Originally posted by dadudemon
There's also like two "species" that are similar to the "Q" in the original Star Trek.Then you have those uber badass genetically engineered cyborg soldiers from deep space nine that make shields totally useless.
Yeah, one of those guys **** up the average Jedi, imo.
One Borg Cube would probably be enough to destroy all the Jedi.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The Borg would like to point out that light sabers would be useless ten seconds into the fight and force powers are draining for the users.
The borg are able to 'adapt' to phasers because their personal shields change polarity or frequency or some such, not because they instantly become stronger. As shown in Voyager, in nearly every encounter with the Borg simply remodulating the phasers was sufficient to bypass the Borg's shields. A lightsaber is pure energy, and no amount of modulation or frequency shifting is going to be able to guarantee perfect protection. It would essentially boil down to a competition between energy supplies: are lightsabers' powerpacks sufficient to overwhelm a single drone's shields? I don't know, but melting through a blast door without needing a battery change suggests that they might be.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
A foetus is a human foetus, not a human being.Like, as Bardock said (And someone long before him), a human hair or a human toe.
It's "human" in the sense of created by or associated with. Not an actual human being.
-AC
i don’t know if that’s entirely correct. from a philosophical standpoint, much emphasis is placed on the distinction between a human being and a person.
arguably, a fetus is a member of the homo sapien species, a human being, because of its biological and genetic makeup and predisposition (human as in homo sapien and being as in entity), but not a person. the first part just seems to make… well, sense.
the person part is a bit more controversial. personhood suggests consciousness, the ability to desire, levels of rationality, etc.
its kind of like relating the dead corpse of a once living person. the corpse is a human being- a dead human being- , but the corpse is no longer a person.
as for the association part, a human arm can be part of a person, but the arm itself is not a person. the same can be applied to a human hair and a human toe.
just offering a slightly different perspective…
I think philosophically that puts too little emphasis on the word being, a very important word in much philosophical thought. Linguistically, I believe, that is just incorrect. "Human Being" and Person are synonymous in all of "Human Being"'s definitions, though person encompasses more, for example, legal implications.
yes, exactly. legal implications.
many anti-abortionist claim that a fetus has a right to life, while many pro-choice believers claim it doesn't because its not a human being, or rather a person.
its all rather linguistically technical, but i think "person" would be the better term to use.
so, in deciding if a fetus (a member of the homo sapien species) is a person or not, one has to decide what constitutes being a person. how you answer that question should shed some light into your own personal logic, which would bring about confirmation, a modification, or an entirely different perspective all together.
now, in regards to a fetus, the fetal period begins at 8 weeks up unit birth. i'm sure most people would regard the fetus as a person seconds or even minutes before birth.
personally, i believe a person suggests consciousness, levels of rationality, the ability to desire, and is capable of experience. (there's probably more characteristics, but i'm just naming the most paramount that come to mind).
i'm pro-choice, especially regarding first trimester abortions. the fetus is still developing its most basic features and characteristics. the fetus at this stage can't do any of the following i just mentioned. the longer a woman waits to have an abortion, the more the lines of distinction become blurred. there's obviously a transition period somewhere, which is a question that has yet to be answered.
how do my beliefs fit into human beings who are in a permanent vegetative state? i honestly don't think they have a right to live, but there are several interests that need to be taken into consideration that prevents doctors from automatically "pulling the plug." family members and loved ones obviously place value on the human being, and really legally, they have the final say. i think the same can be applied to cases in which a human being has been in a coma for several years and eventually comes out of it. a
I'm not God but I'm pro-life. Abortion is tolerable if the female was forcibly impregnated i.e rape.
Outside of that? Shouldn't be allowed, the underpinnings for why not are too many for me to get into now, but suffice to say you can't begin to equate equality and human rights to pro-choice, not unless science allows us to bypass the female womb as the gestation chamber of the human race.
Blame nature, blame God but if you can avoid impregnation, avoid it; don't deny another's chance at life on account of your comfort, not unless you can design an effective usable alternative for the womb.
Gianna Jessen Abortion Survivor
Originally posted by Gannon
Gianna Jessen Abortion Survivor
I'm pretty sure that by defenition you can't survive abortion.