Regarding The "Party Of Science"

[PoliticalChic]

Long story short: they lie about everything.



1. "On Wednesday December 1, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson. This case involves a Mississippi law that limits abortion to 15 “weeks’ gestation except in medical emergency and in cases of severe fetal abnormality.”

During the hearing, Mississippi Solicitor General Scott G. Stewart defended the law by asserting that the State of Mississippi has an interest in preventing “the purposeful termination of a human life,” but Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor challenged him and declared:

How is your interest anything but a religious view? The issue of when life begins has been hotly debated by philosophers since the beginning of time. It’s still debated in religions. So, when you say this is the only right that takes away from the state the ability to protect a life, that’s a religious view.

Contrary to Sotomayor and regardless of what any philosopher or religious leader may think, the facts of science are clear that each human life begins at fertilization. As documented below, these facts are from credible science publications that don’t argue for or against abortion. In other words, they are not polemics from people with science degrees but facts from neutral scientific authorities.




2. The American Heritage Dictionary of Science—which was written by nine highly credentialed scientists under a “precise editorial review” to maintain “a standard of excellence”—defines “life” as:

the form of existence that organisms like animals and plants have and that inorganic objects or organic dead bodies lack; animate existence, characterized by growth, reproduction, metabolism, and response to stimuli.

Those four defining characteristics of life are all present during or soon after fertilization, which occurs when a sperm and egg unite to form a zygote, or the earliest stage of a human embryo:

1. Growth: Per the textbook Essentials of Human Development: A Life-Span View, “Fertilization begins the period of the zygote,” and “the zygote grows rapidly through cell division.”
2. Reproduction: Per a paper in the Biochemical Journal, “Sexual reproduction in mammals results in the formation of a zygote, a single cell which contains all the necessary information to produce an entire organism comprised of billions of cells grouped into multitudinous cell types.”
3. Metabolism: Per the medical text Human Gametes and Preimplantation Embryos: Assessment and Diagnosis, “At the zygote stage,” the human embryo metabolizes “carboxylic acids pyruvate and lactate as its preferred energy substrates.”
4. Response to stimuli: The Oxford Dictionary of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology defines a “stimulus” as “any event or phenomenon, such as radiation, electrical potential, or addition of molecules that leads to excitation of a tissue or cell.” Experiments have found that human zygotes respond to such stimulants. For example, a paper in the journal Human Reproduction Update documents that a compound called platelet-activating factor “acts upon the zygote” by stimulating “metabolism,” “cell-cycle progression,” and “viability.”

3. As explained in Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia, “At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.”

In keeping with the facts above, clinical literature is explicit that each new human life begins at fertilization:

• The Encyclopedia & Dictionary of Medicine, Nurng & Allied Health states that “human reproduction” is “the process by which the male’s sperm unites with the female’s oocyte, creating a new life.”
• The embryology textbook Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects states that “the zygote and early embryo are living human organisms.”
• The medical textbook The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology states that “fertilization” creates “a new combination of chromosomes that is different from that in the cells of either of the parents,” and this “is the beginning of a new human being.”
• The clinical book An Atlas of the Human Embryo and Fetus: A Photographic Review of Human Prenatal Development states, “A human being originates from two living cells: the oocyte (female germ cell) and the spermatozoon (male germ cell), transmitting the torch of life to the next generation.” The Facts of Science Prove That Each Human Life Begins at Fertilization - Just Facts

What can abortion be other than “the purposeful termination of a human life"?

Under what understanding can government allow one human being to kill another, innocent, harmless, human?????

 

[PoliticalChic]

 

[johngaltshrugged]

Well done PoliticalChic.
They jump through hoops to convince themselves & other members of the child sacrifice cult that they aren't actually killing a human being.
I guess it helps them live with murdering innocent & vulnerable babies if they can pretend it's not a human being.
I'd almost feel sorry for these lost people but it's much too barbaric & evil to have empathy for their delusions.

 

[zaangalewa]

...

What can abortion be other than “the purposeful termination of a human life"?

