Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[TheRocketSurgeon]

I had to think about how to reply to this post because one I did not wish to write a term paper on the subject (which is enormous) and two, currently I do not have the drive to  go back and forth over the issue because its a lot of history and I am just lazy.

Well that is your first fault in your assumed statement is bunching all of Christianity together. Seconded not acknowledge the separation of Catholics and Protestants religions. Once done the assumed idea of “war of oppression between religion and science”  is a very false statement because it never occurred  in the Catholic Church and in the early Protestant Churches of Lutheran and Anglican of the mid 1500 to 1600’s. It will surprise not only you but many that the Catholic Church was not only pioneer science in western civilization from 1100’s to today but were also the discovery/founders of many things that we still use today.

Now how to start this were it would address all possible questions that you may still have, yet that cannot be done, So back and forth we will have to go. What to put first? Do I give you the long list of Catholic Priest who were scientist and the first in discoveries in numerous scientific fields? Do I tell you all of the educational and social institutions and changes that the church had done that built Europe and the America’s in what it is today? (i.e. Universities, Hospitals, Calendar, Genetics, The Big Bang Theory, The Double Helix, Arabic Numbers, Fallopian Tube , Heliocentric Model, Modern Law, International Law/court, and so on)

Okay, we won't bunch all Christians together if you'll promise never to compare us to communist assholes.

We're well-aware that many Christians are scientists, today, and that they do cutting edge work in a lot of fields, as you mentioned. We have *zero issues* with those guys, other than disagreeing with their conclusions about supernatural concepts beyond the detection abilities of the sciences.

Yet you cannot deny that a huge percent of the Christian effort, especially in the United States (and this is relevant because the USA has historically been a great leader in science and industry, over the past century), has been to attack science, to spread misinformation about it, and to generally hamper the young minds who might discover that evolution is real and their churches are lying to us about how the world came to be. We know damned well that science and atheism have nothing to do with one another, other than the fact that atheists have no preset reason to take issue with or deny scientific findings.

As I often point out on here, I am an atheist and ex-biologist; my fiancee is a Christian (Methodist) and remains a geneticist/biochemist.

[Ace]

Many time when a person wishes to have a type of mutation to one's body, the argument is that their could be other issues.  Now if it is proven that they are in the right state of mind, keep in mind that the "assumed right" to self harm is not legal and in any governmental society the people are never their own  rulers of himself but is a citizen of the state.

Also the Hippocratic oath . .  .a doctor is charged to "do no harm"

Obviously, a doctor is different, but I never mentioned a doctor.  You didn't answer the question all you did was say it's illegal in every country. My question was, why should it be illegal? How is it morally wrong?    

Given that a doctor is not the one doing the amputation but the individual (who has no medical knowledge or training) hell lets say it is Hank Hill, ( If the person did have knowledge and medical tranning then they are a doctor and you said no doctors).
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
First the Law:
They will be breaking so many ethical laws, I don't even think I can mention them all so I will just mention some because it is to much to put down

Crime of Position:
Having a control substance without a license or a legal prescription
Position of medical operation tools and equipment

Crime of Operation:
Operating in an unclean/unsafe environment
Operating in a nonoperational facility
Operation conducted with non-medical tools
Operation without a certified aid is present (i.e. nurses, anesthesiologist aid)
Operation without a certified anesthesiologist
Performing of an unnecessary operation

Crime of Illegal use:
Use of control substances without a license (anesthesia or painkillers)
Use of an illegal certify place of operational environment
Action/Use of instrument that resulted in bodily harm or death.( Because they will more then likely end up kill themselves which can be considered an act of suicides, which is illogical)

and so on,  and so on, and so on
_______________________________________________________________________________________
The Moral
Hopefully this is not to confusing for you.

Keep in mind that we are talking about amputation and not augmentation.

First amputations is done to save a life (i.e. the last resort) by removing a part of the body. When a limb is amputated it is because it is no longer healthy (i.e. the foot is all black and died from like diabetes), is un-useable, or its present is a threat to the entire body as a whole. Self Amputation wants to remove a healthy limb solely based on an individual’s sentiment regarding the presence of said limb.  Amputation on its own (the medical kind) already deprives a person of the use of a given bodily faculty out of necessity, as such unnecessary amputation of a healthy limit will also limit or deprive an individual of a given faculty. The objective negative effects of amputation on the body and mind are well known and substantial.  To argue one should be allowed to amputate based upon a subjective sentiment is not justifiable given the known negative impacts of amputation overall and the permanence of amputation once effectuated.

Necessary and voluntary amputation deprive the person the use of a given limb or organ which will alter their physiological life in a manner of greater physiological difficulty than one with healthy limbs or organs present. To intentionally, self-amputation is to self-deprive their person of the full faculties intended by their very physiological nature. If we are to say banning gays from getting married is immoral (if we say gay marriage is moral) because it robs them of the right to survive and thrive according to their nature; than we should likewise say voluntary amputation is immoral because it deprives a person of functions, abilities, or privileges.

Morality does not just mean what one does to another but also to them-self, Just as one see is that the hurting another is immorally so too is the intentional hurting oneself; where hurting is not determined subjectively in either case.  One hurts others objectively and may equally hurt themselves objectively even if they do not believe they are hurting others or themselves subjectively.

The removal of limbs will most assuredly affect the life of the amputee and others such as but not limited to, your family, friends, neighbors, and society which will likely be compelled to institute accommodations for the handi-volitional.  There are also various consideration in regards to medical treatment of persons whom have undergone unnecessary amputation to be born by medical responders, hospital staff, and doctors . As well as impacting the providers and demand of artificial limbs, physical therapist, and family doctors treating the symptoms of any complications of the amputation.

