n8nrgmi

you guys are assuming a perfect world is best. why can't an imperfect world that we are saved from be best?  think of a movie with a plot of drama that is overcome. we are arguing that a plot that overcomes a hurdle and ends with "and they lived happily ever after" is best. you guys are arguing that "and they lived happily" is best. i see no reason to assume your world view is best. from a worldly stand point, it's somewhat compelling, but i would have to fall back on all the arguments that PGA is making much better than i could do.  we have reasons to believe in God, so it makes sense to think there's a purpose behind it all and not just a bunch of meaningless cause and effect things happening. that's why it's better to go with "and they lived happily ever after" instead of "and they lived happily". 

if the goal is for something good to come from something bad, then this universe could make the most sense. 

if free will can only exist in an imperfect world, then an imperfect world makes sense. or in other words, what sounds imperfect is in some sense perfect for the purposes of God. 

if it is better to be saved from sin, than to have no sin to begin with, then this world makes sense. "oh happy fault, which gained for us so great a Redeemer". 

i should have said it's a no brainer for conservatives to embrace that compromise. 

it would be dumb for liberals to agree to that compromise, cause AKs are just a fraction of guns out there and abortion would be ended. it would be a no brainer for a conservative to turn that compromise down for the same reason... there are still plenty of guns to go around. 

if you wanted to make the compromise interesting, do a total gun ban v a total abortion ban. 

so your name and the way you act makes you seem like you're a solid christian that is sure of their salvation. how do you feel that so many of the most basic christians out there view your abortion stance as a heresy? why don't you feel you are unrepentant of a grave sin? how does your liberal view of abortion affect your salvation and relationship with God?

why not leave organ donation option, for the sake of freedom, but giving organs only to those that opt into donating them? that's what i've long proposed. people have said it's iinhumane, but i'd say it's only fair if there are a limited number of organs to go around. 

plus it's rare but sometimes they take organs from someone who isn't completely dead or who might have a chance for revival. so i would still give the choice to donate here. 

why is specialization the magical point of human life? at this earliest point, isn't this just a bunch of snow balls compared to a snow man? also, human life is defined to end with a heart beat and brain waves ceasing, so why not when those things begin? 

how are you so sure that a fertilized egg is a person? a snow ball obviously isn't a snow man right? at what point does a bunch of snow balls become a snow man? there's no clear answer. i agree you dont see snow balls that self replicate like the early  fetus does, but the analogy of the snow man still stands. i can see erring on the side of caution in outlawing abortion given the uncertainty, but i cannot see doling out executions for abortion, if it's not even clearly a murder. 

early abortion shouldn't be punished because no one knows if the fetus is a person. it's not like it's clear one way or another, so the law should defer on the side of caution and outlaw almost all abortion, but be real enough to aknowledge it's there's not a clear answer. i'm a little extreme in that i dont want to punish women at all, but there aren't many pro lifers who would get into serious punishment for abortion. it's just a matter of degree of difference. i wouldn't be opposed to a slap on the wrist of some kind, on that note. 

in vitro fertilization is where an egg and sperm is combined outside the body and then implanted into the woman to become pregnant. almost always, there are extra embryos that are created that are later destroyed as unused. the doctors choose the best looking embryo to implant. what should be outlawed here? should discarding unused embryos result in the death penalty? 

do you think in vitro fertilization for infertile couples should be outlawed? should people who disgard of unused embryos against the law be executed too?

do you believe that God punishes people? are the bad effects of wrong doing punishment or just a cause and effect thing? 

do you believe that sin exists? 

so if a dude rapes a woman, and the woman aborts. you want to execute the woman, and the man gets the chance to live? does this at all seem backwards to you?

im asking about a subject completely different than this thread, but i see you're posting and i wanted to ask. what are your views regarding Jesus and the atonement? what significance do you put on Jesus' death? how do you view the penal substitution model? 

