Because you posted the religious extremist rhetoric. You posted You quoted religious extermist rhetoric word for word, and then you did only what a religious extremist would do - post no supporting facts. You filled the discussion with nonsense religous beliefs including no factual and logical supporting reasons.

He asked a simple question that required a logical answer. You replied with a classic religious extremist retort. Maybe you would like to put some 'logical meat' on a dead animal that was posted and that is quoted above? Maybe you could explain how a virus is not life - without quoting religious extremist rhetoric?

How is that religious in any way? LOL!!!
I fear for your sanity.

After reading this thread, I've decided the catholics have had it right all along. If you're a twinkle in your daddies eye, then you've got just as much right to live as anyone else, so Down with Condoms! Down with the Pill! Down with anything that could possibly stop a human life from evolving! Let's just go ahead and breed ourselves out of existance even quicker! :)

LMAO!! It wasn't a question, dear--it was a theoretical point of view. You're cute. And I don't mean that in a bad way.

While I'm being in a theoretical mood and all...my mother has a theory that one of the reasons why gay people exist is to help us to not breed ourselves out of existence. Interesting, no?

Not all along - from the 13th to 17th century, fetuses used to be ensouled at quickening, not at conception.

OK...what is ensouled and what is quickening?

Blue...I don't know about interesting as far as that goes. Particularly these days where people can have access to children in one way or another if they feel the desire to be a parent. I have gay friends with children, and they're not from previously heterosexual relationships.

Your mum might need to take the blinders off I reckon. ;)

At what point was the mechanism of conception actually understood, though? Spermatzoa meets egg and all that. Until the invention of the microscope the idea tha there were discrete cells in ejaculate would have been considered witchcraft. Throughout the medieval period human dissection was not permitted, and most medical scholarship was based on surviving Greek and Roman Texts. Even the Greek Anatomist, Galen, got information wrong because he wasn't permitted human subjects, and extrapolated from animal systems.

The linkage between sex and procreation was not always completely clear, at least in humans. Animals with an obvious estrus cycle, yes, it's understood that the sexual act results in offspring some specified amount of time later, but with humans, at what point in history was that figured out? Women knew they were pregant when they felt the child move ... lack of menstrual cycle is a clue, but not a definite indicator of pregnancy. That remains the case today, actually.

You're absolutely right--some of my friends have biological children, and some of my mother's friends do too, as well. :) I guess I can appreciate her theory, because I know she doesn't have blinders on in that regard.

Wolf, are you talking about the quickening?

That must be refreshing for you Blue. Although my mum was very compassionate in most regards, she had a problem with gay couples having children. I argued with her once in a while about the ethics of those situations but it didn't seem to make much difference. I guess it's true that sometimes you can't teach an old dog new tricks. I think it was more likely her strict catholic upbringing though. Religion has a lot to answer for.

I think that's what happens when one Immortal cuts the head off another one.

Oh, wait, you mean in the context of this discussion ... quickening is when the mother first feels the baby move ... which is by a lot of religious traditions when the soul is supposed to enter the body of the child. Other say when the child draws first breath.

I'm in the moment of conception camp, as previously stated.

There can be only one!

:smack: