Mississippi about to turn up the stupid?

[Steelplate]

And once the egg is fertile.

Thanks for playing.............

So? It's still not a human being. It's a fertilized egg. Fuck, You ever get eggs from a farm instead of a supermarket? You probably get a fertilized egg one out of every couple of dozen you purchase. Just because that egg is fertilized doesn't make it a chicken.... and it certainly doesn't mean that if you were to eat that egg, that you had a chicken dinner. The truth is... when you come across a fertilized egg... you say.. "oh fuck" and throw the damned thing away.

BTW... you can tell it's fertilized because it will have a little splash of blood in the yolk.... in case you are a city dweller who hasn't seen one.

LOL We need to throw fits to excuse killing the unborn.

YAWN...................

LOL.... Let's see, I have in two posts shown that God does not view an unborn as the equivalent of a human being, and provided as simple(because that's all people like you can understand) example of the difference between a fertilized egg and a fully developed organism.

Yet you think I am trying to excuse the "killing" of the unborn.

It's obvious by your one line post that you know I am right, have no retort or anything significant to add... so you chose to throw a personal dig in.

So basically... your whole premise for being Anti-Choice is "because I said so" and you have enough people who have the same philosophy to keep calling other people baby killers and try to reverse a constitutionally upheld law.

But then you folk turn around and slam Democracy as "Mob Rule" and "two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner", I guess you only feel that way when it's something that YOUR mob doesn't like.

 

[Full-Auto]

So? It's still not a human being. It's a fertilized egg. Fuck, You ever get eggs from a farm instead of a supermarket? You probably get a fertilized egg one out of every couple of dozen you purchase. Just because that egg is fertilized doesn't make it a chicken.... and it certainly doesn't mean that if you were to eat that egg, that you had a chicken dinner. The truth is... when you come across a fertilized egg... you say.. "oh fuck" and throw the damned thing away.

BTW... you can tell it's fertilized because it will have a little splash of blood in the yolk.... in case you are a city dweller who hasn't seen one.

LOL We need to throw fits to excuse killing the unborn.

YAWN...................

LOL.... Let's see, I have in two posts shown that God does not view an unborn as the equivalent of a human being, and provided as simple(because that's all people like you can understand) example of the difference between a fertilized egg and a fully developed organism.

Yet you think I am trying to excuse the "killing" of the unborn.

It's obvious by your one line post that you know I am right, have no retort or anything significant to add... so you chose to throw a personal dig in.

So basically... your whole premise for being Anti-Choice is "because I said so" and you have enough people who have the same philosophy to keep calling other people baby killers and try to reverse a constitutionally upheld law.

But then you folk turn around and slam Democracy as "Mob Rule" and "two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner", I guess you only feel that way when it's something that YOUR mob doesn't like.

you speak for God.

 

[Katzndogz]

Roe would NEVER become law today. It is simply too restrictive. Roe put limits on the right to abortion that actually made sense. Those limits would not be acceptable today. Roe prohibits late term abortions except in the most extreme circumstances and does not allow post birth abortions at all.

 

[USArmyRetired]

a fertilized egg is the beginning of human development.

Please show where it is not.

Ultimately, the DNA comes from the first emergence of living things on Earth, which happened about 2 point something billion years ago (too lazy to look up the exact date).

But wait. You said life has no beginning in another post. If what you say is true then how can you justify the first emergence of living things when according to you, life never had a beginning? Please answer.

 

[Steelplate]

LOL We need to throw fits to excuse killing the unborn.

YAWN...................

LOL.... Let's see, I have in two posts shown that God does not view an unborn as the equivalent of a human being, and provided as simple(because that's all people like you can understand) example of the difference between a fertilized egg and a fully developed organism.

Yet you think I am trying to excuse the "killing" of the unborn.

It's obvious by your one line post that you know I am right, have no retort or anything significant to add... so you chose to throw a personal dig in.

So basically... your whole premise for being Anti-Choice is "because I said so" and you have enough people who have the same philosophy to keep calling other people baby killers and try to reverse a constitutionally upheld law.

