WOW! You really went over the line there! First of all, objecting to laws against women is NOT the same as supporting abortion. And, the second part of your post is just a bald faced lie propagated by radicals - as has been proven. As a religious person, you should do better than that.
You mean sources for basic HISTORICAL FACTS that most kids learn in school? https://www.ck12.org/book/CK-12-Physical-Science-For-Middle-School/section/5.2/ https://easyscienceforkids.com/hippocrates/
Puerile debunked STRAWMAN deflection attempt does NOT refute any of the DOCUMENTED FACTS about religion inspired violence.
Not at all. Gibberish. A liberal's straw woman. *SNORT* https://lifedynamics.com/busted-the-abortion-industry/bad-medicine/baby-body-parts-for-sale/ https://www.lifenews.com/2019/09/04...-that-it-sold-body-parts-from-aborted-babies/ https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...arenthood-video-journalists-criminal-hearing/ https://www.redstate.com/brandon_mo...-babies-found-illinois-abortion-doctors-home/ https://www.dailysignal.com/2016/04...etal-body-parts-a-babys-brain-sells-for-3340/ I don't wear my beliefs on my sleeve, but I guess I know a lot more about religion than I've ever given myself credit for.
Cool your jest. I have not anywhere denied that religion has been responsible for multitudinous deaths. It certainly has. But religion has been around since the beginning of man. Science has been around for maybe 2500-3000 years. I'm backtracking here but only because you aren't getting it. LOL
The opposition is to methods oriented to denying choice, NOT to reducing the number of abotions. Canada has no laws against abortion, but has a lower abortion rate than do we. This conflation of laws against women and reducing abortion is just plain BULL. Laws have real negative ramifications on women, and the laws are NOT the only (or quite likely even the most effective) method of reducin abortion. As for your sources (which have a long history of having NO interest in the truth) their claims have been debunked. Money DOES change hands, but it is because of the costs of this kind of life saving donation. It's not trivial to obtain, prepart and transport living tissue in coniton allowng transplantation to SAVE a life that would otherwise be lost. The question is one of whether this is being done illegally - for profit. And, that is not the case.
So, limit your analysis to the last 2500-3000 years. "Cool your jest"!! I really like that - typos can be great!
Well to start with, you do realize that communism has been held to be the culmination of scientific analysis of society, right?
Yet more BASELESS assumptions WITHOUT any credible substantiation. The use of FIRE was Science based, NOT religion! The use and manufacture of TOOLS was Science based, NOT religion! The ability to COMMUNICATE verbally increased SURVIVAL rates long BEFORE it was used as a means to exchange superstitions that became religions. One of us in definitely NOT "getting it" and I know that I am the one who is providing the documented FACTS to support my position.
We very clearly need a combination of capitalism and models for solving problems that capitalism creates or can not address.
<Rule 3> You're calling everything man does outside of religion "science". The use of fire was probably the result of a lightning strike or other natural-occurring fire. That's not science, <Rule 3>
You assume a fact not in evidence. Moreover, your implicit assumption that there was a meaningful distinction between religion and science in the days of Adam and Eve is similarly unfounded.
The days of adam and eve? What the heck? There certainly were scientists around in the age Shook mentions. Early tablets show Pythagorean triplets that seem to indicate they knew of the Pythagorean theory 2000 years before Pythagoras. Ancient Babylonean astronomers calculated the appearance and disappearance of the moon and planets and calculated eclipses and transits. By 150BC Hellenistic astronomers had created an analog computer to calculate the positions of planets. Writings from 1550 BC Egypt contain evidence of traditional empiricism. 2500 years ago we got the Hippocratic oath, and Galen and others were performing brain and eye surgeries, while others worked on description of the nervous system. Eratosthenes was active 250BC. He calculated the circumference of Earth, created early geographic and political maps, figured out how far it was to the moon, figured out a notable way to search for primes that is referenced today, etc. He created a mechanical device for calculating the the dimensions of a cube that would have twice the volume of a given cube - part of a catapult effort. Archimedes lived at the same time. He's well know for numerous discoveries, inventions and techniques. He dedicated a book to Eratosthenes. These were all progress in science as we know it. They were all based on careful observation of our universe.
Insist on your impressions, interpretations and half-baked conclusions. It's your world. If things don't fit, force them or get rid of them.
You are facing evidence from a wide range of sources. Suggesting ANYONE posting that evidence to you is bragging about their own education is nonsense. Asimov was right. There IS a cult of ignorance in America. And, you are contributing to it by suggesting that those who have studied issues for many, many years, whose results must stand against years of independent testing and verification, should be considered to be the ones who are ignorant. I'm fine with you having your religion and I'm not criticizing that, but please remember that religion has no method of decision making related to how our universe works.
I'm sick of liberals making up what you think I have said. I'm done with you. Spin on, but by your totally absorbed self and your little presumptuous pals.
You're going to have to be half-baked specific. Enough with innuendo. If you're wrong, you're wrong. But what, exactly, are you talking about? Oh, wait! I'm starting to see what you're trying to do. Right. I guess you can't be wrong if you don't explain what the hell it is you're talking about. I get it now. Good bye.
