Yes, that's an agreeable description. I think you intended for it to rebut something I'd said, though, didn't you?
It is simple; you are utterly incorrect, I have explained why, and you are being petulant.
By child, you actually mean foetus - and a foetus is no more a human being than a fingernail is.
The benefits of researching with them are gargantuan, as they are seemingly limitless in what they can develop into, and the deterrents are non-existent. Stem cells have no need of pity, kindness or empathy, so there is no moral issue whatsoever.
You are fundamentally incorrect.
My main reason for affiliating with the 'pro-choice' view is that it's not my choice to make whether a woman has an abortion or not. I do not get to decide what happens in a woman's body - only she does. This means that I am most certainly not 'pro-abortion'. I want it universally legalised, so that people have a choice.
If it were legal and not a single abortion were ever carried out again, I wouldn't care, I just won't stand by and allow tyranny. That's very different from advocating that people have abortions.
Typically, yes. If every priest or rabbi began each sentence with "according to the bible" or "I believe", then it wouldn't be, but children believe the adults around them, and all too often people forget to mention that it may not be the case.
Well, that's just conjecture which you believe, and which I find dubious.
Its already deteriorating right now, in our generation.
That is the premise on which this debate was started.
If you use contraction, isn't it a form of laziness, when you can easily say "it is"? Also with the I'm. Which you can say I am.
It isn't laziness, there is a point to using contractions. Used properly, they don't distort the meaning of a sentence, either - they are still correct.
As far as I'm concerned, I know that being creative means being able to generate new ideas out of old ones. Isn't it creative when people use new ways of expressing their thoughts which they base from the old texts that we use?
No. These people aren't magnificent, blossoming fonts of creativity, they are people who are too lazy to use punctuation. Call 'text language' an art form if you like, but to me it's just a nugget of condensed literary sloth.
A similar stance would be to try and treat a man with an infected lung by painting him bright orange. He dies from lack of proper medical attention, but hey, perhaps we created a new form of art! The English language has a correct form and structure, and deviation from that is rarely, if ever, good.
Yeah, I have made several mistakes in my reply, but you still understood what I just said even after all the mistakes. People are subject to change, just accept that there are some things you can't stop.. like deterioration.
I understood it, but you didn't make as many mistakes as most people do. I'm talking specifically about the masses who wouldn't have finished any of the sentences with a full-stop.
I refuse to sit back and watch such deterioration. It certainly will not be seen to develop in me.
The thing is, grammar will steadily deteriorate over time and the level of 'bad' in a few years might be equivalent to something today deemed 'terrible'. It's on a slippery slope.
Being illiterate does not make you creative. The beauty of the English language is not improved by using the same tired and worn-out phrases you always use, spelled incorrectly.
Even in your reply, you have made several mistakes, and this is what I'm talking about when I refer to deterioration.
The problem is that things like Dark Matter must exist, whereas God is unnecessary and ridiculous.
There would be no war over "differing beliefs" like in Christianity, as the belief would be common. I'm not saying that there would be no war - perhaps politics would become the motivator - but certainly, there would be no religious war. None at all. Atheists don't differ in 'belief'.
Verily, he betrayed his knowledge of such a tactic when he mentioned it.
Hitman is much more of a household name, so you'll appeal to a much bigger fan-base with it.
I'd go with Hitman myself.
No, I am not susceptible of such ghastly fallacies as those you ask of me.
So rather than saying what happens in the past stays in the past, you're saying "What happened in the past never happened at all."
My point was that these blemishes, while in times passed, are in sharp contrast with the unblemished path of atheism. Partly because, atheists are not an organisation and therefore cannot postulate a common agenda. The rogues are rogues, but atheism as a creed remains virgin, while the Church has always committed evil, and is in doing so, filthy.
And, is the harbouring and protection of paedophiles not 'evil', in as many meanings as we may ascribe to the word? That exists today.
Atheism is not a form or religion, it never was. A dictionary would clarify this point to you, Sir. Atheism is the lack of belief in a God or deity. Not a belief that they are fictional, not a belief in any number of scientific theories, merely, that an Atheist does not believe in a God.
You try to dismiss the past as being irrelevant, at least to some degree, and to that I would object. If a killer is reading peacefully in his cell, did he therefore not butcher a man? Nay, the Church is no longer the force of war it once was, but it is yet the force of evil it always has been.
A reduced sum should perhaps be paid, but men must be responsible for their children. If they risk becoming a father, they must face the consequences.
