Liberal Arts Major
All I care about is whether poor little Mbeje is going to die of malaria or dysentery.
___
~ Ogordemir ~
"The sciences have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age." ~ H.P Lovecraft, The Call of Cthulhu
Editor
If you're against it, you're an idiot. And a bigot. I mean, automatically. If you're for it, you can still be an idiot and a bigot, it's just not a given.
---
The Credo of Little Mac: Any time not spent doing ZE UPPERCUT is time that could be better spent doing ZE UPPERCUT.
"...Your animal analogies have grown tiresome!" ~Godot, Phoenix Wright 3
Legend
Then what's up with the law of abortion only before the 3rd trimester or some shit like that?
In response to "lol tumor", it's an unwanted growth that can be removed via surgery. Fetuses that no one wants to abort aren't like tumors. Only the ones that the mother doesn't want are like tumors.
Biological definitions aren't based on the wants of individual persons. <_<
In response to "A fetus is a life", it's not a separate, human life. Yet. As long as it's aborted before it's a human life, it's no worse than having your appendix removed, or pulling your hair out, or masturbating.
Once again, the trimester thing comes up. Plus, it may not be separate physically, but just like you can't kill a conjoined twin for funsies, you can't kill something for not being "alive but separate." Plus it's not natural. In nature, if a lion wants to abort it's kid, it eats it after it's born. I'm down with that. Eat your kid after it's born and then it's cool.
___
"The definition of a hero under Rousseaus definition <- or, in less idiotic terms, Rousseaus definition of a hero
Liberal Arts Major
wut if we're against state sponsorship of marriage
___
~ Ogordemir ~
"The sciences have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age." ~ H.P Lovecraft, The Call of Cthulhu
Legend
___
"The definition of a hero under Rousseaus definition <- or, in less idiotic terms, Rousseaus definition of a hero
Editor
I dunno. What's up with the San Francisco law that says ugly people can't walk down the street? All kinds of asinine laws exist.
On the other hand, some babies born prematurely during the 3rd trimester can still survive. So maybe the law works.
Biological definitions aren't based on the wants of individual persons. <_<
Hence why I so cleverly said "like a tumor" and not "is a tumor".
Once again, the trimester thing comes up. Plus, it may not be separate physically, but just like you can't kill a conjoined twin for funsies, you can't kill something for not being "alive but separate." Plus it's not natural. In nature, if a lion wants to abort it's kid, it eats it after it's born. I'm down with that. Eat your kid after it's born and then it's cool.
If the second twin was living inside the first one, unborn, taking up space, not thinking, and generally being unwanted, I think you'd be allowed to have it surgically removed. If not, you should be able to.
---
The Credo of Little Mac: Any time not spent doing ZE UPPERCUT is time that could be better spent doing ZE UPPERCUT.
"...Your animal analogies have grown tiresome!" ~Godot, Phoenix Wright 3
Message last edited by Kenri of the Yuri on 11/17/2007 at 11:57:08 PM
Liberal Arts Major
(I'm using Wiki instead of my Bio textbook, because wiki seems about right as far as I can recall off the top of my head)
1. Homeostasis
2. Composed of one or more cells
3. Metabolism
4. Growth
5. Adaptation
6. Response to stimuli
7. Reproduction
Granted, there are still a few problems with this, like with ligers. They're sterile, but it's a bit hard for us to say it's not alive.
Viruses and proteins fall into a more gray area of "not life, but replicators"...
---
As for the birth control thing, my point was that conception [probably] still occurs with the use of the morning-after pill, because that's not what it is trying to stop. It's trying to keep the zygote from implanting in the uterus wall of the mother, because if it can't do that it is totally screwed.
---
As for definitions of human life. The fetus has the 46 chromosomes that define humanity, and they are unique from the mother, having been composed as a combination of the haploid gametes from the mother and father. There might be a n interesting argument from chimeras (No, not the mythological creatures you morons out there, the genetic condition), but that's another time.
It's human life - and very distinct from the pathetic strawman of "lol like a kidney, mirite?", rationalize it all you want, but it is.
