When stating an argument, it's customary for the one presenting the argument to also present evidence supporting said argument. Telling doubters to "look it up" only makes you look lazy or dishonest.

Don't be talkin' smack about the 97th amendment! George Washington gave his life on the beaches of Normandy to make sure the Mexicans couldn't take away our death penalty!

1. Is that feeling (sense of right and wrong) present in almost all individuals--an indication of a God given moral law?

There's no need to bring religion in to the mix. Evolution perfectly explains it. Groups of people that worked together stood a better chance of survival than groups that murdered each other (hyberbole for emphasis).

2. Or does it simply reflect what we have been taught by our parents?

Environment and education certainly has an impact, but it's not the only factor.

3. What is its source? Where does it come from?

As stated above, a mix of nature (genes, evolution) and nuture (environment, education).

4. What is its purpose?

Survival in the form of a stable society.

If I went to the moon, I'd see a large gray barren hell scape full of craters and small U.S. flags.

Whereas if I sold my moon-tickets on Ebay, I'd easily make some serious cash, and I could fly to Afghanistan to get the same experience for a fraction of the cost.

So, no, I would not want to go to the moon, but I'd gladly like to win those tickets.

This is a loaded question, since there's no clear definition for what constitutes "life".

Using Biology's definition, there are 7 characteristics that living organisms exhibit:

1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.

2. Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.

3. Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.

4. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.

5. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.

6. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism) and by chemotaxis.

7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms.

Since the question is actually asking "when does the life of a child start", all 7 criteria are not met until puberty.

Is that so? Let me guess, you got your Masters of Science degree from the Upstairs College of Funkology.

Most of the people objecting to animal testing have no idea what testing entails, or how its benefited scientific progress. How do you think they test the medicine you take? Or research cures for cancer?

Geez, got an axe to grind much? What do you expect them to do when confronted with an uncontrolled barking dog? They haven't lived with the dog. It's not their "buddy". In fact, a lot of people keep dogs for the sole purpose of protection and attacking strangers. If you can't control you're dog in front of company, much less a cop, then it should be put down.

Call you're local SPCA and ask them what happens when your dog bites someone, and that person reports it to the police. It gets euthanized.

That was hilarious. I hate debates made by kids who flunked 3rd grade English.

I feel this debate doesn't properly represent the zombie community. Where are the "eat the living" and "unliving to eat" options?

The percentage of non-religious people has been increasing in all 50 states, and overall has doubled since 1990, while the number of self-identified Christians has declined.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2316782/posts

In general, I agree, but there's a big exception. If the woman was raped, she should be able to legally force her rapist to pay for the abortion.

"And you being an African American should know what I'm talking about."

Say whaaaaat? You think I'm from Africa? I don't even know what to say to that.

Now there's a great attack on socialism. He doesn't even know how to use punctuation, but he thinks he knows how the economy should be run...

If the death penalty deters murder (as you claim) then why does Europe have a lower murder rate even though they've outlawed the death penalty?

Sure, seatbelts save lives, but enacting laws to require people wear seltbelts only saves the lives of stupid people, thus polluting the gene pool.

Money doesn't buy happiness, but it sure helps.

If you're rich and unhappy, it's easy to become poor. But if you're poor and unhappy, it's much harder to become rich.

"You can't really argue with someone according to their preferences, but I'd rather have Reese's."

I disagree. You'd rather have skittles!

Boring? Rainbows come out of pots of gold or the butts of unicorns. Those are anything but boring!

Resee's are unholy. Peanut butter belongs in sandwiches, or a dog's mouth, as God intended!

"I wasn't gay bashing... why, just cause I use the word fag?"

This is a bit off-topic, but yes, exactly. "Fag" is slang for homosexual, so by using words like fag as a derogatory term, you're associating homosexuality as a derogatory attribute.

If I took your name/school/hometown/hobby/religion and tried to associate it with something horrible, you probably wouldn't appreciate it. Same basic concept.

So let me get this straight:

1. You state that without guns, we'll get killed/imprisioned/brutalized/etc.

2. I prove you wrong by stating the FACT that other countries have little gun ownership but are not being killed/imprisioned/brutalized/etc.

3. You're only counterargument is an ad hominem attack.

"Guns should not be banned. the police will have even more power over us than they do now."

I don't see your point. Are you implying that when you're unhappy with the police, you go out and start shooting them, or at least intimidate them with threat of violence? In what world is that valid logic for owning a gun? We're a nation of laws. When police abuse their authority, they're dealt with by the law. Whenever I hear about a dirty cop being exposed, it's due to a reporter or a pedestrian with a camcorder, not some guy with a shotgun.

Wow, can you be more dense?

Belief and faith are synonyms genius. Having a "belief" in a supreme creator is the same as having "faith" in one. The term "religion" doesn't require having a neat little book and fancy houses to review your beliefs. That's just a convention common to several religions.

But I'm sure you'll still disagree out spite, so here's a fun exercise to prove I'm right:

1. Bring up Google.

2. Type in "define:religion" and press "Google Search"

3. Read the FIRST result.

It should read "a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny".

QED

Au contraire. I would in fact argue that kids singing about the first African American to become President, is in fact a "good thing". Remember, this happened as part of Black History month.