sees_all1

I'm reading it as two different definitions. A person is a human being. A person is an entity that has certain capacities or attributes associated with personhood. If you look "person" up in a proper dictionary and not an encyclopedia, you'll find something similar to In this sense something doesn't have to fulfill all 7 definitions to be a person, rather just 1.

OR means fulfilling any one condition satisfies the definition. AND means fulfilling all conditions satisfies the definition. The conjunction linking the parts of the definition is "or" not "and", so both conditions don't have to be satisfied for the definition to be fulfilled.

Last one to post wins. Last one to post wins. Last one to post wins. Last one to post wins. Last one to post wins.

Right from square one the definition says "A person is a human being". An unborn child is human, and is alive (a being). The second part "or an entity" doesn't exclude human beings (unborn children) from being persons, it just includes other things. Even if you were to completely ignore the first statement defining a person, the second part isn't an exhaustive list of capacities or attributes. The key words that you missed were "can include" and "among others". Also calling something "debatable" is a far cry from calling it "proven," as you did in an earlier post.

Your "proof" is a poorly thought out post trying to explain why a single property of humanity defines person-hood. The thing that's even more troubling is how your "proof" is trying to make a distinction between the words "Human" and "Person", when really they're just different parts of speech. The word "person" appears in all legal documents because it is a noun, and has always been a noun. The word "human" is an adjective, and until recently hasn't been a noun. In formal English it would not be grammatically correct to say, "All humans born or naturalized" ... the proper way to say this is "All persons" or "All human beings." Also saying "human person" in plain speech is redundant.

Fight #6 Aftermath: These two presidents met at the ring, and agreed to an honorable boxing match. Some may argue that Lincoln had a slight edge with about an inch longer reach, but Washington was no slouch with a slightly stockier build. After 9 rounds of boxing, it was clear that neither president was willing to give in. After the 10th round, the match was declared a draw, as no one wanted to subject either president to death. Winner: Neither, 10-10 Fight #7: Benito Mussolini versus Adolf Hitler Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler As recommended via PM, we have Benito Mussolini versus Adolf Hitler. Mussolini was the 40th Prime Minister of Italy, later changing his title to Head of Government, Duce of Fascism, and Founder of the Empire. Hitler became Chancellor of Germany in 1933. POI:

I'll update this later today then. :shades:

I think it's ironic that the companies these people are protesting are the same companies that donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to Obama's 2008 election. While in general I'm against crony capitalism, I do not support the vision these groups have for America.

...And I'm saying what would you do if you didn't have the funds to raise a child with no arms and one leg. Would you lie, say that you would've aborted, if you knew that you would win the lawsuit and get millions? If they didn't mean it, that's a horrible thing to lie about. If I found myself in a situation where I had a child I couldn't afford, I'd put them up for adoption and hope they'd know I loved them enough to give them a chance at a better life.

Or perhaps they pursued legal action not because they had a disgust for human life, but to get the money to be able to actually care for such a child with severe disabilities. We can't even begin to guess their reasoning. Legal battles are dirty. If you had a child like that and you knew you didn't have the finances to give your child a better quality of life, wouldn't you twist the system to put your child first? I guess what I'm getting at is that we don't have all the information and it's a bit irresponsible to use it as emotional ammo in a debate that's already plagued by strong (and sometimes irrational) feelings. It's a wrongful birth lawsuit. The whole premise is that had they known, they wouldn't have given birth. Yeah, so? It's not like it's personal. Their kid could have been the next Obama, the next Michael Jackson, the next John Wayne, it doesn't matter. There's no reason for the kid to be angry with them, as he was not a person when they would have had the abortion. In fact, he should be happy that they're willing to put in a lot of effort to make his life as comfortable/easy as possible. It is personal. They're saying, we don't want our son because he's deformed, and had we known earlier we would have killed him. There's also a nasty hypothetical where this kid might be made fun of for his handicaps, and how can his parents comfort him? "We love you just the way you are" is an outright lie...

