if being gay is morally condemend in some places why being straight isnt

[Caterpillar]

title

 

[VoniLa]

Because faggots are disgusting and heteros are not

 

[Caterpillar]

Because faggots are disgusting and heteros are not

good point

 

[SaintHamudi]

title

because straight is the biological default for most people

unless a bunch of faggots assembled their own country, heterophobia wont exist

 

[Caterpillar]

because straight is the biological default for most people

unless a bunch of faggots assembled their own country, heterophobia wont exist

also valid point

 

[zillophone]

Because faggots are disgusting and heteros are not

same person that supports child abortion btw

 

[SaintHamudi]

also valid point

also because humans are just naturally designed to hate things different from them


it is why culturalism, racism, homophobia, and other forms of discrimination have always existed

 

[Altava]

title

Because if you look at more anciet societies that were more open to same sex relations in one way or the other, the majority of people exhibit bisexual behaviour not stricly homosexual. Enforcing heteronormativity still manages to satisfy both straights and bisexuals but today's homophobic countries mostly also condemn casual heterosexual sex. Restricting romance and sex to marriage for the purpose of having kids, it usually goes hand in hand with a sexually segregated and frustrated culture that separates men and women in a lot of settings and if you want to reduce sexual interaction to the minimum, the only contact you must allow for survival is heterosexuality.

 

[VoniLa]

same person that supports child abortion btw

I don’t, I consider it a murder. There just isn’t a strong reason to make it illegal if we exclude religion and emotional reasoning(moral). At the end, society sees baby’s life as less worthy than mother’s.
Also non-white women abort relatively more than white women, take that into account

 

[zillophone]

There just isn’t a strong reason to make it illegal if we exclude religion and emotional reasoning(moral).

90% of law's base is morality n***a, thats why theres many laws for animal protection even tho they arent as valuable as humans. try to think about laws that involve 0% of morality, did u got one?
also i'd say most of the religious persons are militants against abortion, but that doenst mean that their arguments are religious. a religious argument would be somthing like yeah babys are made in god's image so they are as worthy as every person, but i rarely see those kind of arguments being brought to the table in discussions ab abortion

Also non-white women abort relatively more than white women, take that into account

im guessing you're that non-white woman youre talking about

 

[icnone]

same person that supports child abortion btw

infanticide is based af

 

[zillophone]

@Altava what the fuck are you hearting

 

[icnone]

@Altava what the fuck are you hearting

https://forum.looksmaxxing.com/threads/thread-where-i-dump-my-writings.204645/post-3177046

 

[Altava]

90% of law's base is morality n***a, thats why theres many laws for animal protection even tho they arent as valuable as humans. try to think about laws that involve 0% of morality, did u got one?
also i'd say most of the religious persons are militants against abortion, but that doenst mean that their arguments are religious. a religious argument would be somthing like yeah babys are made in god's image so they are as worthy as every person, but i rarely see those kind of arguments being brought to the table in discussions ab abortion


im guessing you're that non-white woman youre talking about

Morality is subjective. Law tries to base itself upon harm principle morality, if fetuses have a time period in which they have no consciousness or ability to experience pain (which they do not have up to a point) the law decided to prioritise the conscious human being's choice over the alleged agency of a being uncapable of having any abstract form of agency. And yea a religious person's opinion does not have to be based in their religion but let us not pretend that this is the case when it comes to abortion. The only thing is that some religious people larp secular reasoning to hide the fact that the opposition is purely religious.

 

[Altava]

@Altava what the fuck are you hearting

ever heard of sarcasm

 

[batluvr158]

title

ngl its not even because “biologically men and woman must produce”, some animals actually do partake in homosexual behavior, it’s really just because of societal norms. throughout human existence there has always been homosexuality

 

[Altava]

ngl its not even because “biologically men and woman must produce”, some animals actually do partake in homosexual behavior, it’s really just because of societal norms. throughout human existence there has always been homosexuality

The biological reproduction argument is bs. Why do humans kiss? Why do we touch each other, wear protection and partake in behaviour that does not result in conception? Why do you jerk off?

 

[VoniLa]

90% of law's base is morality n***a,

Congrats, you cracked the code
Immoral = anything that people inherently consider harmful or disgusting, even if there is no strong rational reason behind it.

Morality is subjective.

Intersubjective would be more precise

 

[zillophone]

Morality is subjective. Law tries to base itself upon harm principle morality,

Law is based off of many things including christian principles.

, if fetuses have a time period in which they have no consciousness or ability to experience pain (which they do not have up to a point) the law decided to prioritise the conscious human being's choice over the alleged agency of a being uncapable of having any abstract form of agency

that law is straight fucking ass, attacking the human that can't stand for his own life. thats hypocritial isn't it? considering the fact that the abortion is a left proposal, and left specialism is to defend minorities that cant stand for themselves.

