tantric superman

That's a bit of a big qualifier.

Only the human ones.

He took the Lord's name in vain first.

Yep, or in deciding whether the argument that a fetus is or is not a human really changes the argument much. I don't think it does. Once the entity has two sets of chromosomes it's on it way, and whether you call it a human or a person or fetus, you still have the same argument as to whether the state has an interest in protecting this entity at the expense of the liberty of the female.

Had trouble with the whole quote? I mean, it was indeed about five words longer than what you quoted.

Human turds are indeed human. It's not so much an argument as much as just being proficient in the English language.

Now I'm really going to freak you out by stating that a human sperm cell is human. And human fingernail is human.

Sanction this motherfucker, judge.

I'm an ass man, but still - that had no effect on their skill at making pina coladas.

I'm working on a documentary about Texas' football rivalry with Kansas, tentatively titled "There Might Be Blood and/or Scratches".

Jesse Plemons was great in the lead role in that film. Lot's more suspenseful than the sequel, There WILL Be Blood.

Bacon tastes good. Pork chops taste good. But Pig is terrible. Take a shower, dude.

He starts getting surly in the last half and that gives him some gravitas. Plus Yale.

As a chunky oddball myself, I appreciate this observation, and suddenly understand why I fit in, without fitting in, because there is always at least one chunky oddball.

Plus, movie could have used more banjo.

Jesse Plemons - I don't dislike the guy, and there is something funny about him in everything he does because I keep thinking Scaracin the bad qb is going to show up, but he doesn't add anything to anything he does. I don't think. He's like the Cooler in Vegas. He shows up and everything just hits the brakes while the audience collectively says "this guy". And Jane Campion. If her best movie is really the Piano, I'm not going to put the rest of her stuff on my bucket list. My Greek friend's review of the Piano. "My wife made me watch this. There would be no movie if they just fucked! What is this shit!" (Seems like that review could be used for one other movie I'm thinking of....)

Dang. I think I've only seen Lost in Translation. Which I liked perhaps becuase I'd like anything with the two leads. I think I started Mary A. but no go.

I probably like a bunch of chick flic romcons, maybe. Although maybe I like a bunch of period pieces (Room with a View) and movies that are really male romcons (About a Boy/HIgh Fidelity). But Love Actually -- it's just so fucking cloying. I don't like flicks that say -- love me I'm cute and you're an asshole if you don't love me. I mean, I know I'm an asshole but Bridget Jones' Diary and Knotting Hill didn't pressure the viewer and insist upon itself like Love Actually did. And both had some funny fucking bits. If Love Actually was actually funny, I'd never know. I think I've got my Holy Trinity of highly ranked surly movies that actually suck (more than surly thinks) [Parenthetical necessary because Field of Dreams doesn't objectively suck]. Love Actually Field of Dreams Shawshank Fuck You Redumption

I think they can work together, as long as the Jews don't get too pushy.

You could scramble person, human life, life, personhood and human in these sentences and they'd make no more, or less, sense than before.

And, if one reads that section of the Constitution, one clearly understands why it's ludicrous to think that the authors would have remotely considered counting fetuses as humans. Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. And you'll note that in Lobo's post which you were responding to, he refers to 3/5 of a human being. Which is a essentially the definition of "person". Thus the US Constitution says exactly what Lobo said it says. That blacks were 3/5 of a person - a human being.

Innate nature of human life. Innate meaning the "nature of", I guess you are trying to say the "natural nature of human life". Human, of course, is an adjective, as well as a noun. The term "human" is no less philosophical or more scientific than "person". If you would like to discuss the scientific attributes of homo sapiens, well, then that might be a nice taxonomic endeavor and perhaps more biologic than philosophical. But I don't think you score any points with some distinction between "human" and "person" in the realm of trying to define what the Constitution means. Especially when you muddy the waters by trying to claim that people are fighting about the definition of "personhood". Number of times Human is mentioned in the Constitution and Amendments = 0 Number of times Personhood is mentioned in the Constitution and Amendments = 0 Number of times Person is mentioned in the Constitution and Amendments = 44 Definition of Person = Human Being Anyone who is trying to inject arguments about the definitions of "personhood" or "human" into this debate is the one who is trying to inject shifting sands into the discussion.

Post 606. Posting -- not your strong suit.