Amy Barrett Couldn't Be More Wrong

[citygator]

Oh great another abortion thread by men who want to tell women what to do with their bodies. Zzzzzzz

Moron......the unborn human being is not 'their body.'

You failed high school biology, huh?

Now, take notes:


The unborn human receiving sustenance from its mother, is, nonetheless, a separate and distinct human being.

There are a number of clear biological facts, and all sorts of legal precedents, that easily refute the claim that the embryo or fetus is simply part of the mother's body.

1. An individual's body parts all share the same genetic code. If the unborn child were actually a part of the mother's body, the unborn's cells would have the same genetic code as the cells of the mother. This is not the case. Every cell of the unborn's body is genetically distinct from every cell in the mother's body.
2. In many cases, the blood type of the unborn child is different than the blood type of the mother. Since one body cannot function with two different blood types, this is clearly not the mother's blood.
3. In half of all pregnancies, the unborn child is a male, meaning that even the sex of the child is different from the mother.
4. As Randy Alcorn states in his book Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, "A Chinese zygote implanted in a Swedish woman will always be Chinese, not Swedish, because his identity is based on his genetic code, not on that of the body in which he resides."1
5. It is possible for a fetus to die while the mother lives, and it is possible for the mother to die while the fetus lives. This could not be true if the mother and child were simply one person.
6. When the embryo implants in the lining of the uterus, it emits chemical substances which weaken the woman's immune system within the uterus so that this tiny "foreign" body is not rejected by the woman's body. Were this tiny embryo simply "part of the woman's body" there would be no need to locally disable the woman's immunities.
7. It is illegal to execute a pregnant woman on death row because the fetus living inside her is a distinct human being who cannot be executed for the crimes of the mother (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Article 6.5).
8. When Scott Peterson killed his pregnant wife, Laci, he was convicted on two counts of murder.
9. Sir Albert Liley (the "Father of Fetology") made this observation in a 1970 speech entitled, "The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?"

Physiologically, we must accept that the conceptus is, in a very large measure, in charge of the pregnancy.... Biologically, at no stage can we subscribe to the view that the fetus is a mere appendage of the mother.2

1. The late Christopher Hitchens, a prominent public intellectual, atheist, and abortion advocate wrote the following in his book, God is Not Great:

As a materialist, I think it has been demonstrated that an embryo is a separate body and entity, and not merely (as some really did used to argue) a growth on or in the female body. There used to be feminists who would say that it was more like an appendix or even—this was seriously maintained—a tumor. That nonsense seems to have stopped… Embryology confirms morality. The words “unborn child,” even when used in a politicized manner, describe a material reality.3

Hitchens had other reasons for supporting legal abortion, but he recognized the absurdity of claiming that unborn children are simply part of the mother's body.

No matter how you spin it, women don't have four arms and four legs when they're pregnant. Those extra appendages belong to the tiny human being(s) living inside of them. At no point in pregnancy is the developing embryo or fetus simply a part of the mother's body.

Footnotes

1. Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments (Multnomah Publishers, 2000) p. 57.
2. Sir William Albert Liley,“The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?” cited by Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, 58.
3. Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (Hachette Book Group. Kindle Edition, 2009), 378-379.

Part of the Mother’s Body?

The slogan,

www.abort73.com

Is there any argument for the "right" of a woman to authorize the killing of her unborn baby that would not apply to her authorizing the similar slaughter of a year old that she was breastfeeding?

Meh. My wife had two miscarries and two successful pregnancies. When people ask me I don’t say I have 4 kids but two passed away. There is your answer. Your fetus is not a kid.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Oh great another abortion thread by men who want to tell women what to do with their bodies. Zzzzzzz

Moron......the unborn human being is not 'their body.'

You failed high school biology, huh?

Now, take notes:


The unborn human receiving sustenance from its mother, is, nonetheless, a separate and distinct human being.

There are a number of clear biological facts, and all sorts of legal precedents, that easily refute the claim that the embryo or fetus is simply part of the mother's body.

1. An individual's body parts all share the same genetic code. If the unborn child were actually a part of the mother's body, the unborn's cells would have the same genetic code as the cells of the mother. This is not the case. Every cell of the unborn's body is genetically distinct from every cell in the mother's body.
2. In many cases, the blood type of the unborn child is different than the blood type of the mother. Since one body cannot function with two different blood types, this is clearly not the mother's blood.
3. In half of all pregnancies, the unborn child is a male, meaning that even the sex of the child is different from the mother.
4. As Randy Alcorn states in his book Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, "A Chinese zygote implanted in a Swedish woman will always be Chinese, not Swedish, because his identity is based on his genetic code, not on that of the body in which he resides."1
5. It is possible for a fetus to die while the mother lives, and it is possible for the mother to die while the fetus lives. This could not be true if the mother and child were simply one person.
6. When the embryo implants in the lining of the uterus, it emits chemical substances which weaken the woman's immune system within the uterus so that this tiny "foreign" body is not rejected by the woman's body. Were this tiny embryo simply "part of the woman's body" there would be no need to locally disable the woman's immunities.
7. It is illegal to execute a pregnant woman on death row because the fetus living inside her is a distinct human being who cannot be executed for the crimes of the mother (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Article 6.5).
8. When Scott Peterson killed his pregnant wife, Laci, he was convicted on two counts of murder.
9. Sir Albert Liley (the "Father of Fetology") made this observation in a 1970 speech entitled, "The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?"

Physiologically, we must accept that the conceptus is, in a very large measure, in charge of the pregnancy.... Biologically, at no stage can we subscribe to the view that the fetus is a mere appendage of the mother.2

1. The late Christopher Hitchens, a prominent public intellectual, atheist, and abortion advocate wrote the following in his book, God is Not Great:

As a materialist, I think it has been demonstrated that an embryo is a separate body and entity, and not merely (as some really did used to argue) a growth on or in the female body. There used to be feminists who would say that it was more like an appendix or even—this was seriously maintained—a tumor. That nonsense seems to have stopped… Embryology confirms morality. The words “unborn child,” even when used in a politicized manner, describe a material reality.3

Hitchens had other reasons for supporting legal abortion, but he recognized the absurdity of claiming that unborn children are simply part of the mother's body.

No matter how you spin it, women don't have four arms and four legs when they're pregnant. Those extra appendages belong to the tiny human being(s) living inside of them. At no point in pregnancy is the developing embryo or fetus simply a part of the mother's body.

Footnotes

1. Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments (Multnomah Publishers, 2000) p. 57.
2. Sir William Albert Liley,“The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?” cited by Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, 58.
3. Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (Hachette Book Group. Kindle Edition, 2009), 378-379.

Part of the Mother’s Body?

The slogan,

www.abort73.com

Is there any argument for the "right" of a woman to authorize the killing of her unborn baby that would not apply to her authorizing the similar slaughter of a year old that she was breastfeeding?

Meh. My wife had two miscarries and two successful pregnancies. When people ask me I don’t say I have 4 kids but two passed away. There is your answer. Your fetus is not a kid.

Two separate and distinct human beings, you moron.


“In fact, abortion as birth control is implicit in their new set of revisions to the Democratic Party platform. The latest version of the DNC document calls for revocation of all restrictions on abortion at the state and federal levels — yes, all, including partial-birth abortion, the gruesome procedure in which late-term children are carved up in the womb. They want you to fund abortions, too, both at home and abroad.” Ben Shapiro When Abortion Fans Let the Truth Slip out, by Ben Shapiro

In short, you will be voting for infanticide.

 

[citygator]

Oh great another abortion thread by men who want to tell women what to do with their bodies. Zzzzzzz

Moron......the unborn human being is not 'their body.'

You failed high school biology, huh?

Now, take notes:


The unborn human receiving sustenance from its mother, is, nonetheless, a separate and distinct human being.

There are a number of clear biological facts, and all sorts of legal precedents, that easily refute the claim that the embryo or fetus is simply part of the mother's body.

1. An individual's body parts all share the same genetic code. If the unborn child were actually a part of the mother's body, the unborn's cells would have the same genetic code as the cells of the mother. This is not the case. Every cell of the unborn's body is genetically distinct from every cell in the mother's body.
2. In many cases, the blood type of the unborn child is different than the blood type of the mother. Since one body cannot function with two different blood types, this is clearly not the mother's blood.
3. In half of all pregnancies, the unborn child is a male, meaning that even the sex of the child is different from the mother.
4. As Randy Alcorn states in his book Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, "A Chinese zygote implanted in a Swedish woman will always be Chinese, not Swedish, because his identity is based on his genetic code, not on that of the body in which he resides."1
5. It is possible for a fetus to die while the mother lives, and it is possible for the mother to die while the fetus lives. This could not be true if the mother and child were simply one person.
6. When the embryo implants in the lining of the uterus, it emits chemical substances which weaken the woman's immune system within the uterus so that this tiny "foreign" body is not rejected by the woman's body. Were this tiny embryo simply "part of the woman's body" there would be no need to locally disable the woman's immunities.
7. It is illegal to execute a pregnant woman on death row because the fetus living inside her is a distinct human being who cannot be executed for the crimes of the mother (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Article 6.5).
8. When Scott Peterson killed his pregnant wife, Laci, he was convicted on two counts of murder.
9. Sir Albert Liley (the "Father of Fetology") made this observation in a 1970 speech entitled, "The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?"

Physiologically, we must accept that the conceptus is, in a very large measure, in charge of the pregnancy.... Biologically, at no stage can we subscribe to the view that the fetus is a mere appendage of the mother.2

1. The late Christopher Hitchens, a prominent public intellectual, atheist, and abortion advocate wrote the following in his book, God is Not Great:

As a materialist, I think it has been demonstrated that an embryo is a separate body and entity, and not merely (as some really did used to argue) a growth on or in the female body. There used to be feminists who would say that it was more like an appendix or even—this was seriously maintained—a tumor. That nonsense seems to have stopped… Embryology confirms morality. The words “unborn child,” even when used in a politicized manner, describe a material reality.3

Hitchens had other reasons for supporting legal abortion, but he recognized the absurdity of claiming that unborn children are simply part of the mother's body.

No matter how you spin it, women don't have four arms and four legs when they're pregnant. Those extra appendages belong to the tiny human being(s) living inside of them. At no point in pregnancy is the developing embryo or fetus simply a part of the mother's body.

Footnotes

1. Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments (Multnomah Publishers, 2000) p. 57.
2. Sir William Albert Liley,“The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?” cited by Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, 58.
3. Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (Hachette Book Group. Kindle Edition, 2009), 378-379.

Part of the Mother’s Body?

