> Schniepel wrote:

> No goverment can guarantee anything without raising taxes to maintain itself.

Do you think that paying 20-30% taxes takes away your economical freedom?>

Depends. 90% taxes definitely takes away my economic freedom. I'm a government spending minimalist, and I'm pretty sure that 20% is generally not an example of a minimalist government.

She's hot.

Ok point taken.

I thought he was mentioning that as a reason for why he favored abortion.

However, Avo was arguing that abortion was not a sound economic policy. So it was argued lol. I gave up on the argument though because he was arguing in circles.

A human being has a human genotype
A cellular embryo has a human genotype
___

A cellular embryo is a human being.

> V.Kemp wrote:

> Then he'd do... pretty much what he's doing.

LMAO!

lol.

They both did not want the custody records released, desiring to protect their son. But Judge Schnider abused his power and released the records, and thus the public saw a glimmer of their private lives at sex clubs and his popularity fell real fast. This removed Obama's biggest obstacle to power. Had Schnider not committed that treacherous act, Obama would have been nothing more than a footnote in history.

Edit: This was a response to Avo's deleted post.

In recent history, the Nazis crucified Jews (although their methods weren't like the classical Romans, and were much more efficient and painful). Before the Nazis, the Samurai crucified Christian missionaries (and resembled Roman methods) trying to convert the population during the colonial period.

But yeah, Americans hate Atheists. They hate them more than they do Mexican people. Though I'm an Atheist, I have the advantage of concealment.

> Telstar wrote:

> What sort of ridiculous question is that?
And what has science to do with that?>

It has to do with status and mate selection.

> avogadro wrote:

> nice first paragraph and beginning of 2nd paragraph, but i think i showed how society is hurt from abortion, not strengthened, earlier in this thread.

Thanks. But I honestly felt we were arguing in circles so I quit arguing about it.

<i think he failed biology class and doesnt understand the difference between sperm and embryo's.>

Haha. A good point there.

ROFL. A fetus or embryo is a human being. It is a human being in a cellular or primitive stage of development. It's BS to conveniently define as human something that satisfies an arbitrarily specified event like birth or morphology rather than by its genotype. The genotype of a fetus or embryo is human, end of story. Biological classification is defined by genotype, and it becomes an arbitrary or potential slippery slope when we define it by phenotype. If we're going to define a human by an event or their morphology, then why not define human as a toddler when they talk or as people who have a particular skin color?

However, we don't have to consider abortion as murder. We don't consider all forms of terminating human life murder, such as state sponsored executions, man-slaughter, accidents or war. To kill is not always to murder, because murder is distinguished by its circumstances. Since it's an arbitrary way to organize types of killing based on their practical value, we can modify that organizer to not include abortion as murder. We can consider abortion perfectly acceptable and not a murder, and we should because it has practical value and we can get away with it, as I mentioned earlier in this thread.

Belgians and drama .

As you notice, it's Canadian police.