Patricius Maximus

While I do recognize the team's right to forefit a win if they wish to do so, I do not understand why they would want to do this. From the article, I found nothing that fails my parameters of honor. It is my opinion that they won fair and honorably, and by an overwhelming margin. The opposing team also took the loss very well, so it couldn't have been for their welfare. It may have something to do with their perceptions of being "Christ-like". I'd like to know how Jesus played in sports. Nevertheless, they chose to forefit, and that is their choice, no matter how irrational.

Hmm, one of the great interchange builders of Simcity revealing his secrets? Interesting. Perhaps I can pick up a few tips from these tutorials. I'll be watching this.

I would like to announce my intention for a new subplot for Franklin County, which may develop into a spinoff CJ. I won't give many details, but it has to do with a private enterprise, the current crisis in Franklin, and an uninhabited island. In my showcase CJ, The Patrician Showcase, there are many largely undiscovered works of mine in the first 8 pages, and starting on page 9 the reconstruction of my freeways with RHW 3.0. Here's a sample pic from a recently reconstructed ring road: Click for full resolution. I am currently working on a new and massive freeway and development project "behind the scenes", which will be finished and released around Monday. So, if you're interested, visit the Patrician Showcase.

I just visited here, and I must say I was surprised when I saw that it was of the "interchange showcase" genre, like my own Patrician Showcase. I think your interchanges are fundamentally sound, and asthetically adequate. My reccomendations are firstly, get some retaining walls for your sloped interchanges. They really add to the asthetic pleasure of it, and prevent rockslides . Secondly, a rock mod will help (i.e. a mod which modifies the cliffs to another texture). Other than those two things, I am overall pleased with your developments here. I can't wait for development to occur around your RHW system. One of my primary rules of development is: Do not build the freeway around the development; build the development around the freeway. In other words, interchanges first, development second. It works well for me, and I think it'll work well with what you're doing. I'm looking forward to your next update. - Patricius Maximus

FRANKLIN BACK FROM HIATUS REPLIES: ComputerGuy: Thanks. I got it from the 3RR region, and it is currently in beta testing. rjkrox: You'll get a lot more. Simsamerica: Then read my reply to CG . sim_link: Amazing... but like the 777 point decline on the Dow, you haven't seen anything yet. haljackey: I'm glad I proved that. Thanks for your congratulations. deathtopumpkins: Hmm, I'll have to look into that. Simsamerica: Then check it out. There are many largely unknown creations there. ComputerGuy: In due time. Un67: I'm glad I inspired another user to play SC4 again. I'm glad you replied. Feedback is welcome here. Franklin is back from hiatus, sure enough, as predicted -- 7 days from the announcement. This update will contain a lot of information, as some time has passed. The Fifth AFDES Summit, which Franklin will host, is likely going to start on 23 January -- tomorrow. Meanwhile, due to demand for office space, from IHG among others, the Franklinite government has constructed a new tower in Central Franklin: This created some short-term jobs in Franklin, and will ultimately end up profitable for the Franklin government. The target for profit is 10 percent -- if tenants go for the deal. Meanwhile, the enormous 1000 point rally which happened upon the rejection of the IAPP has roared on to a record 4000+ point rally, or 30 percent. The rally was fueled by the recent commissioning of antigravity-propulsed cruisers developed by Follomer, as well as panic buying. Market experts say that stocks are now overbought, and will correct some in the short term, but the consensus is that a rally will continue for perhaps 60 days. However, some superbulls are publicizing their views on the rally. They think it will continue for some time, and the index will break 20 000. Meanwhile, bears remain suspicious, and urge extreme caution. Here is a YTD chart of the Composite: Apparently, the Franklin Assembly is still bearish on the economy, as they have authorized a fund to be set up to develop this area, the groundwork of which was laid some time ago: An assemblyman has introduced a bill to instate a stock transaction tax of 0.5 percent in Franklin, to pay for economic recovery projects. Unlike the IAPP, many people in the Assembly support the idea, but there are many who strongly disapprove of it. The results should prove interesting. Please post comments, suggestions, and questions.

