Rubbish. I CAN tell any parent that they CANNOT murder their children. You are just picking an arbitrary age.
You're saying that it is arbitrary that a foetus is inside a woman's body in a parasitic relationship (albeit necessarily so) and an infant is outside it, an independent individual?
Half of an epidemic is STILL and epidemic.
It does make the claim a bit pathetic, though doesn't it. In the United States in 2016:
about 12,000,000 conceptions, ending in
about 7,200,000 spontaneous losses (or acts of a god); and
about 893,000 abortions; and
3,945,875 live births
The actual abortion rate could be higher than that, because not all abortions are legal and reported, but then again you could decrease the abortion rate because maybe one in every three of those aborted would have been lost naturally (or by an act of a god) anyway.
In any case, rather than objecting about the less than 1,000,000 abortions, shouldn't you spend your time in prayer, asking your god not to kill over 7,000,000 children?
The lives endangered does NOT match the abortion rate. It is a rate of convenience. It 'looks' like you are counting quantity to me, btw.
Only because you insist on counting as a means of argument.
It doesn't help. Again, the question is does DNA write itself.
What does the question mean?
Diversity, imho, incredibly causes complexity. For instance, if you cannot find butterfly DNA in me, then you know that means, at the very least, editing DNA VERY specifically AND divergent complexity that begs the question further. We are no longer talking about 'common' ancestry at that point, but 'common library.' It delves strongly into 'intelligence' as necessary discussion.
I can't find anything scientifically coherent in there anywhere. Do you know any science?
But since you mention 'common library', let me ask you this: given that you are implying that there is DNA code ready to be 'called' into the applications represented by the different species, would you predict that the same job would be done using the same code in different species?
It is better to be a deist at that point: "Something/someone with incredible intelligence planned this."
But, since 1869, complexity in biological systems has been completely explained in terms of entirely natural forces, so the specific need for a biological designer is out of date by as much as 149 years. And so far there is nothing in principle that demands a designer in any aspect of our existence.
Colossians 1:17 You can't move that rock unless given the power to do so. It'd be something if you could try and remove your own power cord, but you can't. Even mockery or defiance is a drawn breath. You can't 'make' yourself live, you just do. You can't stop breathing on your own. You'd have to artificially do it. Question: why is that NEVER an atheist option? Answer: Because you only want to be just so separated that you have the illusion of self-direction. Philosophers, not just theologians have long wrestled with these implications.
It sounds like such a tedious and irrelevant question that no curious human should ever detain himself with it.
I've asked a doctor about this. He said it was so minute, it is of no significant consequence any longer. It virtually doesn't exist.
Sorry, what virtually doesn't exist?
This, btw, is like saying I should be more concerned about childhood cancer than school shootings 'by the numbers.' To me? It looks again like quantity over quality. I'm concerned with both so it doesn't matter if you accuse me of it. I'm concerned over both the majority and minority regarding life. The BEST you can do is be concerned about as much life as possible. There is something wrong with us to go against a 'good' thing in nature and destroy it. I realize that throws me in the tree-hugging category too, but we really need to NOT do things just because it might be immediately expedient to do so. Even to an atheist, often times the long and contemplative route is not just better, but best.
Still looks more like counting to me. Many women choose abortion because they know that it is the wrong time in their lives to have a child. They know that later in life, or in circumstances where they have had the opportunity to have a career, gain some life experience and put themselves on a more secure financial footing, that there will be a time when having children is the right thing for them. The environment of the upbringing of the child will be richer, and the experience will be more rewarding for all involved, with an increased quality of life all round.
Now, you would step in and say no, none of that is allowed. Well, I can't see any basis for you doing that, especially given the facts above. Instead of making life more difficult for women you don't know, get praying, get those rates of chromosomal abnormalities down, and so forth.
None of that is intended to diminish the experience of a woman who takes her pregnancy to term at an early age or in impoverished circumstances. The point is that the only person who should be allowed to make these decisions is that woman. Not even her husband should have any right to decide on her medical consent for her. I know that will startle the religiously conservative, who have railed against the rights of half the population for a very long time.
No, and you'd really need to delve into serious theology education to grasp that greater picture.
Maybe, but why would anyone in their right mind bother wasting their life with such fantasies?
Until then it is but passing dabbling. If I could redirect you, the greatest concern is 'purposeful' vs prescriptive. There is a difference between God's prescriptive and decretive wills. Man, specifically, has gotten 'himself' in a mess. Any remedy for that mess is up to God's discretion. He is loving. If you can't find a 'loving' answer, you have to look and study, thus a theology education is important for deeper conversations.
But if you don't love the god back, then it's burning in sulfur for you. The totalitarian dream. Compulsory love, like they must show for Kim Jong-Un in North Korea. It seems to me you can't bring yourself to even wonder if this particular god of which you write is actually incompetent. The problem of evil, failing to vanquish satan except by human sacrifice, apparently needing to commit genocide against the Amalekites, and indeed having to drown almost the entire population, and even then continuing to view humanity as inherently corrupt after all that purging.
It's almost as if someone has made all of that up in order to effect a con on as many people as possible. It's exactly like that, in fact.
It 'may' be hypocritical BUT my mom started smoking before she knew of cancer and other diseases. She wasn't 'trying' to be hypocritical. That wasn't the idea. She was reaping the consequences and DIDN'T want her kids to reap those same ones. She has been smoke free for about 30 years now. Not so hypocritical and way too hasty with that assessment, Stuart.
Well, she has set a good example the hard way. That deserves only respect.
Instead of angry and a bit hasty, you 'could' be thoughtful, reflective with a bit of grace.
I think anger is an appropriate response to the claims and excesses of christianity. If cigarettes were invented today, they would be banned under hazardous substances regulations, and likewise if christianity was invented today it would be ridiculed out of existence, before it had a chance to lead to so much persecution and misery.
Both are good trade languages. I'm utilitarian on this though do want all citizens in a country to speak the same language that unites it, whatever that is.
Yes, you will always need a lingua franca. Although, ironically, the lingua franca used in Europe was a mixture of Italian with French, Greek, Arabic, and Spanish,and the expression translates as everyone speaking French (which also nearly happened in the US).
Stuart
lain: 
