Total posts: 1,720
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
There is no historical account of it being disputed, and it was not just one man that witnessed His resurrection. Peter, John, James, and other NT writers speak of witnessing the resurrected Christ.
Actually, (not that it is needed) there is historical dispute of the resurrection of Jesus - Plutarch.
Besides the legendary accretion, which seems to be present in the Gospels (which challenges the accuracy), there is also the fact that these anecdotal accounts were written by anonymous persons removed by decades from the purported events.
On top of that, you can use the Bible for claim or evidence, but not both. Pick one or the other. I'm not impressed by Biblical 'clevidence'...and I don't know why you are.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Teratomas have specialized cells but can never be a human being.True, but they don't have a brain so they aren't human. I think brain cells start to develop in fetuses within 6 weeks based on the research I did a long time ago (it might be wrong).
Teratomas can have brain cells. If having brain cells is your line, then teratomas can be human beings too.
I think it is much easier when we accept brain cells don't equate to brains. I personally think it is important for, at least, the structure to be there.
There would be exceptions if the defect is incompatible with life.
Good. I would go further, but to each his own.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Food for thought:
Teratomas have specialized cells but can never be a human being.
There are fetal defects incompatible with life.
Men sometimes push women to get abortions - who should do community service?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
During the 1st-century over 500 eyewitnesses attested to the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Actually, one man *claimed* there was 500 witnesses.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Ok, I will amend my statement:I don't know what happens after death, and no one that I know of can show they know more. ;-)Better?Again, it is your presumption that no one can show they know.
Its not a presumption when there is no demonstration of an afterlife. :-)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Cows and pigs are mammals...we eat them.But their rights to not be abused while alive are above those of, say, chickens (birds). But again, I don't think this is even a good idea of how to apply rights to non-humans.
Agreed, but I'm not the one touting the supreme importance of DNA to rights. ;-)
As far as I am concerned, personhood does not require DNA. Consciousness, self awareness, the ability to reason are the defining characteristics of a person. At conception, we don't even have the jug to hold these things.
This is getting way off track though. Personhood is not relevant to this discussion. People don't get to use other people without consent.
We'll take this one step at a time. Let's say that I pushed you down the stairs. I now have an obligation to take care of your recovery, yes?
Perhaps, but not with your blood, flesh, or organs....
Then our lives are incomplete unless we can yell "fire" in crowded areas? Is that what you believe? Because, as I pointed out, this is a limit on speech, which you believe is one of our rights.
I'm arguing for equal rights, not absolute rights. Don't misrepresent my argument.
No. Don't purposely misrepresent my argument. Rights can be removed because of actions, which you seem to agree to, yes?
Rights can be removed because of bad actions. Again, it sure seems like you are suggesting getting pregnant is a bad action.
It doesn't matter where you came from. You are now a unique being.
Yes. I am now ...being many decades old. ;-p At conception, I was not the being I am now...in fact I wasn't even a being.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
You are thief of joy, sir. ;-)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Being the status quo is not an argument in the realm of abortion.
Cool trick.
Furthermore, your analogy is not a direct comparison.
This has been addressed. Keep the analogy exactly the same with my injury being caused by you. ...I still have no right to your body. So the argument that being responsible for someone else's predicament means you forfeit your body to their needs is false.
Finally, your rights can be weighed against others! Your right to free speech is of a lower rank than the right of safety for others.
No. All rights carry equal weight because every one of them is necessary for protection of human dignity. For example, if all human life has the right to life but not the right to speech, then life is incomplete.
Based on what crimes you commit under the status quo (something you appealed to in your argument), you can lose your “right” to vote because of a felony, you can lose your right to life (death penalty), right to freely move (being held captive by the state in a prison).
Pregnancy is analogous to punishment? Is that really where you want to go? Removal of rights occurs because an individual has established themselves to be a danger to society. Is being pregnant a danger to society?
Gametes are unique DNA unlike other DNA of the parent....That’s quite simply untrue. Police use semen in their DNA tests and can trace it to who it belongs to.
The DNA of gametes is not identical to the parent DNA. Paternity tests are also a thing, so I don't see your point. Being unique doesn't mean we can't tell where it came from.
That kinda seems to be how we do things. Mammals generally have more rights than other types of animals.
Cows and pigs are mammals...we eat them.
Assuming what will be isn't an argument for granting rights to what is.Why aren’t assumptions considered? Do you think it is the same thing to “pull the plug” on someone who is entirely braindead as it is to stop life support for someone with a 50% chance of recovering from a coma?
You should be answering that question since you think making assumptions is a good way to determine rights. Do you think someone with a 50% chance of dying is dead?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
True, but laws don't make moral determinations. You saying that rights are associated with personhood is as arbitrary as me saying "rights are associated only with white people". Obviously wrong. Moreover, you don't' really think coming out of the womb converts the right to life, do you? Would you allow abortion of a 9 month old "fetus"?
Personhood is a legal term regarding rights. Science doesn't deal with rights - it also doesn't deal with moral determinations. Appeal to an authority related to your subject, and your point will be better received.
Also, since abortions late in the pregnancy aren't done on a whim and generally have to do with preserving maternal health - yes, I would absolutely allow it. Women don't go through 9 months of pregnancy and THEN decide to abort.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Do you know for sure what happens after you die? Or are you just skeptical of the claim of the Bible without actually knowing yourself?I don't know what happens after death and neither does anyone else.Massive assumption and assertion.
Ok, I will amend my statement:
I don't know what happens after death, and no one that I know of can show they know more. ;-)
Better?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
No. I'm saying claims should not be accepted as true until they can be shown connected to objective reality in some way.Can you show Paul is talking about a real thing? If not, you're skipping a step in asking for refutation.I'm curious. In regards to what?
Something in the thread, I'm sure. (I don't remember, it was a long time ago!)
Welcome back, Peter!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
Mugging involves a victim whose rights have been violated. The unborn don't have rights you cannot violate them.A fetus is scientifically...
Science doesn't make legal determinations. Rights are associated with personhood, and personhood is attached at birth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
But...but, my opinions ARE always right! ;-p
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
It is only a false equivalence because your definition of person, seems to me, almost begs the question.
Just to be clear, you are challenging the status quo. It is not me begging the question, friend.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Do you think numbers and mathematics are discovered or invented? Do numbers exist independent of the human mind?
Invented. No.
But how is it determined to be neglect?
Neglect doesn't occur with a single event. It is a prolonged occurrence where necessities are not provided for an extended period. But, again, this is a false equivalence. Refusing to participate in the genesis of a new person is not neglect of a person.
We have a person being acted upon (or not acted upon/cared for) in one case, and, depending on your view, 1) a single person making decisions about their bodily property or;
2) one person refusing to allow their body to be used for the benefit of someone else. These are not analogous any way you look at it.
there is nothing in neglect laws which requires breastfeeding or infringes upon bodily autonomy.Not directly, no, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Not at all. You are assuming the truth of your position without showing it is actually true.
As stated before, if the only way for a mother to feed their starving baby is breastfeeding them and they are perfectly capable of doing so (regardless of how this hypothetical situation occurs) then it is neglect not to breastfeed their baby.
And, as I stated before, you have set out a survival situation where a child is starving - if the child is starving, then it is likely the mother is too. Neglect isn't going to be a serious consideration in a real world scenario.
I feel like we are talking past one another here, so unless there is something else we should agree to leave this unresolved for now. We can revisit once we've had time to consider the discussion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
I believe rights are natural to all things.
To be honest, I've never understood this notion. In the absence of rational minds there are no concepts, much less a concept such as rights. As such, human rights are contigent upon rational (human) minds.
How do you justify neglect laws if responsibility cannot subvert rights?
There is no right to neglect another person (a born individual with rights), therefore neglect laws are not subverting rights.
And to get ahead of the inevitable response - there is nothing in neglect laws which requires breastfeeding or infringes upon bodily autonomy.
Created:
Posted in:
What is it, in your view, that 'grants' rights and when does it happen?
Rights are attached to birth and come from humanity.
If anything, being more developed leads to an increase in responsibility until birth and then it starts to go the other way as children become adults and (hopefully) more independent.Why would that be the case when it is typically actions one takes during the 1st trimester that has the greatest impact on the development of a child?
That's just how it is. Development leads to the characteristics we recognize as uniquely human, and it is at this point rights are attached - not before.
