Political Crossfire Forums

[Mycroft147]

Sailor Moon wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: Sailor Moon wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: ive realized after going throught these threads that once you take all religion out of it, its very hard to argue either way for a fetus being a person. People with religious values believe that the fetus has a soul, and that the soul is what makes us real humans, distinguishes us from animals. It is the reason we dont act on instinct alone. But once you deny the soul, all that is left for deciding when we become human are arbitrary points concerning the biological aspects of the fetus. If you actually believe that becoming independent of the mother truly makes one human, thats very sad. Maybe physically this does, but in reality how would the independence change the baby mentally, where it really counts?(since we are ignoring souls)

Boy was that a generalization of epic proportions!

1- Religious people know what a soul is, it is not a spiritual entity or addition, its just your body's life. Even S.O.S. means save our souls.. so hello.. it means your body.. save our souls from death.. as death is the worst enemy, and lasts forever.

2- Are you saying that fetuses are not human? What are they, then? Little turtles? :lol:

1. I guess you dont know what religious people consider souls...The soul is a seperate entity combined with the body. We believe that when we die the soul leaves the body. It is not the same as the body. Mayeb some poeple think that, not most religions, at least catholics.

Well, maybe youre studying from someplace other than the bible, then, because the bible says very clearly that a soul is not separate from the body. Genesis says, on creating Adam, God breathed life into Adam, and adam BECAME a living soul.

Quote: 2. Im saying that fetuses are human because of their souls. But once you deny they have souls its hard to argue either way.

You dont have a soul. You ARE a soul. There is a big difference.

Your essence is the soul, your body houses the soul. My religion (catholicism) believes that they are 2 different things. You arent taking the whole bible into account because it says in revelations that the souls will be reunited with the bodies, along with many other parts of the bible that talk about them as 2 different things.

[Sailor Moon]

Where in Revelations is that said? Ive read most of revelations, and seen nothing that separates the body and soul. I am aware that God recreates us.. perhaps thats what youre talking about? Otherwise, it sounds morbid, kinda like a world full of zombies rather than paradise..

I am trying to follow your beliefs, but they seem to change post for post.. are you anti abortion, or not? And dont you know that the bible also says:

"Truly you have formed my inmost being; you knit me in my mothers womb. I give you thanks that I am fearfully, wonderfully made; wonderful are your works." Psalm 139:13,14

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you." Jeremiah1:5

Clearly, you must know these verses!

[Mycroft147]

Sailor Moon wrote: Where in Revelations is that said? Ive read most of revelations, and seen nothing that separates the body and soul. I am aware that God recreates us.. perhaps thats what youre talking about? Otherwise, it sounds morbid, kinda like a world full of zombies rather than paradise..

I am trying to follow your beliefs, but they seem to change post for post.. are you anti abortion, or not? And dont you know that the bible also says:

"Truly you have formed my inmost being; you knit me in my mothers womb. I give you thanks that I am fearfully, wonderfully made; wonderful are your works." Psalm 139:13,14

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you." Jeremiah1:5

Clearly, you must know these verses!

I dont think you understand what ive been saying. All i said in the beginning is that it is difficult to argue the abortion issue because you cant bring the idea of a soul into it. I never said anyhting about being for abortion, and ive said a ton about how its wrong.

Heres som verses that talk about the soul being differne form the body:

18It came about as her soul was departing (for she died), that she named him [a]Ben-oni; but his father called him [b]Benjamin

Beloved, I urge you as aliens and strangers to abstain from fleshly lusts which wage war against the soul.

Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

i hope these show you how the soul and body are considered multiple things.

[Mycroft147]

By the way, im confused about your comments on my beliefs about abortion changing. At any point did i say that abortion was ok or that it should be allowed?

[Sailor Moon]

Mycroft147 wrote: Sailor Moon wrote: Where in Revelations is that said? Ive read most of revelations, and seen nothing that separates the body and soul. I am aware that God recreates us.. perhaps thats what youre talking about? Otherwise, it sounds morbid, kinda like a world full of zombies rather than paradise..

