Prove there's a god.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#581847 Jan 3, 2013
karl44 wrote:
<quoted text>
he might be one of the brightest in his church.
This is a possibility but doubtful

OCB

“What a GLORIOUS day!!!”

Since: Apr 12

Orlando but NYC born & raised

#581848 Jan 3, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> You have a dim and morbid look of the world, that's sad.
Not at all. I have a very optimistic and joyful outlook of the world.

Just because I know what IS a baby and what is NOT a baby doesn't translate into your totally moronic and erroneous perception of me.

You anti-choicers are the ones with a truly dim and morbid outlook of the world since if you had your way, the rights of 100% viable and 100% sentient women to make their own reproductive choices would be forfeited and done away with in favor of the non-existent rights of z/e/f which are not at all 100% viable or 100% sentient.

You want to see women as brood mares. Now THAT is sad- and more than just sad, it's pathetic.

“Seventh son”

Since: Dec 10

Will Prevail

#581849 Jan 3, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, and neither is in individual, that is why an acorn is not considered an oak, and a fetus is not considered a human.
This is a faulty analogy , germination produces a seedling.

That compares to a zygote , and both are developing life forms.
A seed is not though, its dormant like an ovary's eggs.

“MEET KIKI -She Seeks Home”

Since: Oct 10

With Established Harem

#581850 Jan 3, 2013
Happy Lesbo wrote:
<quoted text>
.. is a woman without children still a mother after a spontaneous abortion ??..
UR BS wrote:
<quoted text>
Is a woman a mother if her kid gets run over by a car and killed?
You might consider pulling your head out of your backside.
.. you've never grieved the repeated involuntary loss of an embryo ..

.. congratulations, you've achieved 'white sheet' status ..

.. you can ask CATCHER what that means ..

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#581851 Jan 3, 2013
UR BS wrote:
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.
That's not the choice that determines the political issue or its name - whether the pregnant mother chooses life or death.

The political issue is whether the woman should have the right to make that choice or not - that is, should she have the choice to choose abortion.

Do you support choice for the woman like I do? If so, what shall we call ourselves? Anti-life? No. She might choose birth,and if she did,we'd be all for her,her choice, and the new life. If we were really anti-life, we would want to force her to have an abortion, then to go kill her husband and herself. After pouring Round-up all over the lawn and poisoning the dog's food.

No. What we would be is pro-choice for the woman, and that is how we should be be known: pro-choice. And those that disagree are anti-choice.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#581852 Jan 3, 2013
UR BS wrote:
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.
No. It is the church attempting to dehumanize us by trying to change the name of what we advocate from "pro-choice" to "anti-life," and glorify itself as "pro-life" in the process while in fact being "anti-choice," and anywhere from indifferent to contemptuous about most other life.

==========

BTW, it's OK with me that you are a Christian. I understand not discussing your religious preferences. But why try to be deceptive about it? Do you think it makes you seem more credible to skeptics?

OCB

“What a GLORIOUS day!!!”

Since: Apr 12

Orlando but NYC born & raised

#581853 Jan 3, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> You have a dim and morbid look of the world, that's sad.
And....we ARE all parasites. I don't give to that word the astounding negative connotation that YOU do.

We ALL suck on the teat of the planet- taking, taking, taking, while giving very little back- if anything at all.

Sorry, bub- but we humans are NOT the nicest of all the species that exist.

We have systematically raped this planet, caused the extinction of MUCH flora and fauna which we are still doing to this day.

We have polluted the air, the water and the soil. We have done much to make much of this planet uninhabitable not only for ourselves, but for a vast amount of other life that we share this planet with.

Those ARE facts- and acknowledging and accepting those facts means I am a REALIST. Now if you find REALISTS to have a dim and morbid outlook of the world, that's YOUR issue- not mine.

But I won't play ostrich and pretend that all is right with the world. It's not. And the majority of what is wrong with this world is due to the human species.

Now don't go accusing me of hating people or of hating my own species, for nothing could be further from the truth.

Actually, I find GUN OWNERS to be the ones who have a dim and morbid outlook of the world as it is you gun owners who feel you have to arm yourselves against your fellow man.

