Can you be smarter than even “God”?

[ding]

I thought you said you were done? I wasn't talking about running away from this argument, dumbass. I was talking about all the others. I've already made my argument, dumbass.

Yes, and your argument proved insufficient, because you seem to think that "alive" is all-important, and choose to ignore the medical reality of viability. So, now you keep calling me a dumbass, hoping that attacking me will work where your irrational argument failed. It doesn't. Toddle off, you're just embarrassing yourself, now.

Only to you because you are a dumbass. Tell me... was this "fetus" viable, dumbass?

"Warning Graphic Image"

http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/abortionimages/abort22.jpg

.

Tell me... was this "fetus" viable, dumbass?

and how many of these beings will be saved ... dumb ass.

That depends upon you, athee.

.

That depends upon you, athee.

your a joke - I do my best ... the ignorance alone of 4th century christianity has been a thorn in the side of Garden Earth for centurys.

the asphalt jungle, their latest testament to an insufferable past of neglect and waste.

I've been called worse. It's not so bad especially coming from a 4th century atheist.

 

[Czernobog]

I didn't run away from shit. You decided that since you have no rational argu7ment, you would just resort to attacking me, personally. It's pathetic, and reveals how irrational you actually are. Now, toddle on off. You're done.

I thought you said you were done? I wasn't talking about running away from this argument, dumbass. I was talking about all the others. I've already made my argument, dumbass.

Yes, and your argument proved insufficient, because you seem to think that "alive" is all-important, and choose to ignore the medical reality of viability. So, now you keep calling me a dumbass, hoping that attacking me will work where your irrational argument failed. It doesn't. Toddle off, you're just embarrassing yourself, now.

Only to you because you are a dumbass. Tell me... was this "fetus" viable, dumbass?

"Warning Graphic Image"

http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/abortionimages/abort22.jpg

Well, while we're asking stupid questions, are you saying that this fetus is equivalent to an infant?

And the answer to your stupid question was no, most likely it was not. I looks as if the basic structure was barely formed, let alone the essential internal organs necessary for survival. But, you see, you didn't want a rational answer to your question. You were hoping to evoke revulsion, and shame, and an emotional response to how similar the feus appeared to be to a fully formed infant. Well, sorry. Emotional arguments are no more valid with visual aids than they are without them. When you have a argument that can stand on reason feel free to come on back.

In the mean time, just **** on off, because all your doing is embarrassing yourself.

And yet it is a human being with all of the characteristics it should have at this stage of its human life cycle. My argument stands on reason and science. It is your argument that stands on emotion.

You keep telling yourself that...

You never answered the question, though. Is the fetus in that photograph equivalent to an infant?

 

[ding]

I thought you said you were done? I wasn't talking about running away from this argument, dumbass. I was talking about all the others. I've already made my argument, dumbass.

Yes, and your argument proved insufficient, because you seem to think that "alive" is all-important, and choose to ignore the medical reality of viability. So, now you keep calling me a dumbass, hoping that attacking me will work where your irrational argument failed. It doesn't. Toddle off, you're just embarrassing yourself, now.

Only to you because you are a dumbass. Tell me... was this "fetus" viable, dumbass?

"Warning Graphic Image"

http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/abortionimages/abort22.jpg

Well, while we're asking stupid questions, are you saying that this fetus is equivalent to an infant?

And the answer to your stupid question was no, most likely it was not. I looks as if the basic structure was barely formed, let alone the essential internal organs necessary for survival. But, you see, you didn't want a rational answer to your question. You were hoping to evoke revulsion, and shame, and an emotional response to how similar the feus appeared to be to a fully formed infant. Well, sorry. Emotional arguments are no more valid with visual aids than they are without them. When you have a argument that can stand on reason feel free to come on back.

In the mean time, just **** on off, because all your doing is embarrassing yourself.

And yet it is a human being with all of the characteristics it should have at this stage of its human life cycle. My argument stands on reason and science. It is your argument that stands on emotion.

You keep telling yourself that...

You never answered the question, though. Is the fetus in that photograph equivalent to an infant?

I will because it is true. It is equivalent to a human being in its stage of the human life cycle. It is alive, dumbass.

