Less anger towards religion

[Thumpalumpacus]

Now if only believers would stop trying to inject their beliefs into our laws. You'd like us to come together? Tell your brethren to stop pushing people apart using the law as the pry-bar.

Laws to restrict abortion are based on human rights, starting with the right of a human being not to be killed by the intential acts of other human beings.

Without getting into the whole "when does life start?" debate -- whose answer you simply presume here -- I think we both know that anti-abortion sentiment in America is mosly driven by religious sentiment. Stop being disingenuous.

[Neo-Scholastic]

No I am not presuming anything. I am stating a biological fact. Your unwilliningness to engage with that fact reveals that you are the true anti-science partisan.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Laws to restrict abortion are based on human rights, starting with the right of a human being not to be killed by the intential acts of other human beings.

There is no human right that permits you to violate someone's bodily autonomy. Not even the preservation of life. The woman has the absolute right to kick out an unwanted entity within her body even if it results in death. This isn't about human rights it's about controlling the sexuality of women and stripping women of personhood and relegating them to second-class citizens.

[The Architect Of Fate]

No I am not presuming anything.

Yes you are 

I am stating a biological fact.

No, you are not. There is no biological basis for life beginning at conception. There is no point were life"  begins".
 

Your unwilliningness to engage with that fact reveals that you are the true anti-science partisan.

You have stated no facts your objections are religion-based and nothing else.

[arewethereyet]

No I am not presuming anything. I am stating a biological fact. Your unwilliningness to engage with that fact reveals that you are the true anti-science partisan.

I really don't believe you believe the things you post here.  I think your deal is to pretend to be a super-duper good Christian spreading the word.

So far I see you as one big fraud.

[Angrboda]

No I am not presuming anything. I am stating a biological fact. Your unwilliningness to engage with that fact reveals that you are the true anti-science partisan.

No, you are not. And if you don't realize it, that's something you need to look into.

[Thumpalumpacus]

No I am not presuming anything. I am stating a biological fact.

Nonsense.

Your unwilliningness to engage with that fact reveals that you are the true anti-science partisan.

I remember when you actually mounted thoughtful arguments. This? This is crap. Bald claims, inbuilt presumptions, no supporting articles, and "NO U". Sad. Change your screenname to "ExScholastic."

[Mister Agenda]

I didn't go through an 'anger phase', maybe because the process of me going from Pentecostal to atheist took around 15-20 years. I can't blame my parents for sincerely wanting to save me from eternal torment. Beliefs generate actions.

There are liberal religions that are on my side more than 90% of the time and I am happy to have their support. There are conservative religions that would take over the US government if they could get away with it, and I oppose them being able to do so. If someone's religion doesn't prevent them from supporting separation of religion and state, I can work with that.

[The Grand Nudger]

One has to wonder whether any religion that espouses the notion of a grand wizard in the clouds can truly be compatible with secular organization. It seems that the extent to which they can be, is directly related to the extent to which their adherents no longer believe, or fully believe, in their own assertions about what must be done, and what cannot be done. Theistic religions, as a subset of religion, is very much the religion of kings - earthly and divine. It cannot help but be so without significant revision, and revision which may very well drop it into some other category of belief.

[brewer]