obfuscator

So those unborn babies will never be productive members of your society, is that what you're saying? At that precise moment, they are nothing more than a parasite feeding off their mother. They may well grow to be productive members of society, but the planet is crowded enough in areas without (using your numbers that have no source still) 90,000 more babies per year in 1 country. How do you know if they'll be productive members of society anyway? Again, give me a source or I'll just assume the numbers come out your [wagon]. How do you know that all these women having abortions are productive members of society? http://www.webhart.net/vandee/abortstat.shtml Okay, so my toenail clippings have as much right to exist as you do. Thanks for the "clarification". You are beyond reasoning with (not that this wasn't amply evident already.) Enjoy your life of delusion. But keep it the hell away from those of us who have some sense. Religious fanatics are a grave danger to anyone who values liberty. Hmm that's true, toenail clippings certainly don't deserve equal status. They represent a lump of cells with no meaning or potential. However, a fetus is quite different. It represents a human being, and I maintain it is morally wrong to kill it off.

So those unborn babies will never be productive members of your society, is that what you're saying? A full grown woman, and man, and child of any age, and any animal is simply a larger lump of cells. I chose to give all lumps of cells with human DNA equality.

So, lets then call abortion for what it is: murder. You'll agree with me that stopping a beating heart is murder? So you agree with abortion for the first 6 weeks? It doesn't gain a heartbeat until then, so by your definition, it is not murder. EDIT: Something for all you pro-lifers. Say we ban abortion, now, assuming the mother can't get it in a country where it is legal, what happens? Backstreet abortions. Which is better? Legal abortion in a safe environment done with sterile tools, or a questionable abortion which poses a lot of risk for the mother too? We bad abortion, less people do it. If abortion is legal in Canada, from what I understand 100,000 babies are killed each year. I think we can safetley say that only 10% of abortions would still be attempted were it to be illegal, so then we would have 10,000 babies killed every year, with a chance for 10,000 mothers to die as well. So, 100,000 dead? Or 20,000? You chose. Note: The adoption and maternal support systems need a complete overhaul were abortion to actually be banned again so that women would have a real, legitimate option. Or at least a far better one then they have currently.

Eh the search function on these boards (and the phpbb ones as well) has always been less than ideal. The most comprehensive way to get all the posts would be just do do a select statement from the database, but obviously this is out of the question for forum software because of the massive amount of posts. There may be search feature improvements with the new version of IPB, perhaps an admin would know about that.

http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Breast-implants/Pages/When-should-it-be-done.aspx Took me 30 seconds to find that. Those reasons are generally good ones, or at least deformities and breast cancer are. But at the end of the day, I have no desire to see my tax dollars spend on something that ultimately has only a cosmetic purpose. Bear in mind I live in Canada so the NHS is irrelevant.

What's a valid reason to get breast implants?

You seem surprised. I can't make up my mind on the drug legalization thing. On the one hand, with taxes, less enforcement costs etc it seems like a good idea. On the other side however, increased medical costs and education dropouts make it a difficult decision.

Same here, looks like it's limited to 40 pages.

15

I'd pay for eduction, more public aid, but most of all ending out damn debt. Funding for public parties, parades, cultural events etc would be gone, as would funding for Afghanistan.

How many kb is that page? :P

Iron Man 2 was a ridiculous movie and she's a terrible actress. But she is hot :P

RIP :( Makes me think Ozzy is next :(

I'm not understanding you. Why would you get an abortion if your child is about to die anyway? And as for special exceptions for rape and incest, absolutely not. A child is still a child, regardless of the circumstances of its conception. Removing a dead fetus is not an abortion if the fetus is already dead. Of course I would save the people I can see and talk to. I'd also be traumatized and very upset that I couldn't have saved both. If I were a woman, would this argument work? Why don't I get my sister or girlfriend, or mother to post here saying the exact same thing, then what would you say? Nothing, I just don't like it. Just as you protest about religion, jails, BP, and the Iraq war, so I protest about abortion. We are one and the same. I'm glad to see your willing to accept my personal beliefs as usual. I'll be sure to post a picture of my over 9000 children just for you. But no, I plan to have 2-3 kids. A good reasonable number, who I can love, care for, and instill in them a respect for the value of life.

It's only allowed it it is certain - or at least reasonable so, and there are instances where this is the case. That question is too hypothetical to answer - it would absolutely not be, unless it would be the definitive only method of saving someone elses life, and a guarantee of such, which is what an abortive surgery does. But as I said, that is literally impossible.

Abortion: A surgery where the only intent and purpose is to cause the death of an unborn child. Life-saving surgery: A surgery to save the life of a mother unable to have a child which unfortunately results in the termination of a pregnancy. Here, murdering a child is not the intent, rather an unfortunate side effect. One life is ended, another is saved. It sucks, but is sometimes necessary. The reason this doesn't translate to a born baby is because there is no situation where the only way to save the life of another human is to murder an innocent child. But the life-saving surgery gurantees the child's death. Any action taken, that the one taking it knows and is certain that will result in someone's death, shouldn't be considered murder? Also, hypothetically speaking, say there was a "life-saving surgery" that would kill a living child- If I know you well enough, you'd firmly oppose that (and for a good reason). Why not oppose a life-saving surgery that kills the fetus? Self defence doesn't count as murder. Taking a life to save your own has never been considered murder, and that's exactly the specification here. And I don't understand what you mean by surgery that would save a life but kill a living child? The only thing I can think of is a case of siamese twins, where one twin had an illness that would be fatal to both - in that case i believe it is morally acceptable to separate the two, even though one may die.

better how? Better looking and more fun. And she (Ana) is as interested in me as I'm interested in her. She cried, she told me I lied to her, I used her, etc, we made up, and I'm going to avoid her for a little until things are less raw between us. Shouldn't be too hard. But she's going to end up knowing about the new girl eventually, they probably already know each other. [Edit] They do. How would you feel if your new girlfriend did this to you?

