I am an atheist.

[ding]

But according to the early thinkers of our country, you can't be good without religion. That's the point.

So what? They traded slavery for votes.

That's an ignorant view. The Founding Fathers believed slavery was against law of nature, intended for it to perish, but were unable to make it happen at the time of founding but did put steps in place and passed laws that stopped it's expansion. All of that changed in the 1820's when most of the founders were dead and the Democratic Party took control, reversed the direction of slavery and expanded it westward.

That's probably why you don't know this history and make dumb ass statements.

 

[cnm]

It's "immoral" to kill another human being because there is no "God"? So if there WAS a "God", it wouldn't be immoral?

Don't you read the old testament?

 

[cnm]

That's an ignorant view.

Oh. Then slavery was prohibited in the Constitution.

 

[cnm]

So...if I live on a mountain, as a hermit, it would be perfectly moral for me to kill anyone who wanders by, take their shit, and eat them? After all, since I have no community, I have no moral obligation to anyone, right?

For many communities it is/was absolutely moral to do that. I suggest in the case of a hermit committing those acts his singular community would not long survive.

 

[ding]

That's an ignorant view.

Oh. Then slavery was prohibited in the Constitution.

You mean you don't know about Article I, Section 9, Clause 1?

 

[K9Buck]

Atheists always run from the discussion, as evidenced here.

 

[Czernobog]

So...if I live on a mountain, as a hermit, it would be perfectly moral for me to kill anyone who wanders by, take their shit, and eat them? After all, since I have no community, I have no moral obligation to anyone, right?

For many communities it is/was absolutely moral to do that. I suggest in the case of a hermit committing those acts his singular community would not long survive.

Again, you're conflating law with morality. They are not the same thing. By your logic, because it is the "community norm", abortion is perfectly moral. However, there are clearly many individuals who would insist otherwise.

 

[BreezeWood]

That's an ignorant view.

Oh. Then slavery was prohibited in the Constitution.

You mean you don't know about Article I, Section 9, Clause 1?

.
you mean you haven't read the 13th amendment -

The 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution officially abolished slavery in America, and was ratified on December 6, 1865, after the conclusion of the American Civil War. The amendment states: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, ...

after the desert religion lost the civil war.

 

[ding]

That's an ignorant view.

Oh. Then slavery was prohibited in the Constitution.

You mean you don't know about Article I, Section 9, Clause 1?

.
you mean you haven't read the 13th amendment -

The 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution officially abolished slavery in America, and was ratified on December 6, 1865, after the conclusion of the American Civil War. The amendment states: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, ...

after the desert religion lost the civil war.

You are skipping a lot of history there, buckoo. Just sweep it under the rug, right?

 

[BreezeWood]

That's an ignorant view.

Oh. Then slavery was prohibited in the Constitution.

You mean you don't know about Article I, Section 9, Clause 1?

.
you mean you haven't read the 13th amendment -

The 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution officially abolished slavery in America, and was ratified on December 6, 1865, after the conclusion of the American Civil War. The amendment states: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, ...

after the desert religion lost the civil war.

You are skipping a lot of history there, buckoo. Just sweep it under the rug, right?

.

You are skipping a lot of history there, buckoo. Just sweep it under the rug, right?

wrong, not skipping anything the civil war was the culmination of christianities attempt to enshrine racism as a rule of law only to linger well into the 20th century before they were finally put to rest by a persistent progressive society.

 

[ding]

I admitted no such thing.

Of course you did in post #105 when you went all overly dramatic and wanted to rip the babies out of the wombs and leave them on the curb. Can we do that with say a 6 week old too?

I recognise no such thing. Further, even if I did, the consequence is awfully one sided. The woman has to go through life threatening bodily changes, her entire life is disrupted for, at least, nine months, then she has to go through the pain of child birth. What, exactly, are the consequences to the father, again. And don't bother with child support, because your little scenario ends with the state taking the kid, meaning the father will not be paying any child support. So, basically, that we recognise that only the woman must bear the responsibility for this "consequence". How nice for men.

So, let's stop there as your entire argument is "punish women".

Whether you recognize their accountability is meaningless. Every other reasonable person on the planet does.

Again you skip steps when you assume the woman bears the entire burden. That just isn't the case in today's society.

 

[ding]

I don't even want to get into the idiocracy of logic required to say abortion is the solution to women not being the ones stuck with a baby because of dead beat dads.

Dead beat dads agree with you. Kill the little ******.

Everyone else looks at this logic like.

 

[ding]

That's an ignorant view.

Oh. Then slavery was prohibited in the Constitution.

You mean you don't know about Article I, Section 9, Clause 1?

.
you mean you haven't read the 13th amendment -

The 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution officially abolished slavery in America, and was ratified on December 6, 1865, after the conclusion of the American Civil War. The amendment states: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, ...

after the desert religion lost the civil war.

You are skipping a lot of history there, buckoo. Just sweep it under the rug, right?

.

You are skipping a lot of history there, buckoo. Just sweep it under the rug, right?

wrong, not skipping anything the civil war was the culmination of christianities attempt to enshrine racism as a rule of law only to linger well into the 20th century before they were finally put to rest by a persistent progressive society.

You skipped every single major turning point. You don't go from the initial state which is no expansion of slavery and cease importing them in 20 years to civil war without a shit load of turning points.

 

[BreezeWood]

Oh. Then slavery was prohibited in the Constitution.

You mean you don't know about Article I, Section 9, Clause 1?

.
you mean you haven't read the 13th amendment -

The 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution officially abolished slavery in America, and was ratified on December 6, 1865, after the conclusion of the American Civil War. The amendment states: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, ...

after the desert religion lost the civil war.

You are skipping a lot of history there, buckoo. Just sweep it under the rug, right?

