Progressive principles all lies

[DieJohnny]

I have just a few basic issues that I consider to be deal killers for progressives. They are all logic fails that expose progressives as a group of people whose tenets are built on lies preached as truth by intellectual priests and control mongers.

1. Death penalty is not a deterrent. We put armed prison guards in towers for a reason. The death penalty is an obvious deterrent. Its implementation and other cultural factors like "honor killings", the war on drugs, poverty are impossible to factor out of statistics, but don't try and convince anyone the death penalty is not a deterrent. A world filled with murder says otherwise. The argument enrages me. Get this though, I don't believe in the death penalty 99% of the time. I don't think we have high enough standards of evidence. But don't make me spew stupid arguments, convince me otherwise.

2. The rights of the mother to "choose" outweighs the right of life for the child. I grew up supporting abortion. I wanted a girl i thought I got pregnant to get an abortion, luckily she wasn't preggo. Abortion is the most selfish disgusting thing you can ever do as a human and live in regret every day that I tried to convince someone to have an abortion. If a woman aborts her own baby with a coat hanger, well that is a sad thing but she still killed an innocent. Convince me otherwise.

3. I must view gay people no other way than being born that way and gays have no choice in the matter regarding their sexuality. So what is the problem?? Well, there is actually no science that says you are actually "born that way". You smart progressives already know this and are perpetuating a lie for your own purposes, you stupid ones are well just stupid.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/23/homosexuality--choice-born-science_n_2003361.html

As a matter of fact endless studies about homosexuality only suggest that there is a DNA component in your sexual discovery. NBA gay player Jason Collins has a straight TWIN brother.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/05/16/gay-nba-player-s-twin-brother-gets-i-m-straight-one-t-shirt-jimmy-kim

One of the two IS NOT closeted, there are endless cases like this. Every intelligent human i have ever spoken with knows that the "born that way" mantra is nothing more than a religious point of view and a way to win moral support. It is actually more than that it is a blatant lie. And get this, i don't ACTUALLY care about gays having rights.  I am more libertarian than anything, I am sick of the govt screwing with peoples lives.

But when you spew religious dogma as fact their will always be unintended consequences. For example, in my local schools because it is now legal for gays to marry, homosexuality is now taught as being something indelible at birth yes in school it is taught as fact though it is not, and the children are instructed to experiment and find out who they really are. This will have no consequences, dumb dumb dumb.

What is another consequence? Well the born that way argument, is so strong that it is on par with racism. Which means disagreeing labels you as someone worthy to be banned from society, see Firefox CEO. So a giant lie creates massive division in society and eventually silences anyone that doesn't believe that lie... wow. Why aren't you progressives looking at the big picture.

How about anther, children at the age of 5 and 6 are being identified by their therapist and parents as gay or straight or transgendered and are subjected to therapy, and a lifestyle from the age of 5! all over the planet. No negative consequences here.

Be gay be straight, I don't give a rats ass, but don't spew lies and force the world to live a false religion because it progresses your personal views more.

4. Banning guns is somehow a good idea. Mexico bans guns, have you seen their murder rate?, Chicago bans guns. you don't need guns to murder or commit mass murder. This argument that we can reduce murder may only work on a global scale and do you really want to go there??? convince me otherwise.

5. The 1% are evil. For the most part i agree, but it goes BOTH ways, plenty of 1% are progressives and evil. Soros has made a puppet of USA media. Convince me otherwise. Why make conservatives the defenders of the 1%.

[taipo]

Your problem appears to be left/right fixation.

1. Death penalty is not a deterrent.

Hows serious crime in states and other countries that do not have the death penalty? Better or worse or just not relevant to whether they have a death penalty or not?

2. The rights of the mother to "choose" outweighs the right of life for the child.

False dilemma. Its a womens right to choose. Science says life comes into existence when a fetus gets to the point in its development that it can survive by itself outside the womb with medical assistance. Prior to that it is an embryo, not a child. The whole outweighing the right of a child point of view comes from the anti-abortion view.

I must view gay people no other way than being born that way and gays have no choice in the matter regarding their sexuality.

You can view gay people any way you please.

4. Banning guns is somehow a good idea.

False statement. Most people in the first world want two things in society, firstly a relook at how easy it is to obtain a gun, secondly they generally don't want some idiot walking into a cafe openly strapped with one because some law says they can.

Banning guns will not reduce gun violence.

5. The 1% are evil.

False statement. The 1% are seen as a result of a system of privilege that is corrupted at its core, that shuffles wealth into the hands of a privileged few. Most believe its the system that needs to be changed and work to change it.

[Elwar]

1. Death penalty is not a deterrent.

Of the top reasons for murder, people are not usually in the state of mind to even consider the death penalty. I doubt someone who is willing to murder would see much difference between living the rest of their lives in jail or dying. They do not value life much in the first place, why would you assume they value their own life?

Then again, if we had the ten commandments in schools maybe people would read that one about "thou shalt not kill". But most people who are fighting to get those commandments into schools are fine with finding excuses to ignore that commandment.

2. The rights of the mother to "choose" outweighs the right of life for the child.

This should be left to the states to decide. As murder is a state crime (not defined in the Constitution), if you believe it is murder then you should believe it should be left to the states.

I must view gay people no other way than being born that way and gays have no choice in the matter regarding their sexuality.

It should not matter. Government should not be involved in our private lives at such a level.

4. Banning guns is somehow a good idea.

Banning guns is always a good idea for the people with the guns. Easier to control those without it.

5. The 1% are evil.

Some, not all, of the 1% got there thanks to government using those guns that they don't want you to have. Most of the most wealthy companies are banks, Bitcoin is the answer to that.

[DieJohnny]

False dilemma. Its a womens right to choose. Science says life comes into existence when a fetus gets to the point in its development that it can survive by itself outside the womb with medical assistance. Prior to that it is an embryo, not a child. The whole outweighing the right of a child point of view comes from the anti-abortion view.

The notion that science has anything to do with the morality of your position is absurd. Do you think abortion doctors do some careful measurements before they decide to lob the baby's head off, off course not. Imagine the scenario where the baby gets to live because the mother arrived at the clinic an hour too late, it is absurd, it makes no sense.

You can view gay people any way you please.

No you cannot, at least if you want to run a public company. If I don't declare homosexuality as an indelible trait at birth I am a bigot. It is Mind control.

[DieJohnny]

2. The rights of the mother to "choose" outweighs the right of life for the child.

This should be left to the states to decide. As murder is a state crime (not defined in the Constitution), if you believe it is murder then you should believe it should be left to the states.

I must view gay people no other way than being born that way and gays have no choice in the matter regarding their sexuality.

It should not matter. Government should not be involved in our private lives at such a level.

4. Banning guns is somehow a good idea.

Banning guns is always a good idea for the people with the guns. Easier to control those without it.

5. The 1% are evil.

Some, not all, of the 1% got there thanks to government using those guns that they don't want you to have. Most of the most wealthy companies are banks, Bitcoin is the answer to that.

I would agree with you, Elwar for president.

[taipo]

The notion that science has anything to do with the morality of your position is absurd.

Sciences' position is often miles from peoples notions of morality especially when they are driven by selective misinformation, emotion and religious dogma as you appear to be.

Do you think abortion doctors do some careful measurements before they decide to lob the baby's head off, off course not. Imagine the scenario where the baby gets to live because the mother arrived at the clinic an hour too late, it is absurd, it makes no sense.

You can imagine any emotive scenario you wish that makes you feel better about your position on a womens right to choose, it doesn't improve your position when the scenario is not based in reality but rather it detracts from it. In reality abortion up to the first trimester is lawful in many developed countries around the world. In a few other countries under some circumstances it is lawful up to the second trimester. These laws were not made up by abortion doctors in the USA, they came about because of the careful consideration of accepted, peer reviewed scientific studies from around the world over the last 40 years.

Whereas the anti-abortion stance originates from a religious believe that there is a bearded god living above the clouds placing preordained babies in the wombs of women, and therefore this god seeks to send women to hell for slaughtering their god delivered babies.

I'll take the peer reviewed scientific position any day over any variation of that fundamentalist horseshit.

No you cannot, at least if you want to run a public company. If I don't declare homosexuality as an indelible trait at birth I am a bigot. It is Mind control.

It is not unlawful to have a bigoted position if you apply the don't ask don't tell rule. For example most old school CEOs are closet bigots - it doesn't affect their ability to successfully run a company, they just keep that shit to themselves.

Its when you apply your views on homosexuality to employee preference ( if you are an employer ) or some other aspect of society that prejudices the rights of someone who is gay, and you get caught out doing it, that's when you run into this thing called law which is based in your country, on a universal principle that all peoples are equal ( as in rights ), and that includes gays.

[DieJohnny]

Sciences' position is often miles from peoples notions of morality especially when they are driven by selective misinformation, emotion and religious dogma as you appear to be.

You can imagine any emotive scenario you wish that makes you feel better about your position on a womens right to choose, it doesn't improve your position when the scenario is not based in reality but rather it detracts from it. In reality abortion up to the first trimester is lawful in many developed countries around the world. In a few other countries under some circumstances it is lawful up to the second trimester. These laws were not made up by abortion doctors in the USA, they came about because of the careful consideration of accepted, peer reviewed scientific studies from around the world over the last 40 years.

Whereas the anti-abortion stance originates from a religious believe that there is a bearded god living above the clouds placing preordained babies in the wombs of women, and therefore this god seeks to send women to hell for slaughtering their god delivered babies.

You have so eloquently made the greatest of points or me. I have never mentioned God even once in my previous posts. My positions has nothing to do with God at all but rather I ask very COMMON SENSE questions about the tenets of YOUR RELIGION.

If your religion makes up silly time lines about when it is ok to let a child live or die, then you should be able to recognize the disgusting position that argument puts you in, but you do not. You look the other way and rather than make any cogent argument you rather create a straw man and start blabbing about God followers to justify your point of view.

I'll take the peer reviewed scientific position any day over any variation of that fundamentalist horseshit.

Make no mistake, you have simply found a new group of priests to justify your moral position.

You feel comfortable TRUSTING a group of people dressed in white making your moral decisions for you. When it comes down to it their decision is arbitrary, the notion that your are morally justified killing a child in at 3 months but not at 3 months and 1 day is a fools position. Rather than make a moral decision of your own and choosing to follow your own path, you instead claim a higher position by following the guidance of your wise men.

Don't get me wrong, science is important, we must have it. Good research and real facts are critical for us to make good decisions. But science and scientists should never create moral positions for society. If that happens, then you cross the line to a new religion, because it is in the details that you find moral conflict and a group of scientists is no different when determining what you should and shouldn't do than a group of priests in a back room deciding how to control you.

I hope you recognize this, there is no difference between the Gods and religions you disparage and the committee of men that make your moral decisions for you.

No you cannot, at least if you want to run a public company. If I don't declare homosexuality as an indelible trait at birth I am a bigot. It is Mind control.

It is not unlawful to have a bigoted position if you apply the don't ask don't tell rule. For example most old school CEOs are closet bigots - it doesn't affect their ability to successfully run a company, they just keep that shit to themselves.

Its when you apply your views on homosexuality to employee preference ( if you are an employer ) or some other aspect of society that prejudices the rights of someone who is gay, and you get caught out doing it, that's when you run into this thing called law which is based in your country, on a universal principle that all peoples are equal ( as in rights ), and that includes gays.

How quickly you digress to the great bigoted argument and thankfully so as you make my arguments for me.

Progressive views have so controlled you and your like that any position on gays that is not full embracing of love and being born that way is "bigoted" as you say. I have chosen the position of genetic research (genetics is just part of what drives our sexuality), you have chosen the views of those that do not want gays to commit suicide (AMA and psychologists) as a higher moral code. I actually don't like the govt having any laws that discriminate against gays but I also do not want the country saying you are born that way when you are not. But I am now "bigoted". Again the progressive position here is a lie. Are you going to defend the lie of being born that way or not?

Progressives should not let their morality be driven by committees of men in white that are much "smarter than them." I actually fear men much more than imaginary men in the sky. In reality, it is not usually the big man in the sky that actually goes about the ethnic cleansing. It is the men on earth that develop so much hatred for views other than their own that do the cleaning.

I get you and your point of view, just make sure you have the blinders off as you embrace your religion. Also, if you want to convince me to be progressive, don't use God in your arguments, use logic.

