Aceflyer

The comment the way you originally said it sounded sexist, root. If you are merely talking in the sense of anatomy, then women are just as wired for sex as men are.

Great article dude, thanks for sharing it with us Blocks.

so you just called yourself a chauvinistic pig since subconsciously all men are wired for one thing: Sex. of course people act on it in different ways, such as pushing it back or just letting it take it's course, but it's still there I take offense to your sexist comment, root. Re Blue's post: Even so, from personal experience I have to say I still cannot agree entirely. Although I will grant that your post is probably true for many or even most people.

If you're being honest, then you're probably hanging in the wrong crowds.

Seriously. Men who 'subconsciously' do anything of the sort to all attractive women they encounter are chauvinistic pigs, IMHO.

Upon further inspection, it seems that when I originally read Blue's post, I misread it. I read it as: "I've always been of the opinion that it is impossible for a guy and a girl to be just friends if one of them always has feelings for the other." Hence my reply that I agreed, since human will was only so strong. Reading Blue's post correctly now, I would have to say I disagree, both because of theory and because of personal experience.

Naw, he's just waxing nostalgic.

I agree. Human will is only so strong.

Machu, you doth overexaggerate things.

Wat Purge said.

The guy's obviously a stupid fool then.

No u.

Yes, thanks for providing citations for my claim.

...very subtle way. In other news, the LHC has been shut down and will not resume operations until the spring of 2009.

Thanks SeVeR.

Yeah, the video is a doozy.

That seems like a reasonable standard to use SeVeR as long as there is an exception for later abortions in the event that such would be necessary to save the mother's life.

My point still stands.

It is indisputable (or it should be indisputable) that the doctor in this case overstepped his boundaries by a large margin. As has been pointed out, it was clearly not an emergency (read: imminent life-or-death) situation and the doctor has no excuse for not allowing the patient to decide whether or not he wanted to have his penis amputated.

It is certainly possible to determine when neural impulses start to occur in a developing fetus, but it is by no means clear, as far as I am aware, precisely when said neural impulses start representing conscious thought. The presence of neural impulses alone does not imply capability of conscious thought; even the most clearly brain-dead patients typically maintain some level of neural activity.

People can't choose who they are attracted to, or who they fall in love with. They can choose whether or not to have sex with their family members, but that would be like asking a homosexual person to abstain from having sex with another person of the same gender. In other words, it would be rather cruel. I think that just !@#$%^&*uming that all incestuous couples get together because and only because they want to "mess with nature" is unwarranted and illogical. By the same token you could say that if people with sickle-cell genes choose to get together and have children, they are messing with nature. If you accept that nature made some people homosexual and gave other people sickle-cell genes, then why can you not accept that nature made some people incestuous? In fact, as is sometimes pointed out, incest originally arose from nature. Just look at asexual reproduction: the ultimate form of incest, breeding with yourself!

But how would you define such "possible self-awareness"? It is by no means scientifically clear when a developing fetus becomes aware of its existence.

Medically it's a very bad idea for women to have children in their 40's. Such children are at significantly increased risks of suffering from a whole range of symptoms and diseases. In the case of Trig Palin, he suffers from Down syndrome. No, I also laid out the (very real) possibility that she simply lacks common sense. Further, I have never held or expressed the frankly ludicrous opinion that she is "against contraception so she gets pregnant every time she has sex". Sarah Palin has clearly stated, explicitly, that she is against abortion, even in cases of rape or incest. My claim regarding Sarah Palin's anti-abortion stance had nothing to do with either her or her daughter's pregnancies. I certainly have never held or expressed the view that anyone should be forced to get an abortion. Also- I do consider you an online friend, Sama, but I don't appreciate being attacked with a claim that my arguments lack "humanity". Perhaps you should have read my posts more carefully before making such a claim.

I am of course talking about consensual incest, and consensual incestuous relationships. One could argue that such relationships are no more wrong than a consensual homosexual relationship and no more preventable than homosexuality. As far as the issue of children from a male-female (M/F) incestuous relationship (since yes, there exists the possibility of homosexual incestuous relationships...), yes, genetically, children from a M/F incestuous relationship have a higher chance of being afflicted with recessive diseases than children from non-incestuous relationships. However, children from a M/F Sub-Saharan African relationship have a higher chance of being afflicted with sickle-cell disease than children from non-Sub-Saharan African relationships. Other examples could be found. Should these relationships then be banned as well on the grounds of genetic concerns? Overall, this enters a realm analogous to the abortion debate: at what objective point do you establish a line that can't be crossed? Then you have the issue of childless relationships, as SeVeR has indicated. With a childless relationship, all genetic concerns about children from said relationship would be rendered moot. Would we start regulating which couples can have children, and which couples can't?

That was Sarah Palin's fifth pregnancy. She was in her forties. You'd think she'd know by then whether the pill, the shot, or whatever form of contraception she was (or wasn't) using was effective or not? If she didn't know by then, I'm sorry, but then she clearly lacks common sense. In the hypothetical case that Sarah Palin was on the pill, and knew that the pill was prone to failure for her, wouldn't you think that she should have told her daughter about the dangers of relying on the pill?