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

[columbus]

Precisely. No matter how much you might have loved and longed for that embryo that unfortunately did not survive pregnancy (you have my sympathy for that), it wasn't a child in the medical sense of the term. The fact that you desired it made it your son or daughter.

I didn't want him/her. I was relieved when s/he died.
Doesn't change the fact s/he was a baby and my child. And I chose to create him/her.

Insisting that only words that carry emotions that support your agenda are correct doesn't carry any more weight with me than JesusKnowsYou using the same tactic. My child was a human individual, utterly dependent and voiceless, but a human individual. I don't care about what words you want to use.
Tom

 

[epronovost]

Insisting that only words that carry emotions that support your agenda are correct doesn't carry any more weight with me than JesusKnowsYou using the same tactic. My child was a human individual, utterly dependent and voiceless, but a human individual. I don't care about what words you want to use.
Tom

I strongly disagree with this. It wasn't an individual since it had no consciousness, no will, no emotion, no sensation and it didn't even had an independant metabolism and was utterly dependant by another's action to physically to maintain its metabolic process. That precludes it from being an individual. If you don't care about what words I want to use, why should I care about your words? I use the words that are the most correct as much as possible; that you don't want to learn new ones when they are more correct in certain circumstances, is your choice. Don't expect people to follow your example if you can't provide an congent argument that respect linguistic or the various fields relevent to the discussion.

 

[columbus]

I strongly disagree with this.

I don't care. I've got science on my side.
Google "Life cycle of a primate".

Or do I have to start with "humans are primates, regardless of your agenda or beliefs".
Tom

 

[epronovost]

I don't care. I've got science on my side.
Google "Life cycle of a primate".

Or do I have to start with "humans are primates, regardless of your agenda or beliefs".
Tom

Google "Life cycle of a primate" and you will see that this cycle is pretty much the following: zygote, embryo, fetus, child, teenager, adult, elder and then death. It's not unborn child, child, teenager, adult, elder and then death. You are thus wrong to use "unborn child" or even "fetal child". These aren't stages in the life cycle of a primate. You will also see the term individual or person used in "life cycle of a primate" only from the child point and then on since these are human characteristics only observed in child and on, not during the embryonic development (or ar least the very late stage embryonic development). In fact most definition of "human being" itself refers only to child, men and women of homo sapiens species. It doesn't refer to embryo; remember biological definitions use biological terms not usual terms.

 

[columbus]

Google "Life cycle of a primate" and you will see that this cycle is pretty much the following: zygote, embryo, fetus, child, teenager, adult, elder and then death. It's not unborn child, child, teenager, adult, elder and then death.

OK, try to stay with me here without switching to your emotionally preferred terminology.
A) Primate individuals begin as zygotes and end at death.
B) Humans are primates.

Conclusion) Humans begin at conception and end at death.

You might not think that any particular human individual matters. Slavers of old didn't either, they had their own subjective opinions on the subject of which humans matter and which don't.
But the science here is not on your side.
Tom

 

[epronovost]

OK, try to stay with me here without switching to your emotionally preferred terminology.
A) Primate individuals begin as zygotes and end at death.
B) Humans are primates.

Conclusion) Humans begin at conception and end at death.

We are both perfectly in agreement there. Science is "also on my side here" since I don't give a rat *** about "human" as a biological species. Being human doesn't grant you any value, rights or special protection. I base my morality on something else than racialism and speciesism. I base it, amongst other things, on personhood and the "no harm" axiom (both philosophical and psychological concepts, thus scientific concepts).

As demontrated by medical, biological and psychological science, young fetus, an embryo or a zigote do not have consciousness, sensation, will, desires and senses they thus cannot be harmed in the proper sense of the word; neither does it possess any of the characteristics that define and set appart human life from other animal or plant life. An adult non-human primate, having all the above, is thus more valuable, should have more rights and protection than a human zygote, embryo or young fetus.

 

[columbus]

I don't give a rat *** about "human" as a biological species.

That's what puts you in a category including Nazis and Conquistadors. You don't give a rat *** about humans who don't happen to be important to you. They were the same way.
Tom

 

[Milton Platt]

.

"The evangelical Christian hate group One Million Moms (Twitter count: 3759) is furious that The Hallmark Channel is airing the following commercial that involves a wedding kiss between two women:

What’s wrong with that ad? Nothing, unless your entire existence revolves around demonizing LGBTQ people.

One viewer commented on the board:

“Why would you show a lesbian wedding commercial on the Hallmark Channel? Hallmark movies are family friendly, and you ruined it with the commercial.”

Another viewer wrote:

“Our family was watching a wonderful Hallmark movie based on a true story. It was late, but our daughter was up late with us. During the commercial break, there was a commercial from Zola with two women lip locking! Please Hallmark … we are fed up with having the gay agenda crammed down our throats! You are one of the few channels we thought we would not have to deal with this issue! Please remove this and any other gay, lesbian, bisexual, or anything else it is called from your channels. … We love you but won’t keep watching with this type of ads.”
…

Shame on Hallmark for airing commercials with same-sex couples and even considering movies with LGBT content and lead characters.

Until recently, Hallmark had a good record for keeping their movies and commercials family friendly. Now, parents can no longer trust Hallmark because Hallmark is no longer allowing parents to be the primary educators when it comes to sex and sexual morality.
​

Imagine how sad your life must be that this wedding commercial ruined your day…"
source

​

Call me quirky, but while this is sad it's also an amusing bit of news.

.

​

I'm thinking that nobody gives a sh*t except the Christian moms group............

