Pro-Lifers Love Life, Their Country, And Trump
FILE -- Pro-life activists gather for the National March for Life rally in Washington January 27, 2017. (REUTERS/Aaron P. Bernstein)
A crowd of more than 100,000 is expected to congregate in Washington on Friday for the 45th annual March for Life, the world’s largest annual pro-life demonstration. The theme of this year’s march is “Love Saves Lives.”
In the future, love is likely to get a helping hand from science and technology to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which said women and girls have the right to an abortion under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. The ruling struck down laws banning abortion across the nation.
There have been enormous advances in science and technology in the last 45 years since the Supreme Court ruling. Speaking at last year’s March for Life, Vice President Mike Pence said: “Life is winning through the steady advance of science that illuminates when life begins, more and more, every day.” That’s good news for everyone who is pro-life.
With all of these advances in technology, it’s hard to imagine this not having some impact on the way Americans are beginning to view the abortion debate. The impact can be measure in opinion polls.
An annual poll released Wednesday by The Knights of Columbus and Marist on Americans’ abortion views found that 63 percent of Americans now strongly support a ban on abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy, up from 59 percent just a year ago. The number of Democrats who support the same ban has increased to 56 percent from 49 percent in January 2017. Also noteworthy is that 61 percent of Democrats want significant restrictions on abortion.
The poll also found that 62 percent of Americans said they believe life begins within the first three months of a woman’s pregnancy. Among those who believe life begins at conception, 46 percent said they believe so because it is “a biological and scientific fact,” versus 45 percent who said they believe it based on “a philosophical or religious belief.”
In a survey conducted by the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA), a network of pro-life pregnancy centers, reported confirming 75,318 pregnancies through ultrasound technology in 2013 on patients identified as either seriously considering an abortion or open to getting an abortion. Of those, 78 percent – or 58,634 – chose to carry their baby to term after seeing an ultrasound image of their child in the womb.
The list of advances in science and technology dealing with pregnancy and unborn children is since the Roe v. Wade decision was handed down is long and impressive.
In the 1970s, the U.S. first saw two-dimensional ultrasounds of unborn children – black and white still images that expectant parents have become accustomed to seeing in the doctor’s office. From there, three dimensional ultrasounds were developed, which take pictures from multiple points.
Stephen Smith, professor of biomedical engineering at Duke University, who helped design and develop 3-D ultrasound scanners, was asked in 2007 how he thought the 3-D ultrasound would be used in 20 or 50 years. His answer: “Everywhere 2-D is being used now there will be 3-D, and it will be in portable devices that are as small as a laptop or a PDA.”
It’s only been 11 years since that interview and technology is increasing so rapidly that we’ve already seen at least three other advances in ultrasound technology since the 3-D ultrasound. Among them, the 4-D ultrasound.
Computer technology has now advanced to where images of the baby’s movements can now be streamed, as opposed to a series of 3-D still pictures. The “4th dimension” is time. The 4-D moving portion can actually be recorded on a DVD as well.
Then there is High Definition (HD), which is an improved version of the 3-D and 4-D technology. HD images still have a slight bronze tint, but with enhanced clarity and brightness. The images of the movements are more fluid. Many 3-D/4-D sessions are now performed in HD.
Going a step beyond HD, is HDLIVE4-D, which generates remarkably realistic images of the baby. Gone is the bronze tint in favor of a more genuine flesh tone. This advance allows the nurse or technician to move the light source from point to point, producing images that have truly broken new ground.
With these advances in technology, you can now find out the gender of the baby as early as 14 weeks. In fact, some companies are so confident they can tell you the gender at that early stage they offer a cash guarantee.
One thing Professor Smith may have been on to is the use of ultrasound technology in portable devices. Founded in 2014, Clarius Mobile Health created an ultrasound device that clinicians can carry in their pockets. This has led to higher adoption rates and more (and better) care more quickly, because most of the controls are automated.
This portable device combines new technology and knowledge of ultrasounds gathered over decades with a mobile phone. The user now has what amounts to a point-and-shoot mobile ultrasound apparatus with very high quality.
Laurent Pelissier, founder of Clarius said: “Eventually, we believe every doctor will own a handheld ultrasound that they will use in daily practice, just like a visual stethoscope.”
In the words of Vice President Pence: “Life is Winning.” It’s not just winning because of good arguments or debates, or a well-crafted bill in Congress. All of those things have their place, but that’s not what’s going to transform hearts and change minds.
Life is winning because technology always advances, it never retreats. Life is winning with good old-fashioned science and modern technology – one ultrasound at a time. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/01/19/march-for-life-reminds-us-that-attitudes-on-abortion-are-changing-one-beautiful-ultrasound-at-time.html
Tags
But rpove exactly how the universe was created as you don't want to accept the theoretical religious BELIEF.
Because religious belief is not theoretical. There is no empirical evidence to support a religious position. Theories actually have supporting empirical evidence. Religion merely assumes and tries to pass such assumption off as fact. But it's still nothing more than mere belief. And belief does not equal fact. Therefore, a religious belief or assumption lacks any validity or credibility. But you are free to believe whatever you want.
THAT is exactly what I'm trying to get some to accept. NEITHER side can "prove" that God does or does not exist, and neither side can "prove" how the universe was created. BOTH sides believe what they want to believe.
What you don't seem to get is that one cannot prove the non-existence of something. The one making the affirmative claim bears the burden of proof. And the universe was created by the Big Bang. There is empirical evidence to support this. There is no evidence to support "god did it" or that there is a god at all. Belief has nothing to do with facts. Belief is used in place of facts as an emotionally satisfying answer.
Personally, I don't care either way. It's a personal decision.
Facts is not up to a popularity contest. One can choose mere belief over facts or evidence. But belief alone does not make or change actual fact. It's just self delusional.
Mr Morden was very accommodating too.
Don't forget, Londo helped. It was a thoughtful gift from him.
Yes. They all evolved though. Bashir became less annoying. O'brien became more laid back. Worf became a command officer. Odo became less introverted. Kira became less impulsive. And even Dax became a new person.
Every character had their moments and stories. Not only did it allow for great development, but it made for good story telling too.
Unlikely. Kirk would have tried flirted with the Duras sisters first. That was always his MO.
Maybe that's all that was needed? 
Polarized hull plating made little sense, but if we dig too deep in their techno-babble the whole series starts to fall apart.
Think of it as a precursor to the structural integrity field. Helps hold things together. But shields are definitely better.
Very true. Even Piccard began to warm up to Q at times. Especially when he got a new heart and was able to see how his live would have been had he been less impulsive and less of a risk-taker.
"Tapestry" episode. One of the best episodes of TNG and arguably the best interaction and character development episodes of both Picard and Q.Indeed.
>Smiles< ... >and nods<
Episodes incorporating that theory still makes me smile to this day.
I think you're onto something. Unless the next big thing is a prequel, but 5ive is still available
The best part about numbering hot ladies (human or alien), is that numbers are infinite. 
Was likely/presumably caused by the Big Bang. It is still just a theory that hasn't been proven.
Granted, but the evidence fits. So the theory has a higher probability of certainty.
It is essentially the result of looking at an expanding universe and running the tape backwards to the/a starting point. It's still the best theory we have and there is plenty of math and background radiation to support it, but that doesn't say it is a certain or confirmed origin theory.
Theories cannot be "proven" in that regard. It is the probability that they are correct. Some theories, such as evolution, have such a high probability of certainty, based on the supporting empirical evidence, that they are often regarded as factual.
A missing piece to the puzzle is the endgame. Some posit a Big Crunch is the finality, where all matter eventually slows down from expanding and begins to collapse back into a singularity again. Another theory posits that as the universe continues to expand, faster and faster, matter with break apart, down the the atoms, known as the Big Rip.
Considering the universe has a "beginning point," We can see that and the current expansion. Evidence supports this. However, predicting what will eventually become of the universe is far less certain.
I personally like the Big Crunch because it is cylindrical, meaning the universe is destroyed 1000 times and is created 1001 times. No true beginning or end, just an endless loop.
In a way, the universe is continuous in that regard. It also better conforms to the 1st Law of thermodynamics: all the matter/energy in the universe isn't lost. It's just recycled into a new universe .
But other than it makes me feel better about myself I have no proof to confirm this theory is the right one. I'll ask the Vorlons next time I have the chance. Maybe they've figured it out by now.
They have been around long enough. They should have some idea. Oh wait, the younger races kicked them and the Shadows out of the galaxy. Maybe Capt. Sheridan should have asked them that question first: " Get the hell out of our galaxy ! But before you go, can you tell us how the universe will end?"
It's really the only ST series to do this. Not only the first ti have a serialized premise but some real character development. Sure, there was Data, but a single character in a show doesn't compare to the way every character evolved in DS9.
All the characters on TNG had their moments. Data was probably the most profound, given his continuous quest to "be human." But the other characters were developed more on the surface. DS9 really got deep with them.
Looking for par'Mach in all the wrong places.
I'm beginning to wonder if there is such a thing as the "wrong place" for par'Mach.
It was always my favorite. My next favorite was "Frame of Mind", with Riker in a play and having to act crazy while slipping between reality and being institutionalized.
That one wasn't bad. I do keep going back to the end of Tapestry where Q explains how Picard's life developed after he avoided the fight. Picard admitting he was wrong and Q was right was a big moment, showing Picard's humility. Also a big moment for Q to be altruistic in a way. I think that's when both characters really started to understand one an other. Q: "Why Picard, I had no idea you were such a cad." LOL
Good point. But it may get a little silly when they reach the Sextillions. Silly and a little too on the nos
I'll be happy if the number stays within the double digits. I'm easy to please.
Not the best way to win someone over to your side, or convince them you're interested in a conversation.
Because you have stated that you are a male, I know that you will never become pregnant and risk your life and health by being pregnant.
If you are interested in women's rights, then you will support women's rights. If not, then you will continue to post crap data to support your position even if it is detrimental to women's rights.
Even a "normal" pregnancy has detrimental lifetime effects to a woman's body. This is a fact that forced birthers have a tendency to downplay or completely ignore. Legal abortion is far safer than pregnancy.
Normal, expectable, or frequent PERMANENT side effects of pregnancy:
- stretch marks (worse in younger women)
- loose skin
- permanent weight gain or redistribution
- abdominal and vaginal muscle weakness
- pelvic floor disorder (occurring in as many as 35% of middle-aged former child-bearers and 50% of elderly former child-bearers, associated with urinary and rectal incontinence, discomfort and reduced quality of life -- aka prolapsed utuerus, the malady sometimes badly fixed by the transvaginal mesh)
- changes to breasts
- increased foot size
- varicose veins
- scarring from episiotomy or c-section
- other permanent aesthetic changes to the body (all of these are downplayed by women, because the culture values youth and beauty)
- increased proclivity for hemmorhoids
- loss of dental and bone calcium (cavities and osteoporosis)
- higher lifetime risk of developing Altzheimer's
- newer research indicates microchimeric cells, other bi-directional exchanges of DNA, chromosomes, and other bodily material between fetus and mother (including with "unrelated" gestational surrogates )
Occasional complications and side effects:
- complications of episiotomy
- spousal/partner abuse
- hyperemesis gravidarum
- temporary and permanent injury to back
- severe scarring requiring later surgery
(especially after additional pregnancies)- dropped (prolapsed) uterus (especially after additional pregnancies, and other pelvic floor weaknesses -- 11% of women, including cystocele, rectocele, and enterocele)
- pre-eclampsia (edema and hypertension, the most common complication of pregnancy, associated with eclampsia, and affecting 7 - 10% of pregnancies)
- eclampsia (convulsions, coma during pregnancy or labor, high risk of death)
- gestational diabetes
- placenta previa
- anemia (which can be life-threatening)
- thrombocytopenic purpura
- severe cramping
- embolism (blood clots)
- medical disability requiring full bed rest (frequently ordered during part of many pregnancies varying from days to months for health of either mother or baby)
- diastasis recti, also torn abdominal muscles
- mitral valve stenosis (most common cardiac complication)
- serious infection and disease (e.g. increased risk of tuberculosis)
- hormonal imbalance
- ectopic pregnancy (risk of death)
- broken bones (ribcage, "tail bone")
- hemorrhage and
- numerous other complications of delivery
- refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease
- aggravation of pre-pregnancy diseases and conditions (e.g. epilepsy is present in .5% of pregnant women, and the pregnancy alters drug metabolism and treatment prospects all the while it increases the number and frequency of seizures)
- severe post-partum depression and psychosis
- research now indicates a possible link between ovarian cancer and female fertility treatments, including "egg harvesting" from infertile women and donors
- research also now indicates correlations between lower breast cancer survival rates and proximity in time to onset of cancer of last pregnancy
- research also indicates a correlation between having six or more pregnancies and a risk of coronary and cardiovascular disease
Less common (but serious) complications:
- peripartum cardiomyopathy
- cardiopulmonary arrest
- magnesium toxicity
- severe hypoxemia/acidosis
- massive embolism
- increased intracranial pressure, brainstem infarction
- molar pregnancy, gestational trophoblastic disease
(like a pregnancy-induced cancer)- malignant arrhythmia
- circulatory collapse
- placental abruption
- obstetric fistula
More permanent side effects:
-
future infertility
-
permanent disability
-
death.
Great article
Thank you.
I spent almost 30 minutes this morning watching a youtube video of a misogynist explaining why men must be "powerful" and why women must act like men in the workplace if we want to be "successful". This included a blurp about how it is accepted that men even threaten each other with physical harm to achieve dominance and establish the rightful pecking order in society.
It is essential that women never buy into that type of propaganda that we must become physically violent with anyone to be "successful" or to be "respected" in business, government or any other aspect in life.
The men who promote and justify violence (and overt/implied threats of violence) as acceptable methods of achieving leadership positions are attempting to undermine women's influence and rights to have a peaceful, more equitable society.
Of course, those men are using different words than it is best to keep a woman "barefoot and pregnant", but it basically amounts to the same thing.
These are the types of men I would like to bitch slap. I am successful in my job, but I've never had to be violent to get where I am.
I've never had to be violent to get where I am.
Nor should anyone.
I find violent/aggressive men who justify their violence as "normal," and then promote women to become aggressors, are promoting the mindset that women who compete with men intellectually deserve to be physically threatened and abused for entering the male's rightful domain of dominance.
