What is her punishment?

[Jerry]

Did anyone see the new CSI last night?! It delt with abortion, kind of. Anyone got any comments on that?!

Sorry, I was watching Saw 2.
Can you give us a run-down of the plot?

 

[hipster_19]

Sorry, I was watching Saw 2.
Can you give us a run-down of the plot?

Well, it starts off with a woman who has been shot in the head while her 10-month-old baby is in his playpen right next to her (her sister found her when she came over to see the baby). The woman was a single mother, but it is later discovered that her hymen is still intact, meaning she's never had sex, but has a c-section scar on her stomach from where she had delivered her son. It is later discovered that the woman, Christina, had been impregnanted by an embrio that was no longer needed by its parents through an organization called Project Sunflower. In this organization, they take unwanted embrios and put them into women who want a child, but can't conceive for whatever reason. But, the head of Project Sunflower, Dr. Ryan, is a extreme pro-life advocate. So, Catherine started getting defensive towards her pro-life comments, which eventually got her in trouble with Grissom when the doctor calls to complain. Grissom states that in the Bible (I can't remember what chapter or verse) God says that life begins when blood runs through the embrio, which doesn't happen until about 18 days after conception. I can't really remember the other quotes about abortion, but it was a very intelligent and interesting episode. Figured more people would've seen it!!

 

[tryreading]

...if that--flipping channels and little ones in the room--we ended up watching Animal Planet...

Animal Planet? That where you learned how to abuse North American marsupials?

 

[Felicity]

Animal Planet? That where you learned how to abuse North American marsupials?

Between you and Jerry, I will never live down my wild love-letter editing, opossum wrangling days... I lived a wild youth...but I have grown, and I do not bother little vicious creatures that have invaded my garage, and I read between the split infinitives and comma splices for the sentiment rather than the surface errors.....

..and no..It was America's Funniest Animals...and the opossum wrangle, had it been on tape, would have been a winner! I was eight months pregnant at the time, and the thing was just screaming at me and I returned the favor double....quite a show indeed!

 

[tryreading]

Between you and Jerry, I will never live down my wild love-letter editing, opossum wrangling days... I lived a wild youth...but I have grown, and I do not bother little vicious creatures that have invaded my garage, and I read between the split infinitives and comma splices for the sentiment rather than the surface errors.....

..and no..It was America's Funniest Animals...and the opossum wrangle, had it been on tape, would have been a winner! I was eight months pregnant at the time, and the thing was just screaming at me and I returned the favor double....quite a show indeed!

Well, I guess you weren't the only one-I was out of control from about 16 through my twenties, lucky to be alive now. But my wild days are history too. You can't abuse yourself forever, and the day after is harder to bear as you get older. The irony, for me, is I rarely had a hangover headache, but now that I'm better behaved, I'm plagued by chronic migraines. Probably caused by conscience.

 

[Jerry]

Well, it starts off with a woman who has been shot in the head while her 10-month-old baby is in his playpen right next to her (her sister found her when she came over to see the baby). The woman was a single mother, but it is later discovered that her hymen is still intact, meaning she's never had sex, but has a c-section scar on her stomach from where she had delivered her son. It is later discovered that the woman, Christina, had been impregnanted by an embrio that was no longer needed by its parents through an organization called Project Sunflower. In this organization, they take unwanted embrios and put them into women who want a child, but can't conceive for whatever reason. But, the head of Project Sunflower, Dr. Ryan, is a extreme pro-life advocate. So, Catherine started getting defensive towards her pro-life comments, which eventually got her in trouble with Grissom when the doctor calls to complain. Grissom states that in the Bible (I can't remember what chapter or verse) God says that life begins when blood runs through the embrio, which doesn't happen until about 18 days after conception. I can't really remember the other quotes about abortion, but it was a very intelligent and interesting episode. Figured more people would've seen it!!

Do you remember the name of the episode? What channel it was on?
I'd like to look it up.....perhaps it's available for download.....
Also, if anyone knows of such a bible passage where someone says that life begins when blood runs through the fetus, I would appreciate that reference.

 

[hipster_19]

Do you remember the name of the episode? What channel it was on?
I'd like to look it up.....perhaps it's available for download.....
Also, if anyone knows of such a bible passage where someone says that life begins when blood runs through the fetus, I would appreciate that reference.

I don't remember the name of the episode, but it was the most recent one, so it should be easy to find. Its on CBS. You can go to cbs.com, and should find some information. Not sure what specific bible passage it was, sorry. I should've taped it, but didn't realize it was gonna be so good.

