Catholicism?

[Taz]

Jesus rose from the dead because he was a zombie.

Jesus isn't the zombie. We, who have already died, will be.

Jesus rose from the dead as proof that us believers in Christ will be saved. He gives us hope that we will rise like him and meet him in the air when he returns.

As for zombies and why they are so popular, I think it's because all the non-believers who have died in the past will rise from their sleep (dead) to be united with their dead bodies so that "every eye will see" when Jesus returns a second time to take his revenge. It will be when all the non-believers will get their proof of God they've been crying for.

To me, the greatest thing an atheist ever said was God would have to prove to every non-believer living as well as in the past, i.e. dead, that there is a God. I used to think the non-believers would find out in hell, but no, it was already written in the end times prophecy everything will be settled on Earth. How could God answer an atheist demand from the present in the past already in the Bible? If I was an atheist, then that would convert me right there.

What Does the Bible Say About Dead Will Rise Again?

Bible verses about Dead Will Rise Again

www.openbible.info

Just because it's written in a book doesn't mean it's true and will happen... It's just a book.

It's not just a book, but the Bible. It's the #1 selling book of the world year-after-year. It is because everything has happened in the past as it said it did and will do so in the future. Our first educated guess for the end of times will be around 2060 and you'll become a zombie.

Educated guess? So you're admitting that you don't know. After reading the Bible. Impressive!

 

[zaangalewa]

.
till the crucifiers are brought to justice no religion will represent the 1st century religious itinerant or the many others made to suffer by the same means. than the spoken religion of antiquity presently abandoned for the same reason.

Do you understand what you say here?

.
better yet ... do you know why the 1st century religious itinerant was crucified.

I guess, you'll tell me this now.

.

better yet ... do you know why the 1st century religious itinerant was crucified.

I guess, you'll tell me this now.

.
that was meant as a question, you're the christian - and please explain the chicken that crowed 3 times ...

because they are still crowing - - > at you - - still afraid, for what "they" will do to you ...
.

* hint: "they" wrote your book.

I don't understand what you want from me. Soon will be Easter. What about the idea to follow just simple our way now? Jesus had died on April, 7th in the year 30 AD. This we will remember this year again by celebrating Easter again. It's the 1990th Easter celebration. In the moment is a fasting period, which was starting last Wednesday. We often prefer periods of 40 days (not periods of months). And "fast" has nothing to do with speed in this context - it comes from the German word "fest", what means solid, strong, hard, firm. In a fasting period we train our will to do what's good to do. This is individually different. If you do often something what's not good for you or others - or if you let it be to do what's good for you and others - then this are good situations for to start to change this wrongdoing now. Don't try to change everything - try to change only a special moment. But do it: Change it. See what this is doing with you.

.

Jesus had died on April, 7th in the year 30 AD. This we will remember this year again by celebrating Easter again.

.
you seem never to know what anyone is ever saying -


howabout not celebrating till you bring to justice the crucifiers who victimized the 1st century religious itinerant to give any meaning whatsoever for whatever you are celebrating - as a memento, too - the religion of antiquity the itinerant died for.

Do you like to create a time machine and to wipe out the Romans?

Just the Germans, they're a waste of space, and like their bodies cooked crispy.

I like it when you show that you believe morals are absolute.

Wonderful that you like something. But what do you call "moral" here?

The comment was directed at Taz's apparent righteous indignation. So as much as Taz and people like Taz want to object to absolute morality and absolute truth, they demonstrate they believe in a universal right and wrong that everyone should know, understand, accept and follow.

Dirty Krautz thought that what they were doing was legit. Morals are subjectives.

You certainly don't act like morals are subjective. You only act like your beliefs that morals are subjective are subjective.

We'll never all agree on what's moral, that would make it subjective. Abortion and same sex marriage to name two that all of society will never agree on.

Nope. That makes human being subjective, dummy. No matter what the time, no matter what the issue, there were always people who believed that moral evils were wrong even when those in their societies thought it was right.

You demonstrate daily your belief in a universal right and wrong, despite your objections to the contrary.

See? you prove my point, you call abortion a universal moral evil, I don't.

In case of every abortion always a human being has to die. That's the universal component of all abortions. So how is abortion in general able to be compatible with the natural human rights? Are all abortions justifiable?

You see it one way, I see it another.

Btw, you're wrong. As usual.

What for heavens sake do you see with closed eyes? That light is an absurdity? To kill human beings is not a question of ideas, opinions or tolerance.

A fetus isn't a human being. Now you know.

When exactly starts a human being to be a human being in your view to the world? What are the very exact reasons for this in my eyes very absurde idea?

A fetus becomes a human being when it is born. Sort of like a caterpillar isn't a butterfly into it comes out of the cocoon.

That's not what every embryologist and embryology textbook says, dummy.

Again, no link. Now **** out of my threads until you get a link, ok?

When Do Human Beings Begin?

.

A butterfly begins as a caterpillar. A human begins as a fetus.

Not according to science. Did you even read the link?

The human being starts off as a fetus. The whole thing starts at conception. No problem there. What is it you're trying to get at?

From the link you asked for but didn't read....


Myth 2: "The product of fertilization is simply a �blob,� a �bunch of cells�, a �piece of the mother�s tissues�."


Fact 2: As demonstrated above, the human embryonic organism formed at fertilization is a whole human being, and therefore it is not just a "blob" or a "bunch of cells." This new human individual also has a mixture of both the mother�s and the father�s chromosomes, and therefore it is not just a "piece of the mother�s tissues". Quoting Carlson:

"... [T]hrough the mingling of maternal and paternal chromosomes, the zygote is a genetically unique product of chromosomal reassortment, which is important for the viability of any species."15 (Emphasis added.)

When Do Human Beings Begin?

.

He makes the distinction between human being and human person. So in his view, I'm talking about a human person. Life begins at conception but you don't become a human person until you're born. There. Happy yet?

I couldn't be happier for you to ass **** logic, taz.

It’s your link, making you the ass ******. I bet you do that often.

The link refutes YOUR logic. It's YOUR faulty logic that ass ***** logic.

Was that supposed to be a homophobic insult, Taz? That's very revealing of you.

Actually the guy agrees with me, he makes the distinction between in utero and outside it.

You are an idiot if that was what you concluded.

Myth 2: "The product of fertilization is simply a �blob,� a �bunch of cells�, a �piece of the mother�s tissues�."

Fact 2: As demonstrated above, the human embryonic organism formed at fertilization is a whole human being, and therefore it is not just a "blob" or a "bunch of cells." This new human individual also has a mixture of both the mother�s and the father�s chromosomes, and therefore it is not just a "piece of the mother�s tissues". Quoting Carlson:

"... [T]hrough the mingling of maternal and paternal chromosomes, the zygote is a genetically unique product of chromosomal reassortment, which is important for the viability of any species."15 (Emphasis added.)

When Do Human Beings Begin?

Well, your quote says "the human embryonic organism formed at fertilization is a whole human being", which seems wrong as a whole human being has legs and arms, and can breathe and eat on its own...

It might have its chromosomes at conception, something I've never denied, but it's like something having its bar code before all the pieces are assembled. Fits perfectly into my model.

And you must really enjoy talking to idiots, so don't get so upset about it.

Dummy, the quote says that at conception a new human being has come into existence. It's not a lump of tissue or the mother. It is a new human being.

The reason you can't accept this fact is because it makes it harder for you to kill it. Just be honest that you don't give a **** about killing babies. Lean into it.

You can't even read your own quote properly, "the human embryonic organism formed at fertilization is a whole human being". Which is false. Own it.

You think you know more than the experts? It means that everything that controls the human life cycle is in place. It's not a potential human being. It is a human being with potential. It's not a blob of tissue as you put it.

Here's the definition of human being. So not an embryo or a fetus, which are 2 different things.
Human being

In this article is nothing written about embryos and fetuses. It describes biological components of human beings in context with other biological species. In general helps a simple example: The fetus of an elephant is an elephant. The fetus of a human being a human being. A fetus is not a species - a fetus is a developement step - comparable with an expression like "baby" for example. A nice baby of an elepant and a nice baby of a human being are different living entities.

 

[Taz]

I can't help it if you read the Bible literally, dummy.
But way to change the subject to assuage your guilt.

At no time have I ever advocated for killing babies, unlike your bible.

You just advocate killing blobs of tissue that you dehumanize to assuage your guilt.

I don't advocate for any such thing. I would say that I'm Pro-Choice, meaning it's not my call.

If you can't say it is wrong then you are an enabler, Taz.

I'm pro-choice in everything. people need to and can decide for themselves.

 

[Taz]

.
till the crucifiers are brought to justice no religion will represent the 1st century religious itinerant or the many others made to suffer by the same means. than the spoken religion of antiquity presently abandoned for the same reason.

Do you understand what you say here?

.
better yet ... do you know why the 1st century religious itinerant was crucified.

I guess, you'll tell me this now.

.

better yet ... do you know why the 1st century religious itinerant was crucified.

I guess, you'll tell me this now.

.
that was meant as a question, you're the christian - and please explain the chicken that crowed 3 times ...

because they are still crowing - - > at you - - still afraid, for what "they" will do to you ...
.

* hint: "they" wrote your book.