---
"What is the greatest threat facing us now? People will say its terrorism. But are there any terrorists in the world who can change the American way of life or our political system? No. Can they knock down a building? Yes. Can they kill somebody? Yes. But can they change us? No. Only we can change ourselves. So what is the great threat we are facing? - Colin Powell
Liberal Arts Major
___
~ Ogordemir ~
"The sciences have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age." ~ H.P Lovecraft, The Call of Cthulhu
Legend
Yea, I guess I missed some technicalities now that you mention it, but 'life' is too vague a term in science with all of the gray areas. I don't see how fire is a gray area, but for stuff like Ligers and Mules, I believe the reasoning is that the species that they come from reproduce, and thus the creation is alive as it's not a separate species of its own, but rather an F1 hybrid. Also, I think there have been cases when mules weren't sterile -> just as an aside.
___
"The definition of a hero under Rousseaus definition <- or, in less idiotic terms, Rousseaus definition of a hero
Legend
If you say that people love each other and that they should be allowed to do as they wish (and that a TV can't love back), well, what about Nambla? They love each other as well. And yet they're hated by almost everyone. Children aren't of age to consent to marriage? Well, what about a brother and sister marrying when they are of age? Still doesn't fly with the public. What about polygamy? What about intertwined marriages? Doesn't look so well, but then we have two gays wanting to marry and suddenly it's all political. This is almost as sad as blacks wanting equality and demanding special privileges, ruining the who equality thing. I'm down with gay rights. Mainly because I don't see what they entail as gays aren't treated any differently than regular people, but w/e. This pretty much says it all: "treated equally" - ie you can't marry another dude, dude. Not "makes new laws that are for us and then treat everyone equally."
___
"The definition of a hero under Rousseaus definition <- or, in less idiotic terms, Rousseaus definition of a hero
Legend
make*
___
"The definition of a hero under Rousseaus definition <- or, in less idiotic terms, Rousseaus definition of a hero
Editor
It's human life - and very distinct from the pathetic strawman of "lol like a kidney, mirite?", rationalize it all you want, but it is.
If appendixes had unique chromosomes, we'd still be allowed to have them removed. If hair had unique chromosomes, we'd still be allowed to cut it. What makes a fetus so special? Nothing, except that it will EVENTUALLY become a separate human being. But that doesn't matter, as we don't let people kill babies after they're separate human beings.
---
The Credo of Little Mac: Any time not spent doing ZE UPPERCUT is time that could be better spent doing ZE UPPERCUT.
"...Your animal analogies have grown tiresome!" ~Godot, Phoenix Wright 3
Editor
This. This is why you're an idiot.
A TV can't give consent or sign a marriage contract. And it's not even alive. AND what you're suggesting is a slippery slope fallacy. I'm almost impressed, this is arguably one of the dumbest things I've ever read.
Now, on to the next part.
I'm not against gays - I'm against them walking around and acting like they make up a totally different population that needs different treatment. Want different treatment? Do as the Pilgrims did.
Allow me to rephrase this.
I'm not against blacks - I'm against them walking around and acting like they make up a totally different population that needs different treatment. Want different treatment? Do as the Pilgrims did.
Enough said.
If you say that people love each other and that they should be allowed to do as they wish (and that a TV can't love back), well, what about Nambla? They love each other as well. And yet they're hated by almost everyone. Children aren't of age to consent to marriage? Well, what about a brother and sister marrying when they are of age? Still doesn't fly with the public. What about polygamy? What about intertwined marriages? Doesn't look so well, but then we have two gays wanting to marry and suddenly it's all political. This is almost as sad as blacks wanting equality and demanding special privileges, ruining the who equality thing. I'm down with gay rights. Mainly because I don't see what they entail as gays aren't treated any differently than regular people, but w/e. This pretty much says it all: "treated equally" - ie you can't marry another dude, dude. Not "makes new laws that are for us and then treat everyone equally."
NAMbLA? You're not serious, right? Gay marriage is between two consenting adults. I bolded this for you so maybe you'll remember it.
Underage children are still allowed to be married with parental consent.
In my opinion (and I'm really not looking to get into a third argument, so don't immediately jump on this), consenting of-age siblings SHOULD be allowed to get married. The only reason they're not is because of the higher chance of birth defects. Which doesn't apply to gay marriage - guess why.
Polygamy should be legal, as long as all parties consent. Dunno where you're going with this. I have no idea what intertwined marriages are, but if it's as brilliant a point as all your other ones, I don't need to waste time on it.
So. Why should two consenting adults not be allowed to marry each other? You've yet to give a decent reason, other than "that would require changing a law, and we're FAR too lazy to do that!".