(as stated in your response of affect/harm of to others)

In this moment, in a month from now, a couple of years, or the entire span of my life cutting off my own arm harms no one but myself.

None of us live in isolation.  Our lives are made up of the other people we encounter throughout. Some are stronger of a connection than another, but even a complete strange still has the power to alter one’s life immensely form their actions. So to do you affect and alter the lives of others that you know and do not know either directly or indirectly (think six degrees of Kevin Bacon). There is an inherent reciprocity between the lives of individuals (something I expect empathetic secular humanists to fully understand). In other words a person’s own life is not actually their own, but is a part of other peoples lives as well. Thus to say that your actions, though you may think you are doing them by yourself, will have no effect on other people either directly or indirectly, significantly or insignificantly is just plain wrong and short sighted.

Why do you assume I don't already know that? I am not discussing what laws exist. I know that a person cannot legally do whatever they want to their own body, even if it affects no one else, but what I was saying is that they should be allowed to

AH . . .Got you.
I would say no one should be allowed to do what ever they want with their bodies because of the very fact of possibility someone will do something very inhuman. An example of this is, (which is an actual occurring fact and not an assumption) abortion and how it is being used not for gender selection and birth defect selection

[Losty]

I see nothing in your long winded post that tells me why self amputation for solely cosmetic purposes is immoral. If you want to discuss abortion feel free to start a new thread.

[Cato]

As a whole.

My inner reading voice made this sound like asshole.

[Ace]

Okay, we won't bunch all Christians together if you'll promise never to compare us to communist assholes.

We're well-aware that many Christians are scientists, today, and that they do cutting edge work in a lot of fields, as you mentioned. We have *zero issues* with those guys, other than disagreeing with their conclusions about supernatural concepts beyond the detection abilities of the sciences.

Hahah of course!.   I may be crazy but I would never want to live in a world were all agree, were all think as one, were all are the same. NEVER, because it does not provide people, ideas, actions, and so much more to check and balance its self. One can easy start to live in their own little world and forget what is important, what needs to be addressed, what needs to action.

But that is just me.

Yet you cannot deny that a huge percent of the Christian effort, especially in the United States (and this is relevant because the USA has historically been a great leader in science and industry, over the past century), has been to attack science, to spread misinformation about it, and to generally hamper the young minds who might discover that evolution is real and their churches are lying to us about how the world came to be.

HAHAHAHAHA Oh god yes!!!! I agree with you 100%. .    HAHAHAHA. .  I don't even know what the hell to say about them. Hell even their damn idea about Christianity are fucking scary!!!! A friend of mine once said. . ."hey I am Catholic but those Evangelical Christians are some crays ass fuckers"

We know damned well that science and atheism have nothing to do with one another, other than the fact that atheists have no preset reason to take issue with or deny scientific findings.

WOW, that is the first time I think I ever heard an atheists say that out loud . .  
Careful now, you might be thrown out of the non throwing out, non-organization of Atheism. Careful, careful.

As I often point out on here, I am an atheist and ex-biologist; my fiancee is a Christian (Methodist) and remains a geneticist/biochemist.

And that is how it should be. . . look I am at a lost for words when crazy religious condemn science and science condemns religion. NO! the world has differences in every element and it should have difference in the faith and science too!!!  . . I am one who truly never fears oppose thought and opinions. It can become very dangerous if one does!

(sorry for the really bad typing, my break is almost over so I am trying to rush)

[Ace]

As a whole.

My inner reading voice made this sound like asshole.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Ace]

I see nothing in your long winded post that tells me why self amputation for solely cosmetic purposes is immoral. If you want to discuss abortion feel free to start a new thread.

Wait a second . . . we were not talking about self amputation for solely cosmetic purposes. I even said "Keep in mind that we are talking [i]about amputation and not augmentation.[/i]"

We were talking about self amputation (the doing away of a body lime, period. Not changing it or rearranging body parts (i.e. augmentation.)

If we were then it would be called cosmetic surgery or reassignment, not amputation.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

We know damned well that science and atheism have nothing to do with one another, other than the fact that atheists have no preset reason to take issue with or deny scientific findings.

WOW, that is the first time I think I ever heard an atheists say that out loud . .  
Careful now, you might be thrown out of the non throwing out, non-organization of Atheism. Careful, careful.

I'm not really worried. I'd be surprised if I found one atheist who seriously disagreed with my statement.

[Losty]

I see nothing in your long winded post that tells me why self amputation for solely cosmetic purposes is immoral. If you want to discuss abortion feel free to start a new thread.

Wait a second . . . we were not talking about self amputation for solely cosmetic purposes. I even said "Keep in mind that we are talking [i]about amputation and not augmentation.[/i]"

We were talking about self amputation (the doing away of a body lime, period. Not changing it or rearranging body parts (i.e. augmentation.)

If we were then it would be called cosmetic surgery or reassignment, not amputation.

I specifically said amputation because I meant amputation. I said for cosmetic purposes because that's what it would be. If you cut off your arms just because you didn't like them and not for a medical reason, that's a cosmetic purpose. Derp.

[Crossless2.0]

WOW, that is the first time I think I ever heard an atheists say that out loud . .  
Careful now, you might be thrown out of the non throwing out, non-organization of Atheism. Careful, careful.

I'm not really worried. I'd be surprised if I found one atheist who seriously disagreed with my statement.

Ace, if you do some searching, you will find numerous threads in which people make precisely that same point: atheism =/= science.

Though many atheists are metaphysical naturalists and would assert a close relationship between atheism and science, not all are.  I would go so far as to say that a majority of atheists are likely agnostic on the question of metaphysical naturalism, while at the same time embracing methodological naturalism.  Hell, one could be an atheist and a full-blown New Age, astrology-believing loon.  There is no real content to the concept of 'atheist' other than 'doesn't believe in gods'.