Esau of Isaac

Good fucking Lord. Let me put in the most basic terms so you can understand. The point (which you so spectacularly missed, Champ) was that the fact that it has a good chance of becoming a person means nothing at all, because in this case eventualities are pointless to discuss. I will unfailingly die. But I'm not considered dead because I'm not yet dead. In that same sense, we should not protect the fetus by giving it the rights that people are given, because regardless of whether it has a good chance of becoming a person, it is not yet a person. What about human life? My blood is living, but I am in no way a mass murderer by cutting myself. Being human and having life does not intrinsically mean that it possesses the right to live. What I mean is that previous to this topic, I could have sworn that I had gotten this interpretation from the Catechism. It might be that I am remembering an older interpretation of the Church's law. Why is all life precious? Edit: "Not yet a person", not "not alive."

It seems you are correct. "Respect for human life is called for from the time that the process of generation begins. From the time that the ovum is fertilized, a life is begun which is neither that of the father nor of the mother; it is rather the life of a new human being with its own growth. It would never be made human if it were not human already..." This is bizarre. Perhaps I am thinking of some other Church...

I did try to kill that treacherous swine, but I ended up forgiving him (and I was hoping for a throw-down. Because we all know that Esau could've taken him).

The Catholic Church, if that is who you are speaking of, holds the view that the fetus has a soul when at the very first heartbeat, which occurs around the fifth or sixth week of pregnancy.

They might have it, they might not. But again you're failing to understand; I will, without fail, kick the bucket. But I'm not considered as dead because I'm still alive. Is this getting through? If you're speaking of the definition involving law, then it's fundamentally a bad argument, because abortion is legal in several areas, and therefore not defined as murder when operating under that definition of the word.

Under a separate definition than what is being discussed presently, perhaps. But the color represented by green or purple would remain intact. We can change the meaning of blue to bronze, but this won't change that the color of the sky is still in the range of 420 to 490 nm, just what word we use to describe it. And here you illustrate that rather than progressing with the topic, you'd rather just continue saying your opinion on the matter. I contest that legalizing prostitution would be evil; in fact, I believe that it would constitute some real good by providing a safe and clean working environment and another realm for taxation. Are you still failing to understand that these concepts are subjective? It's still subjective. A heartless individual that does whatever they wish whenever they wish can still be seen as good. It is childish to assume that prostitution is inherently evil. It's sex for payment, and I don't see any evil in such a thing at all. No, murder isn't evil. It's like the further on you go in this topic, the more you regress. Have you already forgotten everyone else's posts? If murder's legal, it's not murder. Jesus Christ.

If you support banning abortion to "save" future generations, then you better at least be consistent and go ahead and ban not having sex 24/7, because last I checked a life is denied because I don't impregnate a woman every single chance I get. Of course the fertilized egg is alive. Why does that mean it deserves the right to live, however? Please explain why it is murder. She should have every right to remove it. And so what if it has the DNA to make a full and complete person? It's not one yet, and it will take months of gestation to become anything similar to a human person. You might as well say that we should protect the life of all sperm because all they need is an egg to live. Anyone who says that the fetus is not alive is not aware of what the scientific definition of life is; it's quite alive. Potential means zilch in this debate. It is a complete and total eventuality that I am going to die. However, I am not defined as dead, am I? Because while I may die eventually, I'm not yet dead. We have every way of knowing; we defined the term "living". Why wouldn't we be able to define when it is alive? Or it will cause some of us to criticize your position as lunacy and an appeal to emotion, with shock images at that. I like the pro-kill-kill-kill-people thing, though. That's not insulting or inflammatory in the slightest.

Uh...I remember Sinai, but not Ephraim. Which, if you're speaking of Fire Emblem 7, was more a link to French literature and Greek mythology. There's far more ground, what with a Durandal and Roland being present. Oh come on, that's not the only use of the word myrrh.

Wait, what? I thought this made her look better.

