great ._.

1. Who's worried about trees? It just doesn't make sense to cut all of them down without planting new ones, since then all humans would die, born or not.

2. Um, kids are self-aware, they just don't develop empathy until sometime after birth. But a new born has feelings, knows when it's hungry, etc. Therefore it's wrong to throw them in dumpsters.

3. True, and it's state to state. But even the states that do allow it up to birth, again it is only in extreme circumstances. If I'm a woman in any state and I'm due in a week, and my life is not in danger, and I'm not a child myself and I wasn't raped by my dad or something, then abortion is not an option. And I'm fine with that actually, I think it's the right law.

4. About 2 or 3 months ago I'd say 5 right wing nuts showed up here and downvoted nearly every argument I've ever made in my over a year on this site. It's why I don't show up as often.

If someone wants to disagree fine, but use facts and logic. I'm tired of having the Bible quoted at me, responses rife with logical fallacies, responses that didn't bother to read what I wrote, and those who need to announce their faith before making an argument when their faith has 0 to do with the argument.

I never downvote or insult anyone just because I disagree, I do so when they act like a moron, whether I agree with them or not.

So like, if a cop shoots a guy whose about to kill someone, he's not a hero because the government provided his gun?

Damn socialist cops, thanks for clearing that up wiz.

I've seen these videos. If it's not self-aware it's not a human yet, no matter what it looks like.

You're talking about you're feelings and what you believe because you're a typical self-righteous self-involved christian completely incapable of understanding that what you think and feel is not what everyone else thinks and feels.

The laws put in place on abortion take into account what science finds to be true

not how you feel helliom or what you think some invisible daddy in the sky wants you to feel.

Abortion is illegal after the third trimester except in extreme circumstances. Before then it's not a human yet, it's the specific woman's body and not yours, and it's none of your business.

That's how it is and that's how it should be,

no matter how many of you right wing nuts highjack this site and serial downvote us sane and logical participants on the site.

great, another one.

I've read it. I've read it a million times on this lame debate alone. You're not saying anything new, there's no great revelation anywhere in your arguement.

None of what you say in any way points toward any kind of self-awareness. Science says it's not a baby, and nothing you said will stop a single abortion from happening.

So stop, find another cause. Abortions have been going on since the beginning of time and all this foaming-at-the-mouth zealous ignorance has never stopped a single one. Every time in history you zealous foaming-at-the-mouth looney tunes have gotten your way and made abortion illegal it has lead to nothing but a bunch of dead little girls from botched abortions, and still not a single abortion is ever stopped.

If you don't want an abortion, you don't have to get one. But if some poor young girl thinks that's her best option, then that's her choice.

If god or whoever doesn't like it, then he can come down here and tell her himself.

Stay out of it.

No.

Belief always comes from nowhere originally. Otherwise it is knowledge.

If stories of Unicorns creating the Universe had been passed down for two thousand years, and someone made up a bunch of cute anectotes, and put them in a book, and called that book holy,

then a whole bunch of people would believe it.

Kind of like what happened with the real religions.

Actually exactly what happend with them.

Did someone hijack your account? Here's the debate it was from, link

I was explaining why it is wrong to discriminate against gays. I had in the arguement with you made this point after you went on about the "definition" of marriage:

1. we define words and can change the definition whenever and however we feel. ex. in the 18 century Africans were defined as inferior, and so enslaving them was just fine by "definition" link

Obviously that they were defined as such was not, and should not have been, the "End of story" right?

To which you replied (you quoting me is in bold, your words italisized):

1. we define words and can change the definition whenever and however we feel

True.

Africans were defined as inferior

Nobody is doing that right now.

Obviously that they were defined as such was not, and should not have been, the "End of story" right?

Well hey, there's other options. I just think it would be easier for them to make their own union but they don't want to. Not my fault.

See, right there. Maybe you were high ._.

True technically, and I upvoted it. I felt like arguing abortion for the billionth time though, god knows why I bother.

1. technically, yeah, it's a compromise, aborting when there is no consciousness isn't the same thing as murder. Since people are attached to the idea of human potential, they only perform an abortion after the 3rd trimester in extreme circumstances. So I agree that it's a silly line, but you have to draw it somewhere. If abortions are illegal people get them anyway, not an infant is "saved" and tons of women wind up dead from botched abortions in dirty basements. On the other hand we have a sense of empathy for the unborn even before they are self-aware in any respect because we're human, and so the line should be drawn somewhere.

2. abortion is murder, it's a doctor doing their job

What I believe is irrelevant. If I did believe that, there is an equal amount of proof for both. One sounds more ridiculous than the other only because we're used to it.

1. Yes it does. The son of god is supposed to be divine, the christian faith believes him to be divine, and it certainly was not that person's last name even if he did exist.

2. You have proof of gravity and the sun. There's no proof of Jesus Christ.

3. Yes, there is evidence. There are multiple historical documents recording their existence. On the other hand, the only place Jesus Christ is found is the new testament, meanwhile no other historical documents contain any such person. On top of that, there is something to be gained by the religious to pretend that that person existed and to continue to insist upon his existence, while there is nothing to be gained by simply making up those other people.

4. All predictions only came true if you believe Jesus Christ was a messiah. Other than that exactly 0 predictions came true. And since even if that person ever existed, he certainly was not the son of god, then exactly 0 predictions came true. another thing to be noted, none, zero, zip, zilch of any of the new testament was written until at least 500 years after that person supposedly existed. And even these documents from 500 years after his existence, as you pointed out, have been translated and mistranslated and lost etc, many times. I mean, the religious are already trying to rewrite who the founders of this country were only a couple hundred years ago. What makes you think the religious would not have changed so much more about the guy from whom they derive their world influence?

I most certainly should not start a church. I'm against all religions, I think they do more harm than good, and they contribute significantly to the dumbing down of societies as a whole, as demonstrated by basically this entire debate.