I am trying to follow your beliefs, but they seem to change post for post.. are you anti abortion, or not? And dont you know that the bible also says:

"Truly you have formed my inmost being; you knit me in my mothers womb. I give you thanks that I am fearfully, wonderfully made; wonderful are your works." Psalm 139:13,14

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you." Jeremiah1:5

Clearly, you must know these verses!

I dont think you understand what ive been saying. All i said in the beginning is that it is difficult to argue the abortion issue because you cant bring the idea of a soul into it. I never said anyhting about being for abortion, and ive said a ton about how its wrong.

Heres som verses that talk about the soul being differne form the body:

18It came about as her soul was departing (for she died), that she named him [a]Ben-oni; but his father called him [b]Benjamin

Beloved,

Her soul was departing. Yes. She was dying. Thats it. Her body was departing from life. Thats all there is.


Quote: I urge you as aliens and strangers to abstain from fleshly lusts which wage war against the soul.

Yes. Do not fornicate, or you will die. Thats it. Death is the worst enemy. If you fornicate, you die. Sin=death.

Quote: Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Remember that the soul is the aspect of the body being alive. "became a living soul" "breathed into his..(body)" a body becomes a soul as soon as it is living.

[Mycroft147]

Sailor Moon wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: Sailor Moon wrote: Where in Revelations is that said? Ive read most of revelations, and seen nothing that separates the body and soul. I am aware that God recreates us.. perhaps thats what youre talking about? Otherwise, it sounds morbid, kinda like a world full of zombies rather than paradise..

I am trying to follow your beliefs, but they seem to change post for post.. are you anti abortion, or not? And dont you know that the bible also says:

"Truly you have formed my inmost being; you knit me in my mothers womb. I give you thanks that I am fearfully, wonderfully made; wonderful are your works." Psalm 139:13,14

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you." Jeremiah1:5

Clearly, you must know these verses!

I dont think you understand what ive been saying. All i said in the beginning is that it is difficult to argue the abortion issue because you cant bring the idea of a soul into it. I never said anyhting about being for abortion, and ive said a ton about how its wrong.

Heres som verses that talk about the soul being differne form the body:

18It came about as her soul was departing (for she died), that she named him [a]Ben-oni; but his father called him [b]Benjamin

Beloved,

Her soul was departing. Yes. She was dying. Thats it. Her body was departing from life. Thats all there is.


Quote: I urge you as aliens and strangers to abstain from fleshly lusts which wage war against the soul.

Yes. Do not fornicate, or you will die. Thats it. Death is the worst enemy. If you fornicate, you die. Sin=death.

Quote: Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Remember that the soul is the aspect of the body being alive. "became a living soul" "breathed into his..(body)" a body becomes a soul as soon as it is living.

Your not getting it, in the first quote it says the soul is departing, as in departing form the body. not the body departing form life, cus its relaly not going anywhere is it, the bodys still there. the second quote distinguishes soul from flesh, in the third it says SOUL AND BODY as in 2 different things. WHy would it say body and body or soul and soul, as you take it? and also i dont rely on the bible alone but also the other teachings in my religion, which definitely distinguish between the body and soul.

[Mycroft147]

Plus the main quote your using is taken out of context, it says God first FORMED man, as in his body, then breathed life into him, as in giving him a soul. He wasnt a living being until he got a soul.

the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

[Prole]

Regarding me pointing to arbitrary points in fetal development for when someone becomes a person, Mycroft, it is true that they are arbitrary. But so is your position that conception is when someone becomes a person. Both are distinct points (though mine does vary somewhat between different individuals). Furthermore, consider that religion, and which tenets of one's religion one chooses to accept or ignore (as most people do), is also an arbitrary decision.

Honestly, you can't possibly expect to be persuasive to anyone but a Christian with "I'm a Christian, and this is what I think appropriate Christian views are." I respect your personal beliefs, but frankly, I could care less what there are, until your try to force them on others by making them adopt them, with your anti-choice position.

Finally, about prostitution, as well as the legalization of prostitution, I'm fine with it. It's simply a personal choice interaction between two individuals, and legalization of it would both make it safer for both parties involved, and genereate tons of money in tax revenuse. This is somewhat OT, but why shouldn't we legalize prostitution?

