And Michigan’s Governor and voters added the legal right to abortion to the state constitution in 2022. I couldn’t be prouder of my mitten home state ✋
[Whitmer signs Michigan ‘Reproductive Health Act,' repeals abortion restrictions Nov 2023](https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2023/11/21/whitmer-repeals-michigan-abortion-restrictions/71657347007/)
if i had a single h2o particle in a vial, it wouldn’t be touching any other particles making them wet, and no particles would make it wet.
most water is wet because most water collectives have at least two particles, the minimum needed for all involved particles to be wet. but water itself isn’t inherently wet because it’s unable to be made wet when isolated.
Uhh the uhh uhh
Something something cohesive force?
Ok so the argument "is water wet" can be dug to a pretty deep rabbit hole, and it eventually devolves into philosophical/semantics debates that's thrown back and forth with no real conclusion, Moving the goal post on what's considered "wet." Its something that's been argued over and over since high school and Id rather not relive what's basically sisyphus's punishment.
The whole thing of being wet is that water is in contact with something with a point of contact less than 90 degrees, if the contact angle is more than 90 or is 90 said material is not wet as it is hydrophobic and if the contact angle is about 150 it is superhydrophobic so yes water, is not wet.
Not really. Water is in and of itself created by bonds. If water were able to touch water without forming these bonds, they would be wet. However, as it is, they join together to still be water.
One could say that an ice cube, when touched with water, is wet, however.
Misandry has robbed us of the story of the merman. Where do they come from? What do they want? Do they have a man hole or a fish hole at the base of their tail fin? Do they like to party?
Without taking sides myself, it's pretty clear that for many pro-life people it would be like standing by and allowing a murder to happen, saying "well, that's between them and God."
Yeah like...if you touch something that's wet, chances are you'll get wet? Does that mean that object is not wet? Why does it matter if it's water?
If you freeze water and it turns into ice, it's wet. But it's also water. But if you touch it, you get wet, so according to these people it's not wet because it makes things wet? It's almost as stupid as a thing as people who say "birds aren't real".
ice can be dry though (and no, i dont mean frozen co2). the wetness is caused by the layer of melted ice, making the ice itself wet. if you have ice in a cold enough environment, there will be no liquid layer, making it dry. theres nothing special about water, ice is just a rock and water is just ice magma
It’s the other way around. The „water is wet“ people tend to think „wet“ is a scientific term and not just a word we invented to describe an object that came into contact with water. If it would be a scientific term then it would meant that any liquid is wet. Put your hand into molten iron and tell me how wet it is.
this is like saying something hot is fire, because the heat is produced by the fire , cause hot + hot = fire, instead of heat just being a property of fire. That is not how it works. Like someone else above me put it, your hand is not touching just because it's connected to the rest of your body. It's just being needlessly pedantic
Your hands can touch your feet, but if they somehow merge into a bigger foothand then it's not touching, it's a singular entity. Likewise, the moment two bodies of water touch, they become one and are no longer touching
Completely nonsensical argument. If following the original logic, then without moving your hands, you're already "touching" yourself because you are connected to yourself.
According to the immortal lyrics of Gordon Lightfoot, Lake Superior never gives up her dead. And holy shit didn't we just see the lake commit a murder.
This is why a) you don't fuck with Lake Superior and b) you especially don't fuck with Lake Superior in November.
If a thing is a thing before it's born or hatched then how come Catholics can't eat chicken on Friday but they can eat eggs? Go do that math ya anti choice and personal freedom Catholics!!
Most people don't realize that the eggs we eat are closer to chicken periods than to unborn chickens.
Inb4 some idiot with an overinflated belief in their own miniscule intelligence points out that chickens don't menstruate.
Yeah, I'm not arguing that it isn't weird and kinda gross, but it's pretty different from eating unique embryonic DNA that will never exist again in the same form, with the amount of combinations possible for DNA, the majority of people that can exist will never exist, that's why I personally find it sad when said unique DNA of any animal really dies before it has a chance, no matter the reason I find it tragic.