The problem in this context: Evolution repeats very fast what had happened during phylogeny (=creative history of life) in the ontogenesis (=individual developement of life). So for example a human embryo is for a little while like a kind of common ancestor with a fish, frog, mouse ... or ape and so on and so on. The embryo represents also all "animals" of evolution who had been on the way to become a human being. So this "human life" aspect is not 100% totally clear - but we never found any argument to say "here it is still a human being" and "there it is not a human being any longer". We don't know and we are not able to decide this in sense of natural science. Natural science is only able to show what happens. But it is impossible to say who kills an human embryo not kills a human being. No one really knows.

Under what understanding can government allow one human being to kill another, innocent, harmless, human?????

Very clear on reason the life of the mother is in danger to go lost - because with her death will die two human beings - she and her child - but if we are able to save the mother dies only one human being.

Very difficult is the decision in case the baby has a genetical defect - what can be an extreme challenge for the mother - specially if no one helps her (- what becomes more and more normal in such a case). This can be often seen equivalent to the problem that a mother is losing her life. And who has the right to demand what he would on his own not be able to do?

Also other reasons are thinkable. - for example when a woman was raped. But this is often different in the point of view. One mother is able to see her own child in such a baby (what's also a fact!) - another mother is only able to see the devilish father of this baby - and perhaps she will murder this child one day because she is not able to handle this traumata. So also in this case the mother needs true help and not a predeterminated decision.

And there are for sure much more such reasons and extremely difficult decisions.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Well done PoliticalChic.
They jump through hoops to convince themselves & other members of the child sacrifice cult that they aren't actually killing a human being.
I guess it helps them live with murdering innocent & vulnerable babies if they can pretend it's not a human being.
I'd almost feel sorry for these lost people but it's much too barbaric & evil to have empathy for their delusions.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The problem in this context: Evolution repeats very fast what had happened during phylogeny (=creative history of life) in the ontogenesis (=individual developement of life). So for example a human embryo is for a little while like a kind of common ancestor with a fish, frog, mouse ... or ape and so on and so on. The embryo represents also all "animals" of evolution who had been on the way to become a human being. So this "human life" aspect is not 100% totally clear - but we never found any argument to say "here it is still a human being" and "there it is not a human being any longer". We don't know and we are not able to decide this in sense of natural science. Natural science is only able to show what happens. But it is impossible to say who kills an human embryo not kills a human being. No one really knows.



Very clear on reason the life of the mother is in danger to go lost - because with her death will die two human beings - she and her child - but if we are able to save the mother dies only one human being.

Very difficult is the decision in case the baby has a genetical defect - what can be an extreme challenge for the mother - specially if no one helps her (- what becomes more and more normal in such a case). This can be often seen equivalent to the problem that a mother is losing her life. And who has the right to demand what he would on his own not be able to do?

Also other reasons are thinkable. - for example when a woman was raped. But this is often different in the point of view. One mother is able to see her own child in such a baby (what's also a fact!) - another mother is only able to see the devilish father of this baby - and perhaps she will murder this child one day because she is not able to handle this traumata. So also in this case the mother needs true help and not a predeterminated decision.

And there are for sure much more such reasons and extremely difficult decisions.

"The problem in this context: Evolution repeats very fast what had happened during phylogeny (=creative history of life) in the ontogenesis (=individual developement of life). So for example a human embryo is for a little while like a kind of common ancestor with a fish, frog, mouse ... or ape and so on and so on. The embryo represents also all "animals" of evolution who had been on the way to become a human being. So this "human life" aspect is not 100% totally clear - but we never found any argument to say "here it is still a human being" and "there it is not a human being any longer". We don't know and we are not able to decide this in sense of natural science. Natural science is only able to show what happens. But it is impossible to say who kills an human embryo not kills a human being. No one really knows."


Actually, Haeckel's comparisons were fake.



Haeckel’s embryo diagram.They were faked to prove Darwin's common ancestor theory.
You'll find them in every textbook, and every classroom.




