Quote:
|
Quote by: Technosoul Pale Rider - You said you did not what to bring religion into this topic but you did bring your version of this topic into the Religion and Phlosophy forum - not the human rights forum. Then you dodge giving clear answers or responses to my points simply by claiming I posted them to dodge your point of view. Or you interpret my viewpoints as grasping or as a stuggle and failure, when I have nothing at all to gain or loose as the result of this debate.
You claim "We hold these truths to be self evident ..... but what is self evident? DNA mapping only became self evident a few years ago after we developed to the technology to witness it. And in the future we will discover even smaller life forms then the ones we now know about, due to even newer techonological abilites. We have yet no idea how small our universe is. So until everything is in fact self evident we can only make opinions based on what is now self-evident, and current theory would change with each new discovery (perhaps). We are still shortsighted in our abilty to see everything and do not know what all is evident yet, meaning we know some of the truth but not the whole or "abosoute" turth.
If humans had the right to life without anyone killing them, and if our founding fathers believed in that for real, then how come they killed a bunch of white Englishmen form their own home country to become independant - did they think that the English were subhuman, France and Spain? What is the difference between a woman seeking her independence and a bunch of pioneers seeking independence just so they could dodge paying their taxes?
I did not dodge the biological proof you mentioned and stated a number of times that I agree that our individual biological (physical identity) starts at the moment of conception - to continue formulting and taking shape into the human image. But I also said "is that all there is to life and identity"?
If I ask you "who you really are" what would you answer, would you say that you as an individual are only a clump of cells that by random chance collected into a particular DNA pattern - is that it? No mind or spirit to go along with the body?
Is a hard boiled turkey egg the same thing as a real turkey dinner? Don't dodge the ball nor fumble it this time - live up to your responsibity as part of this debate team.
Technosoul. |
Ok~
1) The truths that they held self evident were: All men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; among those "unalienable rights" are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness; that governments are instituted among men to protect those rights; etc etc. THOSE are the truths that they held Self Evident.
Also, that passage is from the Declaration of Independence, a non-legal, non-lawmaking document. The Constitution is the law of the land. The Declaration guided the making of the Constitution, but only in protecting the people from the grievances listed in the former.
2) The Founders never mentioned not killing people. They had a problem with unjust killing--like King George ordering trials of Colonists be held in England, with unfair juries who would then sentence the colonist to death. Aside from that, war is the wrench thrown into the gears--they wanted their rights, and since England wouldn't resolve it peacefully, they had to fight. It was the Brits, remember, who started it (ever hear of the "Boston Massacre"?) After that it was self-defense.
Also, this is, perhaps, the most important reason for the separation of Church and State--not so that a bunch of panty-waists don't get offended by a Nativity scene, but so that the state can be godless and wage war against other states without the "sin" or the "crime" of the war falling on the people. The government has a duty to protect its citizens. Once you inject religion into it, it becomes a moral matter, rather than a state duty.
3) As for the "soul" of the person, how do you know that the moment the first division takes place isn't at the impetus of the soul entering the body? Aristole talked about "de animae," so it is perfectly logical that as soon as an otherwise *only* biological entity composed of one cell begins to replicate and divide of its own accord, it is either being acted upon, or is acting. Since there is nothing in the womb prodding the cell to divide, it would make sense that it is "acting" on its own...