DOJ to Supreme Court: Killing Human Embryo in Womb is Not Abortion

[polarbear]

The notion of prosecuting a woman for exercising her right to privacy is repugnant to the fundamental tenets of this Republic; it demonstrates the disdain most conservatives have for individual liberty, and their propensity for authoritarianism.

You are not playing with a full deck are you?

Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.

Issue: Whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb et seq., which provides that the government “shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion” unless that burden is the least restrictive means to further a compelling governmental interest, allows a for-profit corporation to deny its employees the health coverage of contraceptives to which the employees are otherwise entitled by federal law, based on the religious objections of the corporation’s owners.

Here we got a government, which is furthering it`s own interest by burdening somebody with "least restrictive means ", compelling a Hobby store to pay for somebody else`s contraceptives ...and if Conservatives don`t go along with it, then they are "repugnant", "authoritarian" and have a "disdain for liberty ".

If you got so much disdain for Christianity then why would you insist to work in a "Hobby Lobby" store to "exercise your right to privacy"?...
"Privacy" meaning in this specific case that you got screwed and want to pretend that you don`t screw.

At Hobby Lobby, we value our customers and employees and are committed to:

• Honoring the Lord in all we do by operating the company in a manner consistent with biblical principles.
• Offering our customers exceptional selection and value in the crafts and home decor market.
• Serving our employees and their families by establishing a work environment and company policies that build character, strengthen individuals and nurture families.
• Providing a return on the owner's investment, sharing the Lord's blessings with our employees, and investing in our community.

It`s their company, they paid their taxes, built it up from a garage operation to what it is today.
And that`s what burns you up and liberals like you in general.
...That somebody with the religious convictions you like to ridicule succeeded in what you all fail so miserably, like earning money instead of clawing it
from those who do.
Why would you even want to use money with a religious message on it?

Maybe you don`t, because food stamps don`t have it.

 

[Asclepias]

No dear, dogs KILL, man murders. Animals kill on the spur of the moment, or they hunt for victims for their survival, they kill to protect their territory, and (well how about this) TO PROTECT THEIR YOUNG. They don't spend days or weeks THINKING about killing what's inside them, they PROTECT, to the best of their ability the YOUNG that they carry! That's NATURES WAY!

Only man murders is indeed a FACT!

You must have never had a dog or a cat in your life. They do plot to kill other animals. Its not a spur of the moment thing. Sometimes animals kill their own young as soon as they are born. What a retard you are turning out to be.

ROTFLMFAO.... Bullshit! they have the IQ to PLOT to kill without it being for FOOD, or protection! They have basic instincts, .... If they had the IQ to plot killing us, then they should be at the top of the food chain! Few animals kill their young, even CATS don't kill their young, if their young are defective, they simply leave them to die NATURALLY. I've rescued more than a few handful of problem kittens that were abandoned. A male lion will kill a females cubs, IF he recognizes that the young aren't his but another male lions offspring,! Talk about RETARDS, yes, spelled with capitals to indicate you are one hell of a retard!

You just proved you have never been around any animals. You just look more and more stupid the more you post. Animals plot to kill for the same reasons people do dumbass. Some kill out of jealousy, better positioning, the fun of it, and revenge. You must be a big buffoon to not know this. You are too dumb for words. All you had to do was google it before posting and removing all doubt you are a dumbass. Cats definitely kill their own young and they do it frequently in my experience.

http://www.thecatsite.com/t/51387/do-cats-eat-their-young

 

[Vigilante]

You must have never had a dog or a cat in your life. They do plot to kill other animals. Its not a spur of the moment thing. Sometimes animals kill their own young as soon as they are born. What a retard you are turning out to be.

ROTFLMFAO.... Bullshit! they have the IQ to PLOT to kill without it being for FOOD, or protection! They have basic instincts, .... If they had the IQ to plot killing us, then they should be at the top of the food chain! Few animals kill their young, even CATS don't kill their young, if their young are defective, they simply leave them to die NATURALLY. I've rescued more than a few handful of problem kittens that were abandoned. A male lion will kill a females cubs, IF he recognizes that the young aren't his but another male lions offspring,! Talk about RETARDS, yes, spelled with capitals to indicate you are one hell of a retard!

