"Christian Moms Group Condemns Hallmark Channel for Airing Lesbian Wedding Ad"

[JesusKnowsYou]

I agree that your position is consistent and predictable which is a good thing, but I don't think it's solidly based on reason or at least you have not made that demonstration yet.

That's fair.

I will try to tackle that when I respond to your post.

 

[epronovost]

That's fair.

I will try to tackle that when I respond to your post.

I would like to point out that two different positions on the issue of abortion can be perfectly consistent and reasonnable. Morality is extremely "malleable" for lack of better terms.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

I would like to point out that two different positions on the issue of abortion can be perfectly consistent and reasonnable. Morality is extremely "malleable" for lack of better terms.

I'm honestly not trying to take a "moral" stance.

To be clear - I am very religious and do consider this to be a moral issue - but you cannot legislate morality.

I'm not about to quote from the Bible to prove my point.

I believe that consistency and reason will win the day.

 

[epronovost]

I'm honestly not trying to take a "moral" stance.

Then I believe you are unwittingly taking one considering you are and have passed several moral judgement about abortion, the people requesting them and the people performing them.

To be clear - I am very religious and do consider this to be a moral issue - but you cannot legislate morality.

You can absolutely legislate morality and impose moral patterns of behavior and beliefs with the strength of the law. That you should or shouldn't is an entirely different question, but you absolutely can. This is especially true if you assess morality and ethics primarly in consequentialist terms.

I'm not about to quote from the Bible to prove my point.

Not that it would do you good anyway. You can't quote a belief to prove it.

I believe that consistency and reason will win the day.

Fair enough, carry on.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That's what you are saying now but that's not what you said then.

You earlier claimed that pedophilia = raping children.

Do you want me to quote you doing that for the umpteenth time?

I'm wondering what the "magic number" of re-posts it will take for you to be accountable for what you said and did?

I've said it at least 5 times now.

Pedophilia can = raping children, but it doesn't have to.
Pedophilia is a sexual attraction to children.

There's the 6th time.

Again I ask, what are you confused about?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yet - that is the decision I'm arguing against.

How can you not see how that makes no sense?

What decision?

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

I've said it at least 5 times now.

Pedophilia can = raping children, but it doesn't have to.
Pedophilia is a sexual attraction to children.

There's the 6th time.

Again I ask, what are you confused about?

I'm not confused at all.

You - on the other hand - are unwilling to admit that what you said and did previously was wrong.

The only reason I am so adamant about this is because you accused me of comparing homosexuals to child rapists when I brought up pedophilia as another example of an "inappropriate sexual attraction."

If you are now claiming that not all pedophiles are child rapists - then the argument you and others kept bludgeoning me with was flawed - just as I claimed all along.

I want you to admit that I never compared homosexuals to child rapists.

I want you to admit that I was right from the start and that you used your flawed argument to attack my character rather than my argument.

Once you admit and amend - I will no longer call you out.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

What decision?

The decision to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples.

Throughout the entirety of human history marriage has only been between men and women.

Your claim that current events should be included in my claim of precedent makes no sense.

If that made sense - then no one could ever source a precedent.

 

[epronovost]

Throughout the entirety of human history marriage has only been between men and women.

Citation please?

History of same-sex unions - Wikipedia

this seems to show that you are wrong about that. Same-sex unions existed in Antiquity and various region of the world so were incestuous marriage or "my favorite", divine marriage (that is being married to a divinity).

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

Citation please?

History of same-sex unions - Wikipedia

this seems to show that you are wrong about that. Same-sex unions existed in Antiquity and various region of the world so were incestuous marriage or "my favorite", divine marriage (that is being married to a divinity).

That link has been shared with me on this site before.

Did you read it before sharing?

None of the examples contained therein were of actual same-sex marriages.

 

[McBell]

None of the examples contained therein were of actual same-sex marriages.

See.
Even you discount the "different but equal" claim.

 

[epronovost]

That link has been shared with me on this site before.

Did you read it before sharing?

None of the examples contained therein were of actual same-sex marriages.

Of course I did and the example of Nero is a fairly evident one of marriage in great pomp and matrimonial life with. Note that the article and it's source called it marriage and mention that while Nero started the "trend" it was forbidden three centuries later. These were not cases of pederastry which indeed isn't really equivalent to marriages. There is also the case of Mesopotamia which had proper marriages with prayers and ceremonials for same-sex couples. Here's a good quote for you.