The biggest holes in the Evolution theory is the sad fact that even DNA degrades and becomes useless after a few million years.
I wouldn't call it a hole. More like a limitation. Fortunately, evolution also has other pieces of evidence besides DNA to support it.
It's also why Jurassic Park is a lie.
What? You mean there isn't an island full of dinos? NOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!
Math and observation will be the only way to see which eng game theory is correct.
That might take a while.
We don't yet have all the pieces, but I'm sure we'll understand Dark Matter and Dark Energy eventually. Even if it ends up that both of them don't exist we'll still have our answer.
Dark matter/energy does help fill in the pieces of our current understanding. But until we actually understand dark matter/energy itself, or develop the technology to detect it, speculation about the ultimate fate of the universe is all we have. There's just too much uncertainty about it still. We know the universe is still expanding. Therefore, it is feasible to assume it will continue to do so and proverbially fly apart. Whether that is actually the case is a different matter altogether.
Good episode. I like how they just used both theories. The Big Rip where all matter decays, even the last proton, only to have it all quickly collapse and start anew. I suppose that's as good of a compromise as any theory.
Yeah, and then Prof. Farnsworth tried to assassinate Hitler and missed. So they had to do it all over again.
I felt that had more to do with the specific writers than actually long term changes in the characters. Riker would go from hard ass by the book one episode and your close pal the next, depending on the needs of the plot. His facial hair changed more than his personality did, imo.
Q did observe Riker was not as serious a person before he grew his beard.
Public bathrooms, New York City subways, left nostril hahaha
I stand corrected.
Admitting that to Q and opening up to, well, anyone, was a true act of humility on his part and a hard thing for most to do.
Especially given that it was Q he was fessing up to. Even more so than when Q introduced the Enterprise to the Borg for the 1st time. This time, Picard had to admit that he was entirely wrong to change his past.
The only other times we saw Picard really open up was the one or two times with Wesley, and his character is often best forgotten.
Don't forget when he reunited with his brother Robert and he started bawling about his experience as Locutus.
...Pappy Bush, Ike. How far back do you want to go?
Or Bill Clinton..........
So you're saying that "president" Shitbag®* is no better than Clinton in your eyes? Okay, then you must want him impeached, too, right?
* due to unauthorized use by others for other people for our current Shitbag® "president" I have to make my ownership and for whom it's reserved clear.
How did Obama come into this conversation?
He didn't. There is only one "president" Shitbag® and he's all yours.
Kennedy?
So it that the excuse you use for supporting an immoral pile of human excrement like "president"Shitbag®? And your sort gets all whiny when we point out how your "morality" claim is garbage.
So, you admit that "president" Shitbag® is no better (in your own view) than Clinton.
You're just obsessed with Bill Clinton aren't you? Still can't get over that blow job eh?
'Well that’s sort of true because although obammy is a true shit bag we didn’t really call him that since he was better known as a obumfuk the narcissistic fucking prick.'
You're just so jealous of an articulate decent well educated brilliant man aren't you - as is obvious by your juvenile potty mouth.
You want to talk narcissists? Sounds like you or the shithole in the Now White Trash House.
I bet you think you're just brilliant don't you?
The tweet from Planned Parenthood Maryland reads: "After Surgery in the Womb, a Baby Kicks Up Hope."
After Surgery in the Womb, a Baby Kicks Up Hope https://t.co/iH0VWWvCVS
— PPMaryland (@PPMaryland) January 16, 2018
That's right. Planned Parenthood admitted that a child in his mother's womb is, indeed, a "baby." As in a living, breathing individual. Go ahead and enjoy the shock and awe of such gross hypocrisy on the part of the nation's largest abortion provider. But, don't forget to enjoy the story they linked via the New York Times about successful spina bifida surgery in-utero:
On Sept. 27, as a six-month-old fetus, [Baby Royer] underwent experimental surgery while still in his mother’s womb to treat a severe form of spina bifida, in which the tissue that should enclose and protect the spinal column does not form properly.
The condition leaves the spine open with nerves exposed, and they sustain damage that can leave a child incontinent and unable to walk. The opening leaks spinal fluid, and the base of the brain can sink into the spinal column and be harmed by pressure.
Research has shown that for carefully selected fetuses, surgery before birth rather than after gives the child better odds of being able to walk independently and of avoiding the need for an implanted shunt to prevent fluid buildup in the brain.
Usually, the prenatal surgery requires cutting open the uterus. But after carefully studying the options and consulting various specialists, Lexi and Joshuwa Royer chose an experimental approach. In that procedure, developed at Texas Children’s Hospital by Dr. Michael Belfort, the obstetrician and gynecologist-in-chief, and Dr. William Whitehead, a pediatric neurosurgeon, doctors make just tiny slits in the uterus to insert a camera and miniature instruments. The camera sends images to a monitor that the surgeons watch so they can see what they are doing.
This unique surgery allows the mother to deliver vaginally instead of defaulting to a C-section. The surgery was so successful that Mrs. Royer's pregnancy continued without complications. When Baby Royer was born he needed an hour with plastic surgeons to close up the two incisions made by the micro-instruments. Later that evening he ate two great meals and slept, well, like a baby. However, the report warns: "A battery of tests lay ahead. Fetal surgery does not cure spina bifida, doctors warn. It only lessens the disability. So, for Baby Royer, time will tell."
Still, the Royers felt nothing but hope. Minutes after he was born, Baby Royer not only moved his legs and feet, he also attempted to kick away from nurses when laid on his stomach.
According to the CDC, nearly 1,500 babies are born each year with spina bifida. Depending on the severity of the condition, medical professionals may advise parents to abort the pregnancy once spina bifida is discovered. Such was the case with one New Zealand couple, the first from their country to travel to Australia to pursue in-utero surgery for the condition. (Eighty percent of New Zealand babies diagnosed with the condition are aborted.)
Mom and Dad Royer encourage all parents to "do their research" and know their options before committing to any plan for treatment.
The tweet from Planned Parenthood Maryland reads: "After Surgery in the Womb, a Baby Kicks Up Hope."
After Surgery in the Womb, a Baby Kicks Up Hope https://t.co/iH0VWWvCVS
— PPMaryland (@PPMaryland) January 16, 2018
That's right. Planned Parenthood admitted that a child in his mother's womb is, indeed, a "baby." As in a living, breathing individual. Go ahead and enjoy the shock and awe of such gross hypocrisy on the part of the nation's largest abortion provider. But, don't forget to enjoy the story they linked via the New York Times about successful spina bifida surgery in-utero:
On Sept. 27, as a six-month-old fetus, [Baby Royer] underwent experimental surgery while still in his mother’s womb to treat a severe form of spina bifida, in which the tissue that should enclose and protect the spinal column does not form properly.
The condition leaves the spine open with nerves exposed, and they sustain damage that can leave a child incontinent and unable to walk. The opening leaks spinal fluid, and the base of the brain can sink into the spinal column and be harmed by pressure.
Research has shown that for carefully selected fetuses, surgery before birth rather than after gives the child better odds of being able to walk independently and of avoiding the need for an implanted shunt to prevent fluid buildup in the brain.
Usually, the prenatal surgery requires cutting open the uterus. But after carefully studying the options and consulting various specialists, Lexi and Joshuwa Royer chose an experimental approach. In that procedure, developed at Texas Children’s Hospital by Dr. Michael Belfort, the obstetrician and gynecologist-in-chief, and Dr. William Whitehead, a pediatric neurosurgeon, doctors make just tiny slits in the uterus to insert a camera and miniature instruments. The camera sends images to a monitor that the surgeons watch so they can see what they are doing.
This unique surgery allows the mother to deliver vaginally instead of defaulting to a C-section. The surgery was so successful that Mrs. Royer's pregnancy continued without complications. When Baby Royer was born he needed an hour with plastic surgeons to close up the two incisions made by the micro-instruments. Later that evening he ate two great meals and slept, well, like a baby. However, the report warns: "A battery of tests lay ahead. Fetal surgery does not cure spina bifida, doctors warn. It only lessens the disability. So, for Baby Royer, time will tell."
Still, the Royers felt nothing but hope. Minutes after he was born, Baby Royer not only moved his legs and feet, he also attempted to kick away from nurses when laid on his stomach.
According to the CDC, nearly 1,500 babies are born each year with spina bifida. Depending on the severity of the condition, medical professionals may advise parents to abort the pregnancy once spina bifida is discovered. Such was the case with one New Zealand couple, the first from their country to travel to Australia to pursue in-utero surgery for the condition. (Eighty percent of New Zealand babies diagnosed with the condition are aborted.)
Mom and Dad Royer encourage all parents to "do their research" and know their options before committing to any plan for treatment.
On Sept. 27, as a six-month-old fetus, [Baby Royer] underwent experimental surgery while still in his mother’s womb to treat a severe form of spina bifida, in which the tissue that should enclose and protect the spinal column does not form properly.
A six month old fetus is a baby. No shocker there.
A six month old fetus is a baby. No shocker there.
Jeebus, thick doesn't even come close, does it, Perrie?
A correction Perrie: a 6 month old fetus is still just a fetus. It's not a baby until it's born.
Science says it’s a human child and it’s making babies viable ever earlier and has proven that conception is the origin of life.
Science says it’s a human child and it’s making babies viable ever earlier and has proven that conception is the origin of life.
The point of viability has changed little. Science only increases the survival chances of births at or after viability.
More to the point, people like "heartland" maintain the morula is a fully formed baby.
Some people certainly equate the two or think an embryo is a minaturized "baby." It's like they don't even have the most rudimentary understanding of embryology.
'and has proven that conception is the origin of life'
It doesn't prove diddly squat.
The bible itself says that life begins at first breath
Not according to this:
“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.”
Jeremiah 1:5
Sounds a little before the first breath don't you think?
Before I formed you in the womb I knew you
Lol not only is it before first breath it is before fertilization. Thus making it murder to menstruate or jerk off.
The comment in question was refuted directly by proof. You're all about proof right?
Where? What "proof" would that be? The bible? That's hardly proof of anything!
So like is usual with you cases such as this, you are wrong and therefore "irrelevant."
Only in your mind.
another place the Bible contradicts itself
Where? What "proof" would that be? The bible? That's hardly proof of anything!
An estimated 85% of the world population disagrees with you and has faith in something greater than themselves that is not "scientifically" provable. But ..... we all could be wrong and you might right.
So you got that going for you .....
An estimated 85% of the world population disagrees with you and has faith in something greater than themselves
And 68% of the world's population do not believe in the Christian god. Clearly, Yahweh is not the one true god according to almost 7 out of 10 people in the world.
“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.”
Then according to your belief, the soul was with your god before conception. Why shouldn't that soul then immediately return to your god for eternity if it never draws a breath?
Also, why would your god form anything in an unfriendly womb? Is your god surprised by the decisions of human beings and just a helpless voyeur (other than impregnating women against their will)?
Clearly, Yahweh is not the one true god according to almost 7 out of 10 people in the world.
So what? That wasn't my point but rather people of any faith. I was pretty clear on that so you must be carrying a pretty big chip on your shoulders towards Christianity. Nothing new there for this place.
That said and since you bring it up, Christianity is the largest religion in the world in percentage by a fairly large margin. I figured you would enjoy that since it appears you like "fun" with statistics.
An estimated 85% of the world population disagrees with you and has faith in something greater than themselves that is not "scientifically" provable.
An argumentum ad populum. But you do agree you don't actually have any proof then. Looks like the "comment in question" wasn't refuted by anything in the least!
But ..... we all could be wrong and you might right. So you got that going for you .....
Well, considering there is no evidence or proof of any god/s, nor has any believer of any religion ever been able to demonstrate otherwise in the thousands of years of the existence of various religious beliefs....
So what? That wasn't my point but rather people of any faith.
Different faiths can have different beliefs and/or different god/s. So which one is right?
Christianity is the largest religion in the world
Only if grouped as one religion instead of the many factions. Since many of the factions denounce the other factions as cults, the largest group of Christians are Catholic and number around a billion. The remainder are so splintered that none of them have significant membership in comparison to the Roman Catholics.
About half of all Christians in the world are Catholic, 37 percent are part of the Protestant tradition, 12 percent are Orthodox Greek or Russian.
The majority of the world is wrong. Thus the need to take the good news gospel to the whole world.
The majority of the world is wrong.
The majority of the world is wrong.
I believe in X based on faith - no evidence, I just believe it.
You believe in Y based on faith - no evidence, you just believe it.
You are wrong. I am right.
Please explain how believers in X are right and believers in Y are wrong.
( This is a question of logic )
That's quite the arrogant statement, saying your religion or belief is right and everyone else is wrong. Attitudes like that might also explain why religion, and by extension their adherents, are hostile towards one another to varying degrees.
that falls under something like;
Religion is Overrated ,
If I Berate X it .
It surely explains somepeople's hostility towards religion
That particular fringe cult of xtianity has the same religious agenda for the US as the radical Islamists that we're killing in the middle east.
How I Know Christianity is True
Article contributed by Probe Ministries
Visit Probe's website
Probe's Patrick Zukeran offers 5 lines of evidence that Christianity is true: Christianity teaches the correct worldview, the Bible is God's Word, Jesus confirmed His claims, Christ's resurrection, and personal experience.
Because Christianity Teaches the Correct Worldview
Among all the religions and philosophies, how do we know Christianity is true? While there are many ways to address the question, let's begin by saying that Christianity makes sense of the world around us. In other words, it presents the most correct worldview based on the world in which we live. There are three worldviews that lie at the foundation of all religions and philosophies: theism, naturalism, and pantheism. Theism teaches there is a personal God who created the universe. Naturalism teaches there is no divine being and that the universe is the result of time and chance. Pantheism teaches that the universe is eternal and that the divine is an impersonal force made up of all things. All three worldviews cannot be true at the same time and if one of them is true, the other two must be false.
The evidence from our study of the universe points to theism. Unfortunately, time will allow me to go over only three lines of evidence.
