obfuscator

Except unfortunately, the father doesn't have any say in the matter either...

It's as much about using social engineering to compromise machines as it is about OS vulnerabilities or whatever else.. A computer as only as safe as the person owning it.

Actually, it's quite a common opinion of the ultra-left. I can think of numerous occasions where the argument has come up that "pro-lifers just want to trap women in their own bodies, put them down, etc".

You know what's appalling? The number of abortionists that are convicted felons. http://abortionviolence.com/INDEX.HTM You know is sad?A 2009 study showed that 64% of woman feel pressure to have an abortion. You say that pro-lifers hate women, but we're the ones that are running extensive networks to help crisis pregnancies. Half of being a sidewalk counselor is knowing where to take women after they change their minds. The other half usually involves praying in front of an abortion facility. But really, under all that prayer and support for total strangers, we really do hate women. Yeah bro. My mom hates women too, yeah. So do my sisters. So does my girlfriend. So do the hundreds of other women I've met who are staunchly pro-life. They hate women. All of them.

Topic cleaned. Keep the spam and flames off it please :thumbup:

Topic cleaned - we allow discussion but not flaming and trolling.

No - I said it did not meet the requirements to be considered "human" -- there is more to being human than mere appearances ... If one does not have a human brain or heartbeat, is it human? Ok, what about the girl who survived for 9 hours without a heart? Or people who are braindead? Are they not human?

No, you equated them when you implied something must appear to be human to be human.

"Murder" connotes images of someone going around stabbing people who all have hopes, dreams, opinions, personalities, hobbies, jobs, families, pets, homes, etc. because they felt like it. Then substitute "murder" for "kill for profit", "kill an innocent", "scrape then suck out with a vacuum", "dismember then remove piece by piece". Take your pick, because while unsavory none of these phrases are entirely inaccurate. Actually -- all of those phrases are entirely inaccurate, inasmuch as 90% of all abortions performed in the United States occur prior to the 8th week, when the fetus is merely a cluster of cells, less than a half-inch long, having no identifiable shape or form, no brain, no heartbeat or any other identifier to make it appear "human" to anyone except those with hysterical imaginations ... Ahh yes, if it doesn't "look" human it definitely isn't. We should stick this guy into a vacuum. It'll be ok, he doesn't have limbs.

When is murder warranted? When another life is directly in danger. Thus, an abortion is warranted when the life of the mother is directly in danger. I also find it a little odd you assume every aborted child would have been a burnout anyway... Well, the life of the mother isn't in danger. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1883598,00.html Now, we can move on to disease: you believe that even children who are so badly defective they won't live for more than a few days, or even hours, should not be aborted? After all, most of them can be delivered quite safely. I've never understood this "situationally justified abortion". Let's reason things out. IF you believe that an embryo is a human being (which you may not) the circumstances of its conception have no bearing on the morality of destroying it. That's like saying "your brother shot me in the head, so it's ok for me to kill you". You said it yourself: most of them can be delivered quite safely. Why should they be aborted if they will just die anyway?

When is murder warranted? When another life is directly in danger. Thus, an abortion is warranted when the life of the mother is directly in danger. I also find it a little odd you assume every aborted child would have been a burnout anyway...

Oops, meant to say killing. Well, in our society, thats up for grabs. Robert Semrau for example: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/afghanmission/article/837505--capt-robert-semrau-found-not-guilty-of-murder Got off on the murder charge, but convicted of inappropriate behaviour and dismissed from the military. Also, your example isn't quite the same since an unborn baby doesn't ask to be aborted.

that was terrible. even wilson said it was a blatant interference i know kessel scored the 3rd but that messed call kinda ruined it for the panthers Yeah. But then look at versteeg's goal against the rangers which should have been in, this stuff plays both ways.

