Barihawk

But we are talking about unfertilized chickens, here. The rooster never impregnated the hen, so no baby chicken is there in any form (from zygote to chick). The egg would have been forgotten. Like I said, regardless of fertilization, the egg is removed from the Hen like a period. The egg would just rot somewhere away from the nest.

I will find out when I get there. All the manifestations of Heaven are metaphysical like John's vision of the Apocalypse. The majority of that prophecy is figurative, too. So, we will see.

Most of the time, though, the hen's egg is unfertilized. Think of it as their period. Another inappropriate analogy. Very rarely are we ever eating a dead chicken fetus. That's just a sick joke to amuse children.

Same with American take-out, Bubsa. Chinese Stir-Fry was invented by a Chinese chef for American high school students in Sacremento. And the Indian food here in Texas is 100 times spicier.

Which is not a good line to draw, because the child is dependant upon the mother for oxygen, food, and other needs until birth, and then dependant on her for food for several more weeks. A baby would drown in the placenta even a day before birth without the mother supporting it.

Do you really rate the quality of a country by the quality of Tex-Mex? Dude, we never have it. Ever. EDIT: Oh, by the way, try the mushy peas. The mushy peas are excellent. But yes, there are no less than 20 Tex-Mex restaurants in London, alone. I've patronized all of them. Well, 19 of them. When the Welshman tried to mimic a Texan drawl, I just left.

I know that wasn't really a general question but I've been sitting on my own answer to it for like three pages without finding an opening, so I'll throw mine in: When the feutus has developed far enough to be sustained without the mother. In many cases, that's 2-3 weeks AFTER the birth when the child is reliant on breastmilk.

I've lived in Britain. My overall view of it is poor, because the nation has the worst attempt at Tex-Mex in the world. The salsa was COLD (should be room temperature) and the spice level was colder. However, native British cuisine is amazing. Beautiful country, lots of museums. But tainted by the complete butchering of Tex-Mex. I made the mistake of saying "ya'll" when I went in. BIG MISTAKE.

1. Never have had that "divine right," unlike others in the debate. Notice how I've brought the Bible into this. I'm relying on moral and ethical principles here. General ones. 2. Exactly. That's the whole spirit of the debate. However, most pro-choicers I talk to believe in the "life begins at birth" and therefore spoil my opinion of the rest of you. Like you stated in number 7, it's a small group of irresponsible ones spoiling it for the rest. 3. However, the point is that zygotes only last for hours before the first division. Note that this is three-five days after intercourse, in which the parents to be had plenty of time to follow-up with birth control. The "morning-after" pill is dirt cheap, I hear. And unlike some people, I don't consider it abortion if you use it "the morning after" as the sperm has likely not reached the egg. 4. Yes, I thought so. The bads far outweigh the goods of eugenics research. 5. As someone stated before, a newborn infant does not have current views, ideas, aspirations, etc. But when an infant is smothered by it's mother, CNN crucifies her bringinig up that same point. But an embryo or fetus is different because it hasn't been born yet? I was not referring to a termination paradox, I was referring to the grandiose double-standard that exists. 6. It's her right (couple A) to do whatever she wants. But my belief is that murder is not one of them. If she does carry the baby to term, she may decide that she does indeed love this thing growing inside her. She might even decide to keep the child. 7. I believe it should. Abortion is not to be used as a form of birth control (the main thing about it that pisses me off). If someone has genuine medical need of an abortion, with a certified gynecologist providing evidence, I'm more likely to bend. But it should be strictly monitored, so every midwife in America doesn't make a killing giving out 'abortion tickets.'

... We are talking about humans here. Not animals. I don't care if you are from Earth First, we are not discussing that. Trees are not sentient. And soldiers know they have the risk of death. A child does not.

Are you serious? We don't eat the meat of humans. I'm sorry, but that analogy is absurd.

That sentiment is disgusting. By that mentality, you are condoning eugenics. Why don't we just go round up all the blind and lame people in the world and shoot them in the head to put them out of their misery. I can't even begin to state how disgusting that post is. I'm sorry, but you remind me of freaking Hitler. You make it sound like killing a baby is a public service. And to Warri0r: 1. When the law applies, yes. And I will support every law initiative to consider abortion murder. Whether it's an undeveloped Zygote, or a fetus that is just becoming self-aware, it still has the right to be born. 2. I was playing devil's advocate there. In fact, it is legal in China to kill the baby just before birth as a means of population control. I was combating here the stigma that "life begins at birth," which I consider BS. 3. You got me there, I forgot my biology. Embryo would be a better term. However, you are correct that it lacks an emotional appeal. 4. I didn't mean Hitler's eugenics. There is a recent surge in eugenics research that seems to be picking up speed (ie cloning, genetic manipulation, etc) that I am sure will make normal humanity a subspecies. By saying that you are doing the baby a favor by not making it live through MS or blindness, you are pretty much making it a subspecies. Not worthy of living amongst us healthy people. 5. Hence the reason I make these statements. An embryo may not have conscious thought (the brain does not kick on until 3-5 weeks into the term) but by aborting it you are snuffing out that future fully grown human being. You snuff out it's ideas, thoughts, dreams, and aspirations. Every human deserves the right to grow up (as we hear countless times on news reports when a young child is killed). Does the embryo not deserve the same? 6. It's been my understanding that most pro-choicers are exceedingly pessimistic. Apparently, every adoption agency looks like Oliver Twist and every child born to unwanting parents is going to be blind, Deaf, lame, and be mentally challenged. When neither of these things is true. It's the minority kicking the majority's [wagon]. 7. Like I said before, it's poetic justice. All actions have consequences, all causes effect. Grow up and accept them. If 15-year olds want to have immature irresponsible sex, they should be prepared for the consequences. Should a life be snuffed out just because they don't want their parents to know? Speaking of which. When parents find out their little girl is pregnant, the anger is almost always short lived. No matter if you are dirt poor or filthy rich, your parents and grandparents would always be willing to help out and accept the baby into the family.