 

[Czernobog]

Yes, and your argument proved insufficient, because you seem to think that "alive" is all-important, and choose to ignore the medical reality of viability. So, now you keep calling me a dumbass, hoping that attacking me will work where your irrational argument failed. It doesn't. Toddle off, you're just embarrassing yourself, now.

Only to you because you are a dumbass. Tell me... was this "fetus" viable, dumbass?

"Warning Graphic Image"

http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/abortionimages/abort22.jpg

Well, while we're asking stupid questions, are you saying that this fetus is equivalent to an infant?

And the answer to your stupid question was no, most likely it was not. I looks as if the basic structure was barely formed, let alone the essential internal organs necessary for survival. But, you see, you didn't want a rational answer to your question. You were hoping to evoke revulsion, and shame, and an emotional response to how similar the feus appeared to be to a fully formed infant. Well, sorry. Emotional arguments are no more valid with visual aids than they are without them. When you have a argument that can stand on reason feel free to come on back.

In the mean time, just **** on off, because all your doing is embarrassing yourself.

And yet it is a human being with all of the characteristics it should have at this stage of its human life cycle. My argument stands on reason and science. It is your argument that stands on emotion.

You keep telling yourself that...

You never answered the question, though. Is the fetus in that photograph equivalent to an infant?

I will because it is true. It is equivalent to a human being in its stage of the human life cycle. It is alive, dumbass.

Actually, you're the dumbass, and you have just demonstrated the arrogant ignorance of you, and your position:

When a fetus is so undeveloped that you can't even tell what species it is, it does not have any of the rights, and privileges of an actual person. Now toddle off, fucktard. Your argument is a failure.

 

[ding]

Only to you because you are a dumbass. Tell me... was this "fetus" viable, dumbass?

"Warning Graphic Image"

http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/abortionimages/abort22.jpg

Well, while we're asking stupid questions, are you saying that this fetus is equivalent to an infant?

And the answer to your stupid question was no, most likely it was not. I looks as if the basic structure was barely formed, let alone the essential internal organs necessary for survival. But, you see, you didn't want a rational answer to your question. You were hoping to evoke revulsion, and shame, and an emotional response to how similar the feus appeared to be to a fully formed infant. Well, sorry. Emotional arguments are no more valid with visual aids than they are without them. When you have a argument that can stand on reason feel free to come on back.

In the mean time, just **** on off, because all your doing is embarrassing yourself.

And yet it is a human being with all of the characteristics it should have at this stage of its human life cycle. My argument stands on reason and science. It is your argument that stands on emotion.

You keep telling yourself that...

You never answered the question, though. Is the fetus in that photograph equivalent to an infant?

I will because it is true. It is equivalent to a human being in its stage of the human life cycle. It is alive, dumbass.

Actually, you're the dumbass, and you have just demonstrated the arrogant ignorance of you, and your position:

When a fetus is so undeveloped that you can't even tell what species it is, it does not have any of the rights, and privileges of an actual person. Now toddle off, fucktard. Your argument is a failure.

No. It doesn't piss me off. It just goes to show how far you will stoop to justify your denial of humanity for our most innocent members. That is what makes you a dumbass. You can't admit that it is wrong to end a human life so you rationalize that it is just and right.

 

[Marion Morrison]

For the OP to even pose a question such as he did, is retarded.

He's not even a smart man, let alone being smarter than God.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Only to you because you are a dumbass. Tell me... was this "fetus" viable, dumbass?

"Warning Graphic Image"

http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/abortionimages/abort22.jpg

Well, while we're asking stupid questions, are you saying that this fetus is equivalent to an infant?

And the answer to your stupid question was no, most likely it was not. I looks as if the basic structure was barely formed, let alone the essential internal organs necessary for survival. But, you see, you didn't want a rational answer to your question. You were hoping to evoke revulsion, and shame, and an emotional response to how similar the feus appeared to be to a fully formed infant. Well, sorry. Emotional arguments are no more valid with visual aids than they are without them. When you have a argument that can stand on reason feel free to come on back.

In the mean time, just **** on off, because all your doing is embarrassing yourself.

And yet it is a human being with all of the characteristics it should have at this stage of its human life cycle. My argument stands on reason and science. It is your argument that stands on emotion.

You keep telling yourself that...

You never answered the question, though. Is the fetus in that photograph equivalent to an infant?