Think about what you're advocating for - at the moment of conception, development is at the lowest possible level which, by your reasoning, means responsibility is at the greatest and parent rights subverted the most.
If it is not clear, I don't accept responsibility allows rights to be subverted.
I disagree that it is overstepping or beyond control to make abortion illegal.
Then we definitely disagree. If human rights include health, equality, privacy (which they do) then abortion should be a right by extension.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
If by 'person' you mean 'human with rights' then I think one could theoretically argue that the unborn does not necessarily need to be a person to have rights as the country acknowledges, for example, animal rights. However, understanding what is meant by person and what makes one a person would make addressing any questions around personhood easier.
By "person", I typically mean a human with the capacity for consciousness which has rights - generally someone who has been born.
Moreso I am trying to show the relationship between responsibility of the parent and how it can impact said parent's rights with the age and development of the child. If we can acknowledge this then a question must be raised to if such a thing can extend to the child when it is unborn, being at a more undeveloped state leading to an increase in responsibility and thus more limitation on rights.
If anything, being more developed leads to an increase in responsibility until birth and then it starts to go the other way as children become adults and (hopefully) more independent.
If the unborn do not have rights at a certain point in development then is there any reason why a sadistic woman cannot choose (not through addiction but through malice) to get pregnant and do as many hard drugs as possible up to the point the child gains rights? If this is not permissible then you must be giving the unborn some level of rights, otherwise this must be permissible.
There is no reason why a sadistic woman can't get pregnant and do drugs. There is also no reason why a sadistic man can't do drugs and get a woman pregnant (sperm can be affected by toxic substances and cause permanent birth defects too). Even if I did believe in unborn rights (which I dont), I certainly wouldn't think they exist before conception.
I understand where you are coming from, but our limitations have limits - whether that be because the limits are unenforceable, redundant, overstepping, etc. Some things are simply beyond our control.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
If so, in the context of pregnancy, aren't you assuming personhood of the unborn without actually making that argument?Can you describe personhood for me?
You're answering a question with a question, buddy.
Ok. Let us imagine the same scenario, except my injuries were due to something you did. I still do not have a right to use your body.That, itself, would be its own debate. How responsible am I and in what way?
Let's go with a worst case scenario- you intended to harm me and you alone are completely responsible for my life threatening Injuries. Even under these circumstances, I have no right to your body.
This responsibility argument might seem reasonable until we consider that there is no circumstance where one person has a right to use the body of another.
As for the rest (binary responsibility)... It seems you are trying to establish an equivalence between the rights of the born and rights of the unborn. I see this as a false equivalence. However, even if we assume full rights to the unborn there is no circumstance where responsibility allows my body to be used without my consent. Personhood doesn't change this fact, so it simply isn't relevant to this discussion.
If a mother has a baby and they are in a situation where the only way to feed said baby is direct breastfeeding or the baby will starve then the law would say that refusing to feed their baby is neglect (assuming the mother is physically capable of breastfeeding the baby). Is this not already, on some level, a violation of bodily autonomy? Is not the unborn in a similar situation?
I actually don't know this to be true - I'm not sure the law requires breastfeeding in a survival situation (it would have to be something extreme for this scenario to be feasible.) Also, I know of no mother than would choose not to feed their baby if they were able. I don't know that this hypothetical is closely connected to reality.
Also, I know it wasn't addressed to you, but have you seen post #9? I would like your input on what I said to Double_R.
You have my condolences. What specifically would you like me to comment on?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
If someone believes abortion is murder or a violation of unborn rights, then how can an exception be allowed?Because rights and responsibilities are inherently tied together.
I'm not sure I agree with your argument, but (for the sake of clarity) who would that responsibility be to? Other people? If so, in the context of pregnancy, aren't you assuming personhood of the unborn without actually making that argument?
I agree rights are necessarily restricted because absolute rights to absolutely everyone is an impossibility. Those restrictions should be the same across the board lest we create a situation where some have a privileged position. That exactly what rights are meant to prevent....
Even assuming the personhood of the unborn the rights/responsibility argument is still flawed. You stated my analogy was insufficient because the potential donor had no responsibility to me. Ok. Let us imagine the same scenario, except my injuries were due to something you did. I still do not have a right to use your body. This demonstrates someone's responsibility for our predicament does not mean we have a right to use their body.