The slogan,

www.abort73.com

Is there any argument for the "right" of a woman to authorize the killing of her unborn baby that would not apply to her authorizing the similar slaughter of a year old that she was breastfeeding?

Meh. My wife had two miscarries and two successful pregnancies. When people ask me I don’t say I have 4 kids but two passed away. There is your answer. Your fetus is not a kid.

Two separate and distinct human beings, you moron.


“In fact, abortion as birth control is implicit in their new set of revisions to the Democratic Party platform. The latest version of the DNC document calls for revocation of all restrictions on abortion at the state and federal levels — yes, all, including partial-birth abortion, the gruesome procedure in which late-term children are carved up in the womb. They want you to fund abortions, too, both at home and abroad.” Ben Shapiro When Abortion Fans Let the Truth Slip out, by Ben Shapiro

In short, you will be voting for infanticide.

You are a copy and paste warrior. Answer my question. So I had 4 kids and 2 died on me? Should I have named the 12 week old fetus or the 8 week old one and had funerals? Have you ever had kids? Ever have a miscarriage? Can you at all comprehend the difference?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Oh great another abortion thread by men who want to tell women what to do with their bodies. Zzzzzzz

Moron......the unborn human being is not 'their body.'

You failed high school biology, huh?

Now, take notes:


The unborn human receiving sustenance from its mother, is, nonetheless, a separate and distinct human being.

There are a number of clear biological facts, and all sorts of legal precedents, that easily refute the claim that the embryo or fetus is simply part of the mother's body.

1. An individual's body parts all share the same genetic code. If the unborn child were actually a part of the mother's body, the unborn's cells would have the same genetic code as the cells of the mother. This is not the case. Every cell of the unborn's body is genetically distinct from every cell in the mother's body.
2. In many cases, the blood type of the unborn child is different than the blood type of the mother. Since one body cannot function with two different blood types, this is clearly not the mother's blood.
3. In half of all pregnancies, the unborn child is a male, meaning that even the sex of the child is different from the mother.
4. As Randy Alcorn states in his book Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, "A Chinese zygote implanted in a Swedish woman will always be Chinese, not Swedish, because his identity is based on his genetic code, not on that of the body in which he resides."1
5. It is possible for a fetus to die while the mother lives, and it is possible for the mother to die while the fetus lives. This could not be true if the mother and child were simply one person.
6. When the embryo implants in the lining of the uterus, it emits chemical substances which weaken the woman's immune system within the uterus so that this tiny "foreign" body is not rejected by the woman's body. Were this tiny embryo simply "part of the woman's body" there would be no need to locally disable the woman's immunities.
7. It is illegal to execute a pregnant woman on death row because the fetus living inside her is a distinct human being who cannot be executed for the crimes of the mother (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Article 6.5).
8. When Scott Peterson killed his pregnant wife, Laci, he was convicted on two counts of murder.
9. Sir Albert Liley (the "Father of Fetology") made this observation in a 1970 speech entitled, "The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?"

Physiologically, we must accept that the conceptus is, in a very large measure, in charge of the pregnancy.... Biologically, at no stage can we subscribe to the view that the fetus is a mere appendage of the mother.2

1. The late Christopher Hitchens, a prominent public intellectual, atheist, and abortion advocate wrote the following in his book, God is Not Great:

As a materialist, I think it has been demonstrated that an embryo is a separate body and entity, and not merely (as some really did used to argue) a growth on or in the female body. There used to be feminists who would say that it was more like an appendix or even—this was seriously maintained—a tumor. That nonsense seems to have stopped… Embryology confirms morality. The words “unborn child,” even when used in a politicized manner, describe a material reality.3

Hitchens had other reasons for supporting legal abortion, but he recognized the absurdity of claiming that unborn children are simply part of the mother's body.

No matter how you spin it, women don't have four arms and four legs when they're pregnant. Those extra appendages belong to the tiny human being(s) living inside of them. At no point in pregnancy is the developing embryo or fetus simply a part of the mother's body.

Footnotes

1. Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments (Multnomah Publishers, 2000) p. 57.
2. Sir William Albert Liley,“The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?” cited by Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, 58.
3. Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (Hachette Book Group. Kindle Edition, 2009), 378-379.

Part of the Mother’s Body?

The slogan,

www.abort73.com

Is there any argument for the "right" of a woman to authorize the killing of her unborn baby that would not apply to her authorizing the similar slaughter of a year old that she was breastfeeding?

Meh. My wife had two miscarries and two successful pregnancies. When people ask me I don’t say I have 4 kids but two passed away. There is your answer. Your fetus is not a kid.

Two separate and distinct human beings, you moron.


“In fact, abortion as birth control is implicit in their new set of revisions to the Democratic Party platform. The latest version of the DNC document calls for revocation of all restrictions on abortion at the state and federal levels — yes, all, including partial-birth abortion, the gruesome procedure in which late-term children are carved up in the womb. They want you to fund abortions, too, both at home and abroad.” Ben Shapiro When Abortion Fans Let the Truth Slip out, by Ben Shapiro

In short, you will be voting for infanticide.

You are a copy and paste warrior. Answer my question. So I had 4 kids and 2 died on me? Should I have named the 12 week old fetus or the 8 week old one and had funerals? Have you ever had kids? Ever have a miscarriage? Can you at all comprehend the difference?

You will not be allowed to change the subject, to run from what you posted.


You claimed the unborn is a woman's body.

I proved it is not, any more than it is when a six month old is breast feeding.


You support goes to the party of infanticide.


Admit it, and accept the contumely that comes with that view, you pagan.

 

[citygator]

Oh great another abortion thread by men who want to tell women what to do with their bodies. Zzzzzzz

Moron......the unborn human being is not 'their body.'

You failed high school biology, huh?

Now, take notes:


The unborn human receiving sustenance from its mother, is, nonetheless, a separate and distinct human being.

There are a number of clear biological facts, and all sorts of legal precedents, that easily refute the claim that the embryo or fetus is simply part of the mother's body.

1. An individual's body parts all share the same genetic code. If the unborn child were actually a part of the mother's body, the unborn's cells would have the same genetic code as the cells of the mother. This is not the case. Every cell of the unborn's body is genetically distinct from every cell in the mother's body.
2. In many cases, the blood type of the unborn child is different than the blood type of the mother. Since one body cannot function with two different blood types, this is clearly not the mother's blood.
3. In half of all pregnancies, the unborn child is a male, meaning that even the sex of the child is different from the mother.
4. As Randy Alcorn states in his book Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, "A Chinese zygote implanted in a Swedish woman will always be Chinese, not Swedish, because his identity is based on his genetic code, not on that of the body in which he resides."1
5. It is possible for a fetus to die while the mother lives, and it is possible for the mother to die while the fetus lives. This could not be true if the mother and child were simply one person.
6. When the embryo implants in the lining of the uterus, it emits chemical substances which weaken the woman's immune system within the uterus so that this tiny "foreign" body is not rejected by the woman's body. Were this tiny embryo simply "part of the woman's body" there would be no need to locally disable the woman's immunities.
7. It is illegal to execute a pregnant woman on death row because the fetus living inside her is a distinct human being who cannot be executed for the crimes of the mother (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Article 6.5).
8. When Scott Peterson killed his pregnant wife, Laci, he was convicted on two counts of murder.
9. Sir Albert Liley (the "Father of Fetology") made this observation in a 1970 speech entitled, "The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?"

Physiologically, we must accept that the conceptus is, in a very large measure, in charge of the pregnancy.... Biologically, at no stage can we subscribe to the view that the fetus is a mere appendage of the mother.2

1. The late Christopher Hitchens, a prominent public intellectual, atheist, and abortion advocate wrote the following in his book, God is Not Great:

As a materialist, I think it has been demonstrated that an embryo is a separate body and entity, and not merely (as some really did used to argue) a growth on or in the female body. There used to be feminists who would say that it was more like an appendix or even—this was seriously maintained—a tumor. That nonsense seems to have stopped… Embryology confirms morality. The words “unborn child,” even when used in a politicized manner, describe a material reality.3

Hitchens had other reasons for supporting legal abortion, but he recognized the absurdity of claiming that unborn children are simply part of the mother's body.

No matter how you spin it, women don't have four arms and four legs when they're pregnant. Those extra appendages belong to the tiny human being(s) living inside of them. At no point in pregnancy is the developing embryo or fetus simply a part of the mother's body.

Footnotes

1. Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments (Multnomah Publishers, 2000) p. 57.
2. Sir William Albert Liley,“The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?” cited by Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, 58.
3. Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (Hachette Book Group. Kindle Edition, 2009), 378-379.

Part of the Mother’s Body?

The slogan,

www.abort73.com

Is there any argument for the "right" of a woman to authorize the killing of her unborn baby that would not apply to her authorizing the similar slaughter of a year old that she was breastfeeding?

Meh. My wife had two miscarries and two successful pregnancies. When people ask me I don’t say I have 4 kids but two passed away. There is your answer. Your fetus is not a kid.

Two separate and distinct human beings, you moron.


“In fact, abortion as birth control is implicit in their new set of revisions to the Democratic Party platform. The latest version of the DNC document calls for revocation of all restrictions on abortion at the state and federal levels — yes, all, including partial-birth abortion, the gruesome procedure in which late-term children are carved up in the womb. They want you to fund abortions, too, both at home and abroad.” Ben Shapiro When Abortion Fans Let the Truth Slip out, by Ben Shapiro

In short, you will be voting for infanticide.

You are a copy and paste warrior. Answer my question. So I had 4 kids and 2 died on me? Should I have named the 12 week old fetus or the 8 week old one and had funerals? Have you ever had kids? Ever have a miscarriage? Can you at all comprehend the difference?

You will not be allowed to change the subject, to run from what you posted.


You claimed the unborn is a woman's body.

I proved it is not, any more than it is when a six month old is breast feeding.


You support goes to the party of infanticide.


Admit it, and accept the contumely that comes with that view, you pagan.

Sounds like you know nothing of bringing a life into the world. I’ve seen my wife do it twice. I’ve seen her body fail to produce a life out of her body as well. We didn’t lose two kids. Therefore no life was lost, simply her body failed to produce a life.

The vast majority of miscarries occur without the knowledge of the woman knowing.

 

[harmonica]

1. The following was Barrett's response when asked about anti-religion bigotry.

"...I think when you step back and you think about the debate about whether someone’s religion has any bearing on their fitness for office, it seems to me that the premise of the question is that people of faith would have a uniquely difficult time separating out their moral commitments from their obligation to apply the law. And I think people of faith should reject that premise,” she added.

