warri0r45

Let's see... The original probability of getting a car is 1/3, or 33%. The original probability of getting a goat is 2/3, or 66%. When door three is opened and it has a goat, the game is changed and we have a new set of probabilities: The new probability of getting a car is 1/2, or 50%. The new probability of getting a goat is 1/2, or 50%. I'd say there is no advantage to switching from the original choice of door 1.

There were some links to the bill on the first few pages which seem to suggest that later-term and partial-birth abortions are only alowed if the mothers health or life is in significant danger.

Legion by Deicide (album).

Heard the new track from Pestilence's new album coming out this year. It's called Horror Detox and it sounds pretty good. Check it out on their myspace if you're interested: http://www.myspace.com/pestilenceofficial

I did a little fact check and I'm happy to say you're right - the 5000 deaths a year figure sounds way to inflated to be anywhere near accurate.

Firstly, I'm inclined to agree that human life starts at conception. See previous posts. Second, It doesn't necessarily matter if an article has footnotes or not. While it's a great start, religiously motivated sites with such an emotional vested interest are still prone to quote out of context, misinform or appeal to logical fallacies (appeal to authority, in this case). Edit: Anyway, what do you mean when you say "human life". I'm curious to hear it in your own words.

A little piece of advice: get a source which doesn't have a religiously motivated bias or vested interest in the issue. True scientific and medical information doesn't run by an agenda.

The New Normal by Cog (album).

I've seen them used interchangably, but the definition I go by is that rap is the vocal style and hip-hop is the genre.

The Fragile Art Of Existence by Control Denied (album).

Of course scientists don't call it a child. The proper scientific terms are zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus and then (perhaps..) infant. Perhaps I'm missing some, but that's the gist of it. And I wouldn't call it a child because when i think of a child I think of someone roughly 4-12 years old. As for the tree lopper thing, the reasoning behind it is that people such as yourself tend to equate abortion with events like the holocaust, in which millions of adult Jews were exterminated. That's like calling a seed-killer a tree lopper. It's a way of trying to show you how ridiculous we think some of your views are (no offence). The technical term isn't the point. It's that no matter how you say it, a life is there. So once again, 6 million adult jews were killed. 42 million children die worldwide do to abortion each year. Significantly more, eh? What you are trying to say is that it is a worse crime to kill an adult than a child, once again putting a condition on life. A human life, all human lives have the same value, despite the circumstances. http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html Of course the technical term is the point, because you continually call them children. Do you see the point I'm trying to make here with the tree-lopper analogy? As for comparing the numbers, it doesn't matter if you don't consider embryos children. Yes, this is putting a condition on life, but I don't see what the problem is. As far as I'm concerned it's entirely ridiculous to make a blanket judgment that zygotes assume the same rights and properties as you or I when sperm meets egg. Of course they don't deserve the same rights, they deserve one right, one basic right, the right to life. In your OPINION it is ridiculous, because you don't consider a fertilized embryo to be a human being. I do, because it is alive. And that has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. And again, you're using a term without really qualifying what it means. What does it mean to be a human being? To have a full complement of human DNA? Then yes, a zygote would be a human being, but that doesn't necessarily mean it ought to have the same rights as you or I. In the same vein, of course a zygote is alive, but that doesn't necessarily mean it ought to have the same rights as you or I. A lot of things are alive, but we don't give them the same rights as we give to ourselves. Again, I am putting a condition on life, but I don't see a problem here. My opinion (yes, it is an opinion) is that giving zygotes the same rights are you or I is ridiculous. Your opinion is that we have the same universal rights. That's ultimately what it boils down to; my opinion vs. yours. That's just how it is for some issues, moral issues especially.

Of course scientists don't call it a child. The proper scientific terms are zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus and then (perhaps..) infant. Perhaps I'm missing some, but that's the gist of it. And I wouldn't call it a child because when i think of a child I think of someone roughly 4-12 years old. As for the tree lopper thing, the reasoning behind it is that people such as yourself tend to equate abortion with events like the holocaust, in which millions of adult Jews were exterminated. That's like calling a seed-killer a tree lopper. It's a way of trying to show you how ridiculous we think some of your views are (no offence). The technical term isn't the point. It's that no matter how you say it, a life is there. So once again, 6 million adult jews were killed. 42 million children die worldwide do to abortion each year. Significantly more, eh? What you are trying to say is that it is a worse crime to kill an adult than a child, once again putting a condition on life. A human life, all human lives have the same value, despite the circumstances. http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html Of course the technical term is the point, because you continually call them children. Do you see the point I'm trying to make here with the tree-lopper analogy? As for comparing the numbers, it doesn't matter if you don't consider embryos children. Yes, this is putting a condition on life, but I don't see what the problem is. As far as I'm concerned it's entirely ridiculous to make a blanket judgment that zygotes assume the same rights and properties as you or I when sperm meets egg.

