That's just flat-out disrespectful. I've just done an art project on roadkill as something I've overlooked in my everyday life, and it's not hard to become attached to something you visit every day, even if it's dead.

The website matches people who are compatible for making the healthiest children possible, not falling in love.

Oh please. There's nothing wrong with safe, responsible sex. To oppress our own bodies and desires is unfair to ourselves and to our future partners.

Ah yes, more arguments from the mouths of the selfish. I fervently hope that you one day end up in a position where you need welfare. And then people like yourself will have eliminated and/or lessened it.

I have a cell phone, but the times that I forget it or it's not working is so liberating. I love not being plugged in! If it's good for the environment, I'd surely give up my phone.

It sounds good to me!

The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.

Meh, I skimmed. But I do know that the UN's advice to most effectively reduce global warming is to cut out meat.

Bangs ftw! I just trimmed mine last night. :)

The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.

True Life:

Eating a salad and driving a Hummer is more environmentally friendly overall than eating a hamburger and driving a Prius.

I'm being a cat! An oldie, but a goodie. A leopard-print coat, black fishnets... it's going to be a fun night in the Village. :)

Of course abstinence is 100% effective. That completely doesn't make it the right choice for everybody.

There are certain things that are unacceptable. But, for the most part, if a person isn't hurting others or him/herself, they should be let alone.

It makes sense, you know, to keep things constitutional, but the site looks a little bit extremist. Like, people who are obsessed with the Constitution and dress up as Revolutionary War reenacters and have fake battles. Y'know?

The issue here isn't killing the foetus, it's the man's assault on the woman. Generally speaking, women don't even know they're pregnant one week after conception occurred.

Yeah, these all seem like very valid reasons to pass legislation or to take action. And if there are people who can afford to pay for the action that's needed, well, that's even better!

Our government's purpose (ideally) is to serve its people, particularly those in need. Farm subsidies assist in-need farmers, and farmers play an extremely important role in preserving our well-being and lifestyle. Thus, by helping farmers, the government helps us all. The same theory can be applied to bailing out businesses.

After all, it's perfectly acceptable to give veterans certain benefits.

God, I agree. "It's for the children!" Yeah, sure it is. Get a better ploy, please.

Absolutely. It's like saying to a brunette child, "Here, you can still have birthday cake, but you can have less birthday cake than the blonde kid."

We have learned, or, rather, been further convinced that humans are perfectly capable of committing horrible, needless, cruel atrocities without a second thought.

The race card--or the gender card--is utter bullshit. It's not an excuse for anything, and playing it is just pathetic and not taking responsibility for yourself.

In most cases.

The Internet needs some real sarcasm help. Like, now. How many misunderstandings could be avoided....

I don't know why the government couldn't promote behaviours. Nobody's being forced to do anything, only encouraged. It's perfectly alright with me when the government promotes recycling or eating healthfully or reporting crime.

But it's a search for morality that dictates the law, which is in turn dictating how moral we are. So I'm not sure which side I'm on.

Good debates lately, Joe. :)

To always look out for the "Greater Good" is a slippery slope, and one that I'm not experienced or wise enough to even really comment on. But I'll try.

Theoretically and statistically, it would make sense to deny treatment to those who are closer to death in favour of providing treatment for those who can be saved. It's commonly seen in military hospitals, the rationing of supplies for the ones who can actually use them. But can this be justified morally? I don't know.

The problem with nationalized health care may be that countries are just too big now for taxpayers to be able to support each other. Consequently, this brings up the question of overpopulation, which brings us in a full circle back to health care. Perhaps by denying health care to some, we can lower the population (brutally) and thus lessen the burden on the taxpayers. But... ouch. That's harsh.

So, there's what can be done and what should be done. Who can judge? I'm definitely not the right person to be in that position.