|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
posted June 26, 2008 03:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
]You use abortion on fetuses, not embryos. There is the difference of your "intervention" so to speak, something which you can be blamed for (and with reason).
Well that is where you are slightly mistaken, an abortion is the removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus from the uterus. Both procedures are called abortion.
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 26, 2008 03:45 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 15:47, 26 Jun 2008.
|
Quote:
Well that is where you are slightly mistaken, an abortion is the removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus from the uterus. Both procedures are called abortion.
What I mean, was that, for abortion, you need to take action. The 'embryos' that you were referring to die without your actions.
The reason that you need to take action is what makes the difference (no, not your action). It's because it can't be stopped otherwise -- that's the difference between it and sperm or whatever else.
Do you know why that's the difference (and I say that it's alive, so to speak)? Because you want/need to prevent it from going on it's process. You don't even need abortion for the others because they don't even have a process -- it's up to you if you want to start that process. However, stopping it after you started it is what sets it different (and why I think is wrong).
Quote:
Is there any Christian on the board? I would like to ask a question about abortion, but its Christianity - related.
I don't know if there are true Christians here on board, but ask it anyway 
|
|
Anakrom
Known Hero
(Scroll) Out of the blue
|
|
posted June 26, 2008 03:57 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Is there any Christian on the board? I would like to ask a question about abortion, but its Christianity - related.
I don't know if there are true Christians here on board, but ask it anyway
Ok, does fetus have "soul" (according to Christian religion) or not?
____________
Result matters
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted June 26, 2008 04:08 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Do you know why that's the difference (and I say that it's alive, so to speak)? Because you want/need to prevent it from going on it's process. You don't even need abortion for the others because they don't even have a process -- it's up to you if you want to start that process. However, stopping it after you started it is what sets it different (and why I think is wrong).
I do know what you mean, I am just trying to understand the logic what is a death and what is not. Do you consider the embryo of alife being or not? If you do, the death toll is massive, on a daily basis.
If you don't, I need to know at what point does the embroy start counting as a baby
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 26, 2008 04:19 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 16:20, 26 Jun 2008.
|
Quote:
Ok, does fetus have "soul" (according to Christian religion) or not?
Here is some text I found randomly (don't remember however) about Christians (it doesn't say anything about the soul though):
Quote:
The most important issue for the Christian Right is criminalizing abortion. There is disagreement on the penalties for abortion (few want to treat it as murder, despite the rhetoric) and whether there should be exemptions (like for rape, incest, or the health of the mother), but there is agreement that abortion must end. There is no prospect of a total ban any time soon, so in the mean time they work on undermining it and hindering women's ability to actually obtain an abortion.
For me it seems like they are against abortion, but not classifying it as murder. But that is also just the people, some do, some don't.
Here is an article that talks about soul and 'personhood' (but it doesn't do it from a certain religion's perspective however).
@Minion:Quote:
I do know what you mean, I am just trying to understand the logic what is a death and what is not. Do you consider the embryo of alife being or not? If you do, the death toll is massive, on a daily basis.
First of all (not that I am of this opinion!), the death toll may be massive, but at least it's not your fault; there is a difference between killing a criminal and letting him die (for whatever reason) without your intervention.
Secondly, I think that, at least when you are to be blamed for taking out a life, is when you need to take a 'measure' for that. If embryos die every second, it's not your fault, and I doubt they can be called 'alive', since they could as well not even start to 'progress'. At the moment when the baby starts to progress (i.e it does so without you doing anything, apart of course from keeping yourself alive/healthy/whatever), it has begun a stage in life, the first stage, so to speak (just like kids are in a different stage than adults).
Quote:
If you don't, I need to know at what point does the embroy start counting as a baby
For me, it is considered a 'baby' (or even "future" baby, because fetus may be at a different stage in life) when you need abortion to stop it. Why? Because this means that it has a 'desire' (well actually no, but you get the idea) to grow up, and it is in progress. It's just a stage in his life, that has already started, because the only way to stop him is to intervene with abortion (or if you die anyway).
maybe I confused you even more
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 26, 2008 04:59 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The problem with socially is that it is so subjective
Maybe. But it works well enough.
Quote:
But what if they do not have 'IDs' or whatever or are not acknowledged by our society?
Are you walking around or interacting? Then you're alive. Can you survive by yourself without being hooked up to a breathing apparatus? Then you're socially human.
Quote:
Do you need "abortion" to stop sperm?
No, but by not having sex, you're preventing life. Think about it this way. Let's assume you enjoy being alive, and don't like the idea of being aborted in the womb. Well, that'd prevent your birth just as well as your parents not having sex in the first place. In either case, you wouldn't have been born.