"Same-sex marital practices and rituals were more recognized in Mesopotamia than in ancient Egypt. The Almanac of Incantations contained prayers favoring on an equal basis the love of a man for a woman and of a man for man.[6]"

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

@epronovost - I couldn't copy excerpts from your post for some reason. It was weird.

I find the link to be intentionally misleading.

For example - these same-sex "marriages" had by Nero were described as "same-sex unions" that had "all the solemnities of matrimony".

It does not claim that any of these "unions" were recognized as legitimate marriages by Roman Law.

Another Wikipedia page claims that,

"Although in general the Romans regarded marriage as a male–female union for the purpose of producing children, a few scholars believe that in the early Imperial period some male couples were celebrating traditional marriage rites in the presence of friends. Male–male weddings are reported by sources that mock them; the feelings of the participants are not recorded. Both Martial and Juvenal refer to marriage between males as something that occurs not infrequently, although they disapprove of it.[162] Roman law did not recognize marriage between males, but one of the grounds for disapproval expressed in Juvenal's satire is that celebrating the rites would lead to expectations for such marriages to be registered officially.[163] As the empire was becoming Christianized in the 4th century, legal prohibitions against marriage between males began to appear."

Homosexuality in ancient Rome - Wikipedia

So - yes - same-sex couples were performing ceremonies with all the "rites" and "solemnities" of traditional marriage - but Roman Law did not recognize them and they were not officially registered.

Same-sex couples mimicking "practices" and "rituals" of traditional marriage - even with favorable prayers - does not mean that these "unions" were recognized by ancient Mesopotamian society/government.

The most comprehensive article I found on the topic of same-sex marriage in ancient Mesopotamia does not conclusively claim that they were officially recognized unions.

It claimed that ancient Mesopotamia "did not prohibit same-sex relationships, nor did many stigmatize them" then claims that, "Although the evidence is debatable, some of the ancient cultures may have treated same-sex relationships similarly to marriages involving different-sex partners."

It also claims, "Indeed, the Hittite Laws can be read to suggest that same-sex marriage was legally as well as culturally sanctioned in at least some parts of ancient Mesopotamia."

https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2503&context=fss_papers

Basically - we know that ancient Mesopotamia did not oppose same-sex relationships - but we have no evidence of officially recognized same-sex marriages. You'd have to "debate" and apply some suggestions to the reading to come to that conclusion.

Another article I found - which went into more detail about marriage in general in ancient Mesopotamia - not just the possibility of same-sex marriages - claimed that the primary purpose of marriage was to have children.

To the point that if a woman was proven to not be a virgin on her wedding night or if she was unable to conceive - the marriage could be nullified and she would be returned to her family.

Love, Sex, and Marriage in Ancient Mesopotamia

 

[epronovost]

It also claims, "Indeed, the Hittite Laws can be read to suggest that same-sex marriage was legally as well as culturally sanctioned in at least some parts of ancient Mesopotamia."

If you replace the Hittite Laws with those of modernnations and ancient Mesopotamia by "the western world", I think you will find that both situation are fairly comparable. The legality and status of same-sex marriage is still rather complex though it seems it will become a cultural trait of the western world before long like heterosexual marriage. All that to say that same-sex marriage being a completely novel concept isn't true. Numerous civilisations, at the very least, dabbled with the concept and it's very much possible it was a reality in some part of the Antique world.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

If you replace the Hittite Laws with those of modernnations and ancient Mesopotamia by "the western world", I think you will find that both situation are fairly comparable. The legality and status of same-sex marriage is still rather complex though it seems it will become a cultural trait of the western world before long like heterosexual marriage. All that to say that same-sex marriage being a completely novel concept isn't true. Numerous civilisations, at the very least, dabbled with the concept and it's very much possible it was a reality in some part of the Antique world.

Yet it is not possible - at least at this time - to properly interpret the Hittite Laws. Which is why it said that they "can be read to suggest" this or that.

I don't recall claiming that same-sex marriage was a "novel concept". Homosexuality and marriage have both existed since time immemorial.

I have - however - maintained that same-sex marriage (as understood and practiced today) has never existed throughout human history.

For ancient peoples - marriage was always between men and women and its main purpose was to produce children.

 

[epronovost]

I have - however - maintained that same-sex marriage (as understood and practiced today) has never existed throughout human history.

