Prove there's a god.

“Seventh son”

Since: Dec 10

Will Prevail

#581598 Jan 2, 2013
UR BS wrote:
Aura said,
The problem I see with this is the fact that the Choice you speak of was not orihinally a choice. It is again the SCOTUS injecting itslef in the decision. So it would not actually be removal of the choice as much as it would be restoring the sanctity of life.
I do understand what you are saying but my point is that in order to make it more palatable they are dehumanizing the child there by making it easier to kill it.
This is practice that is as old as mankind. Dehumanize someone and they become easy to kill. In WWII Germans were not Germans they were NAZIs so it was ok to kill them. In Viet Nam and Korea the locals were not really peole they were Slopes, Slants, Gooks, Charlie so it was OK to kill them. The terminology used in the abortion deal is the same thing. It isn't a baby or a child it is a fetus, or a zygot or whatever else they come up with.
As to the Second Ammendment I can see your point and the point of the videos but that is where we must hold their feet to the fire. A simple law can not override a right that is guaranteed under the Constitution. They must ammend the Constitution in order to do that.
Bottom line is that no subjecy is 100% balck and white there are multiple shades of grey involved. The problem is that there are those out there like some of the fools on this forum that will support the erosion of our rights.

The balance is held in check by the states than govern us.
They would have to agree with passing those laws , and seriously doubtful they could muster the votes to do so. After all they do not want another revolution.
And that's what could possibly happen.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#581599 Jan 2, 2013
Mylan wrote:
Most of those were already squashed and the others are just opinions, not fact. Try again.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Oh, c'mon.... Which ones were squashed & which ones were opinions?
Suddenly, you are not satisfied with mere references to prior posts? Suddenly, you expect answers to be summarized anew or linked to, and are not satisfied with the bare claim that the matter has already been squashed?

If so, then you're learning, and I trust that we won't be seeing similar answers from you in the future.

“Seventh son”

Since: Dec 10

Will Prevail

#581600 Jan 2, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Me, too, which is why I describe a fetus as a parasitic life form based on the organism's relationship to its host, and not on whether or not I find the word demeaning to the organism.

Now you are calling all humans parasites. "sigh"

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#581601 Jan 2, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
I think you're only saying that to reenforce your pro-choice stance so you feel ok that a baby isn't being murdered against its will.
[1] It's not a baby
[2] It's not being murdered
[3] It has no will

How about a little accuracy: a fetus is being killed against its interests.

You would be horrified if I said to a pregnant woman who was experiencing a threatened miscarriage that her god was trying to murder her unborn baby against its will. It's nothing but emotive language that you appear willing to use in the case of a woman seeking an elective abortion, but probably not with one that you were not trying to manipulate with guilt.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#581602 Jan 2, 2013
OCB wrote:
<quoted text>It can be argued that it is my opinion that life begins at birth; most anti-choicers are of the opinion that life begins at conception.
But LEGALLY, all rights afforded to a PERSON begin at BIRTH.
What do you think of this:

Life is a biological status. The sperm and the egg were alive, and continue to live as a zygote and through all other stages of human life until old age and senility.

Personhood and citizenship - the basis of human and civil rights respectively - are each a legal status.

You're a living human organism from conception, but you're not a person with rights until your culture says you are.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#581603 Jan 2, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope. SHe became my ex-wife because she wouldn't stop getting fat, stopped cleaning my house, never had a job & was a total bitch.
It sounds like it was all taking and no giving on her part. What a parasite, huh?

Catholics might blame you for taking the easy way out and murdering your marriage vows with a convenient divorce on demand, but I sure don't.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#581604 Jan 2, 2013
Happy Lesbo wrote:
<quoted text>
.. do you think/believe women should have the right to abortion in cases of rape or incest ??..
I do understand WHY they may not want to carry their attacker's baby to term.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#581605 Jan 3, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Now you are calling all humans parasites. "sigh"
He's a sick, twisted bastard.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#581606 Jan 3, 2013
Mylan wrote:
Wow, you're as as quick as a tortoise on Prozac.
Consider Haldol or Thorazine for that joke instead.

Check out how Haldol in the neck of this woman gently calms her: http://dancingczars.files.wordpress.com/2012/...

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#581607 Jan 3, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
See what happens when more & more people stop believing in God?
Less of this:

"Nevada: Parents beat son to death for not reading Bible"
http://www.examiner.com/article/nevada-parent...

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#581608 Jan 3, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
The lost influence of God & His love have very much to do with the downfall of American society.
I'm pretty sure that it all began following the addition of "under God" to the Pledge. <cough-post.hoc-cough>

Perhaps the real creators of the universe were offended and decided to take their wrath out on America.
JOEL

Mumbai, India

#581611 Jan 3, 2013
I want to convert to Christianity? What should I do?

(smiles)

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#581612 Jan 3, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
The lost influence of God & His love have very much to do with the downfall of American society.
According to http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.h... , the murder total in America peaked in 1991 at 24,700,and fell to a modern minimum of 14,612 in 2011. There were 252 million Americans in 1991 compared to 311 million in 2011 making the respective murder rates 9.8 per 100,000 in 1991, and 4.7 per 100,000 in 2011 - less than half.

At the same time, according to the American Religious Identification Survey at http://www.dawahskills.com/skills-tools/ameri... , the total number of adults identifying as Christian fell from 151 million out of 175 million adults (86.2%) in 1990 to 173 million out out of 228 million adults (76.0%) in 2008.

During the same period, "nones" and "no religion" rose from 14 million (8.2%) to 34 million (15.0%)-almost double.

Our numbers doubled, and the murder rate halved. At this rate, I think that we could stand to lose a little more of your god's influence and love, don't you?