Or perhaps they pursued legal action not because they had a disgust for human life, but to get the money to be able to actually care for such a child with severe disabilities. We can't even begin to guess their reasoning. Legal battles are dirty. If you had a child like that and you knew you didn't have the finances to give your child a better quality of life, wouldn't you twist the system to put your child first? I guess what I'm getting at is that we don't have all the information and it's a bit irresponsible to use it as emotional ammo in a debate that's already plagued by strong (and sometimes irrational) feelings. It's a wrongful birth lawsuit. The whole premise is that had they known, they wouldn't have given birth.

Not sure if this was posted elsewhere, but I'd hate to be this kid: http://www.aboutlawsuits.com/wrongful-birth-malpractice-lawsuit-award-21037/ Imagine the discussion 13 years later, after the child finds out from googling himself... "Son, we would have killed you had we known you'd be like this. Hope the 4.5 million cheers you up."

Thanks, have fun. :thumbup:

Lumbridge is the starting area, at least on F2P anyway. You can train any skill in a very short distance from the home teleport. These aren't the most efficient methods of training, which is why few high levels train in Lumbridge. I'm not looking to put the entire game in one spot, just the beginning of the game in one spot. Obviously if all the best training was in one spot, no one would leave. The beauty of quests are that you can force a player to go anywhere, but starting the basic quests in far away locations doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

On point 3 Going by that definition, as soon as someone isn't conscious (self aware), they're no longer a person. I don't agree with their definition of "person" as it means someone who is drugged, knocked out, in a coma, or in a loose sense asleep, is no longer a person.

And if you ignore us again, we'll give you another STRONGLY WORDED LETTER, telling you EXACTLY HOW WE FEEL.

I didn't realize people still had strong feelings on this.

High five, everyone.

One hypothesis is that when you die, God will give you whatever you want the most. If you want anything but God, you'll find yourself in hell (as whatever it is you picked can't fulfill your deepest wants and needs, unless it's God).

I really don't want to get into this debate again, I believe everything I've written is still in here. Anyhow, if you're interested in why the Catholic Church teaches what it teaches, you should take a look at Theology of the Body and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Also the collection of views tend to make more sense than any one individual view. There's less hypocrisy in the teaching than some might lead you to believe.

Fight #5 Aftermath: Fortunately for us, the universe did not explode at the speed of light. Jackie Chan and Chuck Norris bowed to each other, the bell rang and the fight began. Even the fastest cameras could not capture the blur of fists and feet, intense hand to hand combat. Steadily both Chan and Norris fought their way forward and back, pushing Chan near the ropes. Suddenly Chan jumped onto the ropes, bungied up, grabbed the ceiling and started jungle-jmming through the rafters faster than a monkey. Chuck Norris used his roundhouse kick against the rope to propel himself up to Chan, who jabbed him in the eye. Norris twisted, fell back to the ring, only to land on both feet. He gave a mighty kick to a pillar, crumbling the entire building. Chan landed on Norris, in a twisted heap of steel and debris. Both bleeding badly, it was clear that neither had the upper hand. Finally after more intense hand to hand combat, Norris threw a kick. Jackie Chan's fist collided mid air with Norris' foot; splitting the atoms between them. A nuclear explosion ensued, consuming both fighters. Winner: Neither, 11-11. Fight #6, George Washington versus Abraham Lincoln Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_washington http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln Remarks about the pre-fight: These two are probably the most respected Presidents ever to serve the United States of America. Washington played a pivotal role in helping to establish the new country, while Lincoln fought through a bloody civil war only to reunite and heal a broken nation. POI: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepresidentandcabinet/a/gwtheman.htm http://www.toptenz.net/facts-about-abraham-lincoln.php

C-c-c-combo breaker!

What is this, I don't even

My roommate sleeps from 9 a.m to 5 p.m., then plays starcraft from 5 p.m. to 9 a.m. If you're seriously going to do that, at least sleep when it's dark outside and be awake when it's light outside.

[sarcasm]No, because then they might make the wrong decision![/sarcasm] Today, I play soccer. I hope we don't get dq'd again for not having the minimum number of ladies. The other side of the dorm needs to get their crap together.