[Este Nuno]

I have just a few basic issues that I consider to be deal killers for progressives. They are all logic fails that expose progressives as a group of people whose tenets are built on lies preached as truth by intellectual priests and control mongers.

1. Death penalty is not a deterrent. We put armed prison guards in towers for a reason. The death penalty is an obvious deterrent. Its implementation and other cultural factors like "honor killings", the war on drugs, poverty are impossible to factor out of statistics, but don't try and convince anyone the death penalty is not a deterrent. A world filled with murder says otherwise. The argument enrages me. Get this though, I don't believe in the death penalty 99% of the time. I don't think we have high enough standards of evidence. But don't make me spew stupid arguments, convince me otherwise.

Maybe it is a deterrent and maybe it isn't. But there is a big difference between the guy in the watchtower with a gun and the vague possibility that committing murder might cost your life in the end. In order for it to be a deterrent it would have to be factor in preventing someone from doing something that often isn't rational in the first place. It may be a minor deterrent, but it's certainly not at the front of peoples mind when they're murdering or planning to murder.

[taipo]

I actually fear men much more than imaginary men in the sky. In reality, it is not usually the big man in the sky that actually goes about the ethnic cleansing. It is the men on earth that develop so much hatred for views other than their own that do the cleaning.

The non-scientific belief in a fairy god fathers has been the premise for most of human suffering, also including the suffering of women who are taught that once they become pregnant, that its murder to terminate their pregnancies because the bearded man up in heaven says an embryo is a living life, including the suffering of gay people who are taught that they are sinners bound for hell unless they act like a heterosexual, and historically have been put to death in droves because men have been trying to avert another Sodom and Gomorrah, yunno, when the bearded guy wiped out a hundred thousand people to rid a couple of cities of gaydom ( or so the myth goes ).

History is literally littered with the suffering and slaughter of human beings by men coerced by the powerful to be 'hell bent' on serving the will of their fairy god or gods.

Any view that has to write off peer reviewed science in order to justify is existence is just weak minded fundamentalism.

[DieJohnny]

I have just a few basic issues that I consider to be deal killers for progressives. They are all logic fails that expose progressives as a group of people whose tenets are built on lies preached as truth by intellectual priests and control mongers.

1. Death penalty is not a deterrent. We put armed prison guards in towers for a reason. The death penalty is an obvious deterrent. Its implementation and other cultural factors like "honor killings", the war on drugs, poverty are impossible to factor out of statistics, but don't try and convince anyone the death penalty is not a deterrent. A world filled with murder says otherwise. The argument enrages me. Get this though, I don't believe in the death penalty 99% of the time. I don't think we have high enough standards of evidence. But don't make me spew stupid arguments, convince me otherwise.

Maybe it is a deterrent and maybe it isn't. But there is a big difference between the guy in the watchtower with a gun and the vague possibility that committing murder might cost your life in the end. In order for it to be a deterrent it would have to be factor in preventing someone from doing something that often isn't rational in the first place. It may be a minor deterrent, but it's certainly not at the front of peoples mind when they're murdering or planning to murder.

The death penalty most certainly can be on someone's mind I think Saudi Arabia is a good example as you can be executed for a lot of things (and they have a long history of using the death penalty to immediately change public behavior, see recent news on drifting in Saudi Arabia)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2164979/Saudi-court-sentences-joyrider-death-beheading-killing-people-drifting-car-stunt.html

However, the more you amp up the threat of death the more inhumane the punishment becomes, see Saudi Arabia.

I am ok voting down the death penalty for reasons like it is too costly to implement, the risk of killing someone innocent is too great, and any of a number of other reasons. But don't tell me it is not a deterrent.

[DieJohnny]

I actually fear men much more than imaginary men in the sky. In reality, it is not usually the big man in the sky that actually goes about the ethnic cleansing. It is the men on earth that develop so much hatred for views other than their own that do the cleaning.

The non-scientific belief in a fairy god fathers has been the premise for most of human suffering, also including the suffering of women who are taught that once they become pregnant, that its murder to terminate their pregnancies because the bearded man up in heaven says an embryo is a living life, including the suffering of gay people who are taught that they are sinners bound for hell unless they act like a heterosexual, and historically have been put to death in droves because men have been trying to avert another Sodom and Gomorrah, yunno, when the bearded guy wiped out a hundred thousand people to rid a couple of cities of gaydom ( or so the myth goes ).