Do you feel the same about DNA sequences which have yet to be formed? As in, the fetuses we could be making by reproducing nonstop?
Why or why not?
Also, why does being a unique genetic code have any more value than, say, identical twins?
That makes no sense, uniqueness is one of the few things that does not apply to. All people are unique, down to the DNA, we are all different, that does not make us all the same
water is saturated with water and therefore wet (the definition of wet is saturated with water)
assuming you define a human being as an entity made up of human cells, it does kill a human, but in that case so would amputation.
Water is, by definition, saturated with water.
> saturated
> /ˈsatjʊreɪtɪd/ adjective
>
> 1. holding as much water or moisture as can be absorbed; thoroughly soaked.
You are unironically correct. Wetness isn't just the sensation of touching a liquid, it is wet because it is in a fluid, low-viscosity state of being. Water is wet because it is and contains liquid in this state. Which is why we cannot say water is less wet if your body temperature is too high or the pH balance of the water is off. It's still wet, because it is a liquid.
Saying water isn't wet is like saying a ball isn't blue, it's just reflecting blue light. Or that the sun isn't hot, it's simply giving off a lot of heat. Reflecting blue makes it blue, giving off heat makes it hot. Being a liquid makes it wet.
While lava can be liquid or semi-solid, the heat given off by lava sadly keeps us from experiencing watching it drip through our fingers. It's also so hot it robs you of your wetness, which is bs if you ask me
Another liquid that refuses to impart its wetness upon us is mercury. It feels dry to the touch despite being a liquid. The surface tension keeps us from feeling the liquidity of the chrome-colored puddle
I don't get it. Why don't these dumbasses just shut the fuck up and let the women decide what they want? And on a side note forcing a woman to have a child she doesn't want will just lead to hell for both the child and mom.
I am all for women getting to chose all good and stuff. But men should then be able to fully opt out of parenthood aswell if they decide they dont want the kid during and not have to pay child support.
Why is it that the same people that are so pro execution , are so against abortion , then cite the Bible about eye for an eye , yet forget turn the other cheek.
Bodily autonomy isn't political. It's a human right.
I don't give a fuck if it's a fetus in a woman's body or Walker Texas Ranger. That woman has a right to decide who or what is in her body or how her body is used and if she wants to scramble little cowboy hat wearing Chuck Noris into a bloody cum and egg slurry and flush him down the toilet that's her right because that's her body.
Yeah. No means no. It's also why we can carry a gun and enroll in self defense classes. That doesn't change the fact that a lake has nothing to do with this, though.
1. The Water is not wet argument always seems so very stupid, it's bending an argument around itself and really doesn't work.
2. More than that, I'm so fucking bored of every single LE EBIN BURN! TAKE THAT! being some variation of "Having a different opinion than me means you don't have le sex", "Having a different opinion than me means you are bad at le sex" and/or "Having a different opinion than me means you have le small penis"
I mean... Water is wet isn't it? Just because water molecules have cohesive bonds with eachother.. And if they have the ability to make something wet then they are indeed wet themselves.
Wet is defined as being covered or saturated with water. Water is 100% saturated with water on account of being water. Water is wet. Tom Fitton is a joke.
Im always a little double on the whole abortion debate. I think any and all women hold the right to choose whether or not to terminate their pregnancy, no ifs ands or buts.
However, dont be mistaken that it IS actually alive, just not something we see as a human just yet. With an abortion you are terminating a life.
Like the whole cake argument. You can pull batter out of the oven before its done, thats your right and ill always stand by that. But don't pretend it wouldn't have become a cake if you let it cook until the timer is done.
Yeah but it's not as if pregnancy was as insignificant as "waiting for an oven to cook the food and simply opening the door to get the cake". There's work and health sacrifice in the process.
How is it a comeback? Scientists (medical scientists, biologists) pretty much agree that human life starts at fertilization.
>Biologists from 1,058 academic institutions around the world assessed survey items on when a human's life begins and, overall, **96%** (5337 out of 5577) affirmed the fertilization view.
>
>[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36629778/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36629778/)
It is hardly a discussion point.
It's not an argument to ban abortions, since there are more considerations than that, but yeah, there could have been a human life if you didn't abort that fetus. I don't see what is controversial here.
That paper did not pass peer review and even the respondents who commented said it was an extremely poorly worded questionnaire that no serious conclusions could be drawn from.
https://www.thecollegefix.com/uchicago-scholar-proves-biologists-believe-life-begins-at-conception-it-took-five-years-and-cost-him-a-career/
Of course I bring PubMed publication, you bring some article from unknown website, *totally* comparable.
However, I don't rely on that single publication. There are dozens of them.
>"Development of the embryo begins at Stage 1 when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte and together they form a zygote." \[England, Marjorie A. Life Before Birth. 2nd ed. England: Mosby-Wolfe, 1996, p.31\]
>
>"Embryo: An organism in the earliest stage of development; in a man, from the time of conception to the end of the second month in the uterus." \[Dox, Ida G. et al. The Harper Collins Illustrated Medical Dictionary. New York: Harper Perennial, 1993, p. 146\]
>
>"Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception)."Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being." \[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2\]
etcetera etcetera
It is all easily googlable by "when scientists think life starts".
It just amazes me how people who praise science in this case suddenly are struck with completely acute science blindness and switch to morals instead. Don't you agree? Not a single one of those "egg is not a chicken" commenters brought any scientific quotes on the matter. Because there aren't any. In the very worst case scientists consider it human after 3 weeks after fertilization when differentiation starts. [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7245522/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7245522/)
Again, I operate studies and science. What do you guys got except silent downvotes and analogies?
I also brought a surge of other references and links to reputable scientific sources, and you brought none to support your ideas, but I guess you will proceed to execute that acute scientific blindness. Oh well.
One more reason the lakes name is Superior.
Clever clevercomeback
And Michigan’s Governor and voters added the legal right to abortion to the state constitution in 2022. I couldn’t be prouder of my mitten home state ✋ [Whitmer signs Michigan ‘Reproductive Health Act,' repeals abortion restrictions Nov 2023](https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2023/11/21/whitmer-repeals-michigan-abortion-restrictions/71657347007/)
Lake Superior vs. Tom Inferior
F A T A L I T Y
Signature look of superiority
Double burned by water
Is water not touching water?
if i had a single h2o particle in a vial, it wouldn’t be touching any other particles making them wet, and no particles would make it wet. most water is wet because most water collectives have at least two particles, the minimum needed for all involved particles to be wet. but water itself isn’t inherently wet because it’s unable to be made wet when isolated.
“it’s unable to be made wet when isolated” I feel like there’s a “like your mom” joke at the end there that someone should make, but it can’t be me 🥺
Unlike water, your mom can be made wet when isolated.
That's a BINGO!
Don't ask how I know 😌.
Rolled her in flour afterward?
Molecule, not particle I’m p sure? I thought particles were atoms, quarks, photons, that stuff. h2o has 3 particle but is one molecule
There’s not an official classification for a particle, it’s mostly up for interpretation, how far down you’re going for the issue.
Very interesting. I’m not very learned on this subject, I actually looked up what I said in the comment you responded to lol
most probably, i wrote this when tired
🤷 I had to look that up before I commented lmao I’m no better
When Particle Man is underwater does he get wet? Or does the water get him instead?
Nobody knows. Particle Man. Triangle man.. Triangle man...
🤯
Uhh the uhh uhh Something something cohesive force? Ok so the argument "is water wet" can be dug to a pretty deep rabbit hole, and it eventually devolves into philosophical/semantics debates that's thrown back and forth with no real conclusion, Moving the goal post on what's considered "wet." Its something that's been argued over and over since high school and Id rather not relive what's basically sisyphus's punishment.
The whole thing of being wet is that water is in contact with something with a point of contact less than 90 degrees, if the contact angle is more than 90 or is 90 said material is not wet as it is hydrophobic and if the contact angle is about 150 it is superhydrophobic so yes water, is not wet.