You just proved you have never been around any animals. You just look more and more stupid the more you post. Animals plot to kill for the same reasons people do dumbass. Some kill out of jealousy, better positioning, the fun of it, and revenge. You must be a big buffoon to not know this. You are too dumb for words. All you had to do was google it before posting and removing all doubt you are a dumbass. Cats definitely kill their own young and they do it frequently in my experience.

http://www.thecatsite.com/t/51387/do-cats-eat-their-young

In 4 decades of raising cats, I've never had this experience, and know it doesn't happen frequently. Large cats kill for better position but for the fun of it? You're deranged thinking they kill for fun, especially each other... perhaps a mouse as they would also attack bugs, to PLAY with them! Yes, Google says they do kill and eat their young. I have never seen or heard of it, and have only had ones abandoned. But I post this that seems to agree with some of your statements.

Cats in general do not eat their young. Feline mothers actually go to great lengths to ensure the safety of their kittens, until they reach a certain age.
Male cats, however, will eat their fathered children if given the chance. The reason for this is that the male does not recognize the kittens as his children. So it is really just eat to survive. Female cats also don't recognize their young after they mature and leave 'the nest.'
I'm not positive, but I'm assuming that the reason for this is that cats are solitary animals; there is no real social structure among cats in the wild (lions being the exception). So from an evolutionary standpoint, there is no reason for cats to form a connection with their young. The mother understands that her kittens are her's until her job as a mother is done. Then she goes back to a solitary existence, doing what she needs to survive, even if that means killing another cat (who might be child, but she wouldn't know)
The mother cat also eats their young when the kitten's born deformed or turn sick. She does this to protect the rest of the litter or at least herself if all of them turn sick. It's better for her to eat them then having the dead corpse lie about and flourish with diseases that may harm the rest, and also the predators would find out where she and her other kittens are by the dead corpse. In my experience, any dead kittens, are either carried off, or more likely, the mother moves the litter to a safer location. Perhaps since I'm in an urban area, with few predators to attack a cat, except man, and a dog or 2, and those that are here have plenty of food to eat, not having to search for a meal, they do not exhibit this trait.

In the last 6 month's I've come up with one abandoned, with a respiratory condition, and infected eyes, that a mother that I feed outside, dropped it at the steps of our house. The other was 8 weeks old along with 2 other litter mates that was born without a back left paw. The mother had no problem taking care of him, but with winter here, we decided to take the 3 young ones in.

Now that we've discussed cats, want to get back on topic?

 

[Asclepias]

ROTFLMFAO.... Bullshit! they have the IQ to PLOT to kill without it being for FOOD, or protection! They have basic instincts, .... If they had the IQ to plot killing us, then they should be at the top of the food chain! Few animals kill their young, even CATS don't kill their young, if their young are defective, they simply leave them to die NATURALLY. I've rescued more than a few handful of problem kittens that were abandoned. A male lion will kill a females cubs, IF he recognizes that the young aren't his but another male lions offspring,! Talk about RETARDS, yes, spelled with capitals to indicate you are one hell of a retard!

You just proved you have never been around any animals. You just look more and more stupid the more you post. Animals plot to kill for the same reasons people do dumbass. Some kill out of jealousy, better positioning, the fun of it, and revenge. You must be a big buffoon to not know this. You are too dumb for words. All you had to do was google it before posting and removing all doubt you are a dumbass. Cats definitely kill their own young and they do it frequently in my experience.

http://www.thecatsite.com/t/51387/do-cats-eat-their-young

In 4 decades of raising cats, I've never had this experience, and know it doesn't happen frequently. Large cats kill for better position but for the fun of it? You're deranged thinking they kill for fun, especially each other... perhaps a mouse as they would also attack bugs, to PLAY with them! Yes, Google says they do kill and eat their young. I have never seen or heard of it, and have only had ones abandoned. But I post this that seems to agree with some of your statements.

