So a lot goes wrong here. I'll try to hit a few of the big points.
1. Scientists are human beings, thus they have no "say" at all in the intrinsic value of another.
If creating a person gives you property rights over that person such that you can kill them if you want to, then if a scientist could create a person they should have that right. If the act of creation doesn't create this property right, then you have to abandon your prior argument that it is the fact that God created you - forgetting this isn't even true in Mormon theology - to justify God's moral right to take someone's life. You'll need to find some other basis to make that claim. In this post you later try out the argument that whatever God does is right even if we can't figure out the reason. While not a winner, that's at least a better argument than saying because God gave you life, he has moral impunity to take it away.
It makes me laugh that you attack me with an argument of the "intrinsic value of life" but then claim life in the womb has no value.
You're basing that on what exactly? I don't think early fetuses are persons. But I think fetuses late in development are and not only have value unto themselves they also are deserving of lawful protection. I like how you can assume my position on abortion from the mere fact that I criticize an incredibly dumb theological argument from you.
EAllusion wrote: I like how you can assume my position on abortion from the mere fact that I criticize an incredibly dumb theological argument from you.
He's good at that.
~Those who benefit from the status quo always attribute inequities to the choices of the underdog.~Ann Crittenden ~The Goddess is not separate from the world-She is the world and all things in it.~
ldsfaqs wrote: 1. Who said any of it is "arbitrary"?
ar·bi·trar·y /ˈärbiˌtrerē/ Adjective
Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system. (of power or a ruling body) Unrestrained and autocratic in the use of authority.
Synonyms high-handed
I'm pretty sure you simply saying things falls under this definition.
2. God gave life.... And he takes it away as you even acknowledge.
So, he's a deranged madman who gets a moral pass for murdering billions?
3. Man choosing to take away life that would NORMALLY LIVE, is what is wrong. Further, death is in the world because sin is in the world, fallibility is in the world.
Arbitrary.
4. Death and life is the cycle of nature..... Man controlling nature for good is one thing, but usurping nature by taking human life is another.
Arbitrary. God, how I wish people like you understood basic English.
5. We are not "animals".... God gave us Agency to use for good or evil. Aborting a child is clearly on the evil side, no different than killing anyone without moral cause in real life would be evil. Again. Arbitrary. If God directed a meteor to impact the planet killing all living organisms would you deem this moral or immoral?
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.
Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
EAllusion wrote: I like how you can assume my position on abortion from the mere fact that I criticize an incredibly dumb theological argument from you.
He's good at that.
Everyone ought to be good at something.
So far we have jumping to conclusions, hurling insults, coming up with really solid logical arguments, and unintentionally providing a few people here with a bit of entertainment.
Hey, he's good at several things!
"The DNA of fictional populations appears to be the most susceptible to extinction." - Simon Southerton