.

You are skipping a lot of history there, buckoo. Just sweep it under the rug, right?

wrong, not skipping anything the civil war was the culmination of christianities attempt to enshrine racism as a rule of law only to linger well into the 20th century before they were finally put to rest by a persistent progressive society.

You skipped every single major turning point. You don't go from the initial state which is no expansion of slavery and cease importing them in 20 years to civil war without a shit load of turning points.

.

You skipped every single major turning point. You don't go from the initial state which is no expansion of slavery and cease importing them in 20 years to civil war without a shit load of turning points.

yes you do, you go to their armageddon, the civil war the desert religion lost.

 

[ding]

 

[BreezeWood]

is that you having an abortion ...

 

[Czernobog]

I admitted no such thing.

Of course you did in post #105 when you went all overly dramatic and wanted to rip the babies out of the wombs and leave them on the curb. Can we do that with say a 6 week old too?

I recognise no such thing. Further, even if I did, the consequence is awfully one sided. The woman has to go through life threatening bodily changes, her entire life is disrupted for, at least, nine months, then she has to go through the pain of child birth. What, exactly, are the consequences to the father, again. And don't bother with child support, because your little scenario ends with the state taking the kid, meaning the father will not be paying any child support. So, basically, that we recognise that only the woman must bear the responsibility for this "consequence". How nice for men.

So, let's stop there as your entire argument is "punish women".

Whether you recognize their accountability is meaningless. Every other reasonable person on the planet does.

Again you skip steps when you assume the woman bears the entire burden. That just isn't the case in today's society.

I skip nothing. I'm fine with the pregnant woman giving up the fetus. Since you insist there is no difference between a fetus, and child, then there is no restriction on giving up the child. Why are you so insistent that the woman wait until after the birth before she give up the child?

 

[ding]

I admitted no such thing.

Of course you did in post #105 when you went all overly dramatic and wanted to rip the babies out of the wombs and leave them on the curb. Can we do that with say a 6 week old too?

I recognise no such thing. Further, even if I did, the consequence is awfully one sided. The woman has to go through life threatening bodily changes, her entire life is disrupted for, at least, nine months, then she has to go through the pain of child birth. What, exactly, are the consequences to the father, again. And don't bother with child support, because your little scenario ends with the state taking the kid, meaning the father will not be paying any child support. So, basically, that we recognise that only the woman must bear the responsibility for this "consequence". How nice for men.

So, let's stop there as your entire argument is "punish women".

Whether you recognize their accountability is meaningless. Every other reasonable person on the planet does.

Again you skip steps when you assume the woman bears the entire burden. That just isn't the case in today's society.

I skip nothing. I'm fine with the pregnant woman giving up the fetus. Since you insist there is no difference between a fetus, and child, then there is no restriction on giving up the child. Why are you so insistent that the woman wait until after the birth before she give up the child?

I think the legal term would be the best interest of the child. It's that whole human rights thingee which the new human being has.

 

[BreezeWood]

I admitted no such thing.

Of course you did in post #105 when you went all overly dramatic and wanted to rip the babies out of the wombs and leave them on the curb. Can we do that with say a 6 week old too?

I recognise no such thing. Further, even if I did, the consequence is awfully one sided. The woman has to go through life threatening bodily changes, her entire life is disrupted for, at least, nine months, then she has to go through the pain of child birth. What, exactly, are the consequences to the father, again. And don't bother with child support, because your little scenario ends with the state taking the kid, meaning the father will not be paying any child support. So, basically, that we recognise that only the woman must bear the responsibility for this "consequence". How nice for men.

So, let's stop there as your entire argument is "punish women".

Whether you recognize their accountability is meaningless. Every other reasonable person on the planet does.

Again you skip steps when you assume the woman bears the entire burden. That just isn't the case in today's society.

I skip nothing. I'm fine with the pregnant woman giving up the fetus. Since you insist there is no difference between a fetus, and child, then there is no restriction on giving up the child. Why are you so insistent that the woman wait until after the birth before she give up the child?

I think the legal term would be the best interest of the child. It's that whole human rights thingee which the new human being has.

.

I think the legal term would be the best interest of the child. It's that whole human rights thingee which the new human being has.

making a forced pregnancy into your legal right to use against woman is a purely sociopathic manifestation of a religious zealot.

 

[ding]

I admitted no such thing.

Of course you did in post #105 when you went all overly dramatic and wanted to rip the babies out of the wombs and leave them on the curb. Can we do that with say a 6 week old too?

I recognise no such thing. Further, even if I did, the consequence is awfully one sided. The woman has to go through life threatening bodily changes, her entire life is disrupted for, at least, nine months, then she has to go through the pain of child birth. What, exactly, are the consequences to the father, again. And don't bother with child support, because your little scenario ends with the state taking the kid, meaning the father will not be paying any child support. So, basically, that we recognise that only the woman must bear the responsibility for this "consequence". How nice for men.

So, let's stop there as your entire argument is "punish women".

Whether you recognize their accountability is meaningless. Every other reasonable person on the planet does.

Again you skip steps when you assume the woman bears the entire burden. That just isn't the case in today's society.

I skip nothing. I'm fine with the pregnant woman giving up the fetus. Since you insist there is no difference between a fetus, and child, then there is no restriction on giving up the child. Why are you so insistent that the woman wait until after the birth before she give up the child?

I think the legal term would be the best interest of the child. It's that whole human rights thingee which the new human being has.

.

I think the legal term would be the best interest of the child. It's that whole human rights thingee which the new human being has.

making a forced pregnancy into your legal right to use against woman is a purely sociopathic manifestation of a religious zealot.

It's not MY legal right. It is the legal right of the new genetically distinct human life that she created.