Herr_Hugison

@UgoCannon You want to force your loved ones to eternally be in the presence of someone they don't want to be with? That's a strange act of love.

Angel: Welcome to Heaven. There is no more Sadness. Me: If there's no sadness, what about loved ones who didn't make it?

@LilitThyra Sie haben den Anfang der Geschichte vergessen: "Es war einmal, vor gar nicht allzulanger Zeit ..."

Natürlich! 😂 Die Konjunkturerwartungen von "Finanzexperten" sind im Juli kräftig gestiegen. "Das Reformpaket scheint Wirkung zu zeigen!" 😂 "Die deutsche Wirtschaft hat die Trendwende vollzogen!" 😂🤣😂

@RevIsaacWirtz Not all ideas. Only Christianity. Obviously. Because sKy DaDdY.

Does this count with all ideas? Is it harassment to share your political beliefs. What about your moral? Economic? Is everyone who marches, holds a sign, or even puts on in their front yard, harassing strangers? What specifically is it that is harassment? Being exposed to ideas you don't agree with? Or is calling it "Harassment" just trying to come up with a reason why something you don't like should actually be prevented and considered "wrong"?

@lonli4y @luvmyjaide So no deal? Then why do you wanna use a pregnant 11 year old as emotional blackmail?

@HerrHugison @luvmyjaide Why do you wanna make all abortions illegal?

Women are not enslaved by our female nature, the outcomes of our actions, or the natural healthy functions of our organs. Dont want kids? Dont get pregnant. The child you are pregnant with is not your property to dispose of.

@TheExBeliever The Apostles: "Let's start a religion called Christianity. We'll be brutally persecuted and killed, but centuries from now, somebody's gonna make a fortune off it."

Religion wants your money.

@lonli4y @luvmyjaide Then let's make all abortion illegal with the exception of 11 year olds getting pregnant like this. Deal?

@luvmyjaide An 11 year old girl pregnant from gangrape, is she also not entitled to have an abortion?

@TheHistoryGuy07 I'm fine with this definition. But it is only relevant for one thing only. Somone lacks belief in God or gods. Thats it. It's the same stance that babies have after birth. So Atehism is just reset to factory settings regarding this one question.

Atheists use the “privilege of the skeptic” to avoid the burden of proof. That is, they knock down the explanation of the theist & don’t provide one of their own in its place. This is exactly what they’ve done with the redefinition of “lack of belief.” Pretty cowardly.

@ElliotStabler92 Vielleicht sollten wir in öffentlichen Gebäuden Elektroautos installieren gegen die Hitze.

Es gibt keine Klimaanlagen, die ohne Strom arbeiten.

@hartzIV420 @Sonnengott_RA @SchonungslosYT Selbst wenn nicht. Das ist immernoch ein unterirdischen argument für "töten wir es lieber"

@Sonnengott_RA @SchonungslosYT Hier geht es um Kanada, nicht um Indien. Die medizinische Versorgung ist in der westlichen Welt mittlerweile so gut, dass man das ziemlich gut operieren kann.

Schwule: Trag ein Kind für uns aus! Leihmutter: Es hat aber eine Lippenspalte Schwule: Bäh, ne dann treib es ab. Man merkt einfach, dass es 0 um das Kind, sondern ausschließlich um ein Accessoire des persönlichen Lebensstils geht.

@David_Kicinski Atheists complaining about this and at the same time proudly reenacting it "I don't need God to tell me what's right and wrong"

No you're a sinner because you sin. Just like me.

@StillPatHere @MartinTweats @OfficialJonaveh There are so many Problems with this statement. Here is a quiz for you. What species is a fetus concieved by two humans? A: Human B: Gorilla C: Whale D: Flying Spaghetti Monster

@MartinTweats @OfficialJonaveh Human beings are born alive. Are you talking about a fetus?

You're trying to use the term born as a contradiction to unborn, but they simply refer to whereness, not whatness, e.g: At time t1, object A is in location X, and potentially in location Y At time t2, the potential to be in location Y is actualised, and object A is in location Y. The change of motion that takes place at event t2 is a change in where object A is, but not what object A is. Object A is ontologically the same in locations X and Y.

Abendliches Herumspintisieren: In den letzten 50 Jahren ist mehr technologische Entwicklung passiert als in den letzten 500 Jahren und in der Zeit als in den letzten 5000 Jahren. Glaubt ihr, dass sich dieser Trend fortsetzt oder nähern wir uns immer mehr einem "Entwicklungsplateau" an, das so leicht nicht überschritten werden kann.

@Conserberal @MartinTweats Agreed.

It's not quite that simple, semantically - you're using the term "separate" in a different sense than I was. I meant "physically separate" from the pregnant person's body, which is what the term "born" refers to. But, you're referring to being a biologically distinct organism, which can certainly be true before birth. Those simply aren't the same concept.

What is born?

@Conserberal @MartinTweats It exists as a separate organism from conception.

@MartinTweats In the context of abortion, the term "born" is generally defined as having completed the birth process by being delivered from the pregnant person's body and existing as a separate organism.

@LilitThyra Wo muss ich jetzt hin um diese Panik zu kaufen? Habe gerade keine mehr vorrätig.

Deutschland trocknet aus! Bitte verfallt in völlige Panik! 🤡 Die Regierung will doch neue Wasser-Steuern erfinden und uns viele dumme Vorschriften machen!

@ghostbanned7a @TheHistoryGuy07 What do you mean by "evidence"? If you mean "scientific evidence" then please own up to your standards and prove by the scientific method, that this is the only evidence that matters.

@TheHistoryGuy07 Not it's NOT a supernatural Universe, and the rest of us grew out of having an Imaginary Friend in our childhoods. You have presented ZERO evidence for 'God', angels, Satan and demons. You're simply delusional. It's quite pathetic.

In a supernatural universe a speaking serpent is entirely feasible. While animals are not capable of speaking, there are powerful beings, such as God, angels, satan, and demons who are capable of supernatural occurrences, including enabling animals to speak. It’s quite serious.

@TheHonestEvil @MartinTweats The baby definitely lacks consent to being killed.

@MartinTweats Lack of consent trumps positive consent. If I say no to you using my body, whatever my reason for that, it trumps your desire to have use of my body. Regardless of the rationale for your desire.

"but, yes, the woman’s desire to not be pregnant is enough of a reason for her to no longer be pregnant." "but, yes, the man's desire to rape is enough of a reason for him to no longer be not raping" Same logic: A desires B; therefore, a should be granted the right to do B.

@EdwardFrancisJ4 @RevIsaacWirtz Do you have scientific evidence for that?

@RevIsaacWirtz You're either ignorant or a liar. What I believe is that objective reality exists. Go ahead and tell me how that is incoherent, narcissistic, and imaginary.

The only reason atheists want so badly to be considered "Not a religion" is because then they would actually have to be held accountable to their beliefs and it would become apparent very quickly that their alternative worldview is incoherent, narcissistic, and imaginary.

@ruggud @ZELLKLUMPEN Hey. Look at this. A red herring.

@ZELLKLUMPEN aint u the nigga who said children who get pregnant after a rape should not even have an abortion.

what's the pro-abortion stance on this?

@MartinTweats Congrats! God bless the next 14 years (and beyond)

Celebrating 14 years married to a special lady with our own afternoon tea party.