History is literally littered with the suffering and slaughter of human beings by men coerced by the powerful to be 'hell bent' on serving the will of their fairy god or gods.

Any view that has to write off peer reviewed science in order to justify is existence is just weak minded fundamentalism.

I think you forget about Germany. Most of those atrocities were done in the name of "science".  And that regime is not alone in history of atrocities done for the good of man rather than God.

Again rather than actually do any thinking you again create a straw man argument that I write off "peer reviewed" science, and suggest I am a weak minded fundamentalist.

Classic point of view and strategy of debate of the brainwashed and mind-controlled left.

[taipo]

I accept the peer reviewed science that an embryo ( first trimester ) is not a life form. If the results concluded it was in fact a life form, I would be supporting your view.

I think you forget about Germany. Most of those atrocities were done in the name of "science".  And that regime is not alone in history of atrocities done for the good of man rather than God.

My points so far have been to draw a connection between fundamentalist views and the use of pseudo-science to justify those positions. Nazis depended on both non-peer reviewed pseudo-science, and, religious extremist ideas to justify their extermination of the Jews, gypsies and homosexuals.

Bringing this up does not help your argument at all but rather it reinforces mine.

Again rather than actually do any thinking you again create a straw man argument that I write off "peer reviewed" science, and suggest I am a weak minded fundamentalist.

Anyone that has to write off the process of peer reviewed scientific research dogmatically dismissing any evidence that conflicts with their own pseudo-science based beliefs....is a 'fundy'.

[DieJohnny]

I accept the peer reviewed science that an embryo ( first trimester ) is not a life form. If the results concluded it was in fact a life form, I would be supporting your view.

My points so far have been to draw a connection between fundamentalist views and the use of pseudo-science to justify those positions. Nazis depended on both non-peer reviewed pseudo-science, and, religious extremist ideas to justify their extermination of the Jews, gypsies and homosexuals.

Bringing this up does not help your argument at all but rather it reinforces mine.

Anyone that has to write off the process of peer reviewed scientific research dogmatically dismissing any evidence that conflicts with their own pseudo-science based beliefs....is a 'fundy'.

You do realize that you are talking nonsense. Scientists have never published anything peer reviewed or otherwise that says a first trimester fetus is not a "life form." Star Trek is not real.

And further scientific research has nothing to do with the moral argument of when it is okay to kill a fetus. They only try and answer specific questions like viability and pain. It is up to we regular folks to decide what to do with that information.

Scientists have published numerous studies on 1) the viability of a fetus and 2) the point a fetus feels pain. The viability of a fetus is considered to be quite beyond the first trimester if you were wondering.

It is probable that you like most progressives don't actually read any scientific studies. And like i said previously scientific research is critical to making good decisions, it is a fallacy that because I am not progressive that i must dismiss peer reviewed science. Again another straw man.

Feel free to use ACTUAL scientific research to support your argument that abortion is moral. That the death penalty is not a deterrent. Oh here is a quote from a study for you "to achieve deterrence, states must generally execute many people. If a state is unwilling to establish such a large execution program, it should consider abandoning capital punishment."  http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=781504.

Or please find anything REAL against any of my positions. If you can be converted with simple peer reviewed studies that support my viewpoints, I will continue to help you out with links like the ones i provided you. However, i doubt that science and reasoning is really what aligns your moral viewpoint.

[pungopete468]

My wife is 3 months and 3 weeks pregnant with our second child. Our unborn child has been amazingly receptive for the last month; When I push lightly on her belly with my finger it feels like the baby will use both hands and feet to grab and push on my finger. When I tap on her belly with my fingertips the baby just starts moving around a lot. Our first child was never this active so early in the pregnancy... It's amazing.

To know that my child was aware and capable of intelligently reacting to a physical stimulus after 2 months and some change is enough to make me adamantly against abortion beyond the first 4-6 weeks. I'm ok with a woman terminating an embryo, but 3 months is obviously too late to abort... Once the nervous system is developed they can feel pain and discomfort and apparently if they are clever enough, they can learn to use their hands and feet as well.