“All people, of course– well, we hope, most people– have deeply held moral convictions, whether or not they come from faith. People who have no faith, people who are not religious, have deeply held moral convictions,” Barrett noted. “And it’s just as important for those people to be sure– I just spent time talking about the job of a judge being to set aside moral convictions, personal moral convictions, and personal preferences, and follow the law. That’s a challenge for those of faith and for those who have no faith.”

Amy Coney Barrett Gave a Perfect Response to Anti-Religious Bigotry

pjmedia.com

2. She said the above in the context of "whether someone is Catholic or Jewish or Evangelical or Muslim or has no faith at all is irrelevant to the job,” Barrett added."
But that view ignores an element that has been removed from the views of our founders, a view that made America as exceptional as it once was: the sanctity of human life.



3. And it fails to mention a particular faith, one that abounds with a blood-lust above all else: Militant Secularism.
In all of its denominations, Militant Secularism is far, far from what is meant by 'morality.'

None of that religion have the slightest concern for human life: not communism (gulags), not Nazism (concentration camps), not Liberalism (abortion), not Progressivism (eugenics), not socialism (theft), not fascism (murder).
They serve a power many millennia old, once believed banished from Western Civilization, but, today, making a strong and virulent come-back.
It was put, succinctly, by Leon Trotsky: "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life."


4. Whether personal beliefs, or what we call 'politics,' or perhaps 'religion,' the real idea that determines what we will do in any and every situation, is one simple idea. Either one believes that human lives are sacred, or one believes that they can be exchanged to achieve some secular material goal.


5. Choose a. or b.
a. From Schindler's List: “Whoever saves one life saves the world entire.”
or
b. Trotsky: "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life."


If we must have judges, they should never be the sort who ignore government inspired slaughter of our fellow human beings.

no she is right

It depends on how 'religion' and 'morality' are defined.

I'll put you down in the column with Trotsky and Margaret Sanger.

more silliness from you.....

 

[mudwhistle]

1. The following was Barrett's response when asked about anti-religion bigotry.

"...I think when you step back and you think about the debate about whether someone’s religion has any bearing on their fitness for office, it seems to me that the premise of the question is that people of faith would have a uniquely difficult time separating out their moral commitments from their obligation to apply the law. And I think people of faith should reject that premise,” she added.

“All people, of course– well, we hope, most people– have deeply held moral convictions, whether or not they come from faith. People who have no faith, people who are not religious, have deeply held moral convictions,” Barrett noted. “And it’s just as important for those people to be sure– I just spent time talking about the job of a judge being to set aside moral convictions, personal moral convictions, and personal preferences, and follow the law. That’s a challenge for those of faith and for those who have no faith.”

Amy Coney Barrett Gave a Perfect Response to Anti-Religious Bigotry

pjmedia.com

2. She said the above in the context of "whether someone is Catholic or Jewish or Evangelical or Muslim or has no faith at all is irrelevant to the job,” Barrett added."
But that view ignores an element that has been removed from the view of our founders, a view that made America as exceptional as it once was: the sanctity of human life.



3. And it fails to mention a particular faith, one that abounds with a blood-lust above all else: Militant Secularism.
In all of its denominations, Militant Secularism is far, far from what is meant by 'morality.'

None of that religion have the slightest concern for human life: not communism (gulags), not Nazism (concentration camps), not Liberalism (abortion), not Progressivism (eugenics), not socialism (theft), not fascism (murder).
They serve a power many millennia old, once believed banished from Western Civilization, but, today, making a strong and virulent come-back.
It was put, succinctly, by Leon Trotsky: "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life."


4. Whether personal beliefs, or what we call 'politics,' or perhaps 'religion,' the real idea that determines what we will do in any and every situation, is one simple idea. Either one believes that human lives are sacred, or one believes that they can be exchanged to achieve some secular material goal.


5. Choose a. or b.
a. From Schindler's List: “Whoever saves one life saves the world entire.”
or
b. Trotsky: "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life."


If we must have judges, they should never be the sort who ignore government inspired slaughter of our fellow human beings.

The human mind cannot operate endlessly or even perhaps briefly in a state of antiseptic clinical objectivity. Of course one's own deepest held moral beliefs and conscience will and must influence decisions both great and small, private and professional. I believe Barrett and most everyone else, for that matter, fully understand this inescapable aspect of the human condition. Hence the uproar from both sides of the aisle. Then again, perhaps she's a reptile in human flesh, a cold-blooded machine mind awaiting her chance at fame and glory. I suppose we'll find out soon enough.

Democrats have a religion of their own.
It overrules their sense of decency.....because political power means everything and nothing else matters.
It's like Muslims.
Nothing else matters to them.

 

[citygator]

1. The following was Barrett's response when asked about anti-religion bigotry.

"...I think when you step back and you think about the debate about whether someone’s religion has any bearing on their fitness for office, it seems to me that the premise of the question is that people of faith would have a uniquely difficult time separating out their moral commitments from their obligation to apply the law. And I think people of faith should reject that premise,” she added.

“All people, of course– well, we hope, most people– have deeply held moral convictions, whether or not they come from faith. People who have no faith, people who are not religious, have deeply held moral convictions,” Barrett noted. “And it’s just as important for those people to be sure– I just spent time talking about the job of a judge being to set aside moral convictions, personal moral convictions, and personal preferences, and follow the law. That’s a challenge for those of faith and for those who have no faith.”

Amy Coney Barrett Gave a Perfect Response to Anti-Religious Bigotry

pjmedia.com

2. She said the above in the context of "whether someone is Catholic or Jewish or Evangelical or Muslim or has no faith at all is irrelevant to the job,” Barrett added."
But that view ignores an element that has been removed from the view of our founders, a view that made America as exceptional as it once was: the sanctity of human life.



3. And it fails to mention a particular faith, one that abounds with a blood-lust above all else: Militant Secularism.
In all of its denominations, Militant Secularism is far, far from what is meant by 'morality.'

None of that religion have the slightest concern for human life: not communism (gulags), not Nazism (concentration camps), not Liberalism (abortion), not Progressivism (eugenics), not socialism (theft), not fascism (murder).
They serve a power many millennia old, once believed banished from Western Civilization, but, today, making a strong and virulent come-back.
It was put, succinctly, by Leon Trotsky: "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life."


4. Whether personal beliefs, or what we call 'politics,' or perhaps 'religion,' the real idea that determines what we will do in any and every situation, is one simple idea. Either one believes that human lives are sacred, or one believes that they can be exchanged to achieve some secular material goal.


5. Choose a. or b.
a. From Schindler's List: “Whoever saves one life saves the world entire.”
or
b. Trotsky: "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life."


If we must have judges, they should never be the sort who ignore government inspired slaughter of our fellow human beings.

The human mind cannot operate endlessly or even perhaps briefly in a state of antiseptic clinical objectivity. Of course one's own deepest held moral beliefs and conscience will and must influence decisions both great and small, private and professional. I believe Barrett and most everyone else, for that matter, fully understand this inescapable aspect of the human condition. Hence the uproar from both sides of the aisle. Then again, perhaps she's a reptile in human flesh, a cold-blooded machine mind awaiting her chance at fame and glory. I suppose we'll find out soon enough.

Democrats have a religion of their own.
It overrules their sense of decency.....because political power means everything and nothing else matters.
It's like Muslims.
Nothing else matters to them.

Bullshit. The republicans shirked their responsibilities voting in 2016. They procedurally kill every bill. They play dirty. To win. Nothing matters but winning power. All the Dems want is a fair shake. They aren’t getting it.

 

[mudwhistle]

1. The following was Barrett's response when asked about anti-religion bigotry.

"...I think when you step back and you think about the debate about whether someone’s religion has any bearing on their fitness for office, it seems to me that the premise of the question is that people of faith would have a uniquely difficult time separating out their moral commitments from their obligation to apply the law. And I think people of faith should reject that premise,” she added.

“All people, of course– well, we hope, most people– have deeply held moral convictions, whether or not they come from faith. People who have no faith, people who are not religious, have deeply held moral convictions,” Barrett noted. “And it’s just as important for those people to be sure– I just spent time talking about the job of a judge being to set aside moral convictions, personal moral convictions, and personal preferences, and follow the law. That’s a challenge for those of faith and for those who have no faith.”

Amy Coney Barrett Gave a Perfect Response to Anti-Religious Bigotry

pjmedia.com

2. She said the above in the context of "whether someone is Catholic or Jewish or Evangelical or Muslim or has no faith at all is irrelevant to the job,” Barrett added."
But that view ignores an element that has been removed from the view of our founders, a view that made America as exceptional as it once was: the sanctity of human life.



3. And it fails to mention a particular faith, one that abounds with a blood-lust above all else: Militant Secularism.
In all of its denominations, Militant Secularism is far, far from what is meant by 'morality.'

None of that religion have the slightest concern for human life: not communism (gulags), not Nazism (concentration camps), not Liberalism (abortion), not Progressivism (eugenics), not socialism (theft), not fascism (murder).
They serve a power many millennia old, once believed banished from Western Civilization, but, today, making a strong and virulent come-back.
It was put, succinctly, by Leon Trotsky: "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life."


4. Whether personal beliefs, or what we call 'politics,' or perhaps 'religion,' the real idea that determines what we will do in any and every situation, is one simple idea. Either one believes that human lives are sacred, or one believes that they can be exchanged to achieve some secular material goal.


5. Choose a. or b.
a. From Schindler's List: “Whoever saves one life saves the world entire.”
or
b. Trotsky: "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life."


If we must have judges, they should never be the sort who ignore government inspired slaughter of our fellow human beings.

The human mind cannot operate endlessly or even perhaps briefly in a state of antiseptic clinical objectivity. Of course one's own deepest held moral beliefs and conscience will and must influence decisions both great and small, private and professional. I believe Barrett and most everyone else, for that matter, fully understand this inescapable aspect of the human condition. Hence the uproar from both sides of the aisle. Then again, perhaps she's a reptile in human flesh, a cold-blooded machine mind awaiting her chance at fame and glory. I suppose we'll find out soon enough.

Democrats have a religion of their own.
It overrules their sense of decency.....because political power means everything and nothing else matters.
It's like Muslims.
Nothing else matters to them.

Bullshit. The republicans shirked their responsibilities voting in 2016. They procedurally kill every bill. They play dirty. To win. Nothing matters but winning power. All the Dems want is a fair shake. They aren’t getting it.

STFU.....that's pure projection and you know it.