Sailor Moon wrote:
"Truly you have formed my inmost being; you knit me in my mothers womb. I give you thanks that I am fearfully, wonderfully made; wonderful are your works." Psalm 139:13,14

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you." Jeremiah1:5

Clearly, you must know these verses!
Neither of these versus specify when a person is ensouled during gestation, only that they are ensouled some time during gestation. And Adam (if he was created as descibed in the bible) never gestated, so his creation completely different from that of a preborn human; he was never a preborn human at all.

Historically, the RCC is other sects of Christianity have taken various views regarding when abortion becomes immoral. That does not necessarily mean that their views were right, and some are pretty arbitrary, but I'm just putting in perspective that anti-abortion has not always been the end-all position of all Christians, nor is it today. As per your claim that "people who are pro-choice are not Christians," I have started a thread in the religion forum, and welcome your contributions.

The constantly shifted positions regarding abortion from the papacy is of course yet another reason showing that their supposed "Divine insight" is a load of rubbish, but that's a subject for a differnent thread.

[jlrobe]

Mycroft147 wrote: By the way, im confused about your comments on my beliefs about abortion changing. At any point did i say that abortion was ok or that it should be allowed?

To be honest, this is EXACTLY why I started to insult Sailor Moon on accident. I admit, it was wrong and I apologize, but I was upset and I didnt realize I was being condecending.

Anyhow,amongst other things that rubbed me wrong, which I already stated, sailor claimed to know my position just because I didnt think Doctors should be killed. She kept telling me that I condoned things I never did. At least that is how I took it. Anyhow, I get really upset when people disagree and then say "you are obviously on this side or that side".

Listen, Mycroft. I respect that you are trying to learn more and I respect that you are at least debating certain things. I can tell you are still definitely pro-life. I respect your views, especially your belief on the human spirit/soul.

Lastly, this proves my point. Extremism gets people know where. A potential ally was being pushed away because she wasnt as extreme???? That isnt cool.

[jlrobe]

Mycroft147 wrote: jlrobe wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: ive realized after going throught these threads that once you take all religion out of it, its very hard to argue either way for a fetus being a person. People with religious values believe that the fetus has a soul, and that the soul is what makes us real humans, distinguishes us from animals. It is the reason we dont act on instinct alone. But once you deny the soul, all that is left for deciding when we become human are arbitrary points concerning the biological aspects of the fetus. If you actually believe that becoming independent of the mother truly makes one human, thats very sad. Maybe physically this does, but in reality how would the independence change the baby mentally, where it really counts?(since we are ignoring souls)

That is very valid, and the most logical thing I have heard you say. Even though you use religion, which is your right, you still should present your side. That would make for a great paper actually. ALong with some of the other posters comments. I still feel that using legalized prostitution would be perfect argument. If abortion is legal, why not prostitution. It is a valid question.

I guess thats a pretty good idea, i am not really sure why prostitution IS illegal. Its imposing morals on others on a much greater scale than abortion, if you consider abortion killing.

In the end though if you take religion out of the argument its very difficult, though possible, to argue against abortion. And its hard because then we religious people cant present the reason that we consider the greatest, that fetuses have souls. personally i dont know how anyone could think humans didnt have souls, how else can we be considered different from animals? I think that if i didnt believe we had souls then i would be an animals rights activist, because then they should have the same rights as us. The more i think about it the more depressed i get.

YOu can definitely argue abortion without religion. If you want tips let me know. I have done papers going both ways. Also, about the prostitution thing. The beauty of it is that it is perplexing how that IS illegal and abortion is not. Sounds like a double standard that has no place in our legal system.

As for the animal rights thing, I now see why you made the post in the other thread. It makes sense now. Dont get depressed. Take all this information in stride. Dont let me or anyone else overwhelm you with information.

[Sailor Moon]

Mycroft147 wrote: Plus the main quote your using is taken out of context, it says God first FORMED man, as in his body, then breathed life into him, as in giving him a soul. He wasnt a living being until he got a soul.

the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Check your bible. It says he became a living soul. It does not say he was given a soul.