Cats in general do not eat their young. Feline mothers actually go to great lengths to ensure the safety of their kittens, until they reach a certain age.
Male cats, however, will eat their fathered children if given the chance. The reason for this is that the male does not recognize the kittens as his children. So it is really just eat to survive. Female cats also don't recognize their young after they mature and leave 'the nest.'
I'm not positive, but I'm assuming that the reason for this is that cats are solitary animals; there is no real social structure among cats in the wild (lions being the exception). So from an evolutionary standpoint, there is no reason for cats to form a connection with their young. The mother understands that her kittens are her's until her job as a mother is done. Then she goes back to a solitary existence, doing what she needs to survive, even if that means killing another cat (who might be child, but she wouldn't know)
The mother cat also eats their young when the kitten's born deformed or turn sick. She does this to protect the rest of the litter or at least herself if all of them turn sick. It's better for her to eat them then having the dead corpse lie about and flourish with diseases that may harm the rest, and also the predators would find out where she and her other kittens are by the dead corpse. In my experience, any dead kittens, are either carried off, or more likely, the mother moves the litter to a safer location. Perhaps since I'm in an urban area, with few predators to attack a cat, except man, and a dog or 2, and those that are here have plenty of food to eat, not having to search for a meal, they do not exhibit this trait.

In the last 6 month's I've come up with one abandoned, with a respiratory condition, and infected eyes, that a mother that I feed outside, dropped it at the steps of our house. The other was 8 weeks old along with 2 other litter mates that was born without a back left paw. The mother had no problem taking care of him, but with winter here, we decided to take the 3 young ones in.

Now that we've discussed cats, want to get back on topic?

You typed all the BS only to end up agreeing with me that you don't know what the hell you are talking about when it comes to animals?!! Dont ever say anything stupid again and we wont have to get off topic. Does that make sense to you? Man is not the only animal that murders.

 

[Vigilante]

You just proved you have never been around any animals. You just look more and more stupid the more you post. Animals plot to kill for the same reasons people do dumbass. Some kill out of jealousy, better positioning, the fun of it, and revenge. You must be a big buffoon to not know this. You are too dumb for words. All you had to do was google it before posting and removing all doubt you are a dumbass. Cats definitely kill their own young and they do it frequently in my experience.

http://www.thecatsite.com/t/51387/do-cats-eat-their-young

In 4 decades of raising cats, I've never had this experience, and know it doesn't happen frequently. Large cats kill for better position but for the fun of it? You're deranged thinking they kill for fun, especially each other... perhaps a mouse as they would also attack bugs, to PLAY with them! Yes, Google says they do kill and eat their young. I have never seen or heard of it, and have only had ones abandoned. But I post this that seems to agree with some of your statements.

Cats in general do not eat their young. Feline mothers actually go to great lengths to ensure the safety of their kittens, until they reach a certain age.
Male cats, however, will eat their fathered children if given the chance. The reason for this is that the male does not recognize the kittens as his children. So it is really just eat to survive. Female cats also don't recognize their young after they mature and leave 'the nest.'
I'm not positive, but I'm assuming that the reason for this is that cats are solitary animals; there is no real social structure among cats in the wild (lions being the exception). So from an evolutionary standpoint, there is no reason for cats to form a connection with their young. The mother understands that her kittens are her's until her job as a mother is done. Then she goes back to a solitary existence, doing what she needs to survive, even if that means killing another cat (who might be child, but she wouldn't know)
The mother cat also eats their young when the kitten's born deformed or turn sick. She does this to protect the rest of the litter or at least herself if all of them turn sick. It's better for her to eat them then having the dead corpse lie about and flourish with diseases that may harm the rest, and also the predators would find out where she and her other kittens are by the dead corpse. In my experience, any dead kittens, are either carried off, or more likely, the mother moves the litter to a safer location. Perhaps since I'm in an urban area, with few predators to attack a cat, except man, and a dog or 2, and those that are here have plenty of food to eat, not having to search for a meal, they do not exhibit this trait.