 

[citygator]

1. The following was Barrett's response when asked about anti-religion bigotry.

"...I think when you step back and you think about the debate about whether someone’s religion has any bearing on their fitness for office, it seems to me that the premise of the question is that people of faith would have a uniquely difficult time separating out their moral commitments from their obligation to apply the law. And I think people of faith should reject that premise,” she added.

“All people, of course– well, we hope, most people– have deeply held moral convictions, whether or not they come from faith. People who have no faith, people who are not religious, have deeply held moral convictions,” Barrett noted. “And it’s just as important for those people to be sure– I just spent time talking about the job of a judge being to set aside moral convictions, personal moral convictions, and personal preferences, and follow the law. That’s a challenge for those of faith and for those who have no faith.”

Amy Coney Barrett Gave a Perfect Response to Anti-Religious Bigotry

pjmedia.com

2. She said the above in the context of "whether someone is Catholic or Jewish or Evangelical or Muslim or has no faith at all is irrelevant to the job,” Barrett added."
But that view ignores an element that has been removed from the view of our founders, a view that made America as exceptional as it once was: the sanctity of human life.



3. And it fails to mention a particular faith, one that abounds with a blood-lust above all else: Militant Secularism.
In all of its denominations, Militant Secularism is far, far from what is meant by 'morality.'

None of that religion have the slightest concern for human life: not communism (gulags), not Nazism (concentration camps), not Liberalism (abortion), not Progressivism (eugenics), not socialism (theft), not fascism (murder).
They serve a power many millennia old, once believed banished from Western Civilization, but, today, making a strong and virulent come-back.
It was put, succinctly, by Leon Trotsky: "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life."


4. Whether personal beliefs, or what we call 'politics,' or perhaps 'religion,' the real idea that determines what we will do in any and every situation, is one simple idea. Either one believes that human lives are sacred, or one believes that they can be exchanged to achieve some secular material goal.


5. Choose a. or b.
a. From Schindler's List: “Whoever saves one life saves the world entire.”
or
b. Trotsky: "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life."


If we must have judges, they should never be the sort who ignore government inspired slaughter of our fellow human beings.

The human mind cannot operate endlessly or even perhaps briefly in a state of antiseptic clinical objectivity. Of course one's own deepest held moral beliefs and conscience will and must influence decisions both great and small, private and professional. I believe Barrett and most everyone else, for that matter, fully understand this inescapable aspect of the human condition. Hence the uproar from both sides of the aisle. Then again, perhaps she's a reptile in human flesh, a cold-blooded machine mind awaiting her chance at fame and glory. I suppose we'll find out soon enough.

Democrats have a religion of their own.
It overrules their sense of decency.....because political power means everything and nothing else matters.
It's like Muslims.
Nothing else matters to them.

Bullshit. The republicans shirked their responsibilities voting in 2016. They procedurally kill every bill. They play dirty. To win. Nothing matters but winning power. All the Dems want is a fair shake. They aren’t getting it.

STFU.....that's pure projection and you know it.

Nah. Youre the one who used projection and I called you on it. Bwahaha.

 

[mudwhistle]

1. The following was Barrett's response when asked about anti-religion bigotry.

"...I think when you step back and you think about the debate about whether someone’s religion has any bearing on their fitness for office, it seems to me that the premise of the question is that people of faith would have a uniquely difficult time separating out their moral commitments from their obligation to apply the law. And I think people of faith should reject that premise,” she added.

“All people, of course– well, we hope, most people– have deeply held moral convictions, whether or not they come from faith. People who have no faith, people who are not religious, have deeply held moral convictions,” Barrett noted. “And it’s just as important for those people to be sure– I just spent time talking about the job of a judge being to set aside moral convictions, personal moral convictions, and personal preferences, and follow the law. That’s a challenge for those of faith and for those who have no faith.”

Amy Coney Barrett Gave a Perfect Response to Anti-Religious Bigotry

pjmedia.com

2. She said the above in the context of "whether someone is Catholic or Jewish or Evangelical or Muslim or has no faith at all is irrelevant to the job,” Barrett added."
But that view ignores an element that has been removed from the view of our founders, a view that made America as exceptional as it once was: the sanctity of human life.



3. And it fails to mention a particular faith, one that abounds with a blood-lust above all else: Militant Secularism.
In all of its denominations, Militant Secularism is far, far from what is meant by 'morality.'

None of that religion have the slightest concern for human life: not communism (gulags), not Nazism (concentration camps), not Liberalism (abortion), not Progressivism (eugenics), not socialism (theft), not fascism (murder).
They serve a power many millennia old, once believed banished from Western Civilization, but, today, making a strong and virulent come-back.
It was put, succinctly, by Leon Trotsky: "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life."


4. Whether personal beliefs, or what we call 'politics,' or perhaps 'religion,' the real idea that determines what we will do in any and every situation, is one simple idea. Either one believes that human lives are sacred, or one believes that they can be exchanged to achieve some secular material goal.


5. Choose a. or b.
a. From Schindler's List: “Whoever saves one life saves the world entire.”
or
b. Trotsky: "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life."


If we must have judges, they should never be the sort who ignore government inspired slaughter of our fellow human beings.

The human mind cannot operate endlessly or even perhaps briefly in a state of antiseptic clinical objectivity. Of course one's own deepest held moral beliefs and conscience will and must influence decisions both great and small, private and professional. I believe Barrett and most everyone else, for that matter, fully understand this inescapable aspect of the human condition. Hence the uproar from both sides of the aisle. Then again, perhaps she's a reptile in human flesh, a cold-blooded machine mind awaiting her chance at fame and glory. I suppose we'll find out soon enough.

Democrats have a religion of their own.
It overrules their sense of decency.....because political power means everything and nothing else matters.
It's like Muslims.
Nothing else matters to them.

Bullshit. The republicans shirked their responsibilities voting in 2016. They procedurally kill every bill. They play dirty. To win. Nothing matters but winning power. All the Dems want is a fair shake. They aren’t getting it.

STFU.....that's pure projection and you know it.

Nah. Youre the one who used projection and I called you on it. Bwahaha.

Nah....you're projecting your rubbish on us, Troll.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Oh great another abortion thread by men who want to tell women what to do with their bodies. Zzzzzzz

Moron......the unborn human being is not 'their body.'

You failed high school biology, huh?

Now, take notes:


The unborn human receiving sustenance from its mother, is, nonetheless, a separate and distinct human being.

There are a number of clear biological facts, and all sorts of legal precedents, that easily refute the claim that the embryo or fetus is simply part of the mother's body.

1. An individual's body parts all share the same genetic code. If the unborn child were actually a part of the mother's body, the unborn's cells would have the same genetic code as the cells of the mother. This is not the case. Every cell of the unborn's body is genetically distinct from every cell in the mother's body.
2. In many cases, the blood type of the unborn child is different than the blood type of the mother. Since one body cannot function with two different blood types, this is clearly not the mother's blood.
3. In half of all pregnancies, the unborn child is a male, meaning that even the sex of the child is different from the mother.
4. As Randy Alcorn states in his book Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, "A Chinese zygote implanted in a Swedish woman will always be Chinese, not Swedish, because his identity is based on his genetic code, not on that of the body in which he resides."1
5. It is possible for a fetus to die while the mother lives, and it is possible for the mother to die while the fetus lives. This could not be true if the mother and child were simply one person.
6. When the embryo implants in the lining of the uterus, it emits chemical substances which weaken the woman's immune system within the uterus so that this tiny "foreign" body is not rejected by the woman's body. Were this tiny embryo simply "part of the woman's body" there would be no need to locally disable the woman's immunities.
7. It is illegal to execute a pregnant woman on death row because the fetus living inside her is a distinct human being who cannot be executed for the crimes of the mother (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Article 6.5).
8. When Scott Peterson killed his pregnant wife, Laci, he was convicted on two counts of murder.
9. Sir Albert Liley (the "Father of Fetology") made this observation in a 1970 speech entitled, "The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?"

Physiologically, we must accept that the conceptus is, in a very large measure, in charge of the pregnancy.... Biologically, at no stage can we subscribe to the view that the fetus is a mere appendage of the mother.2

1. The late Christopher Hitchens, a prominent public intellectual, atheist, and abortion advocate wrote the following in his book, God is Not Great:

As a materialist, I think it has been demonstrated that an embryo is a separate body and entity, and not merely (as some really did used to argue) a growth on or in the female body. There used to be feminists who would say that it was more like an appendix or even—this was seriously maintained—a tumor. That nonsense seems to have stopped… Embryology confirms morality. The words “unborn child,” even when used in a politicized manner, describe a material reality.3

Hitchens had other reasons for supporting legal abortion, but he recognized the absurdity of claiming that unborn children are simply part of the mother's body.

No matter how you spin it, women don't have four arms and four legs when they're pregnant. Those extra appendages belong to the tiny human being(s) living inside of them. At no point in pregnancy is the developing embryo or fetus simply a part of the mother's body.

Footnotes

1. Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments (Multnomah Publishers, 2000) p. 57.
2. Sir William Albert Liley,“The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?” cited by Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, 58.
3. Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (Hachette Book Group. Kindle Edition, 2009), 378-379.

Part of the Mother’s Body?

The slogan,

www.abort73.com

Is there any argument for the "right" of a woman to authorize the killing of her unborn baby that would not apply to her authorizing the similar slaughter of a year old that she was breastfeeding?

Meh. My wife had two miscarries and two successful pregnancies. When people ask me I don’t say I have 4 kids but two passed away. There is your answer. Your fetus is not a kid.

Two separate and distinct human beings, you moron.


“In fact, abortion as birth control is implicit in their new set of revisions to the Democratic Party platform. The latest version of the DNC document calls for revocation of all restrictions on abortion at the state and federal levels — yes, all, including partial-birth abortion, the gruesome procedure in which late-term children are carved up in the womb. They want you to fund abortions, too, both at home and abroad.” Ben Shapiro When Abortion Fans Let the Truth Slip out, by Ben Shapiro

In short, you will be voting for infanticide.

You are a copy and paste warrior. Answer my question. So I had 4 kids and 2 died on me? Should I have named the 12 week old fetus or the 8 week old one and had funerals? Have you ever had kids? Ever have a miscarriage? Can you at all comprehend the difference?

You will not be allowed to change the subject, to run from what you posted.


You claimed the unborn is a woman's body.

I proved it is not, any more than it is when a six month old is breast feeding.


You support goes to the party of infanticide.


Admit it, and accept the contumely that comes with that view, you pagan.

