Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Here I've been celebrating my birthday nine months prematurely!
If life begins at conception, does the presence of an in vitro fertilization clinic affect census numbers? Can a pregnant woman drive in the HOV lane if she's carrying twins?
Give Mississippi credit for once. They voted down the lunacy that was the 'personhood' amendment. How many times can we cite Mississippi for being smarter than any other state?
a tooth. Separate a tooth from a blood supply, it dies.
An embryo is not a human.
You compared a tooth to a fetus in an effort to be right in this debate.
what would stop her?
work...
cost...
that is why in a place like North Dakota, where there is maybe one practitioner within 500 miles and that practitioner spends one day in this place and one day in that place, a 3 day waiting period is specifically intended to make the doctor's services unavailable.
it won't affect people with money at all. it never did.
Ah so then jillian if one can be creative with legislating issues such as these one one state lets say thats not so friendly, they can be friendly in the next state that is , say perhaps, Oh I don't know let's call it "future women of california project" wherein a bus stops in Phoenix everyday picks up goes to California where they pay for a taxed based service that California gets the benefits from and then are returned home? Just a thought, and for the more free enterprise types, there is always starting your own " shuttle service". I suppose my point here is not to make light of the situtation but more so to point out that while states may pass laws that restrict choice based on some moral ground, there are others that do not and noting is forever, meaning that in a state like Arizona which is changing rapidly in its demographics where one day it will be more than likely blue, even these types of laws won't last long. So I go back to my original thought on the matter , when a legislature especially in todays economy seeks to legislate what is clearly a moral issue from one point of view, they take their collective eye's off the real problems here which are numerous.
It's a one day drive to get your abortion up here.
No big smurf you see. It's called abortion tourism. The guy that really freaked me out was Tiller.
Holy toledo!!! Your Minister of Health (what do you call it down there?) was set up by Tiller.
Cripes Sebelius gave him his own crematorium (so he could do what he wanted) and allowed him to sell trinkets.
Footprints of your aborted baby late term. You really have to witness his website to believe it. Pictures with your aborted baby as well.
Freaking bus tours for abortion. That's sick.
the allegedly 'small government GOP'er Jan Brewer has signed into law saying, essentially, life begins two weeks before conception.
so now, every time you ovulate...congrats you're a mom.
nutters...
AllGov - News - Arizona Law Declares Life Begins before Conception: Update
the statute...one of the most disgusting i've ever read.
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/50leg/2r/adopted/s.2036jud.pdf
They don't know truth. Quite simple. Their lives are based on falsehoods. Bizarre but true.
My god, when the hate sites spew a lie, all of you fucking morons spew it.
Clearly the aggregate of the entire DNC is about 12.
Fucking moron.
a tooth. Separate a tooth from a blood supply, it dies.Here I've been celebrating my birthday nine months prematurely!
If life begins at conception, does the presence of an in vitro fertilization clinic affect census numbers? Can a pregnant woman drive in the HOV lane if she's carrying twins?
Give Mississippi credit for once. They voted down the lunacy that was the 'personhood' amendment. How many times can we cite Mississippi for being smarter than any other state?
what hapopens when you separate a fetus from the palcenta?
It dies.
How can something die that was never alive to begin with?
Why does it need the palcenta to live?
Becuase it requires human blood, human hormones and himan antibodies to live.
Other than a human, what else requires human blood, human hormones, and human antibodies to live?
Nothing. Just humans.
TYherefore...according to basic science......the fetus is a live human.
I have the pro choice position becuase I see the logic and respect what the pro choicers say.
Why are those on the left unable to see the logic and respect what the right sees? Afterall, as I demonstrated in this post...there is absolute scientific logic that backs up the claim of the right.
An embryo is not a human.
No I answered the questions you posed.a tooth. Separate a tooth from a blood supply, it dies.what hapopens when you separate a fetus from the palcenta?
It dies.
How can something die that was never alive to begin with?
Why does it need the palcenta to live?
Becuase it requires human blood, human hormones and himan antibodies to live.
Other than a human, what else requires human blood, human hormones, and human antibodies to live?
Nothing. Just humans.
TYherefore...according to basic science......the fetus is a live human.
I have the pro choice position becuase I see the logic and respect what the pro choicers say.
