-->
@Swagnarok
Well said!
Now be prepared for the wrath and insanity of the left. (^8
Mike Pence for President.
Posts
Total:
397
-->
@mustardness
At conception, a unique new ACTUAL individual is created, not a potential individual human being."ACTUAL individual" is False. You need to do another dictionary search for what independant and individual ---their synonyms dude--- mean exactly.
Your comments show a lack of understanding of the subject. The egg is not the same thing as part of the mother once fertilization happens. Fertilization is a PROCESS that takes between 24 to 36 hours that finishes with conception, conception as now medically thought of, that is. Some argue that fertilization or conception are synonymous terms and life begins as soon as the sperm penetrates the egg. Others say that conception is when the process of fertilization is complete, and the new being attaches to the uterus.
Conception: 1. The union of the sperm and the ovum. Synonymous with fertilization.
A sperm and egg uniting may not even be correct terminology for "uniting" may suggest that they remain as two different parts in a union. Regarding this uniting:
"'But this is not accurate, for they are not like machine parts cobbled together to form something larger thought remaining identifiable parts.' Rather, 'the nuclei of the sperm and ovum dynamically interact,' and 'in doing so, they cease to be. 'One might say they die together.'"
Defending Life, A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice, by Francis Beckwith, p66.
According to the same author, there are disputes by embryologist exactly when in the process a new human being occurs during fertilization (but it is during fertilization).
***
Read my lips/text for the umpteenth time;1} The non-ferterlized egg is organaism of the woman as it is both produced by and and inside the woman, not inside a man,
Being inside the woman does not equate to being part of the woman. It is different from the woman. At conception, it has its biological blueprint, its own set of DNA.
If the woman swallowed a diamond ring, it would not now be part of her but a foreign object in her body until it was expelled or surgically removed.
2} the fertilized egg is an organism of the woman as it is produced by the woman and the mans gift of spermaoza to her,
Once the egg is fertilized, it changes to a zygote and attaches to the uterus. The egg as it was before ceased to be/dies with the sperm, and a new unique individual human being begins to grow, with different blood, cells, and DNA.
“Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo development) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”
Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.
***
Zygote is a term for a newly conceived life after the sperm and the egg cell meet but before the embryo begins to divide.
From Landrum B. Shettles “Rites of Life: The Scientific Evidence for Life Before Birth” Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1983 p 40
***
“Thus a new cell is formed from the union of a male and a female gamete. [sperm and egg cells] The cell, referred to as the zygote, contains a new combination of genetic material, resulting in an individual different from either parent and from anyone else in the world.”
Sally B Olds, et al., Obstetric Nursing (Menlo Park, California: Addison – Wesley publishing, 1980) P 136
***
You can't avoid it being a new and unique individual human being.
Fertilization: Sperm Penetrates Egg
It takes about 24 hours for a sperm cell to fertilize an egg. When the sperm penetrates the egg, the surface of the egg changes so that no other sperm can enter. At the moment of fertilization, the baby's genetic makeup is complete, including whether it's a boy or girl.
The fertilized egg is now called a zygote. The depolarization caused by sperm penetration results in one last round of division in the egg's nucleus, forming a pronucleus containing only one set of genetic information. The pronucleus from the egg merges with the nucleus from the sperm. Once the two pronuclei merge, cell division begins immediately.
-->
@mustardness
3} the fertilzed egg is inside the woman, not the man,
So what? The egg, once fertilized, is now a zygote. The egg nor the sperm, in and of themselves, is a new human being, a unique and separate individual. Once fertilization takes place, a unique individual begins to grow.
One sperm cell is able to make through and combine with the egg, and the egg cell is officially fertilized at this point. This is when the male sperm and the female egg come together to form a single cell containing chromosomes from both Mom and Dad. This fertilized egg is called a zygote. It’s a just tiny cell – just 0.1mm across! – but the zygote has all the genetic information needed to build a human.
Ibid
4} the fertilzed egg is NOT and independant/individual, it is an organism ergo attached to the womans uterus/womb and receives all nutrients from the mother via its attachment to the woman,
The fertilized egg is called a zygote, different from the unfertilized egg. The zygote is a combination of genetic information from both the male and the female, a separate human being, thus a unique and individual new human being.
5} the fertilized egg is inside the woman but falls freely through fallopian tubes for brief period of time --24hrs?--- before becoming attached to uterus/womb,
Technically speaking the egg, at fertilization is different and now known as a zygote.
When the egg and sperm combine to form a fertilized egg, it doesn’t immediately implant into the uterus. First, the zygote has to undergo many rounds of cell division until it reaches the state where it’s able to implant. The cell splits over and over in a process called cleavage. This differs from other kinds of cell division in that it increases the number of cells, but not the total mass: the cells split, but the fertilized egg remains the same size. This cleavage forms a mass of cells called a morula.
