quote:

really? then explain why the mormons cant have more then one wife (or husband)?

quote:

explain why it took a supreme court decision so gays can marry?

quote:

explain why religious people are forced to provide for religions they abhor?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/03/01/montanas-big-mountain-jesus-saved-from-atheist-groups-lawsuit.html?intcmp=hpbt3

I feel like the Atheist group in the US are psychos! Why the hell they wanna take down this monument for? I like statues! It could be Zeus, Odin, Monkey God, Buddha, Elephant God! They are pretty to look at!

I mean, it's just fairytales character come to life! Like a theme park! Why take it so seriously!

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

K, I believe you said something a while ago along the lines that a 'moral sense might be first nature - it's inborn'. If you did - then I'd tend to agree. Evidence not from the standard sources - philosophy, religion, whatever - but from natural history.

Me, I've often wondered if a 'social sense' is inborn in humans and that it's a result of an inbuilt, though perhaps not always strong, sense that 'other people are part of oneself'. I mean, in a near-literal sense. If I bash my arm, I wince. If I see somebody else bashing *his* arm, I also wince. That man over there, that woman, that child ... it works the same way. In some sense, 'everybody is a part of myself'.

If all that's true (and I suspect, more strongly as the years go by, that it is) then, no, we don't need religion and we don't need reason: the fundamental prerequisite is already there.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

I can appreciate that you are taking an interest in the subject since its partly about how gubbmint robs you of your rights, but you missed the point.

The point is that if con 'law' did in fact come first, then there would never have been a ban on gay marriage, never would have been a ban on polygamy, you could by a pack of joints at the mall.

Your entire position is based on the premise that when a choice has a moral component it is inherently a "religious" choice. I suppose one might adopt that view as a philosophical stance. But you are treating it as the certified gold fact from which all your arguments logically follow. I'll grant they are logical, but garbage in garbage out.

K.

quote:

Just because the unborn are not deemed persons with legal status—and can be killed at the mother’s request—does not mean the state could or should allow anyone to kill an unborn child without consequence. If the unborn is not a person, then it is property[1], and the same laws we apply to property must be applied to the unborn as well.

As a general rule, people have a right to do what they wish with their personal property. I own a collection of books. Because they are my property, I am free to do what I want with them. I could choose to keep them, or burn them. The same is not true of any one else, however. If someone took my books from my home without my permission and burned them in my front yard, he would be prosecuted because he destroyed property that did not belong to him. But if I gave him my books, or if I asked him to burn my books, then he is free to burn them without consequence.

Similarly, the mother is free to do what she wants with her property: the unborn child. She can choose to keep it, or kill it. If she gives permission to a third party to kill her unborn baby, then she has consented to have her property destroyed, and no one can be prosecuted for having done so. If, however, someone kills her unborn baby without her permission, they have destroyed property that did not belong to them and should be prosecuted. Given the view that the unborn are property rather than persons, it makes sense to have laws protecting a woman’s right to kill her “property,” as well as fetal homicide laws to prosecute those who rob a woman of her property without her consent.

Perhaps the reason pro-lifers see the law as being inconsistent is because they think fetal homicide laws are meant to protect the rights of the unborn. This is not true. Fetal homicide laws are mean to protect the rights of the mother. Both abortion law and fetal homicide laws treat the unborn as property, and exist to protect the right of mothers to do what they wish with their unborn child. The problem is not that these laws are in conflict with one another, but that they disregard the personhood of the unborn.

quote:

so no one has any reason to even consider it

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

You mean other than him being right?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

If the expectant mother decides to keep the fetus, its a wanted pregnancy, she is actively willing to have a child(or at least she is willing to give birth to a independent life form.) She had a choice and consented.
She is not willing to be murdered.
If she is not willing to have a child, she can consent to a surgical procedure, or by taking a pill. depending on the gestation.

I read this recently, I HAVE snipped for brevity..It speaks to the "legality" aspect of fetal homicide, more than anything.

quote:

Just because the unborn are not deemed persons with legal status—and can be killed at the mother’s request—does not mean the state could or should allow anyone to kill an unborn child without consequence. If the unborn is not a person, then it is property[1], and the same laws we apply to property must be applied to the unborn as well.

As a general rule, people have a right to do what they wish with their personal property. I own a collection of books. Because they are my property, I am free to do what I want with them. I could choose to keep them, or burn them. The same is not true of any one else, however. If someone took my books from my home without my permission and burned them in my front yard, he would be prosecuted because he destroyed property that did not belong to him. But if I gave him my books, or if I asked him to burn my books, then he is free to burn them without consequence.

Similarly, the mother is free to do what she wants with her property: the unborn child. She can choose to keep it, or kill it. If she gives permission to a third party to kill her unborn baby, then she has consented to have her property destroyed, and no one can be prosecuted for having done so. If, however, someone kills her unborn baby without her permission, they have destroyed property that did not belong to them and should be prosecuted. Given the view that the unborn are property rather than persons, it makes sense to have laws protecting a woman’s right to kill her “property,” as well as fetal homicide laws to prosecute those who rob a woman of her property without her consent.

Perhaps the reason pro-lifers see the law as being inconsistent is because they think fetal homicide laws are meant to protect the rights of the unborn. This is not true. Fetal homicide laws are mean to protect the rights of the mother. Both abortion law and fetal homicide laws treat the unborn as property, and exist to protect the right of mothers to do what they wish with their unborn child. The problem is not that these laws are in conflict with one another, but that they disregard the personhood of the unborn.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

I can appreciate that you are taking an interest in the subject since its partly about how gubbmint robs you of your rights, but you missed the point.

The point is that if con 'law' did in fact come first, then there would never have been a ban on gay marriage, never would have been a ban on polygamy, you could by a pack of joints at the mall.

Your entire position is based on the premise that when a choice has a moral component it is inherently a "religious" choice. I suppose one might adopt that view as a philosophical stance. But you are treating it as the certified gold fact from which all your arguments logically follow. I'll grant they are logical, but garbage in garbage out.

K.

Very logical, its a standard requirement for a solid foundation.

However your 'garbage' snark is illogical and makes no sense and worse you havent bothered to put up any kind of reasoned argument to support it so no one has any reason to even consider it. Hell they cant, its nothing more than an ungrounded emotional jab.

Anyway, yes, that said; The act of making a choice in and of itself does not make it a religion, as generally philosophy metaphysics ethics all make choices and none are a religion. The act of making a moral choice is only one of several elements or ingredients that when properly mixed with the final ingredient or with the addition of the final element does it become a religion. That element is living according to that choice. That combination is what makes it a religion and distinguishes it from ethics.

Speaking of religion shall we talk about what the gubblemint does? lol get my drift?

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

K, I believe you said something a while ago along the lines that a 'moral sense might be first nature - it's inborn'. If you did - then I'd tend to agree. Evidence not from the standard sources - philosophy, religion, whatever - but from natural history.

Me, I've often wondered if a 'social sense' is inborn in humans and that it's a result of an inbuilt, though perhaps not always strong, sense that 'other people are part of oneself'. I mean, in a near-literal sense. If I bash my arm, I wince. If I see somebody else bashing *his* arm, I also wince. That man over there, that woman, that child ... it works the same way. In some sense, 'everybody is a part of myself'.

If all that's true (and I suspect, more strongly as the years go by, that it is) then, no, we don't need religion and we don't need reason: the fundamental prerequisite is already there.

quote:

I;d be interested in hearing what you mean by 'social sense' since there are many ways to interpret that? Family? The World?