Dudde

And of course we're kind of beating around the bush a bit too. We can't actually start picking a defining line until anyone adamantly opposed to abortion can agree to meet us in the middle. For some reason, there's this large group of people who think they're rather impressive and important, and should be kosher to make up decisions for thousands of people they'll never meet and are most likely too high on themselves to care.

why yes, I usually think so. I appreciate your reading back on my opinions to find out how I like to state all fetus's should be killed to save me time /sarcasm Never have I stated all fetus's should be killed, but thanks for your bout of extremism. I don't believe a newborn should be killed, once the newborn is free of the mother, it can be sustained using formula/etc., and is not directly linked via blood and umbilical, which was stated before. Pretty far, if I find better logic in a different path. Assisted deaths, for example, but that's another matter. I hate to nitpick, I really do, but I didn't say "during times of pregnancy" The article pasted in response to that shows a lot of symptoms which get better during times of pregnancy, but really: "About one third of women get better, one third stay the same, and, inexplicably, the symptoms of another third are worse." doesn't strike me as being overwhelming evidence that the baby gives a giant immuno-bump or relief system from MS or arthritis. It's fortouitous for the mothers, but I didn't see the explanation of why it's directly linked to pregnancy, could be something else causing it EDIT: I rescind this last statement, as I seem to have missed a paragraph that I found upon a reread. But this appears to be in the body's response to pregnancy as a whole, and while debatable, still not something I would credit to the fetus providing, but the body itself I agree and understand what you mean, however, by "pro-life" I'm referring to someone who ultimately disbelieves in abortion - whether they believe in arbitrary or not. Your argument, however, does nothing to credit them as to why they can refuse to accept arguments other than their own, rather than listen and rebutt. I apologize if I worded this poorly in my last statement, but is closer to what I meant, corrected: not quoting anyone in specific here, but referring to real life debates I've gone through (my next post may take a while, I'm at work and feel that rushing posts may be affecting my ability to effectively say things)

it might not make it a leech, but it certainly can develop the definition for a parasite - after all, besides emotional, there aren't many benefits the unborn child defers to it's host/mother. I feel people pro-life allow themselves to become too emotionally attached to their version of what's right - essentially what ecoli suggested EDIT: of course the pro-choice side has it's fair share of the emotional arguers, but in my general exerience, the pro-life crowd is the side that refuses to budge on positions more frequently.

In addition to Mooey's post, I would like to point out that this is in no way an argument based on logic, but a huge assumption on your part mixed with a seemingly limited knowledge of how pregnancy works and a grouping of a very large demographic into one tiny definition. A wise way of debating is to put yourself into the other parties shoes and come up with points FOR their point of view - I'm sure once you do this, you'll have something better to say than adversely impacting a social life. I'm currently dating a girl who's had two children who is actually pro-life, anti-abortion, who was yelling at you from my side of the screen. I agree wholeheartedly that abortion shouldn't be used as a method of birth control, but I also realize that unless it's *my* sperm that went into the egg, I should probably mind my own business unless I find it acceptable for others to make my decisions for me (and I don't)

That's a good point, besides - everyone would view it as a waste of money if nothing happened, and if no bad things happened then I'm sure the recipients would forget about the aid and blame us for not helping. still, I'd prefer forgotten dollars over 200,000 dead, that's a bit in the extreme.

Not that we really have a ginormous budget to think about, but I wonder if it would be cost effective to help 3rd world countries in these predicaments upgrade their structural integrity, as opposed to helping after major disasters. Of course, it should be that country's responsibility to build safely in the first place - but if we're going to spend millions upon in aid when a catastrophe strikes, one surmises we might just send them a million to reinforce their buildings. I'd prefer to reinforce something like than than to spend a few billion in some senator's earmark for something that nobody really cares about =\

I think if you can prove that you had more to gain from them living than them dying (i.e. as a couple, I'd prefer my girlfriend alive so I'd have someone to sleep next to, as opposed to her dying and me inheriting $100k) then it should at least merit a reduced sentence. However, the point brought up earlier also raises an interesting point with regard to the cultist suicide - most of the time they're brainwashed anyway, so getting them to sign a piece of paper should be a cakewalk in those circumstances, even getting it notarized or some such thing. personally, I'm not in favor of assisted death, but if all that's keeping you alive is machines, I'm definitely in favor of taking the machines away

Do you know the law of the conservation of mass? If so, go through that list of materials and pick out which ones you think would be the acting part in the experiment. (i.e. the parts that are going to react to prove your law) once those are out of the way, the rest are tools to build around.