Calling the new entity a fertilized egg gives the impression that it is still the same thing it was before fertilization which is not true, and that is the point I am making. Once the sperm enters the egg, a change takes place in which a new human being begins to grow.
***
The fertilized egg is now called a zygote. The depolarization caused by sperm penetration results in one last round of division in the egg's nucleus, forming a pronucleus containing only one set of genetic information. The pronucleus from the egg merges with the nucleus from the sperm. Once the two pronuclei merge, cell division begins immediately.
The dividing zygote gets pushed along the Fallopian tube. Approximately four days after fertilization, the zygote has about 100 cells and is called a blastocyst. When the blastocyst reaches the uterine lining, it floats for about two days and finally implants itself in the uterine wall around six days after fertilization. This signals the beginning of pregnancy. The implanted blastocyst continues developing in the uterus for nine months. As the baby grows, the uterus stretches until it's about the size of a basketball.*
6} the fetus/baby is not a viable, independant/individual baby-only until it has taken its first IN-spriration and its umbilical chord is detached from the mother,
Although the unborn is not completely independent (it relies on the woman for its food and is sustained in the ENVIRONMENT of the womb), it is a separate entity which has everything within it that determines what it is (a new unique individual human being) and will grow into (it does not change who it is (via its genetic makeup and DNA that determines its uniqueness).
Neither is the newborn completely independent. It still relies on others to feed it and provide it an environment where its needs are met.
You draw this artificial distinction that takes place at birth. That is fallacious thinking.
Viability:
Capability of living; the state of being viable; usually connotes a fetus that has reached 500 g in weight and 20 gestational weeks' development (18 weeks after fertilization).
Definition of viable
1a : capable of living
viable offspring
b of a fetus : having attained such form and development of organs as to be normally capable of surviving outside the uterus
a 26-week old viable fetus
c : capable of growing or developing
2a : capable of working, functioning, or developing adequately
b : capable of existence and development as an independent unit
c(1) : having a reasonable chance of succeeding
(2) : financially sustainable
Viability, simply put, and medically speaking, is the stage at which the unborn/fetus can survive outside the womb, which translates to around 18-20 weeks after fertilization.
-->
@mustardness
7} what ever phase change transitions and classifications I left out consideration, but until the phase 6 is completed we only have the potential the actual.
No, you are wrong. We have the actual from the moment of fertilization/conception, the birth, and throughout its life. At the penetration of the sperm into the egg, we have the "actual," and a change takes place resulting in a new human being.
--------------------------------------------
Read my lips/text, not your false projections of what Ive actually stated. Can any Trumpanzee do that? No? I didnt think so.
Your statement shows extreme bias and is a logical fallacy.
...From the moment of fertilization, we have the potential for a new independant individual human to be born-out from a woman".
At fertilization, there is only actual, not potential. There is a real new individual human being forming from that point (fertilization) onward. Whether it is born is being decided by the woman so the way you have phrased the sentence, while technically correct in the sense that what the woman decides, from the moment of fertilization it is a new and unique individual human being.
Please show the source you are quoting here or are you making this stuff up?
Perhaps you should define your terms more thoroughly.
-->
@Alec
I support him.
I would too, although he would not be as dynamic as Trump.
-->
@PGA2.0
False. Read my lips text and do not come back to tale to me until you can stop making False staments/commnets/etc. This is third time youve done this. Please learn how to use rational, logical common sense along with truth - facts and stop sticking your nose *v* { virtural rape? } into a pregnant womans body business.The egg is not the same thing as part of the mother once fertilization happens
The egg or fertilized egg are both part{ attached to the mother } except for brief time{ 24hrs? } the fertilized egg falls through the fallopian tube yet is still intimiate{ inside woman } part of the pregnant womans body business and you as a Trunpanzee,
1} keep trying to stick your immoral nose *v* { virtual rape? is immoral } into the pregnant womans body business as is immoral Trumpanzee behaviour of the following,
2} just as grabbing womens _____y { vagina } without their consent--- as idio-ump likes to do-- and his Trumpanzees support and encouraged this immoral behaviour. Sad :--( lack of moral integrity at best, at worst.........{ ? }
This is just two of the reaons why Trumpanzees need to be Locked Away!
Lock Trumpanzees Away! from moral civilized humanity
Lock Trumpanzees Away! from moral civilized humnanity
-->
@mustardness
The egg is not the same thing as part of the mother once fertilization happensFalse. Read my lips text and do not come back to tale to me until you can stop making False staments/commnets/etc. This is third time youve done this. Please learn how to use rational, logical common sense along with truth - facts and stop sticking your nose *v* { virtural rape? } into a pregnant womans body business.
Just by stating something you think you have proven a point. You have done no such thing. You have what is called cognitive dissonance. You only see and hear what you want to. Then you try to dismiss the whole argument not with facts or proof but by all kinds of logical fallacies.