That mixed DNA is sounding very important right now, isn't it? And yes, I believe that an anti-abortion stance has a very firm basis in ignorance. I don't have the numbers, but I would say that a vast majority of those that oppose it are doing it due to religious convictions. Hardly very convincing evidence. That's completely irrelevant. Miscarriages happen, they aren't the result of someone deliberately ending the life. My beliefs about abortion are quite simple. Murder: Intentional, unwarranted murder of a living human being. Abortion: Intentional - certainly. Unwarranted - almost always, and in the cases where it is warranted I've no moral objection. Living - a fetus is biologically alive. This is scientific fact. Human - this one is a little more up for grabs. Here's why I believe a fetus is human: You really need to look at what defines humanity to cover this fully, but looking at the basic biological standpoint, we see that a fetus has complete human DNA. This obviously means that biologically, a fetus cannot be anything but human. Is it human in a moral sense? This is the hardest question to answer. A baby out of the womb is considered human - why should it not be considered human the minute before it is born? Nothing has really changed. The same goes for development of the heart, brain, limbs, and body parts. The thing is - in order to decide when something "becomes" human we need to look at the change in it's state. These prenatal developements are huge changes, for sure. But once again, biologically, there is no bigger change than conception. If conception is the biggest change in the biological process preceding a human birth, I think that is when the child should be considered human. Therefore, a fetus is human. Therefore, abortion is murder. You said "When the problem is considered by gut reaction, we end up with "they're killing babies!"". I could counter and say that when the pro-choice consider the problem with a gut reaction, they end up with "it doesn't look human, so it's ok!". Note: I'm not expecting anyone to be converted by this process, it's just my train of thought on the issue.

I was under the impression your body parts contained your DNA. A fetus has different DNA - it may be fully dependent on your body but it is not yours in a traditional sense.. Do you honestly think that every single pro-life person in history has held their stance for so long simply because of a "gut reaction"? Once again, the intelligence attack.

When you've got no good answer, bash your opponent.

I've used it a bit in the past but haven't recently. It won't really do anything. Hooray for spelling errors in professional articles though.

Correction: "Virus" is incorrectly used as a blanket term for all malware. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_virus

It isn't a virus in the strictest sense of the word. Using the phrase "there are no viruses for macs" is unfortunately synonymous with the phrase "there is no malware for macs" which is completely untrue.

There are no viruses that currently afflict Leopard or Snow Leopard. http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2371604,00.asp ??

Ok, missed that... How are statistics not much help in this case? Statistics are of limited use, I agree...but in this case if capital punishment was nearly as effective as you claim it is countries employing it as a method of justice should be seeing significant decrease in crime per capita. This is not the case, plain and simple. We can't. But we can look at statistics. Sweden, for example, practices a fairly progressive justice system focused on rehabilitation rather than punishment. Their crime rate per capita is extremely low. (if my memory serves me correctly, I don't remember where I saw that)

But you haven't proved it prevents the second crime? I'm sure it does, on occasion, but in general the statistics don't support that conclusion. I agree, it's great - if someone who fears the punishment doesn't murder someone, it's prevented that crime, and that's great. Here's the thing. If using rehabilitative methods and pro-active treatment can prevent hundreds of crimes(which they can) then it's a far better solution.

Still a bad idea, but whatever. Next time tell us you're going to ignore our advice so we don't waste our time.

No, what I'm saying is that we re-model the system for the large percentage who can be rehabilitated, and keep the current system for the sick ones :P I wouldn't say justice is a human emotion. Revenge is, certainly; and unfortunately the two are intricately tied.

So why aren't the cops in prison? They must be in prison since they jailed so many people. What the "eye for an eye people" want is the same concept as now, just harsher punishments. Disregard it, it's just a silly quote. I know what the "eye for an eye people" want, I just don't see how it will help. Capital punishment could be considered the harshest punishment available, yet serious violent crime in areas where capital punishment is available is typically higher or even per capita. I read a story once, I think someone posted it here, about a guy who gets sent to jail for drug possesion. The gist of the story is is that he has a bad habit he's trying break. He fails, and then goes to jail. What happens in jail don't help him break it, they make it worse. He's far more of a violent, dangerous criminal when he gets out then he was going in. That's how "whole world blind" works. When you punish based on revenge, you don't help the problem...you make it worse. Not all criminals can be rehabilitated. For some, there's no way they can ever contribute to society, and for those, life in prison is what we need to give. But the ones who can be rehabilitated(and there are many)....it seems very foolish not to try, at least.