The first is the argument from first cause or the cosmological argument, which states if something exists, it must have either come from something else, come from nothing, or have always existed. What is the most reasonable conclusion of the three for the existence of the universe? Scientists confirm that the universe has a beginning. Many call this the "big bang." Since the universe assuredly has a beginning, the worldview of pantheism bears the burden of proof. Second, to say the universe comes from nothing goes against responsible scientific inquiry and human logic. For example, any invention in human history is not brought about from nothing. It comes from materials and ingenuity that existed before its inception. Therefore, the naturalist worldview has no logical ground to stand on. The best conclusion is that the universe is the result of a cause greater than itself. That cause is God.
Second, we have the proof of design or the teleological argument. Complexity and design point to a designer. For example, although all the parts of a watch are found on the earth, no one would assume it evolved as the result of natural, unguided actions of chance. Why would we conclude otherwise when we look at the human brain or the human anatomy, which is much more complex? The more we discover about the universe and nature, the more we realize how unlikely it is that this could have all happened by accident. Therefore, the burden of proof is on the worldviews of naturalism and pantheism, which hold to a position of evolution.
Finally we have the moral argument. All people have a sense of right and wrong. In every culture, adultery, murder, and stealing are wrong. Where does that universal sense of right and wrong come from? A moral law code requires a moral Lawgiver who is personal and reflects the moral law in His character. Since we are made in God's image, we reflect His moral law. C.S. Lewis stated, "As an atheist my argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?"1 Naturalists and pantheists have difficulty accounting for the human conscience.
For these reasons, theism is the only possible worldview that can remain true to scientific and philosophical scrutiny.2
Because the Bible is God's Word
Among all the books written by man, none have the credentials that equal the Bible. The second evidence for Christianity is the Bible, which proves itself to be true and divinely inspired.
The Bible proves itself to be true because it is a historically accurate document. Thousands of archaeological discoveries confirm its historical accuracy. Numerous civilizations, rulers, and events once thought legendary by the skeptics have been confirmed by archaeology. Even miraculous geographic events in Sodom and Gomorrah, Jericho, and Sennachareb's defeat in the 7th century B.C. have passed the test of archaeological scrutiny.
Another proof of the Bible's truth is in historical records outside the Bible. Numerous historical records from ancient civilizations confirm the historicity of the biblical accounts. Dr. William Albright, who is still respected as probably the foremost authority in Middle Eastern archaeology, said this about the Bible: "There can be no doubt that archaeology has confirmed the substantial historicity of the Old Testament."3 The historical evidence upholds the premise that if an ancient historical work proves to be accurate again and again in its detail, we can be confident that it is accurate on the material we cannot confirm externally.
The Bible's divine inspiration is attested to in its unity. Although the Bible is written over a 1500 year period, written by over forty different authors from different backgrounds, and covers a host of controversial subjects, it maintains a unified theme and it does not contradict itself in principle from beginning to end. This indicates that a divine author supervised the entire process and guided each writer.
Second, we have the remarkable record of prophecy. Hundreds of detailed prophecies are written years before the event takes place. For example the prophet Ezekiel in chapter 26 describes accurately how the city of Tyre will be destroyed years before it occurs. Daniel predicts the empires of Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome. Prophecy shows the divine hand of God because only an eternal being could have inspired the writers to leave such a legacy.
Finally, the Bible answers the major questions all belief systems must answer. Where did we come from? What is the nature of the divine? What is our relationship to the divine? What is the nature of man? How do we explain the human predicament? What is the answer to the human predicament? What happens after death? And how do we explain evil? Any system that does not answer these questions is an incomplete system. The Bible gives the most complete and accurate answers to the truly important questions of human existence.
No other book ever written has these credentials. A book written by God would have the fingerprints of God all over it. The Bible alone has His fingerprints.4
Because Jesus Confirmed His Claims
How do I know Christianity is true? Another source of confirmation comes from the person of Jesus Christ. Among all men who ever lived, Jesus stands apart from each one. Throughout the gospels, Jesus claimed Himself to be God. He claimed to have authority over the law, creation, sin, and death. John 10:30-33 states,
'I and the Father are one.' Again the Jews picked up stones to stone Him but Jesus said to them, 'I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?' The leaders replied, 'We are not stoning you for any of these but for blasphemy because you a mere man, claim to be God.'
The Jewish enemies of Christ clearly understood His claims and it is for this reason they killed Him. His disciples also understood His claim and presented it in their message. Not only did He make an extraordinary claim; Jesus confirmed it. There are numerous ways in which Christ proved His claims. I will cover only four.
The first confirmation of Jesus' claims is His sinless life. Jesus' most intimate companions stated He committed no sin that He needed to repent of. Paul writes of Christ, "God made Him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." (2 Cor. 5:21) It would have been hypocritical of Jesus if He had indeed sinned and never repented, for He taught all men this principle. Even His enemies could find no sin in Him. Pontius Pilate, after examining Jesus, stated to the angry mob, "I find no basis for a charge against him." The Bible declares God is holy and Jesus showed Himself to be holy as well.
The second confirmation is the impact of Christ on mankind. More schools and colleges have been built in the name of Christ than any other man. More hospitals and orphanages are built in the name of Christ than any other person. More literature and music are written about Christ than any other person. More laws and ethical codes are built on His teachings than any other man. He has had a tremendous impact on every area of culture like no one else.
The third confirmation is the miracles He performed. God's existence makes it reasonable to assume He would use miracles to confirm His message and messenger. Miracles are a powerful confirmation because it authenticates the creator's authority over His creation. Christ's miracles over nature, sickness, spiritual forces, sin, and death displayed this authority over every realm of creation.
The fourth confirmation is the fulfilled prophecies. Before He set foot on the earth, there were over seventy specific prophecies made by the Old Testament writers about the Messiah. The prophecies included the city of birth, His method of execution, His betrayal, the date of His death, etc. Jesus fulfilled each of these. The probability of His fulfilling just eight of these by chance is very close to a mathematical zero.
No one has both made the claims of Christ and confirmed them, as He did. His life is another proof Christianity is true.5
Because of the Resurrection
Jesus further confirmed His claims to be God by rising from the dead. Jesus openly proclaimed that as God He had authority over life and death. He states in John 11:25, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and he who believes in me will never die." The resurrection is proof that His claim is true.
Many skeptics have presented alternative theories to the resurrection. Some of the most famous include: the theory that the disciples stole the body, the disciples went to the wrong tomb, the disciples hallucinated the resurrection, Jesus did not die but went unconscious on the cross, and the most recent theory is that wild dogs ate the body of Jesus.
However, these arguments have been shown to be severely flawed and could not account for all the facts surrounding the events of the resurrection. Many have done detailed analysis of the evidence and have concluded that the resurrection must be a historical event. The late Simon Greenleaf, the former Royal Professor of Law at Harvard, performed one of the most famous of these studies. In his book, The Testimony of the Evangelists, the Gospels Examined by the Rules of Evidence, he concluded,
They had every possible motive to review carefully the grounds of their faith and the evidences of the great facts and truths which they asserted; . . . It was therefore impossible that they could have persisted in affirming the truths they have narrated had not Jesus actually risen from the dead, and had they not known this fact as certainly as they knew any other fact.
As an atheist, lawyer and journalist Lee Strobel did a two-year investigation on the resurrection interviewing some of the great scholars on both sides. He finally concluded in his book The Case for Christ,
In light of the convincing facts I had learned during my investigation, in the face of this overwhelming avalanche of evidence in the case for Christ, the great irony was this, it would require much more faith for me to maintain my atheism that to trust in Jesus of Nazareth.6
No one has been able to conquer death by raising himself or herself from the dead. Jesus by His resurrection proves He is God. For only God, the giver of life has the authority over life and death. Since Jesus substantiates His claims, we conclude He is divine and what He teaches is true and authoritative.
Jesus also taught the Bible to be God's Word. Therefore, the Bible is the foundation for all truth to all of mankind in every culture and for all time. Any teaching that is contrary to those of Jesus and the Bible are false.7
Because I Have Experienced It
Jesus Christ and the truths of the Bible are not simply facts to be stored in our minds, they are truths that we are invited to experience in a personal way. God invites us to a personal relationship with Him. The evidence points convincingly toward Jesus Christ. After reviewing the evidence, we each must make the decision to move in the direction the evidence is pointing. It is then that we experience the reality of God in our lives. Although an individual's experience is a subjective thing, it is part of the proofs that authenticate faith.
When I first heard that the God of the universe loved me and desperately wanted a relationship with me, I thought it was the greatest news I ever heard. As I began to share my newfound discovery, I met scholars who seemed to have convincing proof that this was all a religious fantasy.
As I searched for answers I came across several Christian scholars who were able to defend the authority of the Bible and the claims of Christ. As I weighed the arguments and questioned men and women on both sides, I could not deny the overwhelming evidence that supported the Bible and the claims of Christ. Eventually I came to the conclusion that Jesus Christ is Lord.
I then realized it was time for a decision. Often we do not have all the answers, but we move in the direction in which the evidence is pointing. For example, many of us do not really know for sure if the person we are marrying is the right one. However, we make our decision based on the evidence we see at the time. If I find that I can communicate with my fiancé, our personalities are compatible, and that we share the same values, we move in the direction in which the evidence is pointing. When we make the commitment to marry, then our decision is confirmed definitively. Till we make the commitment, we base our decision on the evidence at hand. The same is true with becoming a Christian. Although we do not have all the answers, we can have enough faith to make a decision. When we commit our lives to Christ, we then experience the fullness of a relationship with the risen Savior.
It was then that I made the conscious decision to believe in Jesus Christ. I asked Christ to forgive my sin and invited Him to be the Lord of my life. Although nothing dramatic happened, I knew I had changed. I experienced the peace that comes from knowing your sins are forgiven. I experienced the joy of knowing I was placed here with a purpose and that there is meaning to my existence. Although I still had some questions, sins that I struggled with, and difficult trials, I had an ever-abiding peace and joy I had never had before.
The more I studied the Bible, the more the world around me began to make sense. I gained a new understanding in all my academic studies. The complexity of life on earth, biological organisms, and planets reflected the character and intelligence of a loving Creator who wants us to enjoy His creation.
My struggles in relationships were the results of selfishness, and a sinful attitude in my heart. Once I began to follow the principles of Christ's love, my friendships became much more meaningful and joyous, not competitive. I experienced freedom from living up to others' expectations because the God of the universe loved me just for who I was.
I experienced the reality of the Bible promises as I applied them to my life. My faith continues to grow each time I see that God's truth works in every day life. The more time I spend with God in prayer, in study, and in worship, the stronger my faith becomes.
How do I know Christianity is true? The facts behind it along with my experience of God's promises confirm it.
Notes
1. Lewis, C.S. Mere Christianity. (New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing, 1960), 45.
2. For more extensive discussion read the Probe article, "Evidence for God's Existence " by Sue Bohlin.
3. Albright, William. Archaeology and the Religion of Israel. (Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins, 1953), 176.
4. For more extensive discussion read my Probe article, "The Authority of the Bible."
5. For more extensive discussion read my Probe article, "The Uniqueness of Christ."
6. Strobel, Lee. The Case for Christ. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing, 1998), 265.
7. For more extensive discussion on the resurrection read my Probe article, "The Resurrection: Fact or Fiction."
Suggested Reading
Apologetics General
Boa, Kenneth. I Am Glad You Asked. (Colorado Springs, CO: Victor Books, 1994).
Craig, William Lane. Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1994).
Geisler, Norman. When Skeptics Ask. (Wheaton, IL: Victor Press, 1989).
Lewis, C. S. Mere Christianity. (New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing, 1960).
McGrath, Alister. Intellectuals Don't Need God and Other Modern Myths. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing, 1993).
Moreland, J.P. Scaling the Secular City. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1987).
Murray, Michael J., ed. Reason for the Hope Within. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 1999).
Nash, Ronald. Faith and Reason. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing, 1988).
Probe Mind Games Notebook. (Probe Ministries International, 1998).
Stroebel, Lee. The Case for Faith. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing, 2000).
Zukeran, Patrick. Unless I See. . . Reasons to Consider the Christian Faith. (Dallas, TX: Brown Books, 2000).
Worldviews
Nash, Ronald. Worldviews In Conflict: Choosing Christianity in a World of Ideas. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing, 1992).
Phillips, W. Gary, and William E. Brown. Making Sense of Your World: A Biblical Worldview. (Salem, WI, 1996).
Sire, James. The Universe Next Door: A Basic Worldview Catalog, third ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997).
Note: Material on the subjects below can also be found under the "Apologetics General" heading above.
The Existence of God
Jastrow, Robert. God and the Astronomers. (New York, NY: Norton & Company, 1978).
Dembski, Bill. Intelligent Design. (Downer's Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999).
Evans, C. Stephen. The Quest for Faith: Reason and Mystery as Pointers to God. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1986).
Kreeft, Peter and Ronald Tacelli. Handbook of Christian Apologetics. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1994).
Moreland, J.P. The Creation Hypothesis. (Downer's Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1994).
Ross, Hugh. The Creator and the Cosmos. (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress Publishing, 1993).
Zacharias, Ravi. Can Man Live Without God? (Dallas, TX: Word Publishing, 1994).
The Bible
Bruce, F.F. The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1983).
Geisler, Norman, and William Nix. A General Introduction to the Bible. (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1986).
McDowell, Josh. Evidence That Demands a Verdict. (San Bernadino, CA: Here's Life Publishers, 1972).
_______. More Evidence That Demands a Verdict. (San Bernadino, CA: Here's Life Publishers, 1975).
Price, Randall. The Stones Cry Out. (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1997).
Jesus Christ
Greenleaf, Simon. The Testimony of the Evangelists: The Gospels Examined by the Rules of Evidence.
(Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1995).
LaHaye, Tim. Jesus, Who Is He? (Sisters, OR: Multnomah Books, 1996).
McDowell, Josh. The Resurrection Factor. (San Bernardino, CA: Here's Life Publishers, 1981).
Morison, Frank. Who Moved the Stone? (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing, 1958).
Strobel, Lee. The Case for Christ. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing, 1998).
Is Jesus the Only Way?
Anderson, Norman. Christianity and the World Religions. (Downer's Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996).
Carson, Donald. The Gagging of God: Christianity Confronts Pluralism. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing, 1996).
Nash, Ronald. Is Jesus the Only Savior? (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing, 1994).
Netland, Harold. Dissonant Voices. (Vancouver, BC: Regent College Publishing, 1991).
Okholm, Dennis. Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing, 1995).
Richard, Ramesh. The Population of Heaven. (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1994).
