Life is not sacred, leave my womb alone!

[Mistress Lithia]

I know, I know, you're all saying 'NO not another abortion thread!' but this one has a somewhat different angle from the usual 'its a woman;'s right/no its not' bent all the others have.

I have had conversations in recent days with several 'pro-life Christians' who purport that their deity loves children both in and out of the womb. They claimed this right up to the point where I used their own book against them. They kept trying to quote scripture so I pulled out some of my own. Like every other Christian I have ever confronted, their excuses ranged from 'But that's different' to 'But that was okay because God said so' and my favorite 'You're wrong because I say you're wrong'.

So let's get this shitstorm started shall we?


First and foremost, for those who tout 'All babies, even those in the womb, are sacred to god and that means abortion is wrong', I give you the first damning piece of scripture that refutes your claim.


Hosea 13:16 states thus:
"Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up".


Notice that not only are infants to be bashed until they are in pieces, but women who are with child are to be murdered as well, and in so doing their unborn child is killed also. This in and of itself shows that children are not sacred to the Christian god, not even the ones yet to be born. But this is not the only passage. No, please allow me to share several more damning pieces of evidence.


In I Samuel 15:2-3 we again see the Christian deity's lack of love for children.

"Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.
Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and a**."


And again in Deuteronomy 2:34 and 3:6-7

"And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain." (Deuteronomy 2:34)

"And we utterly destroyed them, as we did unto Sihon king of Hesbon, utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city. But all the cattle, and the spoil of the cities we took for a prey to ourselves." (Deuteronomy 3:6-7)


Yet again the lack of sacredness is evidenced in Ezekiel 9:5-6.

"And to the others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity: Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and woman: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at my sanctuary. Then they began at the ancient men which were before the house."


Not only are god's people supposed to slaughter children, they are supposed to rejoice in the murder. Don't believe me? Behold, I give you Psalm 137:8-9.

"O daughter of Babylon, O destroyed one, O the happiness of him who repayeth to thee thy deed, That thou hast done to us.
O the happiness of him who doth seize, And hath dashed thy sucklings on the rock!"


The book of Deuteronomy is ripe with accounts of 'innocent' children being slaughtered right alongside their parents. I won't post every single passage but I will give the passage numbers so anyone who wishes to do so can look them up. Deuteronomy 3:3, Deuteronomy 7:1-2, Deuteronomy 20:16-17, Deuteronomy 13:15. Also check pout Joshua 10:28-40. In those passages Joshua slaughtered every man, woman, and child throughout the entire country of Goshen. It lists 8 specific cities within those passages.


Now, what really caught my attention when it was excused by those I have conversed with was the utter lack of reaction to their god commanding not only genocide and infanticide but rape of both women and children.


In Numbers 31:16-18 we have god commanding mass genocide and infanticide then turning around and commanding child rape.
"Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."


And in Isaiah 13:15-16 again we have the command to commit mass genocide, infanticide, and rape.

"Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword. Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished."


For anyone who tries to say 'But that's all in the Old Testament, Jesus never said that, I direct you to Revelation 2:22-23 where Jesus states "Behold I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they that repent of their deeds. And I will kill her children with death."


For those who may try to use the excuse of 'But that's okay, they were non-believers and god said to do it' I have a counter argument.


If you state committing genocide is okay because one deity commands it then you must accept that it is okay if another deity commands it, or else be called hypocrites. With that reasoning, one could say that the events of 9/11 were completely okay because those Muslim extremists firmly believed (just as god's followers firmly believed) that they were being commanded to commit jihad against the non-believers.


I, for one, refuse to follow that vile logic. It is never okay to commit murder. it is never okay to commit rape. It is never okay to commit genocide. It is never okay to commit infanticide. It is never, ever okay to rape a young girl just because a deity said so.


Do not tell me that your deity thinks all life is sacred when your own book shows otherwise. You have no stance using religion as a justification to try to demean and control women and their bodies. Not without losing any and all credibility you might have had.


Now the challenge.


I challenge those who are opposed to abortion to state their opposition without turning to a book that is riddled with accounts of children, both in and out of the womb, being murdered just for existing. Let's see how many can do that.