In the last 6 month's I've come up with one abandoned, with a respiratory condition, and infected eyes, that a mother that I feed outside, dropped it at the steps of our house. The other was 8 weeks old along with 2 other litter mates that was born without a back left paw. The mother had no problem taking care of him, but with winter here, we decided to take the 3 young ones in.

Now that we've discussed cats, want to get back on topic?

You typed all the BS only to end up agreeing with me that you don't know what the hell you are talking about when it comes to animals?!! Dont ever say anything stupid again and we wont have to get off topic. Does that make sense to you? Man is not the only animal that murders.

Good Lord!

Killing vs Murder

We often come across words like kill and murder in newspapers and TV to inform us about the demise of people in accidents and also about those who lose their lives because of an attack in a planned manner by other human beings. Though the end result is the same with the loss of human life in both a killing, as well as a murder, the law makes a difference between kill and murder while sentencing a culprit accused of murder. There is a difference between a man getting killed in an accident and a man getting murdered, and it is this difference that will be highlighted in this article.
Kill
Kill is a term that is used to denote death of human beings though it is also used for death of animals, as well. However, we shall confine ourselves to loss of human lives in this article. The word is broad and encompasses all instances of loss of human lives whether accidental, intentional or planned. A man may be killed in a car accident or he may be killed by another human being. If a man gets killed in a workplace because of ignorance or fault of another person, the accused is still charged with killing and not murder.
Murder
Murder is a term that is reserved for intentional killing of a human being. Any instance where the death of a human being is because of malicious intent and action of another person is referred to as a murder. Murderer either meticulously plans and then carries it out or hits another human being in a fit of rage. It is not necessary for a murder to be gruesome or violent as culprits can make it look like an accidental killing in some cases. The only instance where a murder is still a killing is where a soldier guns down another soldier in a war.
What is the difference between Killing and Murder?
• A murder is a killing of a human being that is planned and intentional, whereas killing is a generic term that is used more in accidental killing.
• Killing indicates loss of life and whether it is an accident or a natural disaster, loss of lives is referred to as killing of people.
• The most important distinction between a killing and murder is that of motivation and intent. A murder has the intent and is planned, whereas killing does not have intent.
• You can kill animals but in case of human beings, you murder them.
• When the loss of life is accidental, the term used is killing.
• Loss of lives because of natural disaster and epidemic is also killing.
• Soldiers kill, they do not murder in war.
• Murder is more serious than killing in the eyes of the law and, therefore, carries a harsher sentence.

Difference Between Killing and Murder: Killing vs Murder

 

[longknife]

These Affect Our Nation's Laws?

Kinda scary isn't it? Notice Drudge didn't include a picture of Ruth.

 

[Asclepias]

In 4 decades of raising cats, I've never had this experience, and know it doesn't happen frequently. Large cats kill for better position but for the fun of it? You're deranged thinking they kill for fun, especially each other... perhaps a mouse as they would also attack bugs, to PLAY with them! Yes, Google says they do kill and eat their young. I have never seen or heard of it, and have only had ones abandoned. But I post this that seems to agree with some of your statements.

Cats in general do not eat their young. Feline mothers actually go to great lengths to ensure the safety of their kittens, until they reach a certain age.
Male cats, however, will eat their fathered children if given the chance. The reason for this is that the male does not recognize the kittens as his children. So it is really just eat to survive. Female cats also don't recognize their young after they mature and leave 'the nest.'
I'm not positive, but I'm assuming that the reason for this is that cats are solitary animals; there is no real social structure among cats in the wild (lions being the exception). So from an evolutionary standpoint, there is no reason for cats to form a connection with their young. The mother understands that her kittens are her's until her job as a mother is done. Then she goes back to a solitary existence, doing what she needs to survive, even if that means killing another cat (who might be child, but she wouldn't know)
The mother cat also eats their young when the kitten's born deformed or turn sick. She does this to protect the rest of the litter or at least herself if all of them turn sick. It's better for her to eat them then having the dead corpse lie about and flourish with diseases that may harm the rest, and also the predators would find out where she and her other kittens are by the dead corpse. In my experience, any dead kittens, are either carried off, or more likely, the mother moves the litter to a safer location. Perhaps since I'm in an urban area, with few predators to attack a cat, except man, and a dog or 2, and those that are here have plenty of food to eat, not having to search for a meal, they do not exhibit this trait.