For ancient peoples - marriage was always between men and women and its main purpose was to produce children

I'll be pedentic and say that the role marriage in most of Ancient civilisations was to produce legitimate heirs to continue the familly line and insure transfer of wealth and titles if applicable (which at the time was mostly land, houses, farms and cattle). Marriage was more about business than love for the longest time and probably why same-sex unions were stuck in some sort of legal grey zone in Greek and Roman culture and outright outlawed in Ancient Israel for example.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

I actually agree with the definition of murder shared with me which was - if I remember correctly - “the unlawful premeditated killing of another human being”.

I agree with this definition as long as the “law” mentioned within it is applied consistently - which I do not believe it is in regards to “abortion”.

Pro-abortionists claim that the Fourteenth Amendment - which prohibits States from depriving a citizen of liberty without due process of law - protects a woman’s right to make decisions about family and their bodily integrity.

Legally a “child in utero” is defined as “a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb”.

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act recognizes a “child in utero” as a legal victim if they are injured or killed during the commission of a list of federal crimes of violence - which includes homicide and feticide.

So - if a pregnant woman is a victim of homicide - her murderer would can be charged with two counts of murder.

However - the law explicitly provides that it does not apply to any abortion to which a woman has consented.

This is where I believe there is inconsistency and a lack of reason - because this standard could not be applied to any other member of the human race without resulting in murder.

Why is a “child in utero” - a member of the human race - considered a victim only when its mother wants it?

I am not trying to make any decisions about family and bodily integrity - but I don’t think we should destroy the bodies of the human beings that have already been created.

Other talking points for most pro-abortionists are the ideas of viability and personhood - that a child is not a person until they are viable.

I have issues with these arguments because as medical understanding and technology advances won’t the “viability” of the unborn be pushed further and further back?

Is it not possible that we can see “test-tube babies” in the future?

Not only that - but not all countries are as advanced as others. So - a premature 20-week baby is a “person” in the United States - but not in Cambodia?

This leads me to ask - should technology decide the value of human life or when we become a person or when it should be considered murder to kill someone?

Also - we don’t know which child is technically viable until we take them out.

A 20-week fetus may be viable today - at least in the United States and other developed countries - but it depends on the fetus.

These are just too arbitrary of standards to determine “personhood”.

Any legal justification for the practice of “abortion” - if consistently applied to those already-born - would be “murder”.

The ability to possess a will, sensation, emotions and create social bonds. I have repeated this several times now. I'm surprise and irritated you haven't accepted that this was what I mean by "mind" yet. It's like you aren't trying to understand me, but more busy trying to prove something.

In all fairness you have only used the word “mind” once in all the posts you have addressed to me.

I could have “assumed” that by “mind” you meant “will, feelings, sensations, emotions and social bonds” - but you did not specifically claim that.

That was why I asked, “What do you mean by “mind”?” and I gave my reasons for why I felt the need to ask.

I would appreciate it if we agreed on concrete definitions for all of these qualifiers you have mentioned.

These capacities do not arise until the brain develops the neo-cortex, where those processes happen, which happens at the 24-28 week of gestation, well after elective abortions are done. If you do not accept this simple fact you are being obtuse and ignorant or the human mental development.

I am not disputing this - but I don’t consider it to be at all relevant in determining what is or is not human life.

Legally speaking - an unborn child is a human being at any stage of their development.

And also - as I said before - I don’t see how characteristics - such as brain capacities - should determine anyone’s value or whether or not killing them should be considered murder.

This is simply false. Newborn do have awareness, they have will, can learn and they have emotions.

I don’t believe that that is accurate.

Newborns react on the most elementary of instincts.

They may cry at loud noises and cling when they feel the sensation of falling - but they don’t actually feel fear until like 6-8 months.

Babies don’t experience the entire gamut of emotions until about 10 months.

And their level of awareness is - as I said before - simple reactions to stimuli.

And “will” could be defined in many ways, such as - “the faculty by which a person decides on and initiates action” or “control deliberately exerted to do something or to restrain one's own impulses.” or “a deliberate or fixed desire or intention”.

Unless you are defining “will” some other way - I don’t believe newborns have all that.

Late term fetuses have been found to able of such thing albeit to a lesser extand than newborn since the structures were already there and studies have found that newborn already recognise the voice of their mother. Of course they do not have the higher function of awareness like self-awareness, insight, etc, but these aren't necessary for the possession of a mind.

I believe the concept of “mind” is more complex than what you are sharing.

For example - one of the definitions of “mind” in the Merriam-Webster dictionary is “the element or complex of elements in an individual that feels, perceives, thinks, wills, and especially reasons.” (Bold and italics added)

The others are more simple like “mental activity” or “organized consciousness”.