[Riviera de la Mancha]

First, that there are contradictory parts of the bible does not lessen the message of the current church, and that is that life is sacred in all forms, even unborn life.

Second, the value of life, even for people of faith, is not bound to the literal word of the text, but rather to the teachings and experiences of the faith.

Finally, there are a number of modern philosophical positions that value life that don't resort to religious texts. The following article is a good summary of the most common iteration of this argument. http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/11/29/abortion-fetus-logic-natural/.

Not very difficult challenge.

[Fermionic]

One may say "If I had been considered for abortion, it would be my preference to not have been aborted. Hence, it would be polite to afford the same consideration for current foetuses".

[Mistress Lithia]

Riviera de la Mancha

First, that there are contradictory parts of the bible does not lessen the message of the current church, and that is that life is sacred in all forms, even unborn life.

Second, the value of life, even for people of faith, is not bound to the literal word of the text, but rather to the teachings and experiences of the faith.

Finally, there are a number of modern philosophical positions that value life that don't resort to religious texts. The following article is a good summary of the most common iteration of this argument. http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/11/29/abortion-fetus-logic-natural/.

Not very difficult challenge.

The message is a false one, a lie, so they can shove it where the sun doesn't shine. I deplore hypocrisy and that is what Christians spout when they claim their deity says all live is sacred when his own commands prove them to be liars.


Making excuses for lying doesn't change that its a lie.


The first thing form that article that jumps out at me is this:

Quote:

The premise based on natural value is that all human beings have the right to life because they are human. Surprisingly enough, this is the premise that most pro-abortion philosophers will disagree with in the modern debate—they will deny universal values altogether and argue instead that values are simply subjective.

First, the author is erroneously stating that most people who are pro-choice think all pregnancies should end in abortion, by calling them pro-abortionists. Second, the claim that all humans have a right to life, I vehemently disagree with that. Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, Timothy McVeigh, Charles Cullen, Anders Hanson, Jane Toppan, Donald Harvey, Steven Massof... and every other serial killer and mass rapist out there, along with every child rapist in existence, do not deserve life. They need to be put down like the animals they are.


The next part is this:

Quote:

If the human is a person only when neurologically functioning as a human, then by that same argument it would be permissible to kill people while they are in deep sleep, in comas, or mentally handicapped.

The author shows a clear lack of understanding of neurology. Your brain does not cease to function when you are mentally handicapped, in a deep sleep, or in a coma. The only time it ceases to function is when they lose permanent brain stem function, or brain death, and at that time, in most places, the next of kin CAN choose to remove life support.

In some places they can also choose to remove it if the person is in a coma or a vegetative state, which is also called wakeful unawareness. Linky to the pdf I was reading in case you want a source.


Not that you actually stated a stance using the article. Just article dumping does not an argument make.

[Mistress Lithia]

Fermionic

One may say "If I had been considered for abortion, it would be my preference to not have been aborted. Hence, it would be polite to afford the same consideration for current foetuses".

If my mother had considered it I wouldn't care because as a non-thinking, unfeeling, forming cell mass I would have had no knowledge of self to care. If she were to tell me she'd considered it I would have said 'Well, your life would have been different, no idea if that's a good or bad thing. I'm neither happy nor sad, because the choice was yours to make." *shrugs* But then I don't try to play with people's emotions either.

[Riviera de la Mancha]

Mistress Lithia

Riviera de la Mancha

First, that there are contradictory parts of the bible does not lessen the message of the current church, and that is that life is sacred in all forms, even unborn life.

Second, the value of life, even for people of faith, is not bound to the literal word of the text, but rather to the teachings and experiences of the faith.

Finally, there are a number of modern philosophical positions that value life that don't resort to religious texts. The following article is a good summary of the most common iteration of this argument. http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/11/29/abortion-fetus-logic-natural/.

Not very difficult challenge.

The message is a false one, a lie, so they can shove it where the sun doesn't shine. I deplore hypocrisy and that is what Christians spout when they claim their deity says all live is sacred when his own commands prove them to be liars.


Making excuses for lying doesn't change that its a lie.


The first thing form that article that jumps out at me is this:

Quote:

The premise based on natural value is that all human beings have the right to life because they are human. Surprisingly enough, this is the premise that most pro-abortion philosophers will disagree with in the modern debate—they will deny universal values altogether and argue instead that values are simply subjective.

