Kant

Those "special circumstances" are naturally occuring. Human cloning, "artifical random meiotic shuffling", and abortion are not naturally occuring. Then you haven't been to Africa. My mom and friends have been, to work in AIDS clinics for orphans. Do you know what they all said? "It's amazing how little money and health they have, and yet they appear happier than anyone I've ever met in North America". Yep, it's an anecdotal argument, but I think a valid one. A baby can bring joy that no amount of money can. From a "only matter exists" point of view, yes, empirical evidence points towards death being a simple lack of consciousness. However, I am not a materialist/atheist. Oh, and just wanted to note that when I say materialist in the above paragraph, I mean "only matter exists". I know else where I have been using the same word to denote the view of people that only care about commercial material objects. I thought we were supposed to leave emotional arguments out of this :P. But yes, I think it is a very safe bet. You're assuming that life + suffering < death. That is a very bold and unfounded assumption. The joys of life could be impossible to outweigh by any amount of suffering.

But a cell in my body will not become a human by any natural means. A zygote will. That's because you define quality of life in a materialistic sense. There are more things that bring happiness in this world than money. If the couple already has many kids, cannot afford it, and did not abort them I'm assuming that they don't define quality of life in monetary terms either. Was this response the one where you said that you "know" that there's worse things than death? I believe I responded to that.

It depends on what you consider a moral action to be. So explain to me what you consider to be a moral action, and then I will answer your question. Right, but a sperm doesn't have fully human DNA. Neither does an egg. Does an embryo? This is a false dilemma. You can't know that the quality of life of the parents will be worsened by going through with a pregnancy. Another false dilemma, one that I have already addressed in previous posts.

What if I rephrase "left alone" to "without unnatural intervention"?

We're not talking about whether or not abortion is legal. We're talking about whether it's moral. Thus I guess if you're a moral relativist your argument can't be anything other than "what I think is right is right for me", which is a pretty useless argument. The Law attempts to define what is moral but it does a poor job in my eyes. Look at the issue in realist terms. An embryo at early stages is nothing more than a collection of cells developing together. It can't think, it can't feel and can't do anything which makes a human a human. If you choose to argue that this embryo has the capability of life then you can argue the same for sperm or unfertilized eggs. An embryo with the proper conditions to grow will become a human, and so will these two things that create life. Yet millions die on their way to hopefully fertilizing an egg, do we kick up a fuss for those who had the chance to become human too? Or the unfertilized eggs that go without fertilization? The law has the issue correct - an early embryo isn't human it only has the capability of becoming one. I think very few people take the issue lightly, and it should not be. However a group of cells multiplying together and nothing else doesn't warrant taking the option away from people who arn't ready to take the responsibility of raising a child. There's a difference between the potential an embryo has and the potential sperm and egg have. Left to its own, an embryo will develop into a child. Left to their own, sperm and egg will not develop into a child. The potential argument is a valid argument as long as you give a clear definition on where to draw the line. In my case, the potential for human life begins when, left to its own, the group of cells will develop into a human. I believe that is at conception. Sperm and egg will never come into contact if left to their own. You are merely attempting to blur the line and then attacking the argument; you're using a straw man refutation.

We're not talking about whether or not abortion is legal. We're talking about whether it's moral. Thus I guess if you're a moral relativist your argument can't be anything other than "what I think is right is right for me", which is a pretty useless argument. The Law attempts to define what is moral but it does a poor job in my eyes. If you think you're mature enough to have sex, then you should be mature enough to understand that condoms aren't 100% effective and should be mature enough to prepare for the consequences of one not working. Aborting is an example of what happens when someone hasn't prepared.