Quote:
The fetus, on the other hand, well you get the idea...
But you can deprive it of hormones and it'll stop by itself.
Quote:
Actually, the rosebush here should be planted in your yard, but affecting someone else in some way (the fetus).
Okay, so you have a rosebush growing out of your fetus... 
No, the rosebush, in this analogy, is the fetus.
Quote:
Just because you gave life to the baby/fetus does not give you the right to take it back.
I agree, from the point that it is viable. Before then, though, I wouldn't consider it like this.
Quote:
Do you think your mother can take your life right now just using that excuse to shake off the responsibility?
No, because I am a human socially.
Quote:
I don't know why you don't understand that the only analogy that can apply to fetuses is death, because it's permanent.
Before the point of viability, the analogy of death doesn't apply.
Quote:
But you make a contract to give him life.
How do you make a contract with something that doesn't exist yet?
Quote:
The baby, as far as I know, grows up, so I think he wants to be alive just like you and me.
So why is it wrong to abort but not wrong not to conceive in the first place? I mean, the conceived child would want (after birth) to have been conceived just as much as not to have been aborted.
Quote:
You have a responsibility, as a grown-up person, to accept your mistakes, knowing them before-hand.
You also have the responsibility, that, if at all possible, you will fix your mistake.
Quote:
For goodness' sake, do you think that we, as humans, are defined by 'qualities' that come and go, just like that??
To have human genes is not enough, certainly.
Quote:
"All citizens are equal, as long as they are white"
"All citizens are equal, as long as they are 'born'"
The difference between born and unborn is far more significant than the difference between black and white.
Quote:
Then, tomorrow, when you're thinking straight, you remember how you beat up that guy. Now you have to decide: shake off the responsibility like a kiddo and leave the country or ignore that guy, OR be responsible (knowing that it was your damn fault and he was involved) and go pay to treat that guy (i.e take care of him because it was your fault).
This is different because you're taking responsibility and trying to fix the problem.
Quote:
it's indirectly related to killing the human
You can't kill what isn't alive yet.
Quote:
it is considered a 'baby' (or even "future" baby, because fetus may be at a different stage in life) when you need abortion to stop it
But what about cutting off hormones to it?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 26, 2008 05:14 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Are you walking around or interacting? Then you're alive. Can you survive by yourself without being hooked up to a breathing apparatus? Then you're socially human.
That's not my definition of it.
Quote:
No, but by not having sex, you're preventing life. Think about it this way. Let's assume you enjoy being alive, and don't like the idea of being aborted in the womb. Well, that'd prevent your birth just as well as your parents not having sex in the first place.
Re-read my posts. In this case, I am the beggar (fetus). If someone comes and doesn't help the beggar (and he dies of hunger for example), they aren't directly responsible for their death. In fact, they can't even be blamed except for selfishness.
But, if that respective person brought the beggar to life, at least to that life, you can blame for not giving food, since the beggar dies because of this.
So what if you're preventing life? At least you are not to blame because in this case, you can't force someone to do something. It's their problem if they want life or not.
However the problem is when they want life, that is they gave it already (it started so to speak), and then they decide to stop it. If they decide this before, e.g: the intercourse, it's OK. However, when they need to stop what they have begun (i.e the fetus), then it's a whole different matter.
There is a difference between stopping something by not doing it (sexual intercourse) and stopping something by doing an action (abortion). The latter implies that you actually need to do something in order to stop it.
This simple question: Why do you need to stop it anyway (i.e use abortion)? Because it's alive.
There isn't the case here that potential life would be born or not. Read the article I have gave above (here).
Quote:
But you can deprive it of hormones and it'll stop by itself.
Ah, but you still do something, you deprive it of hormones.
Quote:
No, the rosebush, in this analogy, is the fetus.
If you say that a rosebush can turn into a human, I would agree
Quote:
No, because I am a human socially.
Again, which is subjective.
Quote:
How do you make a contract with something that doesn't exist yet?
You don't make a contract with the baby, you make a contract with yourself -- to take responsibility in the case of an "accident". See my analogy with the alcohol from my previous post please!
Quote:
So why is it wrong to abort but not wrong not to conceive in the first place? I mean, the conceived child would want (after birth) to have been conceived just as much as not to have been aborted.
A beggar (fetus) can't force someone to give him goods.
When someone actually creates the beggar, he/she should be responsible for his health (at least until he gets a proper life). That is, responsible to give him 'goods'.
But if you are not responsible of starting the process (the fetus), then you are not forced to have it anyway (i.e "do something" in order to conceive it).
