JesusKnowsYou
Active Member
?See.
Even you discount the "different but equal" claim.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
?See.
Even you discount the "different but equal" claim.
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.
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.
That is a different conversation altogether.
There is no reason to go there.
Post 3 of 3
Did you miss my first two posts?Embryo is also the general term for all embryonic stage of development. It regroups, zygote, embryo and fetus is one. The word has two common definition. When I use embryo I refer to that second more general definition than the more precise medical term. My apologies for the potential confusion
You have yet to make a convincing demonstration of that. I refuted in short order all your previous attempts. Either prove that you can or leave it be. In what circumstances could I kill people who are already born and not yet declared medically dead outside of war and self defense?
Again, this is biological reductionism and its sketchy a best. Identical twins are two completely different persons who share the same genetic code. You cannot leave psychology and philosophy of the mind outside of the definition of what makes a person because it's inconveniant or because you are ignorant of it.
Persons have a personnality, idiosyncratic behaviors. It's easy to remember it's in the name: person; personnality. Zygotes, embryo and young fetus don't have personnalities. Newborns do, albeit a fairly basic one. Some are fussy, others calm, some are gluttons others not. How can you be a person without personnality and without idiosyncratic behaviors or thought patterns? How can you be an individual if you can never be alone and can never interract with anybody on your own? You can interract with a lot of newborns and so can they, but you will never interract with a fetus on a one on one basis and they will never, ever interract with you. You don't need a Master degree in philosophy of the mind or psychology to realise that these are essential components to be a person.
You are correct, this is an inconsistence in your laws. It would be logical to consider the death of an embryo in utero following a criminal attack as a form of aggravated assault since permanent damage was dealt, not murder. A potential exception could be made for late term pregnancy on the account that fetus passed the age of 24-28 week does possess a mind of its own, has passed the threshold of viability and thus could be considered a person.
Of course there is also the possibility tat your legal system is attempting something rather practical to punish a particularly callous and taboo crime: attacking a pregnant woman. Even in the realm of stone-cold killers, there is a special hatred and diisgust for child killers or rapists and those who attack pregnant women. Thus the Law might have an interest in punishin these types of assault more severely than any others. The Law isn't just about justice, rehabilitation, order it's also often about punishment.
Yes and no. If you are a crazy axe murderer who like to attack people in the middle of the street, we will judge you very "inconvenient" and we might very well kill you for that. So yes, in a sense, your value and right to live is very much determined by your behavior and what "inconvenience" you represent. From another perspective, no, your instrisinc value and thus right to security doesn't come from your usefulness to society it comes from the fact you possess a mind.
PS: aborted embryos aren't just inconvenient either.
Actually, it's essential in my opinion. If you can't explain why humans deserve a fundamental right to security that no other living being possesses, you can't explain why it's wrong to kill them? Why is killing people, a category in which you include human embryos, wrong in the first place?
Did you miss my first two posts?
You only responded to the last one.
Call me out forever if you want.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.
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.
No - you did not attack my argument - because I never compared homosexuals to child rapists.Call me out forever if you want.
I've answered your question and addressed your point and clarified at least 5 times now.
I see you still don't understand why I took issue with your post, despite my explaining it over and over. I attacked your argument, in which you brought up pedophilia in a thread about gay marriage and explained why I felt that was a bogus comparison/argument. I've said nothing about your character; I don't even know you.
I don't believe that you were "right from the start," obviously.
It's not sinking into your brain, so keep at it, I guess.
It was a contract between men and women and it was used to produce children.The Bible contains multiple descriptions of the many polygamous marriages that the people within it were engaging in at the time. You're okay with that because it's between men and women? Is that the case?
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jan/23/-sp-secret-history-same-sex-marriageYou apparently need to read some history.