Sounds like you know nothing of bringing a life into the world. I’ve seen my wife do it twice. I’ve seen her body fail to produce a life out of her body as well. We didn’t lose two kids. Therefore no life was lost, simply her body failed to produce a life.

The vast majority of miscarries occur without the knowledge of the woman knowing.

You claimed the unborn was 'her body.'

I proved it is a separate and distinct human being.

Now, having been schooled, you'd rather slither away from that homicidal perspective.


Get lost.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. The following was Barrett's response when asked about anti-religion bigotry.

"...I think when you step back and you think about the debate about whether someone’s religion has any bearing on their fitness for office, it seems to me that the premise of the question is that people of faith would have a uniquely difficult time separating out their moral commitments from their obligation to apply the law. And I think people of faith should reject that premise,” she added.

“All people, of course– well, we hope, most people– have deeply held moral convictions, whether or not they come from faith. People who have no faith, people who are not religious, have deeply held moral convictions,” Barrett noted. “And it’s just as important for those people to be sure– I just spent time talking about the job of a judge being to set aside moral convictions, personal moral convictions, and personal preferences, and follow the law. That’s a challenge for those of faith and for those who have no faith.”

Amy Coney Barrett Gave a Perfect Response to Anti-Religious Bigotry

pjmedia.com

2. She said the above in the context of "whether someone is Catholic or Jewish or Evangelical or Muslim or has no faith at all is irrelevant to the job,” Barrett added."
But that view ignores an element that has been removed from the view of our founders, a view that made America as exceptional as it once was: the sanctity of human life.



3. And it fails to mention a particular faith, one that abounds with a blood-lust above all else: Militant Secularism.
In all of its denominations, Militant Secularism is far, far from what is meant by 'morality.'

None of that religion have the slightest concern for human life: not communism (gulags), not Nazism (concentration camps), not Liberalism (abortion), not Progressivism (eugenics), not socialism (theft), not fascism (murder).
They serve a power many millennia old, once believed banished from Western Civilization, but, today, making a strong and virulent come-back.
It was put, succinctly, by Leon Trotsky: "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life."


4. Whether personal beliefs, or what we call 'politics,' or perhaps 'religion,' the real idea that determines what we will do in any and every situation, is one simple idea. Either one believes that human lives are sacred, or one believes that they can be exchanged to achieve some secular material goal.


5. Choose a. or b.
a. From Schindler's List: “Whoever saves one life saves the world entire.”
or
b. Trotsky: "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life."


If we must have judges, they should never be the sort who ignore government inspired slaughter of our fellow human beings.

The human mind cannot operate endlessly or even perhaps briefly in a state of antiseptic clinical objectivity. Of course one's own deepest held moral beliefs and conscience will and must influence decisions both great and small, private and professional. I believe Barrett and most everyone else, for that matter, fully understand this inescapable aspect of the human condition. Hence the uproar from both sides of the aisle. Then again, perhaps she's a reptile in human flesh, a cold-blooded machine mind awaiting her chance at fame and glory. I suppose we'll find out soon enough.

Democrats have a religion of their own.
It overrules their sense of decency.....because political power means everything and nothing else matters.
It's like Muslims.
Nothing else matters to them.

Bullshit. The republicans shirked their responsibilities voting in 2016. They procedurally kill every bill. They play dirty. To win. Nothing matters but winning power. All the Dems want is a fair shake. They aren’t getting it.

Let's set the record straight:

The Founders, classical liberals, conservatives
a. individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.


Fascists, Nazis, Liberals, Progressives, Socialists, Communists.....Democrats
b. the collective, command and control regulation of private industry, and overarching government that can order every aspect of the private citizen's life....right down to control of his thoughts and speech.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. The following was Barrett's response when asked about anti-religion bigotry.

"...I think when you step back and you think about the debate about whether someone’s religion has any bearing on their fitness for office, it seems to me that the premise of the question is that people of faith would have a uniquely difficult time separating out their moral commitments from their obligation to apply the law. And I think people of faith should reject that premise,” she added.

“All people, of course– well, we hope, most people– have deeply held moral convictions, whether or not they come from faith. People who have no faith, people who are not religious, have deeply held moral convictions,” Barrett noted. “And it’s just as important for those people to be sure– I just spent time talking about the job of a judge being to set aside moral convictions, personal moral convictions, and personal preferences, and follow the law. That’s a challenge for those of faith and for those who have no faith.”

Amy Coney Barrett Gave a Perfect Response to Anti-Religious Bigotry

pjmedia.com

2. She said the above in the context of "whether someone is Catholic or Jewish or Evangelical or Muslim or has no faith at all is irrelevant to the job,” Barrett added."
But that view ignores an element that has been removed from the view of our founders, a view that made America as exceptional as it once was: the sanctity of human life.



3. And it fails to mention a particular faith, one that abounds with a blood-lust above all else: Militant Secularism.
In all of its denominations, Militant Secularism is far, far from what is meant by 'morality.'

None of that religion have the slightest concern for human life: not communism (gulags), not Nazism (concentration camps), not Liberalism (abortion), not Progressivism (eugenics), not socialism (theft), not fascism (murder).
They serve a power many millennia old, once believed banished from Western Civilization, but, today, making a strong and virulent come-back.
It was put, succinctly, by Leon Trotsky: "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life."


4. Whether personal beliefs, or what we call 'politics,' or perhaps 'religion,' the real idea that determines what we will do in any and every situation, is one simple idea. Either one believes that human lives are sacred, or one believes that they can be exchanged to achieve some secular material goal.


5. Choose a. or b.
a. From Schindler's List: “Whoever saves one life saves the world entire.”
or
b. Trotsky: "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life."


If we must have judges, they should never be the sort who ignore government inspired slaughter of our fellow human beings.

The human mind cannot operate endlessly or even perhaps briefly in a state of antiseptic clinical objectivity. Of course one's own deepest held moral beliefs and conscience will and must influence decisions both great and small, private and professional. I believe Barrett and most everyone else, for that matter, fully understand this inescapable aspect of the human condition. Hence the uproar from both sides of the aisle. Then again, perhaps she's a reptile in human flesh, a cold-blooded machine mind awaiting her chance at fame and glory. I suppose we'll find out soon enough.

Democrats have a religion of their own.
It overrules their sense of decency.....because political power means everything and nothing else matters.
It's like Muslims.
Nothing else matters to them.

Bullshit. The republicans shirked their responsibilities voting in 2016. They procedurally kill every bill. They play dirty. To win. Nothing matters but winning power. All the Dems want is a fair shake. They aren’t getting it.

If the Democrats win in November, this is what they would institute;


1. America would fall back to this:
“Team Obama: Sorry, America, the ‘new normal’ may be here to stay

The good times may be over for good. In a speech to the Economic Club of New York yesterday, US Treasury Secretary Jack Lew said the US GDP growth rate, adjusted for inflation, is now projected to run a little above 2% a year.”
Team Obama: Sorry, America, the 'new normal' may be here to stay - AEI


2. The hard working American taxpayer would pay for illegal alien's healthcare



3. There'd be no penalty for sneaking over the border.....no sovereignty.

4. The world's worst state sponsor of terrorism would have nuclear weapons.

5. Infanticide, post-birth abortion, would be legalized

6. Taxes would be increased and tax cuts reversed

7. Sharia would become de rigueur

8. Free speech would be outlawed as 'hate speech.

9. Jewish persons would have to find shelter elsewhere

10. We could look forward to the end of private health insurance, reparations for slavery and drug dealers, financial security for those who ‘don’t care to work,’ abortion rights for 'transwomen (men), and packing the Supreme Court.
11. The abolition of prisons so that convicted criminals would be free to prey on innocent citizens. ."AOC Wants to Abolish Prisons

...saying that lawmakers needed to explore the mass release of America's prison population.



Oh....and this....

12. Abortion rights for men



13. Special laws that favor transgender illegal aliens



14. “All the Democratic presidential candidates have endorsed the Equality Act, which would render it illegal to use the wrong pronoun in the workplace.” Not Just Brexit

The Equality Act

“It would penalize Americans who don’t affirm new sexual norms or gender ideology. It would compel speech. It could lead to more parents losing custody of their children.”
7 Reasons Why the Equality Act Is Anything But

 

[citygator]

Oh great another abortion thread by men who want to tell women what to do with their bodies. Zzzzzzz

Moron......the unborn human being is not 'their body.'

You failed high school biology, huh?

Now, take notes:


The unborn human receiving sustenance from its mother, is, nonetheless, a separate and distinct human being.

There are a number of clear biological facts, and all sorts of legal precedents, that easily refute the claim that the embryo or fetus is simply part of the mother's body.

1. An individual's body parts all share the same genetic code. If the unborn child were actually a part of the mother's body, the unborn's cells would have the same genetic code as the cells of the mother. This is not the case. Every cell of the unborn's body is genetically distinct from every cell in the mother's body.
2. In many cases, the blood type of the unborn child is different than the blood type of the mother. Since one body cannot function with two different blood types, this is clearly not the mother's blood.
3. In half of all pregnancies, the unborn child is a male, meaning that even the sex of the child is different from the mother.
4. As Randy Alcorn states in his book Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, "A Chinese zygote implanted in a Swedish woman will always be Chinese, not Swedish, because his identity is based on his genetic code, not on that of the body in which he resides."1
5. It is possible for a fetus to die while the mother lives, and it is possible for the mother to die while the fetus lives. This could not be true if the mother and child were simply one person.
6. When the embryo implants in the lining of the uterus, it emits chemical substances which weaken the woman's immune system within the uterus so that this tiny "foreign" body is not rejected by the woman's body. Were this tiny embryo simply "part of the woman's body" there would be no need to locally disable the woman's immunities.
7. It is illegal to execute a pregnant woman on death row because the fetus living inside her is a distinct human being who cannot be executed for the crimes of the mother (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Article 6.5).
8. When Scott Peterson killed his pregnant wife, Laci, he was convicted on two counts of murder.
9. Sir Albert Liley (the "Father of Fetology") made this observation in a 1970 speech entitled, "The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?"

Physiologically, we must accept that the conceptus is, in a very large measure, in charge of the pregnancy.... Biologically, at no stage can we subscribe to the view that the fetus is a mere appendage of the mother.2

1. The late Christopher Hitchens, a prominent public intellectual, atheist, and abortion advocate wrote the following in his book, God is Not Great:

As a materialist, I think it has been demonstrated that an embryo is a separate body and entity, and not merely (as some really did used to argue) a growth on or in the female body. There used to be feminists who would say that it was more like an appendix or even—this was seriously maintained—a tumor. That nonsense seems to have stopped… Embryology confirms morality. The words “unborn child,” even when used in a politicized manner, describe a material reality.3

Hitchens had other reasons for supporting legal abortion, but he recognized the absurdity of claiming that unborn children are simply part of the mother's body.