[Mycroft147]

Sailor Moon wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: Plus the main quote your using is taken out of context, it says God first FORMED man, as in his body, then breathed life into him, as in giving him a soul. He wasnt a living being until he got a soul.

the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Check your bible. It says he became a living soul. It does not say he was given a soul.

Your ignoring the first two, what about the part where it says body AND soul?

[Mycroft147]

jlrobe wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: jlrobe wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: ive realized after going throught these threads that once you take all religion out of it, its very hard to argue either way for a fetus being a person. People with religious values believe that the fetus has a soul, and that the soul is what makes us real humans, distinguishes us from animals. It is the reason we dont act on instinct alone. But once you deny the soul, all that is left for deciding when we become human are arbitrary points concerning the biological aspects of the fetus. If you actually believe that becoming independent of the mother truly makes one human, thats very sad. Maybe physically this does, but in reality how would the independence change the baby mentally, where it really counts?(since we are ignoring souls)

That is very valid, and the most logical thing I have heard you say. Even though you use religion, which is your right, you still should present your side. That would make for a great paper actually. ALong with some of the other posters comments. I still feel that using legalized prostitution would be perfect argument. If abortion is legal, why not prostitution. It is a valid question.

I guess thats a pretty good idea, i am not really sure why prostitution IS illegal. Its imposing morals on others on a much greater scale than abortion, if you consider abortion killing.

In the end though if you take religion out of the argument its very difficult, though possible, to argue against abortion. And its hard because then we religious people cant present the reason that we consider the greatest, that fetuses have souls. personally i dont know how anyone could think humans didnt have souls, how else can we be considered different from animals? I think that if i didnt believe we had souls then i would be an animals rights activist, because then they should have the same rights as us. The more i think about it the more depressed i get.

YOu can definitely argue abortion without religion. If you want tips let me know. I have done papers going both ways. Also, about the prostitution thing. The beauty of it is that it is perplexing how that IS illegal and abortion is not. Sounds like a double standard that has no place in our legal system.

As for the animal rights thing, I now see why you made the post in the other thread. It makes sense now. Dont get depressed. Take all this information in stride. Dont let me or anyone else overwhelm you with information.

Yeah for the last few days ive been arguing abortion without religion, it always ended up debating semantics and technicalities and burden of proof, plus with 5 people arguing against me i didnt even really have time for it. Im just saying that without taking souls into account its harder to argue the point since for me the soul is really what decides if one is human. I agree about how thats a double standard for prostitution, but i think prostition will be legal before abortion is illegal. As the previous poster demonstrates, the pro aborts will probly just say they dont care about prostitution being legal.

[Sailor Moon]

Mycroft147 wrote: Sailor Moon wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: Plus the main quote your using is taken out of context, it says God first FORMED man, as in his body, then breathed life into him, as in giving him a soul. He wasnt a living being until he got a soul.

the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Check your bible. It says he became a living soul. It does not say he was given a soul.

Your ignoring the first two, what about the part where it says body AND soul?

The body BECOMES A SOUL.. When the soul dies, the body dies. The body can die, and take the soul with it, obviously. The soul is just the element of the body's being alive. (its lifeforce) Of course, we GET our soul FROM becoming alive. Therefore, our soul is retained within our body when we die. Therefore our soul goes to the ground, or "hell", when we die. If we sin, we die. We sin, and it affects our souls to die. Our element of living evil lives is a killer. It kills us to sin, therefore sin kills our souls. Our souls, being the force of good that keeps our body alive, DIES when we sin, therefore our body dies as well.

Our body cant survive without a soul, or a lifeforce, if you will. How could a soul survive without a body? A soul is ONLY what keeps the body alive, so when the body dies, obviously, the soul dies too.

Why would God want us all to burn in hell for all of eternity anyways? He is PURE and GOOD, he is our FATHER. Sure he loves justice, but come on.. making God out to be some kind of brandisher of horrible eternal curses is the work of the DEVIL. HE is putting GOD on TRIAL. Dont accept this temptation, son. God does NOT like to be put on trial, which is probably the only reason why I would never be a catholic. Catholics put god on trial all the time, from what I have seen, by saying things like "God is the cause.. God is putting you through these trials and tribulations.. God is hurtful.. God will destroy the earth.. God runs some firey place we call Hell, and we will all go there, every one of us, for being born into sin or committing sin"(surely he cant possibly love us if this was true!)