Too much cash? In my experience, there is no such thing as having too much money saved up. Use the extra cash on what you want to do. Remember: with a lot of money you will be able to build (to use a cliche) the city of your dreams.

As Masochist said, even if modifying the .exe file was legal, most computers today (including mine) would probably grind to a halt with a 16 x 16 city tile running all at once, with development. About EA/the police, if you modified the .exe without distributing it or notifying it to anyone, you would probably not encounter EA or the police. If you let out a sign of it, the full might of EA is going to pounce on you like the Borg on planets (i.e. scoop your money up without a trace). So, the short answer is it is improbable and not desirable to have larger city tiles, or to attempt to do so.

There sure is a lot of people at the Mall. I'm just seeing it from CNN, but in places they look they are packed like sardines. Also, I have calculated that if each person takes up 0.4 m2 of space (which would be very crowded), then 3 million people can fit on the mall.

Sorry, but I still don't get it. Following your definitions, I realize that I've never met any pro-abortionist in my entire life. What are exactly pro-abortionists by the way? Pro-choice is what we call pro-abortionism here.quote> A pro-abortionist is the position that, by default, supports and favors abortion. This means by extension that they encourage abortion. Obviosuly these people are very rare. You can't be pro-choice without supporting the use of abortion if it's the decision of the interested individuals. quote> Yes, and you cannot be pro-choice without supporting the decision of a woman not to get an abortion. The pro-choice position by default has no leanings for or against abortion. Belfastuniguy put it best in his statement: I do not like the idea of abortion or the fact it is used. However I strongly defend the right of freedom of choice by the women. As Maximus stated Pro-Choice does not always mean Pro-Abortion. quote> And as far as I'm concerned, eugenics have never been about aborting. Sterilization of the individual was used instead, it works better.quote> The vast majority of eugenics programs used sterilization as the primary or sole means of execution. Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia encouraged abortion of "unfit" women, and prohibited abortion with their "fit" population. While it was a secondary method, it was used by these regimes. However, I do agree that if a eugenics program is a government's goal, sterilization works better than abortion.

Every time I ask this question, I always get a very circuitous answer, but, I'm going to ask again: Why is it that if someone murders a pregnant woman, they can be charged with double homicide?quote> For the record, I oppose the charge of double homicide with a pregnant woman. It is the killing of a single person, and the same logic that produced this charge, extrapolated, would mandate that a person be charged with double murder when they kill someone with a brain tumor. The charge of double homicide in this instance is a curious inconsistency in the US government. In one scenario, the fetus is a legal human, and in another it is not. And I do not consider the pro-choice position to be pro-abortion. I am aware of the pro-lifer's attempts to demonize their opposition by labeling them "pro-abortion", thus carrying the connotation that they are actively encouraging abortion, and possibly are eugenicists, thus putting more weight to their position. The definition of "pro-" in this context is: pro- agreeing with; supporting; favouringquote> Here, pro-abortion means one of these things: a. agreeing with abortion b. supporting abortion c. favoring abortion The pro-choice position does not support abortion, favor abortion, and in its default state does not agree or disagree with abortion. Therefore, it is incorrect to state that the pro-choice position is agreeing, supporting, or favoring abortion. Therefore, the pro-life position that the pro-choice argument is pro-abortion is completely false, and is pure propaganda intended to demonize and stigmatize the pro-choice position. Is the pro-choice position agreeing, supporting, or favoring choice? Yes. This is the correct name for that position, regardless of your emotions on the subject. When arguing, we need to refer to the competing positions by their correct names. Is the pro-life position anti-abortion? "Anti-" means "opposed to". Is the pro-life position opposed to abortion? Yes. Therefore, it is correct to refer to this position as anti-abortion. - Patricius Maximus

