The homosexual state of mind: Marriage isn't about a man & woman but love & love

[Debora123]

No, you misunderstand what I am saying. A fetus is unable to physically survive outside of the body as it lacks developed vital organs (depending on how mature it is). A baby, however, can physically survive outside of the body - it just lacks the means to feed itself. The baby is able to live, while a fetus isn’t. The baby just can’t survive for long. There’s a difference.

So humanity is determined by whether or not we can survive without external help? And not determined by the being’s DNA?

I am so confused.

 

[prodigalson2011]

An inconsequential difference. Dead is dead, if the child can’t survive on his/her own organs or abilities. If that baby has the ability to develop into a child with fully developed organs that THEN has the right to survive, by your standards, then you still have no right to kill the child.

The only difference, by your own logic, is how you let the child die: underdeveloped organs, or starvation. You can bleat that it’s not a child all you’d like until it has a functioning liver, it makes no functional or logical difference whatsoever, according to your line of reasoning.

And heck, for that matter, once a person’s kidney’s or liver or lungs start to malfunction and shut down, they’re no longer human either…they can’t exist outside of outside help.

What a fun slippery slope! Ever thought about becoming a Catholic apologist?

You’ve made it unnecessary for me to reply. Couldn’t have said it better myself. Thanks!

 

[Regular_Atheist]

An inconsequential difference. Dead is dead, if the child can’t survive on his/her own organs or abilities. If that baby has the ability to develop into a child with fully developed organs that THEN has the right to survive, by your standards, then you still have no right to kill the child.

The only difference, by your own logic, is how you let the child die: underdeveloped organs, or starvation. You can bleat that it’s not a child all you’d like until it has a functioning liver, it makes no functional or logical difference whatsoever, according to your line of reasoning.

And heck, for that matter, once a person’s kidney’s or liver or lungs start to malfunction and shut down, they’re no longer human either…they can’t exist outside of outside help.

What a fun slippery slope! Ever thought about becoming a Catholic apologist?

No. Because even outside help is unable to save the fetus. They are hardly alive. They do not have a fully developed brain, and lack vital organs. They are entirely dependant upon the womb. Also, just because someone’s lungs need a bit of help doesn’t mean they are suffering from complete and total organ failure, which is what an underdeveloped fetus would be suffering from.

However, I don’t agree that abortions should simply be done because the woman doesn’t want to have a baby, but I feel that it’s perfectly justified in some situations, such as rape.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

So humanity is determined by whether or not we can survive without external help? And not determined by the being’s DNA?

I am so confused.

Corpses have DNA. Are you going to give him his rights, and let him purchase a home or enter into a marriage?

 

[Lochias]

So humanity is determined by whether or not we can survive without external help? And not determined by the being’s DNA?

I am so confused.

Indeed. I guess that babies born in destitute countries, starving for lack of any outside help just like the parents, aren’t human either.

Or, for that matter, the parents. No outside help? Sorry, there goes your humanity.

 

[PRmerger]

No. A fetus or an embryo is not a child. It is also not a human being.

That is an arbitrary declaration, RA. As arbitrary as if one proclaimed: a homosexual is not a human being. Or a person with Down Syndrome is not a human being.

Tell me, how many people do you know that lack developed vital organs, and are unable to survive out of their parent’s womb?

Have you ever heard of a baby that has hypoplastic left heart syndrome? The “hypoplastic” means “underdeveloped”. And no one can argue that a heart is a vital organ.

And, thanks to modern medicine, this baby can survive outside his mommy’s womb.

Are you willing to proclaim that this baby is not a human being?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Apologies to the family of this babe, for using his picture for an argument. However, general usage on the internet is fair usage.

 

[Debora123]

Corpses have DNA. Are you going to give him his rights, and let him purchase a home or enter into a marriage?

But corpuses ARE human beings. We never said they weren’t. They are human beings, but they are human beings who have already passed away.

