Rakasha

Post #31 My point is that PBA are'nt ethically different from any other method of abortion. You're only talking of a situation where it is performed on a fully developed baby. You're talking about killing a baby during it's birth. I confess, it's kinda hard for me to have a definite opinion in such a blurred situation. We can't even say if the baby is born or not.... Anyway, by default, I'd stay on the same side. If the baby is'nt fully born, it's still a parasite. The baby should at least be cut of life support to be considered a different entity. Even if it's soon going to be a cute baby, the fetus is part of the woman's body until it's out and alive by itself.

My opinion : I'm completely pro-abortion. Main reason : the baby lives in a woman's womb in a parasitic state and cannot possibly lives on it's own. Therefore, it's the same entity as the pregnant woman, as much as her hand. Surely she has every rights to amputate her hand. Wheter a real person will possibly emerge from a completed pregnancy is not important because basing an opinion of this is not viable. Because it considers that not making a baby is a murderous act. It means that if you're not making a baby right now (and you are'nt), then you are a killer. Does'nt that sounds bad ? About partial abortions: I'm all for it, yeah, puncture the little guy's head. Meh, it seems to me that partial birth abortions are a bad case of ¨Eek, this is disgusting, this is probably wrong¨. I'll see that anybody who thinks like that never receive a vital operation that is ¨disgusting and therefore bad¨.

This book quote from this Samael Aun Weor insinuates that we have genuine reasons to believe that this... thing... is possible. Maybe you know of what he is talking about ? Or maybe you just did'nt bother to question his word ? I sure hope not. **shrug**

5. There's always the obvious - become immortal. Go nanorobots, repair my body !

I agree with Klaynos. Plus, if Michel de Notredame somehow had the ability to read into the future and tell us it's outcome, it kind of defeat the purpose for him to do so in a manner that defy the limit of how vague someone can be.

I see the debate around the vestigial quality of the coccyx as a moot. It basically comes to a showdown of terminology. One refers to vestige as something that hint the past but may still be of use (which is all the reason why it's still there). The other refers to it as something that lost it's function and thus is on it's way out. Quick glance at the two definitions listed by Artorius (thank him) :The dorlands dictionary define a vestigial organ as something having lost it's fonction; the churchills dictionary define the term as a remnant of a structure ¨which functioned in a previous stage of a species¨. I'm not trying to attempt strawman and yells that everybody win, but it sure does'nt say that the structure is no longer functional, that is, that it has'nt been assimilated by a different structure. I don't see much point in arguing terminology when the supplied definitions does not concur on the subject. Unless it is added more information concerning the definitions that are given that point out one as reasonably more acceptable, then everybody wins and get a milkshake.

Hey, thanks a lot for the nice greeting to the board. It's awfully social of you . About the experienced member, I agree that having their participation is always interesting, but naah, I don't think that I should press until they deliver. It seems harsh to me to have forum celebrities and consider their posts more important than others. What's important is what consist of the post, regardless of personnal records. But I do concede that Skye's avatar is the best Going back on the thread, I mentionned the tail of Big T just as an example to explain why I initially presumed that tails where sticking out there primary for balancing. With more thoughs, I see that it's not a good example of usual tail usage at all. Plus, discussing the evolutive advantages of dinosaurs seems queer. Since there is'nt any dinosaurs posting in this thread, I suppose that their evolution did'nt work out very well in the end (or that they were really unlucky). Of course, those good old dino's are a nice example of stabilising with a tail, but it seems like a rather unique case which has to do with their uncommon massive body. I would'nt say that tails first were there for balancing. I see it that way : primordial life emerged from the oceans and breeded into land species with generally the same configuration, that is, a mouth/eye/brain forepart and an anus/elongation in the posterior. Basically, well, a tube. The last mentionned item, the elongation, seems to have been present to procur movement in bodies of water. But on land, new usages had to be found or it disappeared from the gene pool.

Woohoo, nice replies. And I was thinking after all that it was a silly subject. Yep, I did'nt consider much that tails were a lot more than simple balancing tools. Now, it seems to me that it's usually quite an unimportant usage of it, although the t-rex might think differently. Also, maybe our developped facial features replaced the tail's communicative fonction, rendering obsolete an important part of it's presence among animals. As for swating flies, well, clapping sure seems natural to us. It's true that an extra appendage such as a tail would require more ressources brain-wise. It's worth taking into account. It seems more important than a ineficient use of calories, unless it is understood why tails would be too costly to maintain for the human's ancestor and not with most of the other animal species that possess this sexy tail that I am unfairly denied P.S. Artorius, notice how Mokele simply corrected my false statement ? It was quick & smooth and that's all there was to it. Wheter it was a good correction is not the point, what is important is that it was not aggressive because it was not needed.

The above post which you mention clearly never happened.

I'm all for evolution, but some part of it is a mystery to me. And by some, I mean one : how no acquired trait through evolution should disappear if it does'nt consist in a disadvantage for surviving and mating. Unless the above sentence is false, which is quite possible since I am a neophyte at evolution, then my body seems to hint some disapproval. First, I believe, the ancestors of the homo sapiens, the hominids, were not very far from being primitive apes. Seems to me like they possessed a tail. In our present state, our vermiform appendix hint strongly that we once possessed tails. Or so I've heard. Yet how many time I look back there, I don't see a tail. Of course, me being a guy last time I checked, the front is a different matter . But back there, it's smooth. ... I don't see any disadvantages to having a tail, seems like it only help balance the body, and us being biped, that seems handy. Did we ever had a tail, and if it seems that yes, then why is it gone ? >_<

... Am I the only one that, upon reading the title of this thread, was really enthusiast to see it being about a youth that was eaten by an alien ? From the article : Woah, doing simple tasks is an unexplainable phenomenon ? Yeeee ! Funny names. Is'nt it really, really wrong to point out persons as being apart for their mental aptitudes ? Especially refering to them as (rumored) extra-terrestial life ? I can't wait until mentally challenged people are refered to as orcs or trolls.

Hi, I'm new. 'nuff said.