THE DIOXIA RING ROAD - VERSION II REPLIES: pingangster: Thanks. deathtopumpkins: More character? I'm inclined to agree with you. I shall keep it in mind. kj3400: Well, now my luck will be revealed. astronelson: Thanks anyway. I know what you mean. psander5: It'll probably look better when it is beautified. I have since replaced the interchange with an underpass of the freeway. sedimenjerry: Thanks. blakesterville: Thank you very much. ComputerGuy: Again, thanks. suplado!: Correct. First, I have reconstructed an interchange in East Harrisburg into a modified cloverstack, with beautification (sorry about the grid): And we now move to Dioxia, where the ring road has been reconstructed, with the basic structure remaining intact. Here's an overview: As mentioned in the original update, the junctions are numbered clockwise from the west junction from I-2. Here is Junction 1 and part of Junction 2 before RHW 3.0: And here is Junction 1 and 2 now, reconstructed with the RHW and MIS: And a closeup of Junction 2: Here's Junction 3 before, a sunken diamond: And here it is now, reconstructed using the Elevated RHW: And the volleyball interchange at Junction 4, as it was originally: And now. Note that beautification has yet to be added: The original Junction 5: And Junction 5 today. For Junction 5, it was rather difficult to reconstruct and retain the original topography, so this was enacted as a temporary solution: (I need to fix that texture problem) Junction 6 was a rather strange looking volleyball interchange... ...but not anymore. It has been reconstructed with the freeway at the top level, and I think it looks better now: An RHW-6S continues straight, downgrades to an RHW-4, curves slightly, and turns westward: This unusual but good-looking arrangement was necessary to preserve the topography of Junction 7. Here's the previous Junction 7: And how it appears now: The ramp pieces with a 2-tile separation prove very useful -- one of those little things that can make a big difference. Furthur on, the many overpass pieces for the RHW are showcased nicely in this photo: The old Junction 8: And the new: Notice the addition of the residential development and beautification, due to the passing of time. Furthur west, the only new addition is the RHW-6C on the north side. The street connection to the eastbound side has been retained: However, there is a major change furthur west -- an elevated RHW, constructed to better facilitate the surface road traffic and minimize the previous overpasses' obstruction to new development: And the stretch ends when the ring road passes over a divided avenue: And that is all for the Dioxia Ring Road. The success of RHW 3.0 in constructing ring roads has motivated me into considering constructing more in other areas. The next update may feature the first brand new highway to be constructed using the new RHW, so keep tabs on the Patrician Showcase. Please post comments, suggestions, and questions.

UPGRADING TO RHW 3.0 IN ADAMSBURG REPLIES: Simsamerica: Glad you're checking out the other 8 pages. And the 1-lane RHW is called the MIS. ComputerGuy: Agreed. dedgren: Glad you decided to check in again. Thanks for your comments, and I assure you that by the release of RHW 3.1 I'll be pushing it to the limit. Tarkus: Wow, the first reply from the person who made this CJ possible. Thanks, for both 2.0 and 3.0. haljackey: 1) Thanks. Likewise, I believe you did a good job on your first 3.0 interchange. 2) The MIS ramps simply go straight, like a miniature C/D system. I have no idea why I put it there. deathtopumpkins: Thank you. jacqulina: Again, thanks. fabsies55: GPS navigator? No, they'll be well signed by the time they're developed. astronelson: Practice makes better, not perfect. Field work makes it perfect. De Ja Vu: A hobby of mine as well. lifeless08: Obviously. sedimenjerry: Thanks, and you are correct. rainyday: Long Live RHW. I think that was the most replies ever recieved in the Showcase after a single update. That just shows how a new release can bring a CJ to life. Tonight, the highway revolution continues. By this time it has gotten its grip on Adamsburg, and in a good way. We start in the city tile's south, where this was here before: But has been supplanted by this, a diamond interchange with the RHW 6-C: Furthur north, here is an assortment of the beautiful overpasses which characterize the network, and make it unique among RHWs: To the nothernmost interchange of the city, we go to a historical picture of this parclo interchange (this was taken before development): It has since been transformed into a parclo/diamond hybrid: And that does it for Adamsburg, for now. In the next update, I will be working on the Dioxia Ring Road: Please post comments, suggestions, and questions.