Why are those on the left unable to see the logic and respect what the right sees? Afterall, as I demonstrated in this post...there is absolute scientific logic that backs up the claim of the right.
An embryo is not a human.
You compared a tooth to a fetus in an effort to be right in this debate.
You are a classic example of what I was referring to. A person on the left who refuses to see the logic behind the sentiments of one that thinks differently...and therefore refuses to respect that persons sentiments.
Comparing a tooth to a fetus.
Quite arrogant of you.
"lookie me. I have a way to shoot down what he says".
Go for it. It makes you look silly...but go for it.
FYI...a tooth does not actually die. That is strictly a term to imply the tooth is worthless.
Next time try to enegage in a mature "big boy" debate.
Ah come on Jillian.
Face it. Deal with it.
Ah so then jillian if one can be creative with legislating issues such as these one one state lets say thats not so friendly, they can be friendly in the next state that is , say perhaps, Oh I don't know let's call it "future women of california project" wherein a bus stops in Phoenix everyday picks up goes to California where they pay for a taxed based service that California gets the benefits from and then are returned home? Just a thought, and for the more free enterprise types, there is always starting your own " shuttle service". I suppose my point here is not to make light of the situtation but more so to point out that while states may pass laws that restrict choice based on some moral ground, there are others that do not and noting is forever, meaning that in a state like Arizona which is changing rapidly in its demographics where one day it will be more than likely blue, even these types of laws won't last long. So I go back to my original thought on the matter , when a legislature especially in todays economy seeks to legislate what is clearly a moral issue from one point of view, they take their collective eye's off the real problems here which are numerous.
It's a one day drive to get your abortion up here.
No big smurf you see. It's called abortion tourism. The guy that really freaked me out was Tiller.
Holy toledo!!! Your Minister of Health (what do you call it down there?) was set up by Tiller.
Cripes Sebelius gave him his own crematorium (so he could do what he wanted) and allowed him to sell trinkets.
Footprints of your aborted baby late term. You really have to witness his website to believe it. Pictures with your aborted baby as well.
Freaking bus tours for abortion. That's sick.
Clearly you didn't read my postings tiny, so let me recap for you, first of all on a moral basis I've said here many times that you would be hard pressed to find many people who disagree with protecting "viable babies" and even today data suggests that at 23 weeks viablity is as high as 53%. What I have said is that passing laws that restrict choices based on a religious concept "life begins at conception" or defacto laws that seek to discourage choice based on the same principle do not belong as Laws in any shape or fashion. The reason being is because these laws take a narrow religious view of "life" based on one religion and the last I checked there is no specific mention of a type of religion in the 1st Amendment even if that religion happens to be Hindu, Wiccan, whatever it may be. My point was that when laws like these are passed they are a waste of time and states that do not have them will then see an increase from the states that do and as such the need to transport these young women there will be filled.
Biologists disagree with you:
"
(human biology) Baby in the early developmental stage, after the zygote phase (at fertilization) to week eight from the time of fertilization (note: week eight from the time of fertilization is equivalent to 10 weeks gestational age)
"
Embryo - definition from Biology-Online.org
Or is a baby non-human as well?
Ah so then jillian if one can be creative with legislating issues such as these one one state lets say thats not so friendly, they can be friendly in the next state that is , say perhaps, Oh I don't know let's call it "future women of california project" wherein a bus stops in Phoenix everyday picks up goes to California where they pay for a taxed based service that California gets the benefits from and then are returned home? Just a thought, and for the more free enterprise types, there is always starting your own " shuttle service". I suppose my point here is not to make light of the situtation but more so to point out that while states may pass laws that restrict choice based on some moral ground, there are others that do not and noting is forever, meaning that in a state like Arizona which is changing rapidly in its demographics where one day it will be more than likely blue, even these types of laws won't last long. So I go back to my original thought on the matter , when a legislature especially in todays economy seeks to legislate what is clearly a moral issue from one point of view, they take their collective eye's off the real problems here which are numerous.
It's a one day drive to get your abortion up here.
No big smurf you see. It's called abortion tourism. The guy that really freaked me out was Tiller.
Holy toledo!!! Your Minister of Health (what do you call it down there?) was set up by Tiller.
