Atheism or agnosticism?Follow

But no... it really isn't.



No... it doesn't.



I have to be honest, I'm not sure what you're asking me here. They're "just as close of the two that you can get?" Wha...?

I dislike both of your "options" because in the first case, the child suffers because the father doesn't pay child support. In the second case, abortions are restricted.

I hate analogies so much, but I'm bored and thought of one.

Say both of you adopted a dog. You both put an equal amount into the adoption fees. However, the co-adoptee has a sh*tty small apartment where dogs over 50 lbs are not allowed, and you live a spacious suburban McMansion. They still agree to pay half of the fees, but who's the one who has to deal with dog sh*t in the carpet?

Now, the dog is fundamentally retarded. They just can't learn how to not sh*t in your pristine white carpets. Now, I don't advocate getting rid of pets, but this is really more than you bargained for! Hey, we all have moments of weakness. (What this really means: this is where the analogy falls apart because the dog is a conscious being. Again: analogies suck, but they're fun to make.

Now, why should your co-adoptee make you keep the dog when they don't have to deal with sh*t in their carpets?

If you love dogs, you can just replace dog with "cats" and replace ********** in your carpet" with "claw the crap out of your expensive designer furniture."

Edited, May 4th 2011 9:09pm by Sweetums

On an unrelated note to anything else happening, Alma, please quit citing your (alleged) comp sci degree as though it somehow makes you an expert in how physical sciences work. The fact that it has the world "science" in it is not related to the scientific method - at least not the parts of comp sci that you work on.

My babble is anything but idle. Ok. Except for this.

Ah. Well... So much for injecting rationality then.

Oh! So, now you're differentiating the fetus from her body? It's not HER fetus now, but their fetus?



Really? Just admit that you were wrong. Even if my words were in the wrong context (which they weren't) that only means that you were wrong on my knowledge of math and science.



How not? They are both equally charged with the responsibility of raising the child. Each parent is doing different things to make that a success.


You just admitted the connection in your prior post.



Meaning just that. In those two scenarios, it is about as fair as you can get, but you have reasons against them. So, you can't simply say "oh, it can't ever be fair", you just have arguments against solutions that would make it fair or as fair as it can get.



That was my point, thanks for stating that. Even if I were wrong on his accusation of the scientific terminology, that doesn't make me an idiot of ALL sciences. A geologist probably wouldn't be able to hold a conversation in Biology, but that doesn't mean he doesn't know anything about science.



I didn't know English was that confusing. I presented two one sentence scenarios. You read them with predetermined thoughts of my argument. It happens all of the time on this forum. Nilatai and you have yet provided me a sentence that even implied that a man should have a say-so in the matter. If you provide a "confusing" sentence, then I'll concede to your accusations. Until then, I'm not going to apologize for your lack of comprehension.

My personal opinion on the man's opinion is still unformed, but that has no matter with the argument of equal responsibility.



By that, you mean able to physically talk and express their opinion? Or do you mean actually having legal right to deny or attempt to deny an abortion?

I really don't know what you guys are debating any more as I try not to read your posts, but by your own admission you "break things into parts to lead to a conclusion." If you break things into parts to explain your argument as you would to a second-grader, it means your method of debate just sucks. Present your argument, not pieces of it, especially not if those pieces do not lead to the logical conclusion almost anyone would find.

What makes one to be made fair and not the other? There is no way to make marriage "fair". Just as with abortion, your only two choices are

1) Get rid of marriage all together

2) Allow marriage to anyone and anything at anytime.

Simply allowing SSM doesn't make marriage fair. Noble of you to try though.



Funny that you mentioned that, because I didn't do that just then. I presented my entire argument and that's exactly what happens. That is why I do it pieces, because I spend posts trying to explain something that someone made false judgment on something they didn't fully read. So to try to prevent that, I try to do it one sentence/statement at a time.



Cool, so since it's THEIR fetus living inside HER body, then she can do whatever she wants to HER body as long as it doesn't interfere with THEIR fetus. Well, that was easy.



I referenced the difference between a scientific fact vs a scientific theory. If you still don't want to accept that fact, then that is your personal problem.




Funny how you were so quick in attempt to provide "evidence" to support your argument, even unprovoked, but you were reluctant to provide any evidence supporting your claim that I insinuated a man's say so in abortion.

Marriage to anyone yes...not sure why you want "anything" included though...

Get back to me when objects are people.

To be fair, the box did have a degree from the University of Phoenix.