I will because it is true. It is equivalent to a human being in its stage of the human life cycle. It is alive, dumbass.

Actually, you're the dumbass, and you have just demonstrated the arrogant ignorance of you, and your position:

When a fetus is so undeveloped that you can't even tell what species it is, it does not have any of the rights, and privileges of an actual person. Now toddle off, fucktard. Your argument is a failure.

So you advocate elephant abortions? Is that where this is going? That's pretty nasty.

 

[Czernobog]

Well, while we're asking stupid questions, are you saying that this fetus is equivalent to an infant?

And the answer to your stupid question was no, most likely it was not. I looks as if the basic structure was barely formed, let alone the essential internal organs necessary for survival. But, you see, you didn't want a rational answer to your question. You were hoping to evoke revulsion, and shame, and an emotional response to how similar the feus appeared to be to a fully formed infant. Well, sorry. Emotional arguments are no more valid with visual aids than they are without them. When you have a argument that can stand on reason feel free to come on back.

In the mean time, just **** on off, because all your doing is embarrassing yourself.

And yet it is a human being with all of the characteristics it should have at this stage of its human life cycle. My argument stands on reason and science. It is your argument that stands on emotion.

You keep telling yourself that...

You never answered the question, though. Is the fetus in that photograph equivalent to an infant?

I will because it is true. It is equivalent to a human being in its stage of the human life cycle. It is alive, dumbass.

Actually, you're the dumbass, and you have just demonstrated the arrogant ignorance of you, and your position:

When a fetus is so undeveloped that you can't even tell what species it is, it does not have any of the rights, and privileges of an actual person. Now toddle off, fucktard. Your argument is a failure.

No. It doesn't piss me off. It just goes to show how far you will stoop to justify your denial of humanity for our most innocent members. That is what makes you a dumbass. You can't admit that it is wrong to end a human life so you rationalize that it is just and right.

Embryos are not members of humanity, no matter how many times you claim otherwise. Until the 25th week, it is just a part of the woman, and she has every right to do whateve3r she sees fit with it. It is not viable, it is not independent, it is just a collection of cells. Choosing to ignore medical conclusion is not reason.

 

[BreezeWood]

Yes, and your argument proved insufficient, because you seem to think that "alive" is all-important, and choose to ignore the medical reality of viability. So, now you keep calling me a dumbass, hoping that attacking me will work where your irrational argument failed. It doesn't. Toddle off, you're just embarrassing yourself, now.

Only to you because you are a dumbass. Tell me... was this "fetus" viable, dumbass?

"Warning Graphic Image"

http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/abortionimages/abort22.jpg

.

Tell me... was this "fetus" viable, dumbass?

and how many of these beings will be saved ... dumb ass.

That depends upon you, athee.

.

That depends upon you, athee.

your a joke - I do my best ... the ignorance alone of 4th century christianity has been a thorn in the side of Garden Earth for centurys.

the asphalt jungle, their latest testament to an insufferable past of neglect and waste.

I've been called worse. It's not so bad especially coming from a 4th century atheist.

.

I've been called worse. It's not so bad especially coming from a 4th century atheist.

I'm sure ...

but you are a 4th century christian, sorry, there is nothing worse, history is the testament you can not deny.

and no, 1st century Remission is for everyone, literally otherwise there need not be a reason for anyone to apply.

 

[thanatos144]

Remeber the people telling you a unborn baby isn't a human are the same kind of people that said black people were property and not human

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[Czernobog]

Remeber the people telling you a unborn baby isn't a human are the same kind of people that said black people were property and not human

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

No, they're actually not. But, again, it is easier to attack the character than the argument, when you have no rational response.

 

[ding]

And yet it is a human being with all of the characteristics it should have at this stage of its human life cycle. My argument stands on reason and science. It is your argument that stands on emotion.

You keep telling yourself that...

You never answered the question, though. Is the fetus in that photograph equivalent to an infant?

I will because it is true. It is equivalent to a human being in its stage of the human life cycle. It is alive, dumbass.

Actually, you're the dumbass, and you have just demonstrated the arrogant ignorance of you, and your position:

When a fetus is so undeveloped that you can't even tell what species it is, it does not have any of the rights, and privileges of an actual person. Now toddle off, fucktard. Your argument is a failure.