Tl;dr:
1. Responsibilities are applicable to persons. No serious definition of 'person' has been established which allows all stages of prenatal development.
2. Responsibility does not mandate sacrificing our most intimate property (our body).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
One objection that SkepticalOne made was that "the limitations potentially imposed on a female parent by forced birth can never be applicable to the male parent." I must ask why this is, necessarily, an issue. Sexual dimorphism is a real thing, as such there will always be differences between men and women. There are some responsibilities that one sex might have to take on that the other cannot. We do not live in a perfectly 'fair' world, sexual dimorphism as a defense against taking on responsibilities needs a better defense than the existence of sexual dimorphism.
My interlocutor suggests there are responsibilities one sex might have to accept. I can agree with that, but this does not mean someone should accept a responsibility when their body is induced to do something before they were ready.
Also, rights are not dimorphic. If they were then 'equal rights' is something that could never be. I don't want to love in a world where the phrase "more equal than others" has a home.
Another objection from SkepticalOne, in regards to the analogy to a newborn and neglect (from one of the above quotes), was that "an unwilling parent can legally give the child up." True, but even during periods in which they desire to give the child up for adoption they are responsible for the well-being of the child. Until such a time that another person consents to take responsibility over the child their well-being is still your responsibility.
I feel like I already pointed this out, but a newborn has rights, while a blastocysts (for example) does not. So this isn't really a fair comparison.
For the record, I don't understand the exception for rape from a pro-life perspective. If someone believes abortion is murder or a violation of unborn rights, then how can an exception be allowed? I did not find the forced driving analogy helpful. We can hash that out as we go though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
You might as well ask why rights exist.Yeah, but I'm too busy asking you why the right to live doesn't exist for those that have been alive for less than ~9 months.
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of rights. We all have rights - my rights don't trump your rights and vice versa. I have a right to do what I want with my body, as do you.
If I'm dying and can be saved with the help of your body, I don't automatically get what I need to survive and that doesn't mean my right to life has been denied. My right to life doesn't overule anyone else's rights.
Besides that, a blastocyst has no rights. A zygote has no rights. An embryo has no rights. Individual rights are attached at birth.
If the bar for personhood is low enough to allow zygotes, for instance, then many other things - like cancer, gametes, or animals- will qualify for personhood as well.Zygotes are unique DNA from either parent that wants to murder it. So, not like gametes.
Gametes are unique DNA unlike other DNA of the parent....
It is human DNA, so it doesn't apply to animals.
Humans are related to all life on the planet, so 'because human DNA' is insufficient to disallow rights from animals.. in fact, this argument would demand more closely related organisms be granted more human rights.
It will grow to be a regular human, indistinguishable from others: walking, talking, eating. So it isn't like cancer.
I think the odds are pretty close to 50/50 successful implantation will occur and less a 'walking, talking, eating,' thinking human will be the result. Assuming what will be isn't an argument for granting rights to what is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Abortion thread is up. When I get a chance, I will respond there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
I will jump in here when I get a bit more time, but I wanted to let you know I'm here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
@TheMorningsStar
Imagine you find a tiny gnome growing in your house.False analogy, people don't just wake up pregnant.
Well, sure they do. People doing normal people things can find they are unexpectedly pregnant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Why is there no right to the use of the body of another?
You might as well ask why rights exist.
Why would dolphins and cancer be people?
If the bar for personhood is low enough to allow zygotes, for instance, then many other things - like cancer, gametes, or animals- will qualify for personhood as well.
I can agree that the regular pro-life folks are also generally not in favor of government assistance for taking care of those kids. I'm not one of them.
In that case, my criticism of the typical Pro-lifer might not apply to you.
Maybe we can/will discuss this again in a more appropriate time/place. Thanks for the conversation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
There really isn't any way to respond to that other than "you're wrong". There are "unborn people". Pro-Choice people attempt to rationalize their decision to have a more convenient life by saying they aren't killing "people". They, likely including you, use some arbitrary measure to say the "clump of cells" isn't a person such as pain or heartbeat or sentience or whatever else. There really is no consistent position other than if it is an innocent human (ie. won't kill the mother), its life matters.
