Yes it is; those laws “already in existence” existed because of Christians and Christian bigotry, basing their condemnation on a Christian “holy” book.
It’s Christian if some of the people who call themselves Christian support it; some Christians do, therefore it’s Christian.
and some Christians don’t, therefore it is not Christian.
Lets not go overboard.
Excellent! So gay marriage rights laws, abortion access laws, etc are Christian laws! Because some people who call themselves Christians support them, you see.
That pretty much makes calling anything “Christian” meaningless.
Not really. A great many embryology textbooks, medical dictionaries, and similar references assert that life does indeed begin at conception. I’ve yet to encounter any which state otherwise.
Now I realize that a good number of liberal Dopers will disagree with their assessment or state that abortion is justified anyway. That would be subject matter for another thread though, and indeed, has been discussed in many such threads. The point is that this viewpoint is not “overwhelmingly religious,” contrary to what many people here assert.
Speak for yourself. I hear many arguments against abortion and gay marriage, and none of them are “because it makes baby Jesus cry”. You’re free to hear what you choose, but you shouldn’t go around telling me what I hear.
As for the central argument in your original post, I’d say JThunder has answered it adequately in #3.
Why should strength of message determine whether a law is necessary? If there’s a strong argument against commiting murder, does that imply we need no law against murder?
Exactly. If someone says something is (or isn’t) Christian, what does that tell you about it? Little or nothing.
That’s distorting the meaning of the term. And that’s obviously a pro-life propaganda page anyway; just look at the address. A collection of out of context quotes.
Oh, please; that’s just being silly. Shakes wasn’t being literal, “makes baby Jesus cry” is (as I’m sure you are well aware of) a commonly used expression when referring to Christian moralizing.
None of those quotes say anything resembling what you are asserting. :dubious: They say an embryo exists from conception.
If either you or Shakes asserts that the only arguments I’ve heard against same-sex marriage or abortion, you’re not right or close to right. Just go to a nation officially governed by atheists where Christians are violently persecuted, such as Cuba or China, and see how the laws on gay marriage stand there.
And when we speaking of one of those countries you’ll have a point.
And in fact, I haven’t heard what excuse if any they use to mistreat homosexuals.
And the embryo is a living organism. This is attested to by some of the aforementioned quotes. For example,
“Embryo: An organism in the earliest stage of development; in a man, from the time of conception to the end of the second month in the uterus.”
Consider some of the other statements as well. To wit,
“Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being. The common expression ‘fertilized ovum’ refers to the zygote.”
These quotes support the claim in various ways. Some say that the embryo begins at conception, where an embryo is defined to be an organism (by necessity, a living organism). Others assert that human development begins at conception – the clear implication being that life exists at that point, since a non-living organism cannot develop in that manner, and so forth.
Now, one might quibble with a few of these quotes or claims. Heck, one might even disagree with them outright. As I said though, that’s irrelevant to the point at hand – namely, whether belief that life begins at conception is an “overwhelmingly religious argument.” It isn’t. There is no lack of scientific texts which assert that conception marks the beginning of a new organism.
So is every cell in my body; it’s even a seperate life, if you remove it and stick it on a Petri dish.
Yes it is, you are playing games with the definition of the term. “Life begins at conception” only works as an argument against abortion if life = person; and that is not what those quotes are saying.
The debate isn’t whether an embryo is alive; obviously it is. The question is whether an embryo is a person. To Christians, this often turns into a question of whether an embryo has a soul - obviously a religious debate.
JThunder is going to make a point (possibly with capital letters and an exclamation point) that you’re wrong and pretend it’s a distinction that makes a relevant difference as he did here:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=11780744#post11780744
heatmiserfl wrote a good rebuttal in post #696.
If you accept this premise as true, then any consequent is acceptable and the whole statement is logically valid by definition. It makes no sense to assume that the god exists and gave humans “the right to choose” and then try to reason why something or other makes or doesn’t make any sense.
If you assume that the god exists results in accepting any statement as logically valid.
In a more confined aspect of the argument:
“Free will” would mean that the god does not know what choice a human will make. If the god knows but the human doesn’t, then free will is a human illusion and therefore not real. If the god does not know what choice the human will make then the god is not a god. Therefore no gods exist.
Thank you.
Personal morality should only be regulated by the Church, and it is a matter of each individual before God. However abortion and homosexual marriage are not merely personal as the former results in the murder of an infant and the latter requires the government (which also has a responsibility before God) to consider such marriages legitimate.
That’s a contradictory statement; if personal morality is a matter for individuals, then by definition “the Church” (and which Church?) cannot regulate it.
Abortion is not murder and a fetus isn’t an infant. And the government has no “responsibility before god”. First, the government is supposed to be a secular organization, not a religious one. Second, there is no God to be responsible to. Third, God as typically portrayed is morally inferior to governments, so the last thing they should do is follow his commands (remember the Flood? Not even Hitler or Mao killed off nearly the entire population of the planet, or even tried). And finally even if there was a God or gods (and why do you assume there’s only one?) there’s no way to contact God and know what he actually wants, so it’s a pointless position to take. Religions are no help; they can’t agree on what their imaginary god wants, and there’s no objective way to choose between them since they are all baseless and incoherent.
I rarely see religion distilled into such a tidily insane paragraph.
I mean all Christian churches irregardless of denomination and what I mean by “regulate” is that churches can and should speak out on moral issues and discipline its members.
Without going OT as usual on abortion… government while secular is an institution originated by God to help regulate humans and while every individual is responsible to God, institutions such as governments and churches have a corporate responsibility to God. Thus while it shouldn’t be religious but it should behave morally in the sense that it should not contradict’s God’s morality.
Everyone knows government was invented by Ronald McDonald. That’s just good sense.