And yet…not a political event? 
Then people wearing them should not act like thugs.
What church paid for those?
Of course it was a political event! What are you talking about? I am talking about students who do care and do become involved in issues around them. I have not problem with students attending political events, debating political events (which they often do), etc.
It appears that it were those not wearing them that were closer to the “thug” line.
Much worse . . . it was a Mayor that paid for it.
Join the real world. Sure some kids are interested, my daughter was one of those but the majority DONT CARE.
What is this obsession in America with trying to force kids to grow up quick. There is plenty of time for politics etc when your an adult. Let teenagers spend a last few years without having to worry about the world.
And yes i feel the same when i see kids going on anti gun rallies and making speeches. Sure i admire interest in civic responsibility but my message to them is go and hang out with friends and enjoy your last few years of freedom before responsibility really kicks in.
Yes…we know…conservative republicans never miss a chance to call an elder Viet Nam vet a “thug” if he isn’t toeing the MAGA line.
Wasn’t speaking of him, but of those of those yelling abusive epithets at high school students. Students should be involved in politics if it interests them…unless of course, adults at these political events put teens in danger.
There are more "or"s than the two you offer.
If that’s a pic of a human fetus. Absolutely.
It is no other species, biologically. And it is alive by every biological definition.
Biologically, there ABSOLUTELY is.
CAPITALIZATION is not viewed as standard of proof by scientists. Scientists adhere to a model that focuses on statistical proofs, though those trained in the scientific method understand that scientific hypotheses are disproved, not proven. Religion deals in absolutes; science deals in probabilities.
As a trained scientist (Ph.D.) who hold strong religious beliefs I am very careful about the distinction.
There is no consensus definition of “life” in the scientific community. To disprove that assertion, please provide the definition and evidence of its broad acceptance.
Otherwise, stop confusing what you believe to be true and what you wish to be true and even what other people who agree with you have told you to be true with science.
4 Likes
Biology has ABSOLUTE criteria for the definition of a living organism.
As a PhD scientist, I would expect you to know that.
1 Like
As a scientist, I know that absolutes are extremely rare.
I also know that when one makes an assertion in science one is expected to cite evidence. I asked you for evidence and all you responded with is CAPITALIZATION. The basis of scientific knowledge is falsifiability. Can you provide the falsifiability test for your assertion about the definition of life?
In Internet communications CAPITALIZATION is generally regarded as shouting for emphasis. Please stop shouting and provide some scientific evidence. Otherwise this discussion is pointless.
Going back to the point of this thread, I respect your views on abortion. I ask that you respect mine, as they are based on a religious tradition that is older than yours, and one that your tradition is derived from.
3 Likes
Abortion kills Black Americans way out of proportion to their percent of the population, so it’s racist…
And in the new dem party only bigots think genders exist, so…
Or… Is it OK for a man who identifies as a women to be against aborting babies?
1 Like
The woman has to carry the fetus during pregnancy.
Of course it about the womans body and the fetus it is carrying.
what else can it be about.
Allan
Politics. This is the government informing everyone that it has the right to tell its citizens what a woman can or cannot do with her body. When it suits the government (i.e., it can attain votes) for legalizing abortion, they will legalize. However if it ever suits the government (it can attain more votes) by forbidding abortion, it will do that. The government needs to step completely away from this issue. It cannot make a law either pro or con. As such, it cannot provide funding for abortion.
If society wants to make it the woman’s decision, then she finds her abortionist, she pays for her abortion, and no one else needs to be involved, telling her she either did the right thing or the wrong thing.
Just to be clear, religion can take a stand, and women can choose whether or not to go to that church or practice that faith. The government, however, has no say. Ever. Parental, not governmental.
The foundation of both faiths is love. Does love permit or forbid that first breath to take place?