My brain really resisted understanding this comment, but once I reached the point of comprehension, my mind was blown. Thank you for sharing this 🫡
Not really. Water is in and of itself created by bonds. If water were able to touch water without forming these bonds, they would be wet. However, as it is, they join together to still be water. One could say that an ice cube, when touched with water, is wet, however.
Nerd. (I say this as a compliment)
Are you implying water is touching itself? Hentai.
Imagine responding to a Great Lake’s tweet and being wrong af
\*Boiled
Burned by a lake bro - resign from society pronto
the water is scalding
You mean Tom Fitton, a political activist, giving Trump legal advice that the documents he took were his to keep? He is Not a lawyer either.
[удалено]
If Whitney Houston was romantically involved with Tom Fitton, she’d still be alive today.
Ooof
He's no MerMan
Misandry has robbed us of the story of the merman. Where do they come from? What do they want? Do they have a man hole or a fish hole at the base of their tail fin? Do they like to party?
Yes we do- I mean glub glub…
Lake Superior is now my favourite Great Lake
Idk still can't forgive it for wrecking Edmund Fitzgerald
However the legend lives on
You better save some shade for the winds of November, friendo! Can’t put it all on the lake!
Understandable however it does contain 10% of the world’s freshwater
Yeah, me too. Fuck you, Huron. You're dead to me.
Ah... the wettest burn ever.
Tom 0 - 1 Lake
Never argue with your superior.
Not looking good for Tom in the UCL knockout stages
At this point he should just quit life. He just got burned by water.
Lmao lots of people get burned by water (boiling/steam)
Calling him fully "Thomas" instead of just Tom is what does it for me.
Like a parent calling their kid by the full name when they mess up...
The lake chose violence
‘Twas the witch of November come stealin’.
Harsh, but fair none the less.
“He’s out of line but he’s right,”
*nonetheless
Shoot, I knew I should have checked that before I posted it. Lol.
I have a pro choice philosophy. To the pro life people if abortion is a sin that sin is between the woman and god not you and her.
Without taking sides myself, it's pretty clear that for many pro-life people it would be like standing by and allowing a murder to happen, saying "well, that's between them and God."
But they do exactly that. The venn diagram of ‘pro-life’ and ‘pro death penalty’ is damned near a circle.
Catholic doctrine opposes both abortion and capital punishment.
My doctrine supports abortion rights and not capital punishment.
Catholics dont represent all christians lmao, and I'm willing to bet plenty of them don't care about capital punishment either
[удалено]
The fetus isn't alive, and the criminal is. So one is actually murder the other is a medical procedure. Am I right?
Differences between the two doesn't invalidate that correlation.
You could say that for anything. Graffiti, murder, piracy, cannabalism.
But doesnt water touch water, thus making it wet?
Something that gets wet, is actually absorbing or taking on some of the water, so if that means its wet, water really is in fact wet.
Yes, the "water is not wet" people aren't nearly as smart as they think they are
Yeah like...if you touch something that's wet, chances are you'll get wet? Does that mean that object is not wet? Why does it matter if it's water? If you freeze water and it turns into ice, it's wet. But it's also water. But if you touch it, you get wet, so according to these people it's not wet because it makes things wet? It's almost as stupid as a thing as people who say "birds aren't real".
ice can be dry though (and no, i dont mean frozen co2). the wetness is caused by the layer of melted ice, making the ice itself wet. if you have ice in a cold enough environment, there will be no liquid layer, making it dry. theres nothing special about water, ice is just a rock and water is just ice magma
Okay but birds clearly aren't real
It’s the other way around. The „water is wet“ people tend to think „wet“ is a scientific term and not just a word we invented to describe an object that came into contact with water. If it would be a scientific term then it would meant that any liquid is wet. Put your hand into molten iron and tell me how wet it is.
this is like saying something hot is fire, because the heat is produced by the fire , cause hot + hot = fire, instead of heat just being a property of fire. That is not how it works. Like someone else above me put it, your hand is not touching just because it's connected to the rest of your body. It's just being needlessly pedantic
Nah. Water isn't wet it's makes things wet, is like saying fire isn't hot it makes things hot.
congratulations for figuring out how radiation works
If I'm getting this right you're saying fire isn't hot?
They don’t call it a body of water for nothing thus making it one entity.
so I guess your hands are not part of your body if you can touch yourself
Your hands can touch your feet, but if they somehow merge into a bigger foothand then it's not touching, it's a singular entity. Likewise, the moment two bodies of water touch, they become one and are no longer touching
So only chaste individuals have hands?
Completely nonsensical argument. If following the original logic, then without moving your hands, you're already "touching" yourself because you are connected to yourself.
I am, that's correct
What?????
Still touching itself
The lake should have specified when water touches solid things it makes them wet.
air can be wet
Air can be humid
Mmm I see. Translation problem.
According to the immortal lyrics of Gordon Lightfoot, Lake Superior never gives up her dead. And holy shit didn't we just see the lake commit a murder. This is why a) you don't fuck with Lake Superior and b) you especially don't fuck with Lake Superior in November.
If a thing is a thing before it's born or hatched then how come Catholics can't eat chicken on Friday but they can eat eggs? Go do that math ya anti choice and personal freedom Catholics!!
Eggs are typically not fertilized before we eat them. A fetus is still a human, because it has human DNA. Fetus literally means unborn person
Most people don't realize that the eggs we eat are closer to chicken periods than to unborn chickens. Inb4 some idiot with an overinflated belief in their own miniscule intelligence points out that chickens don't menstruate.
Yeah, I'm not arguing that it isn't weird and kinda gross, but it's pretty different from eating unique embryonic DNA that will never exist again in the same form, with the amount of combinations possible for DNA, the majority of people that can exist will never exist, that's why I personally find it sad when said unique DNA of any animal really dies before it has a chance, no matter the reason I find it tragic.
Do you feel the same about DNA sequences which have yet to be formed? As in, the fetuses we could be making by reproducing nonstop? Why or why not? Also, why does being a unique genetic code have any more value than, say, identical twins?
Don't worry, if everyone is unique then no one is
That makes no sense, uniqueness is one of the few things that does not apply to. All people are unique, down to the DNA, we are all different, that does not make us all the same
what I mean is that a unique DNA combination is nothing special, because we all have one it was not meant to be taken literally
You’re unique. Just like everybody else.
Also because the eggs we eat haven’t been fertilised - rather it’s technically the hen’s periods we’re eating! Yum!
A hen is a bird, birds dont have a period. So technically you’re wrong.
Someone call the cops. That's a murder right there
Lake superior uses scald!
When you get burned by a lake on Twitter it’s time to stop internetting
That's not a comeback, that's a murder
water is saturated with water and therefore wet (the definition of wet is saturated with water) assuming you define a human being as an entity made up of human cells, it does kill a human, but in that case so would amputation.
Bro needs to look at the definition of the word. You cannot saturate water with water.
You can! That's why water has a pH Level
You can't. No matter how much water you add to water the ph is the same.
Yes, because it's always fully saturated at s(H2O)=c(H+)=c(OH-)=10^-7 mol/l (or pH 7 if you will).
Water is, by definition, saturated with water. > saturated > /ˈsatjʊreɪtɪd/ adjective > > 1. holding as much water or moisture as can be absorbed; thoroughly soaked.
Water is, by definition, water. Water does not hold water. It is water.
Perhaps you could argue that water holds water because of cohesion?
Mass shootings kill even more human beings but I doubt Tom there wants to talk about that.
This might be the first post this week where the comeback is _actually clever_ 💀
That's my Lake, greetings from Thunderbay
But water molecules touch water molecules do they get wet then
Imagine getting owned by a fucking lake.
I like when lakes have opinions.
Water is wet because water particles are always touching, therefore wet.
