Sentences with phrase «arguments about humans»

But viewed this way, arguments about humans versus natural causes disappear.

Like the argument about human progress, it indicates that there must have been a beginning.

Sadiq Khan MP, shadow justice secretary, said: «The energy and time this government is spending on arguments about the Human Rights Act shows how completely out of touch it is with the British people who are not interested in cat fights between ministers but how the safety of their communities will be protected after cuts in police budgets which go too far and too fast.»

A valuable short paper that has been accepted for publication in Geophysical Research Letters (subscription required) makes a strong case against presenting any argument about human - driven global warming that's based on short - term trends (a decade or so).

2) The pro-GMO crowd, who studiously avoid debates on the politics of agribusiness and prefer to do what Paul Norton did above to the animal rights movement, attacking largely irrelevant arguments about human health that they know they can win.

The argument about human emissions being 3 % is silly.

Not exact matches

Your arguments about mistreatment being a reason to not believe in ID is akin to an alien coming to earth and pointing at an insane asylum as a reason for believing all humans are mentally handicapped.

He was unsatisfied with the reception to Paul VI's Humanae Vitae of 1968, and unsatisfied, too, with the state of the argument in the Church, thinking that it did not go as far as it could in answering certain basic puzzlements that humans have about themselves.

Unfortunately, humans seem to forget this fact when we find ourselves turning to nature to guide us through difficult choices, such as arguments about whether life begins at conception, or over the proper structure of the family.

On the reading I propose, the Reformation schism was brought about instead by contingent human choices in a confused historical context defined less by clear and principled theological argument (though that of course was present) than by a peculiar and distinctively sixteenth - century combination of overheated and ever - escalating polemics, cold - blooded Realpolitik, and fervid apocalyptic dreaming.

Here's the penultimate paragraph: Unfortunately, humans seem to forget this fact when we find ourselves turning to nature to guide us through difficult choices, such as arguments about whether life begins at....

Start with the science that shows the humanity and individuality of the embryo, and then make philosophical arguments about the equality of all human beings as persons possessing inherent dignity.

To put forth such an argument shows just how little the commenter knows about the dynamics of the human species.

The Catholic Church, to take one prominent institution devoted to the defense of human life from conception until natural death, makes no «theological» argument about the nature of the life in the womb.

The churches say that one should exercise one's freedom on behalf of fellow humans, and cite Paul's argument about eating meat: «If food is a cause of my brother's falling, I will never eat meat, lest I cause my brother to fall» (1 Cor.

Despite some of his protests against the Reformed, Dawson's fundamental convictions about the social nature of the human person resonates with Abraham Kuyper's argument that the organic nature of life is the foundation of the social or ecclesial organisms that come after it.

Employing biblical, theological, and philosophical arguments, John Paul described the Christian conception of man, and spoke about the inviolability of human life, from conception to death.

Here, for example, Novak reformulates his arguments about the necessary relationship between democracy and capitalism (and vice versa), as well as his location of the cause of the wealth of nations in the creative, inventive, and entrepreneurial spirit of the human mind.

Rather than drawing attention to the distinctiveness of the Judeo - Christian tradition, liberal civil religion is much more likely to include arguments about basic human rights and common human problems.

Now, my question becomes, is the reason for the delineation so that we don't get into arguments about whether a fetus is a person, or are we saying that a fetus is not a human being but we want it included in the definition of the law?

But clearly that argument would not enjoy consensus — the disagreement about when human life begins is too great.

There is a compelling logic to Fuller's argument, if one accepts his premise about what constitutes human dignity.

In it I want to do three things: firstly, to overview Roman Catholic positions on the spiritual soul, secondly to mention some of the reasons for the present virtual silence about the soul and, thirdly, to provide the beginning of a positive argument for the human soul.

One hates to make old arguments, but if this education teaches (as other sections of the report make clear that is must) the familiar doctrines about how very wrong it is to impose any kind of normative standard on the many forms that peoples» desires can take, on what basis does it exclude pornography or the sexualization of young girls as legitimate forms of the varied human sexual appetite?