What you are doing is a leftist tactic to avoid a reasonable conversation by labeling me. It shows intolerance and bullying to avoid the issue.
Run Forrest, run!
The egg or fertilized egg are both part{ attached to the mother } except for brief time{ 24hrs? } the fertilized egg falls through the fallopian tube yet is stillintimiate{ inside woman } part of the pregnant womans body business and you as a Trunpanzee,
Your derogatory terms and name calling show bias and hatred, and your derogatory term Trumpanzee has now evolved and morphed into Trunpanzee. (^8
The fertilized egg or ZYGOTE, although attached to the woman are separate from the woman. Once fertilization takes place there is a new distinct individual growing inside her that is not her.
1} keep trying to stick your immoral nose *v* { virtual rape? is immoral } into the pregnant womans body business as is immoral Trumpanzee behaviour of the following,
Again, your name calling avoids a serious discussion. It is a tactic used by those who don't have facts or are avoiding addressing the points laid out by their opponent.
2} just as grabbing womens _____y { vagina } without their consent--- as idio-ump likes to do-- and his Trumpanzees support and encouraged this immoral behaviour. Sad :--( lack of moral integrity at best, at worst.........{ ? }This is just two of the reaons why Trumpanzees need to be Locked Away!
Lock Trumpanzees Away! from moral civilized humanity
Lock Trumpanzees Away! from moral civilized humnanity
Again, you display vitriol that is not conducive to a reasonable discussion. I have tried to engage you in a rational discussion. What does grabbing a woman's private parts have to do with her decision to kill the unborn?
-->
@PGA2.0
I am a right wing capitalist. However, I'm seeing how you respond to the following comment:
You're against socialism as am I, but is it the Christian thing to do? Jesus said to sell all you have and to give to the poor(https://biblehub.com/luke/18-22.htm). He also said it's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle then it is for a rich man to go to heaven(https://www.biblehub.com/matthew/19-24.htm). The only bible verses that I found that contradicted this were from the Old Testament(OT), the testament that gets overridden by the NT when applicable in the case of Christianity. This is one reason why I don't worship God. He made heaven too hard to get into. So do you think the NT advocates for socialist policies in order to screw everyone on Earth, but then to bless them into heaven, which lasts forever as opposed to like 60 years of time on Earth?
-->
@Alec
I am a right wing capitalist. However, I'm seeing how you respond to the following comment:You're against socialism as am I, but is it the Christian thing to do? Jesus said to sell all you have and to give to the poor(https://biblehub.com/luke/18-22.htm).
Although there is a lesson there for us (in selling what we have) Jesus was addressing a rich young man who put his wealth above God.
The Rich Young Ruler
18 A ruler questioned Him, saying, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 19 And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone. 20 You know the commandments, ‘Do not commit adultery, Do not murder, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother.’” 21 And he said, “All these things I have kept from my youth.” 22 When Jesus heard this, He said to him, “One thing you still lack; sell all that you possess and distribute it to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” 23 But when he had heard these things, he became very sad, for he was extremely rich. 24 And Jesus looked at him and said, “How hard it is for those who are wealthy to enter the kingdom of God!25 For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” 26 They who heard it said, “Then who can be saved?” 27 But He said, “The things that are impossible with people are possible with God.”
18 A ruler questioned Him, saying, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 19 And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone. 20 You know the commandments, ‘Do not commit adultery, Do not murder, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother.’” 21 And he said, “All these things I have kept from my youth.” 22 When Jesus heard this, He said to him, “One thing you still lack; sell all that you possess and distribute it to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” 23 But when he had heard these things, he became very sad, for he was extremely rich. 24 And Jesus looked at him and said, “How hard it is for those who are wealthy to enter the kingdom of God!25 For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” 26 They who heard it said, “Then who can be saved?” 27 But He said, “The things that are impossible with people are possible with God.”
Socialism, as we see it around the world, exploits people. Christians are to share with those in need, but that by no means we can feed everyone. We also have a responsibility to our families. There are many factors involved. This passage above is speaking about salvation. What it teaches us is that we can't earn our salvation. It is a gift of God. Jesus Christ came to life the life before God that we cannot live. He died the death we deserve to die to meet our payment for sin. So the question becomes will a person accept and trust what He has done on behalf of all those who will believe, or will he/she try to earn their salvation (a right standing before God). If you want to earn your way before God then you cannot sin for death is the penalty for sin.
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
If you think you can live a perfect life before God (and if you did) there would be no need for the Savior. Do you know of anyone who has lived such a life? The biblical testimony is that One and ONLY One has - Jesus Christ. And as in the OT God required a sacrifice for sin, a perfect sacrifice without spot or blemish, Jesus is the sacrifice that puts us in right relationship with God.
