That's a sad summary of where many people seem to be at. We're just animals breeding like any other creature following its instinct. Or so they'd have you believe.
And the females control when the breeding takes place.
That's a sad summary of where many people seem to be at. We're just animals breeding like any other creature following its instinct. Or so they'd have you believe.
And the females control when the breeding takes place.
Care to offer any evidence to the contrary?That's a sad summary of where many people seem to be at. We're just animals breeding like any other creature following its instinct. Or so they'd have you believe.
You say that like it is a bad thing....![]()
Care to offer any evidence to the contrary?
The fact that someone even asks the question Lynah just asked says a lot. Or maybe some people think their ability to makes choices doesn't go beyond pizza toppings and such!Well, in Bob's defense, humans are supposed to be the only life-form with freewill and the ability to control ourselves.
I would like a clarification on your drunkenness remark.
Are you saying a woman who gets drunk and miscarries a week into a pregnancy, even if she had no clue she was pregnant, should be guilty of a crime because that is not acceptable? Or are you just making a general statement that drunkeness is not a good thing?
I realize this is personal, anecdotal evidence, but I learned fairly early on that being ugly with bad hygiene is also very effective.
Spoken like someone who didn't have any quality options...
And there we have it, a guy from Wisconsin saying that drunken debauchery is frowned upon - the state that routinely comes in as a top five drinking state.The later, drunkenness is general is frowned upon, even if you are living in the Dakotas.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!But abstaining pre-marriage isn't as bad because you don't have much of an idea how awesome sex is because you've never experienced it.
But abstaining pre-marriage isn't as bad because you don't have much of an idea how awesome sex is because you've never experienced it.
Sure, if you don't let Rosie Palm ever tempt you.
And there we have it, a guy from Wisconsin saying that drunken debauchery is frowned upon - the state that routinely comes in as a top five drinking state.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
I'm sorry, you're right - nobody's having sex out of wedlock. The very notion of such carnal knowledge is absurd.
I know I'm some sort of circus freak, I did not have sex before marriage and I've never been remotely close to being drunk. But I am far from perfect.
Jesus ****ing christ. How many times do you have to be told you have the biology all wrong. Seriously, open a high school level textbook.
Cell division occurs well before implantation.
Seriously, in the big picture, rephrase the concept in a supportive way. or are you really that reactive to people you dislike that you totally ignore what they are getting at???
I'm saying there is no real problem if you terminate a pregnancy before the developing organism is recognizably human. is it really so hard for you to understand that part????
If you don't like my details, then re-write it so it is technically correct while it still gets the same message across.
Real early = fine. Real late = off-limits (even under the law, now: if a child from a partial-birth abortion emerges fully from the womb before its brains are vacuumed out of its skull, it is now murder if you kill it then).
Somewhere in the middle = gets tricky.
Ramble alert:
I think it is interesting to see how the progress in our own scientific and cultural development affects two discussions taking place at different tables in this café--SCOTUS and Religion/SSM. Blackmun got the Roe v. Wade decision in part, it is said, as a result of his experience as legal counsel for Mayo clinic. In addition to the express recognition of a woman's right to privacy in her own body, Roe's balancing of governmental interests in protecting the health of the mother and the potentiality of life in the unborn was grounded in medical science known at the time--at least by those who had a role in the decision. Uno might know how much of the medical rationale was actually discussed by the Court or shared by the other 6 justices who were in the majority. Some of us will not change our position on abortion or SSM based on a static religious beliefs, like Kim Davis. But most of us understand now that many things once thought to be slam dunk simple, science-wise, such as gender identity, are not so simple.
Among other things, progress (which some would probably call regress in matters affected by religious faith) makes all our understanding contextual, including the way we interpret and apply the Constitution. Knowledge and understanding are moving targets, but it is so tempting for most of us to just give up the effort, to rationalize that we already know all that is necessary to reach conclusions even about fundamental questions.
OK, no point to be made here folks, just some early sundowning symptoms. Move along.
Saw this and thought of this thread. Irreverent but funny.
https://www.facebook.com/Maher/videos/10153247342697297/
for the non-FB crowd
http://www.whosay.com/status/BillMaher/1150922?wsref=tw&code=wgob5y1