I am merely rejecting your presupposition of personhood before birth. If you want to challenge the status quo, that is fine, but you will need to do more than assume the truth of your position. I look forward to finally seeing a pro-life standard of personhood that does not allow things which should obviously not be considered persons...like cancer, terratomas, dolphins, etc.
Before you go crazy with that, personhood is irrelevant to my position. Person or not, there is no right to use the body of another without consent.
But as I told him, "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are not labels that are meant to extend beyond the abortion issue.
Birth, childcare, healthcare, financial stress, poverty, crime, etc., are some of the natural consequences of disallowing abortion of unwanted pregnancies. Pro-life folks aren't known for considering anything after birth, though, and are generally loathe to support social programs. Its not a gotcha - it is a fair criticism pointing out the interest in seeing unwanted pregancies carried to term, but not the desire to prevent trajectory stealing potential it can inflict on the lives of everyone involved.
...and for the record, being pro-choice and understanding rights cannot be absolute (and restrictions are necessary) is not a contradictory position.
I believe @TheMorningStar is going to start a thread on abortion. Maybe we can move the discussion there rather than derailing this one with pure abortion talk.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
If you want we can create a new thread to talk about the topic more in depth. Who knows, maybe it will convince me to stay pro-choice.
I'm fine with that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Birth is required for personhood legallyIsn't part of the debate over whether abortion should be legal this issue itself?
Fair enough. Birth is an unambiguous line of demarcation for personhood.
Assuming the personhood of the unborn (which is quite a large allowance considering) there is still no right to use the body of another without consent.I would disagree. Rights get limited by responsibilities and obligations all the time
Yes, but those limitations are across the board. The limitations potentially imposed on a female parent by forced birth can never be applicable to the male parent. In fact, there is no body autonomy issue from the male parent's perspective whatsoever - no one will demand his flesh be used to ensure the genesis of a new life, much less the maintenance of an existing one.
I do not consider the comparison between neglect of an infant and genesis of a new life to be comparable. An infant undeniably has rights having been born. Plus, an unwilling parent can legally give the child up. These are significant differences placing 'neglect' in a completely different category from forced pregnancy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
How do you define people?Is a premature baby born at 7.5 months more of a person than a fetus that is near 9 months of development?
Birth is required for personhood legally. As to your question - one is born and one is not - one is legally a person and one is not.
The pro-life position tends to wish to protect the life of the unborn by upholding the responsibility of the mother. It is the desire to protect one's life but the responsibility aspect is considered when making this decision.
The pro-life position seeks to grant special rights to the unborn at the expense of women's rights. Assuming the personhood of the unborn (which is quite a large allowance considering) there is still no right to use the body of another without consent.
Basically stated without the assumption of unborn personhood, anti-abortionists seek to strip bodily autonomy from women to protect the unborn which has no rights attached until after birth.
If you then try to talk about people's lives without considering the aspect of responsibility then it becomes easy to say that pro-life=pro-birth and not life, but that is due to ignoring a fundamental aspect in which the position is taken.
Actually, I was thinking of pro-lifers so often being for capital punishment and against social programs for those in need (such as pregnant women or young mothers). This is very much anti-life positions, imo.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Pro-Life people advocate for people who cannot speak for themselves. That doesn't mean they should pressure grown adults into making their own health decisions that only affect them.
Pro life folks do not advocate for people near as often as the moniker would suggest. First, there are no unborn "people", so the anti-abortion advocacy is for birth (certainly not life of people).
Secondly, @TheUnderdog is not wrong to suggest those who claim to be Pro-Life might be expected to advocate for vaccinations to save lives. That is not happening, because, once again pro-lifers demonstrate life is not their focus.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
It wasn't until the last 100 years or so that the word 'homosexuality' started appearing in the Bible.I'm unsure about that.
Ok.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
What should happen to a man that lies with another man as one lies with a woman?Nothing.I agree with that. Does Leviticus 20:13 agree with us?
It depends. Are we going strictly by what the original Hebrews states, or how that Hebrew has been translated and interpreted since?