The abortion is again, a different kind of "stopping" -- for that, it's not a "I don't want to do it" kind of stopping something, because you need to take an action (it's more like "I have to do something to stop it" instead of "I don't do anything (not conceive the baby) so I stop it"). The latter is not to blame, the former is.
Quote:
You also have the responsibility, that, if at all possible, you will fix your mistake.
Please, please read my analogy with the alcohol correctly. See below:
Quote:
Quote:
Then, tomorrow, when you're thinking straight, you remember how you beat up that guy. Now you have to decide: shake off the responsibility like a kiddo and leave the country or ignore that guy, OR be responsible (knowing that it was your damn fault and he was involved) and go pay to treat that guy (i.e take care of him because it was your fault).
This is different because you're taking responsibility and trying to fix the problem.
EXACTLY, and how do you fix the problem for that guy? By taking care of him, not killing him. What's so hard to understand? You don't fix the problem by washing it away. You need to take care of it because of your mistake.
If you didn't beat up the guy, you wouldn't have any responsibility to take care of him. See what I mean?
|
|
Anakrom
Known Hero
(Scroll) Out of the blue
|
|
posted June 26, 2008 05:16 PM |
|
|
@Death
Thanks for effort, it helped me.
____________
Result matters
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted June 26, 2008 05:18 PM |
|
|
Ok time for a hypotetical thingy again:
1.
A parasite has infected you, it will destroy your life most likely if you let it stay because it will severly cripple you in several ways. If you let it stay it will likely destroy your education/job/etc.
So will you remove it to save your own life or let it stay?
2.
You get pregnant, and if you keep it and let it be born it will destroy your education/job.
Remove it and save your own life or let it destroy your life?
PS: sorry i just love the parasite metaphore.
Ok lets go back to the alcohol stuff:
The way you imprented it, it is difficult to understand simply because 1 day after the guy is allready dead/saved.
Lets say you stab somebody with a knife in red anger, then you snapped out of it. To help the bastard or not?
That is a more plausable thingy.
Simply i would put pregnancy by accident to be the equal to saving the bastard that is stabbed down.
____________
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted June 26, 2008 05:27 PM |
|
|
So you think there is absolutely no problem in abortions being used as a substitutions for other birth control methods?
As to the destroying a job and education, here's a thought. If you can't handle the consequences, DON'T HAVE UNPROTECTED SEX!
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 26, 2008 05:29 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 17:30, 26 Jun 2008.
|
Quote:
Ok time for a hypotetical thingy again:
1.
A parasite has infected you, it will destroy your life most likely if you let it stay because it will severly cripple you in several ways. If you let it stay it will likely destroy your education/job/etc.
So will you remove it to save your own life or let it stay?
The problem is that you're repeating things over and over again without actually listening to what I say except that "abortion is wrong".
There is a difference between the parasite and a baby. What? The baby enters the body because of YOU.
Quote:
You get pregnant, and if you keep it and let it be born it will destroy your education/job.
If you lose your education/job, why did you get pregnant? For me it seems fair enough that you get "punished" because you made a mistake.
But after all, the baby is the one that gets caught in the middle because of YOU.
Quote:
Lets say you stab somebody with a knife in red anger, then you snapped out of it. To help the bastard or not?
Yes you have to save the bastard and take care of him if you stabbed him "by accident"
That means you have to take care of the baby. You don't take care of the bastard by killing him and then say "problem solved". Why? Because it was your damn fault
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted June 26, 2008 05:32 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Lets say you stab somebody with a knife in red anger, then you snapped out of it. To help the bastard or not?
Yes you have to save the bastard and take care of him if you stabbed him "by accident"
That means you have to take care of the baby. You don't take care of the bastard by killing him and then say "problem solved". Why? Because it was your damn fault
Abortion is sometimes TO FIX THE PROBLEM! Get it in your mind please.
____________
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted June 26, 2008 05:37 PM |
|
|
The problem the woman is pregnant? How about the problem that idiots keep on having unprotected sex without thinking of the consequences? That's a much bigger probelm in my book.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 26, 2008 05:37 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 17:38, 26 Jun 2008.
|
Quote:
Abortion is sometimes TO FIX THE PROBLEM! Get it in your mind please.
You know, sometimes when you don't want to take care of somebody you can also fix the problem by killing him (no laws since they aren't for abortion  ).
But that is plain wrong. It is like, you get drunk, you beat up a guy, then you either need:
1) take care of him (i.e: be responsible for what you have done)
2) don't take care of him (or kill him) (i.e: be a kiddo that shakes off responsibility)
When you make an accident, and someone is involved, sorry but you need to take care of him (give him money/etc.). Even if it ruins your job because YOU made the accident and it's YOUR fault. You take care of him with whatever means necessary -- even if it ruins your life. That's what it means to be responsible for what YOU have done in the first place.
Not on the easy way like kiddos who don't take responsibility and are protected by their parents for doing wrong things.
Quote:
How about the problem that idiots keep on having unprotected sex without thinking of the consequences?
Exactly my point -- and since they are adults, they should take responsibility for what do.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 26, 2008 05:50 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Because it's alive.
But if it's not yet viable, then it can't really be considered alive.
Quote:
Ah, but you still do something, you deprive it of hormones.
But without those hormones, it will stop growing and miscarry.
Quote:
You don't make a contract with the baby, you make a contract with yourself
If you make a contract with yourself, you can terminate that contract by the agreement of both parties - you and yourself.
Quote:
When someone actually creates the beggar, he/she should be responsible for his health (at least until he gets a proper life).
How's that? 
Quote:
EXACTLY, and how do you fix the problem for that guy? By taking care of him, not killing him.
The specifics of the problem are different, so of course the solution is different. But having the child is not fixing the problem.
Quote:
For me it seems fair enough that you get "punished" because you made a mistake.
Not if you can fix the mistake.
The alcohol analogy is different because the action (beating the guy up) is irreversible - that is, you can't "unbeat" him. But pregancy is reversible.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 26, 2008 05:59 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 18:01, 26 Jun 2008.
|
Quote:
But if it's not yet viable, then it can't really be considered alive.
And how do you precisely define viable anyway? Did you even read the article I linked, it talks down to a more objective approach
Quote:
But without those hormones, it will stop growing and miscarry.
And what does that have to do with what I said? I mean that you still do something when you deprive it of hormones (and consequently kill it). Similar to abortion.
Quote:
If you make a contract with yourself, you can terminate that contract by the agreement of both parties - you and yourself.
You see, it's a contract with yourself and the society, so to speak. It's the virtual contract that you sign when you become an adult -- that you take responsibility for what you do.
Quote:
How's that?
You give life to a baby (not a fetus, I'm talking about a born baby), you need to take care of him.
You start life or the process of it --> you take responsibility and take care of it. Parents have certain responsibilities. That's how.
Quote:
The specifics of the problem are different, so of course the solution is different. But having the child is not fixing the problem.
Actually of course, you don't fix your problem, just like in that guy, you don't fix your problem. The guy is the one that needs to have his problem fixed (i.e his beating). You fix the baby's problem of being given the start of his life from you -- that means taking care of him, not killing him, because he wants to live (who doesn't).
Quote:
Not if you can fix the mistake.
The alcohol analogy is different because the action (beating the guy up) is irreversible - that is, you can't "unbeat" him. But pregancy is reversible.
And how's the life of the fetus reversible? It's not like after you abort you can have him back (if you decide) can you?
The analogy is almost 1 to 1. You make a mistake and get drunk [analogy: you get pregnant], you beat the guy up [analogy: you start the process of the baby/fetus], you are responsible and need to take care of him (he is the one who has a "problem" right now because of YOU) [analogy: you take care of the baby].
Sure, you can wash away your sense of adult responsibility -- and leave the country or kill that man (so you don't have to take care of him) [analogy: you kill the baby or leave him to die]. But, as an adult, you are responsible for what you do, even in the worst case.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted June 26, 2008 06:06 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Not if you can fix the mistake.
The alcohol analogy is different because the action (beating the guy up) is irreversible - that is, you can't "unbeat" him. But pregancy is reversible.
And how's the life of the fetus reversible? It's not like after you abort you can have him back (if you decide) can you?
The analogy is almost 1 to 1. You make a mistake and get drunk [analogy: you get pregnant], you beat the guy up [analogy: you start the process of the baby/fetus], you are responsible and need to take care of him (he is the one who has a "problem" right now because of YOU) [analogy: you take care of the baby].
Actually....... stop doing bad analogyes and use gender spesific language.
And you DO not kill a fetus, because it is not alive yet.
____________
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted June 26, 2008 06:12 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
But if it's not yet viable, then it can't really be considered alive.
And how do you precisely define viable anyway? Did you even read the article I linked, it talks down to a more objective approach.
"That stage of fetal development when the life of the unborn child may be continued indefitely outside the womb by natural or artifical life-supporative systems." Planned Parenthood v Danforth, 428 U.S. 52, 96 S.Ct. 2381, 49 L Ed.2d 788 (1976)
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 26, 2008 06:30 PM |
|
|
Quote:
And what does that have to do with what I said?