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#581613 Jan 3, 2013
UR BS wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do people insist on calling it anti-choice or pro-choice, when in fact it is Pro-life and anti-life.
The choice is life or death it is that simple. So you are either pro life or pro death.
Because you are making the choice for someone else, thus, you are taking that choice from them. You are also, therefore, claiming responsibility for the ENTIRE outcome of the situation, including financial responsibility as well as any ethical responsibility of harm to the woman/offspring resulting from removing that choice, any bad choices the child makes as well resulting from a poor upbringing. That's too much responsibility for me to take on myself, so it is better to leave it up to the actual mother, thus it is not my responsibility, not my choice one way or the other. The person getting the abortion has make the choice and deal with the consequences of that choice on their own.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#581614 Jan 3, 2013
JOEL wrote:
I want to convert to Christianity? What should I do?(smiles)
There's little medical procedure that can help:
http://www.paddedcell.com.au/psychosurgery_du...

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#581615 Jan 3, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Wrong! A parasite isn't beneficial the host, remember?
You are correct.

Since: Feb 12

Kaiserslautern, Germany

#581616 Jan 3, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Because you are making the choice for someone else, thus, you are taking that choice from them. You are also, therefore, claiming responsibility for the ENTIRE outcome of the situation, including financial responsibility as well as any ethical responsibility of harm to the woman/offspring resulting from removing that choice, any bad choices the child makes as well resulting from a poor upbringing. That's too much responsibility for me to take on myself, so it is better to leave it up to the actual mother, thus it is not my responsibility, not my choice one way or the other. The person getting the abortion has make the choice and deal with the consequences of that choice on their own.
Not arguing on who gets to make the choice legally. My point is and remains that it is a choice between life and death. Those are the two options no others. You want to have the baby yuou choose life you want to kill the baby you choose death.
Really simple.
It is just the PC thing to dehumanize the child so there is the assumption that it was nothing anyway so we can flush it.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#581617 Jan 3, 2013
Freebird USA wrote:
1. The guns "probably" were the reason
Yes.

And we can tell how likely it is that the hypothesis is correct by statistical analysis. We call the value that represents this the p-value, and it tells us what the likelihood is that the apparent correlation is due to an actual relationship between guns in the home and gun death, also called rejecting the null hypothesis. Statistical significance is said to occur when confidence levels are above 95% or 99%, depending on the need to be correct, which is notated as p < 0.05 and p < 0.01 respectively.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-value
Freebird USA wrote:
2. The issue of who decides what constitutes a life "saved " by a gun? As an example one could argue that George Zimmermans life was saved by a gun. See?
That's decided by the relative number of deaths. For example, let us say that the two groups suffered the same number of gun deaths, maybe 10,000 each. Let's also say that in the group with guns, half of the deaths were due to accidents, suicide, and family members murdering one another, with the other 5000 being due to murders caused by intruders, while in the second group, there were only 1000 such internally caused deaths, all caused by people going out and finding a gun, and 9000 caused by intruders.

It would be apparent from such statistics that the guns saved 4000 lives in the homes that had them relative to the ones that didn't. It would also be apparent that having those guns at home also cost 4000 lives compared to the homes where somebody had to go out and find a gun. In such a case, we would call it a wash. The benefit of gun ownership exactly equaled the cost.

The actual statistics show many more deaths in the gun homes. It doesn't really matter why, does it? If the gun homes suffer say 3000 more deaths, does it matter if the 3000 extra deaths break down as 1000 lives saved and 4000 lives lost by those guns vs. 2000 lives saved and 5000 lives lost by them?

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

#581618 Jan 3, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes.
And we can tell how likely it is that the hypothesis is correct by statistical analysis. We call the value that represents this the p-value, and it tells us what the likelihood is that the apparent correlation is due to an actual relationship between guns in the home and gun death, also called rejecting the null hypothesis. Statistical significance is said to occur when confidence levels are above 95% or 99%, depending on the need to be correct, which is notated as p < 0.05 and p < 0.01 respectively.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-value
<quoted text>
That's decided by the relative number of deaths. For example, let us say that the two groups suffered the same number of gun deaths, maybe 10,000 each. Let's also say that in the group with guns, half of the deaths were due to accidents, suicide, and family members murdering one another, with the other 5000 being due to murders caused by intruders, while in the second group, there were only 1000 such internally caused deaths, all caused by people going out and finding a gun, and 9000 caused by intruders.
It would be apparent from such statistics that the guns saved 4000 lives in the homes that had them relative to the ones that didn't. It would also be apparent that having those guns at home also cost 4000 lives compared to the homes where somebody had to go out and find a gun. In such a case, we would call it a wash. The benefit of gun ownership exactly equaled the cost.
The actual statistics show many more deaths in the gun homes. It doesn't really matter why, does it? If the gun homes suffer say 3000 more deaths, does it matter if the 3000 extra deaths break down as 1000 lives saved and 4000 lives lost by those guns vs. 2000 lives saved and 5000 lives lost by them?
Actually
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#581619 Jan 3, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Ya, because of a crazy man.
You mean because of a crazy man with access to an assault weapon, don't you? Remember, guns don't kill people. People with guns do.

How many such crazy men do you suppose there are in America right now? Thirty-one? Eleven? Fourteen?

How many will have easy access to assault weapons the hour that they crack?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 1 min VIKING 48,043
Play "end of the word" part 2 (Dec '15) 2 min andet1987 2,015
dried poppy pods (Mar '13) 6 min BobbyReal 33
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 16 min Phooey 646,361
How do I own a forum? 20 min Norm 2
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 1 hr RiccardoFire 44,641
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 2 hr bad bob 182,620
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 2 hr WelbyMD 281,224
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 3 hr Rosa_Winkel 105,548
More from around the web