 

[Jerry]

I don't remember the name of the episode, but it was the most recent one, so it should be easy to find. Its on CBS. You can go to cbs.com, and should find some information. Not sure what specific bible passage it was, sorry. I should've taped it, but didn't realize it was gonna be so good.

I love my search-bots!

Secrets and Files.
I haven't found a downloadable episode yet.....but I will

Leviticus 17:10-12;
10 "If any man of the house of Israel or of the strangers that sojourn among them eats any blood, I will set my face against that person who eats blood, and will cut him off from among his people. 11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it for you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement, by reason of the life. 12 Therefore I have said to the people of Israel, No person among you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger who sojourns among you eat blood.

In context God is speaking of consuming blood. However, in His explanation as to why it is forbidden, God says that the life of the flesh is in the blood. So, when reflecting this passage, a Zygote is not "alive", where as a fetus is "alive".....so long as that fetus has blood, that is.

Given that, pro life shouldn't have a problem with the "morning after pill" so long as it is used before....I think it's @ the 18 day mark?....when the fetus has blood, because there is not yet a *life to a proponent of.

 

[Falangist]

I don't think it is the best idea to try to extract science out of a 5000 year old book.

 

[Jerry]

I don't think it is the best idea to try to extract science out of a 5000 year old book.

Ah, another person who automatically jumps on the "everything-must-be-about-science-because-there-is-no-other-possable-way-of-looking-at-the-world" bandwagon.
Sorry if I seem cross, but it's irritating.

1. I didn't do that.
2. If someone were to do that, then at least science can study the properties of blood (perhaps such studies would include stories of transplant recipients who come into possession of the downer's memories.....); where-as science can not study the soul.

Blood is a common ground.

 

[tryreading]

Given that, pro life shouldn't have a problem with the "morning after pill" so long as it is used before....I think it's @ the 18 day mark?....when the fetus has blood, because there is not yet a *life to a proponent of.

Hear that, those of you who are pro-life? What do you think? Would this make the map okay? I think I already know the answer.

 

[Jerry]

Leviticus 17:10-12;
10 "If any man of the house of Israel or of the strangers that sojourn among them eats any blood, I will set my face against that person who eats blood, and will cut him off from among his people. 11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it for you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement, by reason of the life. 12 Therefore I have said to the people of Israel, No person among you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger who sojourns among you eat blood.

Hmmmm.......you know, that passage lends itself toward showing that there is something more to blood and cannibal rituals than meer superstition and hallucination....

Just a thought.

 

[FutureIncoming]

That "blood" definition would preclude bacteria from being alive. Of course, the definition was written long before anyone knew about bacteria.

Nevertheless, I think Jerry has raised an interesting question, but not quite for the same reasons as him. See, the pro-life group MOSTLY traces its stand back to various religious statements. So, if for them the Bible's content is to be heeded, then it could be that they might accept that definition for what sort of human life is not supposed to be killed. (hmmm, now that I've written that, maybe it IS Jerry's reason. Oh, well.)

For them to reply, of course.

 

[Jerry]

Hay FI,
I came across another piece of that complex pattern the other night.
I was listening to an interview of Scott Flansburg (a.k.a. The Human Calculator) on Coast to Coast AM.
Long story short, this was the piece: i=0
As I understood it, -1 is an operation, not an actual number, thus it can not have a square root.

Scott explains that the number 9 is a built in error correcter. Take any number, add the value of the didgets together and subtract them from said number, and the added value of the result will always = 9. If your answer doesn't = 9, you have made a miscalculation.
For example:
2598; 2+5+9+8=24; 2598-24=2574; 2+5+7+4=18; 1+8=9

Scott points out that the human mind is is not "wired" to naturally count "0". If I were to ask you to count to ten on your fingers, you would likely count "1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10", disregarding 0.

By including 0, Scott has created a "perfect calender" of 13 months, each having 28 days.

His work is really quite interesting, you should check it out.

 

[FutureIncoming]

I came across another piece of that complex pattern the other night. I was listening to an interview of Scott Flansburg (a.k.a. The Human Calculator) on Coast to Coast AM. Long story short, this was the piece: i=0
As I understood it, -1 is an operation, not an actual number, thus it can not have a square root. Scott points out that the human mind is is not "wired" to naturally count "0". If I were to ask you to count to ten on your fingers, you would likely count "1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10", disregarding 0.

