Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
A fertilized egg maybe human but every other cell in my body is also human. Why give one cell more legal rights than any cell?Still false - that is the pro choice argument trying to force its precepts on a pro life position. A pro life position recognized the sanctity of HUMAN life. Pro choice wants to divide that human life up into a part that is expendable and part that is not.Most pro-lifers forget to mention it is personhood they are pro because that means they would have to define what it means to be a person and that inevitably leads back to religion
And none of that requires a religious precept.
A fertilised egg (zygote) may only be one cell in size but ulike all the other celks in "your body, " a zygote is a complete organism.
Biology 101 stuff right there.
So? Do all complete organisms have a right to live? An amoeba is a complete organism but unlike a zygote it is independent, can find food, move, and reproduce. Since a zygote can do so little for itself I don't see it as "complete".A fertilized egg maybe human but every other cell in my body is also human. Why give one cell more legal rights than any cell?Still false - that is the pro choice argument trying to force its precepts on a pro life position. A pro life position recognized the sanctity of HUMAN life. Pro choice wants to divide that human life up into a part that is expendable and part that is not.Most pro-lifers forget to mention it is personhood they are pro because that means they would have to define what it means to be a person and that inevitably leads back to religion
And none of that requires a religious precept.
A fertilised egg (zygote) may only be one cell in size but ulike all the other celks in "your body, " a zygote is a complete organism.
Biology 101 stuff right there.
At conception, that is a unique and wholly separate human.
No it's not. It is a unique combination of human DNA. it is not yet a Human Being.
Anyway, so what? There is nothing divine about a fertilized egg just because it is human. Many of those never become human being either.
My $0.02 in a nutshell: all persons are organisms but not all organisms are persons, regardless of where their DNA came from. Only persons deserve legal protections.A fertilized egg maybe human but every other cell in my body is also human. Why give one cell more legal rights than any cell?Still false - that is the pro choice argument trying to force its precepts on a pro life position. A pro life position recognized the sanctity of HUMAN life. Pro choice wants to divide that human life up into a part that is expendable and part that is not.
And none of that requires a religious precept.
A fertilised egg (zygote) may only be one cell in size but ulike all the other celks in "your body, " a zygote is a complete organism.
Biology 101 stuff right there.
So? Do all complete organisms have a right to live?
Supposedly, human organisms do.
That's the only ones I'm concerned with in this exchange.
An amoeba is a complete organism but unlike a zygote it is independent, can find food, move, and reproduce.
How much can a newborn do any of those things?
The objective and scientific definitions indicate that an organism is anorganism, even before it matures to the point where it can finally breech your denials.
I'm not surprised that pro abort leftardz have a problem with that.
Since a zygote can do so little for itself I don't see it as "complete".
That's fine.
Just don't have the expectation that any others are required to share your ignorance with you.
Even planned parenthood acknowledges the fact that a zygote is anorganism. As do our fetal homicide laws. As do our dictionaries and other references.
That's good enough for me.
At conception, that is a unique and wholly separate human.
No it's not. It is a unique combination of human DNA. it is not yet a Human Being.
Anyway, so what? There is nothing divine about a fertilized egg just because it is human. Many of those never become human being either.
Nothing divine, lol. Just kill em right.
It's just so hard to target the little suckers though.....
A great many of them die naturally after conception and before implantation.
Lucifer is The Lord of this World until after The Battle of Armageddon, and a couple other end times battles at which some point The Second Coming Occurs, and Jesus dethrones Lucifer, and takes back The Throne and Crown of Adam which was lost during the whole Garden of Eden fiasco.25 Cultures That Practiced Human Sacrifice
Because historically child sacrifice was the status quo
It's just who we are.
And it is for the same reason, which is material gain. Most women have abortions due to financial concerns. Likewise, pretty much all ancient religions sacrificed their children to the gods for such things as victory at war or fertile crops, etc.
Until this occurs, people will be selfish and wicked, and resist all attempts at protecting, respecting, and revering life.
According to Christian Mythology, Lucifer was the Angel of Light. One of God's favorite creations.
According to Christianity, that changed pretty early on.
Which is why condescension about things you're ignorant of is a bad look, even though it's the look religiophobes most often cultivate.
It is a ludicrous mythology (the revolt in Heaven as well as the other creation myths) I agree, on par with the multi-theism of the Romans and Greeks.
At conception, that is a unique and wholly separate human.
No it's not. It is a unique combination of human DNA. it is not yet a Human Being.
Anyway, so what? There is nothing divine about a fertilized egg just because it is human. Many of those never become human being either.
Nothing divine, lol. Just kill em right.
It's just so hard to target the little suckers though.....
A great many of them die naturally after conception and before implantation.
If it is your argument is that it is ok to kill people because many of them will die naturally anyway. . .
Let's follow that to its logical conclusion.
Shall we?
No it's not my argument at all. Fact is a good percent of those zygote never take and never become human beings. Why would that fact make you think it's ok to kill people?
Nothing divine, lol. Just kill em right.
It's just so hard to target the little suckers though.....
A great many of them die naturally after conception and before implantation.
If it is your argument is that it is ok to kill people because many of them will die naturally anyway. . .
Let's follow that to its logical conclusion.
Shall we?
No it's not my argument at all. Fact is a good percent of those zygote never take and never become human beings. Why would that fact make you think it's ok to kill people?
Fact is those zygotes already ARE human beings.
Until you can grasp that fact, there is no sense in bickering about the rest.
Nope they are non differentiated cells. Human of course, but with no chance of survival/development into a fully formed human being unless it attaches to the mothers womb. Anybody grieve for those poor little zygotes that don't attach?
If it is your argument is that it is ok to kill people because many of them will die naturally anyway. . .
Let's follow that to its logical conclusion.
Shall we?
No it's not my argument at all. Fact is a good percent of those zygote never take and never become human beings. Why would that fact make you think it's ok to kill people?
Fact is those zygotes already ARE human beings.
Until you can grasp that fact, there is no sense in bickering about the rest.
Nope they are non differentiated cells. Human of course, but with no chance of survival/development into a fully formed human being unless it attaches to the mothers womb. Anybody grieve for those poor little zygotes that don't attach?
Grieving or not grieving over soething does not change what it is.
Science and even Planned Parenthood has established the fact that a zygote is an organism (being) and inthe case of a human zygote, it is a HUMAN organism / being.
Our nation's nearly forty getal HOMICIDE laws which also define a "child in the womb" in "any stage of development" support ny views as well.
Laws which your representatives have failed to challenge or overturn by sharing your denials.
No it doesn't. It, the human zygote, is like an acorn fallen to the ground from a great oak tree. With luck it will sprout a tap root that finds fertile ground and it will grow into a big oak tree one day. Or it might get eaten by a squirrel. Or in the case of humans, flushed out of the system before it becomes an embryo.
Then why did God kill pregnant women in the great flood?I know that’s a controversial statement, but it is clearly against the word of God to take another person’s life, especially an innocent baby’s life.
God said He knit us together in our mother's womb, and He also said thou shall not kill. • Psalm 139:13 & Exodus 20:13 •
It is as clear as day anyone who’s willing to read their Bible. I don’t believe it is possible to say you are a Christ follower and you believe in the Bible then turn around and say that it’s a “woman’s right” to take her child’s life at the same time. They are a complete contradiction to each other.
Because Sanger's motives really are not important anymore. She is dead and does not, nor her philosophy, make policy for PP.Does it?25 Cultures That Practiced Human Sacrifice
Because historically child sacrifice was the status quo
It's just who we are.
And it is for the same reason, which is material gain. Most women have abortions due to financial concerns. Likewise, pretty much all ancient religions sacrificed their children to the gods for such things as victory at war or fertile crops, etc.
Says it all.
The Public Papers of Margaret Sanger: Web Edition
Why does a singular entity - even the founder - pigeonhole an entity into morality or immorality? This is little different than the idiots declaring America as immoral because its founders were slave holders and womanizers. PP stands on its own accord and can, or rather must, be judged on its own merits.
PP cannonizes Sanger and any good libtard will sing her praise.
Planned Parenthood | 100 Years Strong
Yet they never mention Sangers motives. I’ll cut and post item (a) through (e) from the link I provided from New York university.
The main objects of the Population Congress would be:
(a) to raise the level and increase the general intelligence of population.
(b) to increase the population slowly by keeping the birth rate at its present level of fifteen, decreasing the death rate below its present mark of 11.
(c) keep the doors of Immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feeble-minded, idiots, morons, insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class barred by the immigration laws of 1924.
(d) apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization, and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.
(e) to insure the country against future burdens of maintenance for numerous offspring as may be born feeble-minded parents, the government would pension all persons with transmissible disease who voluntarily consent to sterilization.
So take that from a woman who the DNC celebrates, the fact that abortion facilities are only built in low incom minority communities, the DNC’s insistants on having racist and rapists in positions of power is very telling. Y’all are heading back to eugenics.
As Dr. Gosnell is the pro-life poster boy, you'd think they'd praise him more. Pro-life policy is "Every abortion doctyor should be a Gosnel", so they own him. He's the face of the pro-life movement, along with smirking maga boy.
You would think that the NAACP would be all over Gosnell because he targeted minority women while giving white women better treatment.
But not a peep.
Funny that.