Either way - you believe that individuals with less developed “minds” are less valuable than individuals that are more developed.

Am I misrepresenting you with this summation?

Intrinsic value no, value period, obviously. If you are faced with the terrible and sadistic choice between saving a baby or an adult in period of horrible crisis, the rationnal choice would be to save the adult as the adult can actually help save more people in turn, is more independant and possesses skills that can takes a long time to acquire, but these are extreme and hypothetical scenario up there with "if you were lost on top of a mountain without food, would you eat human cadavres?". I don't think the debates should go there (unless you are a fan of morality debates in extreme situation)

I am not a fan of such morality debates - but I do disagree with you entirely.

I would save the baby over the adult because I believe that the adult would be more likely to survive the crisis without my aid - while the baby is completely dependent and would die if left alone - even in the best of circumstances.

I believe there is a huge biological component at play here as well as simple rationale.

Do not thing that your antics and frustration are an excuse to strawman willingly. It's dishonest, insulting and doesn't constitute an argument. Refrein from it in the future.

I am neither playing the fool nor frustrated. I was being sarcastic - as I stated.

If anything - I was expressing contempt for your position that the value of a human life is determined based on their characteristics.

That argument has been used since time immemorial to justify Man’s inhumanity to Man.

Rather than misrepresenting your argument - I was focusing on its absurdity - and making you accountable for what you said.

I do find this position very insulting and I hope you refrain from this and other dehumanizing arguments in the future.

No, newborn are capable of awereness and will. When they are affraid they cry, when they are hungry they scream, when they are frustrated they sreach and growl, when they are happy they smile, when they are curious they touch, grap and taste. These are all controlled actions and feelings. That they do not have capacity for self abstraction yet is irrelevent. They have a mind not unlike that of thousands of species of animal, but uniquely human in its process.

I believe you are loosely defining these terms and as I said previously I do not believe newborns are capable of all these things.

So - just to clarify - since you compared the “mind” of a newborn to various species of animal - you believe that the newborn and a comparable animal are equal in value?

Or does the newborn’s “uniquely human” mental processes make it more valuable?

If not - why not?

Enemy combattant, attempted murderer are characteristics and you can absolutely kill those people under the right circumstances and not be a murderer.

Those are descriptors of actions or affiliation rather than characteristics.

Characteristics are inherent qualities and traits.

An unborn child has made no action and has no affiliation.

They don't have wants at all. The question is not even wrong. I might as well ask you if you were bored during the billions of years before your birth.

Well - you could ask me about my existence prior to my birth into this life if you want to talk about matters of my faith.

As to the wants of the not-yet-born - you are making an assumption - and I think it’s off-putting that you made such an assumption after explaining to me that unborn children develop minds before their birth.

I understand that you earlier explained that your “cut-off” for “elective abortion” is at eight weeks - before the not-yet-born can supposedly feel pain - and long before the mind supposedly develops.

However - you just claimed that it would be impossible for me to have any wants or thoughts before my birth - not at the eight week mark or when my neocortex developed - but at my birth.

Do you believe “abortions” should be legal at any stage of the pregnancy? Even immediately before birth?

Post 1 of 3

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

You are right, the guy in a coma had a will, he had emotions and he has social bonds, friends, familly, etc that still think and care about him. That's a lot more than a 12 weeks old fetus which doesn't and never had anything like that.

Yet no hospital will “pull the plug” on a John Doe who is in a coma - whose will and emotions are undetermined with no known social bonds.

They’d send him to a long-term care facility and their lawyer would arrange to have a legal custodian appointed to him.

Even if they decide that continued care is not feasible - they wouldn’t make that decision based on their own personal feelings - and they wouldn’t suck his brain out of his head or rip him limb from limb with forceps.

They would simply stop providing life-sustaining care and wait for him to expire naturally.

They would not actively kill this individual - like they do with the unborn - but leave him to his natural processes.

If you were to leave an embryo to its natural processes - it would develop and grow into a fully formed baby.

Abortion runs contrary to everything doctors do professionally - saving lives - doing no harm.

We tend to respect the bodies of the dead more than those of the not-yet-born.

It is true that a grown man has more and is more developed than a 12-week old fetus - but he also has more and is more developed than a newborn.

If you want to use the whole “a fetus is less valuable than a grown man” argument - to justify killing the fetus - then you should be able to consistently apply it to a newborn as well.

That is why I do not believe that any human being is less valuable than another and their worth should never be considered in regards to whether or not they should be killed.

