It's the truth. Malcom X thought blacks were a bunch of chumps for voting 80 percent Dem, after the Dem's having a majority and failing to deliver on their promises. One wonders what he would think about them voting 95 percent for Obama in his second term.
When one cuts through all the BS, it is obvious that scientists have no idea how life began. They have nothing but some stories that they made up. That's it. They make the assumption that abiogenesis is correct simply because life exists. This is not science. It's nothing but wishful thinking. So. Where is this evidence? I must have missed it.
Evolution teaches that the strong survive.
Liberals want to protect the weak.
Liberals go against evolution.
Liberalism is not natural.
Liberalism is a mental disorder
that should NOT be allowed to reproduce.
Some people like to blame some things on Global Warming, but if you just say that the terrorists are responsible for global warming, then you have just simplified the debate.
Some people want to blame Obama for stuff but he's a terrorist so...
Humans would make better test subjects so why force testing for human products on animals?
You would be an irrationalist to suggest that animals are better suited because you would assert this based on an emotional-bias (i.e. feeling). You may argue that this argument suggest a bias but you would be wrong. Humans, logically, would make the best subjects to finding a right solution for themselves (unless there was only 4 humans left and the project was to increase human population, therefore not wanting to take such risks- but there are 7 billion people so this scenario is illusory).
"Nothing has caused climate scientists quite as much recent trouble as the so-called “global warming hiatus.” Not only did this approximately 14-year lull in the rise of global mean (or average) temperatures provide fodder for a variety of misguided climate change deniers (there have been other, longer pauses)..."
Those who are concerned of their own, or families (i.e. kids, mothers, siblings, etc.) well-being are hypocritical in the sense that: the environment facilitates such well-being; therefore, to not support the environment, is to not support yourself, or your loved-ones' well-being (thus resulting in hypocrisy).
But of course many claim to do so all the time.
But how is this so given their deliberate contribution to the ruination of the environment?
Therefore one must conclude that there line of reasoning is purely irrational, hypocritical, or just plain psychotic.
For example, liberals and conservatives can't agree on the topic of abortion. So we have a law that says that conservatives cannot have an abortion and another law that says that liberals can have all the abortions they want. After aborting all the liberal babies, there won't be any more liberals left and we can get rid of that stupid law.
I guess we have to show that the fetus is only part of the mother so that she can have it removed as one would remove a wart.
We also have to show that the fetus is NOT part of the father so that we can claim that the father has no claim, no rights, no interest, no say in the life/fate of the fetus and that ONLY the mother has the final say in the life/fate of the fetus.
Do you remember this debate?
http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ What camefirsttheChickenortheegg
In there it talks about the whether the egg shell belongs to the fetus or the mother and whether the eggshell is just a container.
I would argue that the uterus is part of the mother.
I would also argue that the uterus is a container.
I would then argue that the fetus is not part of the father. Just because the father contributed sperm, does NOT mean that the fetus is part of the father.
I would then argue that the fetus is not part of the mother either. I mean, just because she contributed the egg does not mean that the fetus is part of her body. What holds true for the father, holds true for the mother. And science backs me up on this. The mother's immune system would kill the fetus if it weren't for the placenta.
"The placenta functions as an immunological barrier between the mother and the fetus, creating an immunologically privileged site."
If it were not for the placenta, the mother's immune system would kill the fetus. The fetus is its own entity. Once the egg and the sperm fuse, it is no longer part of the father and it is no longer part of the mother. it is its own entity.
But... if the fetus is its own entity, and it is not part of the mother, it cannot be compared to a wart. When the mother has a fetus removed, she is not doing something to her body, she is doing something to another living entity.
Hey this is bemagic15 to those of you who stuck around (and remember me) so Im back on a new profile because my email got hacked into and forgot my password...anyways if you are wondering why the name condomman it is because when coming up with a new username I thought what would be a good superhero...the one who gets laid the most but is always protected