I'm pretty sure you are misunderstanding it. In human social systems, one of the first things we learn to do is to count money. A matter of self-interest, eh? And a negative amount of money is a debt. Its magnitude is as real for the debtor as it is for the person owed. Perhaps you should reconsider a thing known as "the number line". Can you offer any reason why, if a sequence of numbers can increase endlessly in one direction of that line, a decreasing sequence of numbers should not decrease endlessly? Thus zero and the negatives become as completely valid as the positives. Also, regarding zero, since we have a word (more than one, such as "none") for "an empty quantity", it is perfectly rational to also have a numerical symbol for it. But, just because dudes like ancient Romans and Mayans didn't have such a symbol, that doesn't mean they should have had it. Their systems of numerical notation did not require a zero. (About the only rational place for it would have been as the result of a subtraction of two identical values --and even then, just leaving the result-space empty would have signified zero, right?)

Our "Arabic" notation system (called that though invented in India) requires zero. It is also not an "intuitive" notation system (else ancient peoples would have devised it, see?). And after you see the detailed explanation, perhaps it will be obvious why it is not intuitive. What Arabic notation is, is a shorthand way of describing a complicated calculation. That is, the number 2857 equals (2x10x10x10)+(8x10x10)+(5x10)+(7). The positions of the digits are critical to specifying what the implied multipliers are. And zero is required as a "place holder": I cannot write 287 and have you think, just by looking at it, (2x10x10x10)+(8x10x10)+(7); I must write 2807 to be sure you know what I mean -- and that works simply because the long form, (2x10x10x10)+(8x10x10)+(0x10)+(7), is perfectly correct, mathematically. (And almost-as-obviously, if a blank was used for zero, then something like 28 7 could be confusing --is it one number or two?)

Regarding the imaginary number i, it was called "imaginary" because, even though mathematics could manipulate it in a perfectly rational way, it didn't seem to correspond to anything in the physical world. Well, times change, and for more than a century imaginary numbers have found a lot of practical use in the field of electromagnetic engineering. That's because of something of a coincidence; in mathematics the imaginary numbers are given their own "number line" which is oriented at right angles (like the Y-axis of a graph, compared to the X-axis) to the ordinary number line, intersecting at zero, of course (while 1i does not equal 1, 0i does equal 0) -- and in electromagnetics, electric fields and magnetic fields are always present at right-angles to each other. Using ordinary numbers for one field, and imaginary numbers for the other field, allows data on both field strengths to be presented together, without their becoming confused (or added when they shouldn't be added).

Scott explains that the number 9 is a built in error correcter. Take any number, add the value of the didgets together and subtract them from said number, and the added value of the result will always = 9. If your answer doesn't = 9, you have made a miscalculation.
For example: 2598; 2+5+9+8=24; 2598-24=2574; 2+5+7+4=18; 1+8=9

I actually think this is a coincidence, and am going to conduct an experiment right here in this Message, which I've never tried before. See, one thing about Arabic numerals is that the use of (x10) as a multiplier is arbitrary. We call it "Base Ten" because of that multiplier, but surely you have heard about Base Two (binary) that computers use? It works just like Base Ten, except that the multiplier is (x2) instead of (x10) --and that only two numerals are needed, not ten. So, the number 100101=(1x2x2x2x2x2)+(0x2x2x2x2)+(0x2x2x2)+(1x2x2)+(0x2)+(1), which is 37 in Base Ten. So, what I suspect is that error-correction thing also works in other Bases, and so what looks like a special property of Base Ten isn't really. For this experiment I will take exactly that number you used above and process it in Base Eleven, not Ten; if the error-correction is not a special propery, then the final result should be ten and not nine (one less than the Base). SO: 2589=(2x11x11x11)+(5x11x11)+(8x11)+(9), but we can ignore than since we are just adding the digits and they still total to 24 -- but in Base Eleven this is written as 22=(2x11)+(2). Subtract 2598-22 and the result is 2576 (that much math still works ordinarily; I'm glad we didn't need to use the eleventh numerical digit that Base Eleven requires, a symbol that represents the quantity of "ten"). Next, the sum of the digits 2576 is twenty, which is written in Base Eleven as 19=(1x11)+(9), and the sum of those digits is indeed ten, just as predicted. And yes, that is something I've never tried before. I've thought about the interesting properties of "nines" in Base Ten, and wondered about other Bases on occasion, but never had a reason to test it to be sure. (Not to mention, this particular error-correction trick is one I don't recall seeing before.) Mathematics is very consistent. Remember that. No faith is required; its consistency is as factual as 1+1=10 (in binary --are you ready for a nerd joke? "There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary, and those who don't." .