No matter how you spin it, women don't have four arms and four legs when they're pregnant. Those extra appendages belong to the tiny human being(s) living inside of them. At no point in pregnancy is the developing embryo or fetus simply a part of the mother's body.

Footnotes

1. Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments (Multnomah Publishers, 2000) p. 57.
2. Sir William Albert Liley,“The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?” cited by Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, 58.
3. Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (Hachette Book Group. Kindle Edition, 2009), 378-379.

Part of the Mother’s Body?

The slogan,

www.abort73.com

Is there any argument for the "right" of a woman to authorize the killing of her unborn baby that would not apply to her authorizing the similar slaughter of a year old that she was breastfeeding?

Meh. My wife had two miscarries and two successful pregnancies. When people ask me I don’t say I have 4 kids but two passed away. There is your answer. Your fetus is not a kid.

Two separate and distinct human beings, you moron.


“In fact, abortion as birth control is implicit in their new set of revisions to the Democratic Party platform. The latest version of the DNC document calls for revocation of all restrictions on abortion at the state and federal levels — yes, all, including partial-birth abortion, the gruesome procedure in which late-term children are carved up in the womb. They want you to fund abortions, too, both at home and abroad.” Ben Shapiro When Abortion Fans Let the Truth Slip out, by Ben Shapiro

In short, you will be voting for infanticide.

You are a copy and paste warrior. Answer my question. So I had 4 kids and 2 died on me? Should I have named the 12 week old fetus or the 8 week old one and had funerals? Have you ever had kids? Ever have a miscarriage? Can you at all comprehend the difference?

You will not be allowed to change the subject, to run from what you posted.


You claimed the unborn is a woman's body.

I proved it is not, any more than it is when a six month old is breast feeding.


You support goes to the party of infanticide.


Admit it, and accept the contumely that comes with that view, you pagan.

Sounds like you know nothing of bringing a life into the world. I’ve seen my wife do it twice. I’ve seen her body fail to produce a life out of her body as well. We didn’t lose two kids. Therefore no life was lost, simply her body failed to produce a life.

The vast majority of miscarries occur without the knowledge of the woman knowing.

You claimed the unborn was 'her body.'

I proved it is a separate and distinct human being.

Now, having been schooled, you'd rather slither away from that homicidal perspective.


Get lost.

It’s like you are plugging your ears and humming while talking. Do I have two dead children based on my wife’s miscarries? Yea or no? If I did.. then why did my wife simply flush the cells down the toilet after the miscarry? Seemed like it wasn’t a person to me.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Oh great another abortion thread by men who want to tell women what to do with their bodies. Zzzzzzz

Moron......the unborn human being is not 'their body.'

You failed high school biology, huh?

Now, take notes:


The unborn human receiving sustenance from its mother, is, nonetheless, a separate and distinct human being.

There are a number of clear biological facts, and all sorts of legal precedents, that easily refute the claim that the embryo or fetus is simply part of the mother's body.

1. An individual's body parts all share the same genetic code. If the unborn child were actually a part of the mother's body, the unborn's cells would have the same genetic code as the cells of the mother. This is not the case. Every cell of the unborn's body is genetically distinct from every cell in the mother's body.
2. In many cases, the blood type of the unborn child is different than the blood type of the mother. Since one body cannot function with two different blood types, this is clearly not the mother's blood.
3. In half of all pregnancies, the unborn child is a male, meaning that even the sex of the child is different from the mother.
4. As Randy Alcorn states in his book Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, "A Chinese zygote implanted in a Swedish woman will always be Chinese, not Swedish, because his identity is based on his genetic code, not on that of the body in which he resides."1
5. It is possible for a fetus to die while the mother lives, and it is possible for the mother to die while the fetus lives. This could not be true if the mother and child were simply one person.
6. When the embryo implants in the lining of the uterus, it emits chemical substances which weaken the woman's immune system within the uterus so that this tiny "foreign" body is not rejected by the woman's body. Were this tiny embryo simply "part of the woman's body" there would be no need to locally disable the woman's immunities.
7. It is illegal to execute a pregnant woman on death row because the fetus living inside her is a distinct human being who cannot be executed for the crimes of the mother (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Article 6.5).
8. When Scott Peterson killed his pregnant wife, Laci, he was convicted on two counts of murder.
9. Sir Albert Liley (the "Father of Fetology") made this observation in a 1970 speech entitled, "The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?"

Physiologically, we must accept that the conceptus is, in a very large measure, in charge of the pregnancy.... Biologically, at no stage can we subscribe to the view that the fetus is a mere appendage of the mother.2

1. The late Christopher Hitchens, a prominent public intellectual, atheist, and abortion advocate wrote the following in his book, God is Not Great:

As a materialist, I think it has been demonstrated that an embryo is a separate body and entity, and not merely (as some really did used to argue) a growth on or in the female body. There used to be feminists who would say that it was more like an appendix or even—this was seriously maintained—a tumor. That nonsense seems to have stopped… Embryology confirms morality. The words “unborn child,” even when used in a politicized manner, describe a material reality.3

Hitchens had other reasons for supporting legal abortion, but he recognized the absurdity of claiming that unborn children are simply part of the mother's body.

No matter how you spin it, women don't have four arms and four legs when they're pregnant. Those extra appendages belong to the tiny human being(s) living inside of them. At no point in pregnancy is the developing embryo or fetus simply a part of the mother's body.

Footnotes

1. Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments (Multnomah Publishers, 2000) p. 57.
2. Sir William Albert Liley,“The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?” cited by Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, 58.
3. Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (Hachette Book Group. Kindle Edition, 2009), 378-379.

Part of the Mother’s Body?

The slogan,

www.abort73.com

Is there any argument for the "right" of a woman to authorize the killing of her unborn baby that would not apply to her authorizing the similar slaughter of a year old that she was breastfeeding?

Meh. My wife had two miscarries and two successful pregnancies. When people ask me I don’t say I have 4 kids but two passed away. There is your answer. Your fetus is not a kid.

Two separate and distinct human beings, you moron.


“In fact, abortion as birth control is implicit in their new set of revisions to the Democratic Party platform. The latest version of the DNC document calls for revocation of all restrictions on abortion at the state and federal levels — yes, all, including partial-birth abortion, the gruesome procedure in which late-term children are carved up in the womb. They want you to fund abortions, too, both at home and abroad.” Ben Shapiro When Abortion Fans Let the Truth Slip out, by Ben Shapiro

In short, you will be voting for infanticide.

You are a copy and paste warrior. Answer my question. So I had 4 kids and 2 died on me? Should I have named the 12 week old fetus or the 8 week old one and had funerals? Have you ever had kids? Ever have a miscarriage? Can you at all comprehend the difference?

You will not be allowed to change the subject, to run from what you posted.


You claimed the unborn is a woman's body.

I proved it is not, any more than it is when a six month old is breast feeding.


You support goes to the party of infanticide.


Admit it, and accept the contumely that comes with that view, you pagan.

Sounds like you know nothing of bringing a life into the world. I’ve seen my wife do it twice. I’ve seen her body fail to produce a life out of her body as well. We didn’t lose two kids. Therefore no life was lost, simply her body failed to produce a life.

The vast majority of miscarries occur without the knowledge of the woman knowing.

You claimed the unborn was 'her body.'

I proved it is a separate and distinct human being.

Now, having been schooled, you'd rather slither away from that homicidal perspective.


Get lost.

It’s like you are plugging your ears and humming while talking. Do I have two dead children based on my wife’s miscarries? Yea or no? If I did.. then why did my wife simply flush the cells down the toilet after the miscarry? Seemed like it wasn’t a person to me.

I just told you you're not changing the subject.


Wanna try again?

Is the unborn human being 'their body' or not?

 

[citygator]

Oh great another abortion thread by men who want to tell women what to do with their bodies. Zzzzzzz

Moron......the unborn human being is not 'their body.'

You failed high school biology, huh?

Now, take notes:


The unborn human receiving sustenance from its mother, is, nonetheless, a separate and distinct human being.

There are a number of clear biological facts, and all sorts of legal precedents, that easily refute the claim that the embryo or fetus is simply part of the mother's body.

1. An individual's body parts all share the same genetic code. If the unborn child were actually a part of the mother's body, the unborn's cells would have the same genetic code as the cells of the mother. This is not the case. Every cell of the unborn's body is genetically distinct from every cell in the mother's body.
2. In many cases, the blood type of the unborn child is different than the blood type of the mother. Since one body cannot function with two different blood types, this is clearly not the mother's blood.
3. In half of all pregnancies, the unborn child is a male, meaning that even the sex of the child is different from the mother.
4. As Randy Alcorn states in his book Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, "A Chinese zygote implanted in a Swedish woman will always be Chinese, not Swedish, because his identity is based on his genetic code, not on that of the body in which he resides."1
5. It is possible for a fetus to die while the mother lives, and it is possible for the mother to die while the fetus lives. This could not be true if the mother and child were simply one person.
6. When the embryo implants in the lining of the uterus, it emits chemical substances which weaken the woman's immune system within the uterus so that this tiny "foreign" body is not rejected by the woman's body. Were this tiny embryo simply "part of the woman's body" there would be no need to locally disable the woman's immunities.
7. It is illegal to execute a pregnant woman on death row because the fetus living inside her is a distinct human being who cannot be executed for the crimes of the mother (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Article 6.5).
8. When Scott Peterson killed his pregnant wife, Laci, he was convicted on two counts of murder.
9. Sir Albert Liley (the "Father of Fetology") made this observation in a 1970 speech entitled, "The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?"

Physiologically, we must accept that the conceptus is, in a very large measure, in charge of the pregnancy.... Biologically, at no stage can we subscribe to the view that the fetus is a mere appendage of the mother.2

1. The late Christopher Hitchens, a prominent public intellectual, atheist, and abortion advocate wrote the following in his book, God is Not Great:

As a materialist, I think it has been demonstrated that an embryo is a separate body and entity, and not merely (as some really did used to argue) a growth on or in the female body. There used to be feminists who would say that it was more like an appendix or even—this was seriously maintained—a tumor. That nonsense seems to have stopped… Embryology confirms morality. The words “unborn child,” even when used in a politicized manner, describe a material reality.3

Hitchens had other reasons for supporting legal abortion, but he recognized the absurdity of claiming that unborn children are simply part of the mother's body.

