ikol

Well, the planet should have thought of that before it evolved us.

I don't see where the problem lies. Both embryos continue to develop into human beings just like the original one would have had it not split. Just because they lie on the continuum of human existence doesn't mean they can't do weird things that aren't possible in later stages.

Other than being paranoid/jumpy, he's alright. No one's been caught as far as I know. This is despite the fact that they used his phone several times right after the robbery and left an IP address when they used his laptop.

I won't be parking under that bridge anymore! You've definitely gotta be careful in Little Rock. Last year, I made the mistake of living south of 630. Over spring break while I was home, 4 guys robbed our apartment and held a gun to my roommate's head.

So the death penalty is a deterrent.

0

She exempted me from that question.

Me: It's actually a lot more complicated than how you (Peter Singer) portrayed it. The vast majority of cloned embryos are not viable, and even the ones that survive to term have problems. Just because you can (in highly artificial circumstances) induce any cells to become embryos doesn't mean those have the same status as actual, already-formed embryos.

Says the meat popsicle.

I've already addressed the 1st statement, and the 2nd assumes that the only argument against abortion is religious in nature, and I haven't used faith in my reasoning. In fact, my last argument assumed that death was a permanent cessation of existence.

I've never heard of it, but I am intrigued!

While we're talking about New Belgium...

To be honest, I see myself more as a Libertarian who reluctantly votes Republican.

Sweet. Like 1/64 of me is a victim of the other 63/64.

That's assuming that the only criteria we have for not killing the fetus is self awareness, an assertion I never made. In fact, I'm not even sure a full-term newborn has that capacity. Using that logic, you could kill people in their sleep because they wouldn't be conscious. Regardless of what Singer says, I think the potential argument is valid. I've heard a similar argument for why death is a bad thing (I don't remember the philosopher). The gist of it is this: we don't really know what happens when we die, but lets assume for this argument that you just permanently cease to exist. If that's

The problem with that argument is that if the fetus is really a person with a right to life, then you can't just accept that others decide to kill it. It is not merely better to not kill it; it is right. Killing it isn't just worse; it's wrong. We only get to act as "autonomous moral agents" when we aren't violating others' rights. No one would argue that - while I consider theft to be wrong - I must respect the carjacker's autonomy and not do anything to stop him from stealing cars.

Yeah.

Were you really curious about my stance on forced sterilization? Look, we're not going to agree on this. If you saw abortion as akin to murder like I do, then you wouldn't just want to reduce it. You would want it outlawed. You know who should be footing the bill for all this? Both parents. They are the ones acting irresponsibly. Some illnesses can only be treated symptomatically. Paying women to have children would also only be treating the symptoms. It would do nothing to prevent them and the fathers from having unprotected sex when they don't want children.

Was your point that outlawing abortion won't reduce it? I disagree. Yes for poor women of color. No for poor white women. Or maybe I'm not insane.