Pro-Abortion Lie: “An Acorn Is Not An Oak Tree”

[Bob Blaylock]

This is a lie that those who support the cold-blooded murder of the most innocent and defenseless of all human beings sometimes tell, in order to justify denying the humanity of those victims whose murder they support — “An acorn is not an oak tree.”

I've addressed this lie a few times, by pointing out that if you dissect an acorn, and you know what to look for, you can, in fact, find an oak tree inside of it.

The same is true of the seeds of nearly every seed-bearing plant—that the seed does, in fact, contain an immature form of the very plant that, if given the condition to do so, will grow into a mature plant. It's very easy to see in a peanut, and at least twice, I've posted this picture, showing the immature peanut plant inside of a peanut.

Before today, I'd never actually dissected an acorn. It turns out that an acorn is significantly more difficult than a peanut to dissect, and once you get inside, the immature oak tree is not as obvious as the plant inside of a peanut, but if you know what to look for, and where, it is undeniably there.

This acorn was one of a cluster of two.

The shell is considerably tougher than that of a peanut. I used a cutting disc on my Dremel to cut the shell open and remove it, exposing the cotyledons…

…and then separated the cotyledons…

Unlike the peanut, the embryonic plant inside an acorn is at the end farthest from the stem, and it is much more subtle. What is inside a peanut is undeniable; but to anyone with a basic background in botany, the plant inside of an acorn is recognizable for what it is.

It may not look like much, but that is a tiny oak tree. It is the very same exact thing, the very same organism, which, if this acorn had been allowed to sprout, would have eventually become a grand organism that everyone would clearly recognize as a mighty oak tree. This is that tree, in its immature form; just as a human zygote, from the moment of conception, is a human being, and is the same organism, which, allowed to develop and grow, would become what we clearly recognize as a man or a woman.


Abortion is not only evil; it is not only murder; it is also the rejection and repudiation of basic, undeniable science.

See also, this thread:

Meet baby Olivia — A Never Before Seen Look At Human Life In The Womb

Some personal commentary is obligatory, but really, what can I possibly say, to add anything to this? https://babyolivia.liveaction.org/

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[mamooth]

You try to claim an acorn _is_ an oak tree, and you don't expect to be laughed at? Get used to disappointment. An acorn is not an oak tree, and a zygote is not a human being.

Normal people know specks aren't human beings. Even my cat knows it, and she has a brain the size of a walnut. Speck. Person. Speck. Person. Definitely different things. Pro-lifers presumably have larger brains, so they know it as well. They just choose to lie about it.

 

[toobfreak]

An Acorn Is Not An Oak Tree​

Enjoyed your clear macro photography Bob, and your scientific approach, and of course an acorn is an oak! It HAS to be! I never saw an oak tree that didn't start out as one, you can't GET an oak tree without one, and since we are all multicellular creatures, whether an acorn or a fetus, both are just really shrunk down miniatures (fewer cells) of the adult version! But both carry the exact same set of instructions.

When you abort a fetus, you are undeniably killing a human life.

There just ain't no way around that fact.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

You try to claim an acorn _is_ an oak tree, and you don't expect to be laughed at? Get used to disappointment. An acorn is not an oak tree, and a zygote is not a human being.

Normal people know specks aren't human beings. Even my cat knows it, and she has a brain the size of a walnut. Speck. Person. Speck. Person. Definitely different things. Pro-lifers presumably have larger brains, so they know it as well. They just choose to lie about it.

Simple and obvious science shows that you baby-murderers are full of shit.

 

[Stann]

This is a lie that those who support the cold-blooded murder of the most innocent and defenseless of all human beings sometimes tell, in order to justify denying the humanity of those victims whose murder they support — “An acorn is not an oak tree.”

I've addressed this lie a few times, by pointing out that if you dissect an acorn, and you know what to look for, you can, in fact, find an oak tree inside of it.

The same is true of the seeds of nearly every seed-bearing plant—that the seed does, in fact, contain an immature form of the very plant that, if given the condition to do so, will grow into a mature plant. It's very easy to see in a peanut, and at least twice, I've posted this picture, showing the immature peanut plant inside of a peanut.

View attachment 688553

Before today, I'd never actually dissected an acorn. It turns out that an acorn is significantly more difficult than a peanut to dissect, and once you get inside, the immature oak tree is not as obvious as the plant inside of a peanut, but if you know what to look for, and where, it is undeniably there.

This acorn was one of a cluster of two.