“Seventh son”

Since: Dec 10

Will Prevail

#581854 Jan 3, 2013
OCB wrote:
<quoted text>"DEVELOPING" - You said it yourself.
A developing tree from a germinated acorn is still NOT a tree.
A developing chicken from a fertilized egg is still NOT a chicken.
A developing z/e/f is still NOT a baby.
It is because some people define it as , specifically after 12 weeks.
And specifically doctors and nurses as well as heath care professionals.
A seeding drops the embryo leaves and then it is a baby tree.
Short time in less than two weeks.
A fertilized chicken egg is a bit different, since the span of development is only 21 days I wouldn't call it a baby chicken till it hatched.

That's a way different than the 9 months required for top predator.

Since: Feb 12

Germany

#581855 Jan 3, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Do you know what a pseudoprinciple is? It's a principle that doesn't actually mean anything to you as stated, but which you cart out when it might support a position that you hold on emotional grounds.
The way to tell is to identify another issue where the principle would also apply were it a sincerely a principle held. For example,how about freedom for slaves. It wasn't originally a choice. But darn ol' SCOTUS injected itself in the decision, So reinstating slavery would not actually be removing the choice to be free as much as restoring the sanctity of private property.
These are your "principles" at play again.I'll bet you a dollar that you reject it all. And that's what makes them pseudoprinciples.
Exactly what SCOTUS Ruling would that have been concerning Slavery? I seem to be having a problem finding that one. How about a link to the actual SCOTUS Decision as it applies to Slavery in the US.

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#581856 Jan 3, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
She didn't die because of a gun, she died because of a deranged, godless man who would've killed her with anything - a gun just happened to be handy.
the point is: that the gun was too handy, that the gun needs greater restriction so that in the future it will be less handy.

the gun is designed as an efficient killing machine.

Tell me, RR what contributions are you prepared to make, to reduce the kind of incident we saw at sandy hookÉ

Since: Feb 12

Germany

#581857 Jan 3, 2013
OCB wrote:
<quoted text>Oh you LIAR. Why would you have PERSONALLY seen 60 or 70 birth certificates?
SHOW me a site or a link or a source which states that birth certificates in the far east show a different date of birth than the date the baby is actually born.
Because each time a new student would enter one of my calsses I was required to check their birth certificates to ensure they met the age requirements to attend the classes.

Now you are very fortunate that you are hiding behind a computer screen or you would rue the day you called me a liar.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#581858 Jan 3, 2013
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TOCO8TE...
Lil Ticked wrote:
Imma gonna hafta guess once again which of my points (see link above) you were addressing, and what your point with regard to it is - whether you agreed or disagreed.

I'm guessing that the comment that you didn't like was, "We call the value that represents this the p-value," that the part of your link that was on your mind was, "Number of deaths for leading causes of death - Heart disease: 599,413," and that the link between them is you would have liked to see a p-value for that data.

How did I do? Not so good?

You could improve communication tremendously if your next post is more than an adverb and a link juxtaposed against an unedited comment comprising several claims. Sentences work very well for that - sentences like "I disagree that ... because of the fact that ... which you can verify and read more about at [link]."

Since: Feb 12

Germany

#581859 Jan 3, 2013
OCB wrote:
<quoted text>No- YOU are a total dolt. In China- like everywhere else- and aside from religious or spiritual connotations, we are ALL on the same calender year.
And funny you should mention CHINA as your far east example; uh....abortion is MUCH more common in China than it is here due to the one-child laws and restrictions.
WOW- you are DUMB.
Sorry but the Lunar Callender is used all over the far east. They maintain trade with the west so they use that calandar for those purposes but go there some time during the lunar new year and you will see bigger celebrations than on the western new year.
Now as to the number of abortions they have there has nothing to do with the USA.
They also have forced sterilization are you saying we should adopt that as well?
If you want that I will back it. After the second elective abortion throw in a tibal for free and if the father is none snip him as well.

By the way back on the calander thing for a moment. If as you claim, "we are ALL on the same calender year" then why is it only in the 1400s in the Middle East according to the Muslim Calander? That is the one they use for all their documents by the way, then again have you ever seen a Jewish one?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#581860 Jan 3, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
I plead the fifth. lol
I'm anonymous, so :)

OCB

“What a GLORIOUS day!!!”