A man in a temporary coma is just like a man sleeping. I already answered that question, but will do so again, no because a lapse in consciousness doesn't eliminate or cancels someone's will. An embryo having no will cannot make the same claim.

The point is that the will of the man in the coma - whether it is known or not - is irrelevant if we know he will wake.

Even if the man in the coma had a living will that stated, “Suspend all life-saving care in the event of coma” - no one would consider it if they knew he would wake.

We all know - generally speaking - that the unborn child is going to wake. Whether or not it has will is irrelevant.

We should not destroy any human for being in a temporary lapse of consciousness.

It's also important to note that the man in a coma doesn't actively harm anybody while an embryo can.

Are you talking about the extreme minority of “abortion” cases where the mother’s life was in danger as a result of the pregnancy?

Are you going to use this outlier to justify the vast majority of “elective abortions” decided based on the inconvenience of the not-yet-born’s existence?

Sexual development is a bit more complex than that and so does DNA interraction. Please refer to the field of epigenetics.

No - it is very simple. XX chromosomes make a female and XY a male.

Many traits are decided at the moment of conception - like eye color, hair color and sex.

The single-celled embryo is the original copy of a new and unique human being’s complete genetic code.

No, they aren't decided at conception since children can be abandonned or die at birth (or even prior to death in case of sibblings and fathers). A sire isn't a parent and sire isn't a social bond, it's a genetical fact, a bond would imply an emotional connection and reciprocal rapport. Parenthood is more than just producing a child, it's taking care of it, raising it, educating it.

You are trying to make this more complicated than it is.

A father can be described as either the biological father or as the male parent. Or both.

For example - I am the father of the child my wife miscarried and I would also be the father of any child we decided to adopt.

A child can have two or more fathers depending on how their family life shakes out.

Biology determines parentage while social bonding determines parenthood. Both create fathers.

I know you want to look at this issue from only one angle - ironically applying your own spin to these definitions - but this stuff can get messy.

Besides - you have yet to justify why you believe social bonds of any kind are even necessary to justify if a human being should be killed or not.

Would you argue not to execute a rapist and murderer because he is someone’s son?

I already answered this question too. I'll say it once again. No, you cannot kill someone who doesn't feel pain because they have a will and emotions. Embryo who are selectively aborted are incapable of ALL those characteristics: will, emotions, sensation and social bonds.

You have yet to explain why all of those characteristics are necessary to determine the value of a human life and whether we can justify killing them.

A human being as in a person is a philosophical concept that is composite of both a mind, a mental identity and a body.

I just told you to skip the abstract - but your head is still up in the clouds.

Let’s go back to Merriam-Webster - which defines “person” as “human” or “individual” - it then defines “individual” as “a single human being as contrasted with a social group or institution”.

Since a “child in utero” is a “human being” - it is a person or individual.

If we were to find a single drop of blood - we could easily determine if it is from a human or not - but we wouldn’t devalue our results by asking some philosophical question like, “Sure it’s human - but did it come from a person?”

A “child in utero” is a human being and a human being is a person as well as an individual with a unique and complete genetic code.

Any qualifiers you try to apply to “person” could be used to determine that certain already-born human beings are not “persons” or “individuals”.

It is not consistent and it is not reasonable.

I refer to you to the famous " two captain Kirk" philosophical thought experiement on identity and you are absolutely right that genetics and epigenetics have a roll, they produce the mind which an emergent property. The mind as a special value, but the body not so much. That's why people who no longer have any significant brain activity are considered dead.

I just want to talk about the facts.

I mean - I could get all philosophical or religious and talk about the worth of souls and what not - but that’s not what I have been focusing on here.

No medical doctors, biologists, geneticists or lawmakers are running to the philosophers to decide what is or is not human and if we should determine a person’s worth based on their characteristics.

I just want laws and definitions to be reasonable and consistently applied.

A brain dead person is not considered dead because of some philosophical concept concerning identity or mind - but because their body’s functions stop if life-support is removed.

A human being as a member of the homo sapiens species of animal is a taxonomical category based on a variety of common characteristics and genetical traits. Taxonomical category are ontological, thus also philosophical concept. All science derives from philosophy up to a certain point.

So - are you arguing that philosophers should decide the value of human life and what murder is?

How is that different than arguing that religion should do so?

You can also consider the idea of body transplantation. If I lose a kidney and receives one from Gerald, it's no longer Gerald's kidney, it' mine even though it has Gerald's DNA.

A “child in utero” is a human being - a person or individual - not a kidney.

