Life begins at conception? So you can take the zygote out of the women and it will live on its own ?
They're placed in a woman all the time and it results in a live birth. So yes it is alive, until it dies, just like you.
Last edited:
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Life begins at conception? So you can take the zygote out of the women and it will live on its own ?
Actually yes! there are examples of cloning that do even more than that by using a microprobe to insert the male dna into the ova. It is you ignorant liberally educated to be low mental capacity followers.Life begins at conception? So you can take the zygote out of the women and it will live on its own ?
You see anything that isn't in the bible 2,000 years ago is bad. You're not going to find logic or sense in discussing shit with these cock sucking republicans.
Do you understand the difference between the phrases "life begins" and "life is self-sustainable"? No? What a shame.Life begins at conception? So you can take the zygote out of the women and it will live on its own ?
If it's not sustainable then it hasn't begun. You draw the arbitrary line at conception , but why not before ? EVERY SPERM IS SACRED!
Do you understand the difference between the phrases "life begins" and "life is self-sustainable"? No? What a shame.Life begins at conception? So you can take the zygote out of the women and it will live on its own ?
If it's not sustainable then it hasn't begun. You draw the arbitrary line at conception , but why not before ? EVERY SPERM IS SACRED!
How well could you sustain yourself the day you were born, without mom you would have died. No different than a fetus, just a slightly different supply chain.
.
That's exactly what you said - liar. You said self-sustainability is the indication of when life starts. If those people aren't self-sustainable in an ICU, then clearly their life has not started yet. That's your definition chief - own it.It can't be! According to you - someone on life support was never alive. After all, you claim the ability to self-sustain is the criteria of life (even though science has already proven otherwise).Turning off life support is murder ?
Ummm, I never said that .
Psst....this is a prime example of why it is a bad idea to deny science.
Again dimwit...it is scientific fact that life has begun at conception. Do you have any idea how many lives are sitting in Intensive Care Units across the country as we speak that are hooked to life-support machines because their current condition is unsustainable for life? Does that mean their life "hasn't begun"? Dumb ass.If it's not sustainable then it hasn't begun.
Turning off life support is murder ?
You see anything that isn't in the bible 2,000 years ago is bad. You're not going to find logic or sense in discussing shit with these cock sucking republicans.
The fundamental difference is that the right lies about the left at every opportunity, and feels no guilt whatsoever over doing so, being that "the ends always justify the means for my own side" is the only moral standard they possess.There is basic left-liberal concept at work that is PRE-DISPOSED to denying science. And it's FUNDAMENTAL to the difference in thinking between the left and the right. And that is the belief that the left can legislate EVERYTHING in life to be 'risk-free'.
they won't ACCEPT that ANY detectable level of pollutant or poison is benign.
Actually yes! there are examples of cloning that do even more than that by using a microprobe to insert the male dna into the ova. It is you ignorant liberally educated to be low mental capacity followers.
The fundamental difference is that the right lies about the left at every opportunity, and feels no guilt whatsoever over doing so, being that "the ends always justify the means for my own side" is the only moral standard they possess.There is basic left-liberal concept at work that is PRE-DISPOSED to denying science. And it's FUNDAMENTAL to the difference in thinking between the left and the right. And that is the belief that the left can legislate EVERYTHING in life to be 'risk-free'.
Needless to say, nobody on the left thinks like that. Righties make up stories like that to deflect from their current open science denial and environmental rape. It used to be that a conservative could be an environmentalist, but not any more. They're all now science deniers and environment-rapers. TheParty told the conservative environmentalists to start mouthing the party line or be cast out, and so they all rolled over and showed their bellies and begged not to be kicked. Now, they all sing the praises of every bit of pseudoscience their party passes down, and constantly make excuses as to why the latest environmental travesty is really a wonderful thing.
they won't ACCEPT that ANY detectable level of pollutant or poison is benign.
Such a vivid imagination, and he's putting it to work in service of his anti-science cult.
Do you understand the difference between the phrases "life begins" and "life is self-sustainable"? No? What a shame.Life begins at conception? So you can take the zygote out of the women and it will live on its own ?
If it's not sustainable then it hasn't begun. You draw the arbitrary line at conception , but why not before ? EVERY SPERM IS SACRED!
How well could you sustain yourself the day you were born, without mom you would have died. No different than a fetus, just a slightly different supply chain.
.
I could've lived for hours on my own. Or someone else could take care of me . The same can't be said for the zygote .
Yeah...and after 150 years....science has completely disproven it. Leave it to a left-wing regressive to insist that climate science was better in 1867 than it is today.
EVERYONE on the left FIGHTS to create a "zero-risk" society... Economically and public safety wise.
And since science can now measure ever tinier TRACES of poison and pollutants, they insist on going down that road to zero risk.
The only argument you ever have is conspiracy theory retardation.