrong in ALL circumstances. The other posits that murder is to be considered as morally acceptable under some circumstances. The latter view has been imposed on society via the SCOTUS decision. I happen to be a member of this society in which this view of morality (acceptability of murder) has been imposed. It's a DIRECT imposition upon my morals and values. Also, prior to the SCOTUS decision, the opposite view of morality was being IMPOSED upon those holding to the view that abortion does not equate to murder and should be legalized. It was also a direct IMPOSITION upon them.
THAT'S the way our system works. IMPOSITION is an absolute MUST. It is not possible to have a society which operates in a moral vacuum.
As already stated, it would be the direct imposition of a moral view with which I happen to disagree. If murder of the unborn is considered as morally acceptable, what's next? Euthanasia? ...if euthanasia is then considered moral, what then? We've seen in recent historical events, 1930's Germany for example, how such reasoning can eventually lead to genocide. If there were a way to interview these people who operated the gas chambers I think it quite likely that they would either make the argument that they were under lawful orders (secular) or that what they were doing, did not equate to murder - it's simply a natural propagation (secular) of the species.
#1 - abortion, in our society is not murder. I get that you don't like it, but it doesn't change the facts.
#2 - This is not the imposition of atheism, because THERE IS NO SHARED MORAL CODE AMONG ATHEISTS. The only thing shared by atheists is a lack of belief in gods. That's it. I've said this many times in this thread, yet you choose to ignore it. Why?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
I somebody murdered you, would you consider it to be an imposition?
Absolutely. It would not be an imposition of theism or atheism, however. What's your point?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Okay, I just want to be sure that I understand you here.
Are you saying that, for example, if a group of theists pushed for laws that restrict the practice of the gay life style and actually succeeded in getting these laws implemented through the political process (public square) and challenged and affirmed as constitutional by SCOTUS, that such laws would in fact be constitutional? You would not view this a any miscarriage of justice? You WOULD NOT equate this to the establishment of a religion?
Yes, I would absolutely feel this way. However, my *feeling* that it is unconstitutional does not change the reality that it has been ruled as the opposite. Would it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Secularity is in the eye of the beholder, is that what you are implying here?
No, I'm saying that it is possible that a secular law be viewed as "pro-God" by some people. Like the illegality of murder - the Bible says "thou shalt not...", so that could be seen as pro-God. However, legally banning murder has obvious benefits to society, regardless of religious/theistic beliefs, so it is secular. The only way to view it as non-secular would be to assign that morality ONLY to theists and that simply is not the case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
So you view Dred Scott as theistic imposition?
Uh, no. Where did I say that? There is more to being unconstitutional than simply a question of secularity. It is possible for a law to be completely secular AND still unconstitutional. I don't believe I've ever stated otherwise. Have I?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
It would depend upon how one chooses to view justice. From an atheistic perspective, can there logically be any such thing as ULTIMATE justice? If justice is viewed as relative (moral today, immoral tomorrow and vice versa) how, in the final analysis do you arrive at any concept of objectively based justice? Logically, it all equates to ultimate injustice in my book.
I have no idea what you mean by "ultimate justice". There is justice based on our laws and legal system. That justice is different from other countries/societies. Please explain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
The Founders well understood that if the people (electorate) ever walked away from belief in objective moral values, it would be the end of our representative republic. This, by the way, happened to be the conclusion of a fellow by the name of Alexis De Tocqueville in assessing what it was that made America an exceptional nation.
There is no such thing as objective morality. If you wish to assert there is, please provide some evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
The "shared" morality is with respect to the non-God view. Anyone, whether they claim to be atheist or theist, who favors advancing a non-God view, have a shared moral view. They are simply making different claims with respect to titles.
And we're right back to assigning common morality to atheism when there clearly isn't any. Please provide some evidence of a common morality amongst atheists. If you cannot, please stop making this assertion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Right, we have your opinion on what it is that equates to "secular" and which laws equate to "secular laws." So what?
<SIGH> Again, your question was asked with respect to what *MY* definition was, specifically. If you'd like to talk about what the generally accepted definition of secular is, that's fine. I answered based on the question YOU asked, however.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
To review, your view is that the scientific data supports the time + matter + chance explanation to existence and to life as we've come to know it. My view is that there is no scientific data to support this. With respect to philosophical speculation, all views are in play as far as I'm concerned. We apparently differ with respect to what it is that constitutes scientific data and what does not and what it is that said data would appear to indicate.
Again, how does this relate to the OP? I'm happy to have this discussion but I think we would have to take it to a different thread.
That is exactly my point. YOU introduced the topic of teaching creation in school and now YOU are questioning its relevance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Perhaps there is a specific case example out there that would help me to make my point. To be perfectly honest, I'm too lazy to do the footwork. I think that my hypothetical is sufficient as far as communicating my view with respect to imposition.
It's still not a imposition of atheism. It doesn't force YOU, personally, to compromise/adjust YOUR moral standards or beliefs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
IF God exists, and if objective moral values such as 'thou shalt no murder' exist, then we have in fact established murder as the non-God (atheist) view. Not to say that ONLY atheists support abortion, only to say that those supporting abortion are seeking to impose the non-God (atheist) view.
Whether or not God exists, does not guarantee objective morality. Again, it is not imposing atheism, because it doesn't force you to change your moral code. If there was a law limiting the number of children to two, and forced abortion of any fetus after that limit, THAT could be construed as imposing atheism. As the law stands now, it is not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Well of course not ALL LAW is imposition of atheism. Very clearly, many laws impose theism. In any legitimate society, imposition is logically necessitated. Logically, the imposition (laws) will either be pro-God or anti-God.
And as I said, it's not imposing atheism unless it forces YOU to compromise your morals or beliefs. You have not demonstrated that to be the case with ANY laws.
#1 - abortion, in our society is not murder. I get that you don't like it, but it doesn't change the facts.
#2 - This is not the imposition of atheism, because THERE IS NO SHARED MORAL CODE AMONG ATHEISTS. The only thing shared by atheists is a lack of belief in gods. That's it. I've said this many times in this thread, yet you choose to ignore it. Why?
With all do respect, this response does nothing to address my point that in any legitimate society laws (imposition) are necessitated. Some form of morality will be imposed. With respect to God and objective moral values, this imposed morality *MUST* either include or exclude God. There is no third choice. This is simple straight-forward logic.
Your response please...
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
Absolutely. It would not be an imposition of theism or atheism, however. What's your point?
Well it most certainly wouldn't be an imposition of the God view. Logically, it HAS to be an imposition of one or the other. If the God I believe in actually exists, and this God prohibits murder of the unborn, then we have a very obvious imposition of atheism.
If the state gave authorization for you to be murdered, would that be an imposition on you IYO?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
Yes, I would absolutely feel this way. However, my *feeling* that it is unconstitutional does not change the reality that it has been ruled as the opposite. Would it?
Great. Why would you *feel* this way?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
No, I'm saying that it is possible that a secular law be viewed as "pro-God" by some people. Like the illegality of murder - the Bible says "thou shalt not...", so that could be seen as pro-God. However, legally banning murder has obvious benefits to society, regardless of religious/theistic beliefs, so it is secular. The only way to view it as non-secular would be to assign that morality ONLY to theists and that simply is not the case.
Would you agree that the vast majority of theists in this country subscribe to the Ten Commandments? Which commandments do the majority of atheists subscribe to? If they (atheists) support law that is also in keeping with the Ten Commandments they would simply be agreeing with the theistic view of morality. In other words, they would favor imposing a view that agrees with theism. They would be working with theists in order to implement theism. What do you find to be so complicated about all this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
Uh, no. Where did I say that? There is more to being unconstitutional than simply a question of secularity. It is possible for a law to be completely secular AND still unconstitutional. I don't believe I've ever stated otherwise. Have I?
Do you view it as atheistic imposition? Let me guess.... your answer would be 'no.' Dred Scott was then a "secular" law?
Does God support the practice of slavery?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
I have no idea what you mean by "ultimate justice". There is justice based on our laws and legal system. That justice is different from other countries/societies. Please explain.
