i88gerbils

It really pissed me off that the e-mail set period back in 2003 was for one month. Especially the one month I had no computer access in a remote part of the World. LAME. I tell ya. LAME. Down with the SSC*!

Then why did you discuss it? Only discuss that which needs to be discussed. The only thing that needed to be said was this, "It is my understanding that Zygotes that do not attach themselves onto the uteran wall are not human and here is why". Then you can explain why a Zygote that doesn't attach itself is not human, which you haven't done so without calling a Zygote that did attach itself human (Unless you mean by a supernatural distinction which you haven't stated). You don't need to quote his whole post either since his post is right above yours. Therefore from the above post I can get te following: a) I don't want to discuss the issue you brought up so I will belittle you for it without even making some good points about it. Quoted a definition and didn't explain why the definition used before was different because it was not. c) Ugly use of quoting. Poster doesn't know how to use quotations like any normal writer (this is an insult to many people, not just one). We'll just continue editing your posts until you can post in a manner, in which an actual discussion on abortion can take place. Or the argument in favor of abortions (regulated or not) will be the end result of the discussion no matter how much bull!@#$%^&* you spew. [Edit by i88gerbils, Aileron burns books] Tried to explain to Dr. Worthless how to improve his posts & how to actually participate in a discussion. As usual, he is ignoring what I have typed. [/Edit]

It's an important distinction. Especially when I'm trying to help out the anti-abortion side. Sentience is important because flesh by itself does not make a human being. It is of particular importance to both the anti-abortion and pro-abortion argument since sentience begins either at conception (i.e. through supernatural means) or at birth whereupon it would be "murder" to kill a sentient being. Murder is against the law as well as against most ethical moralities. If a being is non-sentient it is not considered "murder", and therefore it doesn't go against the majority of moralities & law. If it is considered "murder" to kill an unborn child, but not considered "murder" to kill an unborn child as a product of rape, then that really is pretty hyprocritical. If the whole argument is about the right of a being's future even though that being hasn't fully developed to the point of surviving on their own, then any unborn child would carry such rights no matter the cir!@#$%^&*stance. Since it really is not murder to kill an unborn child the mother, with the acknowledgment of what they are actually doing, should be given the choice since it IS in their womb after all. One thing that many people forget is that when many women have abortions they are not "cold-blooded killers". Instead we must recognize that a "prelife" existed and perhaps even try to atone for not being able to bring it into the World. I speak none other than various religious or spiritual rituals to pray for the unborn child. There are several Japanese shrines embodying the spirit of the unborn. In my opinion neither woman nor man who is involved in an abortion should forget that it had occurred, but they should also need feel no regret. [Edit by i88gerbils because Aileron burns books] At this point in the discussion I am still trying to help out Dr. Wotrhless & guide the discussion back towards abortion and away from his petty insults. [/Edit]

[Edit because Aileron burned my book so to speak] At this point in the discussion Dr. Worthless completely ignores my post which was intended at helping the anti-abortion side of the argument. [/Edit]

Your arguments are all in jumbles Aileron. You may want to start reading back through your own posts & clarifying your position as it is wandering. The definitions you use change like the wind. Example: It hurts your argument to say it is okay for humans to murder animals (as well as make you look like a moron). N.B.: Intending this as helpful insight, not in an argumentative tone.

If a non-sentient fetus brings unhappiness then it goes against the "pursuit of happiness".

There is no mention of illness of the body. However, if you wish to term behavioral issues as an "illness" like you think of something you can cure, then you're probably not thinking about it properly. Additionally, I tried to make it clear that I am not pessimistic about women, but sometimes of Western society in general. So what you're saying is that if I keep having abortions I am making the correct decision? I disagree. At some point in time we must realize that there are other behavioral problems that must be recognized before giving "yet another a bortion" to a woman. Just like giving another beer to someone who has said they are the designated driver or, in yet a better analogy, giving money to a man on the street when it is obvious that it will do little to improve his lifestyle. If you wish to respond to the post please take in mind that last sentence.

I don't think it is correct to assume that any single woman can make the correct decision every single time. Just like that people are inherently not perfect. We are not logical sometimes, nor emotional. The perfect person finds the balance between all environmental & natural factors to make a decision. Abortion should not be outlawed nor should it be socially laissez-faire. Instead, on a case-by-case basis a doctor (and second opinion) should be allowed to reccomend any treatment he finds best for a woman based on her physical, psychological, and social conditions. In fact it may be best to rely on multiple opinions for a specific case. A question on this is would a doctor who chooses greed or personal reasons & then performs an abortion be held liable for his decision in court? Will there always be individuals who seek loopholes just to make money or satisfy a friend? I'm not sure. Common social occurences leads me to distrust. Everyone is always trying to do things for their own personal gain, right? (prisoner's dilemna?) Blah.

okay, so you're saying it's okay to kill people then. Cool. So really "pro-life" is a misnomer. Got it. It's really anti-choice.

