I agree, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is by far, the best book in the Twilight series. Much better than all the other ones. In fact, I don't think Twilight was EVER good until HPDH came out. :P

If you can waste your time arguing about stupid things then I can do the same to tell you that you're being stupid. :)

From cannibalistic tribe interviews, I hear we taste a lot like pork.

Now who doesn't like pork?

The question itself is stupid. First of all, you can't just separate people into "Good" and "Bad". That's like separating fruits into "tastes good" and "tastes bad". It all depends on who's the one eating the fruit, or talking to the person.

Even if there was "good" and "bad" people, both could do good or bad things. The better (but still dumb) question would be, "If a person does a bad thing, does that make him bad?" You're both arguing over nothing. Go solve world hunger or something.

Save the ammo for times when you CAN'T kill the bastard, instead of shooting it into a dead body.

Regulating means controlling. So it would be keeping the numbers at a certain level, not necessarily decreasing or increasing as you said. In that case, I think we should regulate the amount of humans being born so that we don't overpopulate the earth. If we're regulating the numbers of humans born, we're basically killing the rest who have the potential to be born. Or we may regulate the amount of human beings so that the earth is not underpopulated. Which means that we are creating more than nature intends for there to be. In either case, there is one group of people deciding whether we want more or less. If less, we are killing; if more, we are acting as god. Might as well regulate the ratio of men to women, or blacks to hispanics, or whites to asians.

If you say that instead of calling people idiots, you'll sound a lot smarter, I promise. :)

It takes a long time, but they eventually get thrown a bone. :)

I've thought about it, and actually, I agree.

The thing is that the question automatically gets people started on abortion and fetuses, when really, all it's asking is, when does life start? I'm not sure if the intention of the person who made this debate was to talk about abortion or simply the creation of life, but if it was the creation of life then it would be the zygote.

"Bacteria can do all of the same things and they are only one cell each. Nobody says they're not alive."

So if this argument is taken as an abortion issue then one (well, me, duh [: ) could argue that while bacteria may be alive, no one really has any qualms about killing bacteria because as I stated in my original argument, it is not a conscious, thinking, feeling thing (at least not in the way humans are, just to be clear).

In the famous words of Marie Antoinette, "Let them believe!" ... Wait, that's not right...

God's real to the believers, bullshit to the atheists. At least, that's what I figure. I'm not the type to tell you to believe or not believe. But that's just me. ;)