-->
@Alec
Hebrews 9 explains this:
11 But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation; 12 and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. 13 For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh, 14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
15 For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. 16 For where a covenant is, there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it. 17 For a covenant is valid only when men are dead, for it is never in force while the one who made it lives. 18 Therefore even the first covenant was not inaugurated without blood. 19 For when every commandment had been spoken by Moses to all the people according to the Law, he took the blood of the calves and the goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, 20 saying, “This is the blood of the covenant which God commanded you.” 21 And in the same way he sprinkled both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry with the blood. 22 And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.
23 Therefore it was necessary for the copies of the things in the heavens to be cleansed with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; 25 nor was it that He would offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood that is not his own. 26 Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.
He also said it's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle then it is for a rich man to go to heaven(https://www.biblehub.com/matthew/19-24.htm). The only bible verses that I found that contradicted this were from the Old Testament(OT), the testament that gets overridden by the NT when applicable in the case of Christianity. This is one reason why I don't worship God. He made heaven too hard to get into. So do you think the NT advocates for socialist policies in order to screw everyone on Earth, but then to bless them into heaven, which lasts forever as opposed to like 60 years of time on Earth?
So Jesus has done what is necessary for those who will believe and trust in Him. That is the choice, your merit or His. The OT was inferior in that it could never take away sin, just atone for it until the next time one sinned. Thus, we, as Christians, have a better covenant.
So, it is easier for a camel to squeeze through the eye of a needle that for this young man, or us without the merit of Jesus Christ to obtain our salvation through our own merit or works.
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.
Notice, the good works come after salvation, not before. IOW's, we can't save ourselves. Jesus said we must be born anew, born of God, regenerated to new life in God.
-->
@Alec
James 5:1-6
-->
@PGA2.0
Thank God in #127 you at least nor refuting the same facts - truths ive presented to you over and over. Your beging to realize you have nothing of significant truth - fact to offer regardings pregnant women. YAY!
Read my lips text and do not come back to talk to me until you can stop making False statments/commnets/etc and address myh comments specifically as stated.
This is third time youve done this. Please learn how to use rational, logical common sense along with truth - facts and stop sticking your nose *v* { virtural rape? } into a pregnant womans body business.
The egg or fertilized egg are both part{ attached to the mother } except for brief time{ 24hrs? } the fertilized egg falls through the fallopian tube yet is still intimate{ inside woman } part of the pregnant womans body business and you, as an immoral Trumpanzee,
1} keep trying to stick your immoral nose *v* { virtual rape? is immoral } into the pregnant womans body business as is immoral Trumpanzee behaviour of the following,
2} grabbing womens _____y { vagina } without their consent--- as idio-ump likes to do-- and his Trumpanzees support and encouraged this immoral behaviour. Sad :--( lack of moral integrity at best, at worst.........{ ? }
This is just two of the reasons why Trumpanzees need to be Locked Away!
Lock Trumpanzees Away! from moral civilized humanity
Lock Trumpanzees Away! from moral civilized humnanity
-->
@mustardness
Thank God in #127 you at least nor refuting the same facts - truths ive presented to you over and over. Your beging to realize you have nothing of significant truth - fact to offer regardings pregnant women. YAY!
Please use spell check.
Another tactic by the left - accuse the other person of being the one who is unfactual while presenting minimal facts and not addressing the issue at hand, which in this case is whether the egg is part of the woman after fertilization or an entirely new entity.
Read my lips text and do not come back to talk to me until you can stop making False statments/commnets/etc and address myh comments specifically as stated.
More charges of "false statements" and scare tactics without adequately defending your position.
This is third time youve done this. Please learn how to use rational, logical common sense along with truth - facts and stop sticking your nose *v* { virtural rape? } into a pregnant womans body business.
It is not me who is being irrational.
More ad hom attacks.
The egg or fertilized egg are both part{ attached to the mother } except for brief time{ 24hrs? } the fertilized egg falls through the fallopian tube yet is stillintimate{ inside woman } part of the pregnant womans body business and you, as an immoral Trumpanzee,
The fertilized egg is floating down the fallopian tube to the uterus where it will attach to the lining. So what? It is no longer the woman's body but the start of a new growing body within itself. Since fertilization, it is different than before. It now contains both chromosomes from the male and female. It is now its own entity, with a different DNA code, different blood, different genetic make-up. This zygote is a unique and separate individual human being.
1} keep trying to stick your immoral nose *v* { virtual rape? is immoral } into the pregnant womans body business as is immoral Trumpanzee behaviour of the following,2} grabbing womens _____y { vagina } without their consent--- as idio-ump likes to do-- and his Trumpanzees support and encouraged this immoral behaviour. Sad :--( lack of moral integrity at best, at worst.........{ ? }This is just two of the reasons why Trumpanzees need to be Locked Away!
Lock Trumpanzees Away! from moral civilized humanity
The rest of this nonsense is irrelevant to the discussion and only used attack my character with false allegations instead of addressing the issue.