you could easily increase the amount of tubes to fifty to ensure some, more than one, would survive. you say the attachment of the parents matter and the pain the child would feel. if that's what you think, then you dont equate a fertilized egg as the same as a born girl. the hypothetical isn't meant for you, unless you try to claim they are the same yet you dont choose the tubes. not that i agree with him, but alec answered the question consistently. either the question doesn't apply to you, or you are not consistent, simple as that. 

second degree murder involves malice but isn't premeditated and is more spontaneous, like a bar fight. don't you think the mitigating factors that society finds with second degree murder are similar to abortion? you could argue abortion is premeditatd, but there are mitigating factors, and it's not the same as someone who plans and carries out a murder. 

if you were in a burning building and you knew five viable test tube babies were at one end of the building, and a little six year old girl was at the other end, and you could only save the tubes or the girl..... which would you save and why? 

you do realize that a very small percent of people support the idea of executing mothers for early term abortion. i realize that popular opinioni doesn't indicate truth necessarily, but what humans think is evidence of the humanity of the situation. 

what do you think about second degree murder? i assume you don't want people executed for murders that were spontaneous in passion? if you do want them executed, why does someone who premedicates and reflects on murder punished the same as someone who acted spontaneously? also, don't you think second degree murder would be more akin to abortions than premeditated murder, given there are a lot of passions involved?

i dont think my position is liberal. it is moderate. i cut off abortion at eighteen weeks, the mid way point of pregnancy where some say pain is felt. i also would technically outlaw almost all abortion, just not enforce it for early ones. and id stress that personhood cannot be defined as not there later in pregnancy, as the supreme court allows states to do now. having a third trimester abortion because you feel inconvinienced or your state allows mental health exceptions, shouldn't happen. 

good article on brain development, and a bunch of ethical concerns 

i understand there are pro choicers who would take the opposite arguments in a way i'm not interested in going, but if you really want to chime in, have at it. a woman must take responsibility for her actions, at least later in the pregnancy when she's had plenty of time to abort and not be punished. personhood might be debateable, but at a certain point it's not any more. to pretend the baby isn't a person till birth is just stupid, and inhumane, and very immoral. 

arent you the one that said you favor the death penalty for murder? you also seem pretty conservative, so would you execute a woman for aborting her one month baby in pregnancy? why or why not? 

who would send a mom and doctor to life in prison, or executed, or decade in prison, for aborting their one month baby? im looking to debate you. 

i'm for outlawing all abortion except for rape, incest and sever fetal abnormality.  but i wouldn't punish women in early pregnancy. i would at the very least define personhood at the stage of fetal pain, half way through the pregnancy. if you have to use pain killers on a baby to abort it, that should tell you how shady the humanity is of what you are doing. i may be up for legislating based on brain waves if they are developed enough, the idea being life ends with the heart and brain, so it could begin there too. i dont know a lot about brain wave science, though. 

simply acknowledging that one race has advantages over other(s) isn't white supremacy. that's just stupid. 

i dont know. there may be asian privilege. or they may be discriminated moreso on balance. i dont know. but in general, if you are not white, you are discriminated against more so than whites. i understand the argument that the lack of a negative isn't necessarily a positive, but that's only in the abstract. in every day common sense, if you don't have a negative, that's a good thing, a plus.... a privilege. 

the disadvantage of not being white, is just another name for white privilege. a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. damn it, logic! it will do that to ya. 

are you of the african orthodox persuasion? 

i also think blacks are not as smart as whites. i can argue the science behind this with the best of them, though. doesn't mean i'm racist. perhaps more so than you guys. 

my point, is i have no reason to race bait. i'm just calling a spade a spade, and showing you guys as unable to rebut basic science, and basic logic. 

i'm not really a race baiter. i'm just calling a spade a spade. you can't can't adequately rebut hard science, or basic logic. 