First, the author is erroneously stating that most people who are pro-choice think all pregnancies should end in abortion, by calling them pro-abortionists. Second, the claim that all humans have a right to life, I vehemently disagree with that. Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, Timothy McVeigh, Charles Cullen, Anders Hanson, Jane Toppan, Donald Harvey, Steven Massof... and every other serial killer and mass rapist out there, along with every child rapist in existence, do not deserve life. They need to be put down like the animals they are.


The next part is this:

Quote:

If the human is a person only when neurologically functioning as a human, then by that same argument it would be permissible to kill people while they are in deep sleep, in comas, or mentally handicapped.

The author shows a clear lack of understanding of neurology. Your brain does not cease to function when you are mentally handicapped, in a deep sleep, or in a coma. The only time it ceases to function is when they lose permanent brain stem function, or brain death, and at that time, in most places, the next of kin CAN choose to remove life support.

In some places they can also choose to remove it if the person is in a coma or a vegetative state, which is also called wakeful unawareness. Linky to the pdf I was reading in case you want a source.


Not that you actually stated a stance using the article. Just article dumping does not an argument make.

I challenge those who are opposed to abortion to state their opposition without turning to a book that is riddled with accounts of children, both in and out of the womb, being murdered just for existing. Let's see how many can do that. ---------- You

That you might disagree with the arguments I presented does not change the fact that I satisfied the challenge. I presented three arguments, none of which rely on the bible itself, that argue against abortion. The first is that the faith has changed its position since the bible was written, and in particular the parts of the text you cite, so that their message is not what you assert it to be. The second is that the cited texts are not controlling of the faith, so citing them is not relevant or controlling over modern (as in about a few hundred years old) writings to the contrary. And finally, that modern philosophers offer arguments in favor of life.

Again, challenge met.

The problem I suspect is that you were not looking for arguments. You were looking for a debate with someone who is anti-abortion, since all your comments go to the persuasiveness of the arguments to you, and not to their validity as arguments which do not reference religious texts.

[Xiam]

Life is sacred. But it's also [******** everywhere. Death is also everywhere - it is an inevitability - and therefore to presume that life is better than death is a sort of "bias of the living."

The death of one does not necessarily lead to the death of all.

Mistress Lithia

Fermionic

One may say "If I had been considered for abortion, it would be my preference to not have been aborted. Hence, it would be polite to afford the same consideration for current foetuses".

If my mother had considered it I wouldn't care because as a non-thinking, unfeeling, forming cell mass I would have had no knowledge of self to care. If she were to tell me she'd considered it I would have said 'Well, your life would have been different, no idea if that's a good or bad thing. I'm neither happy nor sad, because the choice was yours to make." *shrugs* But then I don't try to play with people's emotions either.

Uhhh yeah. Pretty much this.

It's about the same as people who claim to be "pro-life," but their hypocrisy shows once the term is clearly applied purely to abortion. Rather than, say, the death sentence. Or war. Or feeding the hungry, to ensure that they're... you know... alive.

But yeah. They reeeally like the emotional manipulation angle.

[Kaworu 17]

Mistress Lithia

If my mother had considered it I wouldn't care because as a non-thinking, unfeeling, forming cell mass I would have had no knowledge of self to care.

If you were a one year old non-thinking, feeling, multicellular organism we usually call "toddler", I take it you also wouldn't care if your mother asked you if you would like your whole body crushed...

Therefore, it's good we have people caring for those who can't fend for themselves.

[Mistress Lithia]

Riviera de la Mancha

Mistress Lithia

Riviera de la Mancha

First, that there are contradictory parts of the bible does not lessen the message of the current church, and that is that life is sacred in all forms, even unborn life.

Second, the value of life, even for people of faith, is not bound to the literal word of the text, but rather to the teachings and experiences of the faith.

Finally, there are a number of modern philosophical positions that value life that don't resort to religious texts. The following article is a good summary of the most common iteration of this argument. http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/11/29/abortion-fetus-logic-natural/.

Not very difficult challenge.