But then you folk turn around and slam Democracy as "Mob Rule" and "two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner", I guess you only feel that way when it's something that YOUR mob doesn't like.

you speak for God.

No... the bible does. Perhaps you missed it... go back a page and read the quote from Exodus that I provided.

 

[Inthemiddle]

See the last post.

Then apply science stating it is not alive.

In other words, you're going to repeat the same logical fallacy that I've already pointed out that you're committing, as if repeating it will suddenly make it sound.

Saying that it is "alive" is meaningless. A cold virus is "alive." A fertilized ova is NOT a human being, and saying that "it's alive" to imply it's a human being is nothing more than fallacy of equivocation.

 

[Dragon]

I guess the greater point went over your head.

I guess you ran out of argument and so are now resorting to ad-homs.

Typical.

You wish to define when this is not life for destruction. Then you will say well it is life but not a viable human.

So fucking predictable.

No, I simply wish to demolish a common right-wing deceptive talking-point. The question isn't LIFE, it's PERSONHOOD, and talking about "human life" or "when life begin" is itself a re-framing of the discussion so as to propagate a lie.

Every cell of my body is human life. When a man cuts himself shaving, he kills human life. When two guys get into a brawl in a bar, and one of them bloodies the other's nose, human life has been destroyed. Every month, a non-pregnant woman of childbearing years flushes human life down the toilet.

"Destruction of human life" is trivial; it happens every day and means nothing. What matter is whether or not a PERSON has been killed -- not whether "human life" has been destroyed.

So -- never mind whether a fertilized ovum is "human life," of course it is but that means nothing. Is it a person? And, why or why not? That's what matters.

 

[daveman]

Even if it doesn't, how many lives will be saved in the meantime?

None. There will be alot of lost life, from pregnancies that should have been aborted to save a woman's life but were not, from failed attempts at self abortion, etc. Not to mention, I reject the notion that an embryo is a human life.

In the UK:

Between 1967 and 1990, only 151 abortions have been carried out to save the mother's life, a figure amounting to 0.004% of all abortions. (Dr Michael Jarmulowicz, cited in The Physical and Psycho-Social effects of Abortion on Women: A Report by the Commission of Inquiry into the Operation and Consequences of The Abortion Act, June 1994 p. 5)

In 1992, a group of Ireland's top gynaecologists wrote: "We affirm that there are no medical circumstances justifying direct abortion, that is, no circumstances in which the life of a mother may only be saved by directly terminating the life of her unborn child." (John Bonner, Eamon O'Dwyer, David Jenkins, Kieran O'Driscoll, Julia Vaughan, 'Statement by Obstetricians', The Irish Times 1 April 1992)

When Dublin's National Maternity Hospital (where 10% of all births in Ireland occurred) investigated the 21 deaths of pregnant women there between 1970-1979, they found that not a single one of those deaths could have been avoided by abortion. (Irish Medical Journal 1982 vol. 75, pp. 304-306)

Ireland, a country where the unborn child is constitutionally protected, has the lowest maternal death rate in the world. The UK, where abortion is available practically on demand, has over five times Ireland's maternal death rate. (World Health Organisation: maternal deaths, three-year average)
​

 

[Inthemiddle]

Are you stupid, or just dishonest?

or both?

I'm actually neither. But clearly you are both. Because you're unable to confront the factual elements of what I said, and can only throw out an insult, as if to imply that I'm wrong.

But, if you really do think I'm lying, please, by all means, explain to us how a single cell of your skin is a human being. I'll wait.

 

[Inthemiddle]

a fertilized egg is the beginning of human development.

Please show where it is not.

Actually, no. The development of the ova is the beginning. Later, the sperm is developed, and after that, the two are joined. But it begins with the development of the ova.

 

[USArmyRetired]

Are you stupid, or just dishonest?

or both?

I'm actually neither. But clearly you are both. Because you're unable to confront the factual elements of what I said, and can only throw out an insult, as if to imply that I'm wrong.

But, if you really do think I'm lying, please, by all means, explain to us how a single cell of your skin is a human being. I'll wait.

