Subject:
|
Re: Christian morality (cont)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 16 Dec 2000 14:33:42 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
519 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Steve Thomas writes:
> Mr. Pieniazek,
>
> Thanks for your interest. You recently interacted with an argument of mine
> as follows:
>
> > > Put another way, heterosexual sex brings with it the
> > > possibility of procreation (however remote, or blocked
> > > by contingent factors it is); homosexual sex cannot do
> > > so even in principle.
> >
> > This happens to turn out to not be actually true if one
> > steps outside the human species. Further it's not true
> > in principle for humans today, and as medical science
> > continues to advance, soon it won't be true in actuality.
>
> You won't hear me argue about morality for species other than human beings,
> so the first point is irrelevant. I'm wondering how it isn't true in
> principle for humans today, and as medical science continues to advance.
> I'd be glad to learn more about that.
You're going to have to admit that humanity is subject to the same genetic
rules as other species, for starters. Once you grant that, you're all set.
*All* you need to do is construct a mechanism for taking the genetic
material of the two partners and mingling it together, then place it into a
receptive egg and let it grow. ("all" put in asterisks, because this is a
non trivial task to carry out, but not impossible)
That's possible in principle today, and I'm confident it's going to be
actually possible quite soon. Humans are quite clever, you know.
Note that two girls can only make girls, unless you involve a third donor,
but two boys can make boys or girls...
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Christian morality (cont)
|
| Larry, To recap, I had written: (...) You replied: (...) And I responded: (...) Finally, you clarified and said: (...) I'm not sure that's true, for one (In what sense do you mean "subject to the same genetic rules?"), but it's also irrelevant (more (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Christian morality (cont)
|
| Mr. Pieniazek, Thanks for your interest. You recently interacted with an argument of mine as follows: (...) You won't hear me argue about morality for species other than human beings, so the first point is irrelevant. I'm wondering how it isn't true (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
34 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
