Sly_Wizard

Everyone else isn't allowed to get married. And lol @ whomever decided to quote the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Screw the U.N. and it's crappy declarations which no country follows in its entirety. Yeah, damn those human rights. Those blasted things are just horrible for humanity! I mean, condemnation of genocide? Pffft, genocide happens all of the time, people. Get over it! A.) Maybe you missed the fact that the UDoHR isn't legally binding and that most countries flat out ignore it unless they're trying to run an agenda-- Then they bring it up. B.) The U.N. is useless, anyway. When it comes to talk, then most of the General Assembly members (Mainly European) have loads to say and lots of criticism to throw around, but when it comes time to actually putting up or shutting up (Committing troops), they're conspicuously silent and the U.S. ends up doing most of the work.

Everyone else isn't allowed to get married. And lol @ whomever decided to quote the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Screw the U.N. and it's crappy declarations which no country follows in its entirety.

People who aren't affected by it.

I guess he should be happy but, then again, finding out you're not the father of a child you considered your own can be pretty devastating. Or, at least, it is from what I've seen on Maury.

So... What's the age cutoff and when will it go into effect?

...Except Epicurus wasn't an atheist. ...And what happened in 33 AD? ...And didn't we totally go over this pages upon pages ago?

I had a dream where I died whilst wearing my red partyhat. Scary stuff.

I really don't think anyone is dumb enough to fall for this.

Just a copy and paste of whatever my results were from whenever I first did. ...And I think this is rigged. Everyone ends up on the left and libertarian. Edit: Okay. Wait. I just redid it. Got: Economic Left/Right: 2.12 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.51 That sounds better :thumbsup:

So I guess I'm the only one who finds the word cockfight lol worthy?

Simple answer: Because it doesn't work. Slightly longer answer: Because people don't like forced charity.

I totally remember the old boards. What happened to them?

Like I asked Zierro; how can you reconcile the brutal, wasteful, and violent nature of evolution and natural selection with a loving god, especially as an all powerful god would find it much much easier, and faster to simply create ex nihilo, as dictated by your bible? Also, why do you accept evolution but not abiogenesis? *Laughs and laughs and laughs* That is all. What kind?

I really wished someone would have asked him if he realizes how much [cabbage] the current PVP system is when compared to the Wilderness of old.

How so? Because, historically, every single one of those groups has been denied rights or even mass exterminated on the basis that they weren't persons. Don't you keep up with history? So where does the hypocrisy come into it? Say a woman thinks a fetus isn't a person, but believes that women are people. What's the problem? She's just applying different standards to different groups. It's more than just applying different standards to different groups. She'd be arguing that one group be treated in the same way/considered in the same vein as that of which the group she's apart of fought against. That's like me stating that it's not okay to make slaves of blacks, but okay to make slaves of, say, Mexicans. I'm fairly sure I could come up with a rationalization for such a stance, but it wouldn't make me any less of a hypocrite :P Edit: *Grumbles*