And yea a religious person's opinion does not have to be based in their religion but let us not pretend that this is the case when it comes to abortion. The only thing is that some religious people larp secular reasoning to hide the fact that the opposition is purely religious.

wht im trying to say is that the fact that the op is religious doenst discredit the position or the arguments they defend, because even if their base is religious their arguments are valid because its the same moral values that pro-abortion stand for; human life protection

 

[Altava]

Law is based off of many things including christian principles.


that law is straight fucking ass, attacking the human that can't stand for his own life. thats hypocritial isn't it? considering the fact that the abortion is a left proposal, and left specialism is to defend minorities that cant stand for themselves.


wht im trying to say is that the fact that the op is religious doenst discredit the position or the arguments they defend, because even if their base is religious their arguments are valid because its the same moral values that pro-abortion stand for; human life protection

America is not a christian theocracy.

 

[Altava]

Law is based off of many things including christian principles.


that law is straight fucking ass, attacking the human that can't stand for his own life. thats hypocritial isn't it? considering the fact that the abortion is a left proposal, and left specialism is to defend minorities that cant stand for themselves.


wht im trying to say is that the fact that the op is religious doenst discredit the position or the arguments they defend, because even if their base is religious their arguments are valid because its the same moral values that pro-abortion stand for; human life protection

It isn't hypocritical because said human is not conscious yet. There is no difference between a fertilised egg and the sperm and the egg one second before the first got fertilised by the latter. There is no reason for x plus y dna to be valued as much as a human being if y dna (sperm) and x dna (ovum) have no such value when separated.

 

[Altava]

Law is based off of many things including christian principles.


that law is straight fucking ass, attacking the human that can't stand for his own life. thats hypocritial isn't it? considering the fact that the abortion is a left proposal, and left specialism is to defend minorities that cant stand for themselves.


wht im trying to say is that the fact that the op is religious doenst discredit the position or the arguments they defend, because even if their base is religious their arguments are valid because its the same moral values that pro-abortion stand for; human life protection

Evey single egg that falls down the toilet during one's period could potentially be a person, every single sperm you shoot when you wank off could as well. Human dna does not equal personhood, to be human is to have a conscious experience

 

[zillophone]

Evey single egg that falls down the toilet during one's period could potentially be a person, every single sperm you shoot when you wank off could as well. Human dna does not equal personhood, to be human is to have a conscious experience

its not about a potential person, is about the already pregnant woman, the alive embrion

 

[zillophone]

America is not a christian theocracy.

it is not but the laws have christian influence

 

[Altava]

it is not but the laws have christian influence

That is utterly meaningless. We don't stone adulterers we don't punish premarital sex we don't force people to go to church etc. Also the Christian influence you're talking about is a loose link since those values are very much interfaith, it just so happens that settlers were mostly Christian. Do not steal is not exclusive to Christianity, you can't use the argument that it's also found in the Bible to promote a ban on abortions due to biblical reasons when we don't enforce random shit just because it's Christian.

 

[Altava]

it is not but the laws have christian influence

Also : “As you do not know the way the spirit comes to the bones in the womb of a woman with child, so you do not know the work of God who makes everything.” (Ecclesiastes 11:5)

Bones form 6 to 8 weeks post conception.

 

[LeoK]

Many countries still have traditional views i’m pretty sure gay marriage wasn’t legal until 2013 in America

 

[Altava]

Many countries still have traditional views i’m pretty sure gay marriage wasn’t legal until 2013 in America

2015 for it to be legal in all 50 states as well

 

[Altava]

its not about a potential person, is about the already pregnant woman, the alive embrion

The live embryo does not have consciousness or the ability to feel pain. The pregnant woman's mere choice regardless what it's based on has more worth and value than it.

 

[zillophone]

That is utterly meaningless. We don't stone adulterers we don't punish premarital sex we don't force people to go to church etc. Also the Christian influence you're talking about is a loose link since those values are very much interfaith, it just so happens that settlers were mostly Christian. Do not steal is not exclusive to Christianity, you can't use the argument that it's also found in the Bible to promote a ban on abortions due to biblical reasons when we don't enforce random shit just because it's Christian.

what i meant is that the same law you are quoting its the same law that stands for SOME christian values (meaning that the law inspired in christianity), which is contradictory. i was just pointing that out.

Also : “As you do not know the way the spirit comes to the bones in the womb of a woman with child, so you do not know the work of God who makes everything.” (Ecclesiastes 11:5)

what version is that n***a? its talking about the mistery of how bones form inside a woman's womb. not really talking about the spirit of a fetus or the value it has.

heres another version: 5 As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones grow in the womb of her that is with child, even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all.
btw i checked in spanish version Reina valera 1960 and Biblia de las Americas. it said the same thing.

this is why you do research instead of watching tik tok or reels as source

The live embryo does not have consciousness or the ability to feel pain. The pregnant woman's mere choice regardless what it's based on has more worth and value than it.

you're not fucking human, why the fuck would you call an embrion "it"? thats evil as fuck

 

[Altava]

what i meant is that the same law you are quoting its the same law that stands for SOME christian values (meaning that the law inspired in christianity), which is contradictory. i was just pointing that out.


what version is that n***a? its talking about the mistery of how bones form inside a woman's womb. not really talking about the spirit of a fetus or the value it has.

heres another version: 5 As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones grow in the womb of her that is with child, even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all.
btw i checked in spanish version Reina valera 1960 and Biblia de las Americas. it said the same thing.

this is why you do research instead of watching tik tok or reels as source


you're not fucking human, why the fuck would you call an embrion "it"? thats evil as fuck

1: You are repeating your intention but my response was that it was meaningless since you advocate to implement something so that it corresponds to a christian value when this is not how american law works. Some laws will be compatible with christianity but that does not support your previous mention of compatibility when I had said that america was not a christian theocracy. 2 : This is the closest thing to a mention of when the spirit enters the body. What version are you talking about? This is the old testament here is the original :

כַּאֲשֶׁר אֵינְךָ יוֹדֵעַ מַה-דֶּרֶךְ הָרוּחַ, כַּעֲצָמִים בְּבֶטֶן הַמְּלֵאָה: כָּכָה, לֹא תֵדַע אֶת-מַעֲשֵׂה הָאֱלֹהִים, אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשֶׂה, אֶת-הַכֹּל.

(kohelet 11:5) Just as you do not know how the lifebreath passes into the limbs within the womb of the pregnant woman, so you cannot foresee the actions of God, who causes all things to happen. However you want to picture it the bible does not give a given time as to when the soul is sealed within the body. Give me a citation from the bible as to why you think it states that it begins at conception as in whenever the egg is fertilised. You won't find it and even if you did my previous argument still stands.

 

[Altava]

what i meant is that the same law you are quoting its the same law that stands for SOME christian values (meaning that the law inspired in christianity), which is contradictory. i was just pointing that out.


what version is that n***a? its talking about the mistery of how bones form inside a woman's womb. not really talking about the spirit of a fetus or the value it has.

heres another version: 5 As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones grow in the womb of her that is with child, even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all.
btw i checked in spanish version Reina valera 1960 and Biblia de las Americas. it said the same thing.

this is why you do research instead of watching tik tok or reels as source


you're not fucking human, why the fuck would you call an embrion "it"? thats evil as fuck

you're not fucking human, why the fuck would you call a sperm "it"? thats evil as fuck

 

[zillophone]

2 : This is the closest thing to a mention of when the spirit enters the body. What version are you talking about? This is the old testament here is the original :

כַּאֲשֶׁר אֵינְךָ יוֹדֵעַ מַה-דֶּרֶךְ הָרוּחַ, כַּעֲצָמִים בְּבֶטֶן הַמְּלֵאָה: כָּכָה, לֹא תֵדַע אֶת-מַעֲשֵׂה הָאֱלֹהִים, אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשֶׂה, אֶת-הַכֹּל.

theres thousands of way to interpret this exact verse, i looked this "original version" up and it says "members" not bones, meaning that the translation depends. Majority of versions talk about how the bones are MADE, not when the life begins. the truth is that the meaning of the verse talks about the fact that we do not know how a baby grows inside a woman (keep in mind this was thousands of years ago).

biblically, the life is in the blood; therefore the baby (as far as my knowledge goes) has life when he forms the first bloodcells

 

[Altava]

theres thousands of way to interpret this exact verse, i looked this "original version" up and it says "members" not bones, meaning that the translation depends. Majority of versions talk about how the bones are MADE, not when the life begins. the truth is that the meaning of the verse talks about the fact that we do not know how a baby grows inside a woman (keep in mind this was thousands of years ago).

biblically, the life is in the blood; therefore the baby (as far as my knowledge goes) has life when he forms the first bloodcells

members, bones, limbs, none of these are present during conception, that was the point. Blood also starts flowing in the fetus 22 days after conception, so you're not being consistent again. כִּי נֶפֶשׁ הַבָּשָׂר בַּדָּם הִוא, Vayikra 17:14. Does any organic being with human dna and blood have a life and soul? Dead bodies still have blood inside most of the time and have human dna intact for a long time. The soul has left them biblically tho. Also Bereshit 2:7 וַיִּיצֶר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים אֶת־הָאָדָם עָפָר מִן־הָאֲדָמָה וַיִּפַּח בְּאַפָּיו נִשְׁמַת חַיִּים וַיְהִי הָאָדָם לְנֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה “Then the LORD God formed the human from the dust of the ground, and He breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the human became a living soul.” Whilst there is no specified moment in the bible in which it is stated that life begins, the concept of breathing and the breath of life is very prominent, the baby breathes between the 10th to 11th week of the pregnancy. If anything the bible's supports leans towards life and having a soul beginning then, since the available passages mention that and you have nothing to support the soul at fertilisation narrative.

 

[Altava]

theres thousands of way to interpret this exact verse, i looked this "original version" up and it says "members" not bones, meaning that the translation depends. Majority of versions talk about how the bones are MADE, not when the life begins. the truth is that the meaning of the verse talks about the fact that we do not know how a baby grows inside a woman (keep in mind this was thousands of years ago).

biblically, the life is in the blood; therefore the baby (as far as my knowledge goes) has life when he forms the first bloodcells

Just leave everything aside and answer truthfully since you called me out on using ''it'', do you really think that THIS is a human??

 

[Altava]

members, bones, limbs, none of these are present during conception, that was the point. Blood also starts flowing in the fetus 22 days after conception, so you're not being consistent again. כִּי נֶפֶשׁ הַבָּשָׂר בַּדָּם הִוא, Vayikra 17:14. Does any organic being with human dna and blood have a life and soul? Dead bodies still have blood inside most of the time and have human dna intact for a long time. The soul has left them biblically tho. Also Bereshit 2:7 וַיִּיצֶר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים אֶת־הָאָדָם עָפָר מִן־הָאֲדָמָה וַיִּפַּח בְּאַפָּיו נִשְׁמַת חַיִּים וַיְהִי הָאָדָם לְנֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה “Then the LORD God formed the human from the dust of the ground, and He breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the human became a living soul.” Whilst there is no specified moment in the bible in which it is stated that life begins, the concept of breathing and the breath of life is very prominent, the baby breathes between the 10th to 11th week of the pregnancy. If anything the bible's supports leans towards life and having a soul beginning then, since the available passages mention that and you have nothing to support the soul at fertilisation narrative.

Again, the fact that the soul leaves when the breathing stops although the blood is still in there further supports my point about the neshamah (soul in hebrew) being linked to the nefesh (breath). Actually in hebrew, a person is described as a nefesh or a breath. Everything points towards my conclusion.

 

[Altava]

theres thousands of way to interpret this exact verse, i looked this "original version" up and it says "members" not bones, meaning that the translation depends. Majority of versions talk about how the bones are MADE, not when the life begins. the truth is that the meaning of the verse talks about the fact that we do not know how a baby grows inside a woman (keep in mind this was thousands of years ago).

biblically, the life is in the blood; therefore the baby (as far as my knowledge goes) has life when he forms the first bloodcells

ALSO back the limbs thing, I wanted to talk about the important stuff but I should precise that there isn't a thousands ways to interpret the verse because the word כַּעֲצָמִים means bones. Limbs is sometimes used just to emphasise the meaning. When it comes to the old testament if you don't want to learn hebrew you should search for establish direct translations not translations of a translation (the greek old testament). Likewise you should look for direct translations of the greek texts for the new testament since it was in greek originally, but we did not need to bring it up this far in the discussion unless you have a counter argument from the new testament. I am waiting.

 

[zillophone]

members, bones, limbs, none of these are present during conception, that was the point

I still think its a translation challenge; all of the versions i stand for say something different.
but going on the main argument again:
Would I consider murder if the baby dies before forming his first member? scientifically the life begins in the moment of conception, does he have the spirit at that time? maybe not, considering your proposal, he would be unalive at least until the heart is formed.
For me the answer is a yes, i would still think its murder, since scientifically he's alive (not contradictory to my beliefs considering the versions i stand for).

Also Bereshit 2:7 וַיִּיצֶר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים אֶת־הָאָדָם עָפָר מִן־הָאֲדָמָה וַיִּפַּח בְּאַפָּיו נִשְׁמַת חַיִּים וַיְהִי הָאָדָם לְנֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה “Then the LORD God formed the human from the dust of the ground, and He breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the human became a living soul.” Whilst there is no specified moment in the bible in which it is stated that life begins, the concept of breathing and the breath of life is very prominent, the baby breathes between the 10th to 11th week of the pregnancy. If anything the bible's supports leans towards life and having a soul beginning then, since the available passages mention that and you have nothing to support the soul at fertilisation narrative.