In gods we trusted
Modern biblical scholarship and archaeological discoveries in and around Israel show that the ancient Israelites did not always believe in a single, universal god. In fact, monotheism is a relatively recent concept, even amongst the People of the Book.
Decades of research into the birth and evolution of the Yhwh cult are summarized in The Invention of God , a recent book by Thomas Rmer, a world-renowned expert in the Hebrew Bible and professor at the College de France and the University of Lausanne. Rmer, who held a series of conferences at Tel Aviv University last month, spoke to Haaretz about the subject.
What's in God's name
The first clue that the ancient Israelites worshipped gods other than the deity known as Yhwh lies in their very name . Israel is a theophoric name going back at least 3200 years, which includes and invokes the name of a protective deity.
Going by the name, the main god of the ancient Israelites was not Yhwh, but El, the chief deity in the Canaanite pantheon, who was worshipped throughout the Levant.
In fact, it seems that the ancient Israelites weren't even the first to worship Yhwh – they seem to have adopted Him from a mysterious, unknown tribe that lived somewhere in the deserts of the southern Levant and Arabia.
The God of the Jews
In any case, many scholars agree that Yhwh became the main god of the Jews only after the destruction of the kingdom of Israel by the Assyrians, around 720 BCE.
How or why the Jews came to exalt Yhwh and reject the pagan gods they also adored is unclear.
Snatching God from the jaws of defeat
The real conceptual revolution probably only occurred after the Babylonians' conquest of Judah and arson of the First Temple in 587 B.C.E. The destruction and the subsequent exile to Babylon of the Judahite elites inevitably cast doubts on the faith they had put in Yhwh.
The question was: how can we explain what happened? Rmer says. If the defeated Israelites had simply accepted that the Babylonian gods had proven they were stronger than the god of the Jews, history would have been very different.
But somehow, someone came up with a different, unprecedented explanation. The idea was that the destruction happened because the kings did not obey the law of god, Rmer says. Its a paradoxical reading of the story: the vanquished in a way is saying that his god is the vanquisher. Its quite a clever idea.
The Israelites/Judahites took over the classical idea of the divine wrath that can provoke a national disaster but they combined it with the idea that Yhwh in his wrath made the Babylonians destroy Judah and Jerusalem, he said.
The concept that Yhwh had pulled the Babylonians' strings, causing them to punish the Israelites inevitably led to the belief that he was not just the god of one people, but a universal deity who exercises power over all of creation.
This idea is already present in the book of Isaiah, thought to be one of the earliest biblical texts, composed during or immediately after the Exile. This is also how the Jews became the chosen people – because the Biblical editors had to explain why Israel had a privileged relationship with Yhwh even though he was no longer a national deity, but the one true God.
Over the centuries, as the Bible was redacted, this narrative was refined and strengthened, creating the basis for a universal religion – one that could continue to exist even without being tied to a specific territory or temple. And thus Judaism as we know it was established, and, ultimately, all other major monotheistic religions were as well.
I don't read thumper nonsense. Cross the 1st or 14th and watch what happens next.
Well, considering there is no evidence or proof of any god/s, nor has any believer of any religion ever been able to demonstrate otherwise in the thousands of years of the existence of various religious beliefs....
Definition of faith
You ask for proof, my proof is my faith, something it sounds like you sadly will never have. Faith, as noted above, is by definition believing in something for which their is no proof.
In my book an existence based on only science and fact is a sad existence indeed but that's your choice and unlike you i will never mock that choice. Now here is where you mock my choice as non proof. Save your effort. As noted above i disagree with you once more and always in this regard.
Look Gordy, this is pretty simple. I have faith in something greater than myself, you don't. Nothing you say is going to shake that faith and i suspect nothing i'm going to say going to you will help you find faith. So since you apparently like latin adverbs, this debate will go on "ad nauseum" unless i stop it. Which i am doing right here.
Best of luck to you.
Later
. the hate for Christianity is strong in this one ...
That would be the knowledge of the origins and history of the Christianity is strong in this one.
I wonder what the myth writers would have written about the creation myth had they known about how climates worked on planets that are 930 light years away from Earth?
That would be the knowledge of the origins and history of the Christianity is strong in this one.
Nah, but keep telling yourself that if it helps you sleep at night.
You clearly hate Christianity. In my experience life is too short to hold that kind of hate in your heart over stuff you're powerless to change. But whatever works for you ....
You clearly
You project emotions on others.
I went through this emotion projection method of shutting down conversations during the 2016 election cycle with the Clinton supporters.
I did not "hate" Clinton. I did not agree with her policies.
I do not "hate" Christianity. I do not see any value in basing my life on clearly mythical gods.
Do you want to base your life appeasing Zeus, Odin, Apollo, Hera, or Thor? Do you "hate" Zeus, Odin, Apollo, Hera, or Thor?
You ask for proof, my proof is my faith,
Convincing yourself of something or merely believing something is true is not proof.
something it sounds like you sadly will never have.
Not until I have actual proof.
Faith, as noted above, is by definition believing in something for which their is no proof.
In other words, wishful thinking.
In my book an existence based on only science and fact is a sad existence indeed
It's called reality. And I prefer that than an existence based on wishful thinking or self delusion.
but that's your choice and unlike you i will never mock that choice.
Where have I mocked your choice? I always said people are free to believe whatever they want.
Now here is where you mock my choice as non proof. Save your effort.
Not mocking. Just pointing out the fact that faith is not proof of anything.
As noted above i disagree with you once more and always in this regard.
That is your prerogative.
Look Gordy, this is pretty simple. I have faith in something greater than myself, you don't.
Of course not. At least, not without evidence first.
Nothing you say is going to shake that faith
That is not my intention.
and i suspect nothing i'm going to say going to you will help you find faith.
If you provided actual evidence or proof, I might reconsider.
So since you apparently like latin adverbs, this debate will go on "ad nauseum" unless i stop it. Which i am doing right here.
Again, your prerogative. Doesn't change the facts.
We’re watching.... waiting....we have no intention of crossing our interpretation of the 1st amendment.
Wow, that's quite the long winded sanctimoniously arrogant, self affirming, logical fallacy, anecdotal tripe. It all boils down to saying your religion is the correct one because you said so and proves absolutely nothing. At least, nothing which hasn't already been discredited before. Of course, anyone can see right through that.
The teavangelical interpretation of the 1st stares straight down the muzzle of the 2nd.
Nah, push that psycho-babble rap on someone who will fall for it.
I don't use psycho-babble as a means of communication.
I just gave a good example on why I refuse to waste my life appeasing Yahweh. Yahweh is a mythical god that I know does not exist. I know this in the same way that you know that Zeus, Apollo, Odin, and Hera do not exist despite the books that were written about them and the millions of people that worshiped them for centuries.
I never spend one second of my life "hating" a mythical god. I have never met anyone who did. If you hate Zeus, then you would be the first Zeus hater that I have heard of.
you clearly love
Projection again.
I will share some of the things that I do love since that seems to be important to you.
I love life - this life. I love cute and cuddly animals.
I love the first warm breezes that carry the promise of spring and the lazy hot summer days watching the bees and butterflies swarm among the season's flowering plants.
I appreciate the cool weather of the fall that provides a respite from summer's oppressive heat, but dread the oncoming uncertain winter weather that means the death of so much life and beauty that thrived in preceding months. I don't even hate winter. I accept it as a part of the natural cycle of nature and life on Earth.
Hate is a self-destructive emotion and usually caused by fear.
Also, claiming the unborn have no rights and thus there is no moral dilemma fails to look at the past when similar arguments were made regarding slaves in the South or Jews under the Nuremberg Laws.
1. Godwin's Law fulfilled. 2. But just for fun, based on this concept of "rights of the unborn" how can you justify laws that establish a minimum voting age or any law that restricts any right of a "human" cell mass regardless of size or number?
Projection again.
Nope, not that time either
I will share some of the things that I do love since that seems to be important to you.
Nope, not interested in the least but good for you.
Hate is a self-destructive emotion and usually caused by fear.
You're talking the talk but you don't walk the walk. Not in here anyway. That much is clear to the most casual of observers in here. At least the unbiased ones.
This one is simple for me.
Woman's body, woman's choice. None of the governments or anyone else's affair.
Rather than fret over the unborn, perhaps energies would be better placed in the care of those already brought onto the planet, ie CHIP, Medicare etc.. What is the point of mandating an unwanted birth without a path for that persons long term care?
My thought anyway
May be, but that's what happens when you bundle things together rather than address each on its own merits. Both DACA and CHIP should have been addressed separately.
Funny thing is since you opened the door, the last three times the GOP shutdown the government for their cause de jour it was fine, now that the DEMs have swiped a page out of the GOP playbook all this moral outrage, hmmmmm.
Make no mistake, both parties are fairly much useless other than to their donor bases and corporate masters just a different type of useless. Less political theater and a bit more governance may be in order.
Gee! Isn't that one of the programs that the democrats are holding up funding for because they would rather protect illegal aliens?
No it's the bait repukelicans think they can dangle out there to get Dems to cave and then take it away later. We've seen this show before.
somebody to admit honestly
Considering the source: 
My thought anyway
That's been a position of many for a long time. That argument falls on deaf ears and closed minds of the anti-choice set.
Only if the pregnancy is a threat to the life of the mother.
So, you would force a woman to carry the baby of her rapist to term?
You can use force to remove those unwanted
unwanted pregnancy could cause depression, therefore it is a threat to the mother
unwanted pregnancy could cause depression, therefore it is a threat to the mother
Not to mention the myriad of other complications that can arise anytime throughout gestation. In a way, having an abortion is a preemptive move to eliminate the risks of pregnancy complications, much like having a mole removed helps eliminate the risk of skin cancer.
Only if the pregnancy is a threat to the life of the mother.
You can force your spouse or your daughter to carry all the dangerous pregnancies you want. Just butt out of everyone else's business.
You can force your spouse or your daughter to carry all the dangerous pregnancies you want.
Actually, no he can't. He cannot force his will onto others. That would be restricting their rights and autonomy, and possibly cause harm.
unwanted pregnancy could cause depression,
And much worse physical complications.
That would be restricting their rights and autonomy, and possibly cause harm.
Since when did laws and morality stop these people from imposing their corrupt and dangerous beliefs on the powerless or unwilling?
As long as the umbilical cord is attached the mother and it is a part of her body and she has complete control until the cord is cut
Science Is Revolutionizing Arguments Against Abortion
Pro-abortionists have historically used science as a tool to argue that babies can be aborted because they are merely clumps of cells up until 28 weeks of pregnancy, but advancements in science are changing how abortion advocates and pro-lifers argue their cause.
Published in the Atlantic, Emma Green’s Thursday article, “Science Is Giving the Pro-Life Movement a Boost,” describes how advances in science are changing people’s conceptions of morality as it relates to aborting unborn children. New technology and higher tech ultrasounds allow women to watch as their baby grows inside them, providing concrete images for what could previously only be described in the abstract.
New science is “instilling a sense of awe that we never really had before at any point in human history,” pro-life activist Ashley McGuire said to the Atlantic. “We didn’t know any of this,” she added.
“The more I advanced in my field of neonatology, the more it just became the logical choice to recognize the developing fetus for what it is: a fetus, instead of some sort of sub-human form,” neonatologist, Colleen Malloy, also told the Atlantic. “It just became so obvious that these were just developing humans.”
While the groundbreaking Roe v. Wade case legalized abortion and determined that a newborn could survive only at roughly 28 weeks of pregnancy, scientific advancements have allowed doctors and nurses to birth healthy children at 22 weeks, causing some health professionals to debate whether the medical community should change the threshold of viability.
“We’ve become steeped in a culture in which only the data matter, and that makes us, in some ways, philosophically illiterate,” Georgetown University biomedical ethics professor, Daniel Sulmasy, told the Atlantic. He points to the fact that pro-life and pro-abortion activists now regard scientific evidence as the ultimate tool in the abortion battle because modern society has placed most trust in doctors, science and facts. “We really don’t have the tools anymore for thinking and arguing outside of something that can be scientifically verified,” he posits.
Physician Farr Curlin also maintains that not only is science a vital instrument in which to study the world, including the early stages of all life forms, but also that science and support for life do not conflict like many abortion activists try to claim. “Science is a practice of using systematic methods to study our world, including what human organisms are in their early states,” Curlin said. “I don’t see any way it’s not an ally to the pro-life cause.” (RELATED: Pro-Lifers Love Life, Their Country, And Trump). http://dailycaller.com/2018/01/21/science-arguments-abortion/
Too bad thumpers don't believe in science.
How many of those 100,000 that marched have actually adopted an American child?
It doesn't matter if they did.
Pregnancy is a health risk and a woman should never be forced by anyone to risk her health and life to endure an unwanted pregnancy.
Common and possible side effects or pregnancy at link below. One of the possible side effects is death.
Don't even get me started. There's nothing more precious than life. Life is a miracle and babies are angels. That is all I have to say.
AR
How poetic. But otherwise just emotionally appealing tripe. Life is life. There's nothing "miraculous" about it. Babies are babies, offspring. They're not angels. That's just nonsense. It's good that's all you have to say because you didn't really say anything relevant.
Pro-Lifers Love Life, Their Country, And Trump
Rally attendees came out in droves to attend Washington, D.C.’s 2018 March For Life, displaying awesome respect for life, country, and their president.
The 45th annual March For Life (MFL), themed “Love Saves Lives,” opened with a speech by MFL president Jeanne Mancini, whose inspiring remarks kicked off a patriotic rally that celebrated both life and country.
Pro-lifers pledge allegiance to the American flag and sing the national anthem in unity pic.twitter.com/kCEPTDkqYO
— Grace Carr (@gbcarr24) January 19, 2018
The crowd joined in song with a young pro-lifer who took the stage to sing the national anthem, just after all of the marchers had together recited the Pledge of Allegiance. Footage of American flags blowing in the wind in front of the Washington Monument decorated the screen sitting atop the stage while the marchers sang.
Marchers also cheered when Vice President Mike Pence introduced President Donald Trump — who addressed the crowd via satellite — cheering and shouting, “We love you Trump!”