The message is a false one, a lie, so they can shove it where the sun doesn't shine. I deplore hypocrisy and that is what Christians spout when they claim their deity says all live is sacred when his own commands prove them to be liars.


Making excuses for lying doesn't change that its a lie.


The first thing form that article that jumps out at me is this:

Quote:

The premise based on natural value is that all human beings have the right to life because they are human. Surprisingly enough, this is the premise that most pro-abortion philosophers will disagree with in the modern debate—they will deny universal values altogether and argue instead that values are simply subjective.

First, the author is erroneously stating that most people who are pro-choice think all pregnancies should end in abortion, by calling them pro-abortionists. Second, the claim that all humans have a right to life, I vehemently disagree with that. Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, Timothy McVeigh, Charles Cullen, Anders Hanson, Jane Toppan, Donald Harvey, Steven Massof... and every other serial killer and mass rapist out there, along with every child rapist in existence, do not deserve life. They need to be put down like the animals they are.


The next part is this:

Quote:

If the human is a person only when neurologically functioning as a human, then by that same argument it would be permissible to kill people while they are in deep sleep, in comas, or mentally handicapped.

The author shows a clear lack of understanding of neurology. Your brain does not cease to function when you are mentally handicapped, in a deep sleep, or in a coma. The only time it ceases to function is when they lose permanent brain stem function, or brain death, and at that time, in most places, the next of kin CAN choose to remove life support.

In some places they can also choose to remove it if the person is in a coma or a vegetative state, which is also called wakeful unawareness. Linky to the pdf I was reading in case you want a source.


Not that you actually stated a stance using the article. Just article dumping does not an argument make.

I challenge those who are opposed to abortion to state their opposition without turning to a book that is riddled with accounts of children, both in and out of the womb, being murdered just for existing. Let's see how many can do that. ---------- You

That you might disagree with the arguments I presented does not change the fact that I satisfied the challenge.

Except you really didn't. You dumped a link, you did not actually answer the challenge of supporting your opposition (which, ya know, is usually done in a person's own words, not pseudo-plagiarized by just posting a link) without resorting to religious text. You know, like pro-lifers are wont to do. "But god says all life is sacred'.

Give me something that YOU think, not what someone who doesn't even know what he's talking about thinks.

Riviera de la Mancha

I presented three arguments, none of which rely on the bible itself, that argue against abortion. The first is that the faith has changed its position since the bible was written, and in particular the parts of the text you cite, so that their message is not what you assert it to be.

the 'message' is a lie. The bible states that you are not to change or alter the word. So if they're altering it to suit themselves they are breaking his commandment. If they insist on using a book that shows a lack of sacredness then they damn sight better be ready to be called out for it.

Riviera de la Mancha

The second is that the cited texts are not controlling of the faith, so citing them is not relevant or controlling over modern (as in about a few hundred years old) writings to the contrary.

Again, the bible states, in god's words, that the followers are not to alter or change it. Making up your own idea of what it says, when the words are direct from god, does not change that their deity commanded genocide, infanticide, and rape of both women and children. It does not change that their deity does NOT hold all life to be sacred.

Riviera de la Mancha

And finally, that modern philosophers offer arguments in favor of life.

Again, challenge met.

Again, not really. I think you decided to just dump something other than your own views because I have a feeling you can't do so without resorting to religious text.

Riviera de la Mancha

The problem I suspect is that you were not looking for arguments. You were looking for a debate with someone who is anti-abortion, since all your comments go to the persuasiveness of the arguments to you, and not to their validity as arguments which do not reference religious texts.

See above. If you want to give me arguments, give me arguments. but don't dump a link and say "here's this philosopher, go read what this ill-informed anti-woman person has to say". You conveniently over-looked what I pointed out about your 'philosopher' and his/her errors. Why is that?

In other words, Riviera, give me your OWN ******** words, not regurgitating what someone else said, or worse, just posting a link and saying 'read'. If you want to use it in conjunction with your own personal stance one way or another, go for it. but don't just give me a damn link and then pat yourself on the back. Some people in the ED might kiss your a** that way but I'm not one of them.

[Mistress Lithia]

Xiam

Life is sacred.

Prove that life is sacred.

Xiam

But it's also [******** everywhere. Death is also everywhere - it is an inevitability - and therefore to presume that life is better than death is a sort of "bias of the living."