The concept of breathing comes from the spirit, spirit means something like "blow". He says God gave them the spirit (blow) of life, its not related to the ability to breath or the breathing system; its talking about the power of God to give life

 

[zillophone]

Again, the fact that the soul leaves when the breathing stops although the blood is still in there further supports my point about the neshamah (soul in hebrew) being linked to the nefesh (breath). Actually in hebrew, a person is described as a nefesh or a breath. Everything points towards my conclusion.

Dead is when our heart stops beating, when the blood doesnt flow anymore in our body. If you say that we have to breath to have life (based on the biblle) you would be contradicting the point of the baby having life in the 7-8 week of conception when bones are formed (supposing that you refer to life when you say soul).

Blood means life, if your blood stops circulating, so does life

 

[zillophone]

When it comes to the old testament if you don't want to learn hebrew you should search for establish direct translations not translations of a translation (the greek old testament).

La Biblia del Oso its the first spanish version of the bible and its directly translated. heres what it says:
'Como tu no sabes qual es el camino del viento, ò, como ſe crian los hueſſos en el viẽ tre de la muger preñada, anſi ignoras la obra de Dios, elqual haze todas las coſas. '
ECCLESIASTE. DE SALOMON. 11:5

"como ſe crian los hueſſos en el viẽ tre de la muger preñada"
"how grows the bones in the womb of the pregnant woman"

 

[tami_26]

title

Straight is seen as the default because it makes kids,also there is no incentive to say being straight is morally wrong,straight -> nuclear family unit -> women can stay home more men can work for longer -> more workers bcs babies made.The switch happened now as people became less religious and now more accepting of homosexuality so now it became something to market to monetise from instead

 

[Rololongs]

title

Because straight is super common in the human species

 

[Altava]

I still think its a translation challenge; all of the versions i stand for say something different.
but going on the main argument again:
Would I consider murder if the baby dies before forming his first member? scientifically the life begins in the moment of conception, does he have the spirit at that time? maybe not, considering your proposal, he would be unalive at least until the heart is formed.
For me the answer is a yes, i would still think its murder, since scientifically he's alive (not contradictory to my beliefs considering the versions i stand for).



The concept of breathing comes from the spirit, spirit means something like "blow". He says God gave them the spirit (blow) of life, its not related to the ability to breath or the breathing system; its talking about the power of God to give life

1: Murder requires personhood or consciousness, killing a bacteria or a cancerous cell is not murder whereas killing an animal unjustifiably so can be considered murder even if not legally. The diffrence is having had a conscious experience that is either continous or halted with the potential of continuum (not death all while having been conscious before). 2: Understanding hebrew in this context is very important because a nefesh is a breath, not an abstract blow that represents this even more abstract concept of a spirit. As I have said life leaves and the soul goes to sheol when the body stops breathing, when you have nothing to indicate that souls are linked to the alive cells that contain human dna, the insistance upon the breath offers me biblical support you do not possess for your position. 3: Your earlier citation to support life being in the blood did not say that life (and it mentioned the life of the flesh, not the spirit, flesh includes beasts as well btw) was in blood circulation and blood pumping. Just blood. 4 : ''you would be contradicting the point of the baby having life in the 7-8 week of conception when bones are formed (supposing that you refer to life when you say soul).'' No, because I do not expect the bible to be in accordance with science, I started this argument on the bible to demonstrate that you are wrong even based on christianity. If you follow the bible literally and use to justify when personhood begins, it does not support your position, and even if you cope that it should either be between the bone formation and the breathing, neither of the two options support your stance. That was my point. 5: Hablo español tío, the point was to showcase that every possible biblical starting point does not support you, here are some additional verses that accentuate the nefesh : Isaiah 42:5 כֹּה־אָמַר הָאֵל יְהוָה בּוֹרֵא הַשָּׁמַיִם... נֹתֵן נְשָׁמָה לָעָם עָלֶיהָ וְרוּחַ לַהֹלְכִים בָּהּ׃ "Thus saith God the Lord, he that created the heavens... he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein." Isaiah 57:16 כִּי לֹא לְעוֹלָם אָרִיב וְלֹא לָנֶצַח אֶקְּצוֹף כִּי־רוּחַ מִלְּפָנַי יַעֲטוֹף וּנְשָׁמוֹת אֲנִי עָשִׂיתִי׃ "For I will not contend for ever, neither will I be always wroth: for the spirit should fail before me, and the souls (breaths) which I have made." The Ketuvim (The Writings)Job 27:3Job כִּי־כָל־עוֹד נִשְׁמָתִי בִי וְרוּחַ אֱלוֹהַּ בְּאַפִּי׃ "All the while my breath is in me, and the spirit of God is in my nostrils." Job 32:8 אָכֵן רוּחַ־הִיא בֶאֱנוֹשׁ וְנִשְׁמַת שַׁדַּי תְּבִינֵם׃ "But there is a spirit in man: and the breath of the Almighty giveth them understanding." Job 33:4 רוּחַ־אֵל עָשָׂתְנִי וְנִשְׁמַת שַׁדַּי תְּחַיֵּנִי The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life." Job 34:14–15 אִם־יָשִׂים אֵלָיו לִבּוֹ רוּחוֹ וְנִשְׁמָתוֹ אֵלָיו יֶאֱסֹף׃ יִגְוַע כָּל־בָּשָׂר יָחַד וְאָדָם עַל־עָפָר יָשׁוּב "If he set his heart upon man, if he gather unto himself his spirit and his breath; All flesh shall perish together, and man shall turn again unto dust." Proverbs 20:27 נֵר יְהוָה נִשְׁמַת אָדָם חֹפֵשׂ כָּל־חַדְרֵי־בָטֶן׃
"The breath (spirit) of man is the candle of the Lord, searching all the inward parts of the belly."
(breath and spirit are synonymous here). Psalm 150:6 כֹּל הַנְּשָׁמָה תְּהַלֵּל יָהּ הַלְלוּ־יָהּ ׃
"Let everything that hath breath praise the Lord. Praise ye the Lord."

