Well if you want to snip a few words here or there you can make something clear as you want, but the Bible clearly not only says there should be churches but gives some loose guidelines as to how they should function. In context Jesus is admonishing those who would go out into the streets and puff out their chest at how holy and good they were which was a common practice at the time. He was not telling people to hide their faith. If you want scriptural evidence that churches are indeed a critical component of Christianity:
In Mt 16:18:
"on this rock I will build my church"
Luke 8:16-17
"No one, when he has lit a lamp, covers it with a container"
Protestants and Catholics differ on what 'rock' he was talking about with Catholics believing its Peter and Protestants believing its the truth that Christ is the Messiah. but its pretty clear Christ is saying he will build a church
We can also look at the letters of the apostles (and the book of acts) to see that clearly church formation was a very important component of Christianity and is a very important support mechanism for Christians who, themselves, are as flawed and sinful as anyone else.
One might disagree in such a large central and controlling a church as the catholic church but to try and scripture twist your way into Christ saying their should not be common places of worship for Christians and that those places are not to be a beacon to the world is agenda driven drivel of the highest caliber..
IUm not Catholic so I don't have a dog in this fight but I hate it when people cut and paste scripture to try to make a point rather than taking scripture as a whole.
-- Matthew 19:21
Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." --
Nice that you quoted from the gospel of Matthew, the man who managed the money that was used towards the ministry of Christ. Yes the Catholic church will have to stand before God and answer for how they have used their wealth but a church having money in and of itself is *not* bad.
----
"It's 99% of the people who purport to follow him that manage to genuinely fuck up the world."
Oh yea 99% of the worlds problems are caused by Christians...
Privacy: Lets face it the governments of the world *all of them* would love a system that is easer to keep an eye on, protocols that are easier to track,....,.... The Internet is not perfect but a person with even a modest amount of knowledge can pretty much get around without leaving footprints. You want to read a wiki article on explosives? not without getting flagged you don't...
Access: Corporations would love nothing more than to make sure they are the only ones who can do anything, forget bandwidth shaping as a problem imagine when the mega corps can get together to make sure that small businesses or media that speaks unfairly of them are shut, or slowed down, with more ease than can be done today.
Extradition Procedures and Required Documents. Article 8 establishes the procedures and describes the documents that are required to support a request for extradition. All requests for extradition shall be submitted through the diplomatic channel. Among other requirements, Article 8(3) provides that a request for the extradition of a person sought for prosecution must be supported by: (a) a copy of the warrant or order of arrest issued by a judge or other competent authority; (b) a copy of the charging document, if any; and (c) for requests to the United States, such information as would provide a reasonable basis to believe that the person sought committed the offense for which extradition is sought. The Treaty will not change the evidentiary burden required for extradition requests to the United States. ***However, under the new Treaty, the evidentiary requirements for extradition from the United Kingdom are lowered from a "prima facie" standard to what in practice will constitute a U.S. probable cause standard."***
The standards are the same, the UK bar was lowered to meet the US standard..
huh? how is honoring extradition treaties acting as a 'lap dog'?
This is not about the wot or any of the crap thats been going on for the past decade in the us, this is about a man who committed a crime and thought because the victim was across the pond his UK citizenship would keep him from actually facing the music. Please tell me how this treaty is one sided "http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/fs/34885.htm"..
But hey you ranted about the US and the UK in a single post and thats sure to get you some 'street cred' here on/.
"I actually agree that the welfare state here is too generous, but in the US it's so ungenerous you see people literally starving and that's what leads to a massively higher homicide rate."
People in the US are not starving, we are one of the most obese nations on the planet (were number 1, were number 1)... The massively higher homicide rate has *nothing* to do with people starving to death, I dont remember the last time someone was murdered for a loaf of bread or a package of cheese, we have a culture which is more violent and a WoD which is causing many young African American men to become institutionalized at a young age.. but hey maybe you can point me at these states which show a massive disparity in starvation between Europe and the US and then tie it to crime..
Oil is dropping because congress has gotten serious about speculators, not because of drilling hell we are nowhere near approving drilling yet and the leading presidential candidate is against it!
Meanwhile investigations have started against speculators who gamed the market and all the sudden prices start dropping, couple that with Americans driving millions upon millions fewer miles this summer than last and that is why you have a drop in price..