i'm probably more racist than you guys too. i have more bias when im inconvenienced by a black person more than a white. this i concede is racist. things i'm not racist about, but could be called so: i suspect blacks of wrong doing more than whites. i think we'd be better off no letting blacks import from africa, even the smart ones, cause many of them will assimilat to ghetto life and such. inferno at debate.org always was on my case about being a racist, even though i'm not. i just have some minor racist thoughts, and am racially aware. 

here is more on race and police shootings 

you can find this study in the last link. it talks about implicit bias. where people are generally more likely to shoot someone because they are black. 

i agree blacks do kill more, so increased fear is somewhat justifable. but this still shows white privilege as you're not as likely to be shot. it's not fair that bad blacks give a bad name to good blacks, but that's still the truth. i think i read once that even blacks shoot blacks more often. but it's still a racial bias, an privilege

look at the links i posted. it doesn't matter what your credentials are, or what crime you committed, you are still more likely to be not called back or shot, if you are black. i concur with you that if a black person looks or acts gangsta, you can and should discriminate against them. this is more than that, though. 

are whites shot by police more often? of course they are. but not at the same rate. you are confusing a basic statistical concept. here is some evidence...

so are you for real implying it's only ghetto blacks that get discriminated against more often than whites? 

here is the studies that say whites are called back more than blacks. 

everyone can pronounce Jamal. if the credentials are exactly the same, it's either a conscious or unconscious prejudice. hence white privilege. 

....

do ya'll deny that blacks are discriminated against more often than whites, and also tend to have more economic set backs? 

of course this is all true, it's obvious to anyone with a brain

blacks are often discriminated against just because they are black. if you have black name on a resume you are less likely to be called. if you are black, you are more likely to be shot for the same crimes as white people. there are inherent set backs that exist if you live in the black ghetto. 

if you acknowledge that these things are true, which they are.... how can you deny white privilege exists?

how do you account for the health care cost savings of having the pollution reducing technology? in pennsylvania alone in a year they had over four billion in savings according to the article. that's a significant part of the whole cost of the technology, and over years and in all states, it's clear healthcare costs far outweigh the costs of the pollution reducing technology. 

is your position that one hundred percent of people who are denied a gun via background checks will run out and get one illegally? if that's not your position, wouldn't not having a gun lower the chances that someone will kill in a spontaneous act of passion domestic dispute? 

education and intelligence is correlated. google it if you don't believe me. this is as basic as it gets factually, and ya'll r tryin to deny it. 

all ya'll are just choosing to ignore the data with no data of your own. u choose to reject it simply because u dont like it. that's not how science works. very trumpian of ya'll

matthew 5:38 jesus said you have heard it said an eye for an eye, but jesus said turn the other cheek

jesus told the apostles to say the 'our father' which asks god to forgive us. 

you're also ignoring the healthcare costs. pennsylvania alone recouped a quarter of the total national cost on remediation. i'm sure the costs benefits weigh in favor of these regulations. 

what's wrong with doing this via the federal level? it's a universal problem. the interstate state commerce clause of the constitution allows for regulating these things. 

also, a lot of states won't want to regulate this, so they can better compete with other states. or they will just refuse to. why should the victims in those states suffer? 

im curious, what are a few things you disagree with trump about?

what are a few things you wish trump would be more liberal about? 

the article said pollution was reduced by over eighty percent. if that meant eighty percent less death and disease, wouldn't that be worth it? what's the dollar value of death and disease? i can see your point in the abstract, but if you look at the specific numbers, it doesn't look like we should be letting mercury go unchecked. 

he has said that he has no need to ask God for forgiveness. he has also said his favorite bible verse is 'an eye for an eye'. jesus condemned both of those mindsets. this isn't even mentioning his policies. 

do these things disqualify trump as a christian? 

here is some background info on this

...

mercury is a seriously lethal element and causes brain problems among other things. trump was pushing for letting businesses pollute more mercury into the environment, because he said the cost was too much to mitigate the effects. for example, they have scrubbers that limit the amount of pollution. 

so, how do all ya'll who support everything trump does, justify this?