At 3 months my unborn child is alive and well-aware within the womb... It's still too soon to determine the gender from ultrasound images but it's obvious that this child already has some mental capacity for awareness of the surroundings...

If some scientist were to tell me that my child is not alive yet I would think them a fool.

[taipo]

Feel free to use ACTUAL scientific research to support your argument that abortion is moral.

Your position is that abortion is immoral, that its murder - you are free to hold your fundamentalist views, science disagrees with you.

Mine is that the only immoral part of the pregnancy termination process is for women having to put up with mostly fundamentalist men and their moral dilemmas about a woman's body.

[pungopete468]

Feel free to use ACTUAL scientific research to support your argument that abortion is moral.

Your position is that abortion is immoral, that its murder - you are free to hold your fundamentalist views, science disagrees with you.

Mine is that the only immoral part of the pregnancy termination process is for women having to put up with mostly fundamentalist men and their moral dilemmas about a woman's body.

Science doesn't disagree with him... It actually disagrees with you. You confuse "life" with "human life" because we know that even an embryo is "living." However, setting a technicality aside; if you think for a moment that a 3 month old unborn baby isn't a human being then I hope you have the opportunity to feel one moving around with your own senses so you might change your mind...

There's a fundamental behind science in that it depends on challenging what science is currently "saying" in order to attune itself with truth and reality. I can tell you that before the first tri-master is finished that embryo becomes aware of itself. Once you're aware of yourself, you have the right to life; that's a moral judgement, not a scientific fact...

Aborting a child who has become self-aware is a crime against morality just as severe as if somebody were to willingly and intentionally take your life or mine.

A woman can certainly choose what to do with her own body. However, that child is not a part of her body past a certain point. Her body is containing another separate body with which her body has no control over, she's in a position of guardianship. The child is a passenger, not a cancerous growth. If you were a passenger in a car and the owner pushed you out into traffic at 80 mph then you might know how it feels to be "aborted" after reaching self-awareness.

The "pro choice" arguments in favor of abortion after the first month of development are weak and outright immoral.

[InwardContour]

1. Death penalty is not a deterrent.

The death penalty is very much a deterrent. IMO it should be used a little bit less then it is now. It should only be used for the most heinous crimes and when there is little to no chance that they could be rehabilitated via prison.    

2. The rights of the mother to "choose" outweighs the right of life for the child.

I would disagree with you on this one. A mother is risking a lot when she is pregnant. Every time a women is pregnant there is a possibility that she could die as a result of the pregnancy (the chances are lower for some), why should she be forced to take this risk? This also opens the debate as to what is and is not considered to be "alive" IMO something is considered to be alive when it can survive on it's own outside of the womb (even with help from "medicine/medical technology" while others could argue that individual sperm cells are "alive"

3. I must view gay people no other way than being born that way and gays have no choice in the matter regarding their sexuality.

This is simply not true. AFAIK most/a good number of people turned gay after being straight for part of their life. The opposite is true as well that some people turn straight after being gay. How can you be born a certain way and then change like that?

4. Banning guns is somehow a good idea.

Banning and/or restricting the use of most guns is a very bad idea.

5. The 1% are evil.

Most of the 1% got to be as rich as they are because they are very smart and hardworking and had a little bit of good luck/timing. There is no reason to think someone is evil simply for being successful.

[pungopete468]

I would disagree with you on this one. A mother is risking a lot when she is pregnant. Every time a women is pregnant there is a possibility that she could die as a result of the pregnancy (the chances are lower for some), why should she be forced to take this risk? This also opens the debate as to what is and is not considered to be "alive" IMO something is considered to be alive when it can survive on it's own outside of the womb (even with help from "medicine/medical technology" while others could argue that individual sperm cells are "alive"

I have a few disagreements with this statement, but first; lethal force is justified by determining intent, ability, and opportunity. If the mother faces a life-threatening pregnancy then these fundamentals still apply to her situation and all of the conditions warranting the use of lethal force apply. If the child will likely kill her then she has the right to choose to preserve her life at any stage of the pregnancy if the situation becomes imminent or progresses to unsafe levels. It's not fair or easy sometimes when choices like that must be made, but they are justified and have nothing to do with the morality of abortion... Those conditions for the lawful (moral) use of lethal force apply across the board. You have a natural right to preserve your life...