It's a matter of being selfish. Though I think you could probably put the "satanist" spin on it. Below is a paraphrase of someone else's philosophical literature: Life is precious. We all understand this. It is wrong to take a human life. Let's just make that a definition for now. ex1: Let's say you get drugged. When you wake up you find yourself attached to a man, a famous man. There are nurses around you. They have grave news. You will die soon, but if they detach you from the man, then he will die. What is the correct choice? Self-sacrifice because life is precious & being held responsible for someone else's death is "murder"? ex2: What if it was just an ordinary person? ex3: OK. Now if just being attached to man would save his life & your life is in no jeopardy would you still live in the same bed for 9 months to let him live? ex4: Even if they drugged you, attached you against your will, and gave you no choice? The righteous thing to do is to always save life. But is it not right to look out for yourself? 9 months is a fairly long time. It may ruin a career or a dream. Do we have the right to be selfish? There is no correct answer that applies to each and every case. Abortion should not be completely free as walking on the street. Instead of denying abortion we need to prevent unwanted pregnancies from occuring by preventing rape, encouraging contraceptives such as condoms (for those in a sexual lifestyle), and to offer therapy for those people who seem to always get pregnant every 6 months.

Arkansas has mountains?

Hmm.. if you misread the topic it looks like "Long Island school pr0n cancelled".

Don't think that the newer generation is worse than the ones previous. I blame only one thing for causing my generation to be !@#$%^&*!@#$%^&*s: Woody the Woodpecker.

It seems Aileron is trying to be objective, but in reality he is masking a subjective opinion. That is all.

Sex Ed.? We already know that ignoring contraceptive-use in education is a complete & utter failure for abstinence. I think it's probably true in regards to learning about relationships, drug & alcohol-use, and other issues. Just my opinion. !@#$%^&*, I don't have the sex life of sex-maniacs like .. umm .. Mr.Ekted ( ) .. but i still know my Bowler hat from my Sombrero. Okay, .

Yes. It's a huge power, and the only loophole for stable homosexual families.

Apparently the site thinks I'm a Satanic Buddhist.

Power of Attorney?

Wow. So many !@#$%^&*umptions that Aileron has thrown out for us to just tear apart. Seriously, stop being dumb and creating connections where none exist. You completely throw in things without ever explaining their context. If I just "believed" all the "made up" !@#$%^&* you just said, then it'd be the same as jumping off of a bridge because you said so. *sigh* Can we write better please (rhetorical question not directed at anyone)? It turns me off on forum posting when I have to read crap.

The state should separate itself from marraige. Marraige should be defined by religion, and religion alone.

I respect & share your idealism. I also believe that everyone can have the will to stand up for themselves. Unfortunately, this usually comes with consequences (i.e. people are going to get hurt, either emotionally or physically). There is also a matter of practicality. How do you fight a war when you do not have the resources to do so? You cannot*. Saddam governed by controlling resources and harboring fear so that no one would make the sacrifices necessary to successfully revolt. I'm not sure how closed Iraq really was under Saddam as I do not have factual information to base it on, but I !@#$%^&*ume that apart from official smuggling it was a closed system. This is the ideal condition for our "revolution" because nobody outside is helping, yet it did not happen effectively. At the opposite side of the spectrum we have Iraq Today. There are various influences. Iranian agents pouring into the Basra area, Al-Qaida agents, the United States, upset Sunnis, upset Shiites, criminals, etc ... If the U.S. were to pull out we wouldn't be in an ideal condition for our revolution either! The other parties are still pouring in resources to various "sides". Today, it is an open system, and there is almost nothing we can do about it. ---------------- Are we necessarily "evil" for ignoring the human rights violations of others when the other do not have the resources to protect themselves? For the past 60 years the answer has been yes. If we wait too long before acting are we "evil"? Maybe. If we are incapable of helping those that need to be helped are we "evil" if we do not at least try to help? It is my understanding that we should not feel complete responsibility for not helping if we are not in the position to help effectively. As the President of the U.S. was making his ultimatums in 2003 I was abroad, and I was scared by the issue of going to War. I was glad that I was not in the position to make the decision to go to war. However, I also decided that the U.S. shoul donly get involved in Iraq if we had a good plan for the reconstruction & rehabilitation. Much to my disappointment, we did not have a good plan. We did not set a long-term period of reconstruction, but instead followed the weak plan that we created for Afghanistan. Now I place myself in another intellectual quandrary. Do we pull out now, or stay in until we can competently help Iraq reconstruct? Nobody likes failure. But perhaps the correct thing to do is to admit failure in Baghdad. Because we have failed in central Iraq. I say pullout of central Iraq & let the Shiite & Kurds deal with anything under international observation. I'm sure there are lots of Sadr followers dieing to arm themselves again.

So you believe in a military meritocracy then? Might makes right?

Peronally, I think life is in plaid. And Midi.

FYI: Abraham Lincoln did not "fight" the Civil War to end slavery, nor did he start it. The Civil War happened for a completely different reason. ---- Montezuma did a good job providing an alternate conversation. Nobody answered the question about what happens when you have several different reactions. Life is not monochrome, it's greyscale.

Since it runs on one & not the other, you should double check processes in Task Manager. Compare what is running on one & not the other. Also, see if one of your XP Home SP2 accounts has the Windows Firewall enabled.