For the most part, I agree with your assessment on emotion. I don't quite get the angle you're using for the purpose of life though.
[This answer chose not to be.]
Well it is a GSC remake.
No. 65 is the confirmed number. The estimate for the total is 200-500.
I will be a Detective this time around.
Ah, I see now. I was thinking back to the incident of 'Don't Touch My Junk', in which they attempted to force a man through the security, despite his expressed intentions not to fly after he discovered what had to be done. Since when? I don't recall having a moral obligation, or hearing about a man having a moral obligation to stick around. Also, what do you mean that fatality is not a consideration? Are you suggesting a man is morally obligated to give his life for the foetus? I propose a different solution: neither has any moral obligation towards the foetus. We've been over this before. Legally, the woman is allowed to chow down on an abortion pill as she pleases. If that's too close to murder, then she can just binge on whiskey and drugs until the thing dies. Her choice of what to eat, after all. What about the decision is unconstitutional? The judge defined what a human was, and decided that the foetus wasn't a human until a certain stage of development. It's not unconstitutional unless the constitution specifically defined what a human was. It is different, because he may be thinking. Thus it's not the same. Thus it's a poor comparison. Well all those foetuses that do survive don't seem to have any wisdom, so that's a good place to start in terms of theorising. The lack of brain development until later on in the pregnancy is also a strong point. Unless you mean that we should take into account the possibility that one foetus may be magically different from every other foetus, and have untold wisdoms. I'm having a hard time seeing what you mean by this. You may want to add 'complete dependence on another human 24/7' to that list of differences. I'm pretty sure gorilla hunting is illegal now. Even so, I revised my statement. It has to be a thinking human brain. This excludes apes from protection and human rights. Yeah. So the human rights extend to those without a fully-functioning brain. All that's required is a formed, partially functioning brain. You don't seem to get what I said. Human brain activity. Not necessarily fully functioning, as you said. So those with autism are safe. I see the following argument: "Arbitrarily made, sexist claim of men's moral duties towards a pregnant woman, including giving up their lives for her, mean that the woman, in return, should have a moral duty to bear an unwanted foetus for nine months." There's so much wrong with that, I honestly think I've misinterpreted somehow. Would you mind setting me straight on what you meant? By that definition, it's not 'natural' to use medicine either. It's 'unnatural' to use a bandaid, or live in a metropolis, or buy food at a supermarket, or wear clothes, or do anything 'human'. All operations are about as unnatural as you can get. I don't see why you've singled out vasectomies. Why does 'its place' matter? How do you even define 'its place'? I'd wager that more sperm is lost to nightly emissions or ordinary masturbation than to vaginal intercourse, so I'd argue that it doesn't have a defined 'place'. How about oral, ****, etc? Xakota, what is your opinion of this? Yeah, it was a pretty poor analogy. How about the analogy "I do dangerous stunts for a living"? The risk of injury is extremely high, and that's no secret. That doesn't mean I don't get helped if I get injured.
Someone remind me of what's happened over in the RP. Also, you guys should totally come on Voxli. It'll be fun. Come on, try it just once!
The current estimate is somewhere between 200 and 500.
Nope. I avoided the last quake, and I avoided this one. Both of them hit Christchurch, not my area. Kinda sucks for them. :/ Apparently my...
What error does it give?
The government is governed by the people, and is the will of the majority of them. The majority of people have ruled that incest is unwanted, bringing about the current law. This law tends to be universal throughout cultures, with a few exceptions, mostly among the upper classes. I'm speaking purely about an incest-child here, not about children in general. If the woman does not want the child, then naturally, she is welcome to put it up for adoption, if she so wishes. However there is no obligation to do so. Human sperm Human egg Human foetus See the common factor? No one cares about sperm or eggs, even though they're also human. Why should a foetus be any different? I believe evolution is real, yes. However natural selection is a result of events that occur. There's nothing that makes it particularly desirable in of itself. In other words, if natural selection fails to occur, then so be it. It doesn't matter to me. I also contest that abortion goes against natural selection, but that'll come up later. In many cases, the mother didn't ask for the foetus. The foetus is another human being, and it is leeching off of her without her permission. Why should she be responsible for what the foetus steals from her? Gun laws say hi. Wait, what? I give up my right to privacy, when I get on the plane, regardless of whether I want to go on the plane in the first place? So I get forced onto the plane, and am submitted to security checks while I'm bundled on the plane against my will? I thought America was supposed to be the land of the free. Your hypothetical air services are both illegal and unconstitutional. That's where we disagree. She doesn't have to give up any rights for the well being of the baby. She's not expected to. She didn't ask for it, and she has no duty to keep it alive. (Although drinking/smoking if you intend to have the child is socially unacceptable, but that's a topic for another time.) Why should the woman have a moral duty to support another human who is leeching off of her without permission? While I'll agree that intentionally crippling, but still birthing the child is both socially unacceptable, and an immensely stupid move, I don't think she has any moral obligation not to ingest something that proves fatal to the baby. Whether or not embryonic research yields results, I'm questioning the moral difference to you between embryonic stem cell research, and IVF destruction. Why have you constructed such a strange scenario? What point are you trying to prove? Being human is not enough to give a right to life. Brain dead people, or people with little chance of recovery can be taken off of life support. They often have the same or more brain activity as a foetus. Get where I'm going with this? You place too much importance on humanity, when really, it's brain activity that should be the judgement standard. I'm trying to see this guy as a metaphor for a foetus, but it's just not working for me, I'm sorry. Foetuses don't have any untold wisdoms, or any conscious thoughts what-so-ever. Nice catch. CTRL-F 'brain' Replace All with 'human brain'. Let's use both of our criterion together. You demand humanity, while we demand brain activity. Let's make it human brain activity. That works, doesn't it? If the woman is willing to go through the nine months of bearing a child that she never wanted, then certainly, it's an option. That doesn't make it mandatory. How about Coitus Interruptus? The pill doesn't prevent the sperm from coming into contact with the egg: does this make it acceptable? Vasectomies? What's the difference between the sperm ending up in a condom, and the sperm ending up in a non-ovulating woman? The results are the same. Arguing about contraception is fairly dull for me, as it's not something I can ever see myself changing my stance on. Abortion, on the other hand, has enough strong points in its favour to make me appreciate the possibility of the immorality of destroying foetuses. I disagree with this idea of consequence. I'm aware the situation isn't entirely the same, but this analogy proves to serve my point about consequences: "If you have sex and you know that you can get AIDS, you should live with the consequences if you do." I am attempting to illustrate that being aware of the risks, and taking them anyway does not make you exempt from searching for a solution. Pregnancy isn't the same as an STD, but in some aspects, it behaves like one. Depending on where you place the marker for the foetus having the right not to be killed, it can be perfectly reasonable to treat it as such.
Tonight, we dine in hell!
:B(: Opinions of this link?!
Okay, we're going to have to do things a bit differently this time around. If you were to follow the following orders, what would you be telling be? Tell me if you are aware that Toshi is here. Tell me what your life-view is. Tell me if you prefer hanging out wing one person, or a group of people. Tell me which console is your favourite.
I'm fine. It didn't hit my area. Funnily enough, it hit the same area it hit last time, just as they'd recovered. This time it was worse though,...
That man is not leeching off another's life, and there is no reason to kill him. Even so, you neglect the fact that he still CAN think, even if he cannot communicate. Also, we have not been in the situation of being without senses and in possession of a fully formed brain, so we cannot tell. Unless you mean he's brain-dead. In which case it is perfectly permissable by society to turn off life support, yes.
Contrast your impressions of me in the past with your impressions of me now. How do you think others view you? Have you read Homestuck? Mac, Windows or Linux? Nobodies' Reprieve or the black one?
Possibly, possibly not. But so far, it doesn't seem to have any relevance. After all, MW2 was a massive game, backed by a huge company. They were lax in security. Reposting, as it appears to have been missed.
I know what to expect. I envy your sweet ignorance.
Yeah, I'm curious too. What was the problem?