I am a very big fan of the newest entry in the series. It is quite balanced and fun to play, far moreso than the previous entry in the series. Just playing against individuals like Drake or Olaf (which have already been mentioned) made me grit my teeth in frustration. The storyline is markedly better, the graphics are more realistic and welcome, and personally I like the unit design much more than before, now (though the effect they went with the sprites didn't do so well). I absolutely love the production of sea planes on the Carriers and long-range attack with Battleships in the same turn they move; it makes naval war feel so much more alive and useful.

I'm a big fan of the series in general. Of course SRW, SRW 3, and OGs 1 and 2 are the only games available translated completely. Which is a real shame. I've been playing Alpha lately, with battle skills and what have you translated, but following the story becomes tedious, because I have to read an online translation of the events. I wish they'd just bring them over to the states, but I understand how impossible that is.

I live in the United States of America, in the state of California, in the county of San Diego, in the city of Santee. For reference if you're just looking at California, I live at the very bottom-left corner. Nice place. But not cold enough, I'm thinking of heading a bit more north when I get the cash.

Why in the world should they have to do that in the first place? Which --again-- shouldn't be a problem in the slightest. Except no, that's not the start. Life started once, two billion years ago; the materials that make up the fetus are all living beforehand. And why should we give rights to it just because it's alive? That doesn't even make sense. Is there something comical about a woman being incapable of controlling her own fucking body? I thought this concept should have been cut and dry. And? That means absolutely nothing. I mean, how does this even apply to this situation? Does the fact that soldiers had to experience discomfort instantly invalidate the rights of people? Funny. I thought most soldiers' believed they were fighting to protect rights, not take them away. It's fine logic, and I don't give a damn if it's selfish. Especially if it has to do with someone's own damned body. I wouldn't care if a woman wanted to cut out a cancer that was not harmful, and I sure as hell don't mind if a woman wants to remove an unfeeling, unthinking being from the inside of her body. I personally support the act less as time goes on, but it doesn't change that it's the woman's choice to remove it from her body. More like "I don't like people breaking in my house, and if you do, I have the right to remove you if I wish." Of course, this is giving quite a bit more person-like quality to whatever is breaking in, so I suppose we should make it more like a rock being thrown through my window.

I find moths creepy on their lonesome, for the mere fact that I can hear them moving around through the air quite clearly. A gigantic moth is, like, off the scale on freak-me-right-the-fuck-out-ometer. Admittedly, man-o-war are freaky. Again admittedly, they are not jellyfish, but they look like it, and that's what counts.

Then there is quite literally no contest. This is like deciding between whether you'd rather face a Megalodon or a Jellyfish in the middle of the ocean.

Valentinez Alkilinella Xifax Sicibaroheretz Gumbigobella Blue Stradavari Talentrent Pierre Andre Charton Haymoss Ivanovicci Baldeus George Doitzel Kaiser III.

Oh, not necessarily. While I'm willing to enter into debate to determine the personhood of a fetus (or lack thereof), it ultimately does not matter, since it doesn't change that a woman should not have to experience discomfort for any period of time to make due for another to live. I am certainly not legally in the right to break into another's house and make myself comfy when I would otherwise die, and in that same respect I find that the fetus has no intrinsic right to simply continue living in the mother's body when it is completely unwanted in the first place.

Well, it's stated that the moth eats men, so I think I'd fear that more than a butterfly that simply sucks blood. I mean, the name "man-eating moth" kind of carries with it the image of it actually managing to kill a man.

I believe you are operating under a fundamentally different understanding of the word "evil", here. Evil, as in lack of goodness, is a complete and total subjective concept. Think of the worst murderer you can imagine; s/he's not objectively a bad person. Murder doesn't alter some kind of real and physical measurement of goodness. It's not something that can be objectively quantified, like meters, or grams.

Thank you for the welcome, all!

How isn't abortion taking responsibility for the pregnancy, anymore than using a condom before it occurred? It should be the woman's absolute decision whether to remove an unwelcome entity from her own being, especially when said entity isn't even a person.

W-ih-st

Yet another poster from FESS. I'm primarily a lurker, but I plan on posting every once in awhile. Hope to have a good time here!