My earliest point is that the bible DOES NOT give specification as to when personhood begins. If you want to mention the living state of the fertilised egg (starting point of conception) as a genesis for personhood ALTHOUGH both the ovum and sperm were separately alive and carrying human dna prior to merging, THEN you CANNOT fuse that with the bible and claim that the fact the fertilised egg is alive that the christian position is to treat it as a human being already. That is not how to use the bible, as it gives clears prohibitions and instructions on many things yet did not specify anything on this matter and all available ressources LEAN towards breath (nefesh) as it is used interchangeably with the word spirit and the beginning and end of life. Many things are alive, many alive things carry human dna but we are talking about when does a cell turn into a human that holds the same rights as a born baby. If you use the bible you will not have a clear answer and nothing supports your assertion. If you want to leave the bible aside and talk aside then I attribute worth to consciousness. Present and past.

 

[Altava]

Just leave everything aside and answer truthfully since you called me out on using ''it'', do you really think that THIS is a human??

@Zillophone answer

 

[zillophone]

1: Murder requires personhood or consciousness, killing a bacteria or a cancerous cell is not murder whereas killing an animal unjustifiably so can be considered murder even if not legally.The diffrence is having had a conscious experience that is either continous or halted with the potential of continuum (not death all while having been conscious before).

"No matarás" en éxodo 20. Puedo suponer por el contexto que se refiere a "no matarás a tu prójimo", esto es a otro humano. Ese es el mandamiento.

2: Understanding hebrew in this context is very important because a nefesh is a breath, not an abstract blow that represents this even more abstract concept of a spirit. As I have said life leaves and the soul goes to sheol when the body stops breathing, when you have nothing to indicate that souls are linked to the alive cells that contain human dna, the insistance upon the breath offers me biblical support you do not possess for your position.

en génesis 2:7, la versión del oso 1573: Formó pues Iehoua Dios ál hombre poulo de la tierra, y sopló en fu nariz soplo de vida: y fue el hombre en anima biuiente.
El soplo de vida no es algo abstracto, Dios literalmente les dió vida soplando, no hay otra cosa que entender bajo este concepto. El espíritu santo (El soplo santo) es tambien el que te bautiza en espíritu al momento de salvación, basicamente dandote vida. En levítico 17 14: porque el alma de toda carne en su sangre está su alma. en la biblia de las americas: "porque la vida de toda carne es su sangre", no su aliento. La vida se da con el aliento de Dios, y la vida está en la sangre.
La muerte ocurre cuando el espíritu vuelva a Dios que lo dio. "Y el polvo vuelva a la tierra, como era, y el espíritu vuelva a Dios que lo dio.”Eclesiastés 12:7. lo mismo dice la version del oso.

