Consent is not needed from an inert object but is required from human subjects. Animal testing falls in between.In fact your words were: "Carbon can not give consent; adult human beings can."
You said that it's perfectly okay to do experiments on carbon because carbon can not give consent, therefore consent is not needed.
You said it this morning. Scroll up.
Nuggin has trouble understanding where consent is needed and why. I'll try to help all I can; every citizen must help sociopaths, or die among the mob.
If you believe eating eggs is wrong, it's not because an unborn chicken can not give consent.None of that follows logically from your claim.
An unborn chicken can not give consent, therefore eating eggs is wrong because eating eggs murders the innocent.
I don't believe eating eggs is murder, because chickens aren't human, they can't be murdered. Only humans can be murdered, chickens are slaughtered. Eggs, whole grains, meat and vegetables aren't human beings; cannibalism is wrong. If you ate something you murdered, you'd be a cannibal.
Words have definitions for a reason; some day Nuggin will learn too.
I've never claimed "an experiment which causes harm is retroactively not an experiment", under any circumstances. Those are Nuggin's words, not mine. Some things were done to cause harm and labeled 'experiments'; those aren't science, they are crimes in the guise of science.Your position is that an experiment which causes harm is retroactively not an experiment if people later decide that it was unethical.
It's a dumb position, I agree. But it's yours.
Law, ethics, religion and custom often agree; I'd take that opinion over Nuggin's any day!That's opinion. That opinion is not shared the world over today. It was not shared 50 years ago. It was not shared 150 years ago. It's a nice position to take, but don't mistake it for reality.
^^^Perfect example of Nuggin's depth.No, states require an ultrasound because they want an excuse to cram something up a woman's vagina. Nothing more.