Trump speaks directly to pro-life marchers and says he’s on there side, the side of life! pic.twitter.com/OneU5Mdy30
— Grace Carr (@gbcarr24) January 19, 2018
“We have tens of thousands of people watching us right down the road,” Trump said. “You can’t get a more beautiful day.” http://dailycaller.com/2018/01/19/pro-lifers-love-life-country-trump/?utm_source=site-share
Pro-Lifers Love Life, Their Country, And Trump
They don't seem overly keen on women's rights though.
Many of them are women. The largest women’s organization in America is pro life. Pro life people care about every human beings human rights, including the right to exist.
Many of them are women. The largest women’s organization in America is pro life
And many of them are men. What's your point? it doesn't change the fact that such groups are opposed to a woman's right to choose.
Pro life people care about every human beings human rights, including the right to exist.
Where is such a "right" enumerated exactly? The "right" to exist is entirely up to the woman in question. You can't give "rights" to something that doesn't yet exist, nor can such a "right" be conferred without limiting or denying a woman her rights.
They like to stick their noses in a woman's reproductive choices where it DOES not belong.
'Pro-lifers pledge allegiance to the American flag and sing the national anthem in unity pic.twitter.com/kCEPTDkqYO
— Grace Carr (@gbcarr24) January 19, 2018
The crowd joined in song with a young pro-lifer who took the stage to sing the national anthem, just after all of the marchers had together recited the Pledge of Allegiance. Footage of American flags blowing in the wind in front of the Washington Monument decorated the screen sitting atop the stage while the marchers sang.
Marchers also cheered when Vice President Mike Pence introduced President Donald Trump — who addressed the crowd via satellite — cheering and shouting, “We love you Trump!”
Trump speaks directly to pro-life marchers and says he’s on there side, the side of life! pic.twitter.com/OneU5Mdy30
— Grace Carr (@gbcarr24) January 19, 2018'
Sounds like a bunch of faux patriotic swill anti-choice drivel
A Scientific View of When Life Begins
The question of when human life begins has been answered in a variety of ways by different religious and philosophical traditions throughout the ages, leading many to conclude the question cannot be definitively answered. Yet what does science tell us about when life begins?[1] One of the basic insights of modern biology is that life is continuous, with living cells giving rise to new types of cells and, ultimately, to new individuals. Therefore, in considering the question of when a new human life begins, we must first address the more fundamental question of when a new cell, distinct from sperm and egg, comes into existence.
The scientific basis for distinguishing one cell type from another rests on two criteria: differences in what something is made of (its molecular composition) and differences in how the cell behaves. These two criteria are universally agreed upon and employed throughout the scientific enterprise. They are not “religious” beliefs or matters of personal opinion. They are objective, verifiable scientific criteria that determine precisely when a new cell type is formed.
Based on these criteria, the joining (or fusion) of sperm and egg clearly produces a new cell type, the zygote or one-cell embryo. Cell fusion is a well studied and very rapid event, occurring in less than a second. Because the zygote arises from the fusion of two different cells, it contains all the components of both sperm and egg, and therefore this new cell has a unique molecular composition that is distinct from either gamete. Thus the zygote that comes into existence at the moment of sperm-egg fusion meets the first scientific criterion for being a new cell type: its molecular make-up is clearly different from that of the cells that gave rise to it.
Subsequent to sperm-egg fusion, events rapidly occur in the zygote that do not normally occur in either sperm or egg. Within minutes, the zygote initiates a change in its internal state that will, over the next 30 minutes, block additional sperm from binding to the cell surface. Thus, the zygote acts immediately to oppose the function of the gametes from which it is derived; while the “goal” of both sperm and egg is to find each other and to fuse, the first act of the zygote is to prevent any further binding of sperm to the cell surface. Clearly, the zygote has entered into a new pattern of behavior, and therefore meets the second scientific criterion for being a new cell type.
What is the nature of the new cell that comes into existence upon sperm-egg fusion? Most importantly, is the zygote merely another human cell (like a liver cell or a skin cell) or is it something else? Just as science distinguishes between different types of cells, it also makes clear distinctions between cells and organisms. Both cells and organisms are alive, yet organisms exhibit unique characteristics that can reliably distinguish them from mere cells.[2]
An organism is defined as “(1) a complex structure of interdependent and subordinate elements whose relations and properties are largely determined by their function in the whole and (2) an individual constituted to carry on the activities of life by means of organs separate in function but mutually dependent: a living being.” (Merriam-Webster) This definition stresses the interaction of parts in the context of a coordinated whole as the distinguishing feature of an organism. Organisms are “living beings.” Therefore, another name for a human organism is a “human being”; an entity that is a complete human, rather than a part of a human.
Human beings can be distinguished from human cells using the same kind of criteria scientists use to distinguish different cell types. A human being (i.e., a human organism) is composed of human parts (cells, proteins, RNA, DNA), yet it is different from a mere collection of cells because it has the characteristic molecular composition and behavior of an organism: it acts in an interdependent and coordinated manner to “carry on the activities of life.”
Human embryos from the one-cell (zygote) stage forward show uniquely integrated, organismal behavior that is unlike the behavior of mere human cells. The zygote produces increasingly complex tissues, structures and organs that work together in a coordinated way. Importantly, the cells, tissues and organs produced during development do not somehow “generate” the embryo (as if there were some unseen, mysterious “manufacturer” directing this process), they are produced by the embryo as it directs its own development to more mature stages of human life. This organized, coordinated behavior of the embryo is the defining characteristic of a human organism.
In contrast to human embryos, human cells are alive and, under some circumstances, they can assemble into primitive tissues and structures. Yet under no circumstances do mere human cells produce the kind of coordinated interactions necessary for building a fully integrated human body. They do not produce tissues in a coherent manner and do not organize them so as to sustain the life of the entity as a whole. They produce tumors; i.e., parts of the human body in a chaotic, disorganized manner. They behave like cells, not like organisms.
The conclusion that human life begins at sperm-egg fusion is uncontested, objective, based on the universally accepted scientific method of distinguishing different cell types from each other and on ample scientific evidence (thousands of independent, peer-reviewed publications). Moreover, it is entirely independent of any specific ethical, moral, political, or religious view of human life or of human embryos. Indeed, this definition does not directly address the central ethical question surrounding the embryo: What value ought society place on human life at the earliest stages of development? A neutral examination of the evidence merely establishes the onset of a new human life at a scientifically well-defined “moment of conception,” a conclusion that unequivocally indicates that human embryos from the one-cell stage forward are indeed living individuals of the human species; i.e., human beings. https://lozierinstitute.org/a-scientific-view-of-when-life-begins/
The Lozier Institute is a known anti-abortion organization with questionable information. That makes it a biased source, and makes your statement questionable, which I really don't expect anything less from you. Besides, when "life begins" is really irrelevant, as abortion rights is not based on that determination. It's also disingenuous to equate a zygote to a fully developed or born human.
Who is online
326 visitors
45th Annual March for Life in D.C. to be held Friday [schedule and info]
The 45th annual March for Life in Washington, D.C. will begin just before Noon and end with a march to the U.S. Supreme Court.
President Donald Trump will speak at Noon via live feed officially kicking off the rally schedule.
Location and March Information
The March for Life Rally will take place at noon at 12th St. on the National Mall, in between Madison Drive and Jefferson Drive. Following the Rally, the March will begin on Constitution Avenue between 12th and 14th Streets at approximately 1:00 pm.
2018-March-for-Life-Map
Schedule
11:30 a.m. Musical Opening featuring Plumb!
12:00 p.m. Rally Program.
1:00 p.m. March up Constitution Avenue to Supreme Court and Capitol Building.
3:00 p.m. After finishing marching:
Silent No More testimonies outside U.S. Supreme Court.
Advocate for life to your Representative or Senators.
Visit the March for Life Expo.
Featured Speakers (speaking schedule begins at Noon)
President of the United States Donald J. Trump, via video satellite
House Speaker Paul Ryan
Pam Tebow, mother former NFL quarterback Tim Tebow
Matt Birk, former NFL player, and wife Adrianna Birk
U.S. Representative Jaime Herrera Beutler (R-WA)
U.S. Representative Dan Lipinski (D-IL)
U.S. Representative Chris Smith (R-NJ)
Sr. Bethany Madonna, Sisters of Life
Metropolitan Tikhon, Archbishop of Washington, Metropolitan of All America and Canada, Orthodox Church of America
Bishop Vincent Matthews Jr., President of the International Missions Department of the Church of God in Christ
READ: Watch: Vice President Pence Speaks at Reception for 'March for Life 2018'
Be Courteous
While walking, and riding the metro in D.C. please be respectful of residents and commuters. Let’s show the Nation’s Capital how passionate and polite and respectful pro-lifers really are! Please read these 6 tips for riding the metro.
Do not leave trash or signs on the grounds of the National Mall, Supreme Court, or Capitol. This is our Nation’s Capital and we should treat it with dignity and respect. If trash bins are full, please carry your trash or sign with you until you find an available trash bin.
Do not engage with counter-protesters. Once again, please be respectful of all people and stay focused on the cause of promoting and celebrating life, lovingly, prayerfully, and graciously. https://www.conservativedailynews.com/2018/01/45th-annual-march-life-d-c-held-friday-schedule-info/
Today is a great day to choose life!
Key word there is "choose." As long as women continue to have a choice.
“Among those who believe life begins at conception, 46 percent said they believe so because it is “a biological and scientific fact,” versus 45 percent who said they believe it based on “a philosophical or religious belief.”
In a survey conducted by the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA), a network of pro-life pregnancy centers, reported confirming 75,318 pregnancies through ultrasound technology in 2013 on patients identified as either seriously considering an abortion or open to getting an abortion. Of those, 78 percent – or 58,634 – chose to carry their baby to term after seeing an ultrasound image of their child in the womb.”
Even the bible says that life begins at first breath.
Don't like abortions? Don't get one.
Of the rest, most of them were Christians.
It is not scientific fact. It is still a belief. a anything less than 16 weeks does not have a fully developed neurological system. Now obviously, this is a variable somewhere in between, and that is why I personally don't believe in abortion until the end of the first trimester with the exception of mother's life , but what something looks like and what it actually is are two totally different things.
12 weeks
11-13 week brain development. Basically a brain stem.
This is not a cognancent feeling being. Any movement is reflexive and not reactive.
Of course a human's life begins at conception, scientifically.
Whether morally you want to recognize it's autonomy and give it rights is a question of belief.
If you want to argue that life begins at conception, what prevents others from arguing life begins when a sperm or egg are produced? If your reasoning is based on some invisible magical "soul", why can't someone argue that life begins with a twinkle in the eye? Science proves there are many stages all necessary to produce life, and you can't tell the difference between a fertilized Bonobo egg and a fertilized human egg, you have to do DNA testing and even then the Bonobos share 99% of our DNA. The courts have ruled on when a fetus gains rights as a human, and that is at viability. No one is forcing anyone to get an abortion, if you don't want one, don't get one. There are no "pro-abortion" Americans, no one is trying to convince women to get abortions, pro-choice Americans simply want that decision to be made by the woman carrying the fertilized egg. I've never told anyone "You should get an abortion." I think it's one of the hardest most personal decisions a woman may ever have to make, but to take away her choice by claiming a newly fertilized egg has the same rights she does is beyond insane. If anti-abortionists want to create an option where the fertilized egg can be removed and then any anti-abortionist can have it implanted in their own womb so they can carry it to term, fine, make that an alternative choice for women, but to force a woman to carry a fertilized egg to term is simply wrong.
You eat fetal tissue? That's sick.
I would think it's obvious. Conception creates a new life that contains all the genetic material necessary for a new human. It will begin dividing on it's own, without input from another human.
When it's legally "alive" is not a science question, it's a moral one.
Those skinny little limbs always get stuck in my teeth.
Again, key word here is "chose." As long as women have that choice, there's no problem. So what's your point?
Tastes like veal.
I think some people put too much emphasis on the term "life." The product of conception (zygote) is a "life" in the same way a bacterium or a skin cell is a "life." But it's certainly not yet a human "life." Some people seem to equate the two or think "life" is the be all end all.
To keep throwing this topic in the face of people here in order to continue to stir the divisiveness that some here are so very eager to engage in. This is a topic that has been beaten to death over and over and over so many times here on NT that is now no longer a topic for discussion, only a means to keep the pot stirred and the demeaning and derogatory comments of flame wars alive and well for their own pleasure. There is no other viable point to be made at this juncture.
Can a Sperm or an egg live and grow without "Joining"?
At the instant of conception isnt it Alive? Reproducing? Growing? Isnt that life?
If its not the beggining of a Human life than what is it?
Dog? Cat? Fish? Bacteria? Virus?
No they can't, but neither can a virus. Comingling of DNA is not life.
It is the potential for human life, but not a human. Most miscarriages happen in the first 12 weeks... did the body just commit murder?
Again, note the emphasis on "life." No one is arguing that it (zygote) is not the beginning of a human life. Only that it is not yet a human. It's a potential human and it's still just a cell, much like other cells in the body. But no one seems to get all emotional when they scratch a few skin cells off their @ss. You seem to attribute unnecessary significance to a zygote.
A zygote. More akin to a parasite than a virus. And a dog, cat, or even a pig embryo is almost indistinguishable from a human embryo in early gestation.
Potential for Human Life?
Are they not Human Cells living and growing? If not what then?
You were almost right, Sean. Conception brings together all the the genetic material necessary for a new human, but at the point of conception, it is not a person.
And you are right, it is a moral question, but one that people bring emotion to and not logic.
What difference does it make? Do you care this much when other cells in the body are lost?
The same thing can be said for cancer. They are human cells growing. But like cancer, they both take time to develop.
It's a human life. That's science.
When it is worthy of legal protection is a moral question, not scientific.
Are you really going to try and campare human fetus cells with cancer?
By that logic, skin cells are a human life. Or blood cells are, ect..
Morality is subjective. They get legal protections at birth.
Yeah, fetal cells is more akin to a parasite than cancer.
A fetus is a collection of human cells, yes? Yes. So is cancer. Really not that difficult of a concept.
Careful Gordy, next thing you know the right will be trying to ban masturbation.
Cancer cells divide and grow on their own too.
they think since sperm are alive, masturbation must be a form of murder, and if such is true
.
I've murdered TRILLIONS DAMNET !
Can a Skin cell that is lost grow on its own into an adult human?
Can a single sperm alone grow into an adult human?