A man can propose what he likes if everyone's lawyers are present, and the other person will gladly hear the suggestion.
However, mean have no right to tell a woman whether she must or can't carry a baby to term, because he does or doesn't want it. It's her body - her rules.
Wecome, Sacerdotus.
I can't prove God's existence, or disprove it. Having said that, it's perfectly acceptable to assume something is incorrect if it violates the laws of Physics, until it is proven so. Furthermore, it is the duty of those who proclaim it to be accurate to prove it. The onus is on them.
School *exists because it provides education. Education is the difference between a caveman and a modern human. If nobody went to school, the world would crumble. I see it happening already.
Its teachings are of interest only to its followers, but if we are to judge a religion (and, we are), we need to see just what it makes people do. The Holy Text may sound lovely, but turn people into psychopaths, or vice-versa.
It is not fact, it is quite clearly false, and I'd like to request some supporting evidence if you wish for it to remain.
Juxtaposed to your conjecture, whether abortion is equivalent to killing a person or not is a fact-based debate. Under the definition of a human being, abortion is not killing one.
Obviously there would be the same restrictions as are on alcohol. No driving, operating heavy machinery or working while high.
As an occasional recreational user, I can confirm that it makes me highly productive, and very creative. Granted, given a laborious task I would struggle, but when creativity is key, such as writing a novel or composing music, Marijuana is a brilliant light in the gloom.
Well, agnosticism is really sitting on the fence. If you don't know anything about either side of the fence, that would make you an atheist, wouldn't it? I get your point, though.
Well, in the eyes of reality, you were born an atheist just like everyone else. You weren't undecided, you were atheist.
What do you mean by "the movement"?
No, you were not undecided, you were atheistic.
You display a basic misunderstanding of the term "atheist". It does not mean that you are sure, merely that you do not follow any set religion.
You were born atheist, as was every human being since theism has existed.
To be fair, atheists are a fairly new group
Though it is no major crime, I feel obliged to inform you that this is incorrect - every child is born atheist, and has been since there have been humans. In fact, atheism has been around since the moment theism bloomed into the picture.
What you meant to say was - "Atheists have only recently been able to profess their lack of faith without being murdered for it."
Again, religion did not and has not caused wars.
This is a point to which you cling mostly dearly, but it is of no worth - religion can only exist in human minds, which are fallible, so saying that the problems are caused in human minds is obvious, but, where else can religion exist?
Religion has caused wars. Furthermore, Sharia law does in fact permit the killing of various infidel groups, and thus religion in itself causes war. The rest of the time, yes, the humans themselves err in the name of religion, but can it not be said that without religion, these wars would never have happened?
I care not for why, but for what shall we do to end this problem. A solution can be found in the banishment of religion - and for this, I am.
I've seen Gimp being used, apparently that's the best alternative. The name is amusingly suspect, but I assure you it's an entirely legitimate program for image editing... nothing else.
I don't think there is a difference. That's the same thing as giving a mental hospital full of psychopaths an assault rifle, and then saying;
"It's not the guns that are the problem."
I'd say that taking the guns away would solve the problem, and this analogy translates across to religion. If it weren't here, there wouldn't be any more religious war (obviously).
"Religion has not caused wars!"
It's odd that you'd tell me to get my fundamentals correct, after saying that yourself.
What about the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Pakistan and the Crusades? The Holocaust? These are but a few I could name off of the top of my head. Every single one of those was a war, or a one-sided conflict on purely religious reasons, or, would not have occurred without religion.
People have caused wars!
It's hard to see a war starting without any people involved.
Indifference has caused wars!
I am not sure how that's possible. War is a struggle, brought about by differences. How many wars were started because, on a particular issue, a political leader said; "On that subject, my country isn't terribly bothered. TO ARMS, MEN!"
Religion has caused war in the past, most of it, in fact.
Atheists have yet to start a war with atheists because of atheism -> if Atheism could become a majority, religious wars wouldn't exist.
If a friend invited me to their wedding, I'd attend unless I couldn't. I see no reason for there to be a distinction between the sexuality of those being married - they would be my friends, that's the only relevant factor.
Nope. Therefore, I am a fish, definitely a fish, and no other explanation is valid. < Theist logic.
Atheism cannot be disproven. It's a lack of belief, not a statement of different belief. Get your definitions right.
Giving someone condoms does not mean that they must use them.
What it means is - they get free condoms.
Disestablishmentarianism is a belief we both hold.
Please specify, which right exactly would be infringed upon?
Fear not, for the soothing light of counsel has come. In your predicament, this is what you should do;
1) Learn to read and spell correctly.
2) Stop trolling this site, where people want intelligent debates.
3) Find something more productive to do with your time.
4) If all of the above fail, castrate yourself (to prevent pollution of the gene pool) and play with traffic.
Profuse apologies, I didn't realise that I had argued against it, my mistake. I'm absolutely pro-legalisation.
ChuckHades answered this side of the argument perfectly. Up-vote and Kudos to you, Sir.
Society is the wall that holds back social Darwinism, I'm currently writing a novel with that as a theme. I wish.
Ah, Quantum Entanglement. It is proven, and it is a favourite concept of mine.
It is not an underlying force or 'energy', but rather a law that guarantees symmetry. This no sane person could refute, and I don't.
However, the idea that human beings' thoughts affect each other is ludicrous. It's not impossible, but I find it extremely improbable, to such an extent that I dismiss it.
To summarise an immensely complicated concept, I theorise that if every action has an equal and opposite reaction, and the Universe is in fact cyclic, then it could be said that all actions balance each other out, and this means that nothing has actually taken place. It negates the need for a 'Creator'.
P.S. That is merely my own speculation, I do not wish to bring anyone round to agreeing with me, I'm just contributing.
I would love to hear how this would be possible on a 'quantum level'. It seems ludicrous to me that my thoughts (and only my thoughts - behaviour obviously affects the mental processes of others) could influence of my peers' thoughts.
I can think of no gain derived from the censorship of media. It breeds ignorance, and ignorance is poison.
I would start a debate entitled; "Homework should not be banned, and here's why" and proceed to quote the paragraph you typed, laden with grammatical and spelling errors. I always loathed school, but saying homework should be banned is something I always saw as ridiculous. By increasing your exposure to education, you learn and retain more.
Forgive me if I am taking you seriously when you speak in jest, Joe, as I know it is your wont.
Evolution takes a much, much longer time to display changes of any noticeable size than the timescale on which you refute it.
Furthermore, evolution is no longer any where near as active as it used to be, as natural selection has been swept aside by human society. The weak and inferior (strictly using relative, evolutionary terms here) are able to have children just as easily as the relatively superior, without dying in the wild because of their relative inferiority. In a sense, humans have leveled their own playing field.
This is a complicated question to answer. From a religious standpoint, I believe you want to know what our equivalent of 'God's chosen role for us' is, and the answer to that is that we (I, at least) do not see the necessity for a reason. We just are.
On the other note of what my purpose is - to give as much to the world as I possibly can. I intend to do this through several means; I wish to become a physicist and further our knowledge base on the most complex and important concepts, I wish to use my mechanical mind to improve technologies across a vast array of industries, I intend to use my aptitude with the English language to become an author, with the inclusion of allegory in my literature to impede any societal tumours I come across.
I also intend to raise several children to be responsible, sensible and decent human beings, a service to our species which is performed by few these days.
A concise summarisation of my philosophy could be to Google: 'Objectivism'.
Why, then, did you bother typing out such a ludicrous train of thought?
In my view, no. I know that it put a stop to the war, but the deployment of nuclear arms on civilian populations as as extreme as actions get. I feel that perhaps the dropping of a similar bomb on a military cache, followed up by the official declaration of intention to do the same on two civilian cities would have sufficed. No matter the cause, I cannot reconcile the death of that many civilians in that manner. Though, I could be convinced that it was the only option. I'd prefer if another course of action had been taken, but I suppose that terrible things happen in war. I settle for despair at my species, to attack itself with such malice.
I understand where you're coming from, but if it's kept legal then organised crime syndicates are funded to engage in serious crime (aside from trade of Marijuana I mean), and get away with it. Simultaneously, people are going to prison for having a pipe and some herb in their pockets. That's not justice.
I don't think that we should leave them alone for fear of what they might do, that's conservative and I hate conservatism. As for listening to the government explain itself, well, after a smoke or two I'm sure I'd be more than happy to sit and observe them!
No. It wasn't legalized in the first place because the government had the opportunity to make it illegal. No government could successfully prohibit the use of alcohol, so they don't, but because they can with marijuana, they do. But alcohol impairs people's judgement far, far more than marijuana, alcohol is addictive, and it's possible to consume too much and die as a result. Marijuana has neither of these drawbacks.
Absolutely, human beings are naturally moral creatures, but what people said about 'right' and 'wrong' is different to this.
If one man thinks killing his daughter because she had sex aged 16 is morally sound, and one man disagrees with him, who is morally 'right'? Nobody. There are no universal morals to which we all are bound - each individual has his own (unless he takes direction in this area of his life, from religion or other sources). It just so happens that most of the time, the majority agree on a particular moral issue and so we form laws, forbidding things such as murder, rape, and theft.
But even if 99.99% agree on a particular moral issue and there is one outlier whose opinion juxtaposes that majority, he is no less 'right' than the rest.
Put simply, unless a massive worldwide effort is mounted, Africa must be left alone.
Providing food and nothing else is a problem that will grow until we are in poverty as dire as they are. If you feed 100,000 people for one year, next year there will be 110,000~ people who still can't feed themselves. Tell me, how does that solve anything?
They need infrastructure and sustainable means of supporting themselves. They either should develop it themselves or we should do it for them, but merely feeding them is actually doing no good at all. 'People are starving' That's unpleasant and all, but after a while their population will shrink until they develop and become independent. That's how civilisation forms.
Brilliant version of hell, that would be awful.
Another good one would be that feeling that you're about to make a massive breakthrough of some kind, and keep sitting down to your desk, but you keep getting delayed and are forced to perform menial tasks. Continue that for eternity and that'd be rather unpleasant.
Yes, if said book has a cover illustrated with child-pornography.
Absolutely! That is mankind's current concern, regardless of whether people realise it or not.
Um, hello, the atrocities committed during the Crusades were not committed by true believers in Jesus.
They used religion as their reason, and I don't think they just made it up for an excuse, given that the only thing that can motivate murder on the scale observed is religion.
It is better for an evil abortionist to die than it is for him to kill thousands of innocent babies, just like it would have been better for Hitler to die than for him to keep killing Jews, Christians and others. Wow, I'm shaking my head in disbelief over your lack of logic.
Abortionists don't kill babies, they stop the development of bundles of cells. 1 week after conception, it's just a bundle of cells that does not resemble a human, or even a recognisable zygote. An abortion carried out is thus not killing a baby. Here, you advocate murder, to prevent the removal of bundles of cells. You call abortion murder, but you sanction murder to prevent murder... hard to see the moral high-ground there, even if abortion was murder, which it's not.
Don't insult your fellow debaters. It makes you look childish and like you're struggling to put in something productive to the argument. I'd really like this trend of petty insults to cease, as would everyone on here - it does not help.
Physicist, preferably working with CERN. I'm going to study Physics in college next year.
I agree here, to a point.
I can scarcely hate someone I've never met. Justin Bieber is a talented singer, no denying it.
I do hate his music, though. It's torture to my ears, and I could criticise it all day. The only issue I take with the gentleman himself is that he is "pro-life" and says women who get raped are raped because "they're in God's plan".
Read Leviticus, now that you're free from the bias of "I'm going to presume this is true before I read it", you can see the mountain of hate and flawed logic in the Bible, which is the foundation for the religion. Read the parts about killing children and homosexuals and then decide if you want to be a part of that. I also recommend researching a sentence such as "Bible flaws" and that should highlight some major inconsistencies which science has unraveled, because whether you like him or not should not affect whether you believe in his existence.
It's funny, right now I could be said to be trying to convert you, with such phrases as "Read this yourself" and "do your own research" and yet when Christians try to convert atheists, they say things like "You will burn in hell unless you start praying really quick" and "You must do this and that and believe it all".
Basically, use your own head and don't let anyone force you in or out of a religion. The thing is, that open-minded perspective almost always results in atheism.
Legal or not, prostitution will always be around in some form or another. If it's legal, the women (or men) can be protected, and are not in quite so much danger.
Is it just me or does she resemble a female, polka-dot PacMan?
No.
Check your notifications, I challenged you to a debate.
This one,
http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/
That you ignored.
I fully agree with what's said above, but unfortunately we can't stamp religion out. If I could I would, but I can't, and so I'll just have to settle for monitoring this world power as closely as I can.
Not at all, rude people who cannot maintain civility ruin this site.
The debate I challenged you to, which you have not yet accepted. Check your notifications.
In any argument those who proclaim something of which their peers are dubious have the onus of proof. This is not specific just to religion, it applies to anyone making any kind of claim.
Put simply, atheists don't have to prove them wrong, theists have to prove that they are correct.
And, by the way, a Bible verse is not proof of anything other than that Bible verse.
Self defense is, to me, the only justifiable premise on which to kill, or, the defense of the lives of others. Seeing as you are stating that it is absolutely against your own moral code to kill, allow me to suggest a situation.
Bear in mind, this situation is ridiculous, but when absolutes are stated, this kind of hypothesis is permitted.
Say, you find yourself holding a loaded gun, twenty yards away from another man, who is also holding a gun. The man is brandishing the weapon at a large crowd of young children who are completely defenseless.
Here's the dilemma: You are 100% certain that he is going to pull the trigger and start killing the children. (bear with me here)
You have time to do nothing else but shoot him. You do not have time to run at him, and the only viable option is to fire first, and realistically, you aim for his centre of mass - this is extremely likely to kill him. Do you fire?
I would. I think it is arguable that the lesser evil is to kill him, otherwise you permit him to slaughter innocent children. This is one of the only situations in which I would propose killing to be acceptable, but what are your thoughts?
You're running from my debate. That debate is the only one on which I will address you, because you have completely perverted the course of progress on this one. You've tied up with so much incessant babble and copious insults that I'm not sure where we are.
I have read the Bible, more than most Christians I've ever met have. It's the number one cause for my atheism - I can clearly see why it is to be ignored.
Where did the Universe come from? I don't know. But for me, "I don't know" doesn't lead to > "Therefore it must have been this explanation, and nothing else, which is ridiculous."
A thoroughly excellent gentleman who is to be heeded, regardless of the issue.
So, I'd get to annoy God and I wouldn't go to Hell? That would be wonderful.
It won't ever happen, but at least I know what I'll do if it did.
I find it wonderfully refreshing to see that you actually care to know. It is important to know these things, but most religious people are happy being ignorant as to what "Atheist" really means.
May it be of benefit to you in all future debates, good Sir.
You have conceded defeat, unfortunately.
I hoped you would sieze this opportunity to prove yourself, but you're running and hiding. For the third or *fourth time, I'm ignoring you. I'll give you no further consideration, as you have proven yourself to be worthless in the world of debating.
Yes, an atheist is not necessarily assured, but it can often be the case. I would confidently say that most atheists are sure that God does not exist, the same way that we are all sure that Santa Claus does not exist.
I notice that you capitalised the "... on His existence..." and so I'd like to clarify - I do not use Santa Claus as an offensive example, good Sir, it is merely the best example I can think of. Has this allayed any doubt you had about the term; "Atheist"?
Both preceding arguments are fully correct, though I can explain in the most detail I think is relevant;
The main difference between men and women is the fact that a woman carries the child. The stronger one hunts, and a pregnant woman cannot hunt - that's basically it. Because it worked better when a woman always had the less dangerous tasks of survival, and so did not need to be as physically strong or large. The smaller and lighter built women then required less food to live healthily, and so they have an advantage.
IT'S UP TO YOU TO PROVE THE VALIDITY OF MY ARGUMENTS NOT ME... THAT"S HOW DEBATES WORK!
I do not like insulting people over the internet, but you leave me no other choice.
Small sentences for you. I do not need you to use block capitals. I can read, yes. It makes you look stupid.
That is not how debates work. You misunderstand debates. I made the word "not" bold to make it stand out.
When I say something, I must back it up with logic, reason or proof. The same for you. Not the other way around.
Everyone who agrees that norcalkev has the correct idea of debating, vote me down. Everyone who agrees that he has in fact learned the polar opposite of this basic principle, vote me up.
And norcalkev, you haven't yet responded to my challenge debate about this issue - abortion. I think everyone reading this is eager to watch us debate, just the two of us. You are very confident to say the least, and when only two people are in a debate, nobody gets "let off" for anything. You either win or lose.
So, accept the debate and I'll listen to your points, so long as they have evidence. This debate is cluttered.
I also recommend revising your understanding of how debates work, otherwise you would be rendered almost totally incapable before you even began.
I suspect you'll try to dodge, so;
Do you accept my challenge debate?
<- Your response should immediately answer that question. After that, insult me for a while and get ready to debate with me using actual logic and reasoning. I don't think I need to state that you would concede defeat in refusing my challenge.
By the way;
" IT"S TYPED IN PERFECT ENGLISH!" That should be an apostrophe in "...it's...", not speech marks.
"homosexuality would spread!"
For this most bigoted and disingenuous of arguments, you must have evidence, which you currently lack entirely.
With the article that you quoted, you need to show either a link or reference. Here's why;
Hey, here's an article that I found, written by a genius with an IQ of 900, an expert on neuroscience
"Human beings can morph into cats when they practice homosexual sex because..."
You see my point? You could have made that up. While I don't think that you did, I think it's likely that this physician was a devout Christian, perhaps even one of those "Creationist scientists"... Either way, you have not proven the validity of what you've said, one bit. Therefore I am fully entitled to ignore it, but should you bring actual evidence (even a link to precisely where you copied and pasted that from) would then count as evidence, whose validity would then be subject to evaluation.
" a sick and perverted thing for science to figure out another method that is not natural! Even adoption should be denied for further ideology spreading!"
There is nothing sick or perverted about homosexuality. If you think that, and watch me here, this is not a petty insult, but a statement of fact;
You are a bigot, and nothing more.
You have not made a justified argument of any sort, for reasons explained above.
Your first sentence is incoherent and does not make sense. Neither does your second sentence/question (I'm not sure what it is - it's that poorly formed).
What I'll say is that I am highly dubious of Space-Time and when I attend college, my thesis will be on "Space-Time and related concepts", so I reject that element.
I don't really know if I've produced a valid response here - I can't actually discern what the debate is about...
Yes, given conclusive proof, I'd accept anything - absolutely without limit. I see no reason to reject anything at all that can be proven to me.
However, what I don't think you realise is that if God were proven, assuming you mean the Bible Gods (one of thousands of gods man has written stories about) I'd probably worship the Devil in a display of rebellion against the tyrannic and incompetent nature of his ruling. I'd rather burn in Hell than kiss the bastard's feet.
Irrelevant, as it'll never be proven, but I just thought I should add that.
Atheism is not a religion, it is a lack of religion.
While I fully understand that it seems to be against the code of an atheist as you see us to assume anything we cannot prove, I can assure you that I, like most atheists, assume that no God is real, or ever has been.
Everyone holds a similar view - Santa Claus. Can you prove that he doesn't exist? No. Do you assume that he doesn't? Yes. We all do.
It's as simple as that.
I mean specifically the right to have children because then it does become a spreading problem.
Please explain what you mean by this. Do you imply that homosexuality would then spread? And that this is to be avoided?
Also I've heard somewhere homosexuality promote disease!
Well, that sounds absolutely absurd. "I've heard somewhere that..." is also not a sentence to be taken seriously, unless you can provide evidence/a link/a reference. You almost certainly heard that from someone who hates homosexuals.
That made me giggle. You single-handedly took my efficiency down from 96% to 90%, nice try. And I did not see Cuaroc make the same criticism - I'd say that indicates that it's valid. I don't get intimidated, certainly not intellectually, and if I did, you would not be a capable adversary.
I'm not gong to rebut your claim until you state it clearly, and make sure it is valid. Do that, and I'll respond.
A serious question for you;
Do you honestly not see the purile and inefficacious nature of the way you debate? Insults are best omitted when you actually want to make a point of any sort, otherwise it slaps a neon sign saying "I'm not mentally big enough to be here" on your posts, even when you make sense. I assure you this really is a question and not an insult, else I would be a hypocrite in what I've just said.
I am quite sure that you need to revise the line;
"They have given women free abortions since 1973, and they've killed over 15 million people."
Abortion does not kill a person, and I don't think that 39 (years) multiplied by 15,000 (the rate of abortions, which in itself seems absurdly high) equals 15 million.
All I see in your reply is;
Insult... insult... insult... rant... Block capitals... insult.
Nowhere have you actually produced any kind of argument. All I can say in response is that although you think you get to decide, fortunately you do not.
It is wonderful to have someone express a different opinion, but not bleat on about how I am wrong.
Your argument has considerable merit of its own and is very well concocted, Sir.
Not true. It's murder if it's murder, and abortion is not murder.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/
That defines murder as;
"the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law."
Now, when an abortion takes place, the cells that are killed are not a human being. It makes no mention of stopping a heart. Furthermore, a baby's heart starts beating from 5-6 weeks after conception, so abortion does not necessarily stop a beating heart. Under the definition, it cannot be murder. You can have your own opinions, but you can't have your own facts.
