Then the answers are no, no and no.
So now it's more than a cancerous growth.
So what is it?
Have you checked to ensure it's not an endangered species?
After all it might be the last of its kind.
*****CHUCKLE*****

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Then the answers are no, no and no.
Once conception occurs, we have an organism with a unique DNA code that proves it a human being.
The convenience of one of the two parents does not give a right to kill that offspring.
At conception, it is a zygote. A combination of genes.
Then the answers are no, no and no.
What part of "no" don't you understand?
What part of "no" don't you understand?
Because that wasn't the question. And since you're playing STOOPID, i'll repeat the question and the answer, which you seem incapable of understanding.I understood that you say it isn't a cancerous growth what part of reading comprehension eludes you?
So you're position is that a viable fetus is nothing more than a cancerous tumor?
Because that wasn't the question. And since you're playing STOOPID, i'll repeat the question and the answer, which you seem incapable of understanding.
NO!
You didn't answer the question of what it is.
Please read for comprehension. I'm giving for full protections to a viable fetus, but not to a clump of cells in a test tube.
Bacteria doesn't have a heartbeat ......Nobody is questioning it's alive. Bacteria are alive, but I wouldn't give TB protection from using drugs to abort it.
As many music videos on YouTube as there are.How many times are you going to ignore my answer?
At conception, it is a zygote. A combination of genes.
Bacteria doesn't have a heartbeat ......
How many times are you going to ignore my answer?
At the moment of conception, it is a zygote. Nothing else. The rest of your diatribe are characteristics YOU are ascribing to it.Once conception occurs, we have an organism with a unique DNA code that proves it a human being.
The convenience of one of the two parents does not give a right to kill that offspring.
What I said is, as always, exactly correct.
Being an associate of the party of death, you'd want to cloud the issue.
Fascists, Nazis, Liberals, Progressives, Socialists, Communists, Democrats
The collective, command and control regulation of private industry, and overarching government that can order every aspect of the private citizen's life....right down to control of his thoughts and speech.
None of the totalitarian forms of political plague have the slightest concern for human life: not communism (gulags), not Nazism (concentration camps), not Liberalism (abortion), not Progressivism (eugenics), not socialism (theft), not fascism (murder).
The Democrats check every one of those boxes.
They only differ in the final outcome: slavery, serfdom, or death.
They all follow Trotsky: "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life."
Is it true that, to be a Democrat in good standing, one must take a blood oath to worship the Devil????
At the moment of conception, it is a zygote. Nothing else. The rest of your diatribe are characteristics YOU are ascribing to it.
And I find it deeply amusing that you'll defend that zygotes life to the death, but the moment it drops out of the mother, you
couldn't give two shits about it.
You are however, a shining example of EXACTLY why the ideology of conservatism (at least in its present form) is an abject failure.
It isn't rooted in the belief in the Constitution or the rule of law, or economic fundamentals. It's rooted in religious overtones. Specifically, the belief in a supreme
being.
At the moment of conception, it is a zygote. Nothing else. The rest of your diatribe are characteristics YOU are ascribing to it.
And I find it deeply amusing that you'll defend that zygotes life to the death, but the moment it drops out of the mother, you
couldn't give two shits about it.
You are however, a shining example of EXACTLY why the ideology of conservatism (at least in its present form) is an abject failure.
It isn't rooted in the belief in the Constitution or the rule of law, or economic fundamentals. It's rooted in religious overtones. Specifically, the belief in a supreme
being.
Whatever you're smoking remember your liberal obligation to share it with all of us!If they wanted to protect the unborn, they would pass a law making it illegal for God to abort a fetus after 6 weeks.
No, you dunce.....it is a human being.
Your remedial here:
Shettles, Landrum, M.D., Rorvik, David, Rites of Life: The Scientific Evidence for Life Before Birth, page 36, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1983
“… Conception confers life and makes you one of a kind. Unless you have an identical twin, there is virtually no chance, in the natural course of things, that there will be “another you” – not even if mankind were to persist for billions of years.”
Once conception occurs, we have an organism with a unique DNA code that proves it a human being.
The convenience of one of the two parents does not give a right to kill that offspring.
There never was any doubt that Democrats, Leftists, lack self-awareness.
And, as you will see......any sense of irony.
"‘Diabolical’ That Supreme Court Didn’t Protect Abortion Like Religious Liberty: MSNBC Legal Analyst
The Supreme Court rendered a “diabolical” decision by refusing to let women continue to seek abortions “up to at least viability,” especially since the justices previously halted a state law that interfered with believers’ religious liberty, an MSNBC legal analyst said.
She worried that the procedural ruling means the majority of justices “don’t intend to give Roe v. Wade continuing life.”
On Friday’s episode of “Morning Joe,” guest host Willie Geist asked former Obama administration U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan Barbara McQuade about a Texas law that bars abortionists from performing an abortion if they can detect a fetal heartbeat.
In a 5-4 decision offered Thursday, the Supreme Court allowed the law to remain in effect while the case wends its way through the court system — an action McQuade claimed violates the “right” to an abortion, which she considers as sacrosanct as the freedom of religion."
![]()
‘Diabolical’ That Supreme Court Didn’t Protect Abortion Like Religious Liberty: MSNBC Legal Analyst
The Supreme Court rendered a “diabolical” decision by refusing to let women continue to seek abortions “up to at least viability,” especially since the justices previously halted a state law that interfered with believers’ religious liberty, an MSNBC legal analyst said. She worried that the...www.dailywire.com
It would really be funny...."continuing life" for the bill but not the baby.......if the issue weren't about the "right" to kill another human being.