The original Hebrew says a man shall not lie with a male as with a woman. If it were meant to address homosexuality, why would the hebrew word for man not have been used to represent both individuals? Maybe because the law wasn't addressing man/man relations, but man/boy relations. A boy is male, but not yet a man.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
I'm a Catholic and pretty okay with the status quo where a church can refuse to marry a gay couple
I really dont care what churches do behind their doors (provided its consensual). I doubt this notion of gay people besieging churches to get married is a serious worry in the real world. People go to churches where they feel welcome. If a church is not LGBTQ supportive, most queer people will find greener pastures rather than link themselves to a tribe which does not support them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
What should happen to a man that lies with another man as one lies with a woman?
Nothing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
it says that men who lie with children go to hellI don't know how that interpretation of the bible fits. It was clearly referring to homosexuality.
He's not wrong. Older translations of the Bible do not condemn homosexuality, but rather pederasty. It wasn't until the last 100 years or so that the word 'homosexuality' started appearing in the Bible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
But the bible opposes homosexuality in half a dozen verses.
The Bible is a literary Rorschach - it says what people want it to say. Suffice to say, I prefer to leave 'the Bible says' conversations to believers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
My marriage license didn't come from a church. Did yours?I don't want to get married.
Not the point - marriage licenses are not from a church. Churches attempting to define marriage for government is not what freedom of religion is about.
You're welcome to speak for your own church, but some churches - CHRISTIAN churches - marry gay folks.This violates their religion. Churches shouldn't do things that violate their own religion.
Churches which support gay humans don't think they are violating their own religion, your opinion notwithstanding.
Created:
Posted in:
It seems you've missed the point. "Immuno-compromised" is far more than just being obese and/or stressing over 'fake news'.
Someome can be overweight and immuno-compromised, but one can also be underweight and immuno-compromised. Crohns, IBS, Lupus, Rheumatoid arthritis, and any number of auto-immune diseases have little to do (if anything) with obesity.
*edit* ...and just for the record Parrot boy blocked me for pointing out his ignorance. That's seriously hysterical!
Someome can be overweight and immuno-compromised, but one can also be underweight and immuno-compromised. Crohns, IBS, Lupus, Rheumatoid arthritis, and any number of auto-immune diseases have little to do (if anything) with obesity.
*edit* ...and just for the record Parrot boy blocked me for pointing out his ignorance. That's seriously hysterical!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Yeah, so gays can get married by a judge instead of a church. If gays want to get married, keep the church out of it.
You're welcome to speak for your own church, but some churches - CHRISTIAN churches - marry gay folks.
Stay in your lane.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
If your a gay person and you want to spend the rest of your life with another gay person, why can't you just get a civil union instead of a marriage? Marriage is a religious institution.
Funny. My marriage license didn't come from a church. Did yours?
The fact is the government licenses marriages, so they should be available to everyone regardless of how dogmatic religious folks feel about it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
To a degree, people who have made themselves immuno-compromised by choosing an obese lifestyle or obsessing and stressing over fake news instead of relaxing deserve some of the blame for their own deaths.
It sounds like you have no idea what "immuno-compromised" means. FYI, immuno-compromised doesn't necessarily have anything to do with choice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
There is no inherent meaning to death as far as I am concerned. It is simply a description of the end of life.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Something to consider - if puberty blockers were used there may be no advantage to a 'biological male' competing in female events.
Another thing to consider, some biological females are capable of physically outperforming biological males.
Lastly, depending on the sport, physicality isn't necessarily a deciding factor...think sailing, chess, etc.
I'm sure there may be other considerations, but this is all that comes to mind on short notice.
Suffice to say, there is a lot of nuance left out in the typical discussion on transgender athletes - it is not quite as simple as generally represented.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Skepticism is part of science. Saying 'skeptical science' is like saying 'salty salt'...its redundant. But, hey, you do you. :-)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
...if it were science, the "skeptical" would not be necessary.its clear you dont know science at all budbeing skeptical is part of being a scientist
Yah. Thats the point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
why is skeptical science instantly shut down
...if it were science, the "skeptical" would not be necessary.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
...A trash bag and paper plates.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
I gathered that much. Obviously, we disagree.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
The point is that we need racial harmony among blacks and whites, so we can focus on defeating the jews together.
I think the title of this thread is too long. How about "Stop being racist"?
Created: