AlfaSeltzer:

Which is why I'm not against egg and sperm donations because it's the only way science can advance past nature in this field. And science is advancing.

Are you saying that it is morally ok to sacrifice human life in the present as part of the process of creating technology that can save human life in the future?

MrAnony1:
Are you saying that it is morally ok to sacrifice human life in the present as part of the process of creating technology that can save human life in the future?

Morals have nothing to do with it. Humans and nature as a whole, advance through destruction. All acts, even inaction, results in the destruction of something. Sometimes, life is destroyed, even by god. Without destruction, nothing will exist.
What we do is minimise the destruction that affect us adversely, like that of fellow humans, and the best way of doing it is copying nature first, then make it better.

AlfaSeltzer:

Now, who's anonysing?

"Anonysing" is merely a form of weird form of ad hominem that mocks an argument rather than address it's content. Logicboy usually employs it when he doesn't have an answer to the issues raised.

AlfaSeltzer:

Morals have nothing to do with it.

Actually, morals have everything to do with it.

Humans and nature as a whole, advance through destruction. All acts, even inaction, results in the destruction of something. Sometimes, life is destroyed, even by god.

While this may be true (and I am say that it is, I am only granting the possibility), this does not necessarily justify the destruction.

For instance, would you say that it is morally right if everyone in the world gets infected with HIV because some scientists hope that by infecting 7 billion people (the entire world population), they will find the odd person who has the appropriate resilient antibody that may help us cure AIDS? Let us assume that they actually succeed but some 5 billion people died in the process, will the cure for HIV justify the murder of the 5 billion people who were killed to achieve that cure?

Without destruction, nothing will exist.

This is simply not true because something has to exist first before destruction can occur.

What we do is minimise the destruction that affect us adversely, like that of fellow humans, and the best way of doing it is copying nature first, then make it better.

But the point that I and (I think) striktlymi would make is that it is self-evidently wrong to try to minimize destruction of human life by first destroying more human life. Wouldn't you agree?

MrAnony1:
Actually, morals have everything to do with it.


While this may be true (and I am say that it is, I am only granting the possibility), this does not necessarily justify the destruction.

For instance, would you say that it is morally right if everyone in the world gets infected with HIV because some scientists hope that by infecting 7 billion people (the entire world population), they will find the odd person who has the appropriate resilient antibody that may help us cure AIDS? Let us assume that they actually succeed but some 5 billion people died in the process, will the cure for HIV justify the murder of the 5 billion people who were killed to achieve that cure?


This is simply not true because something has to exist first before destruction can occur.


But the point that I and (I think) striktlymi would make is that it is self-evidently wrong to try to minimize destruction of human life by first destroying more human life. Wouldn't you agree?

It is not surprising that you are reasoning like this because you are just a programmed xtian who sees the world in terms of morality, i.e right or wrong. If it's right, we do it. If it's wrong we don't. No matter the consequences. You ignore human capabilities, evolution, and how things actually work.
We Satanists don't reason in terms of morals so asking me if something is morally wrong is tantamount to asking Mary Magdalene if Mac OS is better than Android.
Of course something has to exist first before destruction can occur. But that existence was brought about through destruction. Be it the atheist big bang or your xtian creation. Something was destroyed.
On your last point, I certainly do not agree that it is self-evidently wrong to try to minimize destruction of human life by first destroying more human life. Nature already does it and it doesn't bother you. What scientists are doing for now is simply copying nature. We Satanists believe that it is possible to transcend nature. To be better than nature.
But still on that point, your xtian religion which stems from judaism is a great example of people killing other people in order to survive. From Moses to Joshua, through the Judges and Kings of Israel, judaism killed for survival. Your own god was a jewish rabbi.
George Bush, a devout xtian, ordered the killing of afghans and iraqis in order, according to him, to prevent further killing of western humans.
Many people are still killing each other today and using your moral self defense argument all the time to justify it. e.g palestine.
So take your morality and put it where the sun don't shine and start living in the real world.

MrAnony1:

But the point that I and (I think) striktlymi would make is that it is self-evidently wrong to try to minimize destruction of human life by first destroying more human life. Wouldn't you agree?

You got that right. I believe it is very wrong. Using humans as guinea pigs just for the sake 'of advancement' or any other reason, such that humans are murdered (even if it is just one human being) is in my view against morals.

@Alfa I like to see a situation where science advances, in this regard, to the stage you mentioned i.e zero mortality rate without needing to sacrifice human life in the process. If human life needs to be sacrificed then the consent of such individual's must be sought.

MrAnony1:
So you are now shifting the goal post from cutting umbilical cord to the baby's location with respect to a uterus? I see.


Remember when you said this?


https://www.nairaland.com/1825507/sperm-egg-donation-sin/2#24965611



It is clear that you are ignorant of what a strawman is.

See this one....I made both clear earlier.

1) outside the womb
2) attached to the mother


These two things were neccesary factors to consider. Keep trying to anonynize the facts

MrAnony1:
This is how an idiot responds...

butthurt
^^^

An emotional and sore response when you have no logical response to a comment that negates your point

TheBigUrban2:

butthurt
^^^

An emotional and sore response when you have no logical response to a comment that negates your point

Lol really?

TheBigUrban2:


See this one....I made both clear earlier.

1) outside the womb
2) attached to the mother


These two things were neccesary factors to consider. Keep trying to anonynize the facts

You mean the fact that you deny a person his/her human rights based on location and what is attached to his/her navel?

If you really don't see the problem with defining a human being based on such arbitrary things then you really can't be helped

MrAnony1:
You mean the fact that you deny a person his/her human rights based on location and what is attached to his/her navel?

If you really don't see the problem with defining a human being based on such arbitrary things then you really can't be helped

Humans deserve human rights.


Use your brain