From stories I have seen he is sighting a correlative pattern between cellphone use and brain cancer. There is no causative relationship explained. There may be something to this, then again if we were to chart the amount of brain cancer to the number of people exposed to wireless hot spots we would see a similar correlation.
Honestly the only way Republicans could have done worse than McCain is to re-run bush... So if you mean it would have prevented November from being even more of a landslide than its shaping up to be then yes, you're right..
Is a computer easier or harder to use now that its more sophisticated? As a tool I have little problems with computers in the class when someone can read/write/and do math and *maybe* even a useful root language like Latin at an 8th grade level..
Its not like a computer can teach you to think critically, they also stifle real research skills. Why poor though references or bother to learn the proper way to annotate them if you can just google for a text string?
Kids don't learn Latin anymore but they are learning to 'use' computers at the age of 11, get real. As a tool they are useful but in order to be a tool the user must have some basic skills that becoming computer dependent at that age will seriously retard. I really think there is no call for kids to be using computers as part of the educational experience before high-school.
"Clinton for lying (though it was a lie on a question that should never have been asked of him)."
No doubt Bush should stand for impeachment for what he does but please don't minimize what Clinton did whit a poorly masked excuse. A woman had a reasonable claim that she was sexually harassed and he lied at her trial thus squashing justice for her... F
Frankly I dont care who he is involved with but I do care that the rights of a woman were secondary to his need to have a clean image. He could have told the truth and still would not have been found guilty and that would (a) have not deprived her of her rights or (b) led to the whole impeachment mess.
"Supposedly, Obama will pursue this if he gets into office and has said that he will free up ALL previous president records (except those for national security)."
Obama has said that he *might* push this I *really* doubt he will as he seems to want to build a coalition and going after Bush will not accomplish this. Obama is plaing people when he allows them to hope he will go after Bush.
"You don't want to admit to what you did? Fine. Clearly you are not mature enough to own up to such an insult and apologize and this will continue to be a, "No I didn't - Yes You Did" situation."
If you wish to go on feigning offense at an insult that only occurred in your head there is nothing I can do. If you can go back and point out exactly where I called *you* a slave owner Id be happy to explain exactly what I was saying.
"It is the fact that you would use that "scientific" knowledge to force a woman to have a child."
No one forced her to become pregnant unless, perhaps, she was raped.
"it is your faith that tells you that you must protect that life at all costs."
Its no more my faith defining that then our laws against murder. Its not a position I take because I am of $Religion no more than homicide laws are driven by $Religion. You continue to try to jam people into boxes in which they do not fit because should tey reside in those boxes your black and white view of the issue is safe, it is much like when many 'pro-lifers' decided that all who have an abortion are evil because that being the case its easier for them to be indignant and superior feeling.
"If you want to get really scientific about it, then I would argue that embryonic life is indistinguishable from the mother's life."
Based on what? an embryo is no more Dependant on a mother than a nursing newborn.. unless we introduce technology ( artificial formula )
"I will still adamantly state that eugenics is pressure that occurs outside of the two parents to abort"
Such as a social pressure? and a social structure to accommodate that pressure..
"Just because it may technically be human life does not negate the fact that you are interfering with the life of the mother."
When two peoples rights come to a head the more fundamental right always wins out. My right to free speech does not allow me to libel you, it does not allow me to harass you because, you to, have rights. In a similar manner because "it may technically be human life" the rights of both parties have to be considered and which right is more fundamental? the right to not be pregnant or the right not be murdered? Its always hard when two parties who are both victims of circumstance have competing interest and rights and we as a society need to step up and help both but the more fundamental right must stand.
"That is why I state you support a theocracy or non secular government"
Which still has nothing to do with religion we have laws for age of consent, ages when alcohol can be consumed, where you can smoke, what you can smoke,.... and these laws are from a purely secular government. What you are describing as 'theocracy' (telling people what they can do with their body) is at the root of what any government does but because you disagree with me on this issue you say 'well in this case telling someone what to do makes you theocratic' when you, I would assume, hold no such view on the age of consent laws..
"I deny that it is a preconception or that I have been obtuse, deliberately or otherwise."
You certainly look like your obtuse about it as your definition of theocracy is so limited and arbitrary in scope as to make your other positions laughable.
1) Do you wish to prevent a mother from aborting her baby?