But will almost immediately die if not implanted in the uterus wall of a female becoming a symbiote with its host. If the host is unwilling to allow that to happen then it self terminates as it cannot feed or sustain itself without a host organism. I support the right of women to choose whether or not to become a host. Some estimates show that nearly half of all fertilized eggs self terminate in miscarriage even if the host is willing, so if some imagine their God is involved in creating a "soul" at conception, then their God is the largest abortion provider on the planet.
If not, Then Enjoy Yourself!
Yeee Hawwwwww
You have a Cancer Cell in your Lung. What does it eventually grow into? Another Human or Cancer cells?
Here is a Tissue.........
A Zygote in a Human is Life isnt it? Then What Life? Human? Dog? Cat?
Can a miscarriage happen much later?
Do you have a roll of paper towels ?
the most stupid comment ever read.
cancer cells are life and alive like the cells of a zygote.
cancer cells are not a stage of development for the human species
No. The potential for a human starts at fertilization... it is nothing more than a mass of cells at that point. There is a difference.
Morality, is subjective and cultural. Science is neither. And that being said, I would describe myself as very moral according to the culture I grew up in.
Perrie,
You can keep spinning it anyway you want.But it's indisputable that every human life begins at conception. You keep trying to conflate person-hood with life. While science can't tell us when person-hood begins, it very easy to show that life has in fact begun. It's simply scientifically impossible to dispute that life begins at conception.
exactly
Yep, and they can cause significant health problems. So can embryo/fetal growth too.
I wouldn't be surprised. Remember the old "sex ed" lessons which said masturbation causes blindness or hair to grow on your palms?
I thought your point revolved around "life?" Is a skin cell not a "life?"
Nope. it's a single, undifferentiated cell.
What difference does it make?
No one is saying "life" doesn't begin at conception. But it's also irrelevant. Especially since personhood is not equivalent to "life."
Exactly
You Bragging? Or BS-ing?/s.
Human life doesnt begin at conception?
If not than what is it? Human Cells that are living and growing eventually into a adult Human?
Well then isnt that Human Life?
So it is a Human Life then............
You seem hung up on the idea of "life," as if that's supposed to mean anything or make any difference whatsoever.
But you didnt answer the question.
Ill try again,
So it is Human Life?
No! it's a potential human life. Big difference. And you didn't answer my question: what difference does it make?
So if its not human than what is it?
Dog?
Cat?
Pig?
Cow?
Not in the sense that one is DNA run amok but on a the definition of what is life, they both meet the qualification.
There is no debate that among mammals including humans that the initial spark of life is conception.
I already answered that. When are you going to answer my question?
So?
45 years ago, the US Supreme Court chose death over life.
What day is it today? What has happening in Washington DC today? If we can’t talk about this issue on this day, when will we need to seek your divine permission to discuss some issue you wish was settled but really isn’t and never will be as long as what happened 45 years ago this week stands unmodified.
Talk all you want. it changes nothing, especially established law and rights!
Spare us the melodrama. The SCOTUS affirmed individual rights.
It's a potential human, not yet a realized human. And I'm not bringing morality into it.
Um..... That requires God.... Right? So explain to us how God created life? I mean, with no sperm or egg? Watching you turn yourself into knots over that one will be priceless.
As they have on 2nd amendment rughts but that hasn't stopped you from opposing them.
Specify precisely where I have ever opposed the 2nd Amendment! Or are you just making erroneous presumptions? not to mention a Strawman argument!
What makes life so "miraculous?" Life has come and gone throughout Earth's history. Considering Earth is teeming with life, including nearly 8 billion humans, it doesn't seem all that miraculous. "Miraculous" is just an emotionally appealing 'feel-good' word.
Whether it's a human "life" or not is irrelevant. As long as the right to abortion remains in effect, there's no problem. I don't understand why some people have to intrude into another's personal business and decision, especially when they do not have the proverbial horse in that race at all.
Then what's your point?
That is because they feel that only their own views are the only ones that matter and should be followed. And they think that gives them right to dictate what everyone else should believe and do with their own lives. They think it gives them the right to control the world and all in it. And they can't stand the truth that it doesn't.
As a long time paramedic I have seen far too often what happens to unwanted children.
FORCED ultrasounds. How would you like them shoving a probe up your ass that you did not need?
I was going to say - tastes like chicken!
No 45 years ago, the court choice letting a women make a choice over a pile of cells that was not a person yet.
Strawman definitely and you're putting words into other's mouths as usual.
Are you saying a fetus has 2nd amendment rights? I know you're not but that's what it sounds like.
I want to know where these social conservatives get off telling women that they can make our medical choices because of their apparent conservative relgious views and the fact that they have a penis? What happened to our religious views or do only they have religious rights under the free exercise clause. Unless they can prove that women have been forced against their will to have an abortion they don't get to make any medical decision of any women, even if it is their wife or teenage daughter.
Hypothetically, if the GOP force women to have babies that aren't wanted are the GOP going to guarantee that those children have food, homes, great schools that teach 21st century facts, cradle-to-grave health care and other necessary parental support until they are 18 and then have jobs that will support them, or their supposed claim of being pro-life just another unfunded mandate that conservatives love?
Somehow they need to be educated in a way that they cannot forget that their religious rights do not supersede the constitutional rights of everyone else. We do not need nor do we want their permission or that of their psychopathic god before we exercise our constitutional rights when our beliefs disagree with their dogma.
The conservative claim that women chose to get pregnant is so (---bleep---) stupid that it took me a while to respond to that logical black hole. If women could choose to get pregnant then we wouldn't need birth control but obviously, that is not the case.
"Conservative daily news"... Yea, I am sure they aren't biased at all.. /sarc
How many times did you choose not to have an abortion?
BTW. Roe v. Wade wasn't decided because of the 14th Amendment. The 14th only says that we have the right to due process. Roe v. Wade was decided on our inherent right to privacy from government intervention into our lives and intimate decisions. If you are going to make a claim that doesn't induce uncontrolled laughter I can only suggest that you get the facts correct.
Gee then why wont Democrats fund Childrens Health Care today?
Republicans want to pass it!
What's attached to it?
Funding for Military people etc.
They can pass a bill that makes sure the Military folks get paid, just like they did last time they shut the government down.
Nothing. It just funds the government. There's literally nothing in the bill that Democrats object to. They situation is that they want to tack on a policy bill to a spending bill. And that policy bill isn't even written, so there's nothing to vote on anyway. They are holding up critical spending on American citizens to get a more favorable policy for non-citizens.
Maybe instead of ramming through a tax bill in record time that the majority of Americans were against, they could of possibly worked on a budget that was supposed to be submitted months ago.
Yea, we see and know their priorities.
Are you against paying less taxes? Now about ramming through Bills, Hmm What was that Pelosi said? "Pass it then find out whats in it"? Gee recall that?
Obamacare took years to formulate and has become popular and accepted.
We'll see about the permanent tax break for Big Corporations that are sprinling crumbs to appease and tease
You quoting Pelosi?
BTW didnt YOU get a tax break?
What Tax Break did Democrats give ya this year?
Coinciding with all that how is your 401K doing in the last year? Other investments? Tax Breaks drive up the Dow Perhaps?
And the rich just keep getting richer.
My tax break will be eaten up by the deductions that I lose.
A high Dow doesn't create jobs or drive the economy because it doesn't create consumer demand for goods and services.
The richest 10% are the economic parasites but you are blaming everyone else.
The top 10% are not in any way parasites. The top 5% of earners will actually see a tax increase due to the limit of house value covered under mortgage interest deductions and SALT deductions. The rich are facing a tax increase and their democrat benefactors are throwing a fit about it. Oh, and for those still itemizing, the medical expense deduction is still available.
So you love the idea of holding the health care of 9 million children hostage to the paychecks of 2 million people in uniform. The political scumminess of that should make you sick but you actually revel in it.
Nope, it's the Democrats saying F-You to children who won't be able to get medical coverage because they chose to advocate for illegal aliens over citizens.
Are you seriously suggesting that now all the sudden republicans are in favor of CHIP? Jesus....you REALLY need to stay off the reich wing blogs.. LOL I tell ya what... You go back say, 3 weeks, and find me an article where the majority of republicans support CHIP...
*crickets*
he pretty much paraphrased Mitch the GOP bitch who broadcast that live on every channel
From a CNN article:
And:
The democrats are more concerned with protecting criminal aliens than they are our iwn citizens and children.
Why do you continue to lie when the internet makes fact checking so easy? Do you think that we believe everything that you say just because you make that claim? Dreamers have a lower crime rate than native-born Americans.
The right wing keeps pushing to get rid of legalized abortion. Not going to happen. And even if it did? How many babies are these people willing to adopt? 100? 1000? 10,000? Imagine their shock when they ask the government for help to raise these kids only to find out that their own damn party keeps cutting...
Housing for the poor
Education for the poor
Healthcare for the poor
Food for the poor........
It makes no sense at all.. The right wants to force women to have kids, then offer no support in any way at all.
You keep saying that's aren't true. Don't you get tired of it?
Are you saying that the right wing is now pro-choice? Pretty sure they aren't, as is evidenced by the article.
Why is it not true? Hell, if conservatives had their way every multimillion dollar special needs baby would come to fruition.
majority of abortions have nothing to do with any birth defects. abortions are not even allowed at that stage of development.
why do people insist on spreading stupid chit like this?
why do people insist on spreading stupid chit like this?
Because your side refuses to acknowledge it. Think about it - if you had your way abortion would be illegal with a few exceptions. Women who don’t want their pregnancy will be doing everything they can to fit into one of those categories, or seeking a back alley abortion. That means courts will be clogged with cases of women trying to prove they were raped even if it’s not true, possibly taking things to induce birth defects or demonstrate that their health is in jeopardy from the pregnancy. By the time they have won their case, the fetus has grown much farther than it should have. If they lose their bid, a future baby may have been made disabled in the process. Moron conservatives have no ability to take their wants to their logical conclusions.
Why wont the Democrats vote today and pass the resolution to fund Childrens Health Care if they care so much..............?
Republicans want it passed.
Again.. What is attached to it? There is your answer. And if you REALLY believe that repubs want to pass CHIP you are insane. It's nothing more than political talking points. Just like trump saying that dems don't want a DACA deal, while forgetting to mention that his retarded wall is attached to it. Or, like saying a car salesman doesn't want to sell you a car, (because they won't cut the price of the car in half).
.
Trump clearly doesn't want his wall built.....see how easy that is?
Not only did they want to fund CHIP but for another 6 years!
Passed the House!
Democrats AGAINST Boarder Security?
Clearly not. During Obama's term was the first time in history that more illegal immigrants LEFT the country than came in. FACT.
That was an Pres Obama Administration numbers game. When someone was turned back at the boarder they were counted as a deportation. Till then it wasnt.
They didnt come into the country...thats the point... Also, the left in droves...look it up..
Wasn't that because of the 2008 financial meltdown that ended easy credit, caused millions of bankruptcies and house foreclosures and brought new building to an almost standstill?
Contrary to media propaganda, the majority (97%) of illegal immigrants do not work on farms.
Which prevented us from prosecuting them for re-entry.
So which was the smarter policy, turning them back without documenting,
or arresting them, documenting them and then deporting them?
Dems want a full budget passed, no more CRs
When was the last time a Federal Budget was passed?
2008?
No 2015,
by non binding resolution, all GOP votes except Rand and Cruz.
The dysfunction has to end,
and if the GOP can't end it with full control of each branch of the government we are
doomed to more BS
I would have to have a bed and breakfast to worry about boarder security.
The wall is a partisan boondoggle that will never be built. Tell Trump and the Kochs to pay for it.
No border wall/enhanced security no DACA. The things Trump wants along with DACA are also very popular with the public so the house will pass a bill with both the wall and DACA and dare the dems to filibuster DACA in the senate.
You should reacquaint yourself with facts once. The border wall is not popular with the American people. Trump is trying to put DREAMers in jeopardy to get his border wall of idiocy.
DACA is very popular,
Clearly the entire Trump proposal is quite popular and 70% of the public supports the whole proposed package offered by Trump.
keeps cutting...
Housing for the poor
Education for the poor
Healthcare for the poor
Food for the poor........
Pack of lies, provide evidence.
Fine, show us the last time REPUBLICAN'S proposed increasing welfare? We'll wait.
Show the Cuts?
So you cannot back up what you said, got it.
NOT your body, NOT your decision....butt out where you don't belong!
Exactly. This really has nothing to do with children. It's about control. Many on the right still stick to that, "wife stays home, pumps out kids, raises kids, keeps the house clean..." BS. In other words, they think women should be subservient to men. This is just their way of saying, "women shouldn't be allowed to make decisions unless a man says they can".... Like I said, it's all about control.
If women really want to control their bodies, they should try harder to not getting pregnant.
Takes two to tango...
Indeed but women have the knowledge, power, and ability to control when or if they wish to become pregnant. I'm sure you've heard of birth control pills and Planned Parenthood. If a woman won't or can't use them, abstinence is another option.
So, men cannot put on a condom? Control goes both ways.
How many PP's are there in Kentucky? 1.....for the whole state. Abstinence? Really? How did that work for Bristol Palin?
Perhaps some cheap and easily accessed contraceptives?
In Italy contraceptives and condoms are available 24/7 outside of pharmacies in vending machines.
Oddly, yes.
When Trump started talking about abortion in the 9th month I did a spit take with my coffee. What an absolute moron who doesn't understand the law or the supreme court ruling at all. To use the rare practice only used when it's to save the life of the mother is a bogus claim against abortion and beyond dishonest. 92% of all abortions occur prior to 12 weeks, a tiny fraction of 1% occur after viability and even rarer to be at 36 weeks since it's is only used to save the life of the mother.
To use the rare practice only used when it's to save the life of the mother is a bogus claim
That's a completely bogus claim.
You should read the Casey decision and subsequent cases. You seem totally unfamiliar with abortion law.
Although it's interesting how many "pro-choice" people consistently rely on blatant misrepresentations. Reality is too ugly for them I guess, so they spout fictions to justify their position.
"For 13 years, since 2003, federal law has prohibited physicians from performing D&X procedures, aka partial birth abortions, at any point in a pregnancy. Almost a decade ago, in 2007, the Supreme Court upheld the ban as constitutional."