".... Haeckel's drawings of embryonic similarities were not correct. British embryologist Michael Richardson and his colleages published an important paper in the August 1997 issue of Anatomy & Embryology showing that Haeckel had fudged his drawings to make the early stages of embryos appear more alike than they actually are! As it turns out, Haeckel's contemporaries had spotted the fraud during his lifetime, and got him to admit it. However, his drawings nonetheless became the source material for diagrams of comparative embryology in nearly every biology textbook, including ours!"
Haeckel s Embryos


BTW....
"Some historians have seen Haeckel's social Darwinism as a forerunner to Nazi ideology. Others have denied the relationship altogether. The evidence is in some respects ambiguous. On one hand, Haeckel was an advocate of scientific racism."
Wikipedia

 

[PoliticalChic]

The problem in this context: Evolution repeats very fast what had happened during phylogeny (=creative history of life) in the ontogenesis (=individual developement of life). So for example a human embryo is for a little while like a kind of common ancestor with a fish, frog, mouse ... or ape and so on and so on. The embryo represents also all "animals" of evolution who had been on the way to become a human being. So this "human life" aspect is not 100% totally clear - but we never found any argument to say "here it is still a human being" and "there it is not a human being any longer". We don't know and we are not able to decide this in sense of natural science. Natural science is only able to show what happens. But it is impossible to say who kills an human embryo not kills a human being. No one really knows.



Very clear on reason the life of the mother is in danger to go lost - because with her death will die two human beings - she and her child - but if we are able to save the mother dies only one human being.

Very difficult is the decision in case the baby has a genetical defect - what can be an extreme challenge for the mother - specially if no one helps her (- what becomes more and more normal in such a case). This can be often seen equivalent to the problem that a mother is losing her life. And who has the right to demand what he would on his own not be able to do?

Also other reasons are thinkable. - for example when a woman was raped. But this is often different in the point of view. One mother is able to see her own child in such a baby (what's also a fact!) - another mother is only able to see the devilish father of this baby - and perhaps she will murder this child one day because she is not able to handle this traumata. So also in this case the mother needs true help and not a predeterminated decision.

And there are for sure much more such reasons and extremely difficult decisions.

"Very clear on reason the life of the mother is in danger to go lost - "

You couldn't be more wrong if your aim was to be more wrong.


Nearly 100% of all abortions are for convenience and nothing else.



Let's deal with the so very overused idea of "cases of rape or incest."
The concept that there are "cases of rape or incest" is a chimera.
They really don't exist.....well, the fact is that 98.5% of abortion don't involve either abhorrent event.
The cases in which abortion is for rape, 1%; and .5% incest.http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf


. The vast majority of abortion performed in the United States are carried out for reasons that can be broadly categorized as “matters of convenience.”

Nearly every abortion is based on convenience.....Convenience, as in having your groceries delivered rather than having to walk across the street to pick them up.....this level of consideration in deciding to execute the child you've created.



In a study of 27 nations, reasons for abortion services were found to be the following:

a. “Worldwide, the most commonly reported reason women cite for having an abortion is to postpone or stop childbearing. The second most common reason—socioeconomic concerns—includes disruption of education or employment; lack of support from the father; desire to provide schooling for existing children; and poverty, unemployment or inability to afford additional children. In addition, relationship problems with a husband or partner and a woman's perception that she is too young constitute other important categories of reasons.” Reasons Why Women Have Induced Abortions: Evidence from 27 Countries


b. A 2004 study of American women yielded similar results: “The reasons most frequently cited were that having a child would interfere with a woman’s education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now (73%); and that she did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%). Nearly four in 10 women said they had completed their childbearing, and almost one-third were not ready to have a child. Fewer than 1% said their parents’ or partners’ desire for them to have an abortion was the most important reason. Younger women often reported that they were unprepared for the transition to motherhood, while older women regularly cited their responsibility to dependents.”
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf




c. We must reject the view that inconvenience of a mother’s informed choice outweighs the unalienable right to life of the child she bears by virtue of that choice.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The problem in this context: Evolution repeats very fast what had happened during phylogeny (=creative history of life) in the ontogenesis (=individual developement of life). So for example a human embryo is for a little while like a kind of common ancestor with a fish, frog, mouse ... or ape and so on and so on. The embryo represents also all "animals" of evolution who had been on the way to become a human being. So this "human life" aspect is not 100% totally clear - but we never found any argument to say "here it is still a human being" and "there it is not a human being any longer". We don't know and we are not able to decide this in sense of natural science. Natural science is only able to show what happens. But it is impossible to say who kills an human embryo not kills a human being. No one really knows.



Very clear on reason the life of the mother is in danger to go lost - because with her death will die two human beings - she and her child - but if we are able to save the mother dies only one human being.