Oh, and the NAACP says the entire GOP is racist?
At conception, that is a unique and wholly separate human.
No it's not. It is a unique combination of human DNA. it is not yet a Human Being.
Anyway, so what? There is nothing divine about a fertilized egg just because it is human. Many of those never become human being either.
Nothing divine, lol. Just kill em right.
It's just so hard to target the little suckers though.....
A great many of them die naturally after conception and before implantation.
Shockingly, ALL organisms die naturally, if they're not killed first. Doesn't actually make it okay to kill them, though.
No it's not. It is a unique combination of human DNA. it is not yet a Human Being.
Anyway, so what? There is nothing divine about a fertilized egg just because it is human. Many of those never become human being either.
Nothing divine, lol. Just kill em right.
It's just so hard to target the little suckers though.....
A great many of them die naturally after conception and before implantation.
If it is your argument is that it is ok to kill people because many of them will die naturally anyway. . .
Let's follow that to its logical conclusion.
Shall we?
No it's not my argument at all. Fact is a good percent of those zygote never take and never become human beings. Why would that fact make you think it's ok to kill people?
"I only said it. That doesn't mean that's my argument! Why are you holding me responsible for my words?!"
Fact is, a good percent of zygotes die, but that doesn't mean they weren't human beings before they did.
You ARE claiming that human beings MORPH out of one organism that is NOT a human being and into an organism that IS a human being.
As humanbeings do not reproduce by metamorphosis. I challenge you to show / provide any kind of credible reference to support your claim.
Specially, what organism did I claim we morph out of?
If you are not claiming that human zygotes morph into human beings, this is your chance to clarify your claim.
Why should I prove something I didn't do. Prove your accusation. When did I say a zygote from two human parents was non-human? A zygote is an unattached fertilized egg. When it attaches to the mothers womb it becomes an embryo. Not all zygotes attach to their mothers wombs. Nothing sacred about conception.
Let's
Go
Slow
Just
For
You.
Is a human being "a human being" while they are in the Zygote STAGE of their life, growth and development?
Yes
Or
No.
It is a human fertilized egg. Is that so hard to understand? Can it become a fully functional living, breathing human being? Not unless it can attach itself to it's mother womb.......otherwise it's out with the tide!
Because Sanger's motives really are not important anymore. She is dead and does not, nor her philosophy, make policy for PP.Does it?25 Cultures That Practiced Human Sacrifice
Because historically child sacrifice was the status quo
It's just who we are.
And it is for the same reason, which is material gain. Most women have abortions due to financial concerns. Likewise, pretty much all ancient religions sacrificed their children to the gods for such things as victory at war or fertile crops, etc.
Says it all.
The Public Papers of Margaret Sanger: Web Edition
Why does a singular entity - even the founder - pigeonhole an entity into morality or immorality? This is little different than the idiots declaring America as immoral because its founders were slave holders and womanizers. PP stands on its own accord and can, or rather must, be judged on its own merits.
PP cannonizes Sanger and any good libtard will sing her praise.
Planned Parenthood | 100 Years Strong
Yet they never mention Sangers motives. I’ll cut and post item (a) through (e) from the link I provided from New York university.
The main objects of the Population Congress would be:
(a) to raise the level and increase the general intelligence of population.
(b) to increase the population slowly by keeping the birth rate at its present level of fifteen, decreasing the death rate below its present mark of 11.
(c) keep the doors of Immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feeble-minded, idiots, morons, insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class barred by the immigration laws of 1924.
(d) apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization, and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.
(e) to insure the country against future burdens of maintenance for numerous offspring as may be born feeble-minded parents, the government would pension all persons with transmissible disease who voluntarily consent to sterilization.
So take that from a woman who the DNC celebrates, the fact that abortion facilities are only built in low incom minority communities, the DNC’s insistants on having racist and rapists in positions of power is very telling. Y’all are heading back to eugenics.
The fact that most PP are built in low income areas is not a surprise, they are a low income provider. There certainly is a discussion to be had on weather or not the government should be funding the company - I don't think that the government should be funding any company lest of all PP - but that has nothing to do with Sanger. It has to do with PP and it actual actions - they speak for themselves.
As Dr. Gosnell is the pro-life poster boy, you'd think they'd praise him more. Pro-life policy is "Every abortion doctyor should be a Gosnel", so they own him. He's the face of the pro-life movement, along with smirking maga boy.
You would think that the NAACP would be all over Gosnell because he targeted minority women while giving white women better treatment.
But not a peep.
Funny that.
Oh, and the NAACP says the entire GOP is racist?
Gosnell was black. Black people can't be racist, haven't you heard?