No matter how you spin it, women don't have four arms and four legs when they're pregnant. Those extra appendages belong to the tiny human being(s) living inside of them. At no point in pregnancy is the developing embryo or fetus simply a part of the mother's body.

Footnotes

1. Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments (Multnomah Publishers, 2000) p. 57.
2. Sir William Albert Liley,“The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?” cited by Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, 58.
3. Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (Hachette Book Group. Kindle Edition, 2009), 378-379.

Part of the Mother’s Body?

The slogan,

www.abort73.com

Is there any argument for the "right" of a woman to authorize the killing of her unborn baby that would not apply to her authorizing the similar slaughter of a year old that she was breastfeeding?

Meh. My wife had two miscarries and two successful pregnancies. When people ask me I don’t say I have 4 kids but two passed away. There is your answer. Your fetus is not a kid.

Two separate and distinct human beings, you moron.


“In fact, abortion as birth control is implicit in their new set of revisions to the Democratic Party platform. The latest version of the DNC document calls for revocation of all restrictions on abortion at the state and federal levels — yes, all, including partial-birth abortion, the gruesome procedure in which late-term children are carved up in the womb. They want you to fund abortions, too, both at home and abroad.” Ben Shapiro When Abortion Fans Let the Truth Slip out, by Ben Shapiro

In short, you will be voting for infanticide.

You are a copy and paste warrior. Answer my question. So I had 4 kids and 2 died on me? Should I have named the 12 week old fetus or the 8 week old one and had funerals? Have you ever had kids? Ever have a miscarriage? Can you at all comprehend the difference?

You will not be allowed to change the subject, to run from what you posted.


You claimed the unborn is a woman's body.

I proved it is not, any more than it is when a six month old is breast feeding.


You support goes to the party of infanticide.


Admit it, and accept the contumely that comes with that view, you pagan.

Sounds like you know nothing of bringing a life into the world. I’ve seen my wife do it twice. I’ve seen her body fail to produce a life out of her body as well. We didn’t lose two kids. Therefore no life was lost, simply her body failed to produce a life.

The vast majority of miscarries occur without the knowledge of the woman knowing.

You claimed the unborn was 'her body.'

I proved it is a separate and distinct human being.

Now, having been schooled, you'd rather slither away from that homicidal perspective.


Get lost.

It’s like you are plugging your ears and humming while talking. Do I have two dead children based on my wife’s miscarries? Yea or no? If I did.. then why did my wife simply flush the cells down the toilet after the miscarry? Seemed like it wasn’t a person to me.

I just told you you're not changing the subject.


Wanna try again?

Is the unborn human being 'their body' or not?

Oh great another abortion thread by men who want to tell women what to do with their bodies. Zzzzzzz

Moron......the unborn human being is not 'their body.'

You failed high school biology, huh?

Now, take notes:


The unborn human receiving sustenance from its mother, is, nonetheless, a separate and distinct human being.

There are a number of clear biological facts, and all sorts of legal precedents, that easily refute the claim that the embryo or fetus is simply part of the mother's body.

1. An individual's body parts all share the same genetic code. If the unborn child were actually a part of the mother's body, the unborn's cells would have the same genetic code as the cells of the mother. This is not the case. Every cell of the unborn's body is genetically distinct from every cell in the mother's body.
2. In many cases, the blood type of the unborn child is different than the blood type of the mother. Since one body cannot function with two different blood types, this is clearly not the mother's blood.
3. In half of all pregnancies, the unborn child is a male, meaning that even the sex of the child is different from the mother.
4. As Randy Alcorn states in his book Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, "A Chinese zygote implanted in a Swedish woman will always be Chinese, not Swedish, because his identity is based on his genetic code, not on that of the body in which he resides."1
5. It is possible for a fetus to die while the mother lives, and it is possible for the mother to die while the fetus lives. This could not be true if the mother and child were simply one person.
6. When the embryo implants in the lining of the uterus, it emits chemical substances which weaken the woman's immune system within the uterus so that this tiny "foreign" body is not rejected by the woman's body. Were this tiny embryo simply "part of the woman's body" there would be no need to locally disable the woman's immunities.
7. It is illegal to execute a pregnant woman on death row because the fetus living inside her is a distinct human being who cannot be executed for the crimes of the mother (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Article 6.5).
8. When Scott Peterson killed his pregnant wife, Laci, he was convicted on two counts of murder.
9. Sir Albert Liley (the "Father of Fetology") made this observation in a 1970 speech entitled, "The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?"

Physiologically, we must accept that the conceptus is, in a very large measure, in charge of the pregnancy.... Biologically, at no stage can we subscribe to the view that the fetus is a mere appendage of the mother.2

1. The late Christopher Hitchens, a prominent public intellectual, atheist, and abortion advocate wrote the following in his book, God is Not Great:

As a materialist, I think it has been demonstrated that an embryo is a separate body and entity, and not merely (as some really did used to argue) a growth on or in the female body. There used to be feminists who would say that it was more like an appendix or even—this was seriously maintained—a tumor. That nonsense seems to have stopped… Embryology confirms morality. The words “unborn child,” even when used in a politicized manner, describe a material reality.3

Hitchens had other reasons for supporting legal abortion, but he recognized the absurdity of claiming that unborn children are simply part of the mother's body.

No matter how you spin it, women don't have four arms and four legs when they're pregnant. Those extra appendages belong to the tiny human being(s) living inside of them. At no point in pregnancy is the developing embryo or fetus simply a part of the mother's body.

Footnotes

1. Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments (Multnomah Publishers, 2000) p. 57.
2. Sir William Albert Liley,“The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?” cited by Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, 58.
3. Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (Hachette Book Group. Kindle Edition, 2009), 378-379.

Part of the Mother’s Body?

The slogan,

www.abort73.com

Is there any argument for the "right" of a woman to authorize the killing of her unborn baby that would not apply to her authorizing the similar slaughter of a year old that she was breastfeeding?

Meh. My wife had two miscarries and two successful pregnancies. When people ask me I don’t say I have 4 kids but two passed away. There is your answer. Your fetus is not a kid.

Two separate and distinct human beings, you moron.


“In fact, abortion as birth control is implicit in their new set of revisions to the Democratic Party platform. The latest version of the DNC document calls for revocation of all restrictions on abortion at the state and federal levels — yes, all, including partial-birth abortion, the gruesome procedure in which late-term children are carved up in the womb. They want you to fund abortions, too, both at home and abroad.” Ben Shapiro When Abortion Fans Let the Truth Slip out, by Ben Shapiro

In short, you will be voting for infanticide.

You are a copy and paste warrior. Answer my question. So I had 4 kids and 2 died on me? Should I have named the 12 week old fetus or the 8 week old one and had funerals? Have you ever had kids? Ever have a miscarriage? Can you at all comprehend the difference?

You will not be allowed to change the subject, to run from what you posted.


You claimed the unborn is a woman's body.

I proved it is not, any more than it is when a six month old is breast feeding.


You support goes to the party of infanticide.


Admit it, and accept the contumely that comes with that view, you pagan.

Sounds like you know nothing of bringing a life into the world. I’ve seen my wife do it twice. I’ve seen her body fail to produce a life out of her body as well. We didn’t lose two kids. Therefore no life was lost, simply her body failed to produce a life.

The vast majority of miscarries occur without the knowledge of the woman knowing.

You claimed the unborn was 'her body.'

I proved it is a separate and distinct human being.

Now, having been schooled, you'd rather slither away from that homicidal perspective.


Get lost.

It’s like you are plugging your ears and humming while talking. Do I have two dead children based on my wife’s miscarries? Yea or no? If I did.. then why did my wife simply flush the cells down the toilet after the miscarry? Seemed like it wasn’t a person to me.

I just told you you're not changing the subject.


Wanna try again?

Is the unborn human being 'their body' or not?

We did not flush a being down the toilet. It is not a body. It was cells growing in my wife’s body. Part of her.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Oh great another abortion thread by men who want to tell women what to do with their bodies. Zzzzzzz

Moron......the unborn human being is not 'their body.'

You failed high school biology, huh?

Now, take notes:


The unborn human receiving sustenance from its mother, is, nonetheless, a separate and distinct human being.

There are a number of clear biological facts, and all sorts of legal precedents, that easily refute the claim that the embryo or fetus is simply part of the mother's body.

1. An individual's body parts all share the same genetic code. If the unborn child were actually a part of the mother's body, the unborn's cells would have the same genetic code as the cells of the mother. This is not the case. Every cell of the unborn's body is genetically distinct from every cell in the mother's body.
2. In many cases, the blood type of the unborn child is different than the blood type of the mother. Since one body cannot function with two different blood types, this is clearly not the mother's blood.
3. In half of all pregnancies, the unborn child is a male, meaning that even the sex of the child is different from the mother.
4. As Randy Alcorn states in his book Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, "A Chinese zygote implanted in a Swedish woman will always be Chinese, not Swedish, because his identity is based on his genetic code, not on that of the body in which he resides."1
5. It is possible for a fetus to die while the mother lives, and it is possible for the mother to die while the fetus lives. This could not be true if the mother and child were simply one person.
6. When the embryo implants in the lining of the uterus, it emits chemical substances which weaken the woman's immune system within the uterus so that this tiny "foreign" body is not rejected by the woman's body. Were this tiny embryo simply "part of the woman's body" there would be no need to locally disable the woman's immunities.
7. It is illegal to execute a pregnant woman on death row because the fetus living inside her is a distinct human being who cannot be executed for the crimes of the mother (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Article 6.5).
8. When Scott Peterson killed his pregnant wife, Laci, he was convicted on two counts of murder.
9. Sir Albert Liley (the "Father of Fetology") made this observation in a 1970 speech entitled, "The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?"

Physiologically, we must accept that the conceptus is, in a very large measure, in charge of the pregnancy.... Biologically, at no stage can we subscribe to the view that the fetus is a mere appendage of the mother.2

1. The late Christopher Hitchens, a prominent public intellectual, atheist, and abortion advocate wrote the following in his book, God is Not Great:

As a materialist, I think it has been demonstrated that an embryo is a separate body and entity, and not merely (as some really did used to argue) a growth on or in the female body. There used to be feminists who would say that it was more like an appendix or even—this was seriously maintained—a tumor. That nonsense seems to have stopped… Embryology confirms morality. The words “unborn child,” even when used in a politicized manner, describe a material reality.3

Hitchens had other reasons for supporting legal abortion, but he recognized the absurdity of claiming that unborn children are simply part of the mother's body.

