One-Issue Voters Make Me Sick

[David Floyd]

True, but the children retain the same moral rights over their own body as the mother has over hers.

Even assuming that a fetus is the same as the mother, which I'm not willing to grant until most doctors and scientists agree that it is, you forget that the fetus has no way to express any desire or enforce any rights. Further, even if it could, those rights would still be subject to the rights of the mother, because the mother's body is necessary for the fetus to stay alive, not the other way around. Any way you cut it, the mother's consent is morally required.

Frozen embryos can survive without the consent of their mother.

I suppose, but there's probably a 99.9% probability that it will never be adopted, and in the meantime, I don't agree - nor do most scientists and doctors - that a bunch of cells floating in a petry dish has any rights.

[Ben Kenobi]

Atheism isn't a religion. Catholicism is. Now, many people like to call atheism a religion, and that may be true for certain definitions in the case of certain rabid atheists, but in the sense I'm talking about, I simply mean the complete absence of religion from government.

To remove religion from government is no different from persecuting others according to their beliefs of conscience.

This is why I asked the question I did of Drachosaur. It is only those who allow religious expression, who can also permit deviations of conscience. The absence of religion is the same as the establishment of religion.

[David Floyd]

Atheism is a religion, in that it cannot be proven along empirical grounds, and is based upon the dictations of conscience.

That's ridiculous. You don't have to prove the non-existence of God. While I believe in God, I at least know that much about logic. You can't prove a negative - rather, you have to prove a positive. The burden of proof is on those who believe in God to prove that God exists, not on those who don't believe in God to prove he doesn't exist.

[Ben Kenobi]

That's technically "hard atheism" that is a faith-based belief; which is not religion.

If you don't like that, then let us say an agnostic government. How about that?

An agnostic religion does not forbid the religious from practicing their faith as they see fit, even in the legislature.

[David Floyd]

To remove religion from government is no different from persecuting others according to their beliefs of conscience.

Uh, how? You aren't persecuting anyone by forcing them to not enforce their religious beliefs on others any more than you persecute someone by not allowing them to stone their children for disobedience. Religious freedom doesn't extend to enforcing your beliefs on others, through force or the mechanism of the state.

[Kuciwalker]

Huh?

An agnostic could have any morality he or she feels like, including the belief that one ought to suppress religion.

edit: xpost

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
To remove religion from government is no different from persecuting others according to their beliefs of conscience.

This is why I asked the question I did of Drachosaur. It is only those who allow religious expression, who can also permit deviations of conscience. The absence of religion is the same as the establishment of religion.

There are basic moral truths that almost everyone agrees on. Those can be espoused by the government and encouraged in the schools. A wide variety of justifications and reasonings on them can be discussed in ethics classes.

There would still be moral disagreements, but those always exist.

In any case, the lack of a religion espoused by the government is not the same as the espousing of a religion by the government. One allows a plurality of views in the government and the other does not. Naturally in the former you will have to justify laws by more than just religious decree; afterall, there are many that would not accept a particular religious decree by a particular religion.

-Drachasor

[Ben Kenobi]

You don't have to prove the non-existence of God. While I believe in God, I at least know that much about logic. You can't prove a negative - rather, you have to prove a positive. The burden of proof is on those who believe in God to prove that God exists, not on those who don't believe in God to prove he doesn't exist.

Which is precisely why assurance that God does not exist must be based on faith rather than upon reason. Reason does not permit such assurance, as one cannot conclusively prove a negative.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Atheism is a religion, in that it cannot be proven along empirical grounds, and is based upon the dictations of conscience.

Oh, are we playing the "make up definitions that fit our arguments" game? Cool! That's fun!

Atheism is not a religion. It is merely the absence of a belief.

-Arrian

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
An agnostic religion does not forbid the religious from practicing their faith as they see fit, even in the legislature.

re·li·gion Audio pronunciation of "religion" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.

1.
1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.


Agnosticism is doubt on a belief, and atheism can merely be the lack of a belief.

Neither is a religion by itself.

-Drachasor

[David Floyd]

An agnostic religion does not forbid the religious from practicing their faith as they see fit, even in the legislature.

So you believe that in a religiously free state, people should be able to exercise their religion by passing laws based solely upon that religion and enforcing them on others? That basically just sounds like mandating the ruling party's religion.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
God will save lumps of undifferentiated cells? Where will He put them?

The great big petri dish in the sky.

[David Floyd]

Which is precisely why assurance that God does not exist must be based on faith rather than upon reason. Reason does not permit such assurance, as one cannot conclusively prove a negative.

Right, nor does it have to. I can be rational and believe that there are no alien artifacts on the dark side of the Moon.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Arrian


Oh, are we playing the "make up definitions that fit our arguments" game? Cool! That's fun!

Atheism is not a religion. It is merely the absence of a belief.

EDIT: Ah, we're getting into the "Hard Atheism/Soft Atheism" issue again. Hard Atheism, the assertion that God absolutely does not exist, can be said to lack proof and thus it could be argue to be a belief akin to religious beliefs. Soft Atheism aka Agnosticism, on the other hand, is not that way.

The State need not assert that there is no God. The State need not assert there is one. The State should stay away from such things altogether.

EDIT2: damn. I meant to edit, not to quote my post. Sigh.
-Arrian

[Ben Kenobi]

BK, I simply can't understand why abortion is such a major issue for a Presidential candidate - the President does not really set abortion laws. Congress writes the laws, and the Supreme Court rules on challenges to the law. Now, the President can INFLUENCE Congress, and he can make appointments to the Supreme Court - but you should realize that any makeup of the Supreme Court that is not composed of social conservatives with a political agenda is not going to overturn Roe.

And you answer your own question. The president can veto laws passed by congress. He makes the appointments to the Supreme court that must be considered by the Congress. He can propose bills for the approval of the Congress.

There is much that a prolife president can do, and much that a pro-abortion president can do.

Why do you think Kerry has established a litmus test for his Supreme Court nominees?

So, while the President can impact abortion, aren't there more important issues that he has more direct control over? Such as, I don't know, starting wars?

Congress must approve of all wars, DF.

As for the rest of your emotionally charged speech about abortion and embryonic stem cells, why don't you just defer to expert scientific opinion? When doctors agree that embryos and fetuses are living humans, the same as you and me, then I'll be closer to opposing abortion, although you still ignore the fact that a fetus relies on the body of the mother for support, so the continued consent of the mother seems to me to be morally required as well.

I do defer to scientific opinion. Scientific opinion has established that human life begins at conception. How one can treat the same process use to make babies through In Vitro fertilisation, differently from the same process used to harvest stem cells, is a complete mystery to me.

Who do these frozen embryos rely upon for their support? Their biological mother, or their adopted mother? Who has more right to the child, the woman who does not want them, or the woman who is willing to raise them and care for them? Who is the true mother to these children?

But in any case, I don't pretend to more about science and medicine than doctors and scientists, and THEY overwhelmingly do not take your view on abortion and stem cell research.

Do they overwhelmingly support or oppose abortion? Of course, the researchers who are involved in embryonic stem cell research will have vested interest in preserving their funding.

Why do you think that is - do they all have a political agenda? No, I doubt it. The ones with a political/religious agenda tend to be the social conservative/religious right doctors and scientists.

How so? How can you say that it is only the conservatives who have a political agenda? That makes no sense to me. The liberals have a political agenda that must also be considered.