-
Anonymous
-
Anonymous
-
Anonymous
@tingle007: I think we need to take this idea a step further. I personally can become physically ill when I see breasts smaller than a c cup, and I know I'm not the only one, there's a support group and everything. What I'm going to suggest is mandatory breast enhancement for all small breasted women. I believe in the long run more large breasted women can a bring about even more positive societal changes.
21 -
Anonymous
-
Anonymous
-
Anonymous
"Faith-based" (lol, what a stupid phrase) hospitals can actually do whatever the fuck they feel like, but they have to abide by federal regulations to receive federal funding. So the real issue is Catholic-owned hospitals whining like a little bitch because they like the taste of the government teat, but don't want to have to offend God by giving Catholics something 98% of them use anyway.
-
Anonymous
@Anonymous: But having sex with a condom is choosing to kill millions and billions of baby jesuses.
I've forgotten what my point was.3 -
Anonymous
-
Anonymous
@Anonymous: That is so horrifying. I'm going to wear a bracelet that says "TAKE ME ANYWHERE BUT A RELIGIOUS HOSPITAL". Can't wait for an ectopic pregnancy to kill me because they didn't want to interfere with sky wizard's plans.
2 -
Anonymous
-
Anonymous
@Anonymous: The point is, that if you're dying and you choose to do something about it via taking medicines that were discovered/created using the Science so often disputed by religious nutjobs, you're a hypocrite. You can choose to ignore your God's will/faith in one instance, but not another? You can't pick and choose and expect it to be imposed upon everybody because of your shitty beliefs.
-
Anonymous
-
Anonymous
-
Anonymous
@Anonymous: Then it was God's will to allow cloning as well, and religious retards should stop protesting it, as well as allowing abortion, and stem cell research.
21 -
Anonymous
-
-
Anonymous
-
Anonymous
@Anonymous: Cloning isn't killing, abortion isn't killing based in the true definition of life, and stem cell research also doesn't involve killing anything. I fail to see the point of your response.
-
Anonymous
@Dr_SnM: Leviticus 11:9 ESV
“These you may eat, of all that are in the waters. Everything in the waters that has fins and scales, whether in the seas or in the rivers, you may eat.
Deuteronomy 14:1-29 ESV
“You are the sons of the Lord your God. You shall not cut yourselves or make any baldness on your foreheads for the dead. For you are a people holy to the Lord your God, and the Lord has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth. “You shall not eat any abomination. These are the animals you may eat: the ox, the sheep, the goat, the deer, the gazelle, the roebuck, the wild goat, the ibex, the antelope, and the mountain sheep. ...
Leviticus 11:1-47 ESV
...Nevertheless, among those that chew the cud or part the hoof, you shall not eat these: The camel, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you. And the rock badger, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you. ...
TL;DR Thou shalt not krill
3 -
Anonymous
-
Anonymous
-
Anonymous
@Anonymous: But we haven't, and we won't, thus entirely irrelevant and you're still ignoring the other points. If you continue to flat out ignore part of the retort, you've flat out lost and I'm not going to waste my time replying to you.
-
Anonymous
-
Anonymous
@Anonymous: Life begins at conception. Choosing to terminate a life after that point is murder. This point cannot be argued.
-
Anonymous
@Anonymous: Except it isn't, and again ignoring inconvenient points that destroy your argument. Also, it wouldn't hurt to look up the word "life" since you clearly don't know what it means or what constitutes it. Since you continue to ignore the other points, you've lost and I shant waste my time replying to you. Enjoy your strawman argument.
-
Anonymous
-
Anonymous
@Anonymous: Actually, yeah. I'm just dicking around at the moment. Waiting for someone to call me out on it.
-
Anonymous
-
Anonymous
-
Anonymous
-
Anonymous
@Anonymous: So in other words, you think your religious convictions are more valid than my religious convictions.
Fuck you and fuck off. -
Anonymous
@Anonymous: Did you have to practice being inconsistent, or does it just come naturally?
-
Anonymous
@Drassel: No, but asking someone to violate their conscience to save you $9 a month is pretty dickish.
The point of insurance is to cover things you don't expect, e.g. antibiotics, pacemakers, organ transplants etc.
Things like vaccines serve a public health purpose, as do condoms (which is why it's fairly easy to get those free). Not getting pregnant is not a public health reason, as pregnancy isn't contagious. -
Anonymous
@Anonymous: That's not a bad point. Condoms can be obtained free, Pill based birth control is a luxury unless you have a legit medical need to control a wild period. (Controlling acne does not count as a medical need)
Condoms have no medical side effects either.
They don't feel as good but that's not really the issue here. The issue is medical necessity. -
Anonymous
@Anonymous: If you know cloning actually is you would not oppose it. It's not like cloning in tv and videogames. What you are actually creating is an identical twin born later. They aren't exact copies they merely share DNA like twins.
Mary Kate and Ashley Olsen do not have the same soul and neither would a clone. -
Anonymous
-
Anonymous
@Anonymous: individual consciousness, memories, or thoughts. take your pick. They and clones share none of these.
-
Anonymous
@Anonymous: Unacceptable: "individual consciousness" and "thoughts" cannot be objectively measured. Memories can be tested, but not objectively measured, as they are often unique to the mechanism that stores them.
But I have no place in this discussion, and do not wish to derail it. Carry on. -
Anonymous
@Anonymous: Are you kidding me? Are you trying to say twins are the same person in two bodies with one mind?
-
Anonymous
@Anonymous: Quantify "mind." You probably can't, except to argue that everyone has a unique one. Just like "soul," and "thoughts," and other abstracts.
I wasn't arguing your point: I was arguing your premise (soul) for differentiation. However, the last thing I said was that I won't pursue the topic any further. I intend to keep to that: We can move this to a #philosophy thread if you prefer. -
Anonymous
@Anonymous: Why so obsessed with semantics? We both probably agree that brains develop independently even with the same DNA. People have different experiences and make different choices. A clone is no different then a twin. One can go to rehab and be a crazy anorexic skank and the other be normal.
-
Anonymous
@Anonymous: If you'd phrased it that way initially, I would have said nothing.
We may often gloss over semantics, but they are the entire basis of how we, as individuals, communicate with each other. It is more important to be clear about what you're saying than to assume your audience understands you.
Hence "soul" (which once referred to an intangible yet immortal entity) versus "brain and experiences." -
Anonymous
-
@Anonymous: That's the biggest load of horseshit I have ever heard. Women take contraception pills in order to prevent pregnancy until they are finished securing their careers. Men are just scared that women a becoming too powerful with there own wants and needs, including sexuality.
-
@Anonymous: At the same time you have to understand that people buy antibiotics on a daily basis, because of the risk of infection.
As for the condom vs. contraception pill issue, there is a significantly smaller typical-user failure rate than condoms. the estimated failure rate of the male latex condom is 17% with typical use. The combination birth control pill has a perfect-use failure rate of 0.3%, and a typical-use failure rate of 0.6%. This means that the combination birth control pill is between 94 - 97% effective in preventing pregnancy versus the male condom which is only 83% effective in preventing pregnancy. -
Anonymous