A good starting point:
History of same-sex unions - Wikipedia
The secret history of same-sex marriage
"Not that it really matters anyway. We have slaves now, and they're not going anywhere. Despite your protestations against them." - Southern Slave Owner to Concerned CitizenNot that it really matters anyway. We have gay marriages now, and they're not going anywhere. Despite your protestations against them.
Other than being factually and historically accurate - the population war that the West is desperately losing.What reason does anyone have to be against gay marriage, aside from beliefs gleaned from old books supposedly inspired by god(s)?
"Not that it really matters anyway. We have slaves now, and they're not going anywhere. Despite your protestations against them." - Southern Slave Owner to Concerned Citizen
the population war that the West is desperately losing.
This cannot be an honest question.Are you seriously comparing two men or women getting married to slavery?
You can go ahead and Google that one.The population war? What's that and why should we care about it and how is gay marriage going to prevent the West from winning it?
Some homosexual couples during the Renaissance deceived clergyman into marrying them - which led to tragic endings - and you are arguing that this proves that there were legitimate same-sex marriages during that time?PS: the second article does present some same-sex marriages in late Rennaissance, celebrated in Church, but with tragic endings with one couple being exiled and fined and another burnt to the stake for heresy. It also mention the marriages contracted by lesbian couple where one of the partner posed as a man a bit in the same way many young women engaged in male exclusive careers. There was of course the case of lesbian transwomen marrying women and heterosexual transmen marrying women that made everything a bit complicated for the jurists of the time.
I agree.It does make the argument that should marriage be defined as the exclusive cohabitation and sexual union of two people, a definition often use in anthropology and one closer to the current definition of marriage in the 20h century than that centered on the production of heirs, then there is hundreds of homosexual marriages in the history of Europe.
You can go ahead and Google that one.
I literally know nothing about what you are talking about here.I did. Do you support a conspiracy theory peddled by neo-nazi, pseudo-Crusaders and other maniacs of their ilk? You are offended and opposed to the fact some women elect to abort embryos who can't think, feel, suffer and socialise, but you support the idea that the world is engaged in grand scheme to destroy "the white race" and that it must not be lost at all cost? Excuse me if I find this pivot surprising. It's a bit like if someone was arguing against the cruelty of legal executions, but turned around to support carpet bombing of enemy territories. Then again, that's probably not how you perceive this "population war", but that's certainly one very popular way it's perceived and presented. Feel free to present your vision of it if you don't support the one described above. I know it's the title of a popular political philosophy book that espouse the idea that population growth and surge is a main driver of war and conflict in human history and that a sustainable stable population will be necessary to avoid civilisational and environmental collapse. Is that more what you are referring to? (also even knowing that I don't see how stopping gay marriage would have any impact on this "war", it's not like making gay wedding illegal will make gay people turn straight.)
Those examples are not bound to marriage - but culture.Also, to return on the subject of homosexual marriages, while it would be false to say that those unions were officially recognised, it does show that their legalisation in current time derives in direct line to prior transformation of marriages from an institution design to insure family lines and upon which inheritence laws are structured to an institution dedicated to the celebration of love and couple life. If love is about two person loving each other and living together, potentially raising children, of course homosexual unions should be included in that. There is no reason they should not or, if you think you can, please do so. Are you making the argument that marriage should return to the institution it used be over a century ago with divorce being severely restricted, women being stripped of a large portion of their civic rights, the return of dotery, bride's price and illegitimate children status and laws?
I've never attacked your intelligence.No - you did not attack my argument - because I never compared homosexuals to child rapists.
You generated a false argument - attributed it to me - then attacked it. A strawman.
You used this strawman to attack my intelligence and beliefs - my character.
I was right about not all pedophiles being child rapists - despite what you and others said.
Without amending what you said previously - what you say now has zero value.
