Dubstepforum.com

collige wrote:

butt jolokia wrote: Because THAT'S the moment of conception.

The significance of that being?

A new life begins.

butt jolokia wrote:

Mr Hyde wrote:

butt jolokia wrote:

pkay wrote:what if the baby was the anti-christ?

or what if the baby would grow up to kill billions of people?

what if Terminator came back from the future and told you "this chicks baby is going to rape your future baby and you're going to have a future rape grandchild who in turn activates skynet"

Don't you want to stop the rape baby before he activates skynet Butt? Jesus would

1. the anti-chirst won't be born

2. how do you know if your baby will grow to kill billions of people? try raising the child rights.

3. time travel doesn't exist and terminator is a movie.

Surely Jesus can time travel?

Christian God hardly seems to have led by example if all life is sacred, didn't he flood and drown everyone and everything that wasn't on the arc?

So, do you take the stories in the bible literally, or metaphorically ?

perhaps you should ask yourself that, and what parts you decide to pick and choose for making judgements on things like abortion

This is turning in a religion argument in 3, 2, 1

By page 10 it's about Skrillex.

butt jolokia wrote:

Mr Hyde wrote:

butt jolokia wrote:

pkay wrote:what if the baby was the anti-christ?

or what if the baby would grow up to kill billions of people?

what if Terminator came back from the future and told you "this chicks baby is going to rape your future baby and you're going to have a future rape grandchild who in turn activates skynet"

Don't you want to stop the rape baby before he activates skynet Butt? Jesus would

1. the anti-chirst won't be born

2. how do you know if your baby will grow to kill billions of people? try raising the child rights.

3. time travel doesn't exist and terminator is a movie.

Surely Jesus can time travel?

Christian God hardly seems to have led by example if all life is sacred, didn't he flood and drown everyone and everything that wasn't on the arc?

So, do you take the stories in the bible literally, or metaphorically ?

Well surely you have to take one or the other, you can't just pick and choose. Also if some of it's true then shouldn't all of it be true? Even contradictions and known inaccuracies? And if the whole thing is just metaphorical then you're basing your entire belief structure on a fable?

If I'm incorrect then how does a mere mortal like yourself pick out what's literal and what's metaphorical. How do you sift through the bullshit?

butt jolokia wrote: 2. how do you know if your baby will grow to kill billions of people? try raising the child rights.

actually children under rigid religious sexual oppression from christian parents during early 20th century in Germany and Austria produced Ubermenschen that counted sexual deviant Adolf Hitler in its ranks.

pkay wrote:

butt jolokia wrote:

pkay wrote:what if the baby was the anti-christ?

or what if the baby would grow up to kill billions of people?

what if Terminator came back from the future and told you "this chicks baby is going to rape your future baby and you're going to have a future rape grandchild who in turn activates skynet"

Don't you want to stop the rape baby before he activates skynet Butt? Jesus would

1. the anti-chirst won't be born

2. how do you know if your baby will grow to kill billions of people? try raising the child rights.

3. time travel doesn't exist and terminator is a movie.

let me school you on your own religion

Anyone who denys christ is an antichrist. I'm an antichrist, many people on this forum are 'antichrists'. The one who rises to power, spoken of in your religious texts, is one of many but rises to prominence. He/she is a human like every other antichrist. Not some magical unicorn riding figure. Simply a human, denier of christ, who gains world power.

This has been volume one of a Jew teaching christians their own religion because they apparently don't read their bible verses.

Volume 2: Why you're going to hell

Time travel does exist, humans simply cannot survive the speeds at which you are required to travel to manipulate space time.

I didn't oppose that idea. Again, the anti-christ is not "born"

Time travel DOES NOT exists. Time is a system of measurement.

butt jolokia wrote:

collige wrote:

butt jolokia wrote: Because THAT'S the moment of conception.

The significance of that being?

A new life begins.

My whole point earlier was that it's not just any life that we're talking about though, it's HUMAN life. And so, I ask you how are my sperm and a woman's egg any more human combined than they are separate?

How much human life can planet Earth sustain? It’s a question scientists have been struggling with for hundreds of years. They have yet to agree on an answer.

Thomas Malthus kicked off the debate in the early nineteenth century when he predicted imminent doom for the human race. He believed that the population of the earth was increasing at a geometric rate, while food production was increasing only at an arithmetic rate. Human population would soon outstrip their own ability to produce food, and there would be a catastrophe by the mid-nineteenth century.

We’re still here, so that obviously didn’t happen. Technology allowed humans to produce far more food than Malthus anticipated. Even though Malthus was wrong, his ideas remain influential. The carrying capacity of the earth is a hotly contested subject. Many believe that we are at or near our capacity already. Others believe the earth can support far more people. It’s far too complicated to truly determine what the real limit is. And even if we could, the “real” limit would be meaningless without proper context.

The main context is lifestyle. Our planet can support many more people if we are living in near-starvation mode and consuming as little energy as possible, than if we are all living at North American levels of consumption. Practical considerations also matter. If we were all living in starvation mode, would we be able to survive, or would we be at war with one another, killing each other off so we can eat more food?
Distribution of resources has always been unequal, and continues to be an issue now and in the future.

