3RU7AL

Self defense. Japan attacked America first.

Self defense is "protecting your family".

Not to mention that the US military has killed plenty of people who did not "attack first".

No, but America doing it [firebombing civilians] in 1945 was not bad.

those things are true.  the argument that the woman has some kind of special right, or right at all due to dependency when it's inside her vs when it's not,  isn't correct or logical.

I don't believe for a second that anyone, theist or atheist, thinks that flying a plane into a building is "good".

I don't believe for a second that anyone, theist or atheist, thinks that firebombing 100,000 civilians in Tokyo is "good"

I did.

for a very long time in history and still in certain parts of the world, babies have been dependent on their mothers for breast milk and would die w/o it, so this whole dependence and relying on the mother's body is a terrible argument.  if this is as good as they have.... lol just lol

For a very long time in history and still in certain parts of the world, babies have been dependent on their mothers for breast milk and would die w/o it, so this whole dependence and relying on the mother's body is a perfect argument.

For a very long time in history and still in certain parts of the world, babies have been left on the temple steps, so this whole arguing from historical norms is a perfect argument.

I don't really bother with the more frivolous supernatural possibilities.  The way I would simply put it is that only God is God.  Exclusivity or finality should be conveyed by Christian teachings.  Worshiping Zeus is idolatry whether or not Zeus exists and is defined as a god.

I don't really bother with the more frivolous supernatural possibilities (like "YHWH").  The way I would simply put it is that only Zeus is the most powerful of all gods.  Exclusivity or finality should be conveyed by Zeus' teachings.  Worshiping "YHWH" is idolatry whether or not "YHWH" exists and is defined as a god.

It's really funny. Atheists are the only group that attacks something they swear doesn't exist.

It's called immigration processing...it's a new trend.

Yeah, but I'm pretty sure the US military didn't ask for permission to go into Afghanistan.

The choice may not necessarily be what you do, but how you will in doing what you do.

What?

Live for vanity or live for Truth.

That is really the decision.

God gives a peace that surpasses understanding.

Vanity will ultimately lead to suffering and unfulfilment.

Yay, economic warfare is where it's at.  Less bombs, more baby boomers.

When I read this, I had an image flash into my head of a bunch of soldiers in full camo gear waiting for a plane to take them to invade Afghanistan, and one of them says to the other, "you thought you had it tough, I had to wait 3 years for my temporary work visa to be approved!"

However suppose we had evolved along a slightly different track...

Good point.

Even rabbits will eat their babies.  And I thought they were vegetarians.

I wonder what the Aztecs would have done?

The same thing the Romans did.

The same thing the Americans did.

The same thing the French did.

The same thing the Chinese did.

For literally thousands of years.

Dump their unwanted babies on the temple steps.

You're so behind the times. Scientists have already developed artificial wombs that can grow a person from conception. Testing went to 2 weeks before ethics cut the experiment short of developing a full "human"....

You're so behind the times. Scientists have already developed artificial wombs that can grow a person from conception.

AMAZING!!!!!!!

Who decided it was ethical to kill an individual human soul?????????????????

We should ramp this baby (maker) up to industrial proportions ASAP!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm sure the cost will come down pretty quickly with economies of scale!!!!!!!!!!!

We don't. But God did give us a conscience.

Ok, it sound like, in practical terms, we decide for ourselves.

Well nothing is black and white. 

There is a reason we need guidance from God.

3RU7AL will say what a woman does with her body is a matter of privacy when it comes to abortion, but suddenly and inexplicably, it isn't a matter of privacy when it comes to drug addiction.

Or that the concept of privacy can apply to a woman, but not to a country.

How do you argue with someone whose argument encompasses both A and not A? And he is totally blind to the contradiction?

"So now conservatives are going to pass a bill that gives all women free embryonic extraction at 5 months!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"  How much does it cost?  I'm not saying that I'm against it yet, but I'm curious.

ALL INNOCENT LIFE IS SACRED!!!!!!!!!!

does having unique human dna and chromosomes make a human?  if not what does that make?

I'm pretty sure ethang5 believes that unique human DNA sparks into existence an individual human soul.

Neither do I. 

People do bad shit, and they know it. And they do it anyway.

I think the more likely explanation is that most [atheists] are simply uneducated or superstitious.

I can barely believe what I am seeing in this thread.   That is exactly what atheists say about theists!

I don't believe for a second that anyone, theist or atheist, thinks that flying a plane into a building is "good".

I don't believe for a second that anyone, theist or atheist, thinks that firebombing 100,000 civilians in Tokyo is "good".