-->
@PGA2.0
This is you. You have never addressed the issue at hand which is the right of a woman to her bodily autonomy.presenting minimal facts and not addressing the issue at hand,
-->
@PGA2.0
The fertilized egg is floating down the fallopian tube to the uterus where it will attach to the lining. So what?
Please use your moral integrity checker
It is truth - fact that it is,
1} produced by woman and a gift from the man,
2} only exists inside the woman. and she has property rights to what is inside your body so keep your friggin nose *v* out of her body business as this virtual rape{?} by you and other immoral Trumpanzees,
It is no longer the woman's body but the start of a new growing body within itself.
3} Yes it is intimate part of the womans body, its processes and belongs to the woman, truth - fact, get over it and keep you friggin virtual rape nose *v* out of her body business,
.........."Therefore, it would appear that complex interactions take place between the oviductal epithelium and the embryo. Human oviductal cells are known to secrete growth factors, cytokines, and other embryotropic factors (ETFs) that enhance and support the development of the pre-implantation embryos.59, 60 Oviductal cells may also affect gene expression of the pre-implantation embryo".......
Since fertilization, it is different than before. It now contains both chromosomes from the male and female. It is now its own entity, with a different DNA code, different blood, different genetic make-up. This zygote is a unique and separate individual human being.
Unique human being that is never seperate from the woman. It is in the womans body the whole time of its development stages/phases and nourished by the woman in fallopian tubes even before implanation in uterus, so keep your friggin nose *v* out of the pregnant womans body business as that is virtual rape{/} by you all other immoral Trumpanzees.
Thank God that in #127 and #133 you at least, not refuting the same facts - truths ive presented to you over and over and over.
Your beginingg to realize you have nothing of significant truth - fact to offer regardings pregnant women. YAY!
Read my lips text and do not come back to talk to me until you can stop making False statments/commnets/etc and address myh comments specifically as stated.
This is 4th time youve done this. Please learn how to use,
1a} rational, logical common sense,
2a} along with truth - facts and,
3a} stop sticking your nose *v* { virtural rape? } into a pregnant womans body business,
4a} as you have no moral or legal rights to do so.
Do you grasp even one thing in all of the above ive stated to you? No? I didnt think so.
The egg or fertilized egg are both part{ attached to the mother } except for brief time{ 24hrs? } the fertilized egg falls through the fallopian tube yet is still intimate{ inside woman } part of the pregnant womans body business and you, as an immoral Trumpanzee,
1b} keep trying to stick your immoral nose *v* { virtual rape? is immoral } into the pregnant womans body business as is immoral Trumpanzee behaviour of the following,
2b} grabbing womens _____y { vagina } without their consent--- as idio-ump likes to do-- and his Trumpanzees support and encouraged this immoral behaviour. Sad :--( lack of moral integrity at best, at worst.........{ ? }
This is just two of the reasons why Trumpanzees need to be Locked Away Today!
Lock Trumpanzees Away! from moral civilized humanity
Lock Trumpanzees Away! from moral civilized humanity
-->
@mustardness
Thank God you don't have any political power. It comes down to if a fetus is a person. The problem life movement is well, pro life. The other side is pro irresponsibly who wants to treat sex as a joke rather then something serious.
If you don't want kids, either use abstinence, or use an IUD. Killing babies must be stopped.
You want to lock up half of the population for supporting Trump. How would you pay for their prison cost?
BTW, I don't support locking people up on their political beliefs. That is communism, something that is un-american.
-->
@Alec
It comes down to if a fetus is a person
Still wrong. It comes down to every woman is a person with a right to her own bodily autonomy.
-->
@disgusted
presenting minimal facts and not addressing the issue at hand,This is you. You have never addressed the issue at hand which is the right of a woman to her bodily autonomy.
Do not misrepresent me. I have discussed this issue many times. You do not have the right to kill someone to guard your bodily autonomy, except in self-defense. Likewise, the woman should not have the legal right to do this either, unless she will lose her life by continuing the pregnancy.
The issue is not the woman's bodily autonomy but whether her bodily autonomy infringes on the rights of another's bodily autonomy, that of the unborn, and that of whether the unborn is a HUMAN BEING. What about it? Is it human and is it another body she is destroying? Pro-lifers completely ignore these aspects in their uncaring which shows they do not value all human life equally (but would they feel the same if they were put in the position of being dehumanized, devalued and destroyed?). Those who treat the unborn this way and are aware of it are no morally better than the Nazis in their devaluation and dehumanization of human life. The reason I say this is because they, like the pro-life crowd, do not treat all human beings as intrinsically equal but discriminate, slander, and destroy those they oppose on their legal whims.
-->
@PGA2.0
Do not misrepresent me. I have discussed this issue many times. You do not have the right to kill someone to guard your bodily autonomy, except in self-defense. Likewise, the woman should not have the legal right to do this either, unless she will lose her life by continuing the pregnancy.