---
The Credo of Little Mac: Any time not spent doing ZE UPPERCUT is time that could be better spent doing ZE UPPERCUT.
"...Your animal analogies have grown tiresome!" ~Godot, Phoenix Wright 3
Legend
Read full post before replying. I already covered that.
And it's not even alive. AND what you're suggesting is a slippery slope fallacy. I'm almost impressed, this is arguably one of the dumbest things I've ever read.
Ok, so, looking at this country, you can't blame me for suggesting a slippery slope, and it WILL become that. Also, for the not even alive aspect, why are you so against that? I did comment on it later on, but still, this is not really all that different from gay marriage. We take the definition, twist it, and get pissed when others don't agree. Marrying a tv is just as logical as marrying a person of the same sex as you. You just focus on this as the status quo, and it's not. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman - same sex marriage is attempting to alter that, so it's your duty to provide evidence for it and you can't just say that those who don't agree with the minority as idiots and that marrying your tv is different, because from my side, it's not.
Allow me to rephrase this.
I'm not against blacks - I'm against them walking around and acting like they make up a totally different population that needs different treatment. Want different treatment? Do as the Pilgrims did.
Enough said.
Well...yea. Pretty much. Basically, I'm annoyed that people wanting equal treatment ask for non-equal treatment.
NAMbLA? You're not serious, right? Gay marriage is between two consenting adults. I bolded this for you so maybe you'll remember it.
Once again, I covered this later on in my post.
Underage children are still allowed to be married with parental consent.
To someone of the opposite sex. (Which reminds me: why are all pedos also gay? I've always wondered that. Well, not all, but a surprisingly large portion of pedo men do it with little boys and not girls. o_0)
In my opinion (and I'm really not looking to get into a third argument, so don't immediately jump on this), consenting of-age siblings SHOULD be allowed to get married. The only reason they're not is because of the higher chance of birth defects. Which doesn't apply to gay marriage - guess why.
Because it's not natural. You just pretty much pushed me to say that homosexuality is a defect, as it goes against basic principles of life, like reproduction (see[1]). There is a reason that marriage is between a man and a woman who are not related. Putting the political crap aside, it's to fulfill our duty of reproducing and passing on our genes. Gay marriage goes against everything life stands for.
Polygamy should be legal, as long as all parties consent. Dunno where you're going with this. I have no idea what intertwined marriages are, but if it's as brilliant a point as all your other ones, I don't need to waste time on it.
Polygamy actually isn't THAT bad, as in it does what happens in nature. I just said that people aren't too keen on it for the whole "love one and only one person" thing.
So. Why should two consenting adults not be allowed to marry each other? You've yet to give a decent reason, other than "that would require changing a law, and we're FAR too lazy to do that!".
Laws change every day. I actually care about something more - the principle of the matter. Marriage is a sacred thing that is being turned into a political battle. Also, as I've said before, YOU need to be giving the reasons. You seem to think that this is normal and that everything I say that is just as far-fetched as gay marriage is taken as a stupid idea, when if you look at it from my perspective, you'll see that it's just as a liberal idea as what everything else is. Why should I have to follow laws that are made? I'm not too keen on the whole "you can't kill people". (<-look, the period is outside the apostrophes! <_<) Why can't we change the law to say that each state can vote to kill 5 people a year? You can't say that it'll hurt society.
Essentially, why should we have to stoop ourselves and change laws to accommodate the "special" people in the US? No other country's ever done it. Either you had to leave to find a place that fit your lifestyle, or you were shot for being a non-conformist freak. Pick the first.
___
"The definition of a hero under Rousseaus definition <- or, in less idiotic terms, Rousseaus definition of a hero
Legend
are*
___
"The definition of a hero under Rousseaus definition <- or, in less idiotic terms, Rousseaus definition of a hero
Editor
Women have the right to marry men.
Men have the right to marry women.
Men and women are equal.
Ergo, men should have the right to marry men and women should have the right to marry women.
Equal treatment!
To someone of the opposite sex.
For now.
Because it's not natural. You just pretty much pushed me to say that homosexuality is a defect, as it goes against basic principles of life, like reproduction (see[1]). There is a reason that marriage is between a man and a woman who are not related. Putting the political crap aside, it's to fulfill our duty of reproducing and passing on our genes. Gay marriage goes against everything life stands for.
Homosexuality occurs in nature. In fact...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert_Grassland_Whiptail_Lizard
Also, marriage doesn't occur in nature at all. Ban marriage?
And if reproduction is the only reason to get married, why can infertile people get married? Why can elderly people get married? Why aren't condoms banned?
I actually care about something more - the principle of the matter.
Principles change every day too.
Marriage is a sacred thing that is being turned into a political battle.
And somehow a celebrity's 48 hour "just for fun" marriage doesn't go against the sacredness, but two men who are in love getting married does? I thought you were a man of principle. Ban celebrities from getting married!
Also, as I've said before, YOU need to be giving the reasons. You seem to think that this is normal and that everything I say that is just as far-fetched as gay marriage is taken as a stupid idea, when if you look at it from my perspective, you'll see that it's just as a liberal idea as what everything else is.
At some point in history, not too long ago, people were convinced that marriage was only between a white man and a white woman. Times have changed. Get with the present.
Why should I have to follow laws that are made? I'm not too keen on the whole "you can't kill people". (<-look, the period is outside the apostrophes! <_<) Why can't we change the law to say that each state can vote to kill 5 people a year? You can't say that it'll hurt society.
Please tell me you did not just compare marriage between consenting adults to serial murder.
Please please please.
Essentially, why should we have to stoop ourselves and change laws to accommodate the "special" people in the US? No other country's ever done it. Either you had to leave to find a place that fit your lifestyle, or you were shot for being a non-conformist freak. Pick the first.
...
You just equated marriage to murder, but I'm the "special" one here?
---
The Credo of Little Mac: Any time not spent doing ZE UPPERCUT is time that could be better spent doing ZE UPPERCUT.
"...Your animal analogies have grown tiresome!" ~Godot, Phoenix Wright 3
Liberal Arts Major
I'm trying to figure out who is more of an idiot. You on this subject, or Tiger on gays. I was going to go with you, but then Tiger compared gay marriage to murder.
Biology doesn't work that way, you know.
What makes a fetus so special? Nothing, except that it will EVENTUALLY become a separate human being.
Already is. Its genetic data is unique, making it a separate entity.
But that doesn't matter, as we don't let people kill babies after they're separate human beings.
Oh, sure we do, abortion is still legal.
I'm deeply sorry that biology doesn't work the way you want it to, but that's your own damn problem.
It's funny watching you try to rationalize it, is the truth cutting into your conscience? =(
My own line is essentially the acquisition of sentience, which is still one hell of a gray area given our knowledge at the time, but I'm not going to deny reality and claim that it still isn't the killing of a separate human life.
---
"What is the greatest threat facing us now? People will say its terrorism. But are there any terrorists in the world who can change the American way of life or our political system? No. Can they knock down a building? Yes. Can they kill somebody? Yes. But can they change us? No. Only we can change ourselves. So what is the great threat we are facing? - Colin Powell
Editor
Though personally I still think it should be legal until, like, a week before the "due date". But the 3rd trimester line is a nice clean way of looking at it.
*And don't try to pull the whole "lol a newborn baby couldn't survive on its own either if it was in a lion den at the zoo and no one was watching and the lions were hungry" BS. Totally not what I'm talking about.
---
The Credo of Little Mac: Any time not spent doing ZE UPPERCUT is time that could be better spent doing ZE UPPERCUT.
"...Your animal analogies have grown tiresome!" ~Godot, Phoenix Wright 3
Message last edited by Kenri of the Yuri on 11/18/2007 at 09:59:47 PM
Liberal Arts Major
First off, nice strawman with the lion's zoo, anyone with any semblance of intelligence knows that is not what I meant.
But hey, let's play along.
Viability.
Five months is currently the lower limit of viability, and viability usually occurs later.[24] According to The Developing Human:
Viability is defined as the ability of fetuses to survive in the extrauterine environment... There is no sharp limit of development, age, or weight at which a fetus automatically becomes viable or beyond which survival is assured, but experience has shown that it is rare for a baby to survive whose weight is less than 500 gm or whose fertilization age is less than 22 weeks. Even fetuses born between 26 and 28 weeks have difficulty surviving, mainly because the respiratory system and the central nervous system are not completely differentiated... If given expert postnatal care, some fetuses weighing less than 500 gm may survive; they are referred to as extremely low birth weight or immature infants.... Prematurity is one of the most common causes of morbidity and prenatal death.[25]
During the past several decades, expert postnatal care has improved with advances in medical science, and therefore the point of viability may have moved earlier.[26] As of 2006, the youngest child to survive a premature birth was a girl born at the Baptist Hospital of Miami at 21 weeks and 6 days' gestational age.[27
Wiki.
