With all of the need and suffering in the world, THIS is how atheists choose to spend their resources of time and money which incidentally they advance more suffering and poverty. How phenomenally sad.
 October 1, 2015 at 11:38am
There is a difference in cater and take out.
My wedding was catered by a business that you could eat in or take out and they cater weddings.
Two vans full of food showed up at the reception, people that work for the establishment took the food out of the vans uncovered it, set it up at the serving tables, and actually served the food to our guests. When food ran out, they went back to the van and produced more food until everyone had enough to eat.
That is catering. What these guys did was pick up take out and then showed there true moronic colors.
Gay or straight that was just dumb……and to post it like they did something soooooo witty.
 October 1, 2015 at 11:26am
That was the dumbest thing I have ever heard anybody doing.
"I believe it should be a woman’s right to choose…"
Peculiar that you use the word 'believe' instead of think, or feel. And, as it has been noted to the enth degree since the 70's: what of the person's right being aborted (murdered).
"I just believe we should do everything we can to help them make the right choice."
There you go 'believing' a 'choice' is possible, when there's money to be made. I had Planet Infanticide try to convince my wife and I one of my kids had a possibility of developing retardation of some sort, from some test result, and was fairly insistent we take their 'solution'. Let me state that these 'people' have no soul when they make their recommendations; like Quint in Jaws describing a shark before being eaten.
That kid turned out nothing but perfect (of course, every parents kid is perfect, right?), but even if there were any issue, we would have raised him or her just the same.
The abortion issue is rooted in individually promiscuous behavior that yielded a bloated financial magnate church, with an altar of convenience preaching woman's rights.
Ever heard of anyone being adopted from 'planned' parenthood? And you never will.
The woman made a choice to create life. Once life is conceived, a civilized society should protect it.
They have the right to choose…right up until they conceive. Then the new baby has its own rights. So maybe they should consider closing their legs before they make a new life.
The woman has the right to choose… before she creates another life. The woman does not have the right to kill because of her poor choice. That’s where people go wrong. Women have choice.
Sorry for being so redundant... but, some people are really that dense.
NO woman of child-bearing age can guarantee 100% that she will not get pregnant. No form of birth control, including abstinence, can guarantee that a woman will not engage in unprotected sex or that the birth control they use will work 100% every time. So while the choice CAN be made before, it CAN'T be a guaranteed choice. Therefore, any anti-abortion laws put an undue burden on women who by virtue of being a woman CANNOT guarantee 100% that they will not get pregnant. With natural laws like this governing who a woman is, how is it possible for the law to demand the choice of either a guarantee of no unwanted pregnancy or be in violation of the law if one chooses to terminate that pregnancy that she cannot guarantee 100% won't happen?
Please reference historical precedent that gives the unborn personhood rights at the time of conception. I might be wrong, but I can't think of any.
"NO woman of child-bearing age can guarantee 100% that she will not get pregnant"
Then she should not be engaging in life-conceiving activities. It really is that simple. Unless now you're proposing sex entitlement?
Again, NO woman of child-bearing age can guarantee that she will refrain from unprotected sex and/or guarantee that any birth control she uses will always be 100% effective. She can believe all she wants that she will not engage in life-conceiving activities", but we all know that at some point that isn't 100% reliable. It's really NOT that simple.
And yes, I will bring up sexual entitlement. By virtue of a woman's predisposed condition of pregnancy, the burden put on them to not engage in "life-conceiving activities" is an unequal burden, and thus unConstitutional.
then we agree. if she makes a choice, she bears the responsibility for that choice. she engages in sex, she and the man bear the responsibility for creating life.
this is 101-level stuff.
I'm ignoring your other "predisposed" nonsense because it's irrelevant nonsense.
"NO woman of child-bearing age can guarantee 100% that she will not get pregnant."
Lolz it just magically happens folks. Walking down the street and BAM! Pregnant. Could happen to anybody.
Only once that I've heard of outside ancient myths.