I couldn't care less what some conservative blogger writing for Conservapedia thinks about the "homosexual agenda." Conservapedia is no authority on LGBT rights activism, or atheism, or any of the topics you've cited it for thus far.
Meaning you simply have no argument and instead continually resort to the same genetic fallacy rather than actually deal with the damming documentation. My use of Conservapedia was not as an authority on anything, but as a source of documented characteristics of a group.
Would you accept Stormfront as an authority on Jewish history? Why or why not?
No, nor would i accept Conservapedia on the whole subject, but i could as as a source of a concise documented article on an issue i could, if that was better than others i found.
The killing of an infant, or infanticide? For the last time, we are not talking about infancy, which usually refers to the period from birth up until the first or second year of life. We are talking about much earlier stages of development — zygote, embryo, foetus. If you can't discuss this issue honestly, instead opting to misrepresent those you disagree with as supporting "the killing of infants," then there really is no point in continuing this part of our exchange.
What? Misrepresenting? I am the one who began with the killing of infants, and shows such as defined as being children. You are the one who wanted to get into legal definitions and perhaps one second old zygotes.
I will simply reiterate: "... the next step would be for you to draw some principled criteria for personhood and to show that a zygote, embryo, foetus satisfies those criteria. So far, the only criterion you seem to have is that it is a "member of the species homo sapiens." But apart from possessing human DNA, which is true of all "members of the species homo sapiens," it is unclear why merely belonging to a particular species should be considered sufficient for personhood."
If you want legal definitions, if a killing a fetus can render one guilty of homicide, then i would argue it is recognizing such as a child.
A slippery slope fallacy, from you perhaps? I notice that you avoided nominating any additional criteria for personhood apart from being "a member of the species homo sapiens." Notably, you never bothered to justify why this alone should be considered sufficient for personhood.
Because if what i think is going to matter than the best i can see is that personhood from conception, but since you seem to want legal definitions then i showed the killing the unborn can result in the charge of homicide (or murder in some places), which infers personhood, and killing such outside the womb could result in the charge of murder.
Professed, yes. You profess many things. But you establish very little.
What?! If i establish things from the Bible then you dismiss the source, and then claim i have no standard and then say i establish very little. While actually you are the one without any supreme standard to establish any moral stand by.
Dr Jen Gunter does an excellent job touching on this issue, emphasising that abortions after 20 weeks are rare and happen because of a combination of maternal health factors and foetal abnormalities incompatible with life.
Nice try by this prochoice MD, but first, i was not necessarily to late term abortions in citing homicide under the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004. Which defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development..
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act was strongly opposed by most pro-choice organizations, on grounds that the U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision said that the human fetus is not a "person" under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, and that if the fetus were a Fourteenth Amendment "person," then they would have a constitutional right to life.
However, the laws of 38 states also recognize the human fetus as the legal victim of homicide (and often, other violent crimes) during the entire period of pre-natal development (27 states) or during part of the pre-natal period (nine states).[8]
Legal challenges to these laws, arguing that they violate Roe v. Wade or other U.S. Supreme Court precedents, have been uniformly rejected by both the federal and the state courts, including the supreme courts of California, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota.[9]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act
In addition, for what its worth, this
source states regarding late term abortion,
A study published at the pro-choice Guttmacher Institute’s Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health found that women seeking both first-trimester and late-term abortions provided the same reasons for delaying their abortions.
Dr. Elizabeth Johnson, writing at the pro-life Charlotte Lozier Institute (CLI), observed that, in the study, women seeking both first-trimester and late-term abortions reported “not knowing about the pregnancy,” “trouble deciding about the abortion,” and “disagreeing about the abortion with the man involved,” with similar frequency.
“Among women in the late-term abortion group, the most commonly cited reason for delaying the procedure was ‘raising money for the procedure and related costs,’” Johnson said.
This is partly why I raised the issue of personhood earlier on. If the foetus exhibits a devastating abnormality resulting in the absence of a brain or other vital organs, meaning that it will die prior to or shortly after delivery and will never have sentience, then does it satisfy our criteria for being considered a person entitled to all the rights and protections that personhood entails? By your single criterion, it does, since it possesses the DNA of homo sapiens. But as I pointed out above, you never bothered to justify why that alone is sufficient.
I did not need to. But if being able to survive outside the womb will do it for you, Hillary supports the murder of those who could survive outside the womb before the third trimester, and not simply because of rape or life of the mother reasons.
See my discussion with anonymous person for my response to this.
Later.
If you had met me many years ago, I'm almost certain that you would have concluded the exact opposite using the same "objective standard."
I'm not.
I'm sure you are aware that there are various ways of arguing for each of those points that are not contingent on appeals to Scripture. The broader issue I was pointing to, however, was that Scripture alone clearly isn't enough, not even for you.
Which again i never claimed as regards providing justification for a position to those without.
"Love thy neighbour" is good, but its goodness doesn't depend on any scriptural origin. Loving thy neighbour would be good even if the instruction came from the Quran or was inscribed anonymously on the Great Wall.
Yet love thy neighbor requires foundational morality so that what you would chose for yourself would be best for others.
You are again referring here to your interpretation of NT teaching, which is hardly universal, even among your fellow evangelicals, some of whom aspire to end the separation in various ways.
Nor is the Constitution without variant interpretations, but which does not invalidate its authority.
Of course the historical context is important. I never said otherwise. The point I objected to was allowing the founders' religious opinions to overshadow what they clearly established legally and politically. Likewise with any of their opinions on other matters.
Not overshadow, nor are simply their religious opinions the case, but that their other writings and application of the 1st Amendment enable proper understanding of what they meant.
I don't interpret it in a manner hostile to religion either. More precisely, I don't interpret it in a manner hostile to religious freedom, but certainly in a way that is inimical to religious privilege. Unfortunately, the two seem to be conflated by many on the religious right who erroneously perceive others as being free (to marry, for instance) as a threat to their freedom.
The problem is that what is religious freedom in the Constitution is seen as religious privilege to hyperseperatists.
Religious reference is less of an issue, IMO, than legislation that is specifically (perhaps even exclusively) religiously motivated. That is the problem.
Which too often is in the eyes of the beholder.
Obviously that isn't an issue, with many politicians happily wearing their religion on their sleeves in an effort to please their voting base.
Oh yes, examples of, and affirmation and advocation for religion in general must be blithely dismissed as merely an effort to please their voting base. Why eve argue with such?
You can pray in public schools. You cannot use public schools as a platform to advocate for prayer, however. Again, note the distinction between religious freedom and religious privilege.
Again, the freedom of those in government to express general religious faith, as the very men who affirmed the Constitution did, must be disallowed due to its construance as religious privilege.
But it's not "social engineering" when done by the religious right, amirite?
No, as there is nothing radically engineered contrary to basic traditional morality, unlike liberalism.
What relevance does this have? Would the founders have all approved of the abolition of slavery?
Many or most, but commitment must match desire.
the Founders, with the exception of those from South Carolina and Georgia, exhibited considerable aversion to slavery during the era of the Articles of Confederation (1781–89)
but they did not go far enough:
Although they eventually enacted a federal ban on the importation of foreign slaves in 1808, the enslaved population continued to expand through natural reproduction, while the growing internal domestic slave trade led to an increase in the tragic breakup of enslaved families. -
https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Founding-Fathers-and-Slavery-1269536
Again, appreciating the historical context in which they lived does not mean that we are obligated to share their religious opinions.
Again, appreciating the historical context in which they lived and their manifest understanding of the 1st Amendment enables us to rightly understand it.
I was referring here to your allusion to "the Year of our Lord" reference. As someone who emphasises historical context, I thought you'd appreciate just how common this reference would have been at that time, but clearly I needed to make that point more explicit.
The point is that commonality simply does not mean mere custom/meaningless superfluity.
How is the state forcing churches to act contrary to their faith? In the case of SSM, the fact that others are now legally able to marry members of the same sex in no way forces your church "to act contrary to its faith." Unless by "its faith," you mean forcing everyone else to abide by your church's rules.
It means this is the trajectory, as explained. e
As I noted at the very beginning of this thread, those who feigned concern for women's safety in the shower room voted overwhelmingly for a guy who bragged about grabbing women by the genitals. Your concerns are severely misplaced.
Pretty weak. As if this was recent and characteristic, while as explained (sigh), this simply does not mean approval for the negative, any more than it means approval of Trump being what CNN headlines as
one of the most "pro-LGBT" Republican presidential nominees ever.
Trump actually could have killed evangelicals in the past and still gotten their vote now. They had not viable alternative, and doing the best you can with what you have is entirely reasoanble and justified, and he does have good qualities as well as bad.
You should consider how programs like absistence-only sex education contribute — such programs being almost universally religiously motivated.
And by common sense. Sure it is difficult to succeed but the benefits outweigh it, and separate schools for boys and girls needs to go along with it.
That's an issue of what the appropriate penalty or course of action should be.
Correct.
As I pointed out in another thread: I remember the outrage from the right when Obama gave Van Jones a position in his administration,... Trump appoints a white nationalist known for his extremist views and coarse rhetoric
Van Jones versus Steve Bannon? Are you serious? Former Communist and "Rowdy Black Nationalist" Jones is such a deluded ranting neurotic that he makes "darkness is good" Steve Bannon look reasonable.
Being the scurrilous demagogue that he is, he has certainly earned the criticism he is receiving.
You mean neurotic (sees racism in every closest) race-baiting hatemonger Van Jones? His unhinged rants and attacks on people based on the color of their skin ends up promoting racism, and racial strife, which liberal whites (CNN etc.) as well as black power brokers use to obtain an audience and power. Its culture, not the color skin that is the problem, and the inculcated hatred of a class of people based on the color of their skin, even while they chant of love, promotes racism, which is see on both side, but it politically correct when done by such as Jones.
And with that, i have decided to end this patient attempt at meaningful debate, which your prolonged unreasonable hateful bigotry frustrates.
Time for me to focus on other threads.