Very few U.S. women abort after 20 weeks pregnancy. Even with late-term abortion allowed in some parts of the country and under certain circumstances, nearly all abortions performed in the U.S. happen before the end of the second trimester.
According to U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data from 2012, 65.8 percent of abortions took place within the first eight weeks of pregnancy, and 91.4 percent occurred within the first 13 weeks. Just 7.2 percent of abortions were performed between 14 and 20 weeks gestation, which means just 1.3 percent of abortions took place at or after 21 weeks pregnancy.
While abortion opponents push the idea that women get late-term abortions because they change their minds last minute, or just can't be bothered to do it sooner—that they use late-term abortion "as birth control"—getting a surgical abortion is a serious, invasive, and expensive procedure, especially the later in pregnancy it takes place. Pregnancy itself is also quite difficult on women's bodies, and disruptive to their day-to-day lives. To believe there are women routinely putting their bodies through months of unwanted pregnancy, shelling out thousands of dollars, and undergoing serious surgery rather than use condoms or get an IUD or get an earlier abortion or whatever requires believing not just that most women are immoral or irresponsible but also, and simultaneously, wealthy, stupid, and masochistic."
What do you imagine this refutes?
You falsely claimed that a woman can't get an abortion during her ninth month and now cite a case that says it's okay to forbid one TYPE of late term abortion, because others are available. The partial birth abortion ban only prohibited late term abortions where a living baby was vaginally delivered and then killed. The more common type of late term abortions are still, of course, legal.
Carhar t is about regulating a method of abortion, not outlawing abortions for women in their final month.
This supports my point.
o rding to U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data from 2012, 65.8 percent of abortions took place within the first eight weeks of pregnancy, and 91.4 percent occurred within the first 13 weeks.
Do you think this relevant to something? Did I ever claim that late term abortions weren't the exception? I didn't. You falsely claimed a woman can only get a late term abortion if her life was in danger. These statistics don't support your false claim.
"just 1.3 percent of abortions took place at or after 21 weeks pregnancy."
Only 7 States allow late term abortions. In the other 43 States it is banned after viability. To use late term abortion as an excuse to ban all abortions from conception on is dishonest and ridiculous as they are a tiny fraction of abortions. If you want to go to those 7 States that allow late term abortions and fight for bans to prevent anything past viability, then by all means, do so. But don't be dishonest in the debate trotting out late term abortion as if that's the norm and the reason all abortion should be banned.
First, what the fuck are you talking about? YOU claimed falsely, that a woman in her ninth month can't get an abortion unless her life is in danger. YOU bring up a topic and than blame me for proving you are wrong? What's wrong with you?
In the other 43 States it is banned after viability.
Again, no its not. You don't understand the Supreme Court's ruling if you think that's the case. It's unconstitutional for a state to ban abortion after viability, even with an exception for the life of the mother. I don't know what abortion propaganda source you got that from, but read the actual cases. What you are claiming is simply wrong.
It's truly amazing how little abortion rights supporters actually know about how broadly the Court has defined the right to an abortion.
Although the vast majority of states restrict later-term abortions, many of these restrictions have been struck down. Most often, courts have voided the limitations because they do not contain a health exception; contain an unacceptably narrow health exception; or do not permit a physician to determine viability in each individual case, but rather rely on a rigid construct based on specific weeks of gestation or trimester. Nonetheless, statutes conflicting with the Supreme Court’s requirements remain on the books in some states.
My point remains, only a tiny fraction of abortions are performed after viability making their use dishonest when trying to overturn legal abortion altogether.
43 states prohibit some abortions after a certain point in pregnancy.
Numerous states still outlaw sodomy between men. Does that mean gay men in those states will go to jail? Of course not, because "laws on the books" are meaningless.
What matters is the Constitutional standard, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that a woman's right to an abortion cannot be restricted at viability, or any point, even with a narrow exception for life of the mother. A woman can have an abortion at any time, so as long a doctor (who has a pecuniary interest in performing the abortion) believes it's in her best interest, whether physically or mentally.
My point remains, only a tiny fraction of abortions are performed after viability know from abortionists testimony in Congress, that any pregnancy is dangerous, an abortion can be legally performed at any time during the pregnancy.
Your claimed abortion , in the ninth month, only happened to save the life of the mother. That's patently false.
Moreover, thousands of abortions are performed each year post viability.
I've heard sodomy is against the law in jail.
Sodomy should still be against the law everywhere. There is no benefit from it and plenty of health risks from it.
Then stop doing it.
I doubt the men and women who engage in it would agree
Not if it's done in a safe and responsible manner. But your point is a good argument for continued education on the matter.
Tell that to correctional institutions' staffs and inmates. It's very common. Don't bend down to pick up the soap isn't an old wive's tale.
By that "logic," we should also ban alcohol, tobacco, and fast foods altogether. After all, they have no benefits and plenty of health risks, right?
butt
what wood Gomorrah say...
Your sort says that a lot about facts and truth and never show any evidence for it. It's almost as if you've never spent any time in either realm.
Don't commit sodomy then. Lots of folks commit sodomy - oral sex, anal sex - anal sex is not just practiced among homosexuals - a lot of homosexuals don't have anal sex - a lot of heterosexuals have anal sex. If you don't like sodomy - just say no!
Why don't you keep your mind on your own business and stop trying to push your views into the lives of others.
You're a little behind the times. Lawerence v. Texas.
Wrong, it's done all the time, with this same lameass excuse
Can you put your proof where your mouth is?
There's no room in there what with all the bullshit.
Why do you think that we would ever ask your permission for anything?
Well, if it's anything like the last few right wing get together/trump rallies, you can expect about 50 people.
Hmm maybe conservatives have jobs to go to?
LOL yea, that's funny stuff.....with 9 of the 10 poorest states in the country being RED states... Lazy fucks.
Not if this forum is any evidence for that.
Liberals believe in strong empowered women to speak their minds and stand up for their beliefs- unless of course those beliefs run against liberal dogma.
Conservatives believe that women should be seen and not heard.. Bet you are wishing Stormy Daniels got that memo.
Is that why McCain picked Palin for his running mate? How about all the women who are GOP governors and in Congress?
Sounds more like liberals think women shouldn't be heard if they don't toe the liberal line.
Nope, he picked her because she was half way descent looking. She is dumber than a sack full of hammers and a quitter to boot. By the way... How did she help McCain's campaign? Oh wait.
Gee using YOUR Analogy how did that work for Mondale then?
Isn’t the chairperson of the GOP a woman. The largest national women’s group is pro life.
A decision I suspect that he never reminisces about except to rue it. I wonder if it has contributed to his medical condition. Poor man.
Rmando,
First let me clarify that I am an independent for the record.
Second, I don't have an issue with women gathering to support their beliefs. I realize for them this is not based on anything other than their faith and not science, and I am fine with that.
What I am not fine with is their agenda. Their goal is to take away choice, which is forcing their beliefs on others. I don't force my beliefs on people and I would like the same back in return.
I am a women who never had an abortion. I am also the mother of twin girls. I fought to have them from 16 weeks on as I was having preterm labor. I knew there was no chance of life at 16 weeks because the threshold of viability is 23 weeks.. meaning that they can live outside the body. And for the record, I wouldn't ever even consider an abortion at 16 weeks, since I know that there is enough of a neurological system to feel pain, and I would never hurt anything, especially a developing baby. I am not glib about abortion. Most women I know are the same way.
I am not sure why you would say that?
Because the science proves otherwise.
I am sorry...science proves what?
That a zygot or fetus is not a human? They are humans...not potential humans.
I have to disagree that women are pro-life based on faith only. I think women make their decisions either based on faith, science, and right to life.
If it was science, then there would be no issue with abortions done in the first 12 weeks, since that is when the body will miscarry. Is the body commiting murder? I think not. Does that fetus feel anything before the miscarriage? No it does not. That is straight up biology. Without a proper brain and nervous system, it is still a group of cells that will grow into a person.
And sunshine, I am not trying to convince you of anything. I am just stating the facts as I know them as a biology teacher, and a mom who had to fight to keep her pregnancy.
oh, I know that.
We have all been discussing abortions are entire lives. We need to be rational about it. Not just emotional. Women are not slaves to anyone. You may think that I am pro-life but I am not.
But, we can't wrap it up with a little pink bow and not be honest about the facts.
Women who are pro-lifers come from all different walks of life. You may be surprised. Many just don't want to speak because of the fear of being ridiculed.
I don't understand why a human zygote is more worthy than 16 week old human fetus. Human life begins at conception and that is a fact.
Abortion terminates a life....not just a bunch of cells equal to spit.
Science proves what?
That an Embryo or zygote isnt a human life? Their Belief? A Scientist believes such?
Isnt a lot of Science based on belief? Or Theory? Have they ever been wrong?
Vote ya Up.
correction: less worthy
First of all I don't assume anything about anyone until they tell me something. So, no I didn't know you were pro-choice
Because the zygote your own body would expel for any number of reasons. It does not feel. A 16 week old fetus feels. That is a very critical part of being.
The whole point of the seed is that science and technology have evolved to the point we can use science instead of or in addition to religious belief to oppose abortion. A pro life atheist has no religious reason to oppose abortion.
Of course, making abortion a crime would logically and legally mean that every spontaneous abortion would be a potential crime and every pregnancy a potential future crime scene. I actually believe that's were the anti-choice (which is also anti-woman*) movement would like this to go: every pregnancy being monitored by some kind of police state apparatus.
* I believe anti-choice women are "Handmaids" by choice and want to force all women into the cult.
...whether that belief is to choose to have a baby or not. No liberal is trying to convince women to get abortions, no one is "pro-abortion", they are merely pro-choice. Conservatives believe women are simply too weak to be able to make an informed decision for their own body and so want the government to force women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term.
How about forcing men and women to fund abortions for any reason with their tax dollars? It is now the official policy of the DNC to repeal the Hyde Amendment. This is from Hillarys Twitter feed:
Hillary Clinton
Hillary Clinton
@HillaryClinton
The Hyde Amendment restricts the reproductive rights of low-income women—disproportionately women of color. We need to repeal it now.
12:07 PM · Jun 10, 2016
My tax dollars get used to drop bombs from drones on civilians, I wish I could have a say on where and how every tax dollar is spent, but I don't. Personally, I don't have a problem with the Hyde amendment. I do have a problem with the attempt to completely defund the reimbursement payments to Planned Parenthood for other services they provide like cancer screenings and annual checkups for low income Americans.
Doesnt Planned Parenthood get paid for those screenings through insurance?
Some, yes. Others, for low income Americans with no insurance, they do free screenings which the government reimburses them for. And ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Poor with No Insurance?
How can that be under ObamaCare?
"Poor and uninsured"
How can that now be possible under Trump?
If we let everyone's moral opinions govern what taxes pay for then pacifists would have a case for no military spending or at least being exempt from paying taxes to support a military. That worn-out old rag of an argument is as bogus as it gets.
nothing said about a potential human life
That's like saying the blueprints for a house are the same as the house itself. If someone burns some blueprints, can he be charged with arson?
stupid analogy.
and you are a doctor or scientist?
Or A 2x4 of Lumber or Human?
Why? DNA is merely a blueprint for what the zygote will become, it isn't a fully functioning built tiny human with brain function. It's not a tiny person, it's the plans for a human, not a human itself.
yes it is a human....a zygote is a human species.
if you value the human species the same as a house, well what can one say?
Is it a Human Zygote?
yes it is
Clearly you are not, especially if you cite the American College of Pediatricians. The ACP? Really?
A house has value. A single cell? Not so much. And it's intellectually dishonest to equate a cell to an actual developed and born individual.
Life is not personhood Cancer is life. Is it a person?
Does a cancer cell eventually grow into an adult human being? A fertilized human egg does. Or just more Cancer cells?
personhood I believe is a legal term.
That I am not sure of.. but I am sure that 12 week old fetus is not a person.
But is it Human?
It's DNA is human. I have never said anything different.
The question was about life. Eventually all cells that grow, become something. Sometimes something good like a baby, sometimes something bad like a tumor.
And this whole discussion has digressed. The original question was about being pro choice or pro life.
Actually it was about the advances of science showing just how human a preborn baby 👶 🍼 is and how opposition to abortion is more about science than about religion.
It does not apply to an embryo or fetus.
The American College of Pediatricians is a rightwing propaganda group.
It's analogous to Rand Paul's creation of his own ophthalmology association so he could give himself the designation of "ophthalmologist" without actually taking the American Academy of Ophthalmology's rigorous board exams. There are a lot of these official sounding but entirely fake "medical" groups formed in order to fool people into thinking they're just like the real medical associations, in this case for example the American Academy of Pediatrics which is an academic institution, publishes a major pediatric journal and sets standards for pediatric practice, or the American Board of Pediatrics which handles the board examination process and which provides documentation for those who pass that exam the credential to be called "pediatrician." Unlike this bogus "college" it does not make philosophical pronouncements on when life begins which is not within the purview of medicine or even medical ethics. The only people who think this point means anything are moralists. This whole bogus "beginning of life" argument betrays at its root basic ignorance of biology in the first place. If it's taken to its extreme, it could be argued that since every sperm is a living cell, then all the sperm but that one which fail to hit their target are murdered by the one which does.
Here's a bit of trivia: The founder of the ACP is a homophobe who founded the ACP to protest the adoptions by gay couples. It also only has 500 members, as opposed to the American Academy of Pediatrics 64,000 members. The ACP is also known to be willfully misleading and has been designated a hate group. And this is the group that some pro-lifers want to refer to? That speaks volumes about them.
I should have used "septic tank" rather than "group" to describe the ACP.
That's ok. I know you were just trying to be nice.
That IS so me.
Thanks so much for posting the truth rather than that rightwing pseudoscience psychobabble drivel.
Indeed!!!!!!
The American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds) is a socially conservative advocacy group of pediatricians and other healthcare professionals in the United States.[1] The group was founded in 2002 by a group of pediatricians, including Joseph Zanga, a past president of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP),
Comment removed for CoC violation [ph]
Comment removed for CoC violation [ph]
I am tired of your trolling. Unless you can respond with an actual fact to support any of your dribble...stop talking to me now.