I don't understand what you want from me. Soon will be Easter. What about the idea to follow just simple our way now? Jesus had died on April, 7th in the year 30 AD. This we will remember this year again by celebrating Easter again. It's the 1990th Easter celebration. In the moment is a fasting period, which was starting last Wednesday. We often prefer periods of 40 days (not periods of months). And "fast" has nothing to do with speed in this context - it comes from the German word "fest", what means solid, strong, hard, firm. In a fasting period we train our will to do what's good to do. This is individually different. If you do often something what's not good for you or others - or if you let it be to do what's good for you and others - then this are good situations for to start to change this wrongdoing now. Don't try to change everything - try to change only a special moment. But do it: Change it. See what this is doing with you.

.

Jesus had died on April, 7th in the year 30 AD. This we will remember this year again by celebrating Easter again.

.
you seem never to know what anyone is ever saying -


howabout not celebrating till you bring to justice the crucifiers who victimized the 1st century religious itinerant to give any meaning whatsoever for whatever you are celebrating - as a memento, too - the religion of antiquity the itinerant died for.

Do you like to create a time machine and to wipe out the Romans?

Just the Germans, they're a waste of space, and like their bodies cooked crispy.

I like it when you show that you believe morals are absolute.

Wonderful that you like something. But what do you call "moral" here?

The comment was directed at Taz's apparent righteous indignation. So as much as Taz and people like Taz want to object to absolute morality and absolute truth, they demonstrate they believe in a universal right and wrong that everyone should know, understand, accept and follow.

Dirty Krautz thought that what they were doing was legit. Morals are subjectives.

You certainly don't act like morals are subjective. You only act like your beliefs that morals are subjective are subjective.

We'll never all agree on what's moral, that would make it subjective. Abortion and same sex marriage to name two that all of society will never agree on.

Nope. That makes human being subjective, dummy. No matter what the time, no matter what the issue, there were always people who believed that moral evils were wrong even when those in their societies thought it was right.

You demonstrate daily your belief in a universal right and wrong, despite your objections to the contrary.

See? you prove my point, you call abortion a universal moral evil, I don't.

In case of every abortion always a human being has to die. That's the universal component of all abortions. So how is abortion in general able to be compatible with the natural human rights? Are all abortions justifiable?

You see it one way, I see it another.

Btw, you're wrong. As usual.

What for heavens sake do you see with closed eyes? That light is an absurdity? To kill human beings is not a question of ideas, opinions or tolerance.

A fetus isn't a human being. Now you know.

When exactly starts a human being to be a human being in your view to the world? What are the very exact reasons for this in my eyes very absurde idea?

A fetus becomes a human being when it is born. Sort of like a caterpillar isn't a butterfly into it comes out of the cocoon.

That's not what every embryologist and embryology textbook says, dummy.

Again, no link. Now **** out of my threads until you get a link, ok?

When Do Human Beings Begin?

.

A butterfly begins as a caterpillar. A human begins as a fetus.

Not according to science. Did you even read the link?

The human being starts off as a fetus. The whole thing starts at conception. No problem there. What is it you're trying to get at?

From the link you asked for but didn't read....


Myth 2: "The product of fertilization is simply a �blob,� a �bunch of cells�, a �piece of the mother�s tissues�."


Fact 2: As demonstrated above, the human embryonic organism formed at fertilization is a whole human being, and therefore it is not just a "blob" or a "bunch of cells." This new human individual also has a mixture of both the mother�s and the father�s chromosomes, and therefore it is not just a "piece of the mother�s tissues". Quoting Carlson:

"... [T]hrough the mingling of maternal and paternal chromosomes, the zygote is a genetically unique product of chromosomal reassortment, which is important for the viability of any species."15 (Emphasis added.)

When Do Human Beings Begin?

.

He makes the distinction between human being and human person. So in his view, I'm talking about a human person. Life begins at conception but you don't become a human person until you're born. There. Happy yet?

I couldn't be happier for you to ass **** logic, taz.

It’s your link, making you the ass ******. I bet you do that often.

The link refutes YOUR logic. It's YOUR faulty logic that ass ***** logic.

Was that supposed to be a homophobic insult, Taz? That's very revealing of you.

Actually the guy agrees with me, he makes the distinction between in utero and outside it.

You are an idiot if that was what you concluded.

Myth 2: "The product of fertilization is simply a �blob,� a �bunch of cells�, a �piece of the mother�s tissues�."

Fact 2: As demonstrated above, the human embryonic organism formed at fertilization is a whole human being, and therefore it is not just a "blob" or a "bunch of cells." This new human individual also has a mixture of both the mother�s and the father�s chromosomes, and therefore it is not just a "piece of the mother�s tissues". Quoting Carlson:

"... [T]hrough the mingling of maternal and paternal chromosomes, the zygote is a genetically unique product of chromosomal reassortment, which is important for the viability of any species."15 (Emphasis added.)

When Do Human Beings Begin?

Well, your quote says "the human embryonic organism formed at fertilization is a whole human being", which seems wrong as a whole human being has legs and arms, and can breathe and eat on its own...

It might have its chromosomes at conception, something I've never denied, but it's like something having its bar code before all the pieces are assembled. Fits perfectly into my model.

And you must really enjoy talking to idiots, so don't get so upset about it.

Dummy, the quote says that at conception a new human being has come into existence. It's not a lump of tissue or the mother. It is a new human being.

The reason you can't accept this fact is because it makes it harder for you to kill it. Just be honest that you don't give a **** about killing babies. Lean into it.

You can't even read your own quote properly, "the human embryonic organism formed at fertilization is a whole human being". Which is false. Own it.

You think you know more than the experts? It means that everything that controls the human life cycle is in place. It's not a potential human being. It is a human being with potential. It's not a blob of tissue as you put it.

Here's the definition of human being. So not an embryo or a fetus, which are 2 different things.
Human being

In this article is nothing written about embryos and fetuses. It describes biological components of human beings in context with other biological species. In general helps a simple example: The fetus of an elephant is an elephant. The fetus of a human being a human being. A fetus is not a species - a fetus is a developement step - comparable with an expression like "baby" for example. A nice baby of an elepant and a nice baby of a human being are different living entities.

A caterpillar isn't a butterfly. Now shut up and stop whining.

 

[ding]

I can't help it if you read the Bible literally, dummy.
But way to change the subject to assuage your guilt.

At no time have I ever advocated for killing babies, unlike your bible.

You just advocate killing blobs of tissue that you dehumanize to assuage your guilt.

I don't advocate for any such thing. I would say that I'm Pro-Choice, meaning it's not my call.

If you can't say it is wrong then you are an enabler, Taz.

I'm pro-choice in everything. people need to and can decide for themselves.

So you aren't going to say abortion is wrong?

 

[ding]

.
till the crucifiers are brought to justice no religion will represent the 1st century religious itinerant or the many others made to suffer by the same means. than the spoken religion of antiquity presently abandoned for the same reason.

Do you understand what you say here?

.
better yet ... do you know why the 1st century religious itinerant was crucified.

I guess, you'll tell me this now.

.

better yet ... do you know why the 1st century religious itinerant was crucified.

I guess, you'll tell me this now.

.
that was meant as a question, you're the christian - and please explain the chicken that crowed 3 times ...

because they are still crowing - - > at you - - still afraid, for what "they" will do to you ...
.

* hint: "they" wrote your book.

I don't understand what you want from me. Soon will be Easter. What about the idea to follow just simple our way now? Jesus had died on April, 7th in the year 30 AD. This we will remember this year again by celebrating Easter again. It's the 1990th Easter celebration. In the moment is a fasting period, which was starting last Wednesday. We often prefer periods of 40 days (not periods of months). And "fast" has nothing to do with speed in this context - it comes from the German word "fest", what means solid, strong, hard, firm. In a fasting period we train our will to do what's good to do. This is individually different. If you do often something what's not good for you or others - or if you let it be to do what's good for you and others - then this are good situations for to start to change this wrongdoing now. Don't try to change everything - try to change only a special moment. But do it: Change it. See what this is doing with you.

.

Jesus had died on April, 7th in the year 30 AD. This we will remember this year again by celebrating Easter again.

.
you seem never to know what anyone is ever saying -


howabout not celebrating till you bring to justice the crucifiers who victimized the 1st century religious itinerant to give any meaning whatsoever for whatever you are celebrating - as a memento, too - the religion of antiquity the itinerant died for.

Do you like to create a time machine and to wipe out the Romans?

Just the Germans, they're a waste of space, and like their bodies cooked crispy.

I like it when you show that you believe morals are absolute.

Wonderful that you like something. But what do you call "moral" here?

The comment was directed at Taz's apparent righteous indignation. So as much as Taz and people like Taz want to object to absolute morality and absolute truth, they demonstrate they believe in a universal right and wrong that everyone should know, understand, accept and follow.

Dirty Krautz thought that what they were doing was legit. Morals are subjectives.

You certainly don't act like morals are subjective. You only act like your beliefs that morals are subjective are subjective.

We'll never all agree on what's moral, that would make it subjective. Abortion and same sex marriage to name two that all of society will never agree on.

Nope. That makes human being subjective, dummy. No matter what the time, no matter what the issue, there were always people who believed that moral evils were wrong even when those in their societies thought it was right.

You demonstrate daily your belief in a universal right and wrong, despite your objections to the contrary.

See? you prove my point, you call abortion a universal moral evil, I don't.