No. It doesn't piss me off. It just goes to show how far you will stoop to justify your denial of humanity for our most innocent members. That is what makes you a dumbass. You can't admit that it is wrong to end a human life so you rationalize that it is just and right.

Embryos are not members of humanity, no matter how many times you claim otherwise. Until the 25th week, it is just a part of the woman, and she has every right to do whateve3r she sees fit with it. It is not viable, it is not independent, it is just a collection of cells. Choosing to ignore medical conclusion is not reason.

Sure they are. They are human beings in the earliest stage of the human life cycle, dumbass. Maybe you should read an embryology textbook. They all say the same thing.... human life begins at conception.

 

[BreezeWood]

Remeber the people telling you a unborn baby isn't a human are the same kind of people that said black people were property and not human

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

.

no that was dread scott, your people who kept him as property, fool.

maybe it is just for $$$ you are such a bigot you obviously have no sense of jurisprudence that is not your own personal ambition ... troll.

 

[BreezeWood]

You keep telling yourself that...

You never answered the question, though. Is the fetus in that photograph equivalent to an infant?

I will because it is true. It is equivalent to a human being in its stage of the human life cycle. It is alive, dumbass.

Actually, you're the dumbass, and you have just demonstrated the arrogant ignorance of you, and your position:

When a fetus is so undeveloped that you can't even tell what species it is, it does not have any of the rights, and privileges of an actual person. Now toddle off, fucktard. Your argument is a failure.

No. It doesn't piss me off. It just goes to show how far you will stoop to justify your denial of humanity for our most innocent members. That is what makes you a dumbass. You can't admit that it is wrong to end a human life so you rationalize that it is just and right.

Embryos are not members of humanity, no matter how many times you claim otherwise. Until the 25th week, it is just a part of the woman, and she has every right to do whateve3r she sees fit with it. It is not viable, it is not independent, it is just a collection of cells. Choosing to ignore medical conclusion is not reason.

Sure they are. They are human beings in the earliest stage of the human life cycle, dumbass. Maybe you should read an embryology textbook. They all say the same thing.... human life begins at conception.

.

Sure they are. They are human beings in the earliest stage of the human life cycle, dumbass. Maybe you should read an embryology textbook. They all say the same thing.... human life begins at conception.

where is your sense of propriety, is there a difference in the eye of the Almighty, well not yours the 1st century one.

“Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani

sorry again, your guy did not make the cut as they intended by your book but don't let that get in your way.

 

[Czernobog]

You keep telling yourself that...

You never answered the question, though. Is the fetus in that photograph equivalent to an infant?

I will because it is true. It is equivalent to a human being in its stage of the human life cycle. It is alive, dumbass.

Actually, you're the dumbass, and you have just demonstrated the arrogant ignorance of you, and your position:

When a fetus is so undeveloped that you can't even tell what species it is, it does not have any of the rights, and privileges of an actual person. Now toddle off, fucktard. Your argument is a failure.

No. It doesn't piss me off. It just goes to show how far you will stoop to justify your denial of humanity for our most innocent members. That is what makes you a dumbass. You can't admit that it is wrong to end a human life so you rationalize that it is just and right.

Embryos are not members of humanity, no matter how many times you claim otherwise. Until the 25th week, it is just a part of the woman, and she has every right to do whateve3r she sees fit with it. It is not viable, it is not independent, it is just a collection of cells. Choosing to ignore medical conclusion is not reason.

Sure they are. They are human beings in the earliest stage of the human life cycle, dumbass. Maybe you should read an embryology textbook. They all say the same thing.... human life begins at conception.

Humanity isn't about living, or not, fucktard. It is about individuality. Doctors also all agree that a fetus is not considered a patient - in other words, a separate individual - until they have reached viability. You want to ignore that so that you can cling to your religious desire to control what other people do.

 

[ding]

I will because it is true. It is equivalent to a human being in its stage of the human life cycle. It is alive, dumbass.

Actually, you're the dumbass, and you have just demonstrated the arrogant ignorance of you, and your position:

When a fetus is so undeveloped that you can't even tell what species it is, it does not have any of the rights, and privileges of an actual person. Now toddle off, fucktard. Your argument is a failure.

