Bandit---I know you were not advocating choosing for others---that you were advocating the opposite.
My point was this isn't a discussion about facts. It's a religious discussion obscured by floating of facts people use when they talk about their religions to others.
Just this week I had my husband's grandfather talk to me about biblical prophecy concerning the destruction of Damascus and how biblical prophecy always came true, etc. I'm sure you've heard it.
There's no point discussing facts in religious arguments. The real issues are never facts, they're base premises about the nature of the universe and what we, as individuals, ought to do about it.
If one's base premise is that "nature" is distinct from "man" or "man-made" and that "nature" is better, then viewing the world through those lenses is going to color everything you see.
If one's base premise is that man is a terrestrial organism just like any other, that humans should value human life above that of other organisms, and that our development and use of technology is overall a good thing for solving our problems, viewing the world through those lenses is going to color everything you see.
Many, if not most, people have some sort of ambivalent half-stance between those two premises.
In a religious argument, facts are window dressing used to either try to gain converts to one's religion or out of some personal need to justify one's religious beliefs to others.
People don't pick their religion based on the facts, people pick their facts based on their religion.
This is the kind of discussion that can go on forever and get nowhere.
Julie