Cripes Sebelius gave him his own crematorium (so he could do what he wanted) and allowed him to sell trinkets.
Footprints of your aborted baby late term. You really have to witness his website to believe it. Pictures with your aborted baby as well.
Freaking bus tours for abortion. That's sick.
Clearly you didn't read my postings tiny, so let me recap for you, first of all on a moral basis I've said here many times that you would be hard pressed to find many people who disagree with protecting "viable babies" and even today data suggests that at 23 weeks viablity is as high as 53%. What I have said is that passing laws that restrict choices based on a religious concept "life begins at conception" or defacto laws that seek to discourage choice based on the same principle do not belong as Laws in any shape or fashion. The reason being is because these laws take a narrow religious view of "life" based on one religion and the last I checked there is no specific mention of a type of religion in the 1st Amendment even if that religion happens to be Hindu, Wiccan, whatever it may be. My point was that when laws like these are passed they are a waste of time and states that do not have them will then see an increase from the states that do and as such the need to transport these young women there will be filled.
Ah come on Jillian.
Face it. Deal with it.
Jillian has never struck me as particularly bright, but this level of retardation is beyond the pale...
What kills me is their tactic of "it's not a baby". My daughter in my belly rocked. Hell's bells I could see my son stretching out his legs in my abdomen. AND my last daughter kicked ass in delivery.
Are these people this stupid?
No I answered the questions you posed.a tooth. Separate a tooth from a blood supply, it dies.
An embryo is not a human.
You compared a tooth to a fetus in an effort to be right in this debate.
You are a classic example of what I was referring to. A person on the left who refuses to see the logic behind the sentiments of one that thinks differently...and therefore refuses to respect that persons sentiments.
Comparing a tooth to a fetus.
Quite arrogant of you.
"lookie me. I have a way to shoot down what he says".
Go for it. It makes you look silly...but go for it.
FYI...a tooth does not actually die. That is strictly a term to imply the tooth is worthless.
Next time try to enegage in a mature "big boy" debate.
what hapopens (sic) when you separate a fetus from the palcenta? What happens when you separate a tooth from the mouth? It dies. Given proper care, a tooth will live in a jaw for a human lifetime.
Other than a human, what else requires human blood, human hormones, and human antibodies to live? Teeth.
An autonomous blood supply, the ability to survive outside the protection of the womb. these are things that separate the fetus from the human.
I support a woman's right to choose her reproductive decisions. I believe that abortion should be safe but rare.
It's a one day drive to get your abortion up here.
No big smurf you see. It's called abortion tourism. The guy that really freaked me out was Tiller.
Holy toledo!!! Your Minister of Health (what do you call it down there?) was set up by Tiller.
Cripes Sebelius gave him his own crematorium (so he could do what he wanted) and allowed him to sell trinkets.
Footprints of your aborted baby late term. You really have to witness his website to believe it. Pictures with your aborted baby as well.
Freaking bus tours for abortion. That's sick.
Clearly you didn't read my postings tiny, so let me recap for you, first of all on a moral basis I've said here many times that you would be hard pressed to find many people who disagree with protecting "viable babies" and even today data suggests that at 23 weeks viablity is as high as 53%. What I have said is that passing laws that restrict choices based on a religious concept "life begins at conception" or defacto laws that seek to discourage choice based on the same principle do not belong as Laws in any shape or fashion. The reason being is because these laws take a narrow religious view of "life" based on one religion and the last I checked there is no specific mention of a type of religion in the 1st Amendment even if that religion happens to be Hindu, Wiccan, whatever it may be. My point was that when laws like these are passed they are a waste of time and states that do not have them will then see an increase from the states that do and as such the need to transport these young women there will be filled.
Actually, they aren't stupid. They're dishonest.
They will not admit they think some babies, and therefore some people, are without value.
Further, they won't admit that they think it's okay to destroy people they view as *without value*. So they go to great lengths to pretend their desire to protect the practice of infanticide is all about women's rights, science, whatever, and they LIE about both in order to make it fit.
At the end of the day, they don't think these babies should be born, because they think they don't have value. They think they have the right to dictate who has value and who doesn't, and therefore they must protect the *right* of others to do the same.