 

[epronovost]

That's what puts you in a category including Nazis and Conquistadors. You don't give a rat *** about humans who don't happen to be important to you. They were the same way.
Tom

That's a very fallacious comparison. Do you me want to explain why and how?

I believe you have more in common with them than me. Both Conquistadors and Nazis used a racialist and speciesist moral framework to assess the value of humans. Your definition of "human being" is simply broader than theirs which isn't always a quality from my point of view (though its certainly a massive improvement). From my point of view, the capital problem of your moral framework and definitions is that that you are willing to harm people for the sake of something without conciousness, emotion, sensation and will (thus that cannot be harmed) because it fits in your definition and framework without any care about someone's will, emotions, dignity and general health.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

No.
What he's saying is that there's an objective meaning for the word "murder". That's "extralegal killing of a human being". By that standard, virtually no abortions are murder in the USA because of the laws passed by our representative government.
If what you mean by "murder" is "killing of a human being that I do not approve"(which it appears you mean), then murder becomes an extremely subjective term. The folks who lynched black guys for smiling at white women were not, by their subjective standards, committing murder because they approved of the killing.

This is why I avoid the word murder in the context of a feticide rights debate. It's unhelpfully vague and subjective.
Tom

Can you give me an example (besides "abortion") of a legal killing?

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

You're doing the same thing @JesusKnowsYou was doing.
Redefining words to suit your agenda. Trying to define concepts you prefer weren't discussed out of existence.

Sorry.
I had an unborn child, who didn't survive the first few weeks of pregnancy. And I am now, at 61, still my mom's baby.
You can try to define away the issues, pretending that because you don't accept the meaning of a word that the reality goes away. But it doesn't.
Tom

I am not trying to "redefine" any words.

I am trying to point contradictions and inconsistencies.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

About the definition of the law, absolutely not; about it's wisdom, absolutely.

Give me an example of a legal killing.

 

[epronovost]

Give me an example of a legal killing.

Self-defense killing, legal execution of criminals, war killings when performed by soldiers against enemy soldiers following their rule of engagement and international rules of war are abovious example.

In a wider sense of the term "legal killing" you will find abortion, animal husbandry, sports and survivalist hunting of animals, etc.

These are legal ways and fashion to kill humans and animals.

 

[Skwim]

I'm thinking that nobody gives a sh*t except the Christian moms group............

Hold that thought because I sure you're right. The group exists to do nothing more than come down on those who don't agree with them.

That's what puts you in a category including Nazis and Conquistadors. You don't give a rat *** about humans who don't happen to be important to you. They were the same way.
Tom

Two stages in the embryonic development of a chicken, human and a turtle. (listed alphabetically) Which is which and why?

Point being, other than their DNA and slightly differing morphologies there's nothing else setting them apart. And when one considers how many human embryos and fetuses are killed in miscarriages and stillbirths it's not hard to conclude that god has no real regard for them.

.

 

[epronovost]

Point being, other than their DNA and slightly differing morphologies there's nothing else setting them apart.
.

That's not exactly a very good argument. On a certain scale, there isn't that much difference between humans and any other animal no matter the level of development. Small differences can have a huge importance depending on what value you attribute (and why) to any of those differences. For a speciesist, those small difference in morphology and DNA are capital. For someone like me, the difference between those three sets of embryo are cosmetic and trivial.

 

[Skwim]

That's not exactly a very good argument. On a certain scale, there isn't that much difference between humans and any other animal no matter the level of development.

What scale is that?

Small differences can have a huge importance depending on what value you attribute (and why) to any of those differences. For a speciesist, [?] those small difference in morphology and DNA are capital. For someone like me, the difference between those three sets of embryo are cosmetic and trivial.

Okay, what are these salient differences at these specific times in development ?

.

 

[epronovost]

What scale is that?

From a planetary perspective and even more so from a cosmic perspective, the difference between the various animals on the planet are dwarfed by their similarities.

Okay, what are these salient differences at these specific times in development ?
.

Of course, I can hardly defend efficiently since I don't subscribe it, but I'll do my best. From a speciesist and racialist point of view, one of those embryo has human DNA and the others don't. Thus one is taxonomically human while the others are not. A speciesist and racialist framework on morality says that only human have unalienable rights and superior value and the method to determine what's human or not is biological science and taxonomy. If its taxonomically human, it has unalienable rights and superior value and if it's not it doesn't and that no matter the level of development or characteristics.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

Self-defense killing, legal execution of criminals, war killings when performed by soldiers against enemy soldiers following their rule of engagement and international rules of war are abovious example.

In a wider sense of the term "legal killing" you will find abortion, animal husbandry, sports and survivalist hunting of animals, etc.

These are legal ways and fashion to kill humans and animals.

What justification do you have for comparing the "abortion" of unborn humans with the killing of animals?

 

[epronovost]

What justification do you have for comparing the "abortion" of unborn humans with the killing of animals?

Both are legal acts. Both involve killing something living. These are points of comparison and there are others. Both are at the center of moral and ethical debates. That doesn't mean both actions are the same of course, but they do have points in common.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

Both are legal acts.

Executing a criminal can also be a legal act. Why didn't you list "abortion" along with that?

Both involve killing something living.

Like soldiers in war. Why not list "abortion" with them?

These are points of comparison and there are others.

I think you'd find more "points of comparison" between "aborting" unborn human beings with the killing of other human beings.

Unless - of course - you are eating the unborn human beings or "aborting" them for sport.

Both are at the center of moral and ethical debates.

There is more moral and ethic debate over the killing of a human being than an animal.

That doesn't mean both actions are the same of course, but they do have points in common.

There are more points in common with killing human beings.

I still find it odd why you would compare "aborting" unborn human beings with killing animals than other human beings.