After presenting the bogus rightwing lie spewing ACP as a legitimate medical association you come clean about it being a rightwing cesspool and accuse me of "bullchit" (why do you think misspelling the word makes it something else?). This is what we mean by the basic rightwing tactic of projection and it results in all that bullShit you fling blowing right back in your face.
Knock it off with the non comments and the insults, implied or direct. If you have nothing of substance to say, please leave the discussion.
it is a professional and legit group of pediatricians no matter how many times you repeat your nonsense
Atheist happens to be correct. The ACP is a group, but they are hardly a legitimate one, and certainly no where near as legitimate, credible, or academic as the AAP.
You are correct. The ACP is legitimate and professional as a group. Conservative alternative professional, legal, media, and political groups are as legitimate as their liberal counterparts.
Not even a little.
in your opinion...which changes nothing
Now that's some "bullchit." Laughable "bullchit" but still pure "bullchit." It has a measly 500 members and doesn't even require that they be physicians much less pediatricians and even describes itself as conservative social advocacy group rather than a professional one. It came into existence as a reaction to adoption by homosexual couples so that tells us just how extremely twisted it is.
In the opinion of the AAP and other far more credible organizations. It's your opinion which changes nothing.
Compared to the AAP 66,000 members.
They neither have quantity nor quality of membership.
If that doesn't scream bias and lack of credibility, I don't know what does. But it also speaks volumes about individuals who support or reference such an organization. That's like using David Barton and the Wallbuilders as a "legitimate" or 'credible" historical source.
"Males may have the advantage of lifelong fertility, but as they grow older, the rate of genetic mutations passed on via their sperm cells increases significantly—putting their children at increased risk for psychiatric disorders, especially autism and schizophrenia."
If some want to impose their will on women forcing them to carry pregnancy to term, should we start mandatory sterilization of men over a certain age? If your opinion is the government should have rights over a woman's reproductive process shouldn't that apply to men as well? Maybe then some men will get the point. If you want to take away a woman's right to choose then take away a mans right to choose. Snip, snip, snip...
Gee cant the sperm of an 18 year old carry a genetic mutation also?
Snip all 18 year old males just because someone may have a sperm that could carry a genetic mutation................
See how your logic sounds? Lets get rid of a sperm because one may be carrying a Genetic Mutation! Castration before Puberty! Well there goes procreation...............
I;m trying
where is that paper towel roll ?
Yes it can, but not at the rate of older men.
By starting families in their thirties, forties and beyond, men could be increasing the chances that their children will develop autism, schizophrenia and other diseases often linked to new mutations. “The older we are as fathers, the more likely we will pass on our mutations,” says lead author Kári Stefánsson, chief executive of deCODE Genetics in Reykjavik. “The more mutations we pass on, the more likely that one of them is going to be deleterious.
Fathers passed on nearly four times as many new mutations as mothers: on average, 55 versus 14. The father’s age also accounted for nearly all of the variation in the number of new mutations in a child’s genome, with the number of new mutations being passed on rising exponentially with paternal age. A 36-year-old will pass on twice as many mutations to his child as a man of 20, and a 70-year-old eight times as many, Stefánsson’s team estimates.
I sent you a tissue...........
Age may increase the odds. Never denied that. But are not the odds there since puberty?
asked and answered
odds at puberty are not the same as the much higher odds at advanced age.
geez.........
Why is it moist?
the older a women gets the chances of a down syndrome child developing increases also, shall we force them to have a hysterectomy at age 40?
You obviously missed my point. If you decided the government should have control over one genders reproductive organs, you have to do the same for the other, otherwise you're a hypocrite and a sexist. Conservatives are already suggesting that women, from the moment of conception, must now submit to the federal government telling them what they can or can't do with their bodies. And just like back when abortion was illegal women will make their own choices, there's just greater risk of harm to the women making one of the most difficult decisions of their lives.
Yes. My 23 year old mother died of a self induced abortion when I was less than a year old in 1957.
I am sorry to hear that mocowgirl. My condolences. But it's examples like that which highlight the necessity of always having legal, safe abortions available for women to utilize if they so choose. It's sad that there are those who would prefer to remove that option and right. I have actually heard someone once say that women who die or suffer complications from abortions (either self induced or otherwise) deserve it. Such misogynistic contempt for women is appalling.
If a woman wants to have a hysterectomy or tubal ligation, they should be able to, regardless of age. However, some doctors will refuse to perform such procedures, especially on younger women and/or childless women either because they think a woman will change their mind or out fear of being sued if they do change their mind.
There are risks to any medical procedure. Heck, there are risks from just taking Tylenol. Abortion is generally a safe procedure, and is probably less risky than enduring a pregnancy. Abortions in early stages of pregnancy can be done pharmacologically, reducing the need and associated risks with a more invasive procedure.
Agreed. The current general laws seem satisfactory. However, when abortion was illegal, the morbidity and mortality rate from (back alley or self induced) abortion was much higher. That's part of the reason why abortion became legal and medically regulated.
I've heard it, albeit rarely. Appalling is an understatement. Regardless of one's stance on abortion, wishing ill will or harm against a woman who wants or has an abortion is beyond the pale. Such vitriol is just not necessary.
BTW Cos, I haven't seen you around in a while? How are things? All is well I hope?
Agreed.
Oh, I have my moments. Especially when people tell me Babylon 5 is better than DS9.
Yes, thank you.
The bottle does have instruction for taking the proper doses. But then, not everyone is compliant with instruction. Or they don't realize one should not take certain other medications (or alcohol) with Tylenol, such as Nyquil, which also contains acetaminophen. Personally, I prefer Ibuprofen over Tylenol.
Agreed. Less risky that way.
Up to the point of viability (approx. 23 weeks) is reasonable. After that, states generally have certain restrictions in effect.
Indeed. I don't think most people generally have an issue with the current laws and state restrictions. Although, more die-hard pro-lifers would prefer no abortions at all.
It was still higher, which is not better.
Back then, abortion was illegal, and safe access to it was probably non-existent or very limited, especially for lower income individuals. It's part of the reason why PP was started.
Indeed. For some, that is their only reason for being here. They are not one bit interested on discussion or anyone else's opinion on anything that is different than their own. Trying to shout down others with their insults and hostile vitriol is their only purpose for being here. While they think they are being clever in what they are truly here for, they are as obvious as a boil on their face.
Yeah, but I do have to channel my inner Spock from time to time, LOL
Or vice versa.
No argument there.
The Dominion War story arcs did require more regular watching in order. Although, there were a few stand alone episodes thrown in. I think you really had to pay attention to B5 when season 2 started. A shame there was never a theatrical release of B5. Perhaps a reboot, like they did with Star Trek?
I agree. I feel the same at times. The stench of unadulterated hate voiced here by those few here sometimes makes my Spirit wane. But, I will be here long after they are gone. Others that thought the same as they do are no longer here, and they will find the same for themselves. So I don't let them get the best of me anymore. They are not worth it.
Chalk one up to stupidity.
I think all states have some type of restriction in effect. A few or less stringent than most others.
It's safe to say that most people, regardless of their stance on abortion, accept or reluctantly agree with current laws and restrictions. They seem to become verbal about it when changes to those laws are put in motion.
Both of which were much more limited than they are today.
But what an exciting 3 seasons. And the series finale was quite satisfactory too. Almost as good as the finale to TNG. DS9 really picked up steam with the start of season 3 and the introduction of the Defiant.
Didn't season 1 have the episode where Cmdr Sinclair and Garibaldi discover B4? That really played into the lore later on. Ugh, time travel.
A DS9 movie may not have worked. Unlike the end of TNG, where the crew was still together, the DS9 crew scattered. Sisko was with the Prophets. O'Brien headed back to Earth. Worf became an ambassador. You still had Kira, Bashir, and Dax on DS9. But they are not enough to handle an entire movie. I didn't see DS9 playing out to be a movie, especially since the Dominion War ended and Cardassia was not a threat to Bajor or anyone else anymore.
TNG still had the Enterprise and crew continuing their mission. So a movie seemed much easier to do. Kind of like a long episode. Although, Generations was a little weak. A lone and obsolete Bird-of-Prey takes down the Enterprise D, the friggin' flagship of the Federation? Seriously? They only did that because they wanted to show a saucer separation and landing. First Contact was awesome.
If the story is good.
Which is too bad really.
One can only hope.
Overall, Enterprise was good as a whole. But they did drop the ball significantly in a couple of ways. The show really hit its stride in the 4th season with some really great episodes connecting to the rest of the Trek legacy (not counting the finale). But by then, it was too little, too late. However, Capt. Archer's speech was quite emotional and inspirational and was the moment the seed of the Federation was planted. Ambassador Soval being the first to applaud Archer was a nice touch.
Those were the times. The 90's was kind of like a sci-fi Renaissance.
I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain.
Go get pregnant and have a baby.
Well said, Pat, and so very true.
Fear is ones worst enemy.
I think Ohio still has some restrictions, although they might be lax about it. I'm not really sure and I'm too lazy at the moment to actually look it up.
Each fringe can clamor about how they want or think the law should be. It's the current law that is relevant and is generally satisfactory to both sides.
The lack of scientific curiosity and/or advancement is what held us back.
Good thing too. Otherwise, we'd still be in the Dark Ages.
In some ways, progress still seems slow in some areas. I detect a certain anti-science cultural vibe. Although, I hope I am wrong about that.
Is that the one where Warren Keffer was killed by the Shadows?
No, he stayed on DS9 and started dating Ezri. O'Brien took the teaching job at Starfleet Academy. After all, someone needed to teach those kids the difference between a warp coil and a self sealing stem bolt.
Now that was a TNG movie done right. Good story, good villain, high stakes.
At least we got a glimpse to Wolf 359 battle in the DS9 pilot episode. What a way to start a series.
You would think someone would have thought to cycle the shield frequency. That would have rendered the Klingon attack futile. But then, we wouldn't get the saucer crash landing or the Enterprise E in 1st Contact. But ok, let's say the Ent-D's shields were useless. This is the Ent-D, the ship that single handedly stood up against a Borg Cube and survived. It's armed with 10 Phaser arrays and 3 photon torpedo tubes. All they did was fire phasers once at the BoP in a short burst. The Enterprise could have easily unleashed a phaser barrage and a spread of torpedoes on the (uncloaked) BoP, much like they did against the Borg Cube. Instead, the Enterprise was literally blown out of the sky like a Grissom-class bitch! Now that's unplausible folly!
Neither have I. I can't see paying to stream Trek. I caught a few bits and pieces. Let's just say my initial reaction is less than pleased. But I'll reserve judgement.
The first couple of season should have focused on exploration, much like TOS trek did. New worlds, new civilizations and all that. I hated the Temporal Cold War subplot. Although, showing the relationship between the Andorians, Vulcans, and Tellarites, and seeing how they would eventually put aside their differences thanks to human diplomacy (mainly by Capt. Archer) and join to form the Federation was very good. Let's face it, Weyoun, I mean Brunt, I mean Shran, yes Shran, was an awesome character. LOL
There is something to be said for practical model effects. Look back to TOS: they didn't have much of a budget for flashy effects. Instead, they had to come up with some strong stories, which they did: The Doomsday Machine, Amok Time, Trouble with Tribbles, ect. to name a few. Of course, they had a few, shall we say, weaker stories. Spock's Brain anyone?
Indeed. That's a reboot done right. Although, I still have a certain nostalgic fondness for the original BSG. Adama was Admiral "cool under fire." The BSG reboot characters were perfect. And having Six around in that red dress certainly didn't hurt.
No we should force all women to carry all pregnancies to term, no matter what the condition of the fetus is.....right?
I liked Babylon 5 a lot. Deep Space 9 was ok but my 2nd least favorite of the Star Trek series of shows.
I liked Babylon 5 a lot. Deep Space 9 was ok but my 2nd least favorite of the Star Trek series of shows.
The honest answer is, no one knows.
That's nice. Prove it! By that token, where did your god come from?
B5 was good. DS9 was better. TNG was probably the best of the trek series. Although, I do have a certain fondness for TOS.
Well, we agree on somethings
Oh right. Vir had the best reply to that question.
Well, according to Quark, Morn did tell the funniest joke in the universe.
What really makes that so great is we see how Sisko evolved as a person over the years, from being a bitter, angry man to accepting his position as the Bajoran Emissary, to even considering Bajor to be home. Great character development. Although, you could tell Sisko really wanted to punch Capt. Picard when they discussed his assignment to DS9.
Yeah, and look where that got them. It's like the Enterprise didn't even try. I will say this for Capt. Kirk, he would have been quicker on the phasers.
The NX Ent did seem fragile at times. But it could take a pounding too. Not bad for a ship without shields.
I think it should have been avoided altogether. It only detracted from the show.
In terms of chemistry, Shran was to Archer that Q was to Picard. They may not have liked each other at times, but they stole the show when they were together.
They were still budget conscious I guess.
That was probably the most obvious reuse. "Hey, I got a little Undiscovered Country in my Generations."
The show, and its legacy today, only exists because of the fans.
Indeed. It was a variation of the "Theiss Titillation Theory": The sexiness of an outfit is directly proportional to the perceived possibility that a vital piece of it might fall off . In those cases, skintight or sexy costumes (especially Seven's) had the same effect. It didn't hurt that Six and Seven (I'm noticing a pattern here) are uber hot to begin with. Maybe in a new sci-fi series, there will be a sexy female character named Eight?
Hey, getting bitten by a radioactive spider and gaining superpowers is more plausible than god's origins. I'm tempted to roll around in toxic waste just so I can get super powers. LOL
It does seem quite convenient.
Allow me to educate you on the reason that you cannot find data on women who have died via self-induced or back alley abortions, it is because abortion is rarely listed as the cause of death.
My mother's cause of death was listed as kidney failure.
For anyone interested in the history of abortion in the US from the time it was legal then illegal and now legal again, there is a very good article at the link below.
Great article.
You are confused. The Big Bang is a theory... God is a myth. You should look up the difference between the two. While you are at it? Prove that god created everything.. Thanks.
A logical fallacy. Prove that everything wasn't created fairies, leprechauns, or gnomes! The onus of proof lies on the one making the affirmative claim.
You cannot prove that something DOESN'T exist. You know that. But if you really want to go down that road. Prove Santa Claus doesn't exist. Bigfoot? Loch Ness Monster? Aliens from Pluto?
Everyone knows aliens from Pluto exist. They're called