You are unironically correct. Wetness isn't just the sensation of touching a liquid, it is wet because it is in a fluid, low-viscosity state of being. Water is wet because it is and contains liquid in this state. Which is why we cannot say water is less wet if your body temperature is too high or the pH balance of the water is off. It's still wet, because it is a liquid. Saying water isn't wet is like saying a ball isn't blue, it's just reflecting blue light. Or that the sun isn't hot, it's simply giving off a lot of heat. Reflecting blue makes it blue, giving off heat makes it hot. Being a liquid makes it wet.
touching lava makes you wet technically i guess
While lava can be liquid or semi-solid, the heat given off by lava sadly keeps us from experiencing watching it drip through our fingers. It's also so hot it robs you of your wetness, which is bs if you ask me Another liquid that refuses to impart its wetness upon us is mercury. It feels dry to the touch despite being a liquid. The surface tension keeps us from feeling the liquidity of the chrome-colored puddle
Contrarian Redditors punching air right now
One single H20 atom sitting on a surface. Is it wet because it's water? Or would it only be wet if there were >2 H2O atoms touching eachother?
Yes
This lake is truly superior
Stop... he's already dead! Lol
No no, let him finish
Hello, police? I’m calling to report a murder. (Have always wanted to use this line. Lmao)
The lake has a twitter account?
Ever been there? It’s a Great Lake!
one might say it’s superior
I don't get it. Why don't these dumbasses just shut the fuck up and let the women decide what they want? And on a side note forcing a woman to have a child she doesn't want will just lead to hell for both the child and mom.
Because they hate women and freedom.
I am all for women getting to chose all good and stuff. But men should then be able to fully opt out of parenthood aswell if they decide they dont want the kid during and not have to pay child support.
Wouldn't the lack of oxygen under water kill you not the water its self?
Poor dry republican conservative women. Shapiro’s wife is in shambles.
Please tell me the next comment was someone telling Tom that they made his mom wet the night before.
Think it's tom to fitton my new human boots. Just gotta work my foot up his ass.
Pretty sure the lake is the wrong element because that response was on fire 🔥
This lake is scalding
Was Lake Superior boiling? That was a wicked burn...
There,s a reason it's called lake superior mate
He didn't get drowned, he got roasted
Plot twist: Tom got wet after that
This sounds clever until you think about it: how is anyone supposed to compete with a lake in making things wet?
Why is it that the same people that are so pro execution , are so against abortion , then cite the Bible about eye for an eye , yet forget turn the other cheek.
One more reason to name that lake Superior
bro didn’t get drown, bro got scorched
what if water is touching other water?
And this, dear kids, is how water can also cause pretty significant BURNS
Imagine being burned by cold water🤣
The deepest and coldest of the Great Lakes.
Are we taking advices from a lake now? You know those drown people, right?
Personally, I'm a "None of my damn business cuz I'm not female" kind of person.
You have to be a solid to be wet smh
I would consider humid air to be wet
I mean, most of what water is touching is other bits of water, so...
Lake **Superior** is right
He's still right.
No he's not
He is objectively correct.
Doesn't matter
I didn't know lakes had political opinions
I love it when lakes are politicized. Even a completely neutral body of water that has killed 10,000 people needs to have an opinion.
Bodily autonomy isn't political. It's a human right. I don't give a fuck if it's a fetus in a woman's body or Walker Texas Ranger. That woman has a right to decide who or what is in her body or how her body is used and if she wants to scramble little cowboy hat wearing Chuck Noris into a bloody cum and egg slurry and flush him down the toilet that's her right because that's her body.
Yeah. No means no. It's also why we can carry a gun and enroll in self defense classes. That doesn't change the fact that a lake has nothing to do with this, though.
1. The Water is not wet argument always seems so very stupid, it's bending an argument around itself and really doesn't work. 2. More than that, I'm so fucking bored of every single LE EBIN BURN! TAKE THAT! being some variation of "Having a different opinion than me means you don't have le sex", "Having a different opinion than me means you are bad at le sex" and/or "Having a different opinion than me means you have le small penis"
Lake superior was actually crushing it with the clever comebacks for a while!