You have never discussed the issue, which is all women's right to bodily autonomy. Your fantasy of murder is just an excuse for the ridiculous religious beliefs inculcated into you by the IPSS, just superstitious claptrap.
The issue is not the woman's bodily autonomy
That is completely the issue, your pathetic misogynist beliefs are just that.
-->
@PGA2.0
...no morally better than the Nazis in their devaluation and dehumanization of human life. The reason I say this is because they [nazis], like the pro-life crowd, do not treat all human beings as intrinsically equal but discriminate,
I think you meant pro-choice crowd, not pro-life crowd?
The question is whether a foetus is 'intrinsically equal' to a human being. I don't think there is one answer to that - it depends on what 'equality' means. When we say 'all men are created equal' we don't mean all men are physically identical; in that context 'equal' was probably meant to mean all men should have the same social and political rights.
Whether a foetus has an equal right to life as as a human after their birth is not a matter of fact but a matter of human choice.
-->
@mustardness
The fertilized egg is floating down the fallopian tube to the uterus where it will attach to the lining. So what?Please use your moral integrity checkerIt is truth - fact that it is,1} produced by woman and a gift from the man,
TRUTH - It is not a part of the woman once fertilized but its own entity with its own genetic make-up, different than that of the woman's genetic code.
2} only exists inside the woman. and she has property rights to what is inside your body so keep your friggin nose *v* out of her body business as this virtual rape{?} by you and other immoral Trumpanzees,
Wrong again. It is you who are being immoral. Although it exists in the woman's body that should not give her the right to kill another human being. The womb is its environment. If my environment is different than yours that does not give me the right to kill you or vice versa? Until modern science, no human being could exist if it does not start its development inside the womb. Abortion has become a genocide, the greatest murdering in the history of humanity to date. Since Roe v Wade there have been over 1.5 billion human beings killed.
It is no longer the woman's body but the start of a new growing body within itself.3} Yes it is intimate part of the womans body, its processes and belongs to the woman, truth - fact, get over it and keep you friggin virtual rape nose *v* out of her body business,
It is in her body but it is a separate body connected to the woman. The womb is its environment where it gets its nutrients and life-sustaining ingredients from. IT is developing from within itself as its genetic code dictates. Its genetic code is not the womans genetic code, only shares part of her code.
.........."Therefore, it would appear that complex interactions take place between the oviductal epithelium and the embryo. Human oviductal cells are known to secrete growth factors, cytokines, and other embryotropic factors (ETFs) that enhance and support the development of the pre-implantation embryos.59, 60 Oviductal cells may also affect gene expression of the pre-implantation embryo".......
Yes, so what? This does not make it part of the woman's body. It has its own body. It relies on the woman for its development and protection. So does the newborn.
Since fertilization, it is different than before. It now contains both chromosomes from the male and female. It is now its own entity, with a different DNA code, different blood, different genetic make-up. This zygote is a unique and separate individual human being.Unique human being that is never seperate from the woman. It is in the womans body the whole time of its development stages/phases and nourished by the woman in fallopian tubes even before implanation in uterus, so keep your friggin nose *v* out of the pregnant womans body business as that is virtual rape{/} by you all other immoral Trumpanzees.
Your argument has morphed. You called it part of the woman's body. Now you have made the distinction of being in the woman's body. Progress!
As for the rest of your mudslinging, what does that have to do with the issue of abortion? Once a person stops defending those who are most innocent and need the most protection because they can't yet speak for themselves life is devalued. That is what you are doing, YOU are devaluing human life.
-->
@mustardness
Thank God that in #127 and #133 you at least, not refuting the same facts - truths ive presented to you over and over and over.Your beginingg to realize you have nothing of significant truth - fact to offer regardings pregnant women. YAY!Read my lips text and do not come back to talk to me until you can stop making False statments/commnets/etc and address myh comments specifically as stated.This is 4th time youve done this. Please learn how to use,
More pathetic name-calling and avoidance of the issue. Typical liberal tactic. Why don't you learn something about your liberal indoctrination?
Your ideas of the worldview do not represent what is really happening. You are immersed in a cultural war that you do not understand because you are unaware of what is going on. You fail to see the greater harm of such a worldview because of your indoctrination. You seem unaware of where your liberal ideology is taking you and your country. Look at Venezuela and all other socialist states. Learn a lesson. Recognize the Black Swan exists. Do you want to understand the consequences of your ideology when it is too late?
Abortion is another Black Swan. The culture changed with Roe V Wade in regard to the sanctity of human life for the unborn.
1a} rational, logical common sense,2a} along with truth - facts and,3a} stop sticking your nose *v* { virtural rape? } into a pregnant womans body business,4a} as you have no moral or legal rights to do so.Do you grasp even one thing in all of the above ive stated to you? No? I didnt think so.The egg or fertilized egg are both part{ attached to the mother } except for brief time{ 24hrs? } the fertilized egg falls through the fallopian tube yet is stillintimate{ inside woman } part of the pregnant womans body business and you, as an immoral Trumpanzee,
You are equating "attached to the body" as the same thing as being part of the body. This is not necessarily logical conducive and not true in the case of the unborn human being growing within her body.