As others have pointed out, marriage contracts have been used to secure and/or exchange family wealth throughout history, they've been used to oppress people, they've been used to produce children, they've been used to unite couples, etc., etc. There is no one reason for marriage in our history. And again, tradition shouldn't dictate anything. Just because something is traditionally done, doesn't make it right. Traditionally, women have been oppressed throughout history. So we should continue oppressing women because it's tradition? I think not.It was a contract between men and women and it was used to produce children.
It sure seems like it does. You're making judgment calls about what marriage is *supposed* to be.It qualifies as marriage. My opinion on whether or not it is "okay" doesn't matter.
Unless it's between two women or two men.I don't like arranged marriages - but they also qualify.
The first link has been shared many times and does not show a single example of same-sex marriage.
It says that Native American, African and Asian cultures all have histories of same sex marriages/unions.I quickly browsed the second one and am inclined to come to the same conclusion.
Unless you could point to exactly where your example can be found in the article.
Huh?"Not that it really matters anyway. We have slaves now, and they're not going anywhere. Despite your protestations against them." - Southern Slave Owner to Concerned Citizen
Other than being factually and historically accurate - the population war that the West is desperately losing.
Dude, that's your argument.This cannot be an honest question.
I was pointing out the absurdity of SkepticThinker's arguments that, "The status quo does not change" - "The status quo cannot be questioned" - "The status quo is morally/intellectually/historically correct".
Yes, of course.You can go ahead and Google that one.
Some homosexual couples during the Renaissance deceived clergyman into marrying them - which led to tragic endings - and you are arguing that this proves that there were legitimate same-sex marriages during that time?
I agree.
If the current redefinition of marriage (which I am protesting) were used then that would be the case.
You would be committing the error of presentism if you were to do that though.
So is it your opinion that people who cannot produce children or do not want to produce should not marry? Would such a marriage be "illegitimate" to you?I literally know nothing about what you are talking about here.
When I mentioned "population war" I claimed that it was a war being fought against the "West" - not white or any other race.
Western ideologies have created the most freedom and wealth ever seen in the history of the world - but those who oppose Western ideologies are reproducing at a significantly higher rate.
In no time at all Western ideals will be replaced because there will be no more people in the West.
I never claimed that this "population war" was my main point of concern. As I said - being factually and historically accurate are my main reasons.
I never claimed that homosexuals should not form lifelong unions - they just cannot refer to those unions as marriages - because they aren't.
The main purpose for marriage (and sex IMHO) is to have children. If you are not ready to have children then - IMHO - you are not ready for sex or marriage.
Putting my opinion aside for a second - historically - marriage has been about making babies - so I do not support any culture that changes that aspect of marriage.
I understand that many expectations of marriage have been changed and I recognize that same-sex marriage is merely the most recent nail in that proverbial coffin.
I would argue against all those others kinds of other relationships - but that hasn't been the topic of discussion.
The argument against "same-sex marriage" is more concrete and fact-based than any I would share against those others anyways.
If you made me President right now I wouldn't do anything to change "same-sex marriage" - because there are a lot more important things that would require my time and attention - but I would share my opinion about it whenever I felt the need.
Those examples are not bound to marriage - but culture.
All I have been arguing is that marriage has always been between a man and a woman - that's it.
Everything else is just gravy.
Western ideologies have created the most freedom and wealth ever seen in the history of the world - but those who oppose Western ideologies are reproducing at a significantly higher rate. In no time at all Western ideals will be replaced because there will be no more people in the West.
I never claimed that homosexuals should not form lifelong unions - they just cannot refer to those unions as marriages - because they aren't.
The main purpose for marriage (and sex IMHO) is to have children. If you are not ready to have children then - IMHO - you are not ready for sex or marriage.
Putting my opinion aside for a second - historically - marriage has been about making babies - so I do not support any culture that changes that aspect of marriage.
The argument against "same-sex marriage" is more concrete and fact-based than any I would share against those others anyways.
Those examples are not bound to marriage - but culture.
All I have been arguing is that marriage has always been between a man and a woman - that's it.
Everything else is just gravy.