I like all the new developments, and I can't wait for what you do with the new RHW.

Very well. You have adequately answered my request, and we obviously have differences of opinion on the definition of "pro-abortion". Seeing that the pro-choice position is the same whatever you call it, and what you call it is irrelevant to discussion on abortion, let's simply discuss the issues at hand, and not stray off topic.

To clarify the story in "Space Seed", Kirk finds a DY-100 sleeper ship from 1996, and he finds Khan in it, and "thaws" him in sickbay. Marla McGivers is the ship's historian, and has an interest in Khan. They then have multiple scenes. Khan is found to be genetically engineered, Khan nearly takes over the Enterprise, but is prevented. Kirk sentences him to exile at Ceti Alpha V, where Star Trek II begins. It seems like, aside from much of the Enterprise crew, most of the cast from Star Trek II is dead, with Ricardo Montalban being the latest and most significant. Montalban had acting talent. Definently one of the greatest of the late 20th century. I'm sure fans will miss him.

RHW DAY + 1 REPLIES: jacqulina: Thanks. deathtopumpkins: Thanks for your comments. It is an excellent freeway. rainyday: Sure are. haljackey: Thank you. To quote Hamish, "I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it." . sim_link: Agreed. ComputerGuy: Thank you. SirUnger: They'll only get better. suplado: Your hope has been fulfilled. Now it is almost 24 hours after RHW Day. Much thought has been given to the point of release, but not to the aftermath. Welcome to the period of RHW Day + 1. The slogan for RHW 3.0 was "the highway revolution is coming". It is a correct one. According to some, the highway revolution has come. I couldn't disagree with them more. The raw materials have come for the revolution. However, the revolution has just begun. This update, the first in a series, will detail the beginnings of this revolution in Patian County. At about 20:00 last night, I got the wonderful news of the release of RHW 3.0. I then went to bed, since I need to get some sleep. At 03:50 the next morning, I downloaded it, and since then I've been playing with it. This is my first rebuilt interchange using 3.0: Petty good, but still I didn't "get the hang of it". Here's a closeup of the ramp matrix: Next, in the same city tile, I did a parclo/diamond hybrid: Not bad. Once I'd built a few interchanges, I proceeded to reconstruct a travelled interchange here: I'd by then gotten the hang of the elevated RHW, and I must say it is great. I also like the new textures. South of this interchange, I determined that the RHW 6C would be best, since the old highway took up 3 tiles: On the RHW 6C, I like the jersey barriers, and especially the transition. My only gripe with it is that it is orthogonal-only. To the west, I reconstructed an old diamond into a parclo, using the RHW 6C: Note that one side continues on. The MIS flows into an avenue using a new MIS-OWR transition: The avenue then connects to a roundabout. My faavorite RHW networks so far are the RHW-8 and -6C. They seem to be the most versatile. I'm still trying out RHW 3.0, and another update will probably come tomorrow. Please post comments, suggestions, and questions.

FRANKLIN ON HIATUS Due to the release of RHW 3.0, I am concentrating all my SC4 time on that, plus the new NAM. This event, coupled with my prior promise of a series of special updates in the Patrician Showcase, require me to concentrate on that CJ. I am currently placing Franklin County in hiatus for at least 7 days. This does not mean I will vanish from the CJ section. You will see plenty of my work in the Patrician Showcase.

No, I'm sorry, but I whole-heartedly disagree with you. Firstly, the pro-abortion camp DOES NOT encourage women to abort fetuses, and I must say that that is the most ridiculous comment I have read in this thread. In fact, I would laugh if it weren't so preposterous and disturbing. Secondly, If someone believes that abortion should be available, whether they agree with it or not, is, by default, a pro-abortion stance. You cannot rationalize yourself out of it.quote> I disagree. For once, look at it from a neutral and dispassionate point of view, and review the definitions of pro-, anti-, and abortion. Then tell me if you think my answer is "preposterous and disturbing".