I'm just happy we have some bored genius's hanging around to do the modding

wasn't a bad movie, I was able to turn off my brain to just watch it and thought it was pretty cool in places. Though I watched it with a balcony seat, cheese fries and a girl laying against me on a love-seat type theater chair, which may have had a big influence

I believe I'll be stayin in, having a small gathering of friends at my apartment. Those coushy studio apartments make the best get-togethers ever

Aww, dammit I'm still posting from work, oh well Happy Holidays everyone, hope today is great for everyone!

While they both have excellent suggestions, definitely keep in mind that minds who refute evidence with no inkling to provide any will probably not take the time to respond in any intellectual manner whatsoever. At best it should be legible.

I don't know if I'm the only one who finds this amusing, but I'm unable to read this site from work as it was

to be honest, I prefer Housecall to Norton - or most others as well that cost less than 100 bucks to a year subscription

Cmon DH, we're obviously not talking about them then: The Exxon-Mobil thing is interesting though, I was probably not paying attention when that was called out, I have to wonder how many other companies are doing the same, I'll have to check around and see if there are any updates to that

That's not how I interpreted his post. He merely stated that the noGW side doesn't have any data for us to inspect, thus we cannot demand they present their research - there's nothing to look at but hunches and claims. I agree, except for some big doctorate or scientist names, I haven't seen one person against global warming offer 2 minutes of their time to explain why it isn't true, they rehash the same lies I can hear from daytime talk shows and move on - of course interrupting anything I have to say in the process Even though your comment wasn't directed at me, I'm one of the people who group "denialists" into a single group so I thought I'd answer anyway. If the global warming skeptics who find themselves doing legitimate research and using facts to cite examples and prove their own theories, they're grouped into the 'skeptics' category, which is still okay. if you're spewing what you hear on t.v. and don't bother to check any facts, while continuing to claim you're being lied to, you deserve to be grouped into a denialist category

I agree with Mr. Skeptic, we should find out what else it does aside from the mentioned changes, but with the changes give it I don't like it either. on a sort of related note, This article written by David Goldhill was fairly interesting and brought up some good points - it's a fairly long read, but essentially blames the process of health care, as opposed to the insurance providers or health care providers themselves, to our crappy healthcare system. I kind of agree with the gist though, stop going to the doctor and having insurance pay for things we could easily pay for, like a single physician visit, which should not be ludicrously expensive for something as simple as a checkup

Personally I think the results should be read a little differently I doubt 50% of the US wants either, it's just the only choices on the poll they were given, so those ~1000 people were voting against who they didn't want most.

True and I agree for the most part - and yes, as I've stated earlier, I'm completely up for helping pay down some of the stupidity of the large businesses, but only if they're not going to get more money to do it again, it seems a bit redundant at that point. I think more information is needed on Durbin's proposal, the wish list by the bankers, and what, if anything, is offered alternatively by the conservative side. I think I'll check that out over the day when I get time at work

The only one I see any likelihood of happening is: In which case, don't you think Kyl could look at Durbins proposal and say why it won't work, or offer a better alternative, or do something other than plant his foot like a 5 year old shouting "no!" - it would be like instead of me quoting the above sentence and writing this post, if I just came back and posted how stupid I think you are. (I don't, for the record) I'm no pro-democrat or anti-republican, I'm just anti-act stupidly, in this case I see someone trying to get a deal cut for homeowners, and someone trying to block it at all costs. I don't see much reason to block it, but if there is I'd love to learn about it

What? Did you read the email at all? Normally sir, I respect your posts, but really? And the full quote: I hardly see how any of this is really in the bank's best interests, I wasn't aware that forming deals was detrimental to banks, nor do I see the necessity for most of the huge banks to be in the pocket of the republicans EDIT: I'm not grouping all the banks mentioned into this post as being bad guys, just the ones that look like they're not performing with logic, they're going with loyalty and with no regard to what's really actually good for the country or the bank.

It's interesting that I have to look for info about this anywhere, you'd think somebody would at least have a side article on it or an ad or something interesting find though

If I remember correctly, it's because the freezing point of liquid (beer) is much lower with the pressure inside the bottle before it's been opened, and much higher after opening due to the decrease in pressure. Thus, when you release the pressure on the liquid inside the bottle by opening it, the freezing point goes much higher, and freezes if the temp is already below that. Higher pressure = lower freezing point

That's an exellent point. And besides, even if third parties were to get hold of raw data, they'd do the same thing they do 99% of the time - misinterpret and go to the press!