The abortion issue troubles me mightily

[TNHarley]

How do you know my eggs aren't fertilized? I have my own chickens.
You are using geography as an argument for being against abortion. That's silly.

I don't know what you eat, but that is besides the point. Most eggs that people eat when, they eat scrambled eggs in the morning are unfertilized.

According to Wikipedia:

"Most commercially farmed chicken eggs intended for human consumption are unfertilized,"

But that is a irrelevant anyway because the baby in the womb is not an unfertilized egg, to not understand that shows a blatant lack of knowledge on basic biology.

Dang buttercup... I am saying my eggs ARE fertilized...

 

[buttercup]

Dang buttercup... I am saying my eggs ARE fertilized...

And I said it doesn't matter what you eat. To compare scrambled eggs to a pre-born baby is beyond absurd. One is typically an unfertilized egg and the other is not. Can you at least concede that?

 

[koshergrl]

Even the bible states life began at breath. Fetuses can't breath..
JS kosher..

That was the first man. He was created whole and God blew breath into him.

Subsequent humans (after the creation of Eve from Adam's rib, that is) are created in the womb:

Jeremiah 1:5
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

 

[JoeMoma]

Wrong.
You are human in the womb.

Not by the definition.

By any definition.
Zygote/embryo/fetus simply describes a stage of development.
But the animal is still the animal no matter what stage of development it is.

A chimp zygote is a chimp at that stage of development.
A horse embryo is a horse at that stage of development.
A whale fetus is a whale at that stage of development.

Whether born or not, the being is still the species that it is. A human embryo isn't non-human. It's a HUMAN embryo. Which is to say, it is HUMAN.

The definition of a human being states otherwise kosher.

Nonsense.

The definition does not dictate WHO is human. For example, did the *definition* of negroes as a higher form of animal make them animals?

No, it didn't. The definitions of "human" and "person" have been changed in the past few decades so that leftist monsters can get away with genocide. In fact, those who commit genocide HISTORICALLY change the *definition* of humanity to mask their intent and clean up their actions.

It doesn't change the reality..scientific and moral...regardless what you call them...unborn children are 100 percent human.

And you should be ashamed of yourself for buying into the disgusting fad of denk4outying them their humanity in order to justify their slaughter. Germans did the same, as did those who slaughtered Indians.

I totally understand your perspective on this.
However, an unborn fetus doesn't have humanity. Seems more of an emotional argument

Does a baby 5 seconds after birth have humanity? How about 5 seconds before birth? If yes to the first question and no to the second, what gave the baby humanity?

 

[TNHarley]

Dang buttercup... I am saying my eggs ARE fertilized...

And I said it doesn't matter what you eat. To compare scrambled eggs to a pre-born baby is beyond absurd. One is typically an unfertilized egg and the other is not. Can you at least concede that?

Lol. You are starting to make this hard continuing this conversation..
Have a lovely evening. Hope to see you around here.

 

[TNHarley]

Even the bible states life began at breath. Fetuses can't breath..
JS kosher..

That was the first man. He was created whole and God blew breath into him.

Subsequent humans (after the creation of Eve from Adam's rib, that is) are created in the womb:

Jeremiah 1:5
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

Yes, thank you for backing up what I said lol
Life began at breath

 

[jillian]

Definitions are powerful.

Prolife people tend to define the unborn fetus as the most innocent, a human being that has the right to life just like the rest of us.

Pro-choice people tend to define the unborn fetus as a clump of cells in a woman's body that has no more rights than the woman's appendix.

If you want to understand both sides of the issue, look at the issue through the prism of both those definitions.

the people who are anti-choice are not pro life. that is a misnomer. they are pro birth. if that weren't the case, they would support women who were having children -- help them get educated, job trained, provide day care, food assistance if necessary. but the same people who say they're "pro-life" are the first to throw women to the wolves and condemn their children to hunger.

people who are pro choice want government out of our personal decisions. roe v wade was the compromise.

One major reason for choosing abortion is to avoid the responsibility of raising a child.

Still, I am not sure why you quoted my post....it seems that you view the pre-born as a clump of cells not deserving of legal protection.

That being said, I know lots of pro choice people that have adopted children (some with special needs), served as foster parents, give to local food banks, and do volunteer work for all sorts of people.

the term "pre-born" has no basis in science. it exists only as a propaganda tool.

that "clump of cells" is, in fact, a clump of cells until it isn't. that is why roe v wade acknowledge that life exists on a continuum.

mostly, it's no one else's decision but the person who will have to

I quoted your post because it mischaracterizes pro choice belief and is aggrandizing of anti-choice activists.

the sole issue is not your preference... it is when the interests of government become greater than the interests of the person whose body is involved.

btw, if you cared about pregnant women, you'd support easy access to contraceptives and to sex education for young people

but anti-choices don't believe in those things. they just want to "punish the harlots"

 

[koshergrl]

Even the bible states life began at breath. Fetuses can't breath..
JS kosher..

