"well, maybe the end products wouldnt be human to get around that.... designing the baby to lack a heart, and need a mechanical one, making it miss the definition of human; and then slaves dont need to be good thinkers, technology could probably create a computer to replace their brain, which would also negate the need to educate them and then the entire world could have an army of subhuman slaves derived from embryos.  or simply modifying the dna just enough not fit what falls for human dna.. "

If the technology's there, then we'd have to deal with such ethical problems. But it this time, it's way too hypothetical
Over here abortion is allowed to the 11th week of pregnancy, and to the 14th week if the embryo is burdened with a severe genetic disorder.

You're assuming that "killing" an embryo is worse than modifying it, and that I'd therefore tolerate it. But that's a whole different matter.

"Nemeara was saying that it could be possible to make someone with no memory, no emotions, and a perfect body. Your not disagreeing huh?"

I wasn't agreeing either. You seem to question my morality, and thus I must conclude we're not having a discussion on the mutual respect I thought we were having..
I thought that genetically engineered humans without thoughts, memory etc. would fall under those whose future is set and limited by the genetical changes.

"where is the scientific basis for defining a living being as something with a brain?  also, fetus's do have brains, thoughts, feelings, ect. nazi's chose not to recognize jews as humans... japanese chose not to consider Chinese as humans and genocide occured. the only difference between supporters of abortion and supporters of past genocide is that its the present so you made different criteria thats convenient for you in the present on what makes things human beings. "

I claim Godwin's law!
But besides that, your argument is besides the question as there seems to be quite a consensus that jews can think and show brain activity. It's not a matter of chosing one qualification and toss the rest away.

"another scenario... people are already manipulating embryonic cells to grow certain organs... it will only be a matter of time before we can genetically engineer people... if the embryo doesnt have the rights a human has, then doctors will eventually be able to genetically engineer sex slaves, or coal miners or even geneticially engineer all future babies to have certain political ideology when they mature... ah, just think how much freedom democracy will provide when the masses are engineered at conception to consider certain parties best..."

It's impossible to grow a particular human organ at this moment, but if it's possible: why the hell not? You'll be regenerating from a certain condition out of your body. A stem cell is not an embryo.
Genitally engineered babies are, to a certain degree, not really a problem either, imo. Although, it must be added that manipulations, apart those made for medical reasons, should not determine the child's future.

There's no quick and easy fix in this matter. The arbitrary case-to-case approach is exactly the upside of it.

That system isn't any different flint, it just ignores them and demands them to shut up. If it isn't a problem now, I don't see how it'd be a problem when they're allowed to talk about it..
As for costs, I'm sure your gay troopers would happily pay for their own condoms if they're allowed to stay in the military.

What that moron said though is a different thing. He claimed that gay people shouldn't be allowed in the military as a whole as they're poor soldiers, according to him. He doesn't even back the current policy of the military, he's just plain homophobic.
After all, all the arguments of extra costs and extra chances to get an STD and such apply to any business. But they're not allowed to kick employees out if they're found out to be homosexuals, are they? The sole reason that remains is that the army is opposing it out of homo-stereotypes and/or homophobia...

exactly. but apparently, Einstein likes to ignore that although it's the most central part of the discussion...

"You are mistaken about the generousity of mankind."

The first steps of our healthcare were formed by 19th century unions, wich are not to be confused with your present day mafia infested unions. So it is/was possible.

"However, a true capitalistic health care would bring prices down as everyone would be in it for themselves.
Regardless, 100 companies competing against each other would result in prices plummeting, as new efficiencies were created, as new idea's that WORK rise to the top, and as they try to undercut each other for market share."

It would bring prices down, indeed. But it would also exploit every single hole in whatever lawbook to get out of paying people.

Congratulations! Obama will be venerated for this by coming generations.

"A fetus is a human being. It has a human genotype that is developing according to those instructions. Any other definition of human is going to be arbitrary."

Carrying the DNA of a homo sapiens doesn't qualify for being a human being. A wart has human DNA, for that matter.. An organism becomes a human being when people want it to be. Some people see it as a human being as soon as they find out they might be pregnant, while others only consider it to be human when it's visible on a echography. In the late 18th century, one wasn't even considered to be a real person (although a human being) till the age of 12!
I don't think it's up to the state to limit people in abortion, as it's a personal thing. The state, however has to distinguish abortion from murder, but that is a whole different discussion.

"I also do not see a problem with universal health care. Some European countries have very efficient systems, and the complaints about long lines in the US etc are pure propaganda. However, while the US is in need of health care reform, this bill is just not satisfactory for me. It still satisfies the greedy insurance and pharmaceutical companies who deserve to be broken up."

True that, but his governmental policy, that was supposed to bring the prices of a private insurance down was shot down. It's a step in the right direction though.
In my opinion, I don't even understand why health care is in the hands of private - money making - compagnies, as they're not in it for the sake of mankind. A non profit organisation or the government (I know americans dread it) would make a far logical choice. Isn't the latter not there to serve its people the best it can?

Yet you fail to do so. I told you it was silly, but it does show how my reasoning works. I have yet to read a decent argument that proves or even claims gay soldiers are by definition worse soldiers than straight ones.
Your deduction, for what it's worth, doesn't even mimick mine, as it assumes a premise it's not even there in mine.

"no, im saying any reasonable millitary official would want to ensure maximum cohesion.."

That wasn't part of your premises, as far as your deduction matters.
You assume that cohension is essential in the military, and I agree. But I don't see how openess about homosexuality would deteriorate cohesion. In fact, I think it'll improve it. As some gay soldiers are now forced to remain silent about it, they feel alienated...
About the native tongues debate, the French Foreign Legion does pretty well