[Prole]

Mycroft wrote: Im just saying that without taking souls into account its harder to argue the point since for me the soul is really what decides if one is human.
An excellent point, but one that is this invalid in the abortion debate regarding ethics of a secular society such as ours. That which can neither be proven nor disproven has no place within intellectual debate.

That is not to say that there are no such thing as souls, or (if they do exist) when they come into a body, or if they are a part of the body, etc. But these things, while they ultimately are important to the people who believe in them, are still conjecture; there exists no proof for any of it. I suppose that's a part of faith; belief without proof, and I would never critisize a religious person for their belief in souls, God, etc than a would critisize an arelgious person for their disbelief in such things. Perhaps one day there will be proof of a soul, or God, or something else that might have an impact on the abortion debate.

For now, though, there is no proof of such things, and thus leaning on them for support of one's arguements is like leaning on an imaginary table. It might be there even though we can't see it, but you'll still come crashing to the ground.

[Sailor Moon]

Prole wrote: Mycroft wrote: Im just saying that without taking souls into account its harder to argue the point since for me the soul is really what decides if one is human.
An excellent point, but one that is this invalid in the abortion debate regarding ethics of a secular society such as ours. That which can neither be proven nor disproven has no place within intellectual debate.

That is not to say that there are no such thing as souls, or (if they do exist) when they come into a body, or if they are a part of the body, etc. But these things, while they ultimately are important to the people who believe in them, are still conjecture; there exists no proof for any of it. I suppose that's a part of faith; belief without proof, and I would never critisize a religious person for their belief in souls, God, etc than a would critisize an arelgious person for their disbelief in such things. Perhaps one day there will be proof of a soul, or God, or something else that might have an impact on the abortion debate.

For now, though, there is no proof of such things, and thus leaning on them for support of one's arguements is like leaning on an imaginary table. It might be there even though we can't see it, but you'll still come crashing to the ground.

If our society ws so secular, then why would this be allowed to come up?

Just because some people have secular views, does not mean we all do.

In fact, our nation, currently, is not secular at all..

A secular government does not cite a specific religious institution for the justification of its authority. However, some secular governments claim quasi-religious justifications for their powers, emphasizing the relationship mainly for ceremonial and rhetorical purposes. This is done for the general welfare and the benefit of the state, does not necessarily favor any specific religious group, and the state does not conform to any doctrine other than its own. This arrangement is called civil religion. Some secularists would allow the state to encourage religion (such as by providing exemptions from taxation, or providing funds for education and charities, including those that are "faith based"), but insist the state should not establish one religion as the state religion, require religious observance, or legislate dogma.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state

As far as using religion to justify authority, read up on oh, say about half of the presidents we have ever had.

Also, please read my prior post in reference to souls, as this is not a secular conversation, but a religious one. Remember, the majority of Americans are not secular, therefore all arguments are valid in this debate, whether you agree or not. Its called the First Amendment.

[WilliamTheGreat]

[b]Listen does anyone realize that abortion is a choice that is not only legal, but logical as well. The only reason there is an argument is because people are sticking their noses in other people's business. If we all just minded our own business there wouldn't be a debate. If people get abortions it's their problem and they can take it up with god when they die. :duh1:

[Prole]

Sailor Moon wrote:
If our society ws so secular, then why would this be allowed to come up?

The first amendment comes to mind. Though just because people are allowed to make whatever arguements they want does not make them viable.

Sailor Moon wrote:
A secular government does not cite a specific religious institution for the justification of its authority. However, some secular governments claim quasi-religious justifications for their powers, emphasizing the relationship mainly for ceremonial and rhetorical purposes. This is done for the general welfare and the benefit of the state, does not necessarily favor any specific religious group, and the state does not conform to any doctrine other than its own.
I disagree. The mere fact that it is religious means that it favors religious groups over areligious groups; this is unacceptable for our secular government. Furthermore, it is quite obvious that the religious tone for such ceremonial purposes is monothiestic, with a heavy leaning towards a Judeo-Christian God. Clearly, there are relgious groups which are conformed to far more than others.

