Catholicism?

[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..."

 

[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.

Do you support abortion?

 

[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 fuck 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 fuck logic, taz.

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

 

[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 fuck 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 fuck logic, taz.

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

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

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

 

[ding]

The attributes of life makes him or her living. The DNA makes him or her a specific human person.

This in no longer a matter of conjecture. This is based upon empirical evidence.

 

[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

... 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.

 

[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?

 

[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 ...

 

[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?

 

[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 fuck 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 fuck logic, taz.

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

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

 

[there4eyeM]

As nature gave birth to females, and it is by them that birth occurs, it is only natural that if choice is possible and desired, that it be the female who decides. That way, it is between her and any other assumed power concerned.
In any event, if one believes we are born in sin, he must believe that the unborn bear no burden.

 

[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 fuck 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 fuck logic, taz.

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

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

 

[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 fuck 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 fuck logic, taz.

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

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

 

[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 fuck 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 fuck logic, taz.

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

The link refutes YOUR logic. It's YOUR faulty logic that ass fucks 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 fuck about killing babies. Lean into it.

 

[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 fuck 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 fuck logic, taz.

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

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

 

[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.

 

[zaangalewa]

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

 

[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 fuck 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 fuck logic, taz.

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

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

 

[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.

 

[Taz]

... Spreading nutbar beliefs is wrong, and annoying. Just like when you open your mouth, wrong and annoying. Nobody respects a whiny bitch 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, I'm a big supporter of Israel myself. Your problem is that you're a whiner. Always playing the victim. Be a man. For once.