The death of one does not necessarily lead to the death of all.

This I can agree with.

Xiam

Mistress Lithia

Fermionic

One may say "If I had been considered for abortion, it would be my preference to not have been aborted. Hence, it would be polite to afford the same consideration for current foetuses".

If my mother had considered it I wouldn't care because as a non-thinking, unfeeling, forming cell mass I would have had no knowledge of self to care. If she were to tell me she'd considered it I would have said 'Well, your life would have been different, no idea if that's a good or bad thing. I'm neither happy nor sad, because the choice was yours to make." *shrugs* But then I don't try to play with people's emotions either.

Uhhh yeah. Pretty much this.

It's about the same as people who claim to be "pro-life," but their hypocrisy shows once the term is clearly applied purely to abortion. Rather than, say, the death sentence. Or war. Or feeding the hungry, to ensure that they're... you know... alive.

But yeah. They reeeally like the emotional manipulation angle.

Very, very true. I have met a rare few who oppose war, the death penalty, and focus their efforts on things like helping the poor and homeless, but those are few and far between. As a matter of fact, I can count on one hand and have fingers left over.

[Mistress Lithia]

Kaworu 17

Mistress Lithia

If my mother had considered it I wouldn't care because as a non-thinking, unfeeling, forming cell mass I would have had no knowledge of self to care.

If you were a one year old non-thinking, feeling, multicellular organism we usually call "toddler", I take it you also wouldn't care if your mother asked you if you would like your whole body crushed...

Therefore, it's good we have people caring for those who can't fend for themselves.

Considering the fact a one year old can think, can feel, and also is breathing, your anology is flawed.

You're comparing apples and oranges.

[Riviera de la Mancha]

Mistress Lithia

Riviera de la Mancha

Mistress Lithia

Riviera de la Mancha

First, that there are contradictory parts of the bible does not lessen the message of the current church, and that is that life is sacred in all forms, even unborn life.

Second, the value of life, even for people of faith, is not bound to the literal word of the text, but rather to the teachings and experiences of the faith.

Finally, there are a number of modern philosophical positions that value life that don't resort to religious texts. The following article is a good summary of the most common iteration of this argument. http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/11/29/abortion-fetus-logic-natural/.

Not very difficult challenge.

The message is a false one, a lie, so they can shove it where the sun doesn't shine. I deplore hypocrisy and that is what Christians spout when they claim their deity says all live is sacred when his own commands prove them to be liars.


Making excuses for lying doesn't change that its a lie.


The first thing form that article that jumps out at me is this:

Quote:

The premise based on natural value is that all human beings have the right to life because they are human. Surprisingly enough, this is the premise that most pro-abortion philosophers will disagree with in the modern debate—they will deny universal values altogether and argue instead that values are simply subjective.

First, the author is erroneously stating that most people who are pro-choice think all pregnancies should end in abortion, by calling them pro-abortionists. Second, the claim that all humans have a right to life, I vehemently disagree with that. Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, Timothy McVeigh, Charles Cullen, Anders Hanson, Jane Toppan, Donald Harvey, Steven Massof... and every other serial killer and mass rapist out there, along with every child rapist in existence, do not deserve life. They need to be put down like the animals they are.


The next part is this:

Quote:

If the human is a person only when neurologically functioning as a human, then by that same argument it would be permissible to kill people while they are in deep sleep, in comas, or mentally handicapped.

The author shows a clear lack of understanding of neurology. Your brain does not cease to function when you are mentally handicapped, in a deep sleep, or in a coma. The only time it ceases to function is when they lose permanent brain stem function, or brain death, and at that time, in most places, the next of kin CAN choose to remove life support.

In some places they can also choose to remove it if the person is in a coma or a vegetative state, which is also called wakeful unawareness. Linky to the pdf I was reading in case you want a source.


Not that you actually stated a stance using the article. Just article dumping does not an argument make.

I challenge those who are opposed to abortion to state their opposition without turning to a book that is riddled with accounts of children, both in and out of the womb, being murdered just for existing. Let's see how many can do that. ---------- You

That you might disagree with the arguments I presented does not change the fact that I satisfied the challenge.