View attachment 688554View attachment 688555


The shell is considerably tougher than that of a peanut. I used a cutting disc on my Dremel to cut the shell open and remove it, exposing the cotyledons…

View attachment 688556


…and then separated the cotyledons…

View attachment 688557

Unlike the peanut, the embryonic plant inside an acorn is at the end farthest from the stem, and it is much more subtle. What is inside a peanut is undeniable; but to anyone with a basic background in botany, the plant inside of an acorn is recognizable for what it is.

View attachment 688558

It may not look like much, but that is a tiny oak tree. It is the very same exact thing, the very same organism, which, if this acorn had been allowed to sprout, would have eventually become a grand organism that everyone would clearly recognize as a mighty oak tree. This is that tree, in its immature form; just as a human zygote, from the moment of conception, is a human being, and is the same organism, which, allowed to develop and grow, would become what we clearly recognize as a man or a woman.


Abortion is not only evil; it is not only murder; it is also the rejection and repudiation of basic, undeniable science.

See also, this thread:

Meet baby Olivia — A Never Before Seen Look At Human Life In The Womb

Some personal commentary is obligatory, but really, what can I possibly say, to add anything to this? https://babyolivia.liveaction.org/

www.usmessageboard.com

Even in your article you referred to receive material as an embryo. That makes all the difference in the world.

 

[JoeB131]

The thing is, the vast majority of acorns never become trees. Most are gathered up by squirrels. Some are crushed underfoot. a very few might turn into small trees, but most of them don't survive the first year... The forest is actually kind of tough.

Now, here's the thing. Most zygotes don't turn into people. two thirds of them never attach the uterine wall, and about half the ones that do end in miscarriage or abortion. And we are lucky that we live in the age we do, because up until about a century go, about half the babies born didn't survive childhood.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Even in your article you referred to receive material as an embryo. That makes all the difference in the world.

No difference at all.

The embryonic oak plant inside of an corn is the exact same living organism that, in a later stage of its life, would be a mighty oak tree. It's the exact same form of life, at a different stage of its life.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

You try to claim an acorn _is_ an oak tree

A young Quercus alba is still a Quercus alba, no matter what idiots like you laugh at.

 

[Moonglow]

This is a lie that those who support the cold-blooded murder of the most innocent and defenseless of all human beings sometimes tell, in order to justify denying the humanity of those victims whose murder they support — “An acorn is not an oak tree.”

I've addressed this lie a few times, by pointing out that if you dissect an acorn, and you know what to look for, you can, in fact, find an oak tree inside of it.

The same is true of the seeds of nearly every seed-bearing plant—that the seed does, in fact, contain an immature form of the very plant that, if given the condition to do so, will grow into a mature plant. It's very easy to see in a peanut, and at least twice, I've posted this picture, showing the immature peanut plant inside of a peanut.

View attachment 688553

Before today, I'd never actually dissected an acorn. It turns out that an acorn is significantly more difficult than a peanut to dissect, and once you get inside, the immature oak tree is not as obvious as the plant inside of a peanut, but if you know what to look for, and where, it is undeniably there.

This acorn was one of a cluster of two.

View attachment 688554View attachment 688555


The shell is considerably tougher than that of a peanut. I used a cutting disc on my Dremel to cut the shell open and remove it, exposing the cotyledons…

View attachment 688556


…and then separated the cotyledons…

View attachment 688557

Unlike the peanut, the embryonic plant inside an acorn is at the end farthest from the stem, and it is much more subtle. What is inside a peanut is undeniable; but to anyone with a basic background in botany, the plant inside of an acorn is recognizable for what it is.

View attachment 688558

It may not look like much, but that is a tiny oak tree. It is the very same exact thing, the very same organism, which, if this acorn had been allowed to sprout, would have eventually become a grand organism that everyone would clearly recognize as a mighty oak tree. This is that tree, in its immature form; just as a human zygote, from the moment of conception, is a human being, and is the same organism, which, allowed to develop and grow, would become what we clearly recognize as a man or a woman.


Abortion is not only evil; it is not only murder; it is also the rejection and repudiation of basic, undeniable science.

See also, this thread:

Meet baby Olivia — A Never Before Seen Look At Human Life In The Womb

Some personal commentary is obligatory, but really, what can I possibly say, to add anything to this? https://babyolivia.liveaction.org/

www.usmessageboard.com

Then why has God killed so many?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The thing is, the vast majority of acorns never become trees. Most are gathered up by squirrels. Some are crushed underfoot. a very few might turn into small trees, but most of them don't survive the first year... The forest is actually kind of tough.

Now, here's the thing. Most zygotes don't turn into people. two thirds of them never attach the uterine wall, and about half the ones that do end in miscarriage or abortion. And we are lucky that we live in the age we do, because up until about a century go, about half the babies born didn't survive childhood.

Natural death does not mean that a given organism was never a living example of its species. Many forms of life produce large numbers of offspring, of which only a small portion live to produce further offspring. Some spiders lay hundreds of eggs at a time, the eggs hatch, the spiderlings disperse, and few of them live long enough to mate and produce more offspring. It's common, among lower forms of life, to reproduce according to a strategy that produces large numbers of offpring, with only the few strongest and fittest surviving to adulthood.

An uncle and an aunt on my father's side of the family each lived less than a day after being born, and an uncle on my mother's side died as a toddler. Were they never human beings?

 

[Stann]

No difference at all.

The embryonic oak plant inside of an corn is the exact same living organism that, in a later stage of its life, would be a mighty oak tree. It's the exact same form of life, at a different stage of its life.

The same exact genetic material correct
It also occurs in dead trees. No big deal it's part of being physical.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The same exact genetic material correct
It also occurs in dead trees. No big deal it's part of being physical.

Do you understand that there is a difference between dead material from the remains of a once-living organism, and live tissue that is part of a living organism?

 

[Stann]

Do you understand that there is a difference between dead material from the remains of a once-living organism, and live tissue that is part of a living organism?

Dah ! Do you understand the concept of self-awareness. It doesn't exist in a fetus until the 24th through 28th week of pregnancy. Long after most abortions occur.

 

[JoeB131]

Natural death does not mean that a given organism was never a living example of its species. Many forms of life produce large numbers of offspring, of which only a small portion live to produce further offspring. Some spiders lay hundreds of eggs at a time, the eggs hatch, the spiderlings disperse, and few of them live long enough to mate and produce more offspring. It's common, among lower forms of life, to reproduce according to a strategy that produces large numbers of offpring, with only the few strongest and fittest surviving to adulthood.

An uncle and an aunt on my father's side of the family each lived less than a day after being born, and an uncle on my mother's side died as a toddler. Were they never human beings?

Sure they were... but here's the thing. People back in the oldy days used to have more kids than they needed to maintain replacement numbers BECAUSE so many of them died in infancy or childhood. Not to mention the 10% of women who died in Childbirth.

In fact, a male child reaching five years old was considered a source of celebration when he could finally wear pants. Before that age, they wore little gowns, usually used by the ones who previously died. When the boys hit five years old, they had a celebration called a "Breaching Ceremony".

So a certain percentage of them were ALWAYS meant to die. And normally you'd be fine with that. You'd probably even justify it as "God's Will" when it happens naturally.

But then this funny thing happened. Man decided to take over from God. Man decided to cure the famines and the diseases, so the infant mortality rate is below 1% in even the poorest countries. Man also decided with Zygotes or Embryos or Fetuses weren't going to make it by perfecting various forms of contraception, including abortion. Man developed procedures like Caesarian Sections, which meant birth was no longer a death sentence for the woman.

And frankly, this is a good thing. or at least better than the alternatives.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

You try to claim an acorn _is_ an oak tree, and you don't expect to be laughed at? Get used to disappointment. An acorn is not an oak tree, and a zygote is not a human being.

Normal people know specks aren't human beings. Even my cat knows it, and she has a brain the size of a walnut. Speck. Person. Speck. Person. Definitely different things. Pro-lifers presumably have larger brains, so they know it as well. They just choose to lie about it.

A "zygote" is only a stage of development. A "human zygote" is HUMAN.
You idiots are demonic

 

[Stann]

A young Quercus alba is still a Quercus alba, no matter what idiots like you laugh at.

A young white oak is called a sapling just like young people are called children. And yes they are both the same as adults just smaller versions. A zygote, blastula, embryo and fetus on the other hand cannot be called a person. Just as an acorn cannot be called a tree. I keep stating the obvious but you want to ignore that sorry unless you change the laws of physics it's not going to work for you.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

…just like young people are called children. And yes they are both the same as adults just smaller versions. A zygote, blastula, embryo and fetus on the other hand cannot be called a person.

All are the same living organism. the same human being, at different stages of life.

 

[Stann]

All are the same living organism. the same human being, at different stages of life.

I stand by my statement it is the truth. Your statement is also correct. But trying to say it's a person is not correct.