No. It doesn't piss me off. It just goes to show how far you will stoop to justify your denial of humanity for our most innocent members. That is what makes you a dumbass. You can't admit that it is wrong to end a human life so you rationalize that it is just and right.

Embryos are not members of humanity, no matter how many times you claim otherwise. Until the 25th week, it is just a part of the woman, and she has every right to do whateve3r she sees fit with it. It is not viable, it is not independent, it is just a collection of cells. Choosing to ignore medical conclusion is not reason.

Sure they are. They are human beings in the earliest stage of the human life cycle, dumbass. Maybe you should read an embryology textbook. They all say the same thing.... human life begins at conception.

.

Sure they are. They are human beings in the earliest stage of the human life cycle, dumbass. Maybe you should read an embryology textbook. They all say the same thing.... human life begins at conception.

where is your sense of propriety, is there a difference in the eye of the Almighty, well not yours the 1st century one.

“Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani

sorry again, your guy did not make the cut as they intended by your book but don't let that get in your way.

My sense of propriety? My sense of propriety tells me to not gloat when 4th century atheists like yourself Darwinize themselves out of existence. How's that for a sense of propriety? But putting that aside, we live in a universe where there has never been an uncaused event which means that the shit world you live in is a shit world of your own making.

If you knew what was meant by Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani, you wouldn't be the dumbass that you are. Your knee will bend to Him, one way or another.

 

[ding]

I will because it is true. It is equivalent to a human being in its stage of the human life cycle. It is alive, dumbass.

Actually, you're the dumbass, and you have just demonstrated the arrogant ignorance of you, and your position:

When a fetus is so undeveloped that you can't even tell what species it is, it does not have any of the rights, and privileges of an actual person. Now toddle off, fucktard. Your argument is a failure.

No. It doesn't piss me off. It just goes to show how far you will stoop to justify your denial of humanity for our most innocent members. That is what makes you a dumbass. You can't admit that it is wrong to end a human life so you rationalize that it is just and right.

Embryos are not members of humanity, no matter how many times you claim otherwise. Until the 25th week, it is just a part of the woman, and she has every right to do whateve3r she sees fit with it. It is not viable, it is not independent, it is just a collection of cells. Choosing to ignore medical conclusion is not reason.

Sure they are. They are human beings in the earliest stage of the human life cycle, dumbass. Maybe you should read an embryology textbook. They all say the same thing.... human life begins at conception.

Humanity isn't about living, or not, fucktard. It is about individuality. Doctors also all agree that a fetus is not considered a patient - in other words, a separate individual - until they have reached viability. You want to ignore that so that you can cling to your religious desire to control what other people do.

Thank you for proving my point in my signature line.

Socialism intentionally denies examination because it is irrational. There is no formal defined dogma of socialism. Instead there is only a vague, rosy notion of something good, noble and just: the advent of these things will bring instant euphoria and a social order beyond reproach. Socialism seeks equality through uniformity and communal ownership Socialism has an extraordinary ability to incite and inflame its adherents and inspire social movements. Socialists dismiss their defeats and ignore their incongruities. They desire big government and use big government to implement their morally relativistic social policies. Socialism is a religion. The religious nature of socialism explains their hostility towards traditional religions which is that of one rival religion over another. Their dogma is based on materialism, primitive instincts, atheism and the deification of man. They see no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural Marxism and normalization of deviance. They worship science but are the first to reject it when it suits their purposes. They can be identified by an external locus of control. Their religious doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and equality via uniformity and communal ownership. They practice critical theory which is the Cultural Marxist theory to criticize what they do not believe to arrive at what they do believe without ever having to examine what they believe.

 

[ding]

I will because it is true. It is equivalent to a human being in its stage of the human life cycle. It is alive, dumbass.

Actually, you're the dumbass, and you have just demonstrated the arrogant ignorance of you, and your position:

When a fetus is so undeveloped that you can't even tell what species it is, it does not have any of the rights, and privileges of an actual person. Now toddle off, fucktard. Your argument is a failure.

No. It doesn't piss me off. It just goes to show how far you will stoop to justify your denial of humanity for our most innocent members. That is what makes you a dumbass. You can't admit that it is wrong to end a human life so you rationalize that it is just and right.