Do you wish to prevent a mother from smothering her 1 day old? you must be a theocrat
2) Do you wish to prevent a mother from aborting her baby based upon scientific knowledge that the baby will develop debilitating disease or other birth defects?
Yes, I also dont want people post birth exterminated for defects... If were talking the baby will be born still born well thats a different issue but I have no more rights than the disabled..
3) Do you wish to prevent a mother from modifying her babies genetic code to eliminate debilitating disease or other birth defects?
Killing a baby and getting pregnant again is not *modifying* its code.. If you can poin
Actually for the life of the mother in imminent danger I see no reason for any such restriction. i.e. if She has cancer and either gets treated or dies there is no place for a government to step in.
"Calling me a slave owner for advocating secular government was wrong"
I neither called you a slave owner nor in *any* way tried to imply that attitudes of those who would have slavery follewed from a secular government but hey keep trying..
"Actually you clearly do want government that is beholden to church and/or religion."
Thats called a non-sequiter, you know what you take position (a) I believe the unborn are humans with another unrelated position on the place of religion in government. One can believe that all people from conception are equal without basing it in any particular faith.
"What you do not want to acknowledge is that until the fetus or "clump of cells" leaves a woman's body is it NOT A PERSON OR A CHILD. It can't be. To do ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING OTHERWISE is to place controls on a woman's body."
And thats a form of circular logic, X cant exist because that might mean Y and I dont Y so because Y has to exist then X cant exist...
"Eugenics applies BEFORE the embryo comes into existence. Parents modifying their embryos is quite obviously"
You have this habit of defining things to suit you, its a great way to win debates in your head but not in the real world:
"Eugenics is a social philosophy which advocates the improvement of human hereditary traits through various forms of intervention." Abortion, sterilization, laws, and other methods can be used to accomplish this end.. Your attempt to scope things either large enough or small enough to suit your argument is rather transparent.
"I'm sorry, but I clearly do have a solid basis for stating that you support a theocracy or non secular government."
Yes and the reason is because I think life begins at conception...
"Are you sure you don't want to rephrase that? Science may be "cold" since it can be devoid of faith and warm fuzzy feelings at some points."
Has nothing to do with a lack of faith it has to do with the nature of science... use the right tool for the right job and humans often in compassion (weather or not they have a particular or *any at all* religion) often act against what would be scientifically reasonable. Humans emotions are not formulaic and should thusly not be governed by formula..
Again with the insults? A preconception is, "An opinion or conception formed in advance of adequate knowledge or experience, especially a prejudice or bias".
Which is different exactly how from you saying 'you're pro life you must want theocracy'. The fact you ignore your preconceptions shows just how obtuse ( I am assuming purposefully ) you're being..
'I succeeded. The evidence is plenty.'
Yes yes I know, disagree with you on abortion=closet theocrat... Pardon me for not taking scientific advice from you..
Ahh but when you provide a sperm with an egg the sperm dies it spills out its genetic material and dies, in a similar manner the egg itself other than providing chemical nutrients in the process is consumed. There is no egg or no sperm it is a rather finite transition with a finite beginning and end from sperm and egg to a human embryo. where as the transition from embryo to toddler is no more finite than from toddler to pre-schooler..
"I accept reasonable restrictions on abortion, based on current knowledge."
LOL for someone who said I was trying to call him a slave owner you sure are quick to invent reasons to fear me?
"I clearly support a secular government and you support a non-secular government."
I desire no government of man which is beholden to a church or religion, nothing I have said can *in the least possible way* be construed to mean this unless your bias against certain people leads you to believe 'pro-life' is the same as wanting a theocracy and that *seriously* undercuts the legitimacy of your opinion.
"I don't believe it is God's will or anything like that, but I do think things happen for a reason. Hence my stance against abortion."
Are you truly this obtuse or are you just tired? We value the right of different races, genders, people of disabilities and do this all within a *purely secular* framework. Whether or not God is involved there is a seious question as to when something becomes human life and the argument of 'when it can survive out side the mother' would have moved the mark from 36 weeks down to 22 or so over the past two decades.
"What!? I am not aware that abortions are being performed based on hair color and eye color."
