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

[buffalo]

By what logic? Also, all the definitions I’ve seen suggest that natural law is completely subjective. You decide what goes within the bounds of natural law.

I think philosophical training is in order here.:sad_yes:

We (me and other CAF posters) have gone over the logic and natural law. As I remember you confused nature with natural law. Go back over some past posts.

 

[CopticChristian]

Then, how are we to work out the definition of words apart from using what is commonly accepted? After all, is that not how language works, and is that not how language evolves? The definition of words is certaintly not subjective, if that is what you are claiming.

And, after that little incident where you asked me which American city has the highest population a couple of days ago, how can you accuse me of having the mind of a youth? You only asked that so you could catch me out, and then accuse me of being narrow minded. What you did was childish. It brought nothing to the discussion but ad hominem, and was completely off topic.

Regular,

Read Science and Sanity, The Manhood of Humanity, (Alfred Korzybski) Words in thought and Action (SI Hiyakaway), Users Manual of the Brain Volume I & II (L. Michael Hall, PhD) and then learn to ask the following question…

What do you mean by that…

 

[Regular_Atheist]

OK - now I know where you stand - thanks.

Science fully understands that this “ball of cells” is a fully living human with unique DNA that is found no where else. The difference is maturity. Have you seen 4D ultrasounds? I am curious as to where you heard the tern “ball of cells”? Was this taught to you?

Plants have DNA, and yet they do not deserve the same rights as humans. An embryo is not sentient. This is fact, as it does not have a fully functional brain and can hardly be considered a human being, or be considered to have human rights.

Case of rape - how does one crime justify committing another, that is the taking of another humans life? Is the child of a rapist any less human? By being raped does the child lose the protection of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness?

No, it’s not. An embryo is not sentient. It cannot perceive or feel anything. It is not a child anymore than the white stains on my bedsheets as a teenager were corpses.

If you’re going to claim that abortion is murder, then so too must be masturbation, and oral sex must be considered cannabilism. While sperm is not a human, it is the means to creating a human, and, according to you, deserves all the rights of a human being.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

I think philosophical training is in order here.:sad_yes:

We (me and other CAF posters) have gone over the logic and natural law. As I remember you confused nature with natural law. Go back over some past posts.

No, I replied to those posts, and I said that natural law still seems to be subjective. I am not confusing it with what is natural, as what is natural is objective.

Give me your own definition of natural law.

 

[CopticChristian]

Plants have DNA, and yet they do not deserve the same rights as humans. An embryo is not sentient. This is fact, as it does not have a fully functional brain and can hardly be considered a human being, or be considered to have human rights.

No, it’s not. An embryo is not sentient. It cannot perceive or feel anything. It is not a child anymore than the white stains on my bedsheets as a teenager were corpses.

If you’re going to claim that abortion is murder, then so too must be masturbation, and oral sex must be considered cannabilism. While sperm is not a human, it is the means to creating a human, and, according to you, deserves all the rights of a human being.

Regular,

Prove to me that an embryo has no feelings. Give me hard scientific facts…recognize that on the CAF you are at odds with when life begins…guess you were not aware of that. Let me know when you have solid proof that embryos have no feelings, no ability to feel, no nerve endings…

 

[buffalo]

Plants have DNA, and yet they do not deserve the same rights as humans. An embryo is not sentient. This is fact, as it does not have a fully functional brain and can hardly be considered a human being, or be considered to have human rights.

No, it’s not. An embryo is not sentient. It cannot perceive or feel anything. It is not a child anymore than the white stains on my bedsheets as a teenager were corpses.

If you’re going to claim that abortion is murder, then so too must be masturbation, and oral sex must be considered cannabilism. While sperm is not a human, it is the means to creating a human, and, according to you, deserves all the rights of a human being.

If one uses the ability to feel pain as a criteria then what if I just drug you up before I kill an adult?

Your other example - none of these have unique DNA from a mother and a father. Human rights begin when a human if conceived. Science is against you on this.

 

[CrimsonThorn]

Plants have DNA, and yet they do not deserve the same rights as humans. An embryo is not sentient. This is fact, as it does not have a fully functional brain and can hardly be considered a human being, or be considered to have human rights.

No, it’s not. An embryo is not sentient. It cannot perceive or feel anything. It is not a child anymore than the white stains on my bedsheets as a teenager were corpses.

If you’re going to claim that abortion is murder, then so too must be masturbation, and oral sex must be considered cannabilism. While sperm is not a human, it is the means to creating a human, and, according to you, deserves all the rights of a human being.

Plants dont grow into fully functioning human beings, embryos do.

The arguement isnt over if they are able to FEEL, its that they are ALIVE, whether they feel or not. Ending the life of something that is living, is killing it. What is so hard to understand?