1. Lots of things are alive, but it's not illegal to kill. People kill all the time, mostly bugs. Human life is different because the value of a human life is in the potential for what that human might be capable of. The human mind is what sets us apart and gives human life this additional value to other humans. When an unborn child becomes self-aware, that is when they become a human being. Honestly, the literal root of the phrase "human being" is "human existence" which further means "one's mental awareness of one's existence within a human body."

2. It has nothing to do with how long it can survive outside of the womb. Somewhere and someday there will be a person with a collapsed lung being sustained by life support. During that time they are still human; even though they can't survive without assistance. Just because they can't survive without life support doesn't mean they aren't alive. They are still alive and aware of their existence, and that is what makes the difference between abortion being right and wrong.

Most of the 1% got to be as rich as they are because they are very smart and hardworking and had a little bit of good luck/timing. There is no reason to think someone is evil simply for being successful.

You must be referring to the 10% club and not the 1% club. Many wealthy people worked hard and got lucky to become wealthy. Those people are not the 1%...

I don't know if they are evil or just completely indifferent and bored. I think the 1% have lost sight of what it means to be human or a part of any society.

[DieJohnny]

2. The rights of the mother to "choose" outweighs the right of life for the child.

I would disagree with you on this one. A mother is risking a lot when she is pregnant. Every time a women is pregnant there is a possibility that she could die as a result of the pregnancy (the chances are lower for some), why should she be forced to take this risk? This also opens the debate as to what is and is not considered to be "alive" IMO something is considered to be alive when it can survive on it's own outside of the womb (even with help from "medicine/medical technology" while others could argue that individual sperm cells are "alive"

Women that die in child birth is an increasingly rare event. What is that chance you die??? about 17 in 100,000. So you are saying that a woman should be able to terminate the life of a child because of this percentage? I disagree

As for being alive or not alive, no date of abortion that you pick in a pregnancy will ever make you feel better about actually doing it. Once you kill that fetus, its chances of having a life are now zero and it is because of the simple decision to abort that says its life was not that important to begin with.

Women that abort their babies often live the rest of their live with internal psychological pain and crushing guilt as they constantly wonder what might have been. Not all of them do, especially the ones with multiple abortions, they have been numbed to the problem altogether. However, I have witnessed first hand the psychological damage of aborting a baby as I have seen what it did to my sister. She has never had a child and never will... and she has never lived down that trip to the clinic that she made to preserve her chance at a college degree.

[DieJohnny]

3. There is actually no science that says you are actually "born that way".

There have been many studies that show a link between genetic or other biological factors and homosexuality, but you're correct in that it has not been conclusively proven that you're "born that way". I personally don't think it matters - why not do research to find out if other harmless recreational preferences are genetically determined, like enjoying oral sex, or tennis, or peanut-butter sandwiches, or the colour blue?

However, I think it is very important to emphasise, especially to some conservative types, just how difficult, painful, damaging and pointless it is to "try not being gay" (as they frequently suggest), and I think this is confused with arguing that it is actually impossible.

On the surface most reasonable people would agree with you. However, I think most people fail to look around to see what is actually changing in society based on the perpetuation of this new religion. Being born one gay or straight is a vastly different moral position to take than "trying to change sexuality has dire consequences" or even "lets stop having govt policies that discriminate against gays" and as such this over the top position is having almost an immediate impact on our entire society.

Moving the myth into doctrine has created an immediate social experiment that we are watching unfold before our eyes. Sex education now is built on this myth. How you raise your child and protect and nurture them now takes their predetermined sexuality into account at a very young age. Simple research on these topics tells you that I am not being a fear monger, it has already happened.

We are embracing this false doctrine as a society and we will watch the experiment unfold before our eyes. BTW, I also realize at this point in time that this doctrine is so completely entrenched into USA society that it has passed the event horizon. Openly resisting it will only keep me on the fringes of public life or worse.

What is unquestionably true is that this premise of your sexuality being set at birth is a lie and it is a religious tenet of the highest order, make what you will of the consequences, i am now merely a spectator.