So... 21 weeks and 6 days.
That's... oh... say... 5 months about?
Why... I do think that's actually during the second trimester, a far cry from, "a week before due".
The lower limit of viability keeps dropping. =)
---
"What is the greatest threat facing us now? People will say its terrorism. But are there any terrorists in the world who can change the American way of life or our political system? No. Can they knock down a building? Yes. Can they kill somebody? Yes. But can they change us? No. Only we can change ourselves. So what is the great threat we are facing? - Colin Powell
Editor
I have no idea what you're talking about. I wasn't even referring to anything you said, I was clarifying on what I said.
Why... I do think that's actually during the second trimester, a far cry from, "a week before due".
Reading comprehension plox. I never said viability was "a week before due", I said I support abortion being legal until a week before due. Big difference.
As of 2006, the youngest child to survive a premature birth was a girl born at the Baptist Hospital of Miami at 21 weeks and 6 days' gestational age.
By god! It's all so obvious! Fetuses can live at 21 weeks. Everyone should get c-sections right then and avoid the worst part of the pregnancy. Since there's almost no chance of the fetus dying and this definitely isn't an extremely rare isolated incident, there's no downside! Quickly, xp! We must inform the doctors!
---
The Credo of Little Mac: Any time not spent doing ZE UPPERCUT is time that could be better spent doing ZE UPPERCUT.
"...Your animal analogies have grown tiresome!" ~Godot, Phoenix Wright 3
Message last edited by Kenri of the Yuri on 11/18/2007 at 10:29:34 PM
Liberal Arts Major
So far I've seen you saying that the fetus is "like a parasite", but I've been assuming that's been based off your beliefs on viability. But if this is not the case, then pray tell, what is?
---
"What is the greatest threat facing us now? People will say its terrorism. But are there any terrorists in the world who can change the American way of life or our political system? No. Can they knock down a building? Yes. Can they kill somebody? Yes. But can they change us? No. Only we can change ourselves. So what is the great threat we are facing? - Colin Powell
Legend
Men have the right to marry women.
Men and women are equal.
Ergo, men should have the right to marry men and women should have the right to marry women.
That is completely retarded on so many levels.
Men can marry women. Women can marry men. They aren't equal. They marry different sexes.
Diplomats are above the law. Diplomats are humans. I am a human. I am above the law. .....
Homosexuality occurs in nature. In fact...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert_Grassland_Whiptail_Lizard
Ugh, I knew you were gonna bring up that fucking lizard. First of all, it's asexual, not gay. Second of all, that lizard can be wiped out quite easily with any sort of change as they are all exact replicas of each other with no adaptations. ie they suck.
Also, marriage doesn't occur in nature at all. Ban marriage?
Some species mate for life. It's not a "marriage," but it comes pretty damn close.
And if reproduction is the only reason to get married, why can infertile people get married? Why can elderly people get married? Why aren't condoms banned?
I never said it's the only reason for marriage. I just said that traditionally, a marriage symbolized that the woman and man were together to mate and live. People marry because they love each other, with the possibility of kids. Those who can't have kids follow the beaten path, but don't make a new one. Fertile couples don't go and make a new marriage type for themselves, so neither should gays.
And somehow a celebrity's 48 hour "just for fun" marriage doesn't go against the sacredness, but two men who are in love getting married does? I thought you were a man of principle. Ban celebrities from getting married!
Of course it does. What they do is sick and wrong. But, once again, follow the beaten path. They formally qualify to get married and do. Two men, if they love each other, can live together and do w/e they want. What's the big deal about getting married? Maybe it's something more than marriage for love... A true marriage will last without the actual act of marrying someone. If two guys love each other, fine - live together. No one is stopping them.
At some point in history, not too long ago, people were convinced that marriage was only between a white man and a white woman. Times have changed. Get with the present.
Well, interracial marriages do have their moments, but at least it's natural (we have mules don't we?).
Please tell me you did not just compare marriage between consenting adults to serial murder.
What's the difference? Both break the law. One more severely, but still go against set principles.
You just equated marriage to murder, but I'm the "special" one here?