 

[ASimon]

Plants dont grow into fully functioning human beings, embryos do.

The arguement isnt over if they are able to FEEL, its that they are ALIVE, whether they feel or not. Ending the life of something that is living, is killing it. What is so hard to understand?

What’s hard to understand is you’re so protective of a human embryo with no nervous system or consciousness, but you’d have no problem swatting a fly or stepping on a bug, or setting a trap for a mouse. Not only are all these beings alive, but they’re conscious and have at least some capacity to suffer.

 

[CrimsonThorn]

What’s hard to understand is you’re so protective of a human embryo with no nervous system or consciousness, but you’d have no problem swatting a fly or stepping on a bug, or setting a trap for a mouse. Not only are all these beings alive, but they’re conscious and have at least some capacity to suffer.

These things arent human beings nor will they ever grow to be. Torturing animals is very wrong though.

If your only criteria for murder being acceptable is feeling and consciousness, than what another poster asked was, whats wrong with killing a formed human being as long as we drug them? It meets your criteria.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Plants dont grow into fully functioning human beings, embryos do.

The arguement isnt over if they are able to FEEL, its that they are ALIVE, whether they feel or not. Ending the life of something that is living, is killing it. What is so hard to understand?

A fetus cannot survive outside of the mother’s womb until around 23 weeks. Essentialy, it is not it’s own living human being, as it requires the mother to survive.

 

[CrimsonThorn]

A fetus cannot survive outside of the mother’s womb until around 23 weeks. Essentialy, it is not it’s own living human being, as it requires the mother to survive.

Mentally retarded persons require a caregiver in order to survive. Are they not living organisms?

 

[Regular_Atheist]

These things arent human beings nor will they ever grow to be. Torturing animals is very wrong though.

If your only criteria for murder being acceptable is feeling and consciousness, than what another poster asked was, whats wrong with killing a formed human being as long as we drug them? It meets your criteria.

The requirement for abortion being acceptable is not feeling and consciousness, but the ability to to have feeling and consciousness. A fetus before a certain time period will never have feeling or conciousness. However, a drugged man does have the ability, but the feelings are merely repressed. The difference between the man in the analogy and the fetus is that the fetus can never, ever have feelings or conciousness.

 

[CopticChristian]

What’s hard to understand is you’re so protective of a human embryo with no nervous system or consciousness, but you’d have no problem swatting a fly or stepping on a bug, or setting a trap for a mouse. Not only are all these beings alive, but they’re conscious and have at least some capacity to suffer.

Define embryo…from when to when

 

[CopticChristian]

A fetus cannot survive outside of the mother’s womb until around 23 weeks. Essentialy, it is not it’s own living human being, as it requires the mother to survive.

Regular,

What is the point of pointing out a symbiotic relationship?

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Mentally retarded persons require a caregiver in order to survive. Are they not living organisms?

You’re missing the point. That is true, but someone who is mentally ill can physically survive on their own, and their body can do all the nessecary functions to keep the person alive, but the person is unable to feed themselves, or look after themselves. The same applies to a baby.

However, the fetus cannot physically survive outside of the body. The problem isn’t, unlike the example of the mentally ill man, that the fetus is unable to look after its needs but that the vital organs cannot function as they are not developed. A fetus will die as it does not have working vital organs - a mentally ill person will die because they cannot care for themselves.

 

[CrimsonThorn]

The requirement for abortion being acceptable is not feeling and consciousness, but the ability to to have feeling and consciousness. A fetus before a certain time period will never have feeling or conciousness. However, a drugged man does have the ability, but the feelings are merely repressed. The difference between the man in the analogy and the fetus is that the fetus can never, ever have feelings or conciousness.

It still needs to be proven that it cannot have feeling or consciousness at that stage, however, even if it doesnt, once it grows it is obviously capable of feeling and consciousness. So your assertion that it can never, is utterly false.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Define embryo…from when to when

Scientifically, the term embryo is used to describe the early stages of fetal growth, from conception to the eighth week of pregnancy.

 

[CopticChristian]

The requirement for abortion being acceptable is not feeling and consciousness, but the ability to to have feeling and consciousness.** A fetus before a certain time period will never have feeling** or conciousness. However, a drugged man does have the ability, but the feelings are merely repressed. The difference between the man in the analogy and the fetus is that the fetus can never, ever have feelings or conciousness.

Regular,

Provide scientific proven data that a fetus has no feeling…at what stage?

 

[ASimon]

Define embryo…from when to when

Until eight weeks after fertilization.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

It still needs to be proven that it cannot have feeling or consciousness at that stage, however, even if it doesnt, once it grows it is obviously capable of feeling and consciousness. So your assertion that it can never, is utterly false.

In the current state of maturity is it unable to have feelings or conciousness. That means that, until it develops to a point where it can, it is not a human being.