Which Came First? The Chicken or the Egg?

Which came first? The chicken or the egg?

The question and answer have many very important implications.

This is a three (3) part video:
I. Introduction and answer
II. Reapplication of the answer
III. Social and political consequences (prolife? OTAAAC?)

References:
(1) http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/05/26/chicken.egg/
(2) http://science.howstuffworks.com/genetic-science/question85.htm
(3) http://people.cs.uu.nl/hansb/religion/chickenegg.html
(4) http://business.fortunecity.com/johns/139/index6.html
(5) http://www.arrogantatheist.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=729&page=1

Same-Sex Marriage and the State Youtube Video only

How Will Same-Sex "Marriage" Hurt Marriage?

How Will Same-Sex "Marriage" Hurt Marriage?

Besides the detriment to religious institutions and those with religious objections to those in same-sex "marriages" (and teaching it as a norm in public schools), what harm to "traditional" or "real" marriages will occur from codifying same-sex "marriage" into law?



Some resources:
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2009/06/259
http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/UST_fall2004.pdf
http://www.marriagedebate.com/ssm.php
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2009/07/what-marriage-is-and-what-it-isnt
(Will be available free in a few months after July 2009!)
http://www.iptv.org/video/browse.cfm/program/20022
http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2008/11/priority-of-strengthening-families.html
http://merecomments.typepad.com/merecomments/2009/05/pseudogamy-101.html
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1908243,00.html
http://positivelywaiting.blogspot.com/2008/05/marriage-from-teens-point-of-view.html

OTAAAC (pro life) Debate Advice

I just (sort-of) finished two debates with people who are PAAAC (pro-choice). One wanted abortion to come to Ireland, one wanted ESCR to stay on-board, respectively below.

Of course, at the end of the day, it only matters if a human is a person from conception onward. Both debaters came to this point, but their responses were puzzling:

I asked, "At the end of the day, I have a question: If personhood is established for a non-viable human that is found to be inside a woman's body, does the woman still have a right to kill the non-viable human in your view?"

She said, "Yes, no one has the right to use anothers body without their permission, fetus or rapist."

The other man (heatmourning33) said (after I believe his personhood definition was destroyed), "I don't have all the answers, your way could be the better way to go, I havent [sic] been convinced."

Do you notice that the question of personhood doesn't really matter in the end to these PAAAC (pro-choice) people?

This leads me to the following advice:

Before starting to debate, ask explicitly the following question:

If personhood is established for a [zygote or equivalent], does the [woman/state/scientist/president/etc.] still have a right to kill the [zygote or equivalent] in your view?

FYI: The US Supreme Court:

If the suggestion of personhood [of the preborn] is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [Fourteenth Amendment].