4 : ''you would be contradicting the point of the baby having life in the 7-8 week of conception when bones are formed (supposing that you refer to life when you say soul).'' No, because I do not expect the bible to be in accordance with science, I started this argument on the bible to demonstrate that you are wrong even based on christianity. If you follow the bible literally and use to justify when personhood begins, it does not support your position, and even if you cope that it should either be between the bone formation and the breathing, neither of the two options support your stance. That was my point. 5: Hablo español tío

de todas formas mano mi postura tiene influencia por mi religión pero no uso argumentos teológicos para defenderme xd

My earliest point is that the bible DOES NOT give specification as to when personhood begins. If you want to mention the living state of the fertilised egg (starting point of conception) as a genesis for personhood ALTHOUGH both the ovum and sperm were separately alive and carrying human dna prior to merging, THEN you CANNOT fuse that with the bible and claim that the fact the fertilised egg is alive that the christian position is to treat it as a human being already. That is not how to use the bible, as it gives clears prohibitions and instructions on many things yet did not specify anything on this matter and all available ressources LEAN towards breath (nefesh) as it is used interchangeably with the word spirit and the beginning and end of life. Many things are alive, many alive things carry human dna but we are talking about when does a cell turn into a human that holds the same rights as a born baby. If you use the bible you will not have a clear answer and nothing supports your assertion. If you want to leave the bible aside and talk aside then I attribute worth to consciousness. Present and past.

“Antes que te formase en el vientre te conocí...” Jeremías 1:5, necesito explicar más?

@Zillophone answer

No me vayas a salir con que es un feto de delfín o una mamada así. Y, si no fuera humano, ¿qué es entonces? de un embrión humano nace un humano, de un embrión de gallina nace una gallina. Si no es humano, cualquier cosa podría proceder de lo que tú llamas "eso"

 

[Altava]

"No matarás" en éxodo 20. Puedo suponer por el contexto que se refiere a "no matarás a tu prójimo", esto es a otro humano. Ese es el mandamiento.


en génesis 2:7, la versión del oso 1573: Formó pues Iehoua Dios ál hombre poulo de la tierra, y sopló en fu nariz soplo de vida: y fue el hombre en anima biuiente.
El soplo de vida no es algo abstracto, Dios literalmente les dió vida soplando, no hay otra cosa que entender bajo este concepto. El espíritu santo (El soplo santo) es tambien el que te bautiza en espíritu al momento de salvación, basicamente dandote vida. En levítico 17 14: porque el alma de toda carne en su sangre está su alma. en la biblia de las americas: "porque la vida de toda carne es su sangre", no su aliento. La vida se da con el aliento de Dios, y la vida está en la sangre.
La muerte ocurre cuando el espíritu vuelva a Dios que lo dio. "Y el polvo vuelva a la tierra, como era, y el espíritu vuelva a Dios que lo dio.”Eclesiastés 12:7. lo mismo dice la version del oso.


de todas formas mano mi postura tiene influencia por mi religión pero no uso argumentos teológicos para defenderme xd


“Antes que te formase en el vientre te conocí...” Jeremías 1:5, necesito explicar más?



No me vayas a salir con que es un feto de delfín o una mamada así. Y, si no fuera humano, ¿qué es entonces? de un embrión humano nace un humano, de un embrión de gallina nace una gallina. Si no es humano, cualquier cosa podría proceder de lo que tú llamas "eso"

1 : I have at 0 point claimed that God allows for murder, you are strawmaning me rn. We are not debating whether murder is allowed or disallowed in the bible, but about when does personhood begin which is a prerequisite for murder. You are bringing unrelated stuff to escape the discussion which you have lost anyways. 2: You failed to defend your assertion from any other pov so I will say cap. 3: Holy lack of comprehension skill, BEFORE YOU WERE FORMED IN THE WOMB. If we follow your suggestion then the ovum and sperm carry a soul and we should ban masturbation and freebleeding. The neshamah comes from God who is all knowing and then he bestows the breath of life into flesh thus creating people. Conception happens IN THE WOMB, before you were formed in the womb is before that lmfao. 4: You tried to get ahead but only proved my point further, the reason you said it could be a dolphin is because of that one viral clip. It's actually a monkey, but do you see the issue? You are incapable of identifying what animal that is, could be a human a monkey or even a cat in your head. You cannot mistake a human baby for such things, if you put embryos in the freezer they're preserved, if you put a BABY in the freezer, it dies.

 

[Altava]

"No matarás" en éxodo 20. Puedo suponer por el contexto que se refiere a "no matarás a tu prójimo", esto es a otro humano. Ese es el mandamiento.


en génesis 2:7, la versión del oso 1573: Formó pues Iehoua Dios ál hombre poulo de la tierra, y sopló en fu nariz soplo de vida: y fue el hombre en anima biuiente.
El soplo de vida no es algo abstracto, Dios literalmente les dió vida soplando, no hay otra cosa que entender bajo este concepto. El espíritu santo (El soplo santo) es tambien el que te bautiza en espíritu al momento de salvación, basicamente dandote vida. En levítico 17 14: porque el alma de toda carne en su sangre está su alma. en la biblia de las americas: "porque la vida de toda carne es su sangre", no su aliento. La vida se da con el aliento de Dios, y la vida está en la sangre.
La muerte ocurre cuando el espíritu vuelva a Dios que lo dio. "Y el polvo vuelva a la tierra, como era, y el espíritu vuelva a Dios que lo dio.”Eclesiastés 12:7. lo mismo dice la version del oso.


de todas formas mano mi postura tiene influencia por mi religión pero no uso argumentos teológicos para defenderme xd


“Antes que te formase en el vientre te conocí...” Jeremías 1:5, necesito explicar más?