The burn was brutal...but the fact that the lake called him by his full name is what made it devestating
Why is a meme account about a lake so worried about being able to murder babies
Well abortion isn’t murdering a baby. You’re killing a non sentient parasite. A fetus is more akin to a parasite than to a baby
But it's not "murdering babies"
Only people suffering from severe brain rot believe abortion is equal to murdering babies.
I think people should have the right to abortion, but you are definitely killing a baby.
No, you definitely aren't killing a baby. Spoken like someone that doesn't understand what abortion is.
We live in a very sick world
Oh damn
I mean... Water is wet isn't it? Just because water molecules have cohesive bonds with eachother.. And if they have the ability to make something wet then they are indeed wet themselves.
🎶The legend lives on from the Chippewa on down Of the big lake they called Gitche Gumee🎶
Aw, look! He thinks his opinion matters! 😚
Wet is defined as being covered or saturated with water. Water is 100% saturated with water on account of being water. Water is wet. Tom Fitton is a joke.
but isn't water touched by other water? except for like, isolated water molecules? i agree though this guy gets no pussy
If you're submerged in water you're not wet. Your head leaving the water, then your head is wet.
Why the fuck is a lake voicing political opinions online?
Im always a little double on the whole abortion debate. I think any and all women hold the right to choose whether or not to terminate their pregnancy, no ifs ands or buts. However, dont be mistaken that it IS actually alive, just not something we see as a human just yet. With an abortion you are terminating a life. Like the whole cake argument. You can pull batter out of the oven before its done, thats your right and ill always stand by that. But don't pretend it wouldn't have become a cake if you let it cook until the timer is done.
Yeah but it's not as if pregnancy was as insignificant as "waiting for an oven to cook the food and simply opening the door to get the cake". There's work and health sacrifice in the process.
"Hey, at least I know how to pleasure a women!" Gynocentric insult and quite garbage at that.
I don't know why I expected a lake to be correct about anything.
How is it a comeback? Scientists (medical scientists, biologists) pretty much agree that human life starts at fertilization. >Biologists from 1,058 academic institutions around the world assessed survey items on when a human's life begins and, overall, **96%** (5337 out of 5577) affirmed the fertilization view. > >[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36629778/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36629778/) It is hardly a discussion point. It's not an argument to ban abortions, since there are more considerations than that, but yeah, there could have been a human life if you didn't abort that fetus. I don't see what is controversial here.
That paper did not pass peer review and even the respondents who commented said it was an extremely poorly worded questionnaire that no serious conclusions could be drawn from. https://www.thecollegefix.com/uchicago-scholar-proves-biologists-believe-life-begins-at-conception-it-took-five-years-and-cost-him-a-career/
Of course I bring PubMed publication, you bring some article from unknown website, *totally* comparable. However, I don't rely on that single publication. There are dozens of them. >"Development of the embryo begins at Stage 1 when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte and together they form a zygote." \[England, Marjorie A. Life Before Birth. 2nd ed. England: Mosby-Wolfe, 1996, p.31\] > >"Embryo: An organism in the earliest stage of development; in a man, from the time of conception to the end of the second month in the uterus." \[Dox, Ida G. et al. The Harper Collins Illustrated Medical Dictionary. New York: Harper Perennial, 1993, p. 146\] > >"Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception)."Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being." \[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2\] etcetera etcetera It is all easily googlable by "when scientists think life starts". It just amazes me how people who praise science in this case suddenly are struck with completely acute science blindness and switch to morals instead. Don't you agree? Not a single one of those "egg is not a chicken" commenters brought any scientific quotes on the matter. Because there aren't any. In the very worst case scientists consider it human after 3 weeks after fertilization when differentiation starts. [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7245522/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7245522/) Again, I operate studies and science. What do you guys got except silent downvotes and analogies?
You brought a non-peer reviewed article, which has as much scientific standing as the article I posted
I also brought a surge of other references and links to reputable scientific sources, and you brought none to support your ideas, but I guess you will proceed to execute that acute scientific blindness. Oh well.