No matter how you spin it, women don't have four arms and four legs when they're pregnant. Those extra appendages belong to the tiny human being(s) living inside of them. At no point in pregnancy is the developing embryo or fetus simply a part of the mother's body.

Footnotes

1. Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments (Multnomah Publishers, 2000) p. 57.
2. Sir William Albert Liley,“The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?” cited by Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, 58.
3. Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (Hachette Book Group. Kindle Edition, 2009), 378-379.

Part of the Mother’s Body?

The slogan,

www.abort73.com

Is there any argument for the "right" of a woman to authorize the killing of her unborn baby that would not apply to her authorizing the similar slaughter of a year old that she was breastfeeding?

Meh. My wife had two miscarries and two successful pregnancies. When people ask me I don’t say I have 4 kids but two passed away. There is your answer. Your fetus is not a kid.

Two separate and distinct human beings, you moron.


“In fact, abortion as birth control is implicit in their new set of revisions to the Democratic Party platform. The latest version of the DNC document calls for revocation of all restrictions on abortion at the state and federal levels — yes, all, including partial-birth abortion, the gruesome procedure in which late-term children are carved up in the womb. They want you to fund abortions, too, both at home and abroad.” Ben Shapiro When Abortion Fans Let the Truth Slip out, by Ben Shapiro

In short, you will be voting for infanticide.

You are a copy and paste warrior. Answer my question. So I had 4 kids and 2 died on me? Should I have named the 12 week old fetus or the 8 week old one and had funerals? Have you ever had kids? Ever have a miscarriage? Can you at all comprehend the difference?

You will not be allowed to change the subject, to run from what you posted.


You claimed the unborn is a woman's body.

I proved it is not, any more than it is when a six month old is breast feeding.


You support goes to the party of infanticide.


Admit it, and accept the contumely that comes with that view, you pagan.

Sounds like you know nothing of bringing a life into the world. I’ve seen my wife do it twice. I’ve seen her body fail to produce a life out of her body as well. We didn’t lose two kids. Therefore no life was lost, simply her body failed to produce a life.

The vast majority of miscarries occur without the knowledge of the woman knowing.

You claimed the unborn was 'her body.'

I proved it is a separate and distinct human being.

Now, having been schooled, you'd rather slither away from that homicidal perspective.


Get lost.

It’s like you are plugging your ears and humming while talking. Do I have two dead children based on my wife’s miscarries? Yea or no? If I did.. then why did my wife simply flush the cells down the toilet after the miscarry? Seemed like it wasn’t a person to me.

I just told you you're not changing the subject.


Wanna try again?

Is the unborn human being 'their body' or not?

Oh great another abortion thread by men who want to tell women what to do with their bodies. Zzzzzzz

Moron......the unborn human being is not 'their body.'

You failed high school biology, huh?

Now, take notes:


The unborn human receiving sustenance from its mother, is, nonetheless, a separate and distinct human being.

There are a number of clear biological facts, and all sorts of legal precedents, that easily refute the claim that the embryo or fetus is simply part of the mother's body.

1. An individual's body parts all share the same genetic code. If the unborn child were actually a part of the mother's body, the unborn's cells would have the same genetic code as the cells of the mother. This is not the case. Every cell of the unborn's body is genetically distinct from every cell in the mother's body.
2. In many cases, the blood type of the unborn child is different than the blood type of the mother. Since one body cannot function with two different blood types, this is clearly not the mother's blood.
3. In half of all pregnancies, the unborn child is a male, meaning that even the sex of the child is different from the mother.
4. As Randy Alcorn states in his book Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, "A Chinese zygote implanted in a Swedish woman will always be Chinese, not Swedish, because his identity is based on his genetic code, not on that of the body in which he resides."1
5. It is possible for a fetus to die while the mother lives, and it is possible for the mother to die while the fetus lives. This could not be true if the mother and child were simply one person.
6. When the embryo implants in the lining of the uterus, it emits chemical substances which weaken the woman's immune system within the uterus so that this tiny "foreign" body is not rejected by the woman's body. Were this tiny embryo simply "part of the woman's body" there would be no need to locally disable the woman's immunities.
7. It is illegal to execute a pregnant woman on death row because the fetus living inside her is a distinct human being who cannot be executed for the crimes of the mother (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Article 6.5).
8. When Scott Peterson killed his pregnant wife, Laci, he was convicted on two counts of murder.
9. Sir Albert Liley (the "Father of Fetology") made this observation in a 1970 speech entitled, "The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?"

Physiologically, we must accept that the conceptus is, in a very large measure, in charge of the pregnancy.... Biologically, at no stage can we subscribe to the view that the fetus is a mere appendage of the mother.2

1. The late Christopher Hitchens, a prominent public intellectual, atheist, and abortion advocate wrote the following in his book, God is Not Great:

As a materialist, I think it has been demonstrated that an embryo is a separate body and entity, and not merely (as some really did used to argue) a growth on or in the female body. There used to be feminists who would say that it was more like an appendix or even—this was seriously maintained—a tumor. That nonsense seems to have stopped… Embryology confirms morality. The words “unborn child,” even when used in a politicized manner, describe a material reality.3

Hitchens had other reasons for supporting legal abortion, but he recognized the absurdity of claiming that unborn children are simply part of the mother's body.

No matter how you spin it, women don't have four arms and four legs when they're pregnant. Those extra appendages belong to the tiny human being(s) living inside of them. At no point in pregnancy is the developing embryo or fetus simply a part of the mother's body.

Footnotes

1. Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments (Multnomah Publishers, 2000) p. 57.
2. Sir William Albert Liley,“The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?” cited by Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, 58.
3. Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (Hachette Book Group. Kindle Edition, 2009), 378-379.

Part of the Mother’s Body?

The slogan,

www.abort73.com

Is there any argument for the "right" of a woman to authorize the killing of her unborn baby that would not apply to her authorizing the similar slaughter of a year old that she was breastfeeding?

Meh. My wife had two miscarries and two successful pregnancies. When people ask me I don’t say I have 4 kids but two passed away. There is your answer. Your fetus is not a kid.

Two separate and distinct human beings, you moron.


“In fact, abortion as birth control is implicit in their new set of revisions to the Democratic Party platform. The latest version of the DNC document calls for revocation of all restrictions on abortion at the state and federal levels — yes, all, including partial-birth abortion, the gruesome procedure in which late-term children are carved up in the womb. They want you to fund abortions, too, both at home and abroad.” Ben Shapiro When Abortion Fans Let the Truth Slip out, by Ben Shapiro

In short, you will be voting for infanticide.

You are a copy and paste warrior. Answer my question. So I had 4 kids and 2 died on me? Should I have named the 12 week old fetus or the 8 week old one and had funerals? Have you ever had kids? Ever have a miscarriage? Can you at all comprehend the difference?

You will not be allowed to change the subject, to run from what you posted.


You claimed the unborn is a woman's body.

I proved it is not, any more than it is when a six month old is breast feeding.


You support goes to the party of infanticide.


Admit it, and accept the contumely that comes with that view, you pagan.

Sounds like you know nothing of bringing a life into the world. I’ve seen my wife do it twice. I’ve seen her body fail to produce a life out of her body as well. We didn’t lose two kids. Therefore no life was lost, simply her body failed to produce a life.

The vast majority of miscarries occur without the knowledge of the woman knowing.

You claimed the unborn was 'her body.'

I proved it is a separate and distinct human being.

Now, having been schooled, you'd rather slither away from that homicidal perspective.


Get lost.

It’s like you are plugging your ears and humming while talking. Do I have two dead children based on my wife’s miscarries? Yea or no? If I did.. then why did my wife simply flush the cells down the toilet after the miscarry? Seemed like it wasn’t a person to me.

I just told you you're not changing the subject.


Wanna try again?

Is the unborn human being 'their body' or not?

We did not flush a being down the toilet. It is not a body. It was cells growing in my wife’s body. Part of her.

Keep lying to yourself.

That's what allows the easily led, you, to vote for this:

The Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism, socialism, infanticide, opposition to free speech, substituting illegal alien voters for the American citizenry, support for rioters, arsonists, murderers, and anarchists, and anti-Semitism… the knuckle-dragging, atavistic pagan party.

See if you recognize the similarity in this Margaret Mead, anthropologist, quote: The natives are superficially agreeable, but they go in for cannibalism, headhunting, infanticide, incest, avoidance and joking relationships, and biting lice in half with their teeth.

One wonders, if she were still alive, what her views of this Democrat Party would be.

 

[citygator]

Keep lying to yourself.

That's what allows the easily led, you, to vote for this:

The Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism, socialism, infanticide, opposition to free speech, substituting illegal alien voters for the American citizenry, support for rioters, arsonists, murderers, and anarchists, and anti-Semitism… the knuckle-dragging, atavistic pagan party.

See if you recognize the similarity in this Margaret Mead, anthropologist, quote: The natives are superficially agreeable, but they go in for cannibalism, headhunting, infanticide, incest, avoidance and joking relationships, and biting lice in half with their teeth.

One wonders, if she were still alive, what her views of this Democrat Party would be

Much like a computer in a loop you cannot reconcile an abortion with a miscarry. They end up with the same result. And in neither do you have a dead person. In fact I’ve seen two as I have explained and neither was the end of a life but instead, the lack of becoming a life. It is therefore irrational to ignore the inability to reconcile those facts.

There are studies that 50% of all pregnancies miscarry... 20% of known plus a whole lot of pregnancies that miscarries before being known. That’s a lot of DEAD BABIES.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Keep lying to yourself.

That's what allows the easily led, you, to vote for this:

The Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism, socialism, infanticide, opposition to free speech, substituting illegal alien voters for the American citizenry, support for rioters, arsonists, murderers, and anarchists, and anti-Semitism… the knuckle-dragging, atavistic pagan party.

See if you recognize the similarity in this Margaret Mead, anthropologist, quote: The natives are superficially agreeable, but they go in for cannibalism, headhunting, infanticide, incest, avoidance and joking relationships, and biting lice in half with their teeth.

One wonders, if she were still alive, what her views of this Democrat Party would be

Much like a computer in a loop you cannot reconcile an abortion with a miscarry. They end up with the same result. And in neither do you have a dead person. In fact I’ve seen two as I have explained and neither was the end of a life but instead, the lack of becoming a life. It is therefore irrational to ignore the inability to reconcile those facts.

There are studies that 50% of all pregnancies miscarry... 20% of known plus a whole lot of pregnancies that miscarries before being known. That’s a lot of DEAD BABIES.

You didn't bring up miscarry until I revealed that you were lying about the unborn being 'their body.'


Are you ready to admit the truth?