Reaper

Certain species of ants can produce (or command) members of the colony that specifically have the purpose of committing suicide; they blow themselves up to defend their colony. So to answer the original OP, is yes, non human species can commit suicide. Maybe not for the same reasons, but it fits the definition.

Don't they have the mirror test or something like that to test for any kind of self-awareness in non-human animals?

Oh, so now its a tumor AND a parasite, even though an embryo doesn't actually fit the criteria of either in the first place. That wasn't a judgment though, that was a statement of fact. And there is a difference between perceived risk and actual (or statistical) risk. For example, I'm dreadfully afraid of going out in a thunderstorm, even in full knowledge that I'll probably never get struck by lightning. ============================= And this is why I hate ethical or political discussions (or environmental debates), because many on here (on both sides) just don't seem to know how to differentiate between fact and opinion, nor do they seem capable of separating their own emotional convictions from them. I'm not perfect but at least I try to make an attempt to do so. Presumably you all should do the same. And besides, you don't even know what my actual stance on this is yet. All I have been doing up to this point is making statements of facts. But I will give you all one guess.... =================================== I agree, especially if she happens to be underage. And much cheaper and far less risky (both emotionally and medically) too. Semantics can get a bit tricky here, but I would say that a frozen embryo is in stasis. Not necessarily dead, but certainly not active. And then from there, the embryo can either be injected into another person so that it develops, or it can contribute to stem cell research. I know some frogs can survive after being frozen, but that is because when their cells freeze they don't burst like the cells of an adult human being usually do.

Lets see how this works now (two windows open)..... wait, nothing happened on my side, strange. No wait, never mind, it seems to only work for other threads. That feature is awesome!

How about some basic computer programming tutorials too?

No not really, but since there was actual facts being talked about, I'd thought I would drop in with some..... But, yes, your right. Please continue to share your subjective opinions relating to this subject.

More like July, but yeah, sometime around there. The reason we celebrate Christmas on December is because the Romans usually had a major festivals around that time of year.

No miracle; the pregnancy was about 8 months in when this started to happen. An abortion wasn't possible by that time, or desired. No, not really. Teen pregnancies, for example, can be averted with abortion (Or rather, they can even be averted with proper education and proper parenting). Accidental ones can be averted too (those birth control pills or condoms aren't necessarily 100% fool proof...). A parasite?! Is that what babies and human embryos are classified in the minds of some now? If people think that now I wonder how humans will survive the next couple of generations.... Physical pain is inevitable though. And the chances of death are actually very slim, and are only a risk for those with possible health problems to begin with.

You know, I'm going to try something here.... If it was instead Hillary Clinton and Ron Paul, who would you vote for?

So, yeah, anyways.....

What types of threads or posts do you keep in the Removed Thread Holding Area? I can't help but look at it when I viewed other members statistics...

Really? I was under the impression that infinite series, or other things that do run on forever, actually do lead to finite solutions . For example, 1/Infinity = zero .

Of all the technology and science ever conceived of by science fiction in the past 200 or so years, which do you think will actually come to past, may be used as a forerunner or idea to something more practical or much better, or may just remain science fiction but really really like? Personally, I really like the Death Star. As impractical and probably unrealistic as it is, the fact that it can destroy a planet in one shot makes it pretty kick ass. But alas (or rather, fortunately) it will probably remain science fiction. Other tech that I like that I do think will probably come to past within the next few decades or so is real, human-like artificial intelligence. Also, this exo-skeleton (yes, it actually does exist and it will be common soon...) is really cool --> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSP46lWvxJ4&feature=related

But, but, the purple unicorn is the savior of all humanity . It died for your sins you know..... And, it's not a purple unicorn, its actually an invisible flying dragon that lives in my garage .

Oh, ok. I had thought that this implied that they already selected the candidates initially.

I already posted a link to his "revised" history by Phi for All . Apparently he did not take that very well...

EDIT: Wait, you have to be signed in to see profiles Alright then, here's an attachment of it's profile:

In case any of you were wondering, atomikpsycho appears to have moved on to other forums now. He/she has touched down on the Richard Dawkins website, and he/she's already been banned three times today; you can see for yourself, he/she also has it's own special little avatar --> http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=30424

Why only 2?

It has, and it was demonstrated many times, including right at the beginning of the debate thread I set up. It's best if you keep this debate and similar topics over here on my thread anyway: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=381047#post381047

I found this site posted at another forum. What this is is a "calculator" that basically measures the impact your habits have on the environment. And not just your carbon footprint. It asks you a series of questions, ranging from car usage to daily recycling habits, and then it gives you the result based on number of planets (meaning it tells you that you are living as if there were X amount of Earths available). It's based on the UK statistics, but that's ok because it only serves to provide a perspective. You can try it out here: http://footprint.wwf.org.uk/ ===================== BTW, I rated 2.22 Earths. While certainly less than most people (according to UK statistics), that's still quite significant. Time to reconsider my habits.....

The world already ended back in 1997 (Or was that 1999?) according to Nostradamus.

I will repost iNow's links so that you, SkepticLance (and others on here), don't make the mistake of overlooking or misinterpreting them again: Now SkepticLance, would you please demonstrate to us where there are errors and/or "mere opinions"? And, we would especially like it if you could cite other independent and/or peer-reviewed sources that would confirm this.

You mean that he's one of these guys: