Madanthony

Put the kids up for adoption. As it stands, people are going to China to adopt kids. Or we could go your route: Kill 'em all. But why limit ourselves to unborn children, why not kill all children with any physical defects whenever the defects show up. This way, women could drink all they want while pregnant, and then kill the kid if he's affected by it. Post natal abortion. Why should a child be safe just because it's passed through a birth canal. It's a women's right to choose to kill her child. PS. I'm kidding, but this argument was actually advanced by "bioethicist" Peter Singer.

Did you read my post!? The one sentence you quoted out of context was part of my argument saying essentially the same thing you said but also attempting to illustrate the philosophical underpinnings of this BS.

At some point, be it conception or whichever trimester you choose, the fetus becomes a baby and killing it is murder. Now generally, when we're talking about killing someone, we want to err on the side of caution. The means by which one becomes pregnant are well known. So are the means to prevent pregnancy with better than 99% success. Given all this, unless a women's life is in danger,or she became pregnant via a nonconsentual sex act, abortion should not be allowed. We should err on the side of protecting life. The women made her "choice" when she decided to have sex without birth control or to run the 1% risk of getting pregnant with birth control.

LumberJack song!

Bulls, baby. Michael Jordan trumps Shaq.

I'm glad to see that even on a largely left wing site like this, the vast majority of you (except Thomas K) agree this is ridiculous. It is simply one more example of the left wing deconstruction of all standards in Western civilization. It is moral relativism. There is no right, no wrong. All that matters are feelings. Every society, every idea, every level of performance is equal. There can be no failure and no success. Only high self esteem or low self esteem. Telling a child he has failed a test when, in fact, there is no right or wrong, only serves to lower his self esteem. Allowing children to play competitive games also must be forbidden because this creates winners and losers and will lower the self esteem of the losers. This is the natural and unavoidable consequence of the philosophy of moral relativism.

SCTV had a hilarious bit, the Bob and Doug Mackenzie show. It was certified as 100% Canadian content (it said so on their album) and was about two idiots who sit around drinking beer all day. Definately a great comment on these riduculous Canadian/French/Whatever content laws. Protectionism only serves to lower the standards of what's available in a given country. Make the local guys compete. They have the advantage of truly understanding the local market and can always rip off the best ideas from overseas. As mentioned in earlier posts, we here in the US certainly aren't afraid to incorporate ideas from other countrys.

Thanks, I thought I recognized your username.

Economic Left/Right: 6.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.44 This place needs some more positive numbers to balance things out. I scanned through the posts, and it seems my 6.13 is the most conservative economic reading here. I hope I've helped. BTW, this is my first post here, I'm a refugee from sciforums and heard this site mentioned there.