That you can deprive it of something without taking any action to harm it.
Quote:
You see, it's a contract with yourself and the society, so to speak.
And, if possible, to fix your mistakes.
Quote:
You start life or the process of it --> you take responsibility and take care of it.
Taking responsibility for your actions =/= having a baby. You are responsible for starting it, so if you want to stop it, you are responsible for doing so.
Quote:
Actually of course, you don't fix your problem, just like in that guy, you don't fix your problem.
Actually, it is your problem: you used unnecessary force upon another human.
Quote:
You fix the baby's problem of being given the start of his life from you -- that means taking care of him, not killing him, because he wants to live (who doesn't).
The fetus is the problem of the person it grows inside.
Quote:
And how's the life of the fetus reversible?
You got pregnant - you got an abortion - BAM! Process reversed!
Quote:
It's not like after you abort you can have him back (if you decide) can you?
No, which is why abortion shouldn't be taken lightly. But you got pregnant, and you can get an abortion (become unpregnant).
Quote:
you are responsible and need to take care of him (he is the one who has a "problem" right now because of YOU) [analogy: you take care of the baby]
And it is at this point that the analogy falls apart. The way the problems are fixed are different.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 26, 2008 07:18 PM |
|
|
Quote:
That you can deprive it of something without taking any action to harm it.
If you are a kid and your mother refuses to give you 'food', does that mean you are not going to be hurt at all?
(even less dead, painless death is also wrong btw).
Quote:
And, if possible, to fix your mistakes.
I'm going to say this one more time. You don't fix your mistakes by killing him. You fix your mistakes by paying your debt to him -- that is, you gave him life, you look after it.
Quote:
Taking responsibility for your actions =/= having a baby. You are responsible for starting it, so if you want to stop it, you are responsible for doing so.
Whoa whoa... you mean that, if I started the life, I have the right to also stop it? This is not a game I'm involving someone else in it...
Quote:
Actually, it is your problem: you used unnecessary force upon another human.
But that human also has a problem -- and you can't fix your problem because you don't travel back in time -- you can fix his problem by treating him or paying him to go and treat himself
Quote:
The fetus is the problem of the person it grows inside.
But that person is responsible for having him inside -- you are talking as if the fetus appears out of the blue. You start it, you take care of him.
Quote:
You got pregnant - you got an abortion - BAM! Process reversed!
 What is reversed?
Are you telling me that if you give to a baby (a born baby) and you kill him, then you have just "reversed the process"??
sorry to say we all die sometime so do we reverse the process? Definitely not -- we were involved in this life.
Quote:
No, which is why abortion shouldn't be taken lightly. But you got pregnant, and you can get an abortion (become unpregnant).
See below.
Quote:
And it is at this point that the analogy falls apart. The way the problems are fixed are different.
IT does not fall apart at all. I don't know what problem you have with it -- it's almost 1 to 1.
(Remember that the law does not punish you for 'murder' in this case, because it does not punish you for abortion either!)
You get drunk, you beat up a guy. Then you regret it when you're thinking straight. Now you can 'fix' this problem of yours by KILLING HIM -- see, problem solved, no need to lose all your money to treat him, see? Is this your idea of a fix?
For goodness' sake, you are the attacker. You should be punished. (remember that 'murder' is ok from the law much like abortion is in this example; I really don't care what views you have about the law but it is certainly not objective since it's not based on concrete facts).
Now of course you could also give money to the guy (all your money and lose your job) and treat him. WHAT YOU LOSE YOUR JOB??? So freaking what? It was your fault! (similar argument above with abortion used).
What's your idea of a 'fix'? The attacker to get off 'easy' and the victim to suffer (metaphorically)? Because that's what you do when you go for abortion -- it was your mistake, and still someone else got involved; don't expect that to be an easy 'fix'.
Honestly I do not get what it is so hard to understand this analogy, but then again, it's not like I am going to repeat myself further.
Just for the record, I'll ask you what you think of this article (I already linked it two times). Don't bash it as you do with my statements, at least look closely -- it tries to get an objective 'reasoning' behind the entire thing, unlike your "The fetus is not a human, period" religious or social attitude. (please take notice on the 'fetus' being just a stage in life like a 'baby', 'teen' or 'adult', which objectively it's similar).
At the very least, the article is trying to be objective and explains (including using some biology) why. But of course, what's the point in debates when you are thinking subjectively like above and keep on that without even considering the other explanations?
So I'm telling you: is the fetus not a human because that's how our religion (society) says? Is that God's word or it can be changed?
if this thread keeps going like it has until now I don't think I am going to repeat myself (that means, quote wars, etc.).
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