I would just like to give an update. RHW 3.0 has been released, and all morning I've been playing with it, and have gotten the hang of it. I've already replaced a lot of old and "unclean" interchanges with the new functionality, and expect a full update by Midnight UTC.

You are missing the whole point. Fetuses aren't just any old cell growths. They are cell growths (if you want to call them that) that will, if unimpeded, become human beings.quote> Yes, those growths if unimpeded will develop into humans. But when they are cell growths they are cell growths, regardless of what they may develop into. Under your logic, stepping on grass (and causing it to die) is the same as killing thousands of trees.quote> Not exactly the same. When you kill thousands of trees you kill more entities than stepping on grass. Not to mention that most of the time grass is not killed by being stepped on. And that is not my logic, it is my extension of the pro-life logic. I hate this term. It reeks of propaganda and is a total misnomer. The terminology of Pro-Choice and Pro-Life are a success of the anti-abortion movement. It lends to this false idea that pro-abortionists are somehow anti-life. The debate is about abortion, the termination of a fetus.quote> Well, I do not deny that the two terms were developed by the two groups as self-descriptions that demonize the opposition, but they have become common terms, and have in effect lost their meaning. I just use pro-choice/pro-life because it is a common name for the two groups. This should really be about pro-abortion vs anti-abortion.quote> To clarify, there are, in theory, three groups on abortion: Pro-abortion: group that encourages women to abort fetuses Anti-abortion: group that seeks to prohibit abortion, sometimes with occasional exceptions Pro-choice: group that thinks the individual woman should have a choice on abortion Pro-/anti-abortion does not describe the pro-choice position. They are neither pro- nor ant-abortion. They simply believe the person involved is the best one to decide. They neither encourage nor discourage abortion. Most adoptive parents are loving and do their best to raise the kids. But let's not pretend that all adoptive parents are good ones. I can show you several recent, local cases where the adoptive mother killed the child.quote> Yes, most. It is a fact that most adoptive parents do no significant harm to their adopted children. It is just the uncertainty that can cause distress. I suspect it comes down to trying to legislate morality. Which just doesn't work.quote> Correct. Changing a culture can best be accomplished through non-governmental efforts than by criminalizing what one group deems to be an immoral act. Uh oh, I sent some apoptotic messages to my cells today, am I a murderer?quote> According to me, no. If you carry the pro-life logic to its ultimate conclusion, yes.