The question is does a single cell have intelligence?

 

[Inthemiddle]

For a parallel, consider if a doctor arrives on the scene of an accident and there are two patients with life threatening injuries. The doctor can only treat one, and in such circumstances the law doesn't punish the doctor for having to make a decision to save one and not the other. We don't even investigate it.

In the case of a life threatening pregnancy, it's a similar situation. You now have two human beings, both with a life threatening scenario playing out, but if the doctor can only save one, then the doctor has the responsibility to choose who to treat.

Another interesting view, but I'm not sure the triage scenario would actually translate. When a doctor treats one patient and is unable to get to the next, he merely was unsuccessful at delivering treatment. It's not like he looks at the two patients and says "Let me stick this guy with a knife so that I can have the time to treat the other." A doctor performing an abortion to save the mother's life would be more akin to that. Which then raises the question, will the mother be exempt from prosecution, but the doctor culpable?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

False. Life does not begin then. It pre-exists that point, because both the unfertilized ovum and the sperm cell are alive. So are the organs that produce them. "Life" has no beginning, except the origin of life on this planet billions of years ago.

You cannot use biology to justify an anti-choice position. You must make a value judgment, based on what you view as defining a person.

And once the egg is fertile.

Thanks for playing.............

So? It's still not a human being. It's a fertilized egg. Fuck, You ever get eggs from a farm instead of a supermarket? You probably get a fertilized egg one out of every couple of dozen you purchase. Just because that egg is fertilized doesn't make it a chicken.... and it certainly doesn't mean that if you were to eat that egg, that you had a chicken dinner. The truth is... when you come across a fertilized egg... you say.. "oh fuck" and throw the damned thing away.

BTW... you can tell it's fertilized because it will have a little splash of blood in the yolk.... in case you are a city dweller who hasn't seen one.

It's not human!?!

What is it if not human?

Chicken?

Cow?

Elephant?


A scientific textbook called "Basics of Biology" gives five characteristics of living things; these five criteria are found in all modern elementary scientific textbooks:

1. Living things are highly organized.
2. All living things have an ability to acquire materials and energy.
3. All living things have an ability to respond to their environment.
4. All living things have an ability to reproduce.
5. All living things have an ability to adapt.

According to this elementary definition of life, life begins at conception, when a sperm unites with an oocyte. From this moment, the being is highly organized, has the ability to acquire materials and energy, has the ability to respond to the environment, has the ability to adapt, and has the ability to reproduce (the cells divide, then divide again, etc., and barring pathology and pending reproductive maturity has the potential to reproduce other members of the species). Non-living things do not do these things. Even before the mother is aware that she is pregnant, a distinct life has begun to live inside her.

 

[Steelplate]

And once the egg is fertile.

Thanks for playing.............

So? It's still not a human being. It's a fertilized egg. Fuck, You ever get eggs from a farm instead of a supermarket? You probably get a fertilized egg one out of every couple of dozen you purchase. Just because that egg is fertilized doesn't make it a chicken.... and it certainly doesn't mean that if you were to eat that egg, that you had a chicken dinner. The truth is... when you come across a fertilized egg... you say.. "oh fuck" and throw the damned thing away.

BTW... you can tell it's fertilized because it will have a little splash of blood in the yolk.... in case you are a city dweller who hasn't seen one.

It's not human!?!

What is it if not human?

Chicken?

Cow?

Elephant?


A scientific textbook called "Basics of Biology" gives five characteristics of living things; these five criteria are found in all modern elementary scientific textbooks:

1. Living things are highly organized.
2. All living things have an ability to acquire materials and energy.
3. All living things have an ability to respond to their environment.
4. All living things have an ability to reproduce.
5. All living things have an ability to adapt.

According to this elementary definition of life, life begins at conception, when a sperm unites with an oocyte. From this moment, the being is highly organized, has the ability to acquire materials and energy, has the ability to respond to the environment, has the ability to adapt, and has the ability to reproduce (the cells divide, then divide again, etc., and barring pathology and pending reproductive maturity has the potential to reproduce other members of the species). Non-living things do not do these things. Even before the mother is aware that she is pregnant, a distinct life has begun to live inside her.