By including 0, Scott has created a "perfect calender" of 13 months, each having 28 days.

Nothing new there. You should be able to find plenty of references on the Web to old calendar-reform suggestions, with that one proposed fairly frequently. Note that it only does 364 days a year, and so an extra day or two is needed to match the true annual cycle of 365.2422... days per year.

 

[Jerry]

I'm pretty sure you are misunderstanding it.

Possably...I'll listen to the interview again.

Can you offer any reason why, if a sequence of numbers can increase endlessly in one direction of that line, a decreasing sequence of numbers should not decrease endlessly?

As a numerical consept, no. I tend to think of things materially, so with regard to debt, since one can not hold a negative dollar (an anti-dollar?) in one's hand, I think of debt as an operation, because one can hold a positive dollar (= +1) in one's hand and discharge a debt (= -1) with it.

I actually think this is a coincidence, and am going to conduct an experiment right here in this Message, which I've never tried before. See, one thing about Arabic numerals is that the use of (x10) as a multiplier is arbitrary. We call it "Base Ten" because of that multiplier, but surely you have heard about Base Two (binary) that computers use?

Honestly, you lost me with the base 10 thing and with the many additions of 11. I can say that Scott wasn't speaking of them with his i=0 idea. It seems that you were doing a very different operation than the one I gave.

No faith is required;

Faith? The guy's a math genius, not an evangelist.

its consistency is as factual as 1+1=10 (in binary --are you ready for a nerd joke? "There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary, and those who don't." .

Strangely enough, I got that right off the bat......I must have some nerd in me.

Nothing new there. You should be able to find plenty of references on the Web to old calendar-reform suggestions, with that one proposed fairly frequently. Note that it only does 364 days a year, and so an extra day or two is needed to match the true annual cycle of 365.2422... days per year.

Oops, I forgot to mention his "0 day", the first day of the year. He says that the Maia called this day "A day out of time". I think it was because the Maia didn't have "0".

 

[FutureIncoming]

I tend to think of things materially, so with regard to debt, since one can not hold a negative dollar (an anti-dollar?) in one's hand, I think of debt as an operation, because one can hold a positive dollar (= +1) in one's hand and discharge a debt (= -1) with it.

Heh, you can hold an IOU in your hand. And you can hold one $1 IOU for every dollar you owe, if you want to think in terms of equating the counting of objects with negative values.

Also, I might mention a thing I read some years ago, that Issac Asimov wrote, regarding "one-half". It seems that in college I.A. wandered into a philosophy discussion, where the guru was pronouncing mathematicians to be metaphysicists, because they embraced the square root of -1, the imaginary number. Asimov protested that it was just as real as any other number, and the philosopher asked to see (piece-of-chalk)i. Asimov replied that he would do it if the guru would show (piece-of-chalk)/2. When the guru broke apart a piece, Asimov said something like, "That looks like one piece of chalk to me; it certainly isn't two or three." I.A. was eventually evicted from the philosophy session, because the guru could not provide a 1/2 piece-of-chalk without relating it to an arbitrary definition (such as length). The preceding incident may be relevant to your understanding of the reality of negative numbers.

Honestly, you lost me with the base 10 thing and with the many additions of 11. I can say that Scott wasn't speaking of them with his i=0 idea. It seems that you were doing a very different operation than the one I gave.

It is possible that I misunderstood what you wrote about what you saw him talking about. But a lessen in alternative Numerical Bases is not usually wasted. The rules are simple:
(1) Pick some base B. It requires B symbols, each representing a numerical quantity ranging from Zero to (B-1).
(2) Numbers are represented by "positional notation" in which the left-most position represents greatest magnitude, and right-most position represents minimum magnitude. In more detail:
(2a) At the first numeral to the left of the decimal point, a zero quantity-of-value-B are multiplied together, and also are multiplied by the numeral that occupies that position.
(2b) Moving left, each position represents an increment in the quantity-of-value-B that are multiplied together (first one, then two, then three...), after which the occupying digit is also multiplied.
(2c) Moving right, on the other side of the decimal point, there is also an increment in the quantity-of-value-B, but instead of multiplying these are divided together: If B=10 then 0.01=(0)+(0/10)+(1/10/10). Note that the total quantity-of-divided-values-B are also divided into the digit that occupies the position.
(2d) The various multiplied values, from all the positions, are all added together.

Consider the number "one hundred". In various Bases (Two through Twelve), this quantity is wriiten as follows, in order:
1100100=(1x2x2x2x2x2x2)+(1x2x2x2x2x2)+(0x2x2x2x2)+(0x2x2x2)+(1x2x2)+(0x2)+(0)
10201=(1x3x3x3x3)+(0x3x3x3)+(2x3x3)+(0x3)+(1)
1210=(1x4x4x4)+(2x4x4)+(1x4)+(0)
400=(4x5x5)+(0x5)+(0)
244=(2x6x6)+(4x6)+(4)
202=(2x7x7)+(0x7)+(2)
144=(1x8x8)+(4x8)+(4)
121=(1x9x9)+(2x9)+(1)
100=(1x10x10)+(0x10)+(0)
91=(9x11)+(1)
84=(8x12)+(4)
I think that if you study that list you will see that all of them meet the rules specified above, for positional notation in various Bases (especially if I have managed to avoid typos and math errors, heh

 

[Jerry]

I re-listened to that interview, let me give it another go:
I'll start by pulling a number out of my....hat. Say, 236.

Example 1:
The digits which comprise the product of 236x9 will equal 9 when 236 is multiplied by 9.

This will not work for any other multiplier other than 9. ie: The digits which comprise the product of 236x8 will not equal 8 when 236 is multiplied by 8.

236x9=2124 --- 2+1+2+4=9
236x8=1888 --- 1+8+8+8=25 --- 2+5=7.....not 8.
236x7=1652 --- 1+6+5+2=14 --- 1+4=5......not 7.
At this point I'm seeing a pattern. I *have faith* that the sum of 236x6 will = 3.
236x6=1416 --- 1+4+1+6=12 --- 1+2=3.....not 6.

Example 2:
When the sum of the didgets which comprise the primary number are subtracted from that primary number, the sum of the digits of that result will = 9. The result will only ever = 9 and never any other number, regardless of the primary number used.

236 --- 2+3+6=11 --- 236-11=225 --- 2+2+5=9

I'll take a few more numbers out of my.....hat. Say, 3845, 1826 and 143925.

3845 --- 3+8+4+5=20 --- 3845-20=3825 ----3+8+2+5=18 --- 1+8=9
***
1826 --- 1+8+2+6=17 --- 1826-17=1809 --- 1+8+0+9=18 --- 1+8=9
***
143925 --- 1+4+3+9+2+5=24 --- 143925-24=143901 ---1+4+3+9+0+1=18 ---1+8=9

 

[FutureIncoming]

he digits which comprise the product of 236x9 will equal 9 when 236 is multiplied by 9.

Yes, actually I heard it backward years ago, that if you add up the digits of any number and the result is divisible by 9, then the original number also is divisible by 9. (That rule works for 3, also.) However, I still tend to think the reason this works is because 9=(B-1), where B is Base Ten. Let me try your 236x8, written in Base 9, and see if the sum of the digits are divisible by 8:
1888(B10)=2527(B9)=(2x9x9x9)+(5x9x9)+(2x9)+(7); the sum of the digits 2+5+2+7 are sixteen, which is 17(B9)=(1x9)+(7), and those digits do add to make 8. Now what about 236x7, written in Base 8?
1652(B10)=3164(B8)=(3x8x8x8)+(1x8x8)+(6x8)+(4); the sum of the digits 3+1+6+4 are fourteen, which 16(B8)=(1x8)+(6), and those digits do add to make 7. Now what about 236x6, written in Base 7?
1416(B10)=4062(B7)=(4x7x7x7)+(0x7x7)+(6x7)+(2); the sum of the digits 4+0+6+2 are twelve, which is 15(B7)=(1x7)+(5), and those digits do add to make 6.

Your Example Two appears to be the same thing that I talked about in Msg #240. I shall leave as an exercise for the reader, the rewriting of your values 236, 385, 1826, and 143925 in some other Base, where the subtraction is done and the result written in that same Base, to see if the digits of that result add up to yield (B-1). Enjoy!

 

[tryreading]

I've read about the proposed South Dakota abortion legislation which would ban all abortion there except when the woman's life is in danger. Any doctor who would perform an abortion there could face 5 years in prison. But I can't find any proposed punishment for the woman. Isn't she the 'perpetrator?' Why would the law only punish the accomplice? Doesn't make sense, does it? There could potentially be a law against a killing, but the killer wouldn't be punished. If the legislators in South Dakota are serious, shouldn't they act like it and punish the only person who can commit the crime they are trying to outlaw?