1) Not marriage - an attempt of a union between two unqualified people
2) Are you gay? If so, then yes.
I'm trying to figure out who is more of an idiot. You on this subject, or Tiger on gays. I was going to go with you, but then Tiger compared gay marriage to murder.
Hey, I never made any dumb arguments like that. And I never compared it to murder - I said that both are breaking the law. I never said a gay marriage is as bad as murder (unless we look at it from a global sense, but 10% of the pop won't do much damage).
Except that it's, uh, not a separate being. I'm sorry that reality doesn't work the way YOU want it to, but a fetus before the 3rd trimester can't survive on its own - ergo, it's part of the mother*. And even at the 3rd trimester, it STILL might not be able to live on its own if it hasn't fully developed. Vital organs are vital for a reason.
It may not be a "separate" being, but it does move on its own. The mother doesn't control it. Its still vulnerable to everything, but that's how everything in life is. When they perform an abortion and rip out the fetus and make sure that they got everything by counting the number of limbs, the torso, and the head, you can't say that that was just a tumor and a non-living creature. I'll cite the well known example of operations on a fetus while it's still in the mother's body and the baby grasping the hand of the surgeon. You can't say that that's not alive and is just an unwanted growth.
___
"The definition of a hero under Rousseaus definition <- or, in less idiotic terms, Rousseaus definition of a hero
Liberal Arts Major
What secular reason does the government have to ban gay marriage?
(Personally, I'm with Ogor here, get marriage the **** out of government. Civil unions for all.)
---
"What is the greatest threat facing us now? People will say its terrorism. But are there any terrorists in the world who can change the American way of life or our political system? No. Can they knock down a building? Yes. Can they kill somebody? Yes. But can they change us? No. Only we can change ourselves. So what is the great threat we are facing? - Colin Powell
Juggernaut, bitch.
~~
Burgess [Z?] http://blog.myspace.com/burgess51
I smell like smoke because I have walked through fire.
Liberal Arts Major
And I'd have disagree, we may be bad, but I have to imagine places like MySpace are worse.
---
"What is the greatest threat facing us now? People will say its terrorism. But are there any terrorists in the world who can change the American way of life or our political system? No. Can they knock down a building? Yes. Can they kill somebody? Yes. But can they change us? No. Only we can change ourselves. So what is the great threat we are facing? - Colin Powell
Legend
I'm fine with getting the govt away from issues like this, but what I'm against is calling it marriage. Call it a union between a man and man and all is well. Oh, and shut the fuck up about it as well. Get together, sign some papers, shut up about doing it, and live in peace.
...we are the motherfucking dumbest message board on all of the internet.
Nah, there's worse
___
"The definition of a hero under Rousseaus definition <- or, in less idiotic terms, Rousseaus definition of a hero
Editor
I'm not female. I don't know what it's like, and it's impossible for me to fully comprehend it. Ergo, their choice, not mine. In terms of morality, yes, 3rd trimester is my rough cut-off point. Keyword is "my". I'm not arrogant enough to let my own beliefs infringe on human rights.
One week is, of course, still doing that. Slightly. However, due dates are not entirely accurate. We can call this the buffer zone, essentially. And it can be extended to two weeks or a month, whatever, it doesn't really matter much.
So far I've seen you saying that the fetus is "like a parasite", but I've been assuming that's been based off your beliefs on viability. But if this is not the case, then pray tell, what is?
No, it's based on my beliefs about parasites.
---
The Credo of Little Mac: Any time not spent doing ZE UPPERCUT is time that could be better spent doing ZE UPPERCUT.
"...Your animal analogies have grown tiresome!" ~Godot, Phoenix Wright 3
Liberal Arts Major
Have we ever done that?
---
"What is the greatest threat facing us now? People will say its terrorism. But are there any terrorists in the world who can change the American way of life or our political system? No. Can they knock down a building? Yes. Can they kill somebody? Yes. But can they change us? No. Only we can change ourselves. So what is the great threat we are facing? - Colin Powell
Message last edited by xp1337 on 11/18/2007 at 11:02:02 PM
Legend
Well, why can't a mother abort after birth then? Her baby - her choice.
___
"The definition of a hero under Rousseaus definition <- or, in less idiotic terms, Rousseaus definition of a hero
Legend
___
"The definition of a hero under Rousseaus definition <- or, in less idiotic terms, Rousseaus definition of a hero