Creation, true, false, or unsure?

You hear that OC, YOU were tasked? :lol:

Failed controllism at it's best. What is he gonna do if you refuse, blow another gasket? :lol:

WalkingWolf said:

You hear that OC, YOU were tasked? :lol:

Failed controllism at it's best. What is he gonna do if you refuse, blow another gasket? :lol:

Click to expand...

He can refuse if he wishes, because ultimately he will fail anyway. You will be hard pressed to find instances of Atheists committing mass murders just because the victims are not Atheists. That was the question asked. Also Atheism has nothing to do with abortion. Atheists didn't come up with abortion, I personally am against abortion unless there is a valid medical reason. At the same time many Christians support abortion, it's not really a religious matter. Most Atheists I know are indifferent to abortion, it's only the religious who are protesting it...or being the "control freak" as some like to say around here.

OC for ME said:

I "equate" those who condone abortion as deserving of the monicker "control freak."

Click to expand...

This doesn't even make sense. How can being pro-abortion..which is really pro-choice or pro-personal liberty be the control freaks? Your logic does not connect.

OC for ME said:

I "equate" those who condone abortion as deserving of the monicker "control freak."

Click to expand...

lol.

marshaul "supports" (as in does not endorse the state-sponsored prohibition of) abortion.

Therefore, OC for Me equates marshaul as deserving of the moniker "control freak".

Irony ensues.

I may be "liberal" on many things, but Abortion is not one of them.... your rights end where another's begin. A baby is a separate individual with unique DNA and a heartbeat... he or she should have full rights, including the right not to be killed without due process.

Nightmare said:

That seems to except monozygotic twins for non-unique DNA.

Click to expand...

but even then the twins have unique DNA from either parent. therefore it follows that they're not simply a body part or tumor to be disposed of and tossed away.

EMNofSeattle said:

but even then the twins have unique DNA from either parent. therefore it follows that they're not simply a body part or tumor to be disposed of and tossed away.

Click to expand...

Tumors have their own unique DNA: http://health.usnews.com/health-new...s-have-unique-genetic-fingerprint-study-finds
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/13/dna-tumor-breast-cancer/1983079/

Let's suppose that a fetus is a human being, though. What you're proposing is that a common act, often one of love, gives the government the power to force you to let a third party to use your body as a waste disposal. It's like saying "if two people have sex, the government may force the woman in the relationship to act as a human dialysis machine for their partner's already-born children."

If you don't like the idea of abortion, don't get one. However, don't force others to make the same choice you would.

WalkingWolf said:

You hear that OC, YOU were tasked? :lol:

Failed controllism at it's best. What is he gonna do if you refuse, blow another gasket? :lol:

Click to expand...

I'm using the same word he did, and pointing out that he claimed he was tasked to do one thing, but was actually called to do another, instead.

You're still failing at reading comprehension, and I think that your comments are going into trolling territory. As you claimed earlier, you enjoy controlling people by yanking their chain through actions of your own.

Tawnos said:

I'm using the same word he did, and pointing out that he claimed he was tasked to do one thing, but was actually called to do another, instead.

You're still failing at reading comprehension, and I think that your comments are going into trolling territory. As you claimed earlier, you enjoy controlling people by yanking their chain through actions of your own.

Click to expand...

You are still failing at being coherent, miserably...

Tawnos said:

Tumors have their own unique DNA: http://health.usnews.com/health-new...s-have-unique-genetic-fingerprint-study-finds
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/13/dna-tumor-breast-cancer/1983079/

Let's suppose that a fetus is a human being, though. What you're proposing is that a common act, often one of love, gives the government the power to force you to let a third party to use your body as a waste disposal. It's like saying "if two people have sex, the government may force the woman in the relationship to act as a human dialysis machine for their partner's already-born children."

If you don't like the idea of abortion, don't get one. However, don't force others to make the same choice you would.

Click to expand...

That's a silly argument. First off the law already holds people accountable to other people in several ways. You can't just kill a 1 month old baby and face no legal consequences. Even though the 1 month old requires a similar if not greater amount of care and effort. The fact that sex is a common act is not relevant, there's also common ways of not being in that situation in the first place that I completely support. There is condoms, diaphragms, regular BC pills, emergency contraception. Often available for free or extremely low cos in many situations. Furthermore, once pregnant, there are many programs and services available for people of no or modest means, through various welfare programs offered by every level of government and numerous private charities. Even further, in my state a baby can within 72 hours of birth be left at any hospital or manned fire department facility in the state no questions asked. Putting all this together... They're is no reason that abortion benefits society over allowing the baby to live. None at all. And if you consider the baby to be an entity with its own rights. As I do, it's not even a personal rights argument anymore

marshaul said:

lol.

marshaul "supports" (as in does not endorse the state-sponsored prohibition of) abortion.

Therefore, OC for Me equates marshaul as deserving of the moniker "control freak".

Irony ensues.

Click to expand...

You? Marshaul? A control freak? Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

<gasp!> Help! I'm suffocating with laughter! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaah!!