Ofc they shouldn't force it, but they should still *offer* it. My schools were always completely secular, except for the minute of silence there was no religious mentions or classes. I agree with this. If a school is designated towards a particular religion, then RE should be offered. If not, then no RE should be made mandatory. It could be an elective. I think that for the most part RE is something that is the responsibility of the parent. Not to mention that in high school (public catholic) the religion classes were garbage, in part taught by atheists who made fun of religion during classes and regularly answered questions wrong.

Quotes were messed up but I'm going to assume this is what you meant to say: Abortion: A surgery where the only intent and purpose is to cause the death of an unborn child. Life-saving surgery: A surgery to save the life of a mother unable to have a child which unfortunately results in the termination of a pregnancy. Here, murdering a child is not the intent, rather an unfortunate side effect. One life is ended, another is saved. It sucks, but is sometimes necessary. The reason this doesn't translate to a born baby is because there is no situation where the only way to save the life of another human is to murder an innocent child.

A little off topic here then. Since you see it as murdering a person then how would things like driver licences, legal age for sex, legal age to drink alcohol be done? Since atm you only do/have it when you are like 18/21 etc years old. How do you know when a person is really 18/21 years old? (Or am I talking out of my [wagon] now?) Birth has always been the "legal" start of life, but in the long run, its 9 months. There's no point to changing it, but if the legal definition were to change, people could vote at 17 years 3 months, drive at 15 years 3 months, etc. Not a big difference. Well, you said abortion should only be allowed in case the mother's life is at risk. Let me ask you this- would you say it's okay to murder a born baby to save their mother's life? Here, it's not even save her life, it's practically remove a life threat. Murdering just for that seems immoral, wouldn't you say? Why agree to that then? It's absolutely not ok, because there is no way that murdering a born baby can save a mother's life. In the event that the mother will die from carrying a baby, an operation is performed to save the life of the mother. An unfortunate side effect is that the child will die.

A little off topic here then. Since you see it as murdering a person then how would things like driver licences, legal age for sex, legal age to drink alcohol be done? Since atm you only do/have it when you are like 18/21 etc years old. How do you know when a person is really 18/21 years old? (Or am I talking out of my [wagon] now?) Birth has always been the "legal" start of life, but in the long run, its 9 months. There's no point to changing it, but if the legal definition were to change, people could vote at 17 years 3 months, drive at 15 years 3 months, etc. Not a big difference.

I don't see why, regardless of reason, a woman should have a right to murder another person. And yes, pro-lifers (such as myself) will continue to protest until all abortion is illegal, except in cases where the life of the mother is threatened. It's not a person, it's a fetus. A shell of what will become a person. It's just preventing a life from happening not ending one. If you want to illegalize preventing life then why should masturbation, condoms, and birth control be legal? I definitely agree with you, but the whole is-abortion-murder debate is as old as the concept of abortions itself. I don't think it's murder, but can see why others do. It's a charged issue, no one answer is correct. Killing living, reproducing cells is killing, not preventing. And yes, I am morally opposed to birth control, condoms, and masturbation, although that's a debate for a different time.

What exactly are you wanting to do? Jagex is notoriously bad at letting developers be involved in any way.

Well normally you wouldn't need to ask me this because I like things regulated. However, this doesn't need to be, nor should it be. It is a decision for the doctor and the woman to make (assuming the woman is in good mental-health). If a doctor feels comfortable performing one at 8 months and the woman, for whatever reason, wants it, then that's her choice. a.) The mental health of the mother would be in question of the highest order if she wanted to abort at that late in the game if her health wasn't in danger, and neither was the fetus's. I put that qualifier there for a reason. b.) Some people say "only if the health of the mother is at risk!" According to these people, a woman should be forced to give birth to dead fetuses and fetuses with severe birth defects. That's wrong Why is that wrong? I don't understand what you're saying here? I don't see why, regardless of reason, a woman should have a right to murder another person. And yes, pro-lifers (such as myself) will continue to protest until all abortion is illegal, except in cases where the life of the mother is threatened. No woman would ever do that when it's perfectly legal to have it done professionally and medical expenses are covered by the government. This is why banning abortion doesn't work in the first place; what you said above will happen all of the time. Not all of us feel like Canada is doing fine. I personally don't like the fact that my tax dollars are being used to murder innocent children.

Why should something be completely unregulated? From what I understand of current Canadian laws, a cocaine addict with a coat hanger can perform an abortion in a sewage plant it and it would completely legal. How is this fair? The adoption question is a tricky one - I do as well believe that regardless of how "bad" foster homes may be, it is true that the adoptive process is needlessly overcomplicated and hard to participate in.