But how can something be 1. alive, and 2. potentially a human being, without being considered a human being? It seems to me that when something possesses both of those traits, it has to be considered a human being. Just because the heart hasn't begun beating doesn't mean it's not a human being. By that logic, this is not a human being: http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0309/lm22.html

It's an online debate community. I declared you my enemy because I want to follow what you're doing and engage in some healthy debates with you, not because I hate you.

Fruit cakes, ding bats, and nut jobs? What a well thought-out, mature classification. But since you provided no evidence, I have to ask: what about them makes them fruit cakes, ding bats, and nut jobs?

Absolutely not. He has not done one thing to help our country get out of our economic woes, he has not displayed ANY leadership throughout the debt ceiling, budget debates, or congressional issues, he ram-rodded through Congress the most partisan piece of legislation this nation has ever seen in ObamaCare while at the same time calling for Republicans to embrace bipartisanship, and is sending more troops to Afghanistan after promising to take them out.

Get him out of there.

Well, as far as I can tell, you haven't come up with any refutation to my argument, so why would I use anything else for my leading point? Isn't that the concept of a strong argument: one that can't be refuted (or at least, not easily refuted)? If I proclaim that destroying a fetus is murder (which I believe it is), you'll call that argument "full of idiocy." So far, you've come up with no refutations to my logic-based argument other than saying that "there are far too many reasons for and against abortion for that to be your leading point."

Many of them do it only because they want to lessen the blood on their hands. To become rich through business, it is a requirement that you destroy the lives of many, many people. Just because one of them gives a little bit of their total unused cash to some poor people doesn't mean that they haven't already killed people. See, this is the problem with the left's perspective on businesses. You assume that all successful businesses have to have "killed" someone, whether that means literally or metaphorically. What's wrong with just having intelligent business techniques that beat out the competitors? Why do "many, many people" have to die (again, can't tell if you're being literal or metaphorical) in order to qualify a businessman as being successful? You are stereotyping a whole class of people as being murderers, cheats, and liars, which despite what the left will tell you, isn't true.

Just because successful business strategies involve putting others out of business doesn't mean successful business are evil. It just means they're smarter.

You know, you really should watch ABC's "Secret Millionaire" sometime. It's a show about philanthropists who give because they care, not because they're trying to "lessen the blood on their hands"... whatever that means. You should also look up philanthropic practices of these people: Henry Ford, George Soros, Eli Lilly, Bill Gates, Cornelius Vander Starr, Oprah Winfrey, Andrew Carnegie, and John D. Rockefeller. Maybe that way you'll realize that the upper class isn't evil.

I'm not being "a hostile ass" at all. First of all, I didn't call anyone "a hostile ass," so maybe the hostilities here are coming from you and not me.

Second, you used a legitimate argument. "The only absolute is that there is no absolute." Maybe you perceived that as a joke, but many call that a truthful statement, so I treated it as such.

And third, this website is called CreateDebate. If you're getting pissed because someone happens to disagree with you on just about everything, maybe you shouldn't be on this website.

Life does begin at conception. Once a sperm and an egg meet, that entity has the potential to become a human being just like you and me. How is that an abandonment of logic?

I understand that the gun crime rate is lower, and I'm sorry for demeaning your source. I just appreciate when people provide links to the data they are talking about.

Personally, I like the idea of being able to defend myself from violent gun-wielding criminals (which will exist in any state, regardless of regulations) with a gun of my own. If a burglar came into your home, wouldn't you feel safer pulling out a firearm and defending yourself and your family? Because I sleep safer at night knowing I not only have the ability to defend myself, but the right to defend myself.

Consider this. "'Professors James D. Wright and Peter Rossi surveyed 2,000 felons incarcerated in state prisons across the United States. Wright and Rossi reported that 34% of the felons said they personally had been 'scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim'; 69% said that they knew at least one other criminal who had also; 34% said that when thinking about committing a crime they either 'often' or 'regularly' worried that they '[m]ight get shot at by the victim'; and 57% agreed with the statement, 'Most criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police.'" (Source: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgeff.html) ) I understand that stricter gun control policies can help reduce the number of gun-related crimes, but you can't deny the fact that the United States's policy helps enable its citizens to defend themselves against armed assailants.

Absolutely. Just look at that erect nipple. He apparently has the hots for wiener-shaped mascots now.