Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Subject: United States: Election Time
you don't reduce the number, as the unborn is not counted in before 24 weeks of pregnancy
You're wrong, the seed already has all the generic material. In fact, in plants with sexual reproduction, the fruit comes after fecundation. So a seed is not like sperm, but rather like a zygote.
Back on topic, whatever you may think about Obama, I don't understand how Romney can get more than 2 votes :-P
The seed of a fruit equals sperm actually
Your right, my example was a bit wrong :) Anyway, my point is that in both cases it is neither an apple or a baby.
(edited)
Your right, my example was a bit wrong :) Anyway, my point is that in both cases it is neither an apple or a baby.
(edited)
Anyway, my point is that in both cases it is neither an apple or a baby.
Nobody says it's a baby. You don't give the embryo any rights because it's not a human. An animal isn't a human either though you give the animal some rights, don't you?
So it's not as ridiculous as you say it is (and I think (and hope) you realize that, but it just doesn't fit your story).
Nobody says it's a baby. You don't give the embryo any rights because it's not a human. An animal isn't a human either though you give the animal some rights, don't you?
So it's not as ridiculous as you say it is (and I think (and hope) you realize that, but it just doesn't fit your story).
What? An embryo isn't an animal either. An embryo is an embryo, nothing more and nothing less.
An embryo is not 'life-able' until 24 weeks, so actually technically doesn't live yet when abortion takes place ;)
I'm not suggesting an embryo is an animal, start reading please.
I did read it but to me it doesn't make sence. You talk about rights for something that isn't alive, or if you have a different opinion/definition of 'alive', not capable of living outside and without the one who does, the 'owner' of the embryo, or in other words, the future mother (if all goes well) ;)
(edited)
(edited)
you don't reduce the number, as the unborn is not counted in before 24 weeks of pregnancy
It depends on who's counting. An abortionist or a mathematician. ;)
Each cancelled abortion will increase the number of people that will live their life. That is a mathematical fact.
An embryo is not 'life-able' until 24 weeks, so actually technically doesn't live yet when abortion takes place ;)
Life-able? What does that mean? Whatever this word that you invented means, what did your mother actually do to make you "life-able"? Nothing. She only didn't kill you. You were made exactly at the point when you were conceived. Nothing comes from nothing.
It depends on who's counting. An abortionist or a mathematician. ;)
Each cancelled abortion will increase the number of people that will live their life. That is a mathematical fact.
An embryo is not 'life-able' until 24 weeks, so actually technically doesn't live yet when abortion takes place ;)
Life-able? What does that mean? Whatever this word that you invented means, what did your mother actually do to make you "life-able"? Nothing. She only didn't kill you. You were made exactly at the point when you were conceived. Nothing comes from nothing.
Each cancelled abortion will increase the number of people that will live their life. That is a mathematical fact.
Not really. The mathematical fact includes a probability that you are omitting. It would read more like:
Each cancelled abortion will increase, with certain probability, the number of people that will live their life.
But then, when correctly stated, it becomes apparent that the applies to having -especially unprotcted- sex (that is, with certain probability the number of people that will live their life increases). So, in that dimension, banning abortions equals banning abstinence, up to a potential difference in probabilities.
Not really. The mathematical fact includes a probability that you are omitting. It would read more like:
Each cancelled abortion will increase, with certain probability, the number of people that will live their life.
But then, when correctly stated, it becomes apparent that the applies to having -especially unprotcted- sex (that is, with certain probability the number of people that will live their life increases). So, in that dimension, banning abortions equals banning abstinence, up to a potential difference in probabilities.
Well yes. Absolutely. Mathematically it's exactly the same only with different probabilities.
However, abstinence is legally not homicide for other reasons. Abstinence is our default condition. Most of our time we don't have sex. It's absolutely impossible to ban it. Also, more importantly, the person missing due to our abstinence simply does not exist at all. You can't find it. At any time, anywhere. Not even a drop of the DNA. If a pregnant woman is murdered, the investigators will find 2 different DNAs of 2 different people. We have physical evidence of a double murder. What happens when we don't have sex? Nothing. So again, nothing comes from nothing.
However, abstinence is legally not homicide for other reasons. Abstinence is our default condition. Most of our time we don't have sex. It's absolutely impossible to ban it. Also, more importantly, the person missing due to our abstinence simply does not exist at all. You can't find it. At any time, anywhere. Not even a drop of the DNA. If a pregnant woman is murdered, the investigators will find 2 different DNAs of 2 different people. We have physical evidence of a double murder. What happens when we don't have sex? Nothing. So again, nothing comes from nothing.
Republicans hold the majority in the Chamber of Representatives. So it doesn't really matter who wins.
Not really true, the situation stays the same as before the elections. The Democrates keep controle of the Senate and those have more power as the House of Representatives.