SkepticalOne

The problem is that suppose the varied laws meant carbon could not form.  

but one must take a step back and consider that if certain forces in the universe had varied just a little bit in either direction -- if some god had just blown a stray breath on the cosmic scales -- carbon would never have been created at all, stars would never have formed or exploded to create the critical elements, and the very structure of the atom itself would not be able to hold together so neatly

atheism is incidental to my worldview, not central to it.

They're simply hiding behind one part of the defintion while holding the other to be true.

In any case, I don't think declaring the thread "over" because someone said atheism is not a worldview was warranted because it in fact can be.

Skepticism isn't a worldview though

Neither is atheism.

Of course I would. 

👏👏👏

You liked that one! (^8

Of course I would. 

If the woman has rights and the fetus has rights, then one necessarily does not have inalienable rights.  

And that is where your position fails.

A consistent position would have been:

"A baby is a person, but the sovereignty of the mother is a higher right and as long as the baby and mother are inseparable, the rights of the mother trumps"

If you want to end abortion, just castrate any man who gets a woman pregnant accidentally.

Is an embryo in an artificial womb a person?

Given that it is not a part of another being's body and extending rights would not necessarily infringe on the rights of others, I personally see no reason why an embryo in an artificial womb should not be considered a person.

Persons are not persons because they are "considered" persons. 

Personhood is an inalienable right.

Is an embryo in an artificial womb a person?

No one said that reproduction was required of every individual. That is just the spin you need to put on it to keep your "homosexuals are natural" POV going. 

The primary purpose of evolution is reproduction. That is not meant as an affront to homosexuality. It is just a fact. And even heterosexuals can be celibate. 

Don't allow fear and politically correct groupthink to turn you into an irrational lemming. I know you, we always disagree, but you are nowhere as dumb as 3RU7AL.

Calling a baby an invader is stupidity of the highest order. 3RU7AL seems to think stupidity will work where emotion failed. Life is short, I have no time for deliberate stupidity.

Your justification for abortion is that you do not believe the embryo is a human person before a certain time. All that other stuff about immigrants, and invaders is just the stupidity of a progressive idiot thinking he can avert a loss by being an obtuse moron.

It actually weakens your core argument.

Clearly, I don't understand what you're trying to say. How does this purpose of evolution relate to denying the right to abort a pregnancy?

another poster was incorrectly using the term foreign invader, then comparing it to cancer or other abnormal things.  I never said denying the right to abort a pregnancy (3rd time correcting you now) perhaps go back and read from the beginning as I don't wish to constantly repeat myself.

The "primary purpose" of evolution and biology (if it makes sense to say there is a purpose to evolution or biology) is not reproduction - it is survival, and survival does not require the birth of every conception.

This is wrong. 

remember that species that survived but didn't reproduce?  Me either.

who said anything about every conception?  This is the 2nd time I've had to correct you, I clearly said there are too many exceptions to deal with so i'm not going there.

If the purpose of human life is reproduction, what a woeful existence that would be for those unable to fulfill that purpose. Is there no purpose to be had in old age?

the biological purpose, don't omit the words I use because it takes what I say out of context.

Besides, even in nature, a population with no checks on reproduction will reproduce itself to extinction. Assuming for the sake of argument there were an intrinsic purpose to life, reproduction is overly simplistic summary.

checks like starvation and disease?  I don't see a point here.

so what is the primary purpose of humans then if not to reproduce?

This is an observation by Ann Coulter

Atheists are unrighteous because they don't know, and deny, the only one who is righteous.

Atheists take themselves as being God,

I don't agree with this "fight fire with fire" attitude. I don't think it helps anything, I think it makes it worse.

This is a drive-by because you run everytime.

You can't say 'bodily autonomy is a right' and then give a list of exceptions to it. It is either a right for everyone all the time or it is not a right. Furthermore, if a person doesn't have property right on their own body, then all rights are meaningless. Simple as.

Yet you don't follow this. I could ask you a few questions that would expose your irrationality. That is why you don't answer questions. You want to keep your illogical worldview, but pretend you operate by logic.

YOU have an exception to virtually every right there is. Yes you. So your first two sentences are either lies, or the comments of a person who lives inconsistently to his worldview.

I believe you know this, so you breeze in , make these absurd statements, and then dodge questions and fade out. Check past threads. That is your MO. 

For me, it's enough that you can't ( and better, won't) answer questions to your world view. So whether you run or dodge, with you, all we have to show is your unwillingness. That way, we leave the Gentle Reader with one nagging question.

Why won't he answer???

Hey look a Straw Post.

Right. So no measures should be taken?

Is not 95% safety better than 40% safety even if 100% is impossible? Safety cannot be guaranteed but it can be improved.

So either Saudi Arabia needs to be added to your 'no immigrants' spiel...

Please stop being silly. You asked and I answered. 

And I did not say "no immigrants", please don't lie

Perhaps you could calm yourself and try again with less vitriol.

I am calm, notice that unlike you, I'm not lying. Disagreement with you is not vitriol. Address the argument, not the man.

I take it you realize your standard eliminates more than you thought.

And so what? No immigrant has a right to enter America. So what if Abdul is denied entry? So what? My standard eliminates moron terrorists. How is that a disadvantage?

I'm tired of the games...its time for our government to be occupied by individuals who are not quite so fearful.

This is the same mentality and tactic as the racist.

I'm tired of the games...its time for our government to be occupied by individuals who are not quite so inferior.

Both of you assume your conclusion in your premise.

The reason I bring homeless up in particular is because it is a lot harder to het a job in that situation than I think a lot ofnpeople care to realize. Keeping hygiene up is one thing, but willl anyone even hire you if you don't have a home address? What if you are in a place where there aren't any jobs?

I'm just saying, I don't think it is really as simple as you are making it out to be. 

Merit based immigration and strict controls over areas of concern.

What cultures are acceptable in your opinion, it is it more an opinion of what cultures are not acceptable?

Ones where women are not cattle and body parts are not lopped off for blasphemy.

So, places like Saudi Arabia (one of our allies) is unacceptable?

Are you trying to be obtuse, or are you doing it by accident?

If we don't import any criminals, or terrorists into the country, they can't mow down our citizens. How is that difficult to comprehend?

I love my country for many reasons, one being, it's the greatest.

I think we humans are very bad at estimating risks and dangers.  Cows kill a lot more people than sharks do.

The safest time to fly was probably right after 9-11 when security personel etc were super-motivated, but people waited, and thing went back to more or less just going throught the motions.

I bet every one of us does something (smoke, drink, drive a car)that is far more likely to kill us that a mass shooter is.

What cultures are acceptable in your opinion, it is it more an opinion of what cultures are not acceptable?

Ones where women are not cattle and body parts are not lopped off for blasphemy.

What is an acceptable number from your view?

100

How would you like to screen them beyond what we already do?

I would like to remove the terrorists before importing them.