Abortion.
At conception; life is born. I hold life to be sacred, so a framework of my argument must be based on a moral approach. To take this into consideration, and understand that human life is sacred, I must prove that a fetus/child is a human, a person and alive. Scripture supports the moral decision of taking innocent life, so instead of taking this
( Read more... )
Such as the definition for Human Life while I wish it were as simple as your argument makes it, it in fact is not...while your definition may hold a sliver of what the biological community considers "human life" it doesn't work because in fact I could with your definition of human life argue the case for why men should not masturbate...sperm has the DNA that is needed to produce "human life" in fact since it contains this homo sapien DNA is it not "human life"?
But other than difference of opinion it rocks...I hope to one day have to write a critique of your work and you of mine...GO GO GO PHILOSOPHY, then we could totally be colleagues lol =D
One last thing don't you find the words "Pro-Life" and "Pro-Choice" in direct conflict with what they say and what they mean? While most who would agree that they fit into the "Pro-Life" category more often than not are for things like the death penalty...and while these lives, in my opinion, are worthless and deserve to be taken, if the heinous crime warrants it as determined by the criminal justice system, they are still lives none-the-less, and as for "Pro-Choice" if you truly are then why not give the government permission to take the lives of those guilty of egregious atrocities against "men". I just think there should be a deep reflection by those touting as either an understanding of what they really mean.
Oh yea and one more thing! lets talk about civil rights! what about those who should have equal protection under the law such as me and my non-existent boyfriend...we wanna get married Bean! lol
Reply
Upon conception, everything is already there to develop the child and human being. DNA is combined with the EGG, and all thats needed is growth and nutrition. Obviously theres a huge difference between a sperm cell, and what occurs after conception. This is one reason why I'm not against things that prevent conception from occuring. I heard the sperm and egg argument before. Google it up, and check the DNA of a Sperm, the DNA of an Egg, and then the DNA upon conception :D
Good to hear from you.
Your Philosophy vs. My Political Science and Religious Studies.
Theology > Thought. ;P
The whole Pro-Choice and Pro-Life thing is a play on words. It's like saying "How can you be pro-life is you set up a mousetrap?" Poor play on words. As for the death penalty, I believe it's an issue of Justice and guilt. The law is meant to be upheld, and meant to protect fundamental rights (life, liberty, etc). An unborn child has broken no law, and if (as my argument suggest) it's human, than it warrants those very rights awarded to the rest of us. With any system of law, it must provide justice to be effective. If an individual performs a hideous crime beyond any rehabilitation (rapes and murder 20 women, etc), then it's the laws job to effectively provide justice. As a Christian, I can see how the death penalty is justified (The bible says 'You shall not Murder', not the KJV's 'You shall not kill'), so I have no issue with the matter. Law has a role to play in government. As for whether this effects me being 'Pro-Life', well thats just another version of word-play.
Civil Rights? To suggest men should have the 'civil right' to marry, is suggesting that they warrant the right to begin with. I see it as a special privelage as well. No rights are being taken away, but rather right are granted to a special sect of society. Why should you and your boyfriend enjoy tax-breaks and benefits, if me and a roomate cannot? It gets complicated.
The arguments:
Religious Perspective: Marriage is an instutition between Man and Woman. This is a rather widely agreed upon by the major religions of the world. I could justify it using the bible (Genesis, Creation, Jesus teaching on marriage, etc etc etc).
Governmental Perspective: I made this lengthy argument before, for the sole purpose of avoiding the religious argument (even though I can see religion everywhere in government). The State (US) recognizes marriage and offers benefits because of the foundation marriage sets for the production of children. Families have more children within marriages, and are more successful raising them, then out of wedlock (look up studies). Children, and future generations, offer the government income in the form of taxes, public labor, protection (armed forces, etc). Thus, the government has a reason to offer incentives to men and women to get married, and produce children. In short, theres an investment type benefit of offering incentives for male-woman marriages. This same benefit cannot be applied to same-sex couples.
Also: Gay marriage is an oxymoron Muahaha
I'm kidding with you ;D
We need to get that cup of coffee to critique and debate with eachother. Luckily college has shown me how right conservatism truely is ;D
Reply
I'll said you the full argument with all it's responses to these questions
Reply
Oh yea you're wrong on abortion too =p haha
Conservatism is only good in conjunction with moderation as is Liberalism...Theologians are wanna be Philosophers while Philosophers are able to step out and attempt to answer questions without the protection of our adulthood imaginary friends (God) Theologians can't move past him thus limiting their thought and expirience...I kid, I kid ;D
Reply
Philosophers are wanna be Gods.
As for Christianity against homosexuality; I never said that. The case is actually quite weak. After my studies, I'm at the location that the argument against homosexuality is that any sexual act outside of marriage is adultary, and since the bible is clear one marriage as an institution between a Man and a Woman, only they can get married, leaving all sexual acts outside of marriage (gay sex, etc) as adultary.
As for the bible outright saying homosexual is evil; thats week. It's absolutely clear however, that marriage is between those opposite sexes, and that adultary is bad.
Trust me :]
I'll respond more later today.
Reply
You cannot account for your logic without accounting for a Necessary, Intelligent being. You'd be amazed. I'll send you a debate between an atheist and an apologist soon.
Everyone believes in God. Man, in his sinful nature and God-complex, suppresses his belief by convincing himself otherwise; and thats where we get all these contradictive philosophies.
In the end, philosophies are useless without putting them in the context on why they make sense in the first place; a perfectly logical, moral, and ration Creator.
YAAAAAH
THEOLOGY and APOLOGETICS OWNS PHILOSOPHY 2 DAYS FROM SUNDAY.
w00t w00t.
Look up presuppasitional apologetics and you'll see my argument stance.
AND READ MERE CHRISTIANITY!!!
Reply
www.ReligionAndFilm.com
We were talking about homosexuality in Christianity the other day.
Reply
Leave a comment