Except you really didn't. You dumped a link, you did not actually answer the challenge of supporting your opposition (which, ya know, is usually done in a person's own words, not pseudo-plagiarized by just posting a link) without resorting to religious text. You know, like pro-lifers are wont to do. "But god says all life is sacred'.

Give me something that YOU think, not what someone who doesn't even know what he's talking about thinks.

Riviera de la Mancha

I presented three arguments, none of which rely on the bible itself, that argue against abortion. The first is that the faith has changed its position since the bible was written, and in particular the parts of the text you cite, so that their message is not what you assert it to be.

the 'message' is a lie. The bible states that you are not to change or alter the word. So if they're altering it to suit themselves they are breaking his commandment. If they insist on using a book that shows a lack of sacredness then they damn sight better be ready to be called out for it.

Riviera de la Mancha

The second is that the cited texts are not controlling of the faith, so citing them is not relevant or controlling over modern (as in about a few hundred years old) writings to the contrary.

Again, the bible states, in god's words, that the followers are not to alter or change it. Making up your own idea of what it says, when the words are direct from god, does not change that their deity commanded genocide, infanticide, and rape of both women and children. It does not change that their deity does NOT hold all life to be sacred.

Riviera de la Mancha

And finally, that modern philosophers offer arguments in favor of life.

Again, challenge met.

Again, not really. I think you decided to just dump something other than your own views because I have a feeling you can't do so without resorting to religious text.

Riviera de la Mancha

The problem I suspect is that you were not looking for arguments. You were looking for a debate with someone who is anti-abortion, since all your comments go to the persuasiveness of the arguments to you, and not to their validity as arguments which do not reference religious texts.

See above. If you want to give me arguments, give me arguments. but don't dump a link and say "here's this philosopher, go read what this ill-informed anti-woman person has to say". You conveniently over-looked what I pointed out about your 'philosopher' and his/her errors. Why is that?

In other words, Riviera, give me your OWN ******** words, not regurgitating what someone else said, or worse, just posting a link and saying 'read'. If you want to use it in conjunction with your own personal stance one way or another, go for it. but don't just give me a damn link and then pat yourself on the back. Some people in the ED might kiss your a** that way but I'm not one of them.

I have given my own words. This is why you again presented only challenges to their persuasiveness and not to their validity as meeting the proffered challenge.

If you would like me to summarize the argument in the link, then I can do that. The summary though would add nothing, since your challenge was, "I challenge those who are opposed to abortion to state their opposition without turning to a book that is riddled with accounts of children, both in and out of the womb, being murdered just for existing. Let's see how many can do that." No where was it said that someone could not use a summary, and a summary is just as legitimate as anything else to state someone's position on some issue. This is of course assuming you are indeed looking for just arguments, and not something more. wink heart

All I have seen thus far is my suspicions confirmed: you have little interest in merely seeing non-religious text-based arguments. You want to have a debate with someone who is anti-abortion. That is the only way adding a summary of the link in my own words could contribute anything to satisfying the challenge, which was already satisfied by two of the other three arguments I presented even assuming, arguendo, that I would need to summarize my link since the other two arguments are not mentioned at all in the link.

Again, challenge met. 3nodding

[Xiam]

Mistress Lithia

Xiam

Life is sacred.

Prove that life is sacred.

Perhaps "sacred" is the wrong word. I'd actually prefer "significant." The fact that matter can combine to form something aware is, in my opinion, amazing. Not necessarily unusual, but certainly amazing. And telling about the nature of the universe itself.

I suppose describing that as "sacred" only fits depending upon what else you deem "sacred."

I wonder what the implication would be to consider everything sacred.

[Faustine Liem]

All life is an abomination to the reaper. Eat meat.

Anyways, I was once on the internet just looking for an apologetic for the genocide in the bible. Want to know what it said? I'm going to paraphrase a little.

"All the people were killed so that Jesus could be born from a clean family line."

And... I just... 'what so it isn't genocide its ETHIC CLEANSING?! WHAT!?' I went white hot with rage and had to go break something. I'm serious about that. You can find the article I'm quoting from, I... don't want to see it again. If I get that much rage again I'll become a Sith Lord.

[Chahklet]

I don't care what you say. Leave it at that.