Reason 1- It's murder. Many people have already gone into this so I wont repeat everything to try and keep this short. But killing a potential human is actually worst than killing one thats already alive. Here's my way of thinking - When an small child, like 5 yeasr old, dies for any reason, its usually more tragic than if an eighty year old died. Why? because the young child still had another 70 years before reaching its life expectancy, while the 80 year old, has already passed theirs so your killing a larger "lifetime" or so to speak. Now killing an unborn baby, your killing an entire lifetime. quote> First of all, how do you 'murder' a non-sentient growth of cells? That is the same logic as saying removing a tumor is murder. I don't think an 80-year-old's death is less tragic than a 5-year-old's. They are both humans, and the tragicness of it depends on how close you were to either of the two people. I do not deny that with abortion you are killing cells, but cells get killed in the body every minute of every day. Reason 2- Having offspring is the primary instinct of every living thing. Including all animals, humans, plants and bacteria. Everything that lives wants to have offspring. Now, if when your pregnant and already suffering from hormonal swings, you decide to abort your baby, chances are you will regret it. That experiment mentioned earlier cannot be accurate. The force that drives someone to produce offspring is more powerful than any other emotion. It has to be, it created the entire world as we know it. There's no telling what the effects of abortion do on a subconcsiece level. Remember, phsychology is a hard topic to work with. There are still many mysteries relating to the study of psychology and much remains not understood. If a woman missed a chance to create offspring, it would have to affect her. You cannot fight off 3 billion years of natural selection - its just too strong.quote> It is true that most members of a species wish and do produce offspring in their lifetime. If the woman regrets it, it is her problem. She made the choice herself. The fact that some women regret getting abortions does not justify the government to, in effect, declare the woman to be their property (as explained in my previous posts). What about the ones who do not regret it? Reason 3- If you really dont want the baby, give it for adoption. Its a win win situation. There are many parents who want to have children but can't and aborting an unborn child is no better than abandoning a new born at a gas station like this one couple on news did a while back. At least if you give it for adoption, you wont regret it as much, because technically its still your offspring and in relation to reason 2 above, you have passed on your genes and created your offspring, while it drains someone elses energy. So once again, its win win...genetically.quote> "Give it for adoption". It is not as simple as that. Giving up a baby for adoption can cause more psychological trauma than abortion, because you know nothing about your child, how he's doing, where he is, how his living conditions are, or even if he's alive or not. If a person wishes to carry the fetus through to birth and then put it up for adoption, that is fine with me if that is their choice. But the government should not force them (directly or indirectly) to do so. And a little silly question of mine: Is killing a rabbit considered murder too? Because it's way more human than a fetus... quote> Pro-life logic. Killing anything, be it sapient, sentient, or non-sentient is considered murder, and the victims must be protected by the government. That is their logic taken to its logical conclusion. i am adamant in no abortion, nobody chose their parentsquote> That is true, no one chooses their parents, for the simple reason that the parents came before you did, and they voluntarily chose to create you. if abortion were legalised in 1900 about 1/3rd of you ouldn't exist there is a thoughtquote> If every condition now was the same in 1900. In 1900 there was no understanding of DNA, no prenatal testing, not to mention a stigma against abortion. So the ones among us would be more than you think. besides most would be mothers go through immense emotional trauma from effectivley losing a baby and it ruins their physical health (hormone inbalances and such can lead to cancers)quote> Consequences of their choice that they made. That does not mean that the government should prevent them from making a choice which could result in harm. Also, most post-abortion women do not go though intense psychological trauma. SC4Meister: But what about the Tyranny of the Majority? The US was founded as one nation under god as the saying goes, but the philosophical base also includes rights and respect for minorities. It's all right there in the Federalist Papers and in Alexis Tocqueville's writings. America was founded with limitations to protect those who don't agree with the majority from being persecuted. It's a balancing act and not a matter of simply polling everyone and 50%+1 carrying the day.quote> Firstly, America was founded as "one nation, indivisible", not "one nation, under god". "Under god" was added to the Pledge in 1954 to seperate "us" from the "godless commies". You are correct in saying that the founders of America did not want the majority to rule in every matter. If they wished to do so, the USA would be a democracy, not a republic.

Ok, say you like to hunt. You go out to the woods one day with your sniper rifle, and after waiting for half an hour, you see some movement, but you can't make out what it is. You know it's in the middle of the hunting season, and there are many other hunters out there. But you shoot it anyways. You go over and you see a man with blood all over his chest. You just murdered someone. quote> That is obvious. You've just killed a human. The same goes for abortions. Whether you know if the fetus is a human or not is irrelevant. The possibility of human life in a fetus is what matters, and I don't imagine anyone denying that a fetus is a possible (potential) human. Just as in my analogy, if you're not sure if there's human life in there, then don't shoot.quote> A fetus is not human life, since it it does not demonstrate the characteristics of the species Homo sapiens. If it does not have the characteristics of humans, then it is not a human. It is obvious to me. And in the second analogy you do not know if a human is in the line of fire, so you may not have murdered anyone -- innocent until proven guilty. Now let's say that instead of shooting a human there you shot a growth of lichen. That is the most appropiate analogy I can give. So with that logic, abortion should be illegal, because last time I checked, so was murder.In all 50 states (and DC). I hope my logic made sense.quote> No, it does not make sense, since you haven't murdered anything. For the record, I understand a lot of you guys' views about my religion, (Christian) dictating what you can and cannot do. But the only question I have is, if we don't get our ethics, morals, our sense of right and wrong from a religion, where the heck do we get them from? quote> I get my ethics from a rational understanding of people's rights. As a general rule, if it infringes upon another person's rights, it is probably unethical. Most ethical principles throughout history, especially the more basic ones (rape, murder, etc.), can be traced back to violations of rights. I don't wish to discuss it much here, but ethics that come out of a religion are based more on fear of their god than rationality. My ethics can generally be described as "libertarian" or "liberal". About the question of paying for it, I believe that since the fetus is in the woman's body, and it is the woman who is getting the abortion, then the father should not be obligated to pay for it, as he may or not think it should be done. Lastly, I too have to commend the civility in this thread, and I ask everyone to not wander too far off topic. - Patricius Maximus

You appear to be doing a good job managing transit in the interim. Good update.