Embryos are not members of humanity, no matter how many times you claim otherwise. Until the 25th week, it is just a part of the woman, and she has every right to do whateve3r she sees fit with it. It is not viable, it is not independent, it is just a collection of cells. Choosing to ignore medical conclusion is not reason.

Sure they are. They are human beings in the earliest stage of the human life cycle, dumbass. Maybe you should read an embryology textbook. They all say the same thing.... human life begins at conception.

Humanity isn't about living, or not, fucktard. It is about individuality. Doctors also all agree that a fetus is not considered a patient - in other words, a separate individual - until they have reached viability. You want to ignore that so that you can cling to your religious desire to control what other people do.

Apparently you are waiting for a soul to enter their bodies before you admit that they are human beings. Science tells us that they are human beings at conception.

 

[Czernobog]

Actually, you're the dumbass, and you have just demonstrated the arrogant ignorance of you, and your position:

When a fetus is so undeveloped that you can't even tell what species it is, it does not have any of the rights, and privileges of an actual person. Now toddle off, fucktard. Your argument is a failure.

No. It doesn't piss me off. It just goes to show how far you will stoop to justify your denial of humanity for our most innocent members. That is what makes you a dumbass. You can't admit that it is wrong to end a human life so you rationalize that it is just and right.

Embryos are not members of humanity, no matter how many times you claim otherwise. Until the 25th week, it is just a part of the woman, and she has every right to do whateve3r she sees fit with it. It is not viable, it is not independent, it is just a collection of cells. Choosing to ignore medical conclusion is not reason.

Sure they are. They are human beings in the earliest stage of the human life cycle, dumbass. Maybe you should read an embryology textbook. They all say the same thing.... human life begins at conception.

They worship science but are the first to reject it when it suits their purposes.

.

It's you who is ignoring science, fucktard. Viability is a medical conclusion. That makes it science. But, you want to ignore that, so that you can equate a clump of cells with a fully functioning, independent human being, and take away her right to do with her own body as she wishes

 

[BreezeWood]

Actually, you're the dumbass, and you have just demonstrated the arrogant ignorance of you, and your position:

When a fetus is so undeveloped that you can't even tell what species it is, it does not have any of the rights, and privileges of an actual person. Now toddle off, fucktard. Your argument is a failure.

No. It doesn't piss me off. It just goes to show how far you will stoop to justify your denial of humanity for our most innocent members. That is what makes you a dumbass. You can't admit that it is wrong to end a human life so you rationalize that it is just and right.

Embryos are not members of humanity, no matter how many times you claim otherwise. Until the 25th week, it is just a part of the woman, and she has every right to do whateve3r she sees fit with it. It is not viable, it is not independent, it is just a collection of cells. Choosing to ignore medical conclusion is not reason.

Sure they are. They are human beings in the earliest stage of the human life cycle, dumbass. Maybe you should read an embryology textbook. They all say the same thing.... human life begins at conception.

.

Sure they are. They are human beings in the earliest stage of the human life cycle, dumbass. Maybe you should read an embryology textbook. They all say the same thing.... human life begins at conception.

where is your sense of propriety, is there a difference in the eye of the Almighty, well not yours the 1st century one.

“Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani

sorry again, your guy did not make the cut as they intended by your book but don't let that get in your way.

My sense of propriety? My sense of propriety tells me to not gloat when 4th century atheists like yourself Darwinize themselves out of existence. How's that for a sense of propriety? But putting that aside, we live in a universe where there has never been an uncaused event which means that the shit world you live in is a shit world of your own making.

If you knew what was meant by Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani, you wouldn't be the dumbass that you are. Your knee will bend to Him, one way or another.

.

My sense of propriety? My sense of propriety tells me to not gloat when 4th century atheists like yourself Darwinize themselves out of existence. How's that for a sense of propriety? But putting that aside, we live in a universe where there has never been an uncaused event which means that the shit world you live in is a shit world of your own making.

the above is the secular reason for choice, yours is a blind eye of deceit and purposeful degradation of others, the Garden Earth for your own ineptitude to reason beyond your own personal gratification.

we know what were the final words spoken on the cross, it is you who lies to make not real the true outcome and meaning of the closing act of the 1st century - and the fallacy when the meaning of the proverb to abandon the child was not fulfilled.