In case of every abortion always a human being has to die. That's the universal component of all abortions. So how is abortion in general able to be compatible with the natural human rights? Are all abortions justifiable?

You see it one way, I see it another.

Btw, you're wrong. As usual.

What for heavens sake do you see with closed eyes? That light is an absurdity? To kill human beings is not a question of ideas, opinions or tolerance.

A fetus isn't a human being. Now you know.

When exactly starts a human being to be a human being in your view to the world? What are the very exact reasons for this in my eyes very absurde idea?

A fetus becomes a human being when it is born. Sort of like a caterpillar isn't a butterfly into it comes out of the cocoon.

That's not what every embryologist and embryology textbook says, dummy.

Again, no link. Now **** out of my threads until you get a link, ok?

When Do Human Beings Begin?

.

A butterfly begins as a caterpillar. A human begins as a fetus.

Not according to science. Did you even read the link?

The human being starts off as a fetus. The whole thing starts at conception. No problem there. What is it you're trying to get at?

From the link you asked for but didn't read....


Myth 2: "The product of fertilization is simply a �blob,� a �bunch of cells�, a �piece of the mother�s tissues�."


Fact 2: As demonstrated above, the human embryonic organism formed at fertilization is a whole human being, and therefore it is not just a "blob" or a "bunch of cells." This new human individual also has a mixture of both the mother�s and the father�s chromosomes, and therefore it is not just a "piece of the mother�s tissues". Quoting Carlson:

"... [T]hrough the mingling of maternal and paternal chromosomes, the zygote is a genetically unique product of chromosomal reassortment, which is important for the viability of any species."15 (Emphasis added.)

When Do Human Beings Begin?

.

He makes the distinction between human being and human person. So in his view, I'm talking about a human person. Life begins at conception but you don't become a human person until you're born. There. Happy yet?

I couldn't be happier for you to ass **** logic, taz.

It’s your link, making you the ass ******. I bet you do that often.

The link refutes YOUR logic. It's YOUR faulty logic that ass ***** logic.

Was that supposed to be a homophobic insult, Taz? That's very revealing of you.

Actually the guy agrees with me, he makes the distinction between in utero and outside it.

You are an idiot if that was what you concluded.

Myth 2: "The product of fertilization is simply a �blob,� a �bunch of cells�, a �piece of the mother�s tissues�."

Fact 2: As demonstrated above, the human embryonic organism formed at fertilization is a whole human being, and therefore it is not just a "blob" or a "bunch of cells." This new human individual also has a mixture of both the mother�s and the father�s chromosomes, and therefore it is not just a "piece of the mother�s tissues". Quoting Carlson:

"... [T]hrough the mingling of maternal and paternal chromosomes, the zygote is a genetically unique product of chromosomal reassortment, which is important for the viability of any species."15 (Emphasis added.)

When Do Human Beings Begin?

Well, your quote says "the human embryonic organism formed at fertilization is a whole human being", which seems wrong as a whole human being has legs and arms, and can breathe and eat on its own...

It might have its chromosomes at conception, something I've never denied, but it's like something having its bar code before all the pieces are assembled. Fits perfectly into my model.

And you must really enjoy talking to idiots, so don't get so upset about it.

Dummy, the quote says that at conception a new human being has come into existence. It's not a lump of tissue or the mother. It is a new human being.

The reason you can't accept this fact is because it makes it harder for you to kill it. Just be honest that you don't give a **** about killing babies. Lean into it.

You can't even read your own quote properly, "the human embryonic organism formed at fertilization is a whole human being". Which is false. Own it.

You think you know more than the experts? It means that everything that controls the human life cycle is in place. It's not a potential human being. It is a human being with potential. It's not a blob of tissue as you put it.

Here's the definition of human being. So not an embryo or a fetus, which are 2 different things.
Human being

In this article is nothing written about embryos and fetuses. It describes biological components of human beings in context with other biological species. In general helps a simple example: The fetus of an elephant is an elephant. The fetus of a human being a human being. A fetus is not a species - a fetus is a developement step - comparable with an expression like "baby" for example. A nice baby of an elepant and a nice baby of a human being are different living entities.

A caterpillar isn't a butterfly. Now shut up and stop whining.

Actually they are, dummy. It's a stage in the butterfly life cycle. You need a new stupid argument.

 

[Taz]

.
till the crucifiers are brought to justice no religion will represent the 1st century religious itinerant or the many others made to suffer by the same means. than the spoken religion of antiquity presently abandoned for the same reason.

Do you understand what you say here?

.
better yet ... do you know why the 1st century religious itinerant was crucified.

I guess, you'll tell me this now.

.

better yet ... do you know why the 1st century religious itinerant was crucified.

I guess, you'll tell me this now.

.
that was meant as a question, you're the christian - and please explain the chicken that crowed 3 times ...

because they are still crowing - - > at you - - still afraid, for what "they" will do to you ...
.

* hint: "they" wrote your book.

I don't understand what you want from me. Soon will be Easter. What about the idea to follow just simple our way now? Jesus had died on April, 7th in the year 30 AD. This we will remember this year again by celebrating Easter again. It's the 1990th Easter celebration. In the moment is a fasting period, which was starting last Wednesday. We often prefer periods of 40 days (not periods of months). And "fast" has nothing to do with speed in this context - it comes from the German word "fest", what means solid, strong, hard, firm. In a fasting period we train our will to do what's good to do. This is individually different. If you do often something what's not good for you or others - or if you let it be to do what's good for you and others - then this are good situations for to start to change this wrongdoing now. Don't try to change everything - try to change only a special moment. But do it: Change it. See what this is doing with you.

.

Jesus had died on April, 7th in the year 30 AD. This we will remember this year again by celebrating Easter again.

.
you seem never to know what anyone is ever saying -


howabout not celebrating till you bring to justice the crucifiers who victimized the 1st century religious itinerant to give any meaning whatsoever for whatever you are celebrating - as a memento, too - the religion of antiquity the itinerant died for.

Do you like to create a time machine and to wipe out the Romans?

Just the Germans, they're a waste of space, and like their bodies cooked crispy.

I like it when you show that you believe morals are absolute.

Wonderful that you like something. But what do you call "moral" here?

The comment was directed at Taz's apparent righteous indignation. So as much as Taz and people like Taz want to object to absolute morality and absolute truth, they demonstrate they believe in a universal right and wrong that everyone should know, understand, accept and follow.

Dirty Krautz thought that what they were doing was legit. Morals are subjectives.

You certainly don't act like morals are subjective. You only act like your beliefs that morals are subjective are subjective.

We'll never all agree on what's moral, that would make it subjective. Abortion and same sex marriage to name two that all of society will never agree on.

Nope. That makes human being subjective, dummy. No matter what the time, no matter what the issue, there were always people who believed that moral evils were wrong even when those in their societies thought it was right.

You demonstrate daily your belief in a universal right and wrong, despite your objections to the contrary.

See? you prove my point, you call abortion a universal moral evil, I don't.

In case of every abortion always a human being has to die. That's the universal component of all abortions. So how is abortion in general able to be compatible with the natural human rights? Are all abortions justifiable?

You see it one way, I see it another.

Btw, you're wrong. As usual.

What for heavens sake do you see with closed eyes? That light is an absurdity? To kill human beings is not a question of ideas, opinions or tolerance.

A fetus isn't a human being. Now you know.

When exactly starts a human being to be a human being in your view to the world? What are the very exact reasons for this in my eyes very absurde idea?

A fetus becomes a human being when it is born. Sort of like a caterpillar isn't a butterfly into it comes out of the cocoon.

That's not what every embryologist and embryology textbook says, dummy.

Again, no link. Now **** out of my threads until you get a link, ok?

When Do Human Beings Begin?

.

A butterfly begins as a caterpillar. A human begins as a fetus.

Not according to science. Did you even read the link?

The human being starts off as a fetus. The whole thing starts at conception. No problem there. What is it you're trying to get at?

From the link you asked for but didn't read....


Myth 2: "The product of fertilization is simply a �blob,� a �bunch of cells�, a �piece of the mother�s tissues�."


Fact 2: As demonstrated above, the human embryonic organism formed at fertilization is a whole human being, and therefore it is not just a "blob" or a "bunch of cells." This new human individual also has a mixture of both the mother�s and the father�s chromosomes, and therefore it is not just a "piece of the mother�s tissues". Quoting Carlson:

"... [T]hrough the mingling of maternal and paternal chromosomes, the zygote is a genetically unique product of chromosomal reassortment, which is important for the viability of any species."15 (Emphasis added.)

When Do Human Beings Begin?

.

He makes the distinction between human being and human person. So in his view, I'm talking about a human person. Life begins at conception but you don't become a human person until you're born. There. Happy yet?

I couldn't be happier for you to ass **** logic, taz.

It’s your link, making you the ass ******. I bet you do that often.

The link refutes YOUR logic. It's YOUR faulty logic that ass ***** logic.

Was that supposed to be a homophobic insult, Taz? That's very revealing of you.

Actually the guy agrees with me, he makes the distinction between in utero and outside it.

You are an idiot if that was what you concluded.

Myth 2: "The product of fertilization is simply a �blob,� a �bunch of cells�, a �piece of the mother�s tissues�."

Fact 2: As demonstrated above, the human embryonic organism formed at fertilization is a whole human being, and therefore it is not just a "blob" or a "bunch of cells." This new human individual also has a mixture of both the mother�s and the father�s chromosomes, and therefore it is not just a "piece of the mother�s tissues". Quoting Carlson:

"... [T]hrough the mingling of maternal and paternal chromosomes, the zygote is a genetically unique product of chromosomal reassortment, which is important for the viability of any species."15 (Emphasis added.)

When Do Human Beings Begin?

Well, your quote says "the human embryonic organism formed at fertilization is a whole human being", which seems wrong as a whole human being has legs and arms, and can breathe and eat on its own...

It might have its chromosomes at conception, something I've never denied, but it's like something having its bar code before all the pieces are assembled. Fits perfectly into my model.

And you must really enjoy talking to idiots, so don't get so upset about it.

Dummy, the quote says that at conception a new human being has come into existence. It's not a lump of tissue or the mother. It is a new human being.

The reason you can't accept this fact is because it makes it harder for you to kill it. Just be honest that you don't give a **** about killing babies. Lean into it.

You can't even read your own quote properly, "the human embryonic organism formed at fertilization is a whole human being". Which is false. Own it.

You think you know more than the experts? It means that everything that controls the human life cycle is in place. It's not a potential human being. It is a human being with potential. It's not a blob of tissue as you put it.

Here's the definition of human being. So not an embryo or a fetus, which are 2 different things.
Human being

And yet every single embryology text book says a new human being is created at conception.

Face it, Taz. You love killing babies. You just don't love what it says about you so you rationalize human lives as blobs of tissue. Sad.

Another whiny ***** trying to guilt me. Do you and zaan grab each others balls?

You guilt yourself, Taz. Which is why you rationalize human life as a blob of tissue instead of a specific genetically distinct human being that has never existed before and will never exist again. You have created a defense mechanism to hold your guilt at bay.

You're simply projecting your guilt on others because you have a serious mental problem from having committed something horrible in your past. C'man brah, let's hear it.

I'm not the one rationalizing how great abortion is, Taz.

You don't want anyone to decide anything for themselves, you want to tell them what to do. Pathetic.

 

[ding]

.
till the crucifiers are brought to justice no religion will represent the 1st century religious itinerant or the many others made to suffer by the same means. than the spoken religion of antiquity presently abandoned for the same reason.

Do you understand what you say here?

.
better yet ... do you know why the 1st century religious itinerant was crucified.

I guess, you'll tell me this now.

.

better yet ... do you know why the 1st century religious itinerant was crucified.

I guess, you'll tell me this now.

.
that was meant as a question, you're the christian - and please explain the chicken that crowed 3 times ...

because they are still crowing - - > at you - - still afraid, for what "they" will do to you ...
.

* hint: "they" wrote your book.

I don't understand what you want from me. Soon will be Easter. What about the idea to follow just simple our way now? Jesus had died on April, 7th in the year 30 AD. This we will remember this year again by celebrating Easter again. It's the 1990th Easter celebration. In the moment is a fasting period, which was starting last Wednesday. We often prefer periods of 40 days (not periods of months). And "fast" has nothing to do with speed in this context - it comes from the German word "fest", what means solid, strong, hard, firm. In a fasting period we train our will to do what's good to do. This is individually different. If you do often something what's not good for you or others - or if you let it be to do what's good for you and others - then this are good situations for to start to change this wrongdoing now. Don't try to change everything - try to change only a special moment. But do it: Change it. See what this is doing with you.

.

Jesus had died on April, 7th in the year 30 AD. This we will remember this year again by celebrating Easter again.

.
you seem never to know what anyone is ever saying -


howabout not celebrating till you bring to justice the crucifiers who victimized the 1st century religious itinerant to give any meaning whatsoever for whatever you are celebrating - as a memento, too - the religion of antiquity the itinerant died for.

Do you like to create a time machine and to wipe out the Romans?

Just the Germans, they're a waste of space, and like their bodies cooked crispy.

I like it when you show that you believe morals are absolute.

Wonderful that you like something. But what do you call "moral" here?

The comment was directed at Taz's apparent righteous indignation. So as much as Taz and people like Taz want to object to absolute morality and absolute truth, they demonstrate they believe in a universal right and wrong that everyone should know, understand, accept and follow.

Dirty Krautz thought that what they were doing was legit. Morals are subjectives.

You certainly don't act like morals are subjective. You only act like your beliefs that morals are subjective are subjective.

We'll never all agree on what's moral, that would make it subjective. Abortion and same sex marriage to name two that all of society will never agree on.

Nope. That makes human being subjective, dummy. No matter what the time, no matter what the issue, there were always people who believed that moral evils were wrong even when those in their societies thought it was right.

You demonstrate daily your belief in a universal right and wrong, despite your objections to the contrary.

See? you prove my point, you call abortion a universal moral evil, I don't.

In case of every abortion always a human being has to die. That's the universal component of all abortions. So how is abortion in general able to be compatible with the natural human rights? Are all abortions justifiable?

You see it one way, I see it another.

Btw, you're wrong. As usual.

What for heavens sake do you see with closed eyes? That light is an absurdity? To kill human beings is not a question of ideas, opinions or tolerance.

A fetus isn't a human being. Now you know.

When exactly starts a human being to be a human being in your view to the world? What are the very exact reasons for this in my eyes very absurde idea?

A fetus becomes a human being when it is born. Sort of like a caterpillar isn't a butterfly into it comes out of the cocoon.

That's not what every embryologist and embryology textbook says, dummy.

Again, no link. Now **** out of my threads until you get a link, ok?

When Do Human Beings Begin?

.

A butterfly begins as a caterpillar. A human begins as a fetus.

Not according to science. Did you even read the link?

The human being starts off as a fetus. The whole thing starts at conception. No problem there. What is it you're trying to get at?

From the link you asked for but didn't read....


Myth 2: "The product of fertilization is simply a �blob,� a �bunch of cells�, a �piece of the mother�s tissues�."


Fact 2: As demonstrated above, the human embryonic organism formed at fertilization is a whole human being, and therefore it is not just a "blob" or a "bunch of cells." This new human individual also has a mixture of both the mother�s and the father�s chromosomes, and therefore it is not just a "piece of the mother�s tissues". Quoting Carlson:

"... [T]hrough the mingling of maternal and paternal chromosomes, the zygote is a genetically unique product of chromosomal reassortment, which is important for the viability of any species."15 (Emphasis added.)

When Do Human Beings Begin?

.

He makes the distinction between human being and human person. So in his view, I'm talking about a human person. Life begins at conception but you don't become a human person until you're born. There. Happy yet?

I couldn't be happier for you to ass **** logic, taz.

It’s your link, making you the ass ******. I bet you do that often.

The link refutes YOUR logic. It's YOUR faulty logic that ass ***** logic.

Was that supposed to be a homophobic insult, Taz? That's very revealing of you.

Actually the guy agrees with me, he makes the distinction between in utero and outside it.

You are an idiot if that was what you concluded.

Myth 2: "The product of fertilization is simply a �blob,� a �bunch of cells�, a �piece of the mother�s tissues�."

Fact 2: As demonstrated above, the human embryonic organism formed at fertilization is a whole human being, and therefore it is not just a "blob" or a "bunch of cells." This new human individual also has a mixture of both the mother�s and the father�s chromosomes, and therefore it is not just a "piece of the mother�s tissues". Quoting Carlson:

"... [T]hrough the mingling of maternal and paternal chromosomes, the zygote is a genetically unique product of chromosomal reassortment, which is important for the viability of any species."15 (Emphasis added.)

When Do Human Beings Begin?

Well, your quote says "the human embryonic organism formed at fertilization is a whole human being", which seems wrong as a whole human being has legs and arms, and can breathe and eat on its own...

It might have its chromosomes at conception, something I've never denied, but it's like something having its bar code before all the pieces are assembled. Fits perfectly into my model.

And you must really enjoy talking to idiots, so don't get so upset about it.

Dummy, the quote says that at conception a new human being has come into existence. It's not a lump of tissue or the mother. It is a new human being.

The reason you can't accept this fact is because it makes it harder for you to kill it. Just be honest that you don't give a **** about killing babies. Lean into it.

You can't even read your own quote properly, "the human embryonic organism formed at fertilization is a whole human being". Which is false. Own it.

You think you know more than the experts? It means that everything that controls the human life cycle is in place. It's not a potential human being. It is a human being with potential. It's not a blob of tissue as you put it.

Here's the definition of human being. So not an embryo or a fetus, which are 2 different things.
Human being

And yet every single embryology text book says a new human being is created at conception.

Face it, Taz. You love killing babies. You just don't love what it says about you so you rationalize human lives as blobs of tissue. Sad.

Another whiny ***** trying to guilt me. Do you and zaan grab each others balls?

You guilt yourself, Taz. Which is why you rationalize human life as a blob of tissue instead of a specific genetically distinct human being that has never existed before and will never exist again. You have created a defense mechanism to hold your guilt at bay.

You're simply projecting your guilt on others because you have a serious mental problem from having committed something horrible in your past. C'man brah, let's hear it.

I'm not the one rationalizing how great abortion is, Taz.

You don't want anyone to decide anything for themselves, you want to tell them what to do. Pathetic.

This has nothing to do with that. All I am asking you is if you believe it is wrong.

 

[Taz]

I can't help it if you read the Bible literally, dummy.
But way to change the subject to assuage your guilt.