Of course scientists don't call it a child. The proper scientific terms are zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus and then (perhaps..) infant. Perhaps I'm missing some, but that's the gist of it. And I wouldn't call it a child because when i think of a child I think of someone roughly 4-12 years old. As for the tree lopper thing, the reasoning behind it is that people such as yourself tend to equate abortion with events like the holocaust, in which millions of adult Jews were exterminated. That's like calling a seed-killer a tree lopper. It's a way of trying to show you how ridiculous we think some of your views are (no offence).

Absolutely not. The president/PM is governing for the whole country, and that includes a lot of people who don't share their viewpoint on religious matters. This is one of the reasons why I think separation of church and state is a good thing - it means everyone can have their own beliefs without being force-fed those of whoever is in charge. As far as policy on controversial things like abortion goes, it should be based primarily on reason and any available evidence. I'm a big fan of pragmatism when it comes to political decisions. I distinctly remember an example where our Catholic former health minister sought to set up Church-based counseling for people thinking of getting an abortion. It's pretty obvious how objectivity is thrown out the window in cases such as that.

That is against human nature. I'll point it back at you - Lets look at some examples where conditions were put on life - Hitler - You are only alive if you don't have jewish background. Racists, white supremacists - you are only alive if you are white. I find it a little strange that people advocate so hard for equal rights for women, children, the elderly, people of different races, but when it comes to the most vulnerable among us, all of a sudden, we aren't so equal after all. I don't find it strange, for the pure reason some people clearly don't equate a weeks-old embryo/fetus with what you listed. There's no point in continuing to say that scientists have proven that life begins at conception unless you qualify what that actually means. That means the maternal and paternal chromosomes combine to form a one celled zygote. I'd hardly call that a "child", and I most certainly wouldn't equate the termination of that life with what Hitler did. Edit: It's interesting you'd bring up this point. Perhaps I can help you see the argument from the other side. Given that a seed is alive (albeit dormant, but let's overlook that right now), would you call me a tree lopper should I crush a bunch of them in my hand?

Just in case anyone's interested, I found a whole bunch of excellent photos of the event: http://blogs.denverpost.com/captured/20 ... day-in-dc/

It's not an excuse, it's reality. Hoping that kids don't have sex just because you say they shouldn't is irrational. Expecting abortion rates to go down without any comprehensive education about contraception is even more irrational. Kids will continue to have underage sex, and I hardly think that act is equitable to killing people. By the way, the idea that you need to restrain yourself from murdering people you hate is kind of disturbing.

The reason for removing restrictions on abortion is to allow a safe procedure for the woman. Abortions happen despite laws against it, and prior to Roe vs. Wade, there were something like 5000 deaths a year due to poor hygiene and procedures. Added, there were still 1.2 million abortions a year prior to Roe vs. Wade, while there were about 850,000 in 2003. [1][2] The only thing that's going to seriously reduce abortion rates is good sex education. I'd much rather an "all of the above" solution than the insane approach of "abstinence-only" sex ed. You need to teach kids to use contraception regularly and effectively if you have any chance of reducing abortion rates. Kids have sex whether you teach them to or not; it's really just a natural human urge. I don't see how these abortion laws advocate underage sex at all, only bad parenting and a lack of proper sex education would do that. Added, according to the actual bill (source [1]), late term abortions (after about 24 weeks) will still be restricted to situations where the life or health of the woman is in danger.

I don't think school was all wasted time for me. Sure, some of it turned out to be utterly meaningless and of no use to me now, but it all gave me an opportunity to figure out what subjects I like doing so I could perhaps go on to study them in university. In retrospect some of what I was learning in school was time very well spent. I also found great value in time spent with friends, etc. Definitely not a waste in that respect.

Elements by Atheist: Dark Recollections by Carnage:

Elements by Atheist (album).

Dripping. Experimental brutal death/grind. :thumbup:

Deathcult For Eternity: The Triumph by The Chasm (album). Muddy production, but it is pretty damn epic. An enjoyable listen for sure.

False. He got elected. He has done something historic. Well, I can see his point in that Obama didn't choose to be black. When he actually implements some great policies, then I think that's when people should start praising him as a good president. Closing Gitmo is a good start, so long as the detainees have somewhere else to be incarcerated/get a fair trial. For another topic, perhaps. I do think bringing up Hitler is rather unnecessary here, though. What I want to know is where and why the hell people are being called racist for saying Obama sucks. It's all too often these day's I'm hearing people being called racists for the most insignificant of reasons.

The Negation by Decapitated: One of my all time favourite DM bands. They're awesome. :thumbup: