airycandothat

tw0-p0int

kalynanne

Explain the purpose of hair other than insulation, then we will discuss whether it breaks natural law. 

airycandothat replied to your post: airycandothat replied to your post: airycandothat...

like I said, when you put even hald as much VISIBLE energy into ALL life I’ll believe you. Until then, Pro Fetus is the only label that works. You are NOT pro all life because you do nothing for anything but the fetus.

I don't really put much VISIBLE energy into helping the unborn (which is very sad).  All I do is talk about it on tumblr and hm.. that's all.  Saving any other human being from being murdered isn't much of a debate.  If anybody wants... I can debate that.  Mostly everybody agrees on that one, though (thank God).  

Well, I live in a large family so aside from caring for my little siblings, I sponsor a child with AIDS in Africa, have worked with several food drives in my Church, and have participated in several mission trips with the express purpose of repairing houses for the poor.  Do I have to keep going?  What do you do?

I truly think that you grossly overestimated the amount of time I spent serving those effected by abortion.  Like I said, I should do more.

Soo.... did I earn it?  I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous.  I mean, you can be pro-gay marriage without having participated in a rally.  You can be against rape without having counseling a victim.  etc......  You don't need to have done something in order to have an opinion.

Gracias :)

airycandothat replied to your post: cheetahsmile replied to your post: airycandothat...

I AM pro-abortionist. I am PRO CHOICE, I support abortions. Calling me pro-abortionist isn’t offensive. you ARE pro-fetus.

I'm glad we didn't offend you.  Having said that, I don't understand how this somehow makes me pro-fetus.. 

No. Gay marriage is illogical parodox. I've already explained this. Homosexual acts are contrary to natural law and are immoral. This is why I am against the acts and the so-called "marriage." If two men want to have sex, I am not going to stop them, but I will disapprove. 

when the "you don't have to trust the source, just the argument" works for you in a University setting let me know. 

I'll let you know in a few years :)  By that logic, though, you couldn't cite the Guttmacher Institute either..

Here's the thing: most of those pro-life sites have articles about topics on abortion.  They cite scientific sources to back their arguments.  They don't just come up with the stats on their own, they get them from a scientific source.

Like I said earlier, if you show me how any of the sources I have used were wrong or lying, I will find another!  This is a very reasonable thing to do.

Your arguments are invalid because your sources are invalid. 

You have yet to give me a reason why my sources are invalid.

If your sources are making valid arguments it should be easy to find them among VALID sources. 

My sources make arguments using valid sources.  Look at any of those websites and you'll see a list of scientific sources.  Like I said earlier, give me a good reason to believe that these sources are invalid and I'll look into it.

Till now you have given me no reason to believe such thing so they still stand.  Thanks :)

It's name calling. We aren't homophobic and we are being labeled as such. 

-Justin

In addition, I'm pretty sure you've called us stupid and idiots before.  Oh yeah, and teenyboppers :)

It was a joke, airycandothat.  As of now this is the only ask I have.  They're probably in the queue.