That's why Christians SHOULDN'T care about fetuses until they are born.

(February 9, 2015 at 3:44 pm)robvalue Wrote: I'm sick of these babies, can we eat them already?

Meh. I think I'm gonna give up baby. As tasty as it is, the news that they must first be cooked is a put-off. It takes to damned long to roast 'em whole and breaking them down is just too much trouble.

*Chomp*
*Chomp*
*Burp*

What's that? Cook them? Yeah, I guess you could do that.

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, pediatric sashimi

Cheek meats to die for.

How about the veal equivalent of baby ?

Now there's some good eatin' !!!

I'm sorry for posting this. I just saw it and thought it was interesting. But it doesn't really do anything in showing argument for God and adds nothing to the table. As someone said, babies are aware of outside voices.

That's alright

It's interesting for a laugh, that's for sure.

(February 6, 2015 at 6:20 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: In a mother’s womb were two babies. One asked the other: “Do you believe in life after delivery?” The other replied, “Why, of course. There has to be something after delivery. Maybe we are here to prepare ourselves for what we will be later.”
“Nonsense” said the first. “There is no life after delivery. What kind of life would that be?”
The second said, “I don’t know, but there will be more light than here. Maybe we will walk with our legs and eat from our mouths. Maybe we will have other senses that we can’t understand now.”
The first replied, “That is absurd. Walking is impossible. And eating with our mouths? Ridiculous! The umbilical cord supplies nutrition and everything we need. But the umbilical cord is so short. Life after delivery is to be logically excluded.”
The second insisted, “Well I think there is something and maybe it’s different than it is here. Maybe we won’t need this physical cord anymore.”
The first replied, “Nonsense. And moreover if there is life, then why has no one has ever come back from there? Delivery is the end of life, and in the after-delivery there is nothing but darkness and silence and oblivion. It takes us nowhere.”
“Well, I don’t know,” said the second, “but certainly we will meet Mother and she will take care of us.”
The first replied “Mother? You actually believe in Mother? That’s laughable. If Mother exists then where is She now?”
The second said, “She is all around us. We are surrounded by her. We are of Her. It is in Her that we live. Without Her this world would not and could not exist.”
Said the first: “Well I don’t see Her, so it is only logical that She doesn’t exist.”
To which the second replied, “Sometimes, when you’re in silence and you focus and you really listen, you can perceive Her presence, and you can hear Her loving voice, calling down from above.”

It's really easy to start with a fictitious story that describes something we understand, and then try to read it backward to explain something else not that cannot be so easily answered. Here, let me try:

Kid 1: I think leprechauns are real.
Kid 2: Why? There's no proof they are.
Kid 1: Proof? Everyone has heard of them!
Kid 2: Have you seen one?
Kid 1: Leprechauns are elusive and magical. The fact that I haven't means they're good at hiding.
Kid 2: That's completely backward!
Kid 1: What about rainbows? Each has a pot of gold at the end.
Kid 2: Have you ever found one?
Kid 1: You only find it if the leprechaun wants you to.
Kid 2: Convenient. Rainbows don't have ends. They're circular, and you can only see the top half under most conditions. The end always moves away from you based on your position relative to the light source and vapor.
Kid 1: Scientists are just trying to suppress the truth of leprechauns.

See? Easy peasy!

Now, what did we learn from this exercise?

Babies are pricks! Kill them on sight!

No?