ABORTION.......

Why don't you actually address what I said?

RL,
How many unwanted babies have you adopted that could not be cared for by the mother, whom didn't believe in abortion either and hence had it and put it into the system?
If the answer is 'none', you could be construed as rather hipocritical

real life wrote:

Why don't you actually address what I said?

Don't you think it more apropos to redress what you said?

Which babies are causing the planetary warming on Mars, where the polar icecaps are melting as well?

Maybe this has something to do with the sun, and not much to do with us.

Nahh. Too logical.

Mozart had several children die soon after birth because he refused them to be allowed milk.

Are you somehow saying that it is our Christian duty to abort babies?

Intrepid wrote:

Are you somehow saying that it is our Christian duty to abort babies?

It might not be the duty of Christians to abort babies...

...but if that religion actually is correct in its silly assumptions about how its god works...

...it might be one the most charitable, selfless thing a Christian could do.

We are nowhere near overpopulation. Babies cause global warming?? Extinction? Wow.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

Are you somehow saying that it is our Christian duty to abort babies?

It might not be the duty of Christians to abort babies...

...but if that religion actually is correct in its silly assumptions about how its god works...

...it might be one the most charitable, selfless thing a Christian could do.

Poppycock

I hereby acknowledge the silliness of the previous post.

Even your St. Paul suggested that he would be (might be) willing to give up "salvation" of his "immortal soul" in order to "save" the souls of others.

You only call it "poppycock" because you don't want to acknowledge the implications of this silly religion...and this babaric god.

You are a silly person, Spendius.

You take up space in the threads without ever saying anything of worth.

What I said is logical...and is anything but silly.

Sad...would be a better word for what it is....logical, but terribly sad.

Quote:

Even your St. Paul suggested that he would be (might be) willing to give up "salvation" of his "immortal soul" in order to "save" the souls of others.

That is meaningless for a start.People suggest all sorts of things that they don't mean and nobody is in any position to give up salvation or to explain what an immortal soul is or to save other souls even if they say they can explain what a soul is.You don't even know whether a person called St Paul ever existed and you are relying on the credibilty of The Bible and The Church for your evidence that he did and that he suggested that he might do what you say he suggested he might do and I understood you thought both The Bible and The Church to be complete rubbish.

Quote:

You only call it "poppycock" because you don't want to acknowledge the implications of this silly religion...and this babaric god.

That relies in its entirety on your idea of silly being actually silly and your idea of barbaric being actually barbaric and the God you say is barbaric you don't think exists or you don't know if he exists.

I don't think that is silly at all.It is objectively silly.What I think has nothing to do with it.

Quote:

You are a silly person, Spendius.

That is passing off a personal prejudiced opinion as a fact which is only not silly in girl's junior schools.

Quote:

You take up space in the threads without ever saying anything of worth.

Ditto and amply contradicted by the viewing figures on the Intelligent Design thread on which I am a mainstay and the compliments I get on the Trivia threads from ladies who don't have a swarm of bees buzzing around their heads.

Quote:

What I said is logical...and is anything but silly.

See above for demo of what you said being as silly as silly gets.

Quote:

Sad...would be a better word for what it is....logical, but terribly sad.

"It" in this context must refer to the last object mentioned to prevent it from being manipulated to refer to anything previously mentioned anywhere.
And once again,as is usual,your prejudiced opinion of what is sad is presented as a fact.

All in all the barrel scrapings of the uttermost silliness.

You are an enjoyable little twerp...I'll give ya that.

Frank wrote-

Quote:

You are an enjoyable little twerp...I'll give ya that.

That's the main thing.

RexRed wrote:

real life wrote:

RexRed wrote:

More babies = more overpopulation = more global warming = extinction

Which babies are causing the planetary warming on Mars, where the polar icecaps are melting as well?

Maybe this has something to do with the sun, and not much to do with us.

Nahh. Too logical.

Maybe maybe not...

Let alone the impact we are having on the earth.

We could at least not hasten the process and put more effort into research and development into natural ways to balance the earth with expanding the rain forests etc...

I am tending to believe that it is a christians duty to protect and be a wise steward of the earth. Not senselessly overpopulate and plunder.

I think the bill of rights needs to be extended to include the earth and in time we will see a new bill of rights written to reflect this idea...

There is absolutely no connection between the immorality of contraceptive abortion, and the condition of the earth. You're dots are getting skewed. Come back to Earth, RR.

Adoption specialists will tell you that there is a larger supply of willing adoptive parents than there is babies waiting to be adopted.

real life wrote:

Why don't you actually address what I said?

Don't you think it more apropos to redress what you said?

No, I don't.

Since you are absolutely unable to answer it, then obviously I stated it correctly.

Which babies are causing the planetary warming on Mars, where the polar icecaps are melting as well?

Maybe this has something to do with the sun, and not much to do with us.

Nahh. Too logical.

Still looks good to me.

Give it your best shot.