obfuscator

The answers to that are no, no, and yes. But I contest that the absence of any of those traits provides sufficient reason to kill. Yes, absolutely. But all I'm trying to prove here is that not everyone holds that opinion - and without an absolute moral authority, who is to say whose opinion is correct?

On the contrary, it's pretty clear age-based discrimination. And I think it's ignorant (uninformed) to label a fetus not a human. The fetus also doesn't willingly accept the procedure and is not given the opportunity.

It's not a rank; just a group. And once again, it's probably not a permanent change ;)

And what makes it "wrong"? It is prejudiced, ignorant, and dehumanizes women. Okay. And I think abortion is prejudiced, ignorant, and dehumanizes unborn children. So abortion is "at the most basic level wrong".

And what makes it "wrong"?

What qualifies as "understandably stupid"? I think the "they came for the jews" quote applies here. It's our duty as humans to stand up against injustice. The issue is that injustice isn't a term everyone interprets the same way.

What I'm getting at is that it's possible for a law to be incorrect.

Are ... you serious ? This is a dangerous attitude to have. "Who is here so base that would be a bondman? " And why would it be a dangerous attitude? I'll just go make a law that anyone posting on an online forum named Noxxx should be crucified - since it's in the law surely you'd agree this is acceptable? This, in a nutshell, is the problem with laws as morals; and by extension, moral relativism.

Question has been answered and doesn't really belong here anyway, so locking. PM me if you have any questions.

I went to two marlies games last year, those were pretty fun, $20 for platinum seats too :D Of course, the leafs game I went to was better, but at what cost..

You talk about women who have regretted their abortion. This is a nine year old child who has become pregnant through rape. Having a baby, through c-section or otherwise, at that age would be permanently physically and psychologically damaging. Yes, the unborn child was innocent, but we have to judge which is more important; the wellbeing of the unborn child or the 9 year old who has barely started her life? I would stress the latter. I am in disbelief that you think it is ok for a 9 year old to give birth to a child conceived as a result of rape. This is somewhat off topic, I know. Age 9? I have never seen a girl who was developed enough to have a baby at age 9. AND, even if they were, it would most likely be a miscarriage. It's happened younger.

I'LL DO IT, RAINY IS A PRUDE

Yeah, that's what I mean. I wish I was a habs fan :(

Using a new browser wouldn't make any difference anyway. Odd.

Unless you're a moral relativist.

Still there. It doesn't let me report anybody, on any thread, in any part of the forums. Maybe something about Members+? Doubt it, i'll get someone to look at it though.

Tragic.

Double check that the post is still there - it may have been deleted just as you were trying to report (just a theory on my part).

"running a server" is not necessarily going to use much bandwidth, it entirely depends on what the server is doing. Streaming videos is the thing you need to cut down on. Stop streaming completely, and I doubt you use 20 gb.

Once again; we're experimenting. Nothing has been adopted and nothing will be adopting without proper consideration of the pros and cons.

Oh, it's fine as a new point, sure - but it's still a straw man when it's addressed towards the previous point (which it was).

au contraire, pointing out glaring flaws in arguements is essential to constructive arguments, and the most fundamental of flaws is not being able to back the arguement up with proof. You're completely missing the point. His point was not that you can prove baptism is an inherently good thing. His point was that in the catholic church baptism is considered to be a good thing, because according to catholic doctrine, it is important for heaven. Thus answering that point by saying "but heaven doesn't exist" is a straw man.

Well, if you can't prove your discussion points then they're not valid points, are they? I don't think... He's not trying to prove heaven/hell exists. Your inability to grasp this is exactly why this debate is pointless.

Not when the point he's making is an explanation of church doctrine. Basically all you're doing is saying "you can't prove that" to every point he brings up, which doesn't make for a useful or constructive discussion.

Nice straw man. Part of the reason I've stayed away from the thread thus far.... I didn't intend to use any straw man fallacies, could you point it out for me? You made up an imaginary point to argue to, that's the point of a straw man. He was talking about church doctrine - and instead of actually debating that you switched to a preferable point to argue - the existence of heaven or hell. Which is what happens all the time with this debate, which is why I largely stay away.