The argument from suffering reaches beyond medicine's responsibility and competence; it extends into metaphysical questions about the nature of human happiness and what constitutes a meaningful life.

One of the more primitive arguments put forward is that in the embryonic stage, which lasts about two months after conception, the creature does not look human.

But for me the greatest difference between Thomas Aquinas» Cosmological Argument and any and all arguments from design comes from what all the advocates of design admit: that the candidate for the Intelligent Designer could be, at least theoretically, just about any supra «human intelligent manipulator of complex artifacts, from outer «space aliens to Al Gore's Mama Gaia.

even though the human argument is more specifically about initial birth and the animal question is more about being «born into» a more humanist treatment.

When I ask them, they either offer up weak arguments or start blathering about humans not knowing the mind of god.

We need to make public arguments that touch directly upon the truth about human nature as available to human reason.

GK Chesterton rightly noted that all arguments are theological arguments, that is to say, eventually all political and moral disagreements, if pursued for long enough, get down to the brass tacks of our basic assumptions about the ultimate meaning and purpose of human individuals and human society.

The force of my arguments about past responsibility or future fear is not essentially one of grounding altruism or appropriate self - interest, which I would ground in the metaphysical claim that all humans have the same essence which constitutes their unity as a class called by Kant the kingdom of ends.

Even if you want to lay to one side the very valid concerns about the porn industry's links with human trafficking, or the connections between hard - core pornography use and sexual violence, there's a strong argument that this is, in fact, a public health issue.

So your argument about the Bible being evil is simply coming from the perspective of the Clay telling the Potter how to mold and shape or an Ant telling a Human what to do.

However, when conservationists try to oppose polluters and developers solely with pragmatic arguments about the value to human welfare of, for example, gene pools in rain forests, they have been maneuvered into fighting on the same ground as their opponents.

This metaphysical agnosticism diminishes as we develop larger - scale interpretative arguments, all of which draw on often unspoken, even unconscious, assumptions about the way human history and culture unfold.

The idea about having to have human like beingS, visable or invisible, manipulate things to prove intelligence, is the underlying fallacy of any argument against an intelligent universe.

A great deal of Holloway's argument is about the inescapability of human venality, especially in politics.

Although Hasker concludes this argument by pointing out that for it too «it is God who is responsible for the existence of creatures who have the freedom and power to bring about great evils,» I had explicitly said that «God is responsible for [the distinctively human forms of evil on our planet] in the sense of having encouraged the world in the direction that made these evils possible» (Process 75; cf. God 308 - 09).

This is in essence, the sort of argument to which we incline most readily when we worry about recent advances in the study and manipulation of genes and about the implications of the Human Genome Initiative.

Yes, I know the argument about referees only being human and mistakes can be made but the general standard is poor.

Permits the Irish courts to hear arguments about the European Convention on Human Rights in cases before them

But of course being an IBCLC, breastfeeding mum of three boys AND passionate about all things breastfeeding, I have a different view on the whole cow's milk / human milk la - de-da-de-da arguments and discussion that go on...

One small problem with your argument... earlier, you complained about comparing humans to other species (monkeys), and yet here you compare humans to cows.

However, democracy should not be about half measures - surely all prisoners should have the vote or the argument can also be made that they have forfeited that human right.

However, the idea that if society needs to bring resources to bear it is somehow not a fundamental human right is an argument that seems to make assumptions about being somehow valid more than any demonstration of validity having been made.

I would say, those who don't care about what's causing it, who see the argument of «are humans causing it» as a red herring, are focused on solutions, and how to fix it.

Today the state Division of Human Rights heard arguments about a Capital Region farm's refusal to rent out space for a same - sex couple's wedding.

It might answer the argument about whether or not spoken language stemmed from early human ancestors.

The researchers are hoping to amplify the argument that it's time for humans to think about giving a helping hand.