Your ignorance, by this time, does not surprise me.. I will try to track it down but some doctors in england are arguing that as a kid can be mocked for a given hair color that counts as stressful to the child so cosmetic abortions should be allowed and this does fit within your model of 'just a clump of cells'
"Who cares about planned parenthood? You keep brining up things that have nothing to do with two parents selecting or modifying their own embryos"
And you do what you accuse others of, selectively quoting them to shoot them down. You said eugenics had to be by force of law. Well I put it to you that force of culture is just as strong and used an organizations who's sole initial purpose was to prevent undesirables from growing as a percent of the population who even, today, receive government funds as proof you dont need a eugenics law for a society to nurture the evil attitude of that philosophy.
"However, overall my point is once again my desire for a secular government based on science and reason. A position you clearly disagree on."
Again you have no basis to accuse me of wanting a theocracy, nice try... You want a government based on *your* reason, not scientific reason. Scientifically speaking an embryo is human, it is certainly human by, say, 20 months when survivability becomes seriously possible.
"But scientific reasoning should be the only basis for us to decide laws."
My only problem is science can be cold, humanity should be the basis on which we apply laws. Scientifically speaking eugenics makes sense of course the concept should chill a person to the core...
"I personally don't think government should have a position based on faith."
Nor do I, my belief in the innate person hood of the unborn is at a human and scientific level.. But your preconceptions are shaping the direction of this conversation.
"You seem to think that NOT advocating your version of Pro-Life is taking a position."
It most certainly is, were not talking about a speed limit. To go back to slavery either you think it is wrong or you think its ok for some to do it.. there is no middle ground , at the macro level, on some issues.
"So you finally resort to insults and name calling."
An ass is a stupid stubborn animal and your attempts to constantly paint me as someone who wants to impose my religious beliefs on others is neither true, nor supported by any evidence... thusly the name is apt..
Slashdot Mirror
Well if you want to snip a few words here or there you can make something clear as you want, but the Bible clearly not only says there should be churches but gives some loose guidelines as to how they should function. In context Jesus is admonishing those who would go out into the streets and puff out their chest at how holy and good they were which was a common practice at the time. He was not telling people to hide their faith. If you want scriptural evidence that churches are indeed a critical component of Christianity:
In Mt 16:18:
"on this rock I will build my church"
Luke 8:16-17
"No one, when he has lit a lamp, covers it with a container"
Protestants and Catholics differ on what 'rock' he was talking about with Catholics believing its Peter and Protestants believing its the truth that Christ is the Messiah. but its pretty clear Christ is saying he will build a church
We can also look at the letters of the apostles (and the book of acts) to see that clearly church formation was a very important component of Christianity and is a very important support mechanism for Christians who, themselves, are as flawed and sinful as anyone else.
One might disagree in such a large central and controlling a church as the catholic church but to try and scripture twist your way into Christ saying their should not be common places of worship for Christians and that those places are not to be a beacon to the world is agenda driven drivel of the highest caliber..
I fail to see how any of these are justification for banning the 'church system', these are restrictions on an individuals behavior
IUm not Catholic so I don't have a dog in this fight but I hate it when people cut and paste scripture to try to make a point rather than taking scripture as a whole.
--
Matthew 19:21
Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
--
Nice that you quoted from the gospel of Matthew, the man who managed the money that was used towards the ministry of Christ. Yes the Catholic church will have to stand before God and answer for how they have used their wealth but a church having money in and of itself is *not* bad.
----
"It's 99% of the people who purport to follow him that manage to genuinely fuck up the world."
Oh yea 99% of the worlds problems are caused by Christians...
Privacy and access come to mind...
Privacy: Lets face it the governments of the world *all of them* would love a system that is easer to keep an eye on, protocols that are easier to track, ...., .... The Internet is not perfect but a person with even a modest amount of knowledge can pretty much get around without leaving footprints. You want to read a wiki article on explosives? not without getting flagged you don't...
Access: Corporations would love nothing more than to make sure they are the only ones who can do anything, forget bandwidth shaping as a problem imagine when the mega corps can get together to make sure that small businesses or media that speaks unfairly of them are shut, or slowed down, with more ease than can be done today.
I assume youre talking about this?