Very difficult is the decision in case the baby has a genetical defect - what can be an extreme challenge for the mother - specially if no one helps her (- what becomes more and more normal in such a case). This can be often seen equivalent to the problem that a mother is losing her life. And who has the right to demand what he would on his own not be able to do?

Also other reasons are thinkable. - for example when a woman was raped. But this is often different in the point of view. One mother is able to see her own child in such a baby (what's also a fact!) - another mother is only able to see the devilish father of this baby - and perhaps she will murder this child one day because she is not able to handle this traumata. So also in this case the mother needs true help and not a predeterminated decision.

And there are for sure much more such reasons and extremely difficult decisions.

"Also other reasons are thinkable. - for example when a woman was raped."


That's less than 1% of the reasons for murder of the unborn.


Sooo....if we make an exception for rape and incest, you'd be in favor of banning abortion????

Or are you simply a fraud?????





Democrats demand the "right" to kill babies.

At recent hearings, Democrat Raskin was attempting to pin down Catherine Foster, asking "is it your aim to ban all abortions, including cases of rape and incest."


She calmly knocks him cold with one question:

 

[PoliticalChic]

The problem in this context: Evolution repeats very fast what had happened during phylogeny (=creative history of life) in the ontogenesis (=individual developement of life). So for example a human embryo is for a little while like a kind of common ancestor with a fish, frog, mouse ... or ape and so on and so on. The embryo represents also all "animals" of evolution who had been on the way to become a human being. So this "human life" aspect is not 100% totally clear - but we never found any argument to say "here it is still a human being" and "there it is not a human being any longer". We don't know and we are not able to decide this in sense of natural science. Natural science is only able to show what happens. But it is impossible to say who kills an human embryo not kills a human being. No one really knows.



Very clear on reason the life of the mother is in danger to go lost - because with her death will die two human beings - she and her child - but if we are able to save the mother dies only one human being.

Very difficult is the decision in case the baby has a genetical defect - what can be an extreme challenge for the mother - specially if no one helps her (- what becomes more and more normal in such a case). This can be often seen equivalent to the problem that a mother is losing her life. And who has the right to demand what he would on his own not be able to do?

Also other reasons are thinkable. - for example when a woman was raped. But this is often different in the point of view. One mother is able to see her own child in such a baby (what's also a fact!) - another mother is only able to see the devilish father of this baby - and perhaps she will murder this child one day because she is not able to handle this traumata. So also in this case the mother needs true help and not a predeterminated decision.

And there are for sure much more such reasons and extremely difficult decisions.

"And there are for sure much more such reasons and extremely difficult decisions."

No there aren't.




Just one.

 

[alang1216]

Under what understanding can government allow one human being to kill another, innocent, harmless, human?????

We do it all the time. We didn't want to live under Japanese rule so we sent Americans to firebomb Tokyo. Human life is precious but is not priceless, ask any General or actuary.

 

[PoliticalChic]

We do it all the time. We didn't want to live under Japanese rule so we sent Americans to firebomb Tokyo. Human life is precious but is not priceless, ask any General or actuary.

"We do it all the time. "


Exactly what I've said about the Nazis, the Bolshevikes, and you Democrats.

U.S. Abortion Statistics By Year (1973-Current) - Christian Life ...​

https://christianliferesources.com › 2021/01/19 › u-s-ab...
— THE CONSEQUENCES OF ROE V. WADE. TOTAL ABORTIONS SINCE 1973: 63,459,781. Based on numbers reported by the Guttmacher Institute 1973-2020, ...

 

[alang1216]

"We do it all the time. "


Exactly what I've said about the Nazis, the Bolshevikes, and you Democrats.

U.S. Abortion Statistics By Year (1973-Current) - Christian Life ...​

https://christianliferesources.com › 2021/01/19 › u-s-ab...
— THE CONSEQUENCES OF ROE V. WADE. TOTAL ABORTIONS SINCE 1973: 63,459,781. Based on numbers reported by the Guttmacher Institute 1973-2020, ...

Wasn't it a Republican who killed between 100,000 and 650,000 Iraqis? Do you mourn those deaths?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Wasn't it a Republican who killed between 100,000 and 650,000 Iraqis? Do you mourn those deaths?

War???

Are you trying to admit that the Democrats are actually at war against the unborn???

Was there an actual declaration, or simply a whim????

You managed to get both feet in your mouth, huh?

 

[alang1216]

War???

Are you trying to admit that the Democrats are actually at war against the unborn???

Was there an actual declaration, or simply a whim????

You managed to get both feet in your mouth, huh?

Just pointing out that Republicans weigh the lives of one group against the lives of another. They decided that the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis was an acceptable price to pay under the circumstances.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Just pointing out that Republicans weigh the lives of one group against the lives of another. They decided that the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis was an acceptable price to pay under the circumstances.

Innocent lives, with whom we are not at war......you lying buffoon.

Babies.



To move this discussion into a different realm, not political, nor legal….give the answers to this quiz:

a. when does science say life begins?(when two strands of DNA join to form a new and distinct human being)

b. what does science say about the two separate bodies involved in an abortion? (It’s not ‘her body’)

c. what percent of the 63 million abortions done via Roe are for rape or incest? (if we make exception for rape and incest, will you ban abortion?)

d. at what point does the prospective mom have the ability not to have a child, without the step of murder? (she already had her chance not to have a child)

e. Is ending the life of another human being murder? (or at least homicide?)

 

[alang1216]

Innocent lives, with whom we are not at war......you lying buffoon.

The Iraqi people didn't attack us, we attacked them. Do you think every Iraqi who died was a soldier? How many women, children, babies, and pregnant women did we kill? Or do their lives not matter so you'd prefer to change the subject?

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Iraqi people didn't attack us, we attacked them. Do you think every Iraqi who died was a soldier? How many women, children, babies, and pregnant women did we kill? Or do their lives not matter so you'd prefer to change the subject?

War......you lying low-life.

 

[initforme]

Pc what is your view on contraception? I believe we need to promote it a ton more. That will abolish abortion altogether. Less conceptions means all good things especially less abortions. We have many young coues in our church who have said they aren't having kids because they haven't time to raise them. I applaud this. Either raise them properly or do not for the good of the nation have them.

 

[zaangalewa]

"Also other reasons are thinkable. - for example when a woman was raped."


That's less than 1% of the reasons for murder of the unborn.

If so - so what? I'm an "enemy" of abortion and I am a man. I would wish I had the moral capacity to bear a baby of a raper - I would wish to have the stoicism and power to care for an own severely disabled baby and person as long as I am able to live. But I do not trust in me and such fantasies.

Sooo....if we make an exception for rape and incest, you'd be in favor of banning abortion????

I'm not an US-American, I am a German. You asked something and I gave an answer on philosophical reasons.

Or are you simply a fraud?????

A fraud? ... Not a fraudster? ... Also an interesting philosophical question how much "fraud" someone is on his own.

Democrats demand the "right" to kill babies.

I don't think anyone likes to kill babies. Also Heinrich Himmler needed asides the education of hate sophisticated pseudo-Darwinistic arguments to motivate his SS to murder even babies.

At recent hearings, Democrat Raskin was attempting to pin down Catherine Foster, asking "is it your aim to ban all abortions, including cases of rape and incest."


She calmly knocks him cold with one question:

A good question. In Germany such an answer would be normal because always everyone is looking for possible future alliances and cooperations in politics. In your country this question contains also the frustrated message that there is not really a free decision. Either you are a Republican or a Democrat - the winner decides it all. Now the states of the USA will have to make different decisions and to find different solutions and will hopefully learn from each other what could be the best of all possible ways.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Pc what is your view on contraception? I believe we need to promote it a ton more. That will abolish abortion altogether. Less conceptions means all good things especially less abortions. We have many young coues in our church who have said they aren't having kids because they haven't time to raise them. I applaud this. Either raise them properly or do not for the good of the nation have them.

"Pc what is your view on contraception? "


Letter 'd.'



To move this discussion into a different realm, not political, nor legal….give the answers to this quiz:

a. when does science say life begins?(when two strands of DNA join to form a new and distinct human being)

b. what does science say about the two separate bodies involved in an abortion? (It’s not ‘her body’)

c. what percent of the 63 million abortions done via Roe are for rape or incest? (if we make exception for rape and incest, will you ban abortion?)

d. at what point does the prospective mom have the ability not to have a child, without the step of murder? (she already had her chance not to have a child)
Women need vet their prospective father of the child that is possible.
If they don't wish a child.....there are many ways to avoid same.

e. Is ending the life of another human being murder? (or at least homicide?)