How so? Because, historically, every single one of those groups has been denied rights or even mass exterminated on the basis that they weren't persons. Don't you keep up with history? Ummm... Yeah. I'll try not to do that anymore in the future, seeing as how often I do it now. /sarcasm Considering the fact that condom dispensers are everywhere and you can buy condoms from, like, anywhere for like $5 - $10, I fail to see why anyone who wants to use them can't. Seriously. And they already teach sex ed around here sooo... It looks like my work is complete even before I did anything :thumbsup: First and foremost, lose the word "host" as that implies a parasitic relationship, of which none occurs. Anywho, the point which you so callously glossed over (Or maybe flat out missed) is that as a fetus is as "reliant" on its mother for sustenance as a newborn is "reliant" on others for its sustenance as neither can provide for itself as they both lack the capabilities to do so. Therefore, you cannot make a meaningful distinction between the two in regards to "the ability to survive on its own", as you're not talking about "the ability to survive on its own", but the ability to live outside of the womb on its own. In, which case, you just picked an arbitrary developmental stage of which to be the deciding factor in whether abortion is legal or not. Once again, organisms have a natural predisposition to members of their own species. It's really no more complicated than that. ...And going by your criteria regarding what makes life "sacred", I sure do hope you're a vegetarian. Infants also aren't self-aware (At least, not when they're born). ...And animals can feel pain, too. Ummm... I know. You didn't really respond to my point, though. Of course, my argument had nothing to do with animals being cognitive or whatnot-- That was your argument. I was merely pointing out that, going by your own criteria, you should be against the killing of animals but okay with infanticide. ??? Yeah, you're going to have to explain this one to me. And, once again, I must state/ask/say, "I hope you're a vegetarian?" because, if not, then your stance is rather hypocritical. I didn't want to go there, but I'm going to invoke Godwin's Law. The problem with this train of thought is that it can be used to rationalize the mass extermination of groups which are considered to be "inferior" or "worthless", as it has been before. The criteria by which you relegate a fetus to having "limited intrinsic worth" is highly arbitrary, which I'm sure you know, which is why I'm sure you said it in the first place. The problem with that train of thought is that the only way you'll be wrong is if you admit you're wrong. Otherwise, you'll always consider yourself to be right. And if you consider yourself to be right, then there's no problems in any of your actions. Oops. Missed this one. Stating that pro-choicers are Nazis and therefore they're arguments invalid = Strawman Pointing out that discriminating against fetuses on the basis that they're not persons to be in the same vein as discriminating against children, women, slaves, Jews, Slavs or gays because they weren't persons =/= Strawman You have a weird definition of the word strawman :? Edit: I'm sure all the Canadian women are happy. I'm sure all the African-American people in the U.S. loved this. Really late edit: *Grumbles*

Alas, the point of my response was lost upon the forum world.

Not gotten a girl pregnant : Funnily enough, anyone who argues a fetus isn't a person better not have been, at one point, a child, a woman, a slave, Jewish,a Slav or gay. Otherwise, they'd just be a hypocrite ;)

No, it's not. Irrelevant. Stages of development are just that-- Stages of development. If you take a newborn and throw him/her outside, it'll die because it cannot fend for itself. Does that mean it has less of a right to live than someone who is forty and can take care of him/herself? I doubt it. Of course, this is the exact argument you use. Also irrelevant, since we're speaking of humans. And, yet again, also irrelevant as, by your logic, you have no choice but to agree with infanticide. Yes, because we all know just how many abortions are performed due to the mother's life being at risk. Once again, no. The word "complexity" holds no meaning. Considering the fact that, in many instances, animals display far greater cognitive abilities than humans do and can, it'd be faulty to assume that just because you're a human you're the epitome of the proverbial evolutionary ladder (That is, being "more intelligent" than your animal counterparts).

Of course, one cell or a gazillion cells, it doesn't matter. Human life is human life. I mean, if we're going to play this game, then just how many cells must someone be comprised of for you to consider it "murder".

*Doesn't know why he's going to bother* Yeah, but you see... JC isn't dead : Anywho, in regards to this: He can't hear you. He's dead -.- ...So I'm taking it you didn't read what I wrote out earlier? Darwin's theory of natural selection = Good (That's what's outlined in On the Origin of Species). Darwin's theory of everything else = Bad and pretty much all thrown out since the invention of modern genetics. Henceforth my original comment which you, apparently, didn't quite catch (For whatever reason or another). All the, for lack of better words, Darwin slurping is kind of funny. But, meh, whatever. Continue on!

Unlike a foetus, who'll when left alone develop into a human being completely unaided. Might want to think that one through a few times. Being facetious gets you nowhere, but it makes me go :wall:.

A.) He's dead. B.) He's dead. C.) He's dead. D.) He didn't come up with the theory of evolution, as that had already been postulated long before he arrived. E.) The guy was wrong is basically wrong in regards to everything except for natural selection. F.) Did I mention he's dead and dead people don't continue to have birthdays?

Nope. Sperm are simple haploid cells, unable to grow or propagate themselves through any means. Left alone, a sperm cell will forever be a sperm cell. Going by your logic, infanticide would also be acceptable, as infants (More specifically newborns) have no awareness of their own existence and don't develop that awareness for some time.

Because abortion wouldn't be considered murder. It would be considered an illegal operation.