Didn't say it wasn't human... learn to read. I said it wasn't a human being. as far as the rest... who are you or anyone else to decide what one person does with that life?

 

[Inthemiddle]

[There are competing rights! That's where your wagon's wheels fall off. You deny that the fetus has any rights at all, simply because it exists within its mother's womb and the woman is in the more powerful position.

1) We're talking about fertilized ova. That's a very different thing than a fetus. First, it's a fertilized egg, (a zygote) shortly afterward it becomes a morula, then later a blastocyst, eventually an embryo, and eventually a fetus, and eventually a human being.

2) Your competing rights theory is question begging. Legally, it has no rights, though this measure would seek to extend it the rights of personhood. It's only a valid argument to support this law if we first assume that zygote is a human being entitled to rights.

3) Even if we entertain your competing rights argument, it creates a whole new set of problems. For example, if a woman's ovum becomes fertilized on Monday, and Tuesday she commits a crime and is arrested, what is now a morula will be entitled to the rights to not be incarcerated for a crime the woman committed. Is that what you think is a good solution? As someone mentioned, it would also now be a citizen of the US, which gives rise to a whole new version of the anchor baby.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Roe prohibits late term abortions except in the most extreme circumstances and does not allow post birth abortions at all.

Which is the same as today.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Referendum will define a fertilized egg as a legal person.

Will a miscarriage become murder? Or is that suicide?

This is a mind numbingly extreme measure. And for what? To preempt people's abortion rights? It's not going to do that. The state can define personhood all they want, but if their murder laws are extended to preclude a woman's abortion rights, the Supreme Court will knock down those statutes as violating the US Constitution. But hey, who cares about that, right? Let extremist mindsets reign supreme and enjoy the train wreck in the meantime.

Abortion is murder and no one has that right. But then idiots on the left are so delusional they think they do. If women do not want kids, stop having sex, that simple.

 

[Photonic]

What is mindnumbing stupid is thinking miscarriage could be murder.

Or that a life hasnt been lost when an unborn child dies.

Would you tell any woman who has lost a child due to miscarriage that they should get over it because there was no child? I wouldn't. losing a child is painful. pretending its not a child is just insulting.

There is nothing like seeing a child on the ultrasound for the first time and hearing his/her heart beat. Nothing like it at all.

I don't know the ramnifications of this particular referendum. I only know what I've heard the last few days. But I imagine that God will bless those who protect the life of the unborn. Life is sacred. It's a gift from God. And you may find it mindnumbingly stupid, but that doesnt eliminate the intrinsic beauty of life.

So when sperm is lost, or when a woman goes through her period. That's murder too.

 

[Inthemiddle]

The question is does a single cell have intelligence?

I'm not sure that that really is the question. "Intelligence" is itself rather vague. A great many animals have "intelligence" the question is, how much? But obviously, a zygote does not have intelligence.

 

[Steelplate]

Referendum will define a fertilized egg as a legal person.

Will a miscarriage become murder? Or is that suicide?

This is a mind numbingly extreme measure. And for what? To preempt people's abortion rights? It's not going to do that. The state can define personhood all they want, but if their murder laws are extended to preclude a woman's abortion rights, the Supreme Court will knock down those statutes as violating the US Constitution. But hey, who cares about that, right? Let extremist mindsets reign supreme and enjoy the train wreck in the meantime.

Abortion is murder and no one has that right. But then idiots on the left are so delusional they think they do. If women do not want kids, stop having sex, that simple.

So then you don't believe in the bible... If abortion is the equivalent of murder, then the bible must be wrong... that the man who caused the woman to miscarry should be subject to an eye for an eye and a life for a life.

EDIT:... stop having sex... that simple huh? and you Conservatives accuse liberals of living in a dream world. This is why talking to Conservatives is pretty much the equivalent of beating your head against the wall.

Furthermore... If we are to believe in Jesus' teachings.... Turning the other cheek would mean that the Death Penalty is murder. But that's kind of getting off subject.