Since: Apr 12

Orlando but NYC born & raised

#581861 Jan 3, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
It is because some people define it as , specifically after 12 weeks.
And specifically doctors and nurses as well as heath care professionals.
A seeding drops the embryo leaves and then it is a baby tree.
Short time in less than two weeks.
A fertilized chicken egg is a bit different, since the span of development is only 21 days I wouldn't call it a baby chicken till it hatched.
That's a way different than the 9 months required for top predator.
Top predator- LOL!!! And only because of our man made weapons.

Don't think so? Then go take on a bear, a lion, a tiger, and so many other predators with nothing more than your own body.

Again- and how this thread has morphed into a thread about abortion I don't know- and all the more since there are at least a dozen abortion threads on Topix- I will say this for the LAST time:

What would be right about women being legally forced to remain pregnant against their will in order to be legally forced to give birth against their will?

Not your body? Not your uterus? Not your pregnancy? Not your z/e/f?

Then not your choice, not your decision and NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

And why is YOUR outlook of the world so dim and morbid that you would obviously see nothing wrong with women being legally forced to have children they do not want and do not love and in addition to that, why is YOUR outlook of the world so dim and morbid that you obviously have no problem with babies being born unwanted and unloved by the very persons who give birth to them?

And so you and anyone else who posts to me on the topic of abortion doesn't think I am ignoring you, I think I am DONE posting on the topic of abortion which is NOT in any way whatsoever the topic of this thread.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#581862 Jan 3, 2013
karl44 wrote:
<quoted text>
the point is: that the gun was too handy, that the gun needs greater restriction so that in the future it will be less handy.
the gun is designed as an efficient killing machine.
Tell me, RR what contributions are you prepared to make, to reduce the kind of incident we saw at sandy hookÉ
Greater restriction?

That crazy sumbitch shot 20 little kids. Don't you think he would've used something else if his mom's guns were't handy?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#581863 Jan 3, 2013
karl44 wrote:
Tell me, RR what contributions are you prepared to make, to reduce the kind of incident we saw at sandy hookÉ
I contribute to the expansion of knowledge regarding gun safety.

I also contribute to the expansion of knowledge of Christianity.

What does karl44 do? Bitch & whine?

OCB

“What a GLORIOUS day!!!”

Since: Apr 12

Orlando but NYC born & raised

#581864 Jan 3, 2013
UR BS wrote:
<quoted text>
Because each time a new student would enter one of my calsses I was required to check their birth certificates to ensure they met the age requirements to attend the classes.
Now you are very fortunate that you are hiding behind a computer screen or you would rue the day you called me a liar.
Threatening over the internet is against the law.

Next- so you checked their birth certificates. Do their birth certificates not show their birth date as their date of BIRTH or are you claiming their birth certificates show their date of CONCEPTION as their date of BIRTH?

And do NOT threaten me you MORON- not overtly OR veiled.

Up YOURS, loser.

And I'm guessing YOU are a NAZI or at least a Naxzi sympathizer.

Get lost, kid- ya bother me.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#581865 Jan 3, 2013
OCB wrote:
<quoted text>Not at all. Of course a baby is human provided it was BORN to a human. Just as a z/e/f is human provided it is within the body of a human.
And an acorn is still a seed despite it not being an oak tree.
Just as an acorn has the POTENTIAL to develop into an oak tree under the right conditions, a z/e/f has the POTENTIAL to develop into a baby under the right conditions.
NOWHERE did I say or at all even IMPLY that a BABY (born to a human) isn't HUMAN.
You are SUCH an IDIOT.
YOu said:

"But a sprouted acorn is STILL not an OAK TREE!"

That makes no sense. A sprouted acorn is a baby oak tree, just like a fetus is a baby human.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#581866 Jan 3, 2013
OCB wrote:
<quoted text>NO ONE here has said a fetus isn't HUMAN (provided it is within the body of a HUMAN).
You can't grasp the difference between that which is ALIVE and that which is A LIFE, so I certainly don't expect you to grasp the difference between that which is HUMAN and that which is a PERSON.
NO I guess I can't grasp it.

Please tell me the difference between ALIVE and A LIFE.

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
American Soldiers - Duty, Honor, Country (Jun '11) 1 min DENG 38,716
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 2 min VIKING 48,127
White women leaving their white families in dro... (Aug '09) 40 min Johnny 328
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 1 hr Phooey 646,369
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 1 hr Puppet master 105,553
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 1 hr Just Wondering 618,557
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 1 hr Yellow Star 182,623
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 2 hr Yellow Star 281,226
More from around the web