You wouldn't last 5 minutes, I'm afraid, but your bravado would keep you in good stead with your maker. Jesus would be proud of you but no 72 virgins.;-)
Science, soul and free will
- Thread starter s_lone
- Start date
You wouldn't last 5 minutes, I'm afraid, but your bravado would keep you in good stead with your maker. Jesus would be proud of you but no 72 virgins.;-)
lol, all I want is a full head of luxurious, flowing viking hair... a pet tiger would be pretty sweet as well;-);-)
Sorry. You are consistently wrong in your assumptions, as usual. You twist what I say to form around whatever you believe I am.
I enjoy children, and I know that a fertilized egg inside a woman is a child or will be. Life does begin at conception otherwise there would be no cellular division occurring - dead cells. I accept from embryologists that embryos are humans and fetuses don't magically poof into humans when they are born. As far as the laws go, I am pro-choice (I guess you conveniently forgot that part just like you conveniently forgot that I am all for gay rights. I make no secret of that or my sexual tendencies). But, I think that there should only be a dire reason why a woman should end the life inside her because I happen to value the lives of other people. If you remember, I challenged you 3 times to post ANY evidence from a scientist that deals with people in the early stages of development that shows the embryos to be anything other than human. You conveniently ignored those challenges or else could not find any evidence and kept clammed about it.
My links were from prominent universities like Princeton, and medical associations like The American Pediatric Association, and scientists like embryologists. They'd laugh you right out of your socks if you tried telling them they are religious right.
Yes there are conservative atheists. But any assessment I have ever done has shown me to be slightly left of center and moderately libertarian.
Not needed. A few moths ago we saw a video clip of a young girl being stoned to death for having a boyfriend of a different sect of Islam. You can bet that we scribbled out a letter and sent it to the government of that country condemning the stoning as barbaric, draconian, and pleocenic.
Conservatives in favor of Gay Rights are more common than you might think.
There are very few conservatives in favor of gay rights, Ron. What you probably are referring to is Log Cabin Republicans, which are gay Republicans (and who are increasingly under attack by their fellow conservative Republicans).
There are still some moderate Republicans left (though they are a vanishing breed). Log Cabin Republicans come under that category.
But a conservative in support of gay rights is a rarity. By that I mean somebody who is prolife, pro gun, a Creationist, pro death penalty, anti contraception etc. Such a person is highly unlikely to support gay rights.
There are very few conservatives in favor of gay rights, Ron. What you probably are referring to is Log Cabin Republicans, which are gay Republicans (and who are increasingly under attack by their fellow conservative Republicans).
There are still some moderate Republicans left (though they are a vanishing breed). Log Cabin Republicans come under that category.
But a conservative in support of gay rights is a rarity. By that I mean somebody who is prolife, pro gun, a Creationist, pro death penalty, anti contraception etc. Such a person is highly unlikely to support gay rights.
You do realize that considering atrocities as a relatively good or bad action actually condones the acts right?
That doesn’t make sense, alley.
To say that at one time, or in one place its acceptable to stone a woman only affirms that its acceptable to stone a woman here today in our land.
How so? Again, that doesn’t make sense.
That doesn’t make sense, alley.
To say that at one time, or in one place its acceptable to stone a woman only affirms that its acceptable to stone a woman here today in our land.
How so? Again, that doesn’t make sense.
My links were from prominent universities like Princeton, and medical associations like The American Pediatric Association, and scientists like embryologists. They'd laugh you right out of your socks if you tried telling them they are religious right.
No Anna, your links were:
American College of Pediatrics
Dr. Wilke, former head of Right to Life, the most prominent prolife organization in USA
Westchester Institute, a religious right organization.
There was one more religious right website you quoted, that escapes my memory at present.
But, I think that there should only be a dire reason why a woman should end the life inside her because I happen to value the lives of other people.
OK, then why do you take offense when I say that you are prolife? People with your position (e.g. those who support abortion only in the case of rape or incest) are considered prolife. The prochoice position is that abortion is an issue to be settled by the woman with her doctor.
Seems to me that you have prolife views, but don’t like prolife label.
No Anna, your links were:
American College of Pediatrics
Dr. Wilke, former head of Right to Life, the most prominent prolife organization in USA
Westchester Institute, a religious right organization.
There was one more religious right website you quoted, that escapes my memory at present.
But, I think that there should only be a dire reason why a woman should end the life inside her because I happen to value the lives of other people.
OK, then why do you take offense when I say that you are prolife? People with your position (e.g. those who support abortion only in the case of rape or incest) are considered prolife. The prochoice position is that abortion is an issue to be settled by the woman with her doctor.
Seems to me that you have prolife views, but don’t like prolife label.