I'm sorry, I think your biochemistry may be clouding your eyes--you've said nothing about unfair advantages and how to solve them, only about how people are 'stupid' for 'not understanding' that the male-female distinction is statistics (you failed to mention also the definitional part of it, but I forgive you).

I've re-read the thread. Have you? You seem to have forgotten it.

And, go tell mathematicians that they don't do research. It very much is a science.

A science about objects that exist only in our minds. One of the humanities, as I think Poincaré himself defined it. As you probably know, you also do research in the humanities.

Of course I use the scientific method. Which is why I can see its limitations (falsifiability is not falsifiable, etc.)

"Air bags", "fancy"... You really can't keep an argument going very far without resorting to name-calling, can you?

And you still haven't even answered the question -- are the tests only about doping?

Sincerely, you should stop being so astounded at people's ignorance, and start thinking a little more about yours. Some reading skills wouldn't hurt either.

Against all the data you posted in your last post, I have one question to ask: if it is true that, as many people claim, making abortion illegal is not going to stop abortion -- just as making drugs illegal hasn't stopped drug consumption, quite the opposite actually -- but simply make abortion happen under less sanitary conditions, implying that more mothers will die together with their unborn fetuses... then what exactly would be gained by doing this?

The best way to fight for fewer abortions is to offer alternatives to abortion. Alternatives that would make sense to those women who would otherwise abort. Unless this is done, despite all the arguments you post, I really don't see how making abortion always or mostly illegal would actually help anybody -- including fetuses.

Even though I ultimately disagree with you, I also do respect your posts. So let me clarify one thing.

I call abortion opponents "anti-choice" because I honestly think this is a better descriptor, and not an offensive one at that. After all, if someone is against abortion because s/he thinks abortion is a crime and should not be tolerated, then of course s/he is against allowing others to choose abortion -- very much as we are all "anti-choice" concerning other crimes (theft, rape, murder, etc.): we don't want people to have the choice of stealing or not stealing, raping or not raping, murdering or not murdering, etc.

So, in sum, I don't see how someone could think abortion is a crime (to be equated with murder, manslaughter, killing, etc.) and not be against abortion as a legal choice for people who disagree with this stance.

Hence, anti-choicers.

As I said above, I am an anti-choicer about murder, rape, theft, etc. But not in the case of abortion, in which case I am a pro-choicer. Just as I am also a pro-choicer in the case of drugs: I don't think using drugs should be a criminal offense.

In Guerilla Apologetics for Life Issues, author Paul Nowak also says, "You should try as much as possible to keep religion out of the discussion."

This is difficult to do in America, where religion seems to play still quite an important role in public debate. But I agree in principle. Both pro- and anti-choicers have good non-religious reasons for their positions; invoking religion would only create problems (not everybody has the same religion, or even a religion, and rivalries between them might end up co-opting the debate).

It's a scientific fact that individual human life is a continuum from fertilization until natural death.

I would beg to differ. As far as I can see, the human phenomenon (to use Chardin's apt turn of phrase) begins with gametogenesis, not fertilization. Ova and sperm cells are going to turn into humans, given the appropriate conditions (including the respective gamete from the opposite sex). But the problem is, we can't grant rights to gametes. So, to me, the whole abortion debate is simply about where to draw the line -- conception? birth? -- but all agree a line has to be drawn, since the practical problems of actually granting full rights to the whole human phenomenon would be unsurmontable.

This is the Madison Avenue euphemism of the other side. Who could possibly be opposed to something so benign as ‘choice’?

As I said above, I disagree with this being an euphemism. Everybody is against choice, when the topic is something we all agree is evil: theft, rape, murder, etc. Being anti-choice about what one considers a crime is not bad, and also not a misleading label; it's a moral duty, if one is to remain consistent with one's moral/ethical system.

I do think that the debate is about whether or not abortion should remain a legal choice, and what the consequences are. So pro- and anti-choice look to me like perfectly acceptable descriptions of their difference of opinion.

For example: our laws require parental notification or consent if minors want tattoos or pierced ears; why should abortion be exempt?

I agree with that, in principle. But how do we handle the situations in which notifying the parents would result in potentially harmful consequences for the woman in question (religious families, etc.)?

Both sides are fighting a propaganda war, and the debate must be kept as balanced as possible.

I wholeheartedly agree with that.