At no time have I ever advocated for killing babies, unlike your bible.

You just advocate killing blobs of tissue that you dehumanize to assuage your guilt.

I don't advocate for any such thing. I would say that I'm Pro-Choice, meaning it's not my call.

If you can't say it is wrong then you are an enabler, Taz.

I'm pro-choice in everything. people need to and can decide for themselves.

So you aren't going to say abortion is wrong?

And enable you?

 

[ding]

I can't help it if you read the Bible literally, dummy.
But way to change the subject to assuage your guilt.

At no time have I ever advocated for killing babies, unlike your bible.

You just advocate killing blobs of tissue that you dehumanize to assuage your guilt.

I don't advocate for any such thing. I would say that I'm Pro-Choice, meaning it's not my call.

If you can't say it is wrong then you are an enabler, Taz.

I'm pro-choice in everything. people need to and can decide for themselves.

So you aren't going to say abortion is wrong?

And enable you?

No. To get you to be honest. I already know you don't think it is wrong. I just want to hear you say it.

 

[zaangalewa]

... Spreading nutbar beliefs is wrong, and annoying. Just like when you open your mouth, wrong and annoying. Nobody respects a whiny ***** like you. Be a man first.

What and how you say this here is for everyone interesting, who knows that I am a Jew in the eyes of the Nazis. Such hateful - and also idiotic - attacks show very clear that you are a real Nazi and not someone, who is misinterpreting something.

I don't care if you're Jewish,

You do.

I'm a big supporter of Israel myself.

Bad luck for Israel.

Your problem is that you're a whiner. Always playing the victim. Be a man. For once.

¿¿¿Playing? the victim?, Nazi? ... Okay ... I will buy a gun and shoot you down, rat. ... Or what else do you like to hear now from a German like me? ¿How stupid are you really?

See? More whining. Grow some balls, you ***.

TAZ - You are an evilwilling extremist idiot. And you are not shy to show this to everyone.

 

[zaangalewa]

.
till the crucifiers are brought to justice no religion will represent the 1st century religious itinerant or the many others made to suffer by the same means. than the spoken religion of antiquity presently abandoned for the same reason.

Do you understand what you say here?

.
better yet ... do you know why the 1st century religious itinerant was crucified.

I guess, you'll tell me this now.

.

better yet ... do you know why the 1st century religious itinerant was crucified.

I guess, you'll tell me this now.

.
that was meant as a question, you're the christian - and please explain the chicken that crowed 3 times ...

because they are still crowing - - > at you - - still afraid, for what "they" will do to you ...
.

* hint: "they" wrote your book.

I don't understand what you want from me. Soon will be Easter. What about the idea to follow just simple our way now? Jesus had died on April, 7th in the year 30 AD. This we will remember this year again by celebrating Easter again. It's the 1990th Easter celebration. In the moment is a fasting period, which was starting last Wednesday. We often prefer periods of 40 days (not periods of months). And "fast" has nothing to do with speed in this context - it comes from the German word "fest", what means solid, strong, hard, firm. In a fasting period we train our will to do what's good to do. This is individually different. If you do often something what's not good for you or others - or if you let it be to do what's good for you and others - then this are good situations for to start to change this wrongdoing now. Don't try to change everything - try to change only a special moment. But do it: Change it. See what this is doing with you.

.

Jesus had died on April, 7th in the year 30 AD. This we will remember this year again by celebrating Easter again.

.
you seem never to know what anyone is ever saying -


howabout not celebrating till you bring to justice the crucifiers who victimized the 1st century religious itinerant to give any meaning whatsoever for whatever you are celebrating - as a memento, too - the religion of antiquity the itinerant died for.

Do you like to create a time machine and to wipe out the Romans?

Just the Germans, they're a waste of space, and like their bodies cooked crispy.

I like it when you show that you believe morals are absolute.

Wonderful that you like something. But what do you call "moral" here?

The comment was directed at Taz's apparent righteous indignation. So as much as Taz and people like Taz want to object to absolute morality and absolute truth, they demonstrate they believe in a universal right and wrong that everyone should know, understand, accept and follow.

Dirty Krautz thought that what they were doing was legit. Morals are subjectives.

You certainly don't act like morals are subjective. You only act like your beliefs that morals are subjective are subjective.

We'll never all agree on what's moral, that would make it subjective. Abortion and same sex marriage to name two that all of society will never agree on.

Nope. That makes human being subjective, dummy. No matter what the time, no matter what the issue, there were always people who believed that moral evils were wrong even when those in their societies thought it was right.

You demonstrate daily your belief in a universal right and wrong, despite your objections to the contrary.

See? you prove my point, you call abortion a universal moral evil, I don't.

In case of every abortion always a human being has to die. That's the universal component of all abortions. So how is abortion in general able to be compatible with the natural human rights? Are all abortions justifiable?

You see it one way, I see it another.

Btw, you're wrong. As usual.

What for heavens sake do you see with closed eyes? That light is an absurdity? To kill human beings is not a question of ideas, opinions or tolerance.

A fetus isn't a human being. Now you know.

When exactly starts a human being to be a human being in your view to the world? What are the very exact reasons for this in my eyes very absurde idea?

A fetus becomes a human being when it is born. Sort of like a caterpillar isn't a butterfly into it comes out of the cocoon.

That's not what every embryologist and embryology textbook says, dummy.

Again, no link. Now **** out of my threads until you get a link, ok?

When Do Human Beings Begin?

.

A butterfly begins as a caterpillar. A human begins as a fetus.

Not according to science. Did you even read the link?

The human being starts off as a fetus. The whole thing starts at conception. No problem there. What is it you're trying to get at?

From the link you asked for but didn't read....


Myth 2: "The product of fertilization is simply a �blob,� a �bunch of cells�, a �piece of the mother�s tissues�."


Fact 2: As demonstrated above, the human embryonic organism formed at fertilization is a whole human being, and therefore it is not just a "blob" or a "bunch of cells." This new human individual also has a mixture of both the mother�s and the father�s chromosomes, and therefore it is not just a "piece of the mother�s tissues". Quoting Carlson:

"... [T]hrough the mingling of maternal and paternal chromosomes, the zygote is a genetically unique product of chromosomal reassortment, which is important for the viability of any species."15 (Emphasis added.)

When Do Human Beings Begin?

.

He makes the distinction between human being and human person. So in his view, I'm talking about a human person. Life begins at conception but you don't become a human person until you're born. There. Happy yet?

I couldn't be happier for you to ass **** logic, taz.

It’s your link, making you the ass ******. I bet you do that often.

The link refutes YOUR logic. It's YOUR faulty logic that ass ***** logic.

Was that supposed to be a homophobic insult, Taz? That's very revealing of you.

Actually the guy agrees with me, he makes the distinction between in utero and outside it.

You are an idiot if that was what you concluded.

Myth 2: "The product of fertilization is simply a �blob,� a �bunch of cells�, a �piece of the mother�s tissues�."

Fact 2: As demonstrated above, the human embryonic organism formed at fertilization is a whole human being, and therefore it is not just a "blob" or a "bunch of cells." This new human individual also has a mixture of both the mother�s and the father�s chromosomes, and therefore it is not just a "piece of the mother�s tissues". Quoting Carlson:

"... [T]hrough the mingling of maternal and paternal chromosomes, the zygote is a genetically unique product of chromosomal reassortment, which is important for the viability of any species."15 (Emphasis added.)

When Do Human Beings Begin?

Well, your quote says "the human embryonic organism formed at fertilization is a whole human being", which seems wrong as a whole human being has legs and arms, and can breathe and eat on its own...

It might have its chromosomes at conception, something I've never denied, but it's like something having its bar code before all the pieces are assembled. Fits perfectly into my model.

And you must really enjoy talking to idiots, so don't get so upset about it.

Dummy, the quote says that at conception a new human being has come into existence. It's not a lump of tissue or the mother. It is a new human being.

The reason you can't accept this fact is because it makes it harder for you to kill it. Just be honest that you don't give a **** about killing babies. Lean into it.

You can't even read your own quote properly, "the human embryonic organism formed at fertilization is a whole human being". Which is false. Own it.

You think you know more than the experts? It means that everything that controls the human life cycle is in place. It's not a potential human being. It is a human being with potential. It's not a blob of tissue as you put it.

Here's the definition of human being. So not an embryo or a fetus, which are 2 different things.
Human being

In this article is nothing written about embryos and fetuses. It describes biological components of human beings in context with other biological species. In general helps a simple example: The fetus of an elephant is an elephant. The fetus of a human being a human being. A fetus is not a species - a fetus is a developement step - comparable with an expression like "baby" for example. A nice baby of an elepant and a nice baby of a human being are different living entities.

A caterpillar isn't a butterfly.

What's wrong. In a caterpillar lives something what we are able to call "the soul of a butterfly". And every butterfly was once a hungry caterpillar.

Now shut up and stop whining.

What about to try to become a human being and stop it to be a monster? If a caterpillar can become a butterlfy then this change easily should be able to be done.

 

[BreezeWood]

A new edition starts with conception.

It's pretty self evident, isn't it?

Meaning, taking part of a post to make some kind of obscure point?

Meaning it should be obvious to everyone when life begins.

Billions of years ago?

A genetically distinct new human life.

.

A genetically distinct new human life.

.
is that an appropriate distinction -
.
View attachment 464149
.
when Garden Earth is what is being ravished by those same caring "christians", or
.
View attachment 464150
.
the life of a lamb is not the same value in weight for the enduring Garden. where in fact, religious and secular have no distinctive difference for the same objective conclusion.

Of course it is a relevant distinction. At conception a new genetically distinct human being has come into existence. One that has never existed before and will never exist again.

Would you end its life? Because it kind of sounds like you are arguing you would.

.

abortion is no different than all the other means for pregnancy intervention, bing proves the point by their own actions.

Of course it is a relevant distinction. At conception a new genetically distinct human being has come into existence. One that has never existed before and will never exist again.

Would you end its life? Because it kind of sounds like you are arguing you would.

.
having a vasectomy is the same decision as to end a pregnancy - they are both related to a physiological flaw that modern science has found multiple means to remedy -

as always the "christians" show no regard for Garden Earth and their rightful place than whatever suits their fancy they justify through their book of ambiguity for anything they please.

No new genetically distinct person died from a vasectomy or using birth control. So, no. It's not the same thing.

You know... it still sounds like you are arguing for killing new genetically distinct persons in the womb. Are you?

.

as always the "christians" show no regard for Garden Earth and their rightful place than whatever suits their fancy they justify through their book of ambiguity for anything they please.

No new genetically distinct person died from a vasectomy or using birth control. So, no. It's not the same thing.

You know... it still sounds like you are arguing for killing new genetically distinct persons in the womb. Are you?

.
yes, they have - that decision is the purpose for the intervention.

do you ever respond to what is written in a post ...

a vasectomy and an abortion are both the same decision made in response to solve the same physiological flaw.

you have made that decision and try and deny your culpability much the same as drawing a religion from an ambiguous publication for the same purpose to deny legitimacy for anything you disagree with.

I did reply to what you wrote. I refuted it. Abortion is ending the actual life of a new genetically distinct human being. Preventing contraception does not end a human life. It prevents one from being created. Two different things.

When are you going to reply to my question? Do you support abortion? Yes or no?

.

Preventing contraception does not end a human life. It prevents one from being created. Two different things.

.
you are wrong they are the same result - when you fix the flaw in physiology there will be no abortions or contraceptive measures - it's all the same pie.

you just belong to an ancient terrorist organization, christianity that enshrines persecution and victimization of the innocent. disguised as a religion.

Can you provide a link where a medical doctor states that contraception is the same as abortion? Because Sophia Yen, MD, MPH disagrees with you.

Birth Control And Abortion: Methods, Rates, And Research

The following article will explore the different types of birth control methods, abortion rates, and why women have abortions.

www.pandiahealth.com

"...There are many different types of birth control or contraceptive methods that are safe, affordable, effective, and can fit different lifestyles and budgets. There are hormonal, non-hormonal, and also natural methods of birth control.

Unfortunately, there is some confusion between birth control methods, or contraception, and abortion. Birth control, in all forms, whether it is hormonal, non-hormonal, or natural, prevents conception. But an abortion takes place after fertilization, or conception has already occurred. Contraceptive methods are not abortions, and abortions are not contraception..."

.
they too are fooling themselves just as you are -
.

Over 63 million abortions have occurred in the US since Roe v. Wade decision in 1973

More than 63 million abortions are estimated to have taken place in the U.S. since the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling, according to one analysis.

www.foxnews.com

Friday marks the 48th anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, which has resulted in an estimated 62 million abortions, according to one analysis.
.

https://slate.com/human-interest/2011/10/most-surprising-abortion-statistic-the-majority-of-women-who-terminate-pregnancies-

are-already-mothers.html
.

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/01/416421/five-years-after-abortion-

nearly-all-women-say-it-was-right-decision-study
.

Pregnancy after abortion: Chances, safety, and risks

An abortion is unlikely to affect a person’s fertility or future pregnancies. Also, it is possible to become pregnant shortly after an abortion. Learn more here.

www.medicalnewstoday.com

Most of the time, women who have had abortions can go on to have healthy pregnancies.
.
......
link shop much, bing -

where is the letter from your priest giving you permission for the vasectomy you claim to have "chosen" for yourself.

Not sure what that has to do with abortion being an abomination.

Didn't need a letter. Where's your sense of right and wrong?

.

Didn't need a letter. Where's your sense of right and wrong?

.
mine, why ask, where's yours, terrorist - oh, and the Garden - do you ever read posts ...

Does anyone read your posts?

.

Does anyone read your posts?

.
terrorist generally just shoot from the hip, your the example - by the way, are you still boiling your drinking water ... is it your state or your neighborhood that is the most polluted area in the country.

You are just upset because you support killing babies like Taz. That's not a good look.

.

You are just upset because you support killing babies like Taz. That's not a good look.

.
no, that is you that chose a vasectomy that kills babies just as polluting the Garden they are both your choices made souly at your own discretion.

I'm still good to go for all eternity ... abortion / vasectomy are the same discretionary choices for the same outcome -

bing like their phony religion exist for their own pleasure at the expense of those around them - Garden Earth as an example. of their maleficent behavior.

 

[Taz]

I can't help it if you read the Bible literally, dummy.
But way to change the subject to assuage your guilt.

At no time have I ever advocated for killing babies, unlike your bible.

You just advocate killing blobs of tissue that you dehumanize to assuage your guilt.

I don't advocate for any such thing. I would say that I'm Pro-Choice, meaning it's not my call.

If you can't say it is wrong then you are an enabler, Taz.

I'm pro-choice in everything. people need to and can decide for themselves.

So you aren't going to say abortion is wrong?

And enable you?

No. To get you to be honest. I already know you don't think it is wrong. I just want to hear you say it.

If you know already...

 

[ding]

A new edition starts with conception.

It's pretty self evident, isn't it?

Meaning, taking part of a post to make some kind of obscure point?

Meaning it should be obvious to everyone when life begins.

Billions of years ago?

A genetically distinct new human life.

.

A genetically distinct new human life.

.
is that an appropriate distinction -
.
View attachment 464149
.
when Garden Earth is what is being ravished by those same caring "christians", or
.
View attachment 464150
.
the life of a lamb is not the same value in weight for the enduring Garden. where in fact, religious and secular have no distinctive difference for the same objective conclusion.

Of course it is a relevant distinction. At conception a new genetically distinct human being has come into existence. One that has never existed before and will never exist again.

Would you end its life? Because it kind of sounds like you are arguing you would.

.

abortion is no different than all the other means for pregnancy intervention, bing proves the point by their own actions.

Of course it is a relevant distinction. At conception a new genetically distinct human being has come into existence. One that has never existed before and will never exist again.

Would you end its life? Because it kind of sounds like you are arguing you would.

.
having a vasectomy is the same decision as to end a pregnancy - they are both related to a physiological flaw that modern science has found multiple means to remedy -

as always the "christians" show no regard for Garden Earth and their rightful place than whatever suits their fancy they justify through their book of ambiguity for anything they please.

No new genetically distinct person died from a vasectomy or using birth control. So, no. It's not the same thing.

You know... it still sounds like you are arguing for killing new genetically distinct persons in the womb. Are you?

.

as always the "christians" show no regard for Garden Earth and their rightful place than whatever suits their fancy they justify through their book of ambiguity for anything they please.

No new genetically distinct person died from a vasectomy or using birth control. So, no. It's not the same thing.

You know... it still sounds like you are arguing for killing new genetically distinct persons in the womb. Are you?

.
yes, they have - that decision is the purpose for the intervention.

do you ever respond to what is written in a post ...

a vasectomy and an abortion are both the same decision made in response to solve the same physiological flaw.

you have made that decision and try and deny your culpability much the same as drawing a religion from an ambiguous publication for the same purpose to deny legitimacy for anything you disagree with.

I did reply to what you wrote. I refuted it. Abortion is ending the actual life of a new genetically distinct human being. Preventing contraception does not end a human life. It prevents one from being created. Two different things.

When are you going to reply to my question? Do you support abortion? Yes or no?

.

Preventing contraception does not end a human life. It prevents one from being created. Two different things.

.
you are wrong they are the same result - when you fix the flaw in physiology there will be no abortions or contraceptive measures - it's all the same pie.

you just belong to an ancient terrorist organization, christianity that enshrines persecution and victimization of the innocent. disguised as a religion.

Can you provide a link where a medical doctor states that contraception is the same as abortion? Because Sophia Yen, MD, MPH disagrees with you.

Birth Control And Abortion: Methods, Rates, And Research

The following article will explore the different types of birth control methods, abortion rates, and why women have abortions.

www.pandiahealth.com

"...There are many different types of birth control or contraceptive methods that are safe, affordable, effective, and can fit different lifestyles and budgets. There are hormonal, non-hormonal, and also natural methods of birth control.

Unfortunately, there is some confusion between birth control methods, or contraception, and abortion. Birth control, in all forms, whether it is hormonal, non-hormonal, or natural, prevents conception. But an abortion takes place after fertilization, or conception has already occurred. Contraceptive methods are not abortions, and abortions are not contraception..."

.
they too are fooling themselves just as you are -
.

Over 63 million abortions have occurred in the US since Roe v. Wade decision in 1973

More than 63 million abortions are estimated to have taken place in the U.S. since the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling, according to one analysis.

www.foxnews.com

Friday marks the 48th anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, which has resulted in an estimated 62 million abortions, according to one analysis.
.

https://slate.com/human-interest/2011/10/most-surprising-abortion-statistic-the-majority-of-women-who-terminate-pregnancies-

are-already-mothers.html
.