I'm going to just give my opinions on the matter, and not respond to previous comments at this time. Which is a member of the species Homo sapiens? The life form on the left, or on the right? The answer is the right one. The left one is a growth of cells in a liquid. There is a very high probability that that cell growth, in about 9 months, will develop into a Homo sapiens, like the one on the right. There is no denying that human adults and children possess all the characteristics which define the species Homo sapiens. Chief among them is sapience, along with conformity to human anatomical structure. Every human possesses these characteristics, so they are human. On the other hand, the only similarity that that growth of cells has with a human is that it has DNA and is made up of cells. How can two life forms that are so different from each other be a part of the same species, as these pro-life people say? The answer is that they are not. Despite this clear difference between a sapient human and a non-sentient growth, pro-life people have aggressively campaigned the government to confer special protections to these growths. Complicating this is that the growth is inside a person's body. If the government confers protection to these cells, then they are in effect taking over the person's body, and turning it into government property, for them to do with it as they please. This denies to pregnant people the most basic of human rights -- ownership of one's body. The root of this position, I have found, is religion, as well as a strain of anti-intellectualism, which spawns an anti-science streak. The Christian religion teaches that the body has a soul attached to it. Some Christians believe that the aforementioned cell growths have a soul attached to them, and are therefore human. The state of being human is not dependent on a supernatural life force -- it is dependent on the person's anatomical characteristics, as it is with any species, with or without a soul. Any scientist knows that. There is no evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, which would indicate that cell growths have a supernatural life force contained within them. Therefore, I issue a challenge to the pro-life position: validate scientifically the idea that fetuses have contained within them a supernatural life force (a soul). If this is validated, then I may be inclined to take up the pro-life position. But it has not been tested, and no one intends to do so. Pro-lifers often support capital punishment, and the killing of literally trillions of cell growth across the world every day, ranging from bacteria to protists to tumors. If the pro-life position is to be consistent, protecting cell growths from killing, why not ban antibiotics, antiviral drugs, disinfectent wipes, chlorine in swimming pools, removal of parasites, treatment of tapeworms, stepping on the ground, or even eating? All of these activities kill cells, which they are trying to protect. The pro-life position is inconsistent and biased towards a belief in the Christian religion, and a desire to "protect" and to perpetuate traditional gender roles, and to a lesser extent to perpetuate the subjugation of women, which more extreme Christians endorse explicitly. To supply furthur evidence for legalizing abortion, consider the number of back-alley abortions performed before Roe v. Wade. These abortions are dangerous, and may result, in pro-lifers' opinions, two lives being lost instead of one. Modern legal abortion is safer even than childbirth, and preserves the life of the pregnant person. If the government takes up the pro-life position, and illegalizes abortion, expect an increase in back-alley abortions, and unwanted children who will be disadvantaged for the rest of their lives, which may last for 100+ years. All of these consequences will be caused by backwards-looking traditionalists seeking to desperately uphold and perpetuate the status quo of the past, whether the people the government is supposed to serve want it or not. This goes against another principle many pro-lifers say they believe in -- republican government, and government by the people, for the people, and of the people. Human embryos and fetuses are not a part of the human species, are not sapient, and are non-sentient. They are only a growth of cells in a person's body. Let the people with those cells in their bodies make the decision on what to do with them themselves, since they know best what to do with their own body. In other words, give them a choice. That is the essence of the pro-choice position. - Patricius Maximus

Black Hawk Down II? That was my exact thought when I first saw the story.