Happy to explain. Ultimate justice would be administered by an ultimate judge. A judge who is in a perfect position to make perfect decisions based on perfect judgments. In my world, nobody ever gets away with anything. ULTIMATELY everyone will face ULTIMATE justice.
God's law and moral precepts are ULTIMATELY just and righteous. They are objective and fixed.
Again, if the electorate ever chooses to walk away from these objectively fixed morals, it will be the end the Constitution and our representative republic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
There is no such thing as objective morality. If you wish to assert there is, please provide some evidence.
Sure, as soon as you provide "evidence" that "there is no such thing."
Here's what I'll do, when we've exhausted this particular discussion we'll go to another thread and hash this out. I would be looking to back up my assertion that it's REASONABLE to believe in the existence of God and moral absolutes. Conversely, I would be looking for you to provide REASONABLE alternatives. Deal?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
And we're right back to assigning common morality to atheism when there clearly isn't any. Please provide some evidence of a common morality amongst atheists. If you cannot, please stop making this assertion.
We appear to be going circular because you seem to think that in order for the atheist view to be imposed, all the atheists would need to come together under some sort of official banner/title...basically, to form a "church" of atheism, if you will. While I would agree that this would certainly be one way to impose atheism, we cannot logically deduce it as the only way.
You no doubt disagree, please elaborate...
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
<SIGH> Again, your question was asked with respect to what *MY* definition was, specifically. If you'd like to talk about what the generally accepted definition of secular is, that's fine. I answered based on the question YOU asked, however.
I'll see your <SIGH> and raise you a <SIGH>. I don't disagree with any of this. I'm merely pointing out that your opinion is duly noted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
That is exactly my point. YOU introduced the topic of teaching creation in school and now YOU are questioning its relevance.
<SIGH> You were the one who asked for my examples. Again, I'm happy to have the discussion. If it relates to the OP, we can discuss it here, if not, we can discuss it elsewhere. Your call.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
It's still not a imposition of atheism. It doesn't force YOU, personally, to compromise/adjust YOUR moral standards or beliefs.
As a child in this classroom it would. As a parent of a child in this class where the teacher espouses a moral view that runs counter to what I'm teaching, it then equates to a direct imposition.
To what degree? Debatable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
Whether or not God exists, does not guarantee objective morality.
Really? Please lead on. Explain how it would be possible to have objective morality (which you've already opined doesn't exist) in the absence of a Transcendent Law giver (God).
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
Again, it is not imposing atheism, because it doesn't force you to change your moral code. If there was a law limiting the number of children to two, and forced abortion of any fetus after that limit, THAT could be construed as imposing atheism. As the law stands now, it is not.
It is in fact imposition. You may choose to view the degree of imposition as inconsequential, but it's still imposition. My view of how society should be is the view that would equate abortion to murder. The current imposed view runs counter to my view which is in agreement with the God view. I seek to impose theism, others seek to impose atheism. That's how our system of government works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
And as I said, it's not imposing atheism unless it forces YOU to compromise your morals or beliefs. You have not demonstrated that to be the case with ANY laws.
I've explained in reasonable and logical fashion why it does equate to imposition. I have yet to hear your logical reason as to why they should not be considered as imposition. You've made no attempt to define what it is you see as that which would actually constitute a compromise of my morals or beliefs.
With all do respect, this response does nothing to address my point that in any legitimate society laws (imposition) are necessitated. Some form of morality will be imposed. With respect to God and objective moral values, this imposed morality *MUST* either include or exclude God. There is no third choice. This is simple straight-forward logic.
Your response please...
Complete nonsense....... A false dichotomy. If it is purely a command of God . . . and has no other purpose in society . . . it has no business being enacted into law. If it has a societal purpose . . . it need not have ANYTHING whatsoever to do with God pro or con. God's laws have no business in human laws. They serve different purposes. God's laws are individual and govern our individual spiritual development. Human laws are to form and maintain an orderly and safe environment for the free exercise of our rights and freedoms.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
There is more to being unconstitutional than simply a question of secularity. It is possible for a law to be completely secular AND still unconstitutional. I don't believe I've ever stated otherwise. Have I?