If an unborn child was the same as a kidney - why put any restrictions on “abortion” at all?

Why all your talk about the eight-week or twenty-four week mark?

Why not wait up until the due date to pierce its skull and suck out its brain and then dismember it with forceps?

I mean - it’s just a polyp, right? A tumor? A growth? A kidney?

Except - it’s not. It’s a human being. A person. An individual with it’s own unique and complete genetic code - separate and distinct from the mother.

Imagine that I am very unlucky and lucky at the same time and basically am reconstructed from the bottom up following accidents: new heart, new spleen, new kidneys, new liver, new skin, new arms and legs, new heart, etc. I would still be me even though my body is completely different and contains a variety of different people's DNA and perhapse even some animal ones (xenotransplantation is considered a promising field in the future and human organ transplant in animals have been successful).

You would still be a human being. A person. An individual whose unique and complete genetic code could be analyzed and differentiated from all the pieces from others put into you.

So - if we were able to take a random embryo and successfully implant it into the uterus of a random woman - are you claiming that that embryo would cease to be an individual with a unique and complete genetic code?

This woman would all of a sudden have twenty fingers and toes? Four arms and legs? And a penis if the embryo happened to be a male?

These are characteristics that the woman would suddenly obtain because this embryo was implanted into her uterus?

Or - is it not at all like a kidney - but a separate and distinct human being?

That’s really cool about the animal organs though.

When did I used the term: free will?

Nuance.

How can you prove that you actually have will - rather than all your decisions being predetermined?

And I wanted to avoid all this philosophical stuff!

I disagree. Yours do. Your definition of human can exclude some people like people with severe generical defect for example or members of a certain ethinicity based on a phenotype or a genetical varience. That's what neo-nazi and hereditarian groups do today. They class human values based on genetical traits and characteristics.

What? That’s what you did - not me.

You were the one that said in Post #918, when we were talking about the intrinsic value of human beings that, “Everything has some value, but that value changes depending on its characteristics.”

I expressed my contempt for this idea and have maintained that all human beings are equally valuable.

I never argued that anyone should be excluded or considered less valuable than others.

I have no idea how you could have come to this false conclusion about what I have said other than intentionally doing so in an effort to misrepresent me.

You do realise I had adressed all those points and disagree with these statements? I'll try to reformulate the argument in more simple terms so you can understand it more easily since it seems to be so difficult for you.

I’m not having any difficulty at all - I just think it’s stupid.

Post 2 of 3

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

The things that give special value to humans compared to other life forms or things in the cosmos is our will, our emotions, our sensations our social bonds. While all animals possess these characteristics humans experiment them slightly differently than other animals and in turn each human experiment them slightly differently than each others making us all individuals. Embryo before the 24th to 28th week of gestation do not possess will, sensation, emotions and social bonds. They do not have what gives humans a special value compared to other life forms and things in the cosmos. They have yet to develop what makes human uniquely valuable; they will not before the embryo reaches the point where it develops the neo-cortex, the portion of the brain that regulate and produce all the things mentionned above. They have none. If you have none you cannot be considered as having a special value. If you have at least one of those things you can make a claim to having a special value.

First off - an unborn child becomes a fetus at about it’s ninth week of development.

You were talking about a fetus here - not an embryo.

Lastly - no. I reject everything you said here. Any of these justifications could be used to deny basic inalienable human rights to already-born people.

You just accused me of trying to exclude people and determine their value based on their characteristics (which you did from the start) and now here you are doing it again.

In the United States a “child in utero” is legally considered to be a human being during all the stages of its development and is separate and distinct from the mother.

A human being is a person or an individual with its own unique and complete genetic code.

An unborn child who is killed can be considered a legal victim of murder - if its mother wanted it.

An unborn child who is “aborted” is considered nothing more than a growth - if its mother did not want it.

This does not make sense. It is an inconsistent application of the law.

Our value and whether or not it is acceptable to kill us is not determined by how inconvenient our existence is.

Why do you believe humans have a special value and should have a right to live that other creature do not?

That is a different conversation altogether.

There is no reason to go there.

Post 3 of 3

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

I'll be pedentic and say that the role marriage in most of Ancient civilisations was to produce legitimate heirs to continue the familly line and insure transfer of wealth and titles if applicable (which at the time was mostly land, houses, farms and cattle). Marriage was more about business than love for the longest time and probably why same-sex unions were stuck in some sort of legal grey zone in Greek and Roman culture and outright outlawed in Ancient Israel for example.

Neat.