"Article 8
Extradition Procedures and Required Documents. Article 8 establishes the procedures and describes the documents that are required to support a request for extradition. All requests for extradition shall be submitted through the diplomatic channel. Among other requirements, Article 8(3) provides that a request for the extradition of a person sought for prosecution must be supported by: (a) a copy of the warrant or order of arrest issued by a judge or other competent authority; (b) a copy of the charging document, if any; and (c) for requests to the United States, such information as would provide a reasonable basis to believe that the person sought committed the offense for which extradition is sought. The Treaty will not change the evidentiary burden required for extradition requests to the United States. ***However, under the new Treaty, the evidentiary requirements for extradition from the United Kingdom are lowered from a "prima facie" standard to what in practice will constitute a U.S. probable cause standard."***
The standards are the same, the UK bar was lowered to meet the US standard..
huh? how is honoring extradition treaties acting as a 'lap dog'?
This is not about the wot or any of the crap thats been going on for the past decade in the us, this is about a man who committed a crime and thought because the victim was across the pond his UK citizenship would keep him from actually facing the music. Please tell me how this treaty is one sided "http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/fs/34885.htm"..
But hey you ranted about the US and the UK in a single post and thats sure to get you some 'street cred' here on /.
"I actually agree that the welfare state here is too generous, but in the US it's so ungenerous you see people literally starving and that's what leads to a massively higher homicide rate."
People in the US are not starving, we are one of the most obese nations on the planet (were number 1, were number 1)... The massively higher homicide rate has *nothing* to do with people starving to death, I dont remember the last time someone was murdered for a loaf of bread or a package of cheese, we have a culture which is more violent and a WoD which is causing many young African American men to become institutionalized at a young age.. but hey maybe you can point me at these states which show a massive disparity in starvation between Europe and the US and then tie it to crime..
Oil is dropping because congress has gotten serious about speculators, not because of drilling hell we are nowhere near approving drilling yet and the leading presidential candidate is against it!
Meanwhile investigations have started against speculators who gamed the market and all the sudden prices start dropping, couple that with Americans driving millions upon millions fewer miles this summer than last and that is why you have a drop in price..
From stories I have seen he is sighting a correlative pattern between cellphone use and brain cancer. There is no causative relationship explained. There may be something to this, then again if we were to chart the amount of brain cancer to the number of people exposed to wireless hot spots we would see a similar correlation.
2d mars was getting so old...
Honestly the only way Republicans could have done worse than McCain is to re-run bush... So if you mean it would have prevented November from being even more of a landslide than its shaping up to be then yes, you're right..
Keep in mind many of the Blue dogs may dislike Bush as such but are themselves right leaning democrats...
As I said, I have no issues with kids in HS using those tools, just grade school..
lol nice catch ;) I am a product of teachers who thought 'who cares about spelling, thats what spell checkers are for' So I am a victim here /sarc
Latin is a great resource if you want to learn other romance languages, and it is the language of western science.
Is a computer easier or harder to use now that its more sophisticated? As a tool I have little problems with computers in the class when someone can read/write/and do math and *maybe* even a useful root language like Latin at an 8th grade level..
And following your logic we should not be teaching math at all just how to use a calculator.. See how silly following logic can be!
Its not like a computer can teach you to think critically, they also stifle real research skills. Why poor though references or bother to learn the proper way to annotate them if you can just google for a text string?
Kids don't learn Latin anymore but they are learning to 'use' computers at the age of 11, get real. As a tool they are useful but in order to be a tool the user must have some basic skills that becoming computer dependent at that age will seriously retard. I really think there is no call for kids to be using computers as part of the educational experience before high-school.
"He's already said the "16 Month time table" would be modified by what the commanders on the ground told him."
lol, so IOW he has said nothing... 'I'd Like to pull out but really I dont know so *vote for meeeeee*'
I like obama more than most pol's but I dont trust him any more than most..
"Clinton for lying (though it was a lie on a question that should never have been asked of him)."
No doubt Bush should stand for impeachment for what he does but please don't minimize what Clinton did whit a poorly masked excuse. A woman had a reasonable claim that she was sexually harassed and he lied at her trial thus squashing justice for her... F
Frankly I dont care who he is involved with but I do care that the rights of a woman were secondary to his need to have a clean image. He could have told the truth and still would not have been found guilty and that would (a) have not deprived her of her rights or (b) led to the whole impeachment mess.
"Supposedly, Obama will pursue this if he gets into office and has said that he will free up ALL previous president records (except those for national security)."