If all human life is valuable then it is of great concern and worth of what the woman does to the unborn. Once one goes down the slippery slope of degrading once class or group of human beings they leave the door open to doing the same with other classes or groups of human beings. This was demonstrated with Hitler and the Nazis during WWII and the period leading up to the war. It is demonstrated in cultures throughout history such as Apartheid in South Africa, slavery in the USA and the Caste system in India. When a group is devalued it is dehumanized to the point of death in many cases. But when someone treats one human being as not intrinsically valuable they tend to do that with others. Life is not held high but it is on the road to despair and despondency.
1b} keep trying to stick your immoral nose *v* { virtual rape? is immoral } into the pregnant womans body business as is immoral Trumpanzee behaviour of the following,
More trash talk.
Deleted the rest of your BS since it has nothing to do with the topic.
-->
@PGA2.0
Should you trash talk mustardness back?
-->
@disgusted
Do not misrepresent me. I have discussed this issue many times. You do not have the right to kill someone to guard your bodily autonomy, except in self-defense. Likewise, the woman should not have the legal right to do this either, unless she will lose her life by continuing the pregnancy.You have never discussed the issue, which is all women's right to bodily autonomy. Your fantasy of murder is just an excuse for the ridiculous religious beliefs inculcated into you by the IPSS, just superstitious claptrap.
You are slandering me again. This is a total misrepresentation of what I have stated in the past. I can cite several examples, including in my debate:
Does the Woman have the Right to Choose Whether or not the Unborn Lives?
What is the woman choosing to do? Unless Con can prove that the unborn is not a human being, the woman is choosing to take the life of that being.
What argument is sufficient in taking this life; the argument based on dependency, or that the unborn is not a separate human? Alternatively, is it the argument based on its level of development, or that the mother has the right to do with her body as she desires, and she does not want the human in it?
What kind of humanity allows the right of a woman not to be pregnant at the expense of eliminating a human being during pregnancy? It is the kind that does not see human beings as intrinsically valuable. It is not the kind of humanity that is livable because the principle then can be turned on any class of human being once one class is deemed unfit. This principle has been applied unjustly to many classes of humans through history.
Why does the innocent unborn human being not have the right to live? It should have the greatest right since it has not done anything wrong.
Why should one class of human beings (the woman) have rights to life and another (innocent unborn human being) be denied those same rights? Which right should be more fundamental, the right to abort or the right to life? Which position should be more fundamental, to remain pregnant for nine months or the right to terminate that unborn life? Which position is more responsible, to take precautions if the woman does not want a child and is sexually active, or if she gets pregnant to then look for an abortion to take care of the situation? Which is more selfish, to guard the unwanted unborn life to term or eliminate it? Which is more permanently harmful, to eliminate an unborn human being or safeguard it to term?
The law exists to protect a person’s most basic rights, but not in the case of the unborn. Protecting basics rights is common sense that is no longer so common.
Abortion, IMO, is the worst kind of child abuse, for it results in the violent taking of innocent human life. Provided are pictures [7] of an unborn after being ripped apart in the abortion procedure (Warning: Graphic violence, not for children). The question is why anyone/a woman would allow this except her life was threatened, and there was no other choice?
The issue is not the woman's bodily autonomyThat is completely the issue, your pathetic misogynist beliefs are just that.
No, the issue is whether the unborn is a human being and whether human beings are intrinsically valuable. If not then don't complain when someone degrades you and decides to put you to death because they don't find you or your group valuable. That is the kind of discrimination we are dealing with here. It is a matter of life and death to the most helpless members of humanity.
I have come to see your complete myopia on this and other topics. You can't understand because you are so highly emotionally committed to a specific ideology. Nothing gets through even when your point of view is logically shot down. That is the level of your indoctrination, IMO.
-->
@keithprosser
...no morally better than the Nazis in their devaluation and dehumanization of human life. The reason I say this is because they [nazis], like the pro-life crowd, do not treat all human beings as intrinsically equal but discriminate,I think you meant pro-choice crowd, not pro-life crowd?
Very true! It should have been pro-choice. Thank you for pointing this out to me.
The question is whether a foetus is 'intrinsically equal' to a human being. I don't think there is one answer to that - it depends on what 'equality' means. When we say 'all men are created equal' we don't mean all men are physically identical; in that context 'equal' was probably meant to mean all men should have the same social and political rights.
Okay, is the unborn (from conception) a living human being? Or is it some other kind of being? IOW's what is growing in the woman's body? It is a human life or another kind of life? Is its genetic make-up the same as that of the woman once fertilization takes place or just part of the woman's DNA? Science says it is uniquely different than the woman. Do you disagree with this, and on what scientific basis?
What equality means is whether ALL humans should be treated equal and the law applied equally to all, or should we be able to devalue, discriminate, dehumanize, demonize, some as deplorable and worthless? Once you say the latter what prevents some group in power of devaluing your net worth?
True, we don't mean that they are physically all equal but whether they should all be treated as equal and able to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. Do all human beings have equal legal rights? No, the unborn is just one case in which some human beings are not treated equally in worth and rights. Would you like that same discrimination to be done to you, or would you like to see the principle of equality applied to all? I'm interested in your response.
Whether a foetus has an equal right to life as as a human after their birth is not a matter of fact but a matter of human choice.
So, what makes the human choice a "just" choice? Because someone can legalize it? Who are they to decide? What makes their moral choice any better than any other? I would argue with relativism that nothing does. Thus moral relativism does not work. It explains nothing regarding what is good and right for everything is relative, subjective, and subject to shifting to the opposite, like with abortion. Once, not long ago, abortion was considered a moral wrong. So, there is something that just does not fit, logically. That is the Law of Identity has been violated. "A" no longer equals "A." "A" can now equal "B" or "C" or "D." A dog is no longer a dog, but it now becomes a cat or duck or tree. Do you see the futility of such views as Relativism? Meaning becomes anything. You need a "Best" or final reference point. Which human being do you feel gives you that point of view? You? What is necessary for such objective, absolute, unchanging moral values (rather than subjective, preference, for without such absolute values that is all you have)?
-->
@Alec
Should you trash talk mustardness back?
It is something most of us do when others trash us. But, if you don't point out someone doing this and show the fallaciousness of such trash talk the other person tends to get away with doing this, without their bias being addressed. What you do when you address his personal attack is lead others to focus on what he is doing. He is not addressing the issue. He has made it personal and now he is trying to malign you instead of addressing the issue and proving his points are morally and logically justifiable. Disgusted uses the exact same ploy. There is a sense of victory when someone can't respond to your arguments other than to call you names. It shows they do not have a strong position.
And just pointing out a position as not logical does not necessarily mean I am attacking the person. I don't know the person, except what they reveal about themselves in their threads. But all worldviews have a way of looking at the world and the question is of whether that worldview can make sense of the world. So I continually point out that their worldview does not. When someone describes a point of view it reflects on their inner convictions. I challenge them to make sense of the inner convictions as sensible.
I value the worth of each person because I see them as made in the image and likeness of God. That does not necessarily mean I think their worldview is logical or valid. I don't. I point this out to them and challenge them to do the same with mine.
-->
@PGA2.0
I take a pragmatic view - there will aways be cases where a woman wants to terminate a pregnancy. Where they are illegal, a black market will spring up.
My intuition is that early abortions are not really problematic but late abortions are highly problematic from a moral point of view! I am very uncomfortable with very late abortions and I would support making it mandatory to bring a foetus to term beyond some point, say 32 or 28 weeks (I'm not an ebryologist to be precise about it!). That is not incompatible with my support of abortion on demand for early abortion!
-->
@Alec
It comes down to if a fetus is a person.
False, it is all based a human being{ person } that is an independant/individual who has been born-out of a pregnant woman, making her a mother of independant/individual human being{ person }.
1} fetus/baby is not born-out and has not taken its first breath ergo not an independent/individual.
No amount of Trumpanzee hand waving{ magic } can alter this truth/fact.
There is no magical virgin-birth. At least those radical fundamentalist can grasp and accept birth{ born-out }.
Trumpanzees are some of the most immoral backward thinking people Earth ---#1 above--- as evidence of Trumpanzee lack of intellectual and moral integrity.
Do not come back and talk to me until you can address the comment{ point of view } as stated, with some actual rational, logical common sense and moral integrity.
-->
@disgusted
. You do not have the right to kill someone to guard your bodily autonomy, except in self-defense. Likewise, the woman should not have the legal right to do this either, unless she will lose her life by continuing the pregnancy
1} Someone, some body, human being inside the woman{ property rights } so get your friggne nose *v* out of her bodily business your virtual rapist{?},
2}| someone, some body, human being that is nourished totally by the woman after fertization and until that someone, sombody, human being is indepedent/individual and has taken its first IN-spiration,
3} someone, somebody, human being is NOT an individual/independent and seperate from a pregnant woman so keep your friggin nose *v* out of womens bodily business you friggin virutal rapist{?},
4} you have not and never will grasp or accept these truths - facts becuase you are a immoral Trumpanzee if not also a radical religous fundamentalist,
5} with no regard for moral rights of a only pregnant women to with all of her bodily concerns so keep your immoral friggin immora, virtual rapist{?} nose *v* out of pregnant womens bodys.
Do not come back to talk to until you have some moral integrity and address my comments as stated, not as you and other Trumpanzees falsely project them.