Although I would never use abortion I think it wrong for a leader to tell his creation to do as I say not as I do..Poor examples lead to poor followers and that is just what we have had with theologians,followers, clergy and their influence on societies and govt.Then why did God kill pregnant women in the great flood?I know that’s a controversial statement, but it is clearly against the word of God to take another person’s life, especially an innocent baby’s life.
God said He knit us together in our mother's womb, and He also said thou shall not kill. • Psalm 139:13 & Exodus 20:13 •
It is as clear as day anyone who’s willing to read their Bible. I don’t believe it is possible to say you are a Christ follower and you believe in the Bible then turn around and say that it’s a “woman’s right” to take her child’s life at the same time. They are a complete contradiction to each other.
Irrelevant. None of us are God, so what He does or doesn't do has nothing to do with what we should and shouldn't do. Stop arguing from your own narcissistic hubris.
If you are not claiming that human zygotes morph into human beings, this is your chance to clarify your claim.
Why should I prove something I didn't do. Prove your accusation. When did I say a zygote from two human parents was non-human? A zygote is an unattached fertilized egg. When it attaches to the mothers womb it becomes an embryo. Not all zygotes attach to their mothers wombs. Nothing sacred about conception.
Let's
Go
Slow
Just
For
You.
Is a human being "a human being" while they are in the Zygote STAGE of their life, growth and development?
Yes
Or
No.
It is a human fertilized egg. Is that so hard to understand? Can it become a fully functional living, breathing human being? Not unless it can attach itself to it's mother womb.......otherwise it's out with the tide!
Does
It
MORH
Out
Of
Something
That
Is
Not
A
Human
Being
Into
Something
That
IS
A
Human
Being?
Is a fertilized chicken egg a chicken?
You may have a point about the ethnic makeup but I have not seen any proof that PP targets minority neighborhoods but they rather target poor urban areas - areas where their clients are. The racial divide is likely a function of that rather than the other way around.Because Sanger's motives really are not important anymore. She is dead and does not, nor her philosophy, make policy for PP.Does it?25 Cultures That Practiced Human Sacrifice
Because historically child sacrifice was the status quo
It's just who we are.
And it is for the same reason, which is material gain. Most women have abortions due to financial concerns. Likewise, pretty much all ancient religions sacrificed their children to the gods for such things as victory at war or fertile crops, etc.
Says it all.
The Public Papers of Margaret Sanger: Web Edition
Why does a singular entity - even the founder - pigeonhole an entity into morality or immorality? This is little different than the idiots declaring America as immoral because its founders were slave holders and womanizers. PP stands on its own accord and can, or rather must, be judged on its own merits.
PP cannonizes Sanger and any good libtard will sing her praise.
Planned Parenthood | 100 Years Strong
Yet they never mention Sangers motives. I’ll cut and post item (a) through (e) from the link I provided from New York university.
The main objects of the Population Congress would be:
(a) to raise the level and increase the general intelligence of population.
(b) to increase the population slowly by keeping the birth rate at its present level of fifteen, decreasing the death rate below its present mark of 11.
(c) keep the doors of Immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feeble-minded, idiots, morons, insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class barred by the immigration laws of 1924.
(d) apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization, and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.
(e) to insure the country against future burdens of maintenance for numerous offspring as may be born feeble-minded parents, the government would pension all persons with transmissible disease who voluntarily consent to sterilization.
So take that from a woman who the DNC celebrates, the fact that abortion facilities are only built in low incom minority communities, the DNC’s insistants on having racist and rapists in positions of power is very telling. Y’all are heading back to eugenics.
The fact that most PP are built in low income areas is not a surprise, they are a low income provider. There certainly is a discussion to be had on weather or not the government should be funding the company - I don't think that the government should be funding any company lest of all PP - but that has nothing to do with Sanger. It has to do with PP and it actual actions - they speak for themselves.
But they are. Planned Parenthood supports them. Openly, quietly sometimes, but the plan is in action. No Abortion clinics in rich white girl neighborhoods, but plenty in any ethnic partnof town. That sure adheres to sangers recommendation of segregating minority’s and poor people, and then controlling their population by means of abortion and sterilization. It has EVERYTHING to do with Sanger and her views. What other reason would their be to kill a born child?
But then what? How will you stop it?So you have no plan. Got it.So how are you going to stop abortion?
Since when is stopping the violation of a child's rights, the standard?
Children are molested in all sorts of ways and they will continue to be molested, despite our attempts to stop it.
Does that mean we should just turn a blind eye to it?
I don't think so.
The plan is to establish, secure and protect the rights of children who are being denied their rights by you and your ilk.
Funny that sails over your head.
Name any one crime against humanity that has been completely "stopped."
Why are you demanding more when comes to stopping abortions than you are for any other form of child molestation?