Obama has said that he *might* push this I *really* doubt he will as he seems to want to build a coalition and going after Bush will not accomplish this. Obama is plaing people when he allows them to hope he will go after Bush.
"You don't want to admit to what you did? Fine. Clearly you are not mature enough to own up to such an insult and apologize and this will continue to be a, "No I didn't - Yes You Did" situation."
If you wish to go on feigning offense at an insult that only occurred in your head there is nothing I can do. If you can go back and point out exactly where I called *you* a slave owner Id be happy to explain exactly what I was saying.
"It is the fact that you would use that "scientific" knowledge to force a woman to have a child."
No one forced her to become pregnant unless, perhaps, she was raped.
"it is your faith that tells you that you must protect that life at all costs."
Its no more my faith defining that then our laws against murder. Its not a position I take because I am of $Religion no more than homicide laws are driven by $Religion. You continue to try to jam people into boxes in which they do not fit because should tey reside in those boxes your black and white view of the issue is safe, it is much like when many 'pro-lifers' decided that all who have an abortion are evil because that being the case its easier for them to be indignant and superior feeling.
"If you want to get really scientific about it, then I would argue that embryonic life is indistinguishable from the mother's life."
Based on what? an embryo is no more Dependant on a mother than a nursing newborn.. unless we introduce technology ( artificial formula )
"I will still adamantly state that eugenics is pressure that occurs outside of the two parents to abort"
Such as a social pressure? and a social structure to accommodate that pressure..
"Just because it may technically be human life does not negate the fact that you are interfering with the life of the mother."
When two peoples rights come to a head the more fundamental right always wins out. My right to free speech does not allow me to libel you, it does not allow me to harass you because, you to, have rights. In a similar manner because "it may technically be human life" the rights of both parties have to be considered and which right is more fundamental? the right to not be pregnant or the right not be murdered? Its always hard when two parties who are both victims of circumstance have competing interest and rights and we as a society need to step up and help both but the more fundamental right must stand.
"That is why I state you support a theocracy or non secular government"
Which still has nothing to do with religion we have laws for age of consent, ages when alcohol can be consumed, where you can smoke, what you can smoke, .... and these laws are from a purely secular government. What you are describing as 'theocracy' (telling people what they can do with their body) is at the root of what any government does but because you disagree with me on this issue you say 'well in this case telling someone what to do makes you theocratic' when you, I would assume, hold no such view on the age of consent laws..
"I deny that it is a preconception or that I have been obtuse, deliberately or otherwise."
You certainly look like your obtuse about it as your definition of theocracy is so limited and arbitrary in scope as to make your other positions laughable.
1) Do you wish to prevent a mother from aborting her baby?
Do you wish to prevent a mother from smothering her 1 day old? you must be a theocrat
2) Do you wish to prevent a mother from aborting her baby based upon scientific knowledge that the baby will develop debilitating disease or other birth defects?
Yes, I also dont want people post birth exterminated for defects... If were talking the baby will be born still born well thats a different issue but I have no more rights than the disabled..
3) Do you wish to prevent a mother from modifying her babies genetic code to eliminate debilitating disease or other birth defects?
Killing a baby and getting pregnant again is not *modifying* its code.. If you can poin
Actually for the life of the mother in imminent danger I see no reason for any such restriction. i.e. if She has cancer and either gets treated or dies there is no place for a government to step in.
"Calling me a slave owner for advocating secular government was wrong"
I neither called you a slave owner nor in *any* way tried to imply that attitudes of those who would have slavery follewed from a secular government but hey keep trying..
"Actually you clearly do want government that is beholden to church and/or religion."
Thats called a non-sequiter, you know what you take position (a) I believe the unborn are humans with another unrelated position on the place of religion in government. One can believe that all people from conception are equal without basing it in any particular faith.
"What you do not want to acknowledge is that until the fetus or "clump of cells" leaves a woman's body is it NOT A PERSON OR A CHILD. It can't be. To do ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING OTHERWISE is to place controls on a woman's body."
And thats a form of circular logic, X cant exist because that might mean Y and I dont Y so because Y has to exist then X cant exist...
"Eugenics applies BEFORE the embryo comes into existence. Parents modifying their embryos is quite obviously"
You have this habit of defining things to suit you, its a great way to win debates in your head but not in the real world:
"Eugenics is a social philosophy which advocates the improvement of human hereditary traits through various forms of intervention." Abortion, sterilization, laws, and other methods can be used to accomplish this end.. Your attempt to scope things either large enough or small enough to suit your argument is rather transparent.
