Philosophy would be no where without hypotheticals. Most evolved assumes some environmental conditions. If the polar ice caps melt and the world floods, are we still the most evolved? You seem to equate intelligence with evolution -- which is perhaps true at this junction, but may not be true in the future. The most evolved is the most efficienct at surviving. My point here is to make you realize that you are taking an specicentric point of view without considering the alternative cases. By your own definition, your enslavement by a superior race would be morally justifiable. In which case, if there were biological proof that one human race were intellectually superior (if we consider it as the metric of evolution) to the others, would you be alright with enslavement? You refute and fail to provide evidence to the contrary. Excellent argument. No, I agree -- but it has nothing to do in a discussion of the rights of life or death. What does servitude have to do with abortion? And this has to do with servitude and freedom how? Specifically the servitude part. I choose the first trimester because I believe it is the appropriate length of time to allow the female to protect her rights. Arbitrary, perhaps -- but so is claiming that a sperm and an egg have more rights than fully mature non-human creatures. So, then, why are my sperm not given rights? Surely they all have the potential to be human! Contraception, then, must be like genocide! More seriously, under your choice of when to give full rights, wouldn't a miscarriage be manslaughter? If the right to life is given at conception, how are those rights defended and upheld in court? By the way, my goal isn't to make you change your mind. You obviously will not -- just as I will not. I just enjoy getting the alternative perspective -- as long as it is articulately argued.
This statements proves you are ill equipped to discuss these matters. Of course sperm do not have the potential to be human. Basically, you are a moron.
And yet somehow when they meet an egg, a human is what you get. Interesting. So yes, under the right conditions, they do have the potential... Basically, you have run out of arguments and are now going for the age old ad hominem (I should probably wait a moment so you can look that up). A good attempt, but it won't work here.
How do you figure. Just like today. I'm sure it's just a coincidence. Yea right. McCain made a low in late June/early July at 29 and ES bounced for weeks as McCain rallied. As McCain rolled over hard off his 53ish high into the abyss the market got smoked. Also the Intrade data was contaminated by a rogue McCain buyer. I was using Iowa data as well. Lastly do a search. I was correlating Intrade to the market on ET as far back as early 2004. Well before most of ET even knew Intrade existed.....
Unfortunately, in science there is no such thing as "most highly evolved". Each species is more highly evolved than every other species in doing what that species does best - such is the basic consequence of evolution. Humans are the most highly evolved tool-makers just as tunas are the most highly evolved medium-distance-high-speed swimmers just as pigeons are the most highly evolved urban-dwelling-feathered species. Every species has its niche. As a species, humans are fairly unskilled across the board: we can't see, smell, or hear, our young are embarrassingly helpless for an extraordinary amount of time, we're slow, have horrible balance, etc. It just happens that our niche (tool-making, which leads to resource utilization and physical presence like buildings and cities, and language, which leads to social structure) is extremely visible. I take it, then, that you disagree with all forms of birth control that interfere with a fertilized egg's chance of resulting in pregnancy? Although birth control pills and IUDs primarily work to prevent conception (by preventing ovulation and by immobilizing sperm, respectively), the effectiveness of both methods is enhanced by the fact that they make the uterine lining inhospitable to a fertilized egg, "aborting" anything that does happen to get fertilized. Somehow I think you'd feel differently about a woman's right to decide whether to carry a pregnancy to term if that right was yours (i.e. you were a woman).... similar to the awful California voters who recently decided to deny so many people the right to certify a loving relationship. I'm a woman. I'm straight. I'm on the pill, which I take every morning. My boyfriend and I don't use condoms. If I get pregnant, the first and only thing I'm doing is heading to Planned Parenthood and getting that parasite out of my system. I have the right to decide whether or not I'm going to have a child. You, unfortunately, do not.
did you say that just for effect? if so what effect? (the ugliest sentiment I've ever read ... I'll get use to it though, we are the on the dawn of new era. liberals can now freely voice their disdain for humanity... paradoxically, their disdain is mostly concentrated on people who don't loathe humanity...) Ahhhhh Feeeel The Chaaaaaaaaaaaange!