Sailor Moon wrote:
This arrangement is called civil religion. Some secularists would allow the state to encourage religion (such as by providing exemptions from taxation, or providing funds for education and charities, including those that are "faith based"), but insist the state should not establish one religion as the state religion, require religious observance, or legislate dogma.

As for money for religious institutions, charity establishments are exempt from taxation; this has nothing to do with religion, as everything to do with relgious institutions being charities. As for "faith-based" charities (which have disproportionately been favoring conservative Christian churches above all others, but that is a subject for a different thread), no true secularist would support such a measure; it is the definitive opposite of what being a secularist stands for.

Sailor Moon wrote:
As far as using religion to justify authority, read up on oh, say about half of the presidents we have ever had.

Just because they used religion to justify something does not mean that they were right.

Sailor Moon wrote:
Also, please read my prior post in reference to souls, as this is not a secular conversation, but a religious one. Remember, the majority of Americans are not secular, therefore all arguments are valid in this debate, whether you agree or not. Its called the First Amendment.
The first amendment allows any arguement to be stated. It does not make it valid. And it does not make a single iota of difference whether 99% of people or 1% of people feel a certain way; in either situation, intellectual premises survive on their provable merits alone, and nothing else. Certainly not some unproven conjecture about souls or God(s), in any case.

Yes, people can certainly pass anti-abortion legislation on a state level, and it is no secret that religion is used (albeit, not overtly) as justification for many laws. But this is neither just nor valid. It goes against everything that America was founded upon. America was meant to be a land of freedom, freedom from the dominance and persecution of the religious majority. How one can celebrate the reinstatement of such dominance and still think themselves as believing in the values upon which America was founded is beyond me.

[jlrobe]

Sailor Moon wrote: Prole wrote: Mycroft wrote: Im just saying that without taking souls into account its harder to argue the point since for me the soul is really what decides if one is human.
An excellent point, but one that is this invalid in the abortion debate regarding ethics of a secular society such as ours. That which can neither be proven nor disproven has no place within intellectual debate.

That is not to say that there are no such thing as souls, or (if they do exist) when they come into a body, or if they are a part of the body, etc. But these things, while they ultimately are important to the people who believe in them, are still conjecture; there exists no proof for any of it. I suppose that's a part of faith; belief without proof, and I would never critisize a religious person for their belief in souls, God, etc than a would critisize an arelgious person for their disbelief in such things. Perhaps one day there will be proof of a soul, or God, or something else that might have an impact on the abortion debate.

For now, though, there is no proof of such things, and thus leaning on them for support of one's arguements is like leaning on an imaginary table. It might be there even though we can't see it, but you'll still come crashing to the ground.

If our society ws so secular, then why would this be allowed to come up?

Just because some people have secular views, does not mean we all do.

In fact, our nation, currently, is not secular at all..

A secular government does not cite a specific religious institution for the justification of its authority. However, some secular governments claim quasi-religious justifications for their powers, emphasizing the relationship mainly for ceremonial and rhetorical purposes. This is done for the general welfare and the benefit of the state, does not necessarily favor any specific religious group, and the state does not conform to any doctrine other than its own. This arrangement is called civil religion. Some secularists would allow the state to encourage religion (such as by providing exemptions from taxation, or providing funds for education and charities, including those that are "faith based"), but insist the state should not establish one religion as the state religion, require religious observance, or legislate dogma.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state

As far as using religion to justify authority, read up on oh, say about half of the presidents we have ever had.

Also, please read my prior post in reference to souls, as this is not a secular conversation, but a religious one. Remember, the majority of Americans are not secular, therefore all arguments are valid in this debate, whether you agree or not. Its called the First Amendment.