That was the first man. He was created whole and God blew breath into him.

Subsequent humans (after the creation of Eve from Adam's rib, that is) are created in the womb:

Jeremiah 1:5
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

Yes, thank you for backing up what I said lol
Life began at breath

No, life for ADAM began at breath.

God created Adam's children and all following generations in the womb.

 

[TNHarley]

Not by the definition.

By any definition.
Zygote/embryo/fetus simply describes a stage of development.
But the animal is still the animal no matter what stage of development it is.

A chimp zygote is a chimp at that stage of development.
A horse embryo is a horse at that stage of development.
A whale fetus is a whale at that stage of development.

Whether born or not, the being is still the species that it is. A human embryo isn't non-human. It's a HUMAN embryo. Which is to say, it is HUMAN.

The definition of a human being states otherwise kosher.

Nonsense.

The definition does not dictate WHO is human. For example, did the *definition* of negroes as a higher form of animal make them animals?

No, it didn't. The definitions of "human" and "person" have been changed in the past few decades so that leftist monsters can get away with genocide. In fact, those who commit genocide HISTORICALLY change the *definition* of humanity to mask their intent and clean up their actions.

It doesn't change the reality..scientific and moral...regardless what you call them...unborn children are 100 percent human.

And you should be ashamed of yourself for buying into the disgusting fad of denk4outying them their humanity in order to justify their slaughter. Germans did the same, as did those who slaughtered Indians.

I totally understand your perspective on this.
However, an unborn fetus doesn't have humanity. Seems more of an emotional argument

Does a baby 5 seconds after birth have humanity? How about 5 seconds before birth? If yes to the first question and no to the second, what gave the baby humanity?

Yes
No
The actual birth and independence of life is about my entire argument.

 

[TNHarley]

Even the bible states life began at breath. Fetuses can't breath..
JS kosher..

That was the first man. He was created whole and God blew breath into him.

Subsequent humans (after the creation of Eve from Adam's rib, that is) are created in the womb:

Jeremiah 1:5
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

Yes, thank you for backing up what I said lol
Life began at breath

No, life for ADAM began at breath.

God created Adam's children and all following generations in the womb.

That scripture did not refute what I said at all.

 

[buttercup]

Lol. You are starting to make this hard continuing this conversation..
Have a lovely evening. Hope to see you around here.

You haven't refuted anything I said. Correct me if I'm wrong but you seemed to not even understand that the pre-born baby is not the same thing as an unfertilized egg.

Also, you seem to think that science is on your side when it actually is not. Science clearly states that human life does not begin the moment the head pops out of the womb, but many months before that.

 

[koshergrl]

The emotional argument is that human fetuses aren't human. It has no basis in fact, or in science. It's just garbage meant to make baby killers feel better about what they support.

 

[koshergrl]

Even the bible states life began at breath. Fetuses can't breath..
JS kosher..

That was the first man. He was created whole and God blew breath into him.

Subsequent humans (after the creation of Eve from Adam's rib, that is) are created in the womb:

Jeremiah 1:5
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

Yes, thank you for backing up what I said lol
Life began at breath

No, life for ADAM began at breath.

God created Adam's children and all following generations in the womb.

That scripture did not refute what I said at all.

Yes, it does. It absolutely does. And the scripture about breathing breath into Adam to give him life is a specific account about ADAM. Not about subsequent life. The *breath of life* in Adam's children occurs before God plants them in the womb.

As is detailed in Jeremiah 1:5.

And again in the NT when the pregnant Mary and Elizabeth come together:

"When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. 42In a loud voice she exclaimed: “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! 43But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy."

Luke 1:41-44

 

[TNHarley]

Lol. You are starting to make this hard continuing this conversation..
Have a lovely evening. Hope to see you around here.

You haven't refuted anything I said. Correct me if I'm wrong but you seemed to not even understand that the pre-born baby is not the same thing as an unfertilized egg.

Also, you seem to think that science is on your side when it actually is not. Science clearly states that human life does not begin the moment the head pops out of the womb, but many months before that.

Lol you are wrong. You couldn't comprehend my simple biologic analogy...
No it doesn't. I would love to see proof.
And please, spare me of individual opinions of scientists. We could go back and forth all day.

 

[JoeMoma]

Definitions are powerful.

Prolife people tend to define the unborn fetus as the most innocent, a human being that has the right to life just like the rest of us.

Pro-choice people tend to define the unborn fetus as a clump of cells in a woman's body that has no more rights than the woman's appendix.

If you want to understand both sides of the issue, look at the issue through the prism of both those definitions.

the people who are anti-choice are not pro life. that is a misnomer. they are pro birth. if that weren't the case, they would support women who were having children -- help them get educated, job trained, provide day care, food assistance if necessary. but the same people who say they're "pro-life" are the first to throw women to the wolves and condemn their children to hunger.

people who are pro choice want government out of our personal decisions. roe v wade was the compromise.

One major reason for choosing abortion is to avoid the responsibility of raising a child.

Still, I am not sure why you quoted my post....it seems that you view the pre-born as a clump of cells not deserving of legal protection.

That being said, I know lots of pro choice people that have adopted children (some with special needs), served as foster parents, give to local food banks, and do volunteer work for all sorts of people.

the term "pre-born" has no basis in science. it exists only as a propaganda tool.

that "clump of cells" is, in fact, a clump of cells until it isn't. that is why roe v wade acknowledge that life exists on a continuum.

mostly, it's no one else's decision but the person who will have to

I quoted your post because it mischaracterizes pro choice belief and is aggrandizing of anti-choice activists.

the sole issue is not your preference... it is when the interests of government become greater than the interests of the person whose body is involved.

btw, if you cared about pregnant women, you'd support easy access to contraceptives and to sex education for young people

but anti-choices don't believe in those things. they just want to "punish the harlots"

Funny how you confirmed my original post about pro choice believing that the unborn being simply a clump cells, not a person, and then say I mischaracterized pro choice belief.

 

[buttercup]

The emotional argument is that human fetuses aren't human. It has no basis in fact, or in science. It's just garbage meant to make baby killers feel better about what they support.

Exactly! It's almost comical that they actually think science is on their side, when you simply cannot get around the fact that human life does not begin when the head pops out, that is so childish and inane.

 

[buttercup]

Lol you are wrong. You couldn't comprehend my simple biologic analogy...
No it doesn't. I would love to see proof.
And please, spare me of individual opinions of scientists. We could go back and forth all day.

OK, then tell me how I misunderstood your analogy.

 

[TNHarley]

Even the bible states life began at breath. Fetuses can't breath..
JS kosher..

That was the first man. He was created whole and God blew breath into him.

Subsequent humans (after the creation of Eve from Adam's rib, that is) are created in the womb:

Jeremiah 1:5
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

Yes, thank you for backing up what I said lol
Life began at breath

No, life for ADAM began at breath.

God created Adam's children and all following generations in the womb.

That scripture did not refute what I said at all.

Yes, it does. It absolutely does. And the scripture about breathing breath into Adam to give him life is a specific account about ADAM. Not about subsequent life. The *breath of life* in Adam's children occurs before God plants them in the womb.

As is detailed in Jeremiah 1:5.

Also, the supposed first human life. That was my point.
Your scripture does not refute what I said.
I said "the bible states that life started at breath. Fetuses can't breath"
You backed that up and then posted an irrelevant scripture.

 

[JoeMoma]

By any definition.
Zygote/embryo/fetus simply describes a stage of development.
But the animal is still the animal no matter what stage of development it is.

A chimp zygote is a chimp at that stage of development.
A horse embryo is a horse at that stage of development.
A whale fetus is a whale at that stage of development.

Whether born or not, the being is still the species that it is. A human embryo isn't non-human. It's a HUMAN embryo. Which is to say, it is HUMAN.

The definition of a human being states otherwise kosher.

Nonsense.

The definition does not dictate WHO is human. For example, did the *definition* of negroes as a higher form of animal make them animals?

No, it didn't. The definitions of "human" and "person" have been changed in the past few decades so that leftist monsters can get away with genocide. In fact, those who commit genocide HISTORICALLY change the *definition* of humanity to mask their intent and clean up their actions.

It doesn't change the reality..scientific and moral...regardless what you call them...unborn children are 100 percent human.

And you should be ashamed of yourself for buying into the disgusting fad of denk4outying them their humanity in order to justify their slaughter. Germans did the same, as did those who slaughtered Indians.

I totally understand your perspective on this.
However, an unborn fetus doesn't have humanity. Seems more of an emotional argument

Does a baby 5 seconds after birth have humanity? How about 5 seconds before birth? If yes to the first question and no to the second, what gave the baby humanity?

Yes
No
The actual birth and independence of life is about my entire argument.

Do you think a newborn baby is independent? Leave it to fend for itself and see how long it survives.

 

[TNHarley]

The emotional argument is that human fetuses aren't human. It has no basis in fact, or in science. It's just garbage meant to make baby killers feel better about what they support.

Exactly! It's almost comical that they actually think science is on their side, when you simply cannot get around the fact that human life does not begin when the head pops out, that is so childish and inane.

LOL it is far more complicated than that..