A fetus, however, is a developing human being. Every human being who is alive is a developing human being from the moment of conception until death. Even throughout old age, a person’s body is constantly changing.

But you should know this, since it’s 5th grade biology.

Anyhow, you still have not answered my questions. Can you please?

PS- A 1 year old can’t purchase a home or enter into a marriage either. Are they then not human beings?

 

[Elizabeth502]

I guess I’ve had a completely different experience of what “gay” means…

You have indeed.

Perhaps the usage of “gay” is more open to opinion rather than being some sort of hard line the Church teaches?

Again, it’s not that it’s (formally) a “hard line.” It’s a practice of the Church. Because terminology is important when discussing doctrine, since there is of course all the difference in the world, just as you understand, between someone with any kind of disordered attraction and someone indulging that attraction. (Doesn’t have to be sexual specifically.) The teaching arm of the Church is very specific about categories. And for the very reason that morality involves behavior, not accident or mental constructs per se.

I appreciate that for people of your generation, the specific choice of words is “not that big a deal,” so to speak. And also, I’ve noticed a social “etiquette” about that. (Use the words that a particular group finds more comfortable or uses themselves.) And that’s fine, from a social perspective. I would never go into a group of any kind and use terms that would be off-putting in the social environment, as long as it didn’t compromise my own sensibilities to do so (like agreeing to use a vulgar term or something).

But when discussing a Catholic doctrinal and policy perspective, that’s a different “world” or standard. And again, I’m talking about approved doctrine, and not more informal books such as you mention, which are in agreement with magisterial teaching but do not proceed from official sources in the use of their particular language.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Indeed. I guess that babies born in destitute countries, starving for lack of any outside help just like the parents, aren’t human either.

Or, for that matter, the parents. No outside help? Sorry, there goes your humanity.

Oh, your god! I swear you do not get my point! An underdeveloped fetus cannot survive, even if it gets outside help. There. That’s it. Nothing more to discuss.

Anyway, why isn’t abortion entirely justified when it comes to rape?

 

[prodigalson2011]

Corpses have DNA. Are you going to give him his rights, and let him purchase a home or enter into a marriage?

That is perhaps the most flaccid attempt at a rebuttal I’ve ever heard. A corpse lacks any potential save for decaying. Comparing new life to dead matter is just plain ridiculous.

 

[Crescentinus]

Anyway, why isn’t abortion entirely justified when it comes to rape?

Simple. You cannot right a wrong (rape) with another wrong (killing the child).
It would also give rapists the chance to coerce their victims to cover up the crime.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Oh, your god! I swear you do not get my point!

There’s no need to be so insensitive as to use profanity.

 

[Debora123]

You have indeed.

Again, it’s not that it’s (formally) a “hard line.” It’s a practice of the Church. Because terminology is important when discussing doctrine, since there is of course all the difference in the world, just as you understand, between someone with any kind of disordered attraction and someone indulging that attraction. (Doesn’t have to be sexual specifically.) The teaching arm of the Church is very specific about categories. And for the very reason that morality involves behavior, not accident or mental constructs per se.

I appreciate that for people of your generation, the specific choice of words is “not that big a deal,” so to speak. And also, I’ve noticed a social “etiquette” about that. (Use the words that a particular group finds more comfortable or uses themselves.) And that’s fine, from a social perspective. I would never go into a group of any kind and use terms that would be off-putting in the social environment, as long as it didn’t compromise my own sensibilities to do so (like agreeing to use a vulgar term or something).

But when discussing a Catholic doctrinal and policy perspective, that’s a different “world” or standard. And again, I’m talking about approved doctrine, and not more informal books such as you mention, which are in agreement with magisterial teaching but do not proceed from official sources in the use of their particular language.

Fair enough.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Oh, your god! I swear you do not get my point! An underdeveloped fetus cannot survive, even if it gets outside help. There. That’s it. Nothing more to discuss.

Anyway, why isn’t abortion entirely justified when it comes to rape?

Because the child didn’t do anything wrong. Is it unjust that a woman should go through a pregnancy she didn’t induce of her own will?
Of course it is.

Does that justify killing an innocent human being (and despite your denial, the scientific consensus is that a fetus IS a human being)?
No.

Two wrongs don’t make a right. It’s kindergarten ethics.

We all suffer the painful consequences of others’ evil actions. The woman deserves all of our sympathy and all the support and help she can get, but killing an innocent child to save herself from further suffering is not justifiable. Numerous women who have had abortions in such cases report that the abortion only compounded the trauma, as would be expected of anyone with a well formed conscience.

 

[Debora123]

That is an arbitrary declaration, RA. As arbitrary as if one proclaimed: a homosexual is not a human being. Or a person with Down Syndrome is not a human being.

Have you ever heard of a baby that has hypoplastic left heart syndrome? The “hypoplastic” means “underdeveloped”. And no one can argue that a heart is a vital organ.

And, thanks to modern medicine, this baby can survive outside his mommy’s womb.

Are you willing to proclaim that this baby is not a human being?

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Zr0g4CtjNUU/0.jpg

Apologies to the family of this babe, for using his picture for an argument. However, general usage on the internet is fair usage.

I love science and facts.

They are the best weapon in the debate against abortion.

 

[Stephen168]

Please, enlighten all of us stupid people how your picking and choosing who qualifies for the status of human being and then using that definition to justify the killing of anyone who doesn’t fit that definition is so much different than all of the people in history that de-humanized a group simply for the purpose of making it easier on their conscience to kill them is?

I’d like to see an answer to this question myself

 

[Crescentinus]

Because the child didn’t do anything wrong. Is it unjust that a woman should go through a pregnancy she didn’t induce of her own will?
Of course it is.

Does that justify killing an innocent human being (and despite your denial, the scientific consensus is that a fetus IS a human being)?
No.

Two wrongs don’t make a right. It’s kindergarten ethics.

We all suffer the painful consequences of others’ evil actions. The woman deserves all of our sympathy and all the support and help she can get, but killing an innocent child to save herself from further suffering is not justifiable. Numerous women who have had abortions in such cases report that the abortion only compounded the trauma, as would be expected of anyone with a well formed conscience.

 

[Lochias]

Oh, your god!

Cute. “Oh my nothing” a little too silly for you?

I swear you do not get my point! An underdeveloped fetus cannot survive, even if it gets outside help. There. That’s it. Nothing more to discuss.

But if that child has the capability, the possibility, to develop fully, then you’re right back to square one. Chances are that child would have developed beautifully and normally. So, comes right back down to choice: “Do I murder my child BEFORE it has a working heart, or AFTER?”

Anyway, why isn’t abortion entirely justified when it comes to rape?

Children aren’t a punishment, and not responsible for the actions of either parent. Or is being the child because of rape now a crime for you? Should we round up all the adults in the world who were conceived because of rape, and punish them? Should my sister be punished for something a stranger did to my mother, sir?

I can assure you, I am on tether hooks waiting for your reply.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Hm. Maybe I need to reconsider some of my arguments when it comes to abortion. It’s not something I am particularly passionate about, or did much research on (unlike the issue of homosexuality). You have the right to be proud (if it were not a sin), now, as you may have made some progress in changing my opinon of abortions.

However, I do maintain that there are situations in which abortion is perfectly justified, and I’m not quite sure if an egg cell deserves human rights the moment it is fertilised, which is what you seem to be implying.

 

[Debora123]

You know, I’ve debated with people who acknowledge that a fetus is indeed a human being but who go on to justify its killing anyway.

It has been a loooong time, however, since I’ve debated with someone who doesn’t even think a fetus is a human being to begin with.

It’s the 21st century, and we have sufficient science and knowledge to know that a fetus is indeed human. There’s really no debate.