No me vayas a salir con que es un feto de delfín o una mamada así. Y, si no fuera humano, ¿qué es entonces? de un embrión humano nace un humano, de un embrión de gallina nace una gallina. Si no es humano, cualquier cosa podría proceder de lo que tú llamas "eso"

Yo no tengo nada en contra de ti pero si usted tiene algun argumento que no este basado en tu religion pues damelo

 

[zillophone]

1 : I have at 0 point claimed that God allows for murder, you are strawmaning me rn. We are not debating whether murder is allowed or disallowed in the bible, but about when does personhood begin which is a prerequisite for murder. You are bringing unrelated stuff to escape the discussion which you have lost anyways.

Me refiero a que la definición que le apropiaste a el asesinato no es la misma que aplica bíblicamente. En la biblia lo que defiende la posición pro-vida sería ese principio, que el asesinato es matar a tu prójimo, así de sencillo.

3: Holy lack of comprehension skill, BEFORE YOU WERE FORMED IN THE WOMB. If we follow your suggestion then the ovum and sperm carry a soul and we should ban masturbation and freebleeding. The neshamah comes from God who is all knowing and then he bestows the breath of life into flesh thus creating people. Conception happens IN THE WOMB, before you were formed in the womb is before that lmfao.

I’ll answer this later cuz i gotta watch Mexico korea

 

[zillophone]

3: Holy lack of comprehension skill, BEFORE YOU WERE FORMED IN THE WOMB. If we follow your suggestion then the ovum and sperm carry a soul and we should ban masturbation and freebleeding. The neshamah comes from God who is all knowing and then he bestows the breath of life into flesh thus creating people. Conception happens IN THE WOMB, before you were formed in the womb is before that lmfao.

mi sugerencia es que Dios conoce al bebé desde antes de que si quiera se empezara a formar, esto significa que Dios ya lo está reconociendo mínimo como un ser personal. Sí, la vida viene cuando Dios da el espíritu de vida, pero para Dios uno ya tiene valor desde antes de nacer, porque nos conoce desde antes de la fundación del mundo, como dice efesios 2.​

​

4: You tried to get ahead but only proved my point further, the reason you said it could be a dolphin is because of that one viral clip. It's actually a monkey, but do you see the issue? You are incapable of identifying what animal that is, could be a human a monkey or even a cat in your head. You cannot mistake a human baby for such things, if you put embryos in the freezer they're preserved, if you put a BABY in the freezer, it dies.

Pero no se trata de reconocer si es animal o no. Si un bebé está creciendo dentro de una mujer, sin duda alguna sería un bebé humano. Repito mi punto, si lo que crece dentro de la mujer no es humano, cualquier criatura podría salir de esa mujer. Pero sabemos que siempre que una mujer se embaraza, es de un niño humano, no de un orangután o un mono.

if you put a BABY in the freezer, it dies.

Estás objetificando a un bebé, ya ni siquiera al feto, a un bebé xd. Alguna vez sostuviste a uno en tus brazos?

Yo no tengo nada en contra de ti pero si usted tiene algun argumento que no este basado en tu religion pues damelo

Claro: los bebés son humanos y deberían tener los mismos derechos que cualquier otro humano

 

[Altava]

Me refiero a que la definición que le apropiaste a el asesinato no es la misma que aplica bíblicamente. En la biblia lo que defiende la posición pro-vida sería ese principio, que el asesinato es matar a tu prójimo, así de sencillo.


I’ll answer this later cuz i gotta watch Mexico korea

¿Y cómo puedes proponer esto? “la definición que le apropiaste a el asesinato no es la misma que aplica bíblicamente.” No hay ninguna precisión en la Biblia cuando se refiere al inicio de la vida humana. ¿Por qué el aborto sería un asesinato y no la masturbación? El espermatozoide también está vivo. Para calificar algo como asesinato, la víctima tiene que ser una persona. Estábamos debatiendo qué es y qué no es una persona; hay que establecer eso antes de hablar de asesinato. Si una ley prohíbe jugar al fútbol durante la noche, y estamos debatiendo si Juan estaba jugando fútbol o básquet, no puedes referirte a la ley de prohibición para apoyar el argumento de que Juan sí estaba jugando fútbol. No tiene ningún sentido hermano. ( Otra cosa, estoy muy feliz de que México ganó ) )