Messages

I am very well aware that money is inheritable and can be transfered from one deserving person to another not so deserving person. However, transfered money will run out if one doesn't work to keep it or maintain it. Furthermore, inherited money is only inherited once, so it isn't taxed as an income tax with every paycheck. The rich people who are being taxed every paycheck are those with a high income who worked to earn their money. Money is typically shows that someone did some kind of work and was confenstated for it.
You argue that redistributing grades would undermine the purpose of grades, as grades are designed to show merit. However, some people cheat and earn good grades. Others are favored by their instructor. Like grades, money (or, more specifically, income) is meant to show work and merit. Just because some people earn their money in questionable ways does not mean that everyone with a high income should be forced to give up a relatively high percentage of their money for people who do not have money for whatever reason. That would be like a teacher deciding that because someone probably cheated on a test, everyone who got a high grade on the test would have points deducted, and those points would be given to those who failed the test.

Perhaps referring to Eau Claire as a state is entirely forgivable, but Obama was referring to American states when he said he had been to 57 states. That is quite a slip up.

I'd consider those as all falling under the first heading...

You have suceeded in completely missing my point. Nearly all abortions happen because of the first reason you stated. Only 12% of abortions in the U.S were the result of the mother's physical problems. 13% of abortions were the result of possible problems with the fetus's health. 1% of abortions were becase of rape, and less than half a percent of abortions were because of incests. Most of the reasons for abortion are because the mother wants to do whatever they want to do, and the baby won't let them. The rest of the reasons you listed as being a primary reason for abortions were not actually primary reasons.

Two questions:
If it is fair to redistribute money people earned, is it fair to redistribute grades people earned?
What if the people the government is helping aren't looking for a job?

My time is somewhat limited, so I'll just address on issue.

Rob, that's not true. Nearly all abortions happen as a result of one of the following:
Inability to care for a child.
To prevent birth of a child after childbearing age, where childbirth might kill the mother.
To prevent birth of a child with severe congenital defects.
To prevent the birth of a child born of violence.
A condition the mother has that makes childbirth high-risk.

If you've looked at a study, the three main reasons that women say they have abortions are:
Negative impact on their lives (life as in plans for the future)
Financial Instability
Relationship problems/unwillingness to be a single mother
In case you're wondering where I got these from, I'm inserting a hyperlink. The actual study is hyperlinked on the page.
http://womensissues.about.com/od/reproductiverights/a/AbortionReasons.htm

The current theory states that a larger prokaryote "swallowed" a smaller one, and the two formed a symbiotic relationship. The problem with this is that prokaryotes eat by breaking down their food and absorbing it in smaller parts. Prokaryotes have cell walls; I do not think a prokaryote would have been able to take in another small prokaryote like the current theory describes without breaking it down. I find the current theory problematic at best.
The problem about many of the current biological theories is that it is just about impossilbe to prove that one theory definetly happened (which is probably why they are referred to as theories). With only some indirect evidence that may support existing theories, it should be impossible to teach the theories as facts, yet they very often are. For example, it is probably impossible to know with absolute certainty that evolution happened. What we do know is that life exists in a certain way today, and that certain creatures were alive in the past that are not alive now, and that creatures that survive to reproduce often pass their traits down to their offspring (and a bunch of other stuf that I'm leaving out to keep this short). Science's best explanation for all of this is evolution. Though it may be correct, it will always remain a theory because it is impossible to tell exactly what happened that led to life on this planet. If another theoy was proposed, ir would be no better and probably not much worse, as it could not be proved to have definetly happened either. The bottom line is, it is impossible to know. There isn't enough avaliable evidence to prove that something must have happened. In the end, you just have to trust that someone has the right answer and just go with it.

I haven't listen to that many of President Obama's speeches. However, it would seem to me that his more recent speeches are losing their charm. Perhaps he hasn't had as much time to write speeches as he used to (being President probably does keep one busy) or perhaps people are convinced that he won't ever deliver one his speeches. I do agree with Dean_Lukas about the necessity of charisma in a candidate. I believe that President Obama may have lost some of his former charisma, and it may hurt him in the upcoming election.

[must]

First of all, I'm going to address this issue.

Out of curiosity, would you pull the plug on someone who is brain dead?