EMNofSeattle said:

I may be "liberal" on many things, but Abortion is not one of them.... your rights end where another's begin. A baby is a separate individual with unique DNA and a heartbeat... he or she should have full rights, including the right not to be killed without due process.

Click to expand...

Uh-oh! Another pronouncement from EMN. Lets hope he put more thought into this than his actor-gun-theater thread post about his "nice blade" and rushing anybody who looked "remotely threatening".

Lets find out.

Are you religious, EMN?

EMNofSeattle said:

That's a silly argument. First off the law already holds people accountable to other people in several ways. You can't just kill a 1 month old baby and face no legal consequences. Even though the 1 month old requires a similar if not greater amount of care and effort. The fact that sex is a common act is not relevant, there's also common ways of not being in that situation in the first place that I completely support. There is condoms, diaphragms, regular BC pills, emergency contraception. Often available for free or extremely low cos in many situations. Furthermore, once pregnant, there are many programs and services available for people of no or modest means, through various welfare programs offered by every level of government and numerous private charities. Even further, in my state a baby can within 72 hours of birth be left at any hospital or manned fire department facility in the state no questions asked. Putting all this together... They're is no reason that abortion benefits society over allowing the baby to live. None at all. And if you consider the baby to be an entity with its own rights. As I do, it's not even a personal rights argument anymore

Click to expand...

Ooooo. A communist. Mother owes it to society to carry her baby to term and deliver it. If abortion benefited society, then it would be allowed (his argument, even though its inconsistent with his next sentence.) Nevermind that it might benefit mother to abort. No, mother is not a member of society. Moms are not members of society. Society is not composed of individuals.

Citizen said:

Uh-oh! Another pronouncement from EMN. Lets hope he put more thought into this than his actor-gun-theater thread post about his "nice blade" and rushing anybody who looked "remotely threatening".

Lets find out.

Are you religious, EMN?

Click to expand...

A recovering catholic

Citizen said:

Ooooo. A communist. Mother owes it to society to carry her baby to term and deliver it. If abortion benefited society, then it would be allowed (his argument, even though its inconsistent with his next sentence.) Nevermind that it might benefit mother to abort. No, mother is not a member of society. Moms are not members of society. Society is not composed of individuals.

Click to expand...

without individuals there is no society...

everyone is a member of society, whether or not you choose to accept it. simply choosing not to accept a concept doesn't make it false.

it may benefit anyone one particular person to do any number of things. it may benefit you to drive your car while drunk, it may benefit you to dispose of anti-freeze in a public reservior if you never drink tapwater, it may benefit you to put a splice in a cable box to watch Duck Dynasty without paying hookup fees.

your rights end where the rights of others begin.

EMNofSeattle said:

(snip0

your rights end where the rights of others begin.

Click to expand...

So you believe NOBODY has rights? LMFAO Progressives have such strange ideas.

Tawnos said:

Tumors have their own unique DNA: http://health.usnews.com/health-new...s-have-unique-genetic-fingerprint-study-finds
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/13/dna-tumor-breast-cancer/1983079/

Let's suppose that a fetus is a human being, though. What you're proposing is that a common act, often one of love, gives the government the power to force you to let a third party to use your body as a waste disposal. It's like saying "if two people have sex, the government may force the woman in the relationship to act as a human dialysis machine for their partner's already-born children."

If you don't like the idea of abortion, don't get one. However, don't force others to make the same choice you would.

Click to expand...

The term "human being" is vernacular ... the term "member of our species, **** Sapiens" is more correct. And a fetus is a member of our species by the definition of "species". We have laws making it a crime to kill a fetus, correct? But the mother could kill the fetus at will (to a point in time). Odd.

So, should we support killing the member of our species? Just know that you would be taking this position if you support abortion. I don't see a difference in the value of life just due to age myself. So its "you can murder anyone" or "you cannot murder anyone" choice.

WalkingWolf said:

So you believe NOBODY has rights? LMFAO Progressives have such strange ideas.

Click to expand...

so tell me what rights you have to harm other people with no justification?

unless you're now telling me you really do believe you have a right to drive drunk and dump toxic chemicals in lakes and reserviors, I'm not sure what your argument is.

EMNofSeattle said:

so tell me what rights you have to harm other people with no justification?

unless you're now telling me you really do believe you have a right to drive drunk and dump toxic chemicals in lakes and reserviors, I'm not sure what your argument is.

Click to expand...

Think about what you stated? There are no rights to infringe on the rights of others. One group does not have rights that another group is entitled to. Your statement was silly, not factual, and clearly not true.

So rights NEVER stop for the rights or whims of another, or they should not. But we all know progressives hate logical thinking.

EMNofSeattle said:

so tell me what rights you have to harm other people with no justification?

unless you're now telling me you really do believe you have a right to drive drunk and dump toxic chemicals in lakes and reserviors, I'm not sure what your argument is.

Click to expand...

Wolf hasn't said anything that made a lick of sense in what seems like days. I have to wonder if he died and the account was taken over by a 5 year old.