Here's the way I see it. Atheists don't want God to exist the same way criminals don't want cops to exist. They know that God exists, but they suppress the truth. It's because they also know that they are sinners and deserve death. They know that Jesus gave His life so we could avoid death. But these people love their sin more than their Creator. Also, the Bible tells us that many witnessed the miracles of Christ and still rejected Him. So, it's not a matter of belief. It's a matter of obedience. There is no such thing as an atheist. Not my opinion. This is what Scripture tells us.

Here's the way I see it.  Atheists don't want Nanabozho to exist the same way criminals don't want Pangu to exist.  They know that Nanabozho exists, but they suppress the truth.  It's because they also know that they are sinners and deserve death.  They know that Nanabozho created all life on earth so all humans have a chance to live.  But these people love their sin more than their Nanabozho.  Also, the ancient stories tell us that many have witnessed the miracles of Nanabozho and still rejected Nanabozho.  So, it's not a matter of belief.  It's a matter of obedience.  There is no such thing as an atheist.  Not my opinion.  This is what the ancient stories tell us.

You obviously think the right to privacy should trump the right to life [miscarriage].

You think the [proposed] crime [miscarriage] should not be prosecuted because that would violate the privacy of the mother.

Exactly how we make the distinction now. Police, witnesses, medical examiners, courts, common sense [miscarriage].

But today, babies as young as 5 months old can survive outside the mother.

I say the baby is not part of the mother, because they have different genes. [...]

Some conjoined twins are not separate and cannot survive apart. 

Rights are not given based on genetic percentage.

The mother and baby are genetically different. Two different people.

Oh come on people, it's a quote from Orwell's 1984 haha

I did not say that it wasn't a useful made up concept. If it did not facilitate human interaction it would be an occasional curiosity rather than an all pervasive fact of modern living. That doesn't change the fact that money itself is intrinsically worthless and only has the worth we ascribe to it. 

Also you owe me ten money.

I think we should tackle a single issue at a time.

It's funny how the more sensible option always sounds "too complicated".

I like this idea and it's sensible, but I don't know what level of coding it would require for Mike.

Thanks for the vote.

For - 10

Drafterman

Smithereens

SupaDedz

Buddamoose

3RU7AL

Plisken

Argent_Tongue

TheDredPriateRoberts

Vaarka

Outplayz

Against - 14

RationalMadman

ethang5

Ramshutu

janesix

Raltar

Wylted

Declan

nmvarco

whiteflame

Earth

Mopac

Stronn

Polytheist-Witch

PGA2.0

Abstain - 3

TheGreatSeal

Virtuoso

Castin

In favor of using anonymous codes as a proxy for usernames - 2

3RU7AL

Drafterman

I don't give unsolicited medical advice to strangers. Why would you think I do? Are you confused?

A small, sterile, brain dead 36 year old human female is a woman.

Yeah, we agree doofus. She should be.

Only if the death is due to the action or inaction of someone. Not every death.

I agree. What is your point?

Still, not every death is due to a direct result of parental neglect and or abuse.

Am I reading you the law? There was a time killing a black man did not meet the legal definition of murder. So what? The question here is, " Is it murder?" Not, "does the current law call it murder?"

A baby is not a part of the mother.

Please give us an example [of different genes in the same human] Dr. Science.

Cancer cells have the same genes.

What does "individual" mean? And so what? The embryo is a human being.

Genetics [is the key distinction between humans and other mammals].

Please explain how your opinion on the matter is based on science?

It isn't opinion, it is science. The mother and baby are genetically different. Two different people.

If it cannot exist without the mother, it is part of the mother.

Illogical. This is just something you are saying. Your opinion not based on sound reasoning. Medicine is getting better and better at keeping babies alive without the mother. Some babies are even conceived outside the mothers body.

1. Should moderators be able to access a user's PM if (1) all three admin officials unanimously agree that (2) the three part test outlines above is met?

2. Should moderators never--in any circumstance--have the ability to access a user's PM

3. Is there another solution to this problem or a suggestion for how to improve the proposed checks?

1. No.  Mods should only be able to access PMs if the specific user agrees to the search.  This would involve a feature update where a person could check a box, select a specific conversation chain (or entire history), and then choose "send to mods".

2. Yes.  I would prefer "never" to "at will".  Perhaps consensual searches could be added as a feature.

3. If someone is going to doxx another person in a private message, they could just as easily use an email or something else not connected to this site.

If someone is being harassed IRL, it would seem to be a matter for law enforcement.

If someone is making accusations based only on suspicion, there should be requisite skepticism. 

Perhaps the mods should detail an explicit burden of proof.

Individuals can block specific users they don't want to interact with already.  Criminal accusations should be referred to law enforcement. 

I'd also be perfectly happy with "PMs will not be moderated and cannot be used as evidence of COC violations".

So in other words, the correct and honest answers are presumed, and anything that goes contrary to these assumptions is considered a sign of self deception?

What exactly is this perverse test supposed to determine?