A person who is brain dead has no hope of recovery or any other life. An embryo does have hope for life. Even if brain activity hasn't started for an embryo, it will in short time. If you're brain dead, your brain isn't going to start back up.
Now, addressing Duckling's issues.
I doubt that most babies aborted are aborted because giving birth to the baby would kill or significantly harm the mother. Furthermore, I have absolutely no clue where you got the idea that babies must be killed if the act of being delivered would harm the mother. Abortion is an option, not an absolute.
Getting pregnant is as much of a consequence of sexual intercourse as a bullet fired is a consequence of pulling the trigger of a gun. Perhaps you meant that society should view getting pregnant as a good thing that was planned out instead of an unexpected consequence, but the sad truth is, not all pregnancies are planned.
Apparently, our views on the morality or immorality of sexual intercourse are different. When birth control fails, other methods (abortion) doesn't have to take place. Actions may have undesired consequences. The consequences may be very unpleasant to deal with. However, if you are able to completely get away from all the consequences, you don't learn much of anything, and so you don't do much in the way of preventing the consequences from occurring again.
Overpopulation may be a problem in India or some other country with a ridiculously high population density. It isn't anywhere near as big of a deal in America.
As I stated above, actions have consequences. Sometimes they are very unpleasant. However, the consequences are easily avoidable. For example, not having sexual intercourse before one has gotten the education they desire would take care of the problem of not being able to receive an education.
If someone has sexual intercourse, they are running the risk of getting pregnant. They should be prepared to accept the consequences. If not, they have a few months to get ready.
There are many disadvantages of being pregnant. This should be redundant by now, but pregnancy is avoidable, and if someone does get pregnant, it is probably because they made a choice. Your argument talks about the disadvantage for the mother. What about the disadvantages for the embryo? Do they not count at all in any way?  One of the things I don't like about abortion is that it lets the mother get away with being completely selfish. If the pregnancy is inconvenient for them, then they can just go ahead and kill the embryo. What if raising an existing child was inconvenient for a mother? What if the mother wasn't really ready to be a mother? What if having to raise the existing child got in the way of the mother's ambitions? Would it be right for the mother to kill the child? Of course not. Sometimes, you have to put other's interests at the same level as your own, if not higher. People are born with a life instinct, and it doesn't start at birth. It starts before that. The embryo wants to live; the mother wants it to die. Apparently, only the mother's opinion counts.

Do any of you forumers have a child? You probably don’t, but do you know someone with a small child? When you look at your child, or your friend’s child, would you find it easy to tell a doctor to kill it?

Are you really comparing an mindless, emotionless fetus to a young child.  It is like saying you murdered a baby chicken every time you eat eggs.

Most people wouldn't kill a small child because they view them as innocent people. With or without brain activity, though, a fetus is still biologically human. Even if it doesn't have all of its vital organs or extremeties developed, they are, at a cellular level, human. Their DNA makes them a unique human, meaning they are both human and innocent (definetly more innocent than most small children above a very very young age).
By the way, chickens can lay unfertilized eggs. Also, many people don't mind killing chickens for food very much, so I'm guessing they wouldn't care that much about killing a baby chicken.
Also, about this:

I don't have the right (or the balls) to tell women what they can or can't do with their bodies.

The issue for me isn't what women are doing with their own bodies (even if I do think it is foolish and wrong) because sometimes, the women are the victums, not the problem. However, I do have problems with them doing something to someone else's body.

The theory behind eukaryote evolution states that 2 types of bacteria developed a mutualistic relationship, and gradually grew completely dependent on each other. However, this view is only held because scientists believe that mitochondria and other similar organelles (namely, chloroplasts) originated from bacteria, and they needed an explanation for this. I hate to say it that way, but if you looked up all the evidence and support for that theory, it would focus on the similarities between mitochondria and bacteria. The evidence doesn't really try to support the possibility of mutual dependency, it just assumes that it could happen. I would comment more, but I'm getting a bit tired. Maybe I'll finish up later.

Granted. Someone joins the forum with a user name of "Once, there was a pony - a mythical creature of Origin - who wanted to find his friends. He tried looking under the rocks, but he couldn't lift them. He tried looking in the sea, but he couldn't swim. He tried looking on the moon, but he couldn't get there. Just when he was about to give up, he had a moment of inspiration and invented the missile. The pony strapped several dozen on his back, and before long the rocks had been blasted away, but so had his friend who was sleeping underneath them. He had no sooner vaporized the oceans, than he found the remains of his friend who had been playing there. He rode a missile to the moon, but once there found that he was all alone." I still don't get it, but maybe this is why I like missile ponies so much." Buggy gets tired of having to type that all out, and leaves the forum in frustration.
I wish I weren't so addicted to Iji.

Wish granted. He shoots you.
I wish I could play as R.O.B. in Super Smash Bros. Brawl

Granted. You are banned from the forum because of your signature.
I wish Idozen Cair's signature was changed into something grammatically correct.

Granted. Whenever you want to eat something, you are afraid you are going to be poisoned (or eaten?). You become paranoid and starve yourself to death.
I wish I could eat something without being poisoned (or eaten).

You do realize that one of Christianity's teachings says that all men are sinful, and have fallen short of God, and that living a life of good deeds does not lead to perfection or a "fraction of perfection" (whatever that means) but instead is in vain. I believe this would make it different from Buddhism. As for Islam, I do hope you realize that one of the first things that Muhammad and his followers did was conquer Mecca and the rest of present day Saudi Arabia. I am somewhat surprised that you have written off the present day militant Muslims as political. If that is the case, couldn't you just write off the militant Christians as political. After all, the Roman Catholic Church was very political, which was one of the things that led to the Protestant Reformation.