Star Wars vs Star Trek settled right here:

Now, I get angry at "trivial" things. The sight of same-sex couples kissing in public bothers me to no end (to be honest, I get annoyed when hetero couples do it). I get angry over various political/religious debates. But abortion just absolutely makes me pissed off. I consider it to be murder with excuses.

Leave the law out of this. Let's pretend the law doesn't exist. The stigma I am fighting here is that life begins at birth. There are plenty more alternatives than condoms. There is birth control, spermicides, and let's not forget the big anti-pregnancy, Abstinence! People who are in a real relationship and wish to have sex without the risk of child would be using a combination. And I think it's ironic justice that you should have the burden of a child because you just had to "get laid."

Not true, we still have the examine and graphical update for the month.

I don't see how the argument that "the mother created it, she decides what to do with it." If a mother smothered her one day old baby because she could not support it, or if it were to have some debilitating condition, she would get the majority of her life in prison and be publicly crucified by media. If a mother has her child killed one day before it's born, it's somewhat alright? A zygote is a human being. We were all Zygotes. Did you magically turn from "non-human" to "human" by leaving the womb? We have evidence now of fetus' displaying heartbeats at only 3 weeks. Of sucking their thumbs at 6 (which if that is not a human behavior, you need an examination). This sounds more like a debate on eugenics. Find out your kid is not going to be born healthy, so you go ahead and "spare" him a lifetime of misery. Sounds noble, doesn't it? My brother died a day after he was born. I spent SIX WEEKS in ICU without a natural heartbeat. 22 years later, I am healthy as can be with no outstanding medical conditions. And yes, my family was doing very badly monetarily back then. There are alternatives to abortion. You make every adoption center sound like freaking Oliver Twist. They are not. Most adopted children in this nation find loving parents, many don't even know about their adoption. Lets say couple A: A college couple where the girl gets knocked up after a drunken binge. Couple B: A middle-aged married couple, the wife is barren. What scenario makes more sense to you? Couple A having their child killed in the womb because they don't want to take care of it? They don't wish their parents to know? Or for the girl to bring it to term, put it up for adoption and Couple B having the chance for a child. My argument summed up in one point: There are alternatives. Be more careful with sex, use better protection, "GROW UP" about pregnancy and deal with it (most mothers would not turn their backs on their daughters because they were pregnant), or heck, raise the child yourself! Yes, I have gotten emotional in this post. Abortion is single-handedly the only thing in this world that makes me white-knuckle pissed off. If someone would like to offer counterpoints, I'd love to cool down and answer. Hell, I could even do polls for you.

And...credibility going....going....GONE!

I not only remember getting that helm in a clue, but giving it to you as well :). Man, that was so long ago.

As I always post in these threads, Kefka from FF6. Sephiroth and Seymour were pretender demigods. Kefka ensnared the gods and destroyed the entire world. In fact, your characters could never beat him. Only his arrogance was able to defeat him.

Poppyseed chicken (my specialty as a chef, and yes, I am a professional chef...sorta): Feeds 5-6 6-8 boneless skinned breasts of chicken 1 Family Size can of Cream of Chicken Soup 1/2 can of Cambell's chicken broth 8 oz Sour Cream Ritz Crackers (1 tube) 1 stick butter Mix Cream of Chicken, broth, and sour cream in a baking pan. Mix until the mixture is an even beige-ish color. Next, dice the chicken breasts and mix evenly throughout the mixture. Bake at 375 F for 30 minutes, covered. Remove from oven, and add crushed Ritz Crackers on top. Make sure the crackers are crushed well, as larger pieces will burn. Pour melted butter on top, or use a brush to apply. Return to oven (bottom rack) uncovered and brown the crackers (so keep an eye on them). Remove, and serve with a large spoon on a plate, use a fork. Enjoy.

Needs less CIA trying to kill Bourne and more Jackal trying to kill Bourne. I was pissed how the movies completely diverged from the books, yet dared to keep the same names.

Yeah, but it's not really even dating. It's just "lol, I kiss girl" kind of stuff. Or the girl using the boy for her own purposes. Not really something to brag about. I'm glad he met this person he's had a decent relationship with, just not so much the bragging.

I prefer the term pastor. It's probably no surprise that I would like to go to seminary after my master's and before my doctorate degree.

I'd hate to think that you're one of the people posting here that aren't intelligent enough to see both sides of something, but you're disappointing me by missing one key thing - teenage relationships mean pretty much nothing. Girls at that age like to move from guy to guy to guy and guys like to move from girl to girl to girl. I liked to keep them more longer-term, but little girls are little girls, not women. :P Can you even call that a relationship then? And I actually do understand, since I added "I can't think of a meaningful relationship even happening before the age of 14."