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/01/416421/five-years-after-abortion-

nearly-all-women-say-it-was-right-decision-study
.

Pregnancy after abortion: Chances, safety, and risks

An abortion is unlikely to affect a person’s fertility or future pregnancies. Also, it is possible to become pregnant shortly after an abortion. Learn more here.

www.medicalnewstoday.com

Most of the time, women who have had abortions can go on to have healthy pregnancies.
.
......
link shop much, bing -

where is the letter from your priest giving you permission for the vasectomy you claim to have "chosen" for yourself.

Not sure what that has to do with abortion being an abomination.

Didn't need a letter. Where's your sense of right and wrong?

.

Didn't need a letter. Where's your sense of right and wrong?

.
mine, why ask, where's yours, terrorist - oh, and the Garden - do you ever read posts ...

Does anyone read your posts?

.

Does anyone read your posts?

.
terrorist generally just shoot from the hip, your the example - by the way, are you still boiling your drinking water ... is it your state or your neighborhood that is the most polluted area in the country.

You are just upset because you support killing babies like Taz. That's not a good look.

.

You are just upset because you support killing babies like Taz. That's not a good look.

.
no, that is you that chose a vasectomy that kills babies just as polluting the Garden they are both your choices made souly at your own discretion.

I'm still good to go for all eternity ... abortion / vasectomy are the same discretionary choices for the same outcome -

bing like their phony religion exist for their own pleasure at the expense of those around them - Garden Earth as an example. of their maleficent behavior.

Vasectomies don't kill babies, dummy.

Stop trying to defend your support of abortion with such a stupid argument. That argument is even dumber than Taz's caterpillars aren't butterflies argument.

 

[Taz]

... Spreading nutbar beliefs is wrong, and annoying. Just like when you open your mouth, wrong and annoying. Nobody respects a whiny ***** like you. Be a man first.

What and how you say this here is for everyone interesting, who knows that I am a Jew in the eyes of the Nazis. Such hateful - and also idiotic - attacks show very clear that you are a real Nazi and not someone, who is misinterpreting something.

I don't care if you're Jewish,

You do.

I'm a big supporter of Israel myself.

Bad luck for Israel.

Your problem is that you're a whiner. Always playing the victim. Be a man. For once.

¿¿¿Playing? the victim?, Nazi? ... Okay ... I will buy a gun and shoot you down, rat. ... Or what else do you like to hear now from a German like me? ¿How stupid are you really?

See? More whining. Grow some balls, you ***.

TAZ - You are an evilwilling extremist idiot. And you are not shy to show this to everyone.

C'mon zaan, you looooooove me.

 

[ding]

I can't help it if you read the Bible literally, dummy.
But way to change the subject to assuage your guilt.

At no time have I ever advocated for killing babies, unlike your bible.

You just advocate killing blobs of tissue that you dehumanize to assuage your guilt.

I don't advocate for any such thing. I would say that I'm Pro-Choice, meaning it's not my call.

If you can't say it is wrong then you are an enabler, Taz.

I'm pro-choice in everything. people need to and can decide for themselves.

So you aren't going to say abortion is wrong?

And enable you?

No. To get you to be honest. I already know you don't think it is wrong. I just want to hear you say it.

If you know already...

Yes, I do and the fact that you can't say it out that you think abortion is good tells me that you know it is wrong too.

 

[Taz]

.
till the crucifiers are brought to justice no religion will represent the 1st century religious itinerant or the many others made to suffer by the same means. than the spoken religion of antiquity presently abandoned for the same reason.

Do you understand what you say here?

.
better yet ... do you know why the 1st century religious itinerant was crucified.

I guess, you'll tell me this now.

.

better yet ... do you know why the 1st century religious itinerant was crucified.

I guess, you'll tell me this now.

.
that was meant as a question, you're the christian - and please explain the chicken that crowed 3 times ...

because they are still crowing - - > at you - - still afraid, for what "they" will do to you ...
.

* hint: "they" wrote your book.

I don't understand what you want from me. Soon will be Easter. What about the idea to follow just simple our way now? Jesus had died on April, 7th in the year 30 AD. This we will remember this year again by celebrating Easter again. It's the 1990th Easter celebration. In the moment is a fasting period, which was starting last Wednesday. We often prefer periods of 40 days (not periods of months). And "fast" has nothing to do with speed in this context - it comes from the German word "fest", what means solid, strong, hard, firm. In a fasting period we train our will to do what's good to do. This is individually different. If you do often something what's not good for you or others - or if you let it be to do what's good for you and others - then this are good situations for to start to change this wrongdoing now. Don't try to change everything - try to change only a special moment. But do it: Change it. See what this is doing with you.

.

Jesus had died on April, 7th in the year 30 AD. This we will remember this year again by celebrating Easter again.

.
you seem never to know what anyone is ever saying -


howabout not celebrating till you bring to justice the crucifiers who victimized the 1st century religious itinerant to give any meaning whatsoever for whatever you are celebrating - as a memento, too - the religion of antiquity the itinerant died for.

Do you like to create a time machine and to wipe out the Romans?

Just the Germans, they're a waste of space, and like their bodies cooked crispy.

I like it when you show that you believe morals are absolute.

Wonderful that you like something. But what do you call "moral" here?

The comment was directed at Taz's apparent righteous indignation. So as much as Taz and people like Taz want to object to absolute morality and absolute truth, they demonstrate they believe in a universal right and wrong that everyone should know, understand, accept and follow.

Dirty Krautz thought that what they were doing was legit. Morals are subjectives.

You certainly don't act like morals are subjective. You only act like your beliefs that morals are subjective are subjective.

We'll never all agree on what's moral, that would make it subjective. Abortion and same sex marriage to name two that all of society will never agree on.

Nope. That makes human being subjective, dummy. No matter what the time, no matter what the issue, there were always people who believed that moral evils were wrong even when those in their societies thought it was right.

You demonstrate daily your belief in a universal right and wrong, despite your objections to the contrary.

See? you prove my point, you call abortion a universal moral evil, I don't.

In case of every abortion always a human being has to die. That's the universal component of all abortions. So how is abortion in general able to be compatible with the natural human rights? Are all abortions justifiable?

You see it one way, I see it another.

Btw, you're wrong. As usual.

What for heavens sake do you see with closed eyes? That light is an absurdity? To kill human beings is not a question of ideas, opinions or tolerance.

A fetus isn't a human being. Now you know.

When exactly starts a human being to be a human being in your view to the world? What are the very exact reasons for this in my eyes very absurde idea?

A fetus becomes a human being when it is born. Sort of like a caterpillar isn't a butterfly into it comes out of the cocoon.

That's not what every embryologist and embryology textbook says, dummy.

Again, no link. Now **** out of my threads until you get a link, ok?

When Do Human Beings Begin?

.

A butterfly begins as a caterpillar. A human begins as a fetus.

Not according to science. Did you even read the link?

The human being starts off as a fetus. The whole thing starts at conception. No problem there. What is it you're trying to get at?

From the link you asked for but didn't read....


Myth 2: "The product of fertilization is simply a �blob,� a �bunch of cells�, a �piece of the mother�s tissues�."


Fact 2: As demonstrated above, the human embryonic organism formed at fertilization is a whole human being, and therefore it is not just a "blob" or a "bunch of cells." This new human individual also has a mixture of both the mother�s and the father�s chromosomes, and therefore it is not just a "piece of the mother�s tissues". Quoting Carlson:

"... [T]hrough the mingling of maternal and paternal chromosomes, the zygote is a genetically unique product of chromosomal reassortment, which is important for the viability of any species."15 (Emphasis added.)

When Do Human Beings Begin?

.

He makes the distinction between human being and human person. So in his view, I'm talking about a human person. Life begins at conception but you don't become a human person until you're born. There. Happy yet?

I couldn't be happier for you to ass **** logic, taz.

It’s your link, making you the ass ******. I bet you do that often.

The link refutes YOUR logic. It's YOUR faulty logic that ass ***** logic.

Was that supposed to be a homophobic insult, Taz? That's very revealing of you.

Actually the guy agrees with me, he makes the distinction between in utero and outside it.

You are an idiot if that was what you concluded.

Myth 2: "The product of fertilization is simply a �blob,� a �bunch of cells�, a �piece of the mother�s tissues�."

Fact 2: As demonstrated above, the human embryonic organism formed at fertilization is a whole human being, and therefore it is not just a "blob" or a "bunch of cells." This new human individual also has a mixture of both the mother�s and the father�s chromosomes, and therefore it is not just a "piece of the mother�s tissues". Quoting Carlson:

"... [T]hrough the mingling of maternal and paternal chromosomes, the zygote is a genetically unique product of chromosomal reassortment, which is important for the viability of any species."15 (Emphasis added.)

When Do Human Beings Begin?

Well, your quote says "the human embryonic organism formed at fertilization is a whole human being", which seems wrong as a whole human being has legs and arms, and can breathe and eat on its own...

It might have its chromosomes at conception, something I've never denied, but it's like something having its bar code before all the pieces are assembled. Fits perfectly into my model.

And you must really enjoy talking to idiots, so don't get so upset about it.

Dummy, the quote says that at conception a new human being has come into existence. It's not a lump of tissue or the mother. It is a new human being.

The reason you can't accept this fact is because it makes it harder for you to kill it. Just be honest that you don't give a **** about killing babies. Lean into it.

You can't even read your own quote properly, "the human embryonic organism formed at fertilization is a whole human being". Which is false. Own it.

You think you know more than the experts? It means that everything that controls the human life cycle is in place. It's not a potential human being. It is a human being with potential. It's not a blob of tissue as you put it.

Here's the definition of human being. So not an embryo or a fetus, which are 2 different things.
Human being

In this article is nothing written about embryos and fetuses. It describes biological components of human beings in context with other biological species. In general helps a simple example: The fetus of an elephant is an elephant. The fetus of a human being a human being. A fetus is not a species - a fetus is a developement step - comparable with an expression like "baby" for example. A nice baby of an elepant and a nice baby of a human being are different living entities.

A caterpillar isn't a butterfly.

What's wrong. In a caterpillar lives something what we are able to call "the soul of a butterfly". And every butterfly was once a hungry caterpillar.

Now shut up and stop whining.

What about to try to become a human being and stop it to be a monster? If a caterpillar can become a butterlfy then this change easily should be able to be done.

Humans start as an embryo, then develop into a fetus, then come out as a human being. And then some of them go back in an oven, don't they?

 

[ding]

.
till the crucifiers are brought to justice no religion will represent the 1st century religious itinerant or the many others made to suffer by the same means. than the spoken religion of antiquity presently abandoned for the same reason.

Do you understand what you say here?

.
better yet ... do you know why the 1st century religious itinerant was crucified.

I guess, you'll tell me this now.

.

better yet ... do you know why the 1st century religious itinerant was crucified.

I guess, you'll tell me this now.

.
that was meant as a question, you're the christian - and please explain the chicken that crowed 3 times ...

because they are still crowing - - > at you - - still afraid, for what "they" will do to you ...
.

* hint: "they" wrote your book.

I don't understand what you want from me. Soon will be Easter. What about the idea to follow just simple our way now? Jesus had died on April, 7th in the year 30 AD. This we will remember this year again by celebrating Easter again. It's the 1990th Easter celebration. In the moment is a fasting period, which was starting last Wednesday. We often prefer periods of 40 days (not periods of months). And "fast" has nothing to do with speed in this context - it comes from the German word "fest", what means solid, strong, hard, firm. In a fasting period we train our will to do what's good to do. This is individually different. If you do often something what's not good for you or others - or if you let it be to do what's good for you and others - then this are good situations for to start to change this wrongdoing now. Don't try to change everything - try to change only a special moment. But do it: Change it. See what this is doing with you.

.

Jesus had died on April, 7th in the year 30 AD. This we will remember this year again by celebrating Easter again.

.
you seem never to know what anyone is ever saying -


howabout not celebrating till you bring to justice the crucifiers who victimized the 1st century religious itinerant to give any meaning whatsoever for whatever you are celebrating - as a memento, too - the religion of antiquity the itinerant died for.

Do you like to create a time machine and to wipe out the Romans?

Just the Germans, they're a waste of space, and like their bodies cooked crispy.

I like it when you show that you believe morals are absolute.

Wonderful that you like something. But what do you call "moral" here?

The comment was directed at Taz's apparent righteous indignation. So as much as Taz and people like Taz want to object to absolute morality and absolute truth, they demonstrate they believe in a universal right and wrong that everyone should know, understand, accept and follow.

Dirty Krautz thought that what they were doing was legit. Morals are subjectives.

You certainly don't act like morals are subjective. You only act like your beliefs that morals are subjective are subjective.

We'll never all agree on what's moral, that would make it subjective. Abortion and same sex marriage to name two that all of society will never agree on.

Nope. That makes human being subjective, dummy. No matter what the time, no matter what the issue, there were always people who believed that moral evils were wrong even when those in their societies thought it was right.

You demonstrate daily your belief in a universal right and wrong, despite your objections to the contrary.

See? you prove my point, you call abortion a universal moral evil, I don't.

In case of every abortion always a human being has to die. That's the universal component of all abortions. So how is abortion in general able to be compatible with the natural human rights? Are all abortions justifiable?

You see it one way, I see it another.

Btw, you're wrong. As usual.

What for heavens sake do you see with closed eyes? That light is an absurdity? To kill human beings is not a question of ideas, opinions or tolerance.

A fetus isn't a human being. Now you know.

When exactly starts a human being to be a human being in your view to the world? What are the very exact reasons for this in my eyes very absurde idea?

A fetus becomes a human being when it is born. Sort of like a caterpillar isn't a butterfly into it comes out of the cocoon.

That's not what every embryologist and embryology textbook says, dummy.

Again, no link. Now **** out of my threads until you get a link, ok?

When Do Human Beings Begin?

.

A butterfly begins as a caterpillar. A human begins as a fetus.

Not according to science. Did you even read the link?

The human being starts off as a fetus. The whole thing starts at conception. No problem there. What is it you're trying to get at?

From the link you asked for but didn't read....


Myth 2: "The product of fertilization is simply a �blob,� a �bunch of cells�, a �piece of the mother�s tissues�."


Fact 2: As demonstrated above, the human embryonic organism formed at fertilization is a whole human being, and therefore it is not just a "blob" or a "bunch of cells." This new human individual also has a mixture of both the mother�s and the father�s chromosomes, and therefore it is not just a "piece of the mother�s tissues". Quoting Carlson:

"... [T]hrough the mingling of maternal and paternal chromosomes, the zygote is a genetically unique product of chromosomal reassortment, which is important for the viability of any species."15 (Emphasis added.)

When Do Human Beings Begin?

.

He makes the distinction between human being and human person. So in his view, I'm talking about a human person. Life begins at conception but you don't become a human person until you're born. There. Happy yet?

I couldn't be happier for you to ass **** logic, taz.

It’s your link, making you the ass ******. I bet you do that often.

The link refutes YOUR logic. It's YOUR faulty logic that ass ***** logic.

Was that supposed to be a homophobic insult, Taz? That's very revealing of you.

Actually the guy agrees with me, he makes the distinction between in utero and outside it.

You are an idiot if that was what you concluded.

Myth 2: "The product of fertilization is simply a �blob,� a �bunch of cells�, a �piece of the mother�s tissues�."

Fact 2: As demonstrated above, the human embryonic organism formed at fertilization is a whole human being, and therefore it is not just a "blob" or a "bunch of cells." This new human individual also has a mixture of both the mother�s and the father�s chromosomes, and therefore it is not just a "piece of the mother�s tissues". Quoting Carlson:

"... [T]hrough the mingling of maternal and paternal chromosomes, the zygote is a genetically unique product of chromosomal reassortment, which is important for the viability of any species."15 (Emphasis added.)

When Do Human Beings Begin?

Well, your quote says "the human embryonic organism formed at fertilization is a whole human being", which seems wrong as a whole human being has legs and arms, and can breathe and eat on its own...

It might have its chromosomes at conception, something I've never denied, but it's like something having its bar code before all the pieces are assembled. Fits perfectly into my model.

And you must really enjoy talking to idiots, so don't get so upset about it.

Dummy, the quote says that at conception a new human being has come into existence. It's not a lump of tissue or the mother. It is a new human being.

The reason you can't accept this fact is because it makes it harder for you to kill it. Just be honest that you don't give a **** about killing babies. Lean into it.

You can't even read your own quote properly, "the human embryonic organism formed at fertilization is a whole human being". Which is false. Own it.

You think you know more than the experts? It means that everything that controls the human life cycle is in place. It's not a potential human being. It is a human being with potential. It's not a blob of tissue as you put it.

Here's the definition of human being. So not an embryo or a fetus, which are 2 different things.
Human being

In this article is nothing written about embryos and fetuses. It describes biological components of human beings in context with other biological species. In general helps a simple example: The fetus of an elephant is an elephant. The fetus of a human being a human being. A fetus is not a species - a fetus is a developement step - comparable with an expression like "baby" for example. A nice baby of an elepant and a nice baby of a human being are different living entities.

A caterpillar isn't a butterfly.

What's wrong. In a caterpillar lives something what we are able to call "the soul of a butterfly". And every butterfly was once a hungry caterpillar.

Now shut up and stop whining.

What about to try to become a human being and stop it to be a monster? If a caterpillar can become a butterlfy then this change easily should be able to be done.

Humans start as an embryo, then develop into a fetus, then come out as a human being. And then some of them go back in an oven, don't they?

They are human beings every step of the way. It's called the human life cycle, dummy. It begins at conception and ends at death. Learn some science.

 

[ding]

See Taz ?

"An individual human life begins at conception when a sperm cell from the father fuses with an egg cell from the mother, to form a new cell, the zygote, the first embryonic stage. The zygote grows and divides into two daughter cells, each of which grows and divides into two grand-daughter cells, and this cell growth/division process continues on, over and over again. The zygote is the start of a biological continuum that automatically grows and develops, passing gradually and sequentially through the stages we call foetus, baby, child, adult, old person and ending eventually in death. The full genetic instructions to guide the development of the continuum, in interaction with its environment, are present in the zygote. Every stage along the continuum is biologically human and each point along the continuum has the full human properties appropriate to that point."
Dr. William Reville, University College Cork, Ireland