Again I ask:

Who said Second Life has anything to do with anything?

"Funny as it may be, it still doesn’t address anything in the actual issue."

It doesn't? Cuz I thought that was what satire was all about.

I mean, like you said, it's not even new. Other people have used the idea of spermatazoan-Americans to lampoon the idea of human life beginning before/after/at XYZ, or to take a shot at political proposals to grant citizenship status to the zygote/embryo/fetus at ZYX stage of development. Obviously some people think it says something about the issue.

@ Nightwing2000

In defense of MAVAV, it was meant to satire the movements against gaming. The fact that people actually thought it was real was the whole reason to do the site. If people knew it was satire from the beginning, it would have lost all meaning.

When people will back up a movement as extreme as MAVAV without checking the facts, then they have failed on an epic level. They proved it too.

Personally I don't like this show of satire. I don't want to get into the whole discussion of abortion so I won't.

Of course this satire adresses the issue. The issue is when human rights begin. Do they begin at birth, after x number of months, at conception, or even at sperm production? Its the classic satirical approach of applying an idea, in this case the idea of giving rights to single human cells, to an absurd extreme to question its validity.

Actually, when it comes to determining the Rights of an individual and at what point in their development as well as how much or how little Rights an individual should receive at that particular point versus the Rights of another individual at another point, a number of legal issues arise. Abortion is but one of many. And we've seen the contridictions in law in a number of cases in the news media for years.

At what point can legal "harm" (murder, assault, etc) be attributed to various developmental stages before birth.
Parental Rights not only of the mother, but of the potential father. Not only for fathers who... uh... directly had a hand in the creation of the child, but in regards to sperm donors as well.
The issue of adoption, surrogacy, and other similar situations as it applies to law before the child is born.

It's the same problem with the arguments about titles such as "Pro-Choice" or "Pro-Life". Such titles are usually limited to the issue of abortion. But both are actually far broader, dealing in a great many issues. Some popular, some not so much so. After all, how many people attribute "Pro-Choice" to the voluntary, willingly chosen job of male/female prostitution?

This particular political satire limits it's argument to one specific issue, though when it comes down to it, the arugment of "where does life and Rights begin" covers a great many other issues beyond abortion.

Again, I don't have a problem with it. It's the expression of the creator of the satire. I just feel it doesn't take into account just how many issues they may be missing in their attempt to put out an argument against one specific issue (abortion) where there are actually many others that may be ignored. Not only by the creator, but by those who view it and think that the issue of "where life and Rights begin" really is only limited to abortion.

Nightwng2000
NW2K Software

Since Huckabee's, and the majority of those who deem themselves "Pro-life"'s, opinion is that when a complete unique genetic code is created in conception, a human life is formed, thus expliciting stating exactley where life begins, the spermazoan-american thing does not apply, as they occur before this accepted point.

Conejo,
As I said, I searched based on the word "spermatozoan". If the word is a creation of one specific individual to try to narrowly link one issue (the defining of "when life and Rights begin) with another issue (abortion) while the first could cover a great many issues, then it's similar to the titles I mentioned before, plus, the attempt to place a misleading label the same as was done to us. Remember "pixelante"? It spoke nothing intelligent regarding the issues, but was supposed to inflame and incite others against those labeled as such, without really stating why or the facts of the issues.

Nightwng2000
NW2K Software

Yes, I stole the Spermatazoan-American concept from myself. Self-plagiarism is a serious breech of the public trust. I plan to turn myself in to the Second Life Committee on Ethical Conduct.

I suppose I could be accused of using a "misleading label" if my intended audience was, say, children at the preoperative stage of cognitive development. Fortunately for me, I was aiming my masturbatory-themed satire at a more sophisticated crowd*. I'm not sure how Nightwing2000 came across it. I'll try to be more careful in distributing it in the future.

As for 9th Doctor's comment, satire takes an idea to an extreme to make a point. Huckabee wants to amend the Constitution to grant full rights to blastocysts (the collection of 70-100 cells, commonly called an embryo, that is used in stem cell research). I simply extended the protection to another form "potential human life" that is a few hours younger.

*I predict Nightwing 2000 will not detect the irony in that sentence.