I too am religous. I grew up southern baptist, and still practice protestant religion primarily, however,I think it is important to seperate church and state. It is obvious that our culture has christian roots in it, but does not directly draw from the christian faith. While we all must still be moral and learn from religion, it shouldnt form our policy. Our laws come from our morals which comes from our faith, but in an indirect manner. For instance, adultery used to be punishable by death in early times. It was because it is one of the 10 commandments. US culture found this not acceptable and now adultery is punishable by nothing.

Also, if we used faith directly, it may be illegal to be homosexual or have a homosexual relationship but we have a right to privacy and other bills of rights that supersede our religious beliefs.

Abortion can be argued without religion, and should be argued without religion. The main push for it can be out of religion, but in the court room, it should and will be left out. At the state level, religion will be there, but at the national level, it will not be allowed.

When it comes to faith, I respect everyone. I appreciate sailor's views and mycroft's views, and how they are different. I think both of your beliefs are valid/enlightening and are your own, and thats the beauty of America. We dont impose our beliefs on others.

An intellectual debate can have any reference in it, so long as both people involved in the debate agree with the others resource. For instance, if a muslim and christian are having a debate and the muslim doesnt recognize the bible in the debate, and the christian doesnt recgonize the Qu'ran, then the debate is completely pointless for both parties. THey must agree to disagree and find some other references to use as in their discussion. If however, there is a debate where both people validate faith arguments, then of course you can use your faith and references that back it up. Now, many times, people need to agree to disagree, and I think this is where the disrespect comes.

If people use faith and the other person doesnt recgonize it, they must immediately agree to disagree and change the nature of the argument to continue. Many times, the faith based person can say "your wrong, you dont know what your talking about, your blind" and alienate the other person instead of saying "You dont subscribe to my beliefs, thats fine, lets agree to disagree on them, and move on or quit".

Most people on here have that form of respect so I think using faith is not only interesting but necessary in many discussions that take place here.

[Sailor Moon]

[quote="Prole"] Sailor Moon wrote:

Sailor Moon wrote:
As far as using religion to justify authority, read up on oh, say about half of the presidents we have ever had.

Just because they used religion to justify something does not mean that they were right.

No but it means they were not secular. I never said they were right.

Quote: Sailor Moon wrote:
Also, please read my prior post in reference to souls, as this is not a secular conversation, but a religious one. Remember, the majority of Americans are not secular, therefore all arguments are valid in this debate, whether you agree or not. Its called the First Amendment.
The first amendment allows any arguement to be stated. It does not make it valid. And it does not make a single iota of difference whether 99% of people or 1% of people feel a certain way; in either situation, intellectual premises survive on their provable merits alone, and nothing else. Certainly not some unproven conjecture about souls or God(s), in any case.

So now youre just argung religion, rather than secularism, it seems. WELL! Thats nt what this debate has turned into. We started talking about souls, and then you decided to turn this into non secular society, which I have obviously refuted as false. Now youre just arguing religion in general... I think that just about covers it.

Quote: Yes, people can certainly pass anti-abortion legislation on a state level, and it is no secret that religion is used (albeit, not overtly) as justification for many laws. But this is neither just nor valid. It goes against everything that America was founded upon. America was meant to be a land of freedom, freedom from the dominance and persecution of the religious majority. How one can celebrate the reinstatement of such dominance and still think themselves as believing in the values upon which America was founded is beyond me.

Well, allow me to give you the definition of the word "born", for your Constitutional debating purposes:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/born
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861732081
http://www.allwords.com/query.php?SearchType=3&Keyword=born&goquery=Find+it!&Language=ENG
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/passive

...And legally, if the term is passive, it is inactive, therefore "born" is not legally meaning "to have been born", but is only a generalized way of saying "bear", in simpler terms, as far as the Constitution is concerned.

Anyways, to "bear" is an active term, and more concise. Obviously a pregnant woman's unborn child is covered by her insurance for prenatal care.. "to be sustained".. "to bear" means to take or accept.. well obviously if your body accepts the sperm, then the child has been, generally, born, or beared... its "fit or suitable"...

Also, having a specific quality of ability by natural attribute.. or destined to do it.. "The egg was fertilized, whereupon, the embryo was born into the early stages of life"... "to be productive, bring fruit", also...

Fruit of thy womb...