Ignoring these considerations, can we reach some sort of estimate?
Important factors that determine how many people the earth can sustain include food, drinking water, and energy. Let’s look at each of these areas in more detail.

Food

The earth currently produces 2,264 million metric tons of cereals, which is the staple food of the world. If each person consumes 2,000 calories per day, 2,264 million metric tons of cereal will support a little bit over 10 billion people. Currently, around half of all arable land in the world is producing crops. If we clear-cut all the forests and jungles, we could double our theoretical food production. These calculations assume all we eat is cereal though. Most people want to eat more than just rice, bread and pasta. Vegetables and fruits are also produced on arable land. Most of this produces a higher calorie per area yield than cereals. But what about meat? Currently about one third of cereals produced in the world go towards feeding animals for meat production.
Meat production is very inefficient in terms of land use. The more meat is eaten, the less people the land can support.

Water

It’s hard to say much about water other than that we are in dire need.
There are 1,385 cubic kilometers on earth. Most of this water is salt water, and not suitable for human consumption. Most of the fresh water available…is locked inside polar ice caps. Only 0.26% of all water is available for human consumption. Most of this water is in clouds or in the ground though. Only 0.014% of water on the earth is actually available for drinking. Problem? Yes! There are already severe water shortages in Africa and parts of Asia. North Americans use 1,280 cubic meters of water annually. Africans use 186. If there isn’t enough water, such as is the case in many countries, disease and malnutrition are the result. This is already happening, and will continue to spread as population continues to increase. Water also affects food in a big way, as 70% of water used by humans irrigates crops.

whats worse abortion or war?

Also.. I am against abortion because of what I feel to be right and wrong. Natural Law.

collige wrote:

butt jolokia wrote:

collige wrote:

butt jolokia wrote: Because THAT'S the moment of conception.

The significance of that being?

A new life begins.

My whole point earlier was that it's not just any life that we're talking about though, it's HUMAN life. And so, I ask you how are my sperm and a woman's egg any more human combined than they are separate?

Again.

A new life begins when the two procreate.

I thought bass hertz had gone forever, along with his stupid view of reality.

butt jolokia wrote:

collige wrote:

butt jolokia wrote:

collige wrote:

butt jolokia wrote: Because THAT'S the moment of conception.

The significance of that being?

A new life begins.

My whole point earlier was that it's not just any life that we're talking about though, it's HUMAN life. And so, I ask you how are my sperm and a woman's egg any more human combined than they are separate?

Again.

A new life begins when the two procreate.

That doesn't answer my question. We know they are alive. What makes them HUMAN?

esfandyar wrote:

butt jolokia wrote: 2. how do you know if your baby will grow to kill billions of people? try raising the child rights.

actually children under rigid religious sexual oppression from christian parents during early 20th century in Germany and Austria produced Ubermenschen that counted sexual deviant Adolf Hitler in its ranks.

you just killed the thread.

butt jolokia wrote:

esfandyar wrote:

butt jolokia wrote: 2. how do you know if your baby will grow to kill billions of people? try raising the child rights.

actually children under rigid religious sexual oppression from christian parents during early 20th century in Germany and Austria produced Ubermenschen that counted sexual deviant Adolf Hitler in its ranks.

you just killed the thread.

truth hurts

collige wrote: That doesn't answer my question. We know they are alive. What makes them HUMAN?

If both parents are human, then the child is.

Same as two dogs make a dog; Not a giraffe.

esfandyar wrote:

butt jolokia wrote:

esfandyar wrote:

butt jolokia wrote: 2. how do you know if your baby will grow to kill billions of people? try raising the child rights.

actually children under rigid religious sexual oppression from christian parents during early 20th century in Germany and Austria produced Ubermenschen that counted sexual deviant Adolf Hitler in its ranks.

you just killed the thread.

truth hurts

not truth.

this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

butt jolokia wrote:

esfandyar wrote:

butt jolokia wrote: 2. how do you know if your baby will grow to kill billions of people? try raising the child rights.

actually children under rigid religious sexual oppression from christian parents during early 20th century in Germany and Austria produced Ubermenschen that counted sexual deviant Adolf Hitler in its ranks.

you just killed the thread.

Nah you did when you chose to be a piece of shit with piece of shit ideas about how we should treat women. I guarantee if men gave birth Christians wouldn't be against giving them a choice.

blah blah i can throw in genocidal madmen if i want because it contradicts what you wrote. he killed millions of people under rigid christian upbringing.

my post is actually appropriate using hitler's name

The miscommunication here is that when the pro-choicers say 'human' they actually mean 'person'. Essentially, butt is right, an embryo is a human in its earliest stages. Not every human can think, or talk (like a vegetable) and humans can't produce non-human offspring.

Doesn't mean I agree with him, though, he's pretty vile. But whatever it is, it's genetically totally human. Let's discuss if it is a PERSON or not.