"I'm sorry, but I clearly do have a solid basis for stating that you support a theocracy or non secular government."
Yes and the reason is because I think life begins at conception...
"Are you sure you don't want to rephrase that? Science may be "cold" since it can be devoid of faith and warm fuzzy feelings at some points."
Has nothing to do with a lack of faith it has to do with the nature of science... use the right tool for the right job and humans often in compassion (weather or not they have a particular or *any at all* religion) often act against what would be scientifically reasonable. Humans emotions are not formulaic and should thusly not be governed by formula..
Again with the insults? A preconception is, "An opinion or conception formed in advance of adequate knowledge or experience, especially a prejudice or bias".
Which is different exactly how from you saying 'you're pro life you must want theocracy'. The fact you ignore your preconceptions shows just how obtuse ( I am assuming purposefully ) you're being..
'I succeeded. The evidence is plenty.'
Yes yes I know, disagree with you on abortion=closet theocrat... Pardon me for not taking scientific advice from you..
Ahh but when you provide a sperm with an egg the sperm dies it spills out its genetic material and dies, in a similar manner the egg itself other than providing chemical nutrients in the process is consumed. There is no egg or no sperm it is a rather finite transition with a finite beginning and end from sperm and egg to a human embryo. where as the transition from embryo to toddler is no more finite than from toddler to pre-schooler..
"I accept reasonable restrictions on abortion, based on current knowledge."
And what restriction would that be?
LOL for someone who said I was trying to call him a slave owner you sure are quick to invent reasons to fear me?
"I clearly support a secular government and you support a non-secular government."
I desire no government of man which is beholden to a church or religion, nothing I have said can *in the least possible way* be construed to mean this unless your bias against certain people leads you to believe 'pro-life' is the same as wanting a theocracy and that *seriously* undercuts the legitimacy of your opinion.
"I don't believe it is God's will or anything like that, but I do think things happen for a reason. Hence my stance against abortion."
Are you truly this obtuse or are you just tired? We value the right of different races, genders, people of disabilities and do this all within a *purely secular* framework. Whether or not God is involved there is a seious question as to when something becomes human life and the argument of 'when it can survive out side the mother' would have moved the mark from 36 weeks down to 22 or so over the past two decades.
"What!? I am not aware that abortions are being performed based on hair color and eye color."
Your ignorance, by this time, does not surprise me.. I will try to track it down but some doctors in england are arguing that as a kid can be mocked for a given hair color that counts as stressful to the child so cosmetic abortions should be allowed and this does fit within your model of 'just a clump of cells'
"Who cares about planned parenthood? You keep brining up things that have nothing to do with two parents selecting or modifying their own embryos"
And you do what you accuse others of, selectively quoting them to shoot them down. You said eugenics had to be by force of law. Well I put it to you that force of culture is just as strong and used an organizations who's sole initial purpose was to prevent undesirables from growing as a percent of the population who even, today, receive government funds as proof you dont need a eugenics law for a society to nurture the evil attitude of that philosophy.
"However, overall my point is once again my desire for a secular government based on science and reason. A position you clearly disagree on."
Again you have no basis to accuse me of wanting a theocracy, nice try... You want a government based on *your* reason, not scientific reason. Scientifically speaking an embryo is human, it is certainly human by, say, 20 months when survivability becomes seriously possible.
"But scientific reasoning should be the only basis for us to decide laws."
My only problem is science can be cold, humanity should be the basis on which we apply laws. Scientifically speaking eugenics makes sense of course the concept should chill a person to the core...
"I personally don't think government should have a position based on faith."
Nor do I, my belief in the innate person hood of the unborn is at a human and scientific level.. But your preconceptions are shaping the direction of this conversation.
"You seem to think that NOT advocating your version of Pro-Life is taking a position."
It most certainly is, were not talking about a speed limit. To go back to slavery either you think it is wrong or you think its ok for some to do it.. there is no middle ground , at the macro level, on some issues.
"So you finally resort to insults and name calling."
An ass is a stupid stubborn animal and your attempts to constantly paint me as someone who wants to impose my religious beliefs on others is neither true, nor supported by any evidence... thusly the name is apt..