Are people trying to turn the word "agenda" into a bad word? Every time I here someone from the right say the phrase" liberal agenda" or " gay agenda" I think they are trying to make "agenda" sound sinister. Having an agenda just means that you have a list of things to do. This mite just be me, but I don't find a wedding cake with two grooms on it all that sinister. But the right acts like gay people want to brake in their house and marry their 8 year old son to 49 year old paedophile. Liberals just want to make sure people of all religions, political parties, sexual orientations, and nationalities won't be discriminated against. But the second someone says " agenda" after the word " liberal " then people start imagining the Soviet tanks rolling in.Why are people acting like a bunch of paranoid schizophrenics?
To prevent people for trolling me I am currently making anon account to prevent people from downvoting.
As we ALL KNOW......
Createdebate has gone downhill and no one is currently active anymore. Many better sites now exists like debate.org
While this site was pretty good I feel that it sadly now sucks and is filled with trolls and the like. Because of this I might be leaving.
In this problem you are standing near a train track. A train is hurdling down the tracks. In the trains path is five people tied up. They cannot move. There is a lever near you. You can divert the train onto another track, but on that track is one person who is unaware of the situation. The one person is too far away to hear you. You cannot hold the lever in a way that will cause the train to derail (hold the lever in the middle). Which option do you choose? Allow the train to kill the five? Or divert the train to kill the one person and save the five? Also, in your response do tell me if you feel as if you are morally obligated to do anything in this situation.
In a Pacific Grove, California - Lawmakers have passed a law making it a $1000 fine for anyone to molest a Monarch butterfly.
"A 1939 city ordinance authorizes a $1,000 fine for "MOLESTING a butterfly in ANY way." The people of Pacific Grove have had a long love affair with their butterfly guests and take THEIR PROTECTION very seriously. "In that same respect, an Abortion is a form of Molestation too.
NOTE: This is not a question about when a child's life begins. This is a question about when a child's rights should begin. Please understand the difference before you answer. A child's right to their life should begin when their life does Anyone who fails to address the question will be banned
I notice that some here don't like books and references and all, but I have no other way to help you see your own denials. So, I hope you will reconsider the use of some scientific and other objective information that I share and use to support my claims.
Note that these are NOT abortion related websites.
late 14c., "the young while in the womb or egg," ~http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=fetus
Placenta Cream "The placenta nourishes the young while in the womb, transferring food and other essentials for life from the mother to the growing fetus. "~ http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-placenta-cream.htm
"preg•nant1 (ˈprɛg nənt) adj.
1. having a child or other offspring developing in the body; with child or young, as a woman or female mammal."~
Charles Darwin"The shape, also, of the pelvis might affect by pressure the shape of the head of the young in the womb." ~ Charles Darwin in "Origin of Species" ~ http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter6.html
GESTATION:"5. The act of carrying young in the womb from conception to delivery; pregnancy.[Websters]~http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definitions/gestation
In modern society, people are evermore relying on the Internet for tasks such as banking, job searching, keeping updated on recent news, remaining connected with friends and family, and finding various resources quickly. In "Internet access is 'a fundamental right'", published in BBC News on 8 March 2010, a BBC survey is discussed wherein it "found that 87% of internet users felt internet access should be the 'fundamental right of all people'." In order to access the Internet, a computer must be used.
However, homeless individuals have few worldly possessions and what they do have is worth relatively little. In particular, homeless individuals cannot normally afford to own and make use of a personal computer due to financial restrictions. Therefore, the following question is raised: should cities grant each mentally-sound homeless individual in the city a personal computer?
The computer in question is the XO Laptop, which is a laptop that costs under $200 when ordered in bulk. It was designed for the One Laptop per Child (OLPC) initiative by "experts from academia and industry" to be a "rugged, low-cost, low-power, connected laptop with content and software designed for collaborative, joyful, self-empowered learning." In addition to providing Internet access, this computer would enable the homeless to easily make use of open source productivity software that for tasks such as writing CV's and cover letters.
Although there are publically available computers with free Internet access offered by the public libraries, they provide limited time slots on the computers and the libraries are not always open. This deters people who are completely reliant on the public computers from working on projects that require large periods of time. In addition, the computers in public libraries do not allow individuals to install software which may be required for a particular task.
What characteristics define a "human"?
Here are some questions to get you started:
If science one day manages to copy an entire human's brain into a computer such that the all their memories, the way that person thinks, behaves, etc. are exactly the same as the original "copy", would you consider that computer human?
If you amputate all of a human being's limbs, are they still human?
If you cut off a human's ears, eyes, nose, tongue, etc., are they still human?
If a human's mind goes into a vegetative state, are they still human?
Does a single human cell with fully in-tact genuine human DNA constitute a human? (ex. a skin cell, a recently-fertilised egg, etc.)
Are recently-deceased humans still human? Will they always be human or is there a point in time when they are no longer considered human?
Are there fractional humans? (ex. measured by number of limbs, one's degree of intelligence, ability to think critically, amount of worldly knowledge, etc.)
"Running shoes have become so supercushioned and motion-controlling, they allow our foot muscles to atrophy and our tendons to shorten and stiffen. Without strength and flexibility, injuries are inevitable."