An argument insane made in response to an early post of assassin's. He told assassin to "go tell a suffering child that they were better off aborted". You responded by saying "less emotion please". The fact that you got emotional thinking about someone telling a child that they were better off aborted says nothing about the argument. It is very logical that if you truly believe that the child would be better off aborted that you should have no problem telling them that. But of course, you and I both know that it is illogical to tell someone that their experience is worse than death when we really have no idea what they're going through and what death is like. Assassin's argument is a false dilemma in that both choices from his POV are made from ignorance. He doesn't know what the child is going through, and he doesn't know what death is like. But the mother doesn't know either. The mother doesn't know what the child is going through and the mother doesn't know what death is like. Thus the mother supposedly being able to make the choice is another false dilemma. This is why suicide doesn't make any sense either. It is another false dilemma, but at least the person committing suicide understands one aspect of the choice - they know what it will take to keep living, whereas nobody else does. No; you and I both assume that there are far worse things in this world than dying. We can only assume, and that's what makes this entire abortion debate one big false dilemma. That's my entire point.

Where's the logic in that? You've missed a big part of that. Where does it say that just because you can have children, it means you'd be good at raising them up? I'm intrigued as to where you've crossed that bridge... I said generally. Are you saying that those who are incapable of having children are somehow biologically wired to be good parents? I would think from an evolutionary standpoint that those animals that are sexually compatible would also be biologically predisposed towards parenting together.

I would think it's only logical to assume that if it takes a mother and a father to create a child it would generally be best for the mother and the father to raise the child.

Stop smoking & drugs. They're appetite killers.

Suicide doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t attest to that. The people that commit suicide are assuming that no life at all is better, and they really donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t know that. ItÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s a false dilemma in that one of the ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅchoicesÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

Go buy a CD.

Hahah... i"ve been in calc class too much... I couldn't see the simple answer.

I agree entirely with the bolded. People should not be identified by labels of sexuality. I therefore propose that the "gay rights" movement be abolished, since it promotes the labeling of people by sexuality. But you can say the same about Racism ie. Civil Rights and the Feminism Movement. Irrelevant. We're not talking about those movements. Merc said not to identify people by sexual labels so that means abolishing the gay rights movement because it labels people in that way. I know I just repeated Astralinre's point, but apparently you missed it. Why can't they be abolished? I hear of many people who do not like affirmative action.

The NHL (National Hockey League) implemented this a few years back. It makes more sense in hockey than football though as goals are more common in hockey - if a weak team wants to try and survive the game and make a 0-0 draw that's their perogative - it's not going to happen. However, in football a weaker team can just shut down their offense, play defensively all game and force their way into penalty kicks where it's anyone's game really. I don't think it should pass.

What about the effects on a child that grows up in a single gender parent home? Most people I know would argue that it is better for a child to grow up with a mother and a father than one father, two fathers, or vice versa. It's too early for there to be statistics on the behaviour/actions of children that grow up with homosexual parentS, but I know that idea of a child growing up in a single parent household is a negative thing where I live.

It's because Americans can't handle a little snow and cold :P

Why you people even respond to Carlin's posts is beyond me. You know it's not going to accomplish anything so why waste your energy?

Yeah, it's quite sick really. So I suppose PETA still loves animals, just medium rare. :lol: A bit confusing. So PETA is basically killing animal that have terminal illnesses, aggressive behavior, or have a low chance of being adopted. Of course they're doing it "humanely" or so they say. Is that the right summary? I think in this case they were trying to frame the grocery store.

Morrowind: Oblivion. It wasn't that it is too hard, it's just that I spent 60 hours of gameplay doing sidequests and eventually got bored :P I did beat Prince of Persia though (1 and 2)... those took me forever.

Or the '72 summit series. I think my two favourites are Joe Carter's world series winning home run and Alexander Ovechkin's on the back goal last NHL season.

WinXP Home edition. Never had a virus, never had my system crash. Ever.

Lol Magey, taking pictures of patches of ice :P I should take a picture of the trees here - every single branch and twig is perfectly enclosed in ice.

I would assume QuickTime Pro would be the best.

In my opinion, love is nothing more than a human biological "booster" to reproduction. Just like hunger is an eating "booster". Apinagez' wife: You haven't said that you love me in a long while, it's making me sad and lonely. Apinagez: Well yes, I don't feel like reproducing, so it makes sense. When I feel like having a kid I'll tell you I love you.