Religion is not a uniter, it is a divider.

I commend your attempt to steer this back to the topic. I don't want it to be another abortion thread, either. However, I have to stay on the subject for at least the length of this post in order to reply.

You implied earlier that Rstones199 would be pro-life by the logic of his OP and that (the pro-life stance) is basically to be of the opinion that the life of a fetus can trump a womans rights. Weirdly enough, though, you seem to accuse me of talking about trumping rights, which is in fact the diametrically opposite of what I'm talking about, namely, preventing conflicting rights by NOT granting rights to the fetus so that it does NOT have any right that can trump the rights of its mother.

Now, getting halfway back to the topic, the divisiveness discussion, securing the integrity of rights (basically meaning to ensure that no case of conflicting rights can occur) is all but divisive since it's a method to ensure equality.

 

Abortion has nothing to do with this thread.
A red herring.

 

Different rights are attributed to each age group.

An 8year old boy can do more than an infant, a teenager can do more than the eight year old, and adult can do more than the teenager. Our society grants different rights to different age groups.

Um... no. The most stringent pro-life positions claim that abortion should be barred, even when the mothers life is in danger. Allowing the mother to die with or instead of the infant is just silly. Also positions that would force the mother to carry in the event of rape is particularly disgusting. Like I said, extremes are not the answer to those particular (or any) issue.

 

I never went off topic.

This is an incorrect assessment of what "pro-life" means. You have faulty assumptions and that is probably why you misunderstood the whole point being made and went wildly off topic.

Again--back to topic...How is deciding what humans have rights and what humans do not prevent conflicting rights? It is by definition establishing conflicting "rights"--namely one group has them and another doesn't based solely on those defining the supposed "rights."

This statement is internally contradictory and therefore nonsensical.

 

Why? Are you affraid of seeing that we are more simular than different?

Would you rather be a divider than a uniter?

 

Nope. Nor does my faith go against science.

I'm a uniter and a man of Faith.

 

If you are a man of faith, then inherently you are a divider.

 

Are you saying that the pro-life stance is not about recognizing that a fetus' right to life can trump the woman's right to choose a termination of her pregnancy?

I see the dilemma. Do we divide humans into what has already been a distinction for at least as long as language has existed, namely the born and the unborn, or do we divide humans into those whose rights are protected and those whose rights are a joke?

Difficult, indeed.

You're welcome to share your findings.

 

Why would you compare two unlike things--ie. life and choice? Shouldn't you compare life and life or choice and choice?

Good. So as you can see, the OP's claim of "uniting" rather than "dividing" is bunkum.

I don't know what you mean by this in reference to my pointing out that your claim that it is not divisive in "securing rights" of some human beings but not others is internally contradictory and therefore fallacious and nonsensical.

 

But yet, you claim this:

Thank you for once again proving that religion does indeed divide and not unite.

 

I don't deny it.

the sheep are separated from the goats. It's a tenet of religion.

I was referring to your claim that "humanism" was somehow superior.

 

Now I claim humanism is superior?

 

Nothing describes my sentiments better than what I have already posted in a different thread.

 

It's not about comparison, it's about consequence. A fetus' right to life cannot possibly exist, in vivo, without repealing the right of a woman to decide over her own body.

Thanks for elaborating.

I don't really consider the states of being born and being unborn as a divisive factor but as a natural distinction between, well, states of life. I do consider it to be divisive, though, to protect the rights of all citizens except when they happen to be female and pregnant. That, in my book, is an inequality. A divisive factor.

 

Decide WHAT over her own body? In killing a fetus, one is terminating another life.

There are many things that deny a person full sovereignty over the choices they make about their own bodies. Even convicted criminals of heinous crimes get a full hearing and automatic appeals before their right to life is removed from them--why would the natural condition of pregnancy negate the right to life of a fetus who was brought into existence by the actions of his parents and through no action that created a consequence of his own. Yet--he can be denied life. It's not logical or reasonable at all.

 

walkin' that one back.

 

Is it not divisive to presume rights based on the age of the human being in question? That is indeed "inequality." There are (as was already pointed out) MANY states of life--MOST requiring dependency on others in one form or another.

 

I think primarily the aggressive, chicken little humanists that take every opportunity to make up lies about what the christian right is doing.

 

Like denying gays the right to marry? How lovely. That’s not divisive right?

 

Take away religion men will still be killing each other. Before there was an establish religion men were already killing each other divided among tribes, clans, village, cities and then nations. It is not religion that kills, it is men. Just like guns don't kill, possessor of guns do the killing.

 

There is no need for us to make up lies, you guys do a fantastic job making yourselves look bad.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1484522/

 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m76isUF49P8"]8: The Mormon Proposition - Trailer HD 2010 - YouTube[/ame]

 

An excellent documentary I must add.

Available on a TV near you via Netflix streaming.

lol

 

No I'm not. That is your opinion, but your opinion does not constitute fact nor establish natural occurrence. Nice try.

By your attempt to label and degrade religious belief, you do imply a superiority on your part.

 

Sure you dont want to believe it. Its human nature to stick your nose up at someone and say no Im not.

But once you break free of the religious chains, then you can see. I suggest taking off the god glassed off.

Im degrade religious beliefs now?

Ok, next.