 

[Jerry]

I've read about the proposed South Dakota abortion legislation which would ban all abortion there except when the woman's life is in danger. Any doctor who would perform an abortion there could face 5 years in prison. But I can't find any proposed punishment for the woman. Isn't she the 'perpetrator?' Why would the law only punish the accomplice? Doesn't make sense, does it? There could potentially be a law against a killing, but the killer wouldn't be punished. If the legislators in South Dakota are serious, shouldn't they act like it and punish the only person who can commit the crime they are trying to outlaw?

I wager that the reason you haven't heard about a punishment for the woman is:
1) the ban will act like abortion bans in the 50's, where abortion was illegal for a doctor to administer, but not for a woman to receve (because it is the doctor, not the woman, who actually performs the abortion); or
2) the bill does not specify a penalty, but states what statute acquiring an abortion would violate. The punishment would then rest upon said statute(s) and all of the variables which go with it.

We will have to waite for Gov. Rounds to sign the bill into law (which is not certain as he vetowed a similar bill in '04) so that it can be viewed in it's compleation in order to determin how this law handles the woman's punishment.

 

[tryreading]

I wager that the reason you haven't heard about a punishment for the woman is:
1) the ban will act like abortion bans in the 50's, where abortion was illegal for a doctor to administer, but not for a woman to receve (because it is the doctor, not the woman, who actually performs the abortion); or
2) the bill does not specify a penalty, but states what statute acquiring an abortion would violate. The punishment would then rest upon said statute(s) and all of the variables which go with it.

We will have to waite for Gov. Rounds to sign the bill into law (which is not certain as he vetowed a similar bill in '04) so that it can be viewed in it's compleation in order to determin how this law handles the woman's punishment.

Yes, I know what the past laws provided as far as abortion related punishment, but if these people in South Dakota are serious about their anti-abortion beliefs they should focus on the person who can either ensure her fetus lives or make sure it dies. I think I know the reason these lawmakers have no intention of punishing the woman. I'm pretty sure I know. The reason they are taking this route is that they are typical politicians, and therefore hypocrites and cowards.

I don't want the woman punished and don't want anti-abortion laws, but still have no respect for legislators, who see abortion as murder, but avoid decisions that will cost them votes like they have done in South Dakota.

 

[Jerry]

Yes, I know what the past laws provided as far as abortion related punishment, but if these people in South Dakota are serious about their anti-abortion beliefs they should focus on the person who can either ensure her fetus lives or make sure it dies. I think I know the reason these lawmakers have no intention of punishing the woman. I'm pretty sure I know. The reason they are taking this route is that they are typical politicians, and therefore hypocrites and cowards.

I don't want the woman punished and don't want anti-abortion laws, but still have no respect for legislators, who see abortion as murder, but avoid decisions that will cost them votes like they have done in South Dakota.

There in lays my fundamental disgust: politicians do not care about the caws, regardless of what side you are on. They don't care about the pro choice cry to protect controle over one's own person. They don't care about the pro life cry to protect the life of the unborn. They only care about money and votes....which = money......so they only care about money......which translates into power and controle.

Yeah, I'm with you on this one.

 

[FallingPianos]

In my opinion, if you are using a contraceptive which is 99.99% effective, then you are giving this consent for the fetus to exist should the proverbial dice role that 00.01% chance.

That is the same as saying that if you lock your door then you are giving consent to the burglar who manages to get past the lock.

its only the same if the woman was raped. if the woman chose to have sex, than she chose to put herself at risk for pregnancy, and thus gave concent for the fetus to exist. one cannot choose to not put themselves at risk for a robbery.

 

[Jerry]

its only the same if the woman was raped. if the woman chose to have sex, than she chose to put herself at risk for pregnancy, and thus gave concent for the fetus to exist. one cannot choose to not put themselves at risk for a robbery.

Well, I conceded the implied consent point, but to liken intercoarse with house burglary you would have to create a scenario where you open your door, place a kind of net around the entryway and invite a burglar to repeatedly run through the net and into your house.

Or perhaps a scenario where you open the door and invite a burglar into your house so long as they are wearing a straight jacket or are covered with shrink wrap, or similar.

What ever sort of restraint or barrier you use, it will work most of the time, but if it should, say, brake, or fail because it wasn't used correctly, then you now have to deal with the consequence of a risk you accepted when you opened your door and invited the burglar in.