In the last 6 month's I've come up with one abandoned, with a respiratory condition, and infected eyes, that a mother that I feed outside, dropped it at the steps of our house. The other was 8 weeks old along with 2 other litter mates that was born without a back left paw. The mother had no problem taking care of him, but with winter here, we decided to take the 3 young ones in.

Now that we've discussed cats, want to get back on topic?

You typed all the BS only to end up agreeing with me that you don't know what the hell you are talking about when it comes to animals?!! Dont ever say anything stupid again and we wont have to get off topic. Does that make sense to you? Man is not the only animal that murders.

Good Lord!

Killing vs Murder

We often come across words like kill and murder in newspapers and TV to inform us about the demise of people in accidents and also about those who lose their lives because of an attack in a planned manner by other human beings. Though the end result is the same with the loss of human life in both a killing, as well as a murder, the law makes a difference between kill and murder while sentencing a culprit accused of murder. There is a difference between a man getting killed in an accident and a man getting murdered, and it is this difference that will be highlighted in this article.
Kill
Kill is a term that is used to denote death of human beings though it is also used for death of animals, as well. However, we shall confine ourselves to loss of human lives in this article. The word is broad and encompasses all instances of loss of human lives whether accidental, intentional or planned. A man may be killed in a car accident or he may be killed by another human being. If a man gets killed in a workplace because of ignorance or fault of another person, the accused is still charged with killing and not murder.
Murder
Murder is a term that is reserved for intentional killing of a human being. Any instance where the death of a human being is because of malicious intent and action of another person is referred to as a murder. Murderer either meticulously plans and then carries it out or hits another human being in a fit of rage. It is not necessary for a murder to be gruesome or violent as culprits can make it look like an accidental killing in some cases. The only instance where a murder is still a killing is where a soldier guns down another soldier in a war.
What is the difference between Killing and Murder?
• A murder is a killing of a human being that is planned and intentional, whereas killing is a generic term that is used more in accidental killing.
• Killing indicates loss of life and whether it is an accident or a natural disaster, loss of lives is referred to as killing of people.
• The most important distinction between a killing and murder is that of motivation and intent. A murder has the intent and is planned, whereas killing does not have intent.
• You can kill animals but in case of human beings, you murder them.
• When the loss of life is accidental, the term used is killing.
• Loss of lives because of natural disaster and epidemic is also killing.
• Soldiers kill, they do not murder in war.
• Murder is more serious than killing in the eyes of the law and, therefore, carries a harsher sentence.

Difference Between Killing and Murder: Killing vs Murder

Dont try and switch to the legal definition now that you have been proven wrong about how animals do kill for fun and a variety of other reasons. Save your BS for someone that doesn't know better.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Well what the fuck is it Holder? I know, just a bunch of cells...that becomes what each and everyone of us are, a human being! The cruelty and degradation of humanity is startling!

The U.S. Justice Department is telling the Supreme Court that killing a human embryo by preventing the embryo from implanting in his or her mother’s uterus is not an “abortion” and, thus, drugs that kill embryos this way are not “abortion-inducing” drugs. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case of Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby. The crux of the administration’s argument in this case is that when Christians form a corporation they give up the right to freely exercise their religion—n.b. live according to their Christian beliefs—in the way they run their business.....

DOJ to Supreme Court: Killing Human Embryo in Womb is Not Abortion | CNS News

The woman is not pregnant until the egg implants into her uterus. Therefore, preventing the implantation is not an abortion.

We are not talking being pregnant we are talking when life begins. There is an uncertain period of time between when a separate human life has begun, and a woman becomes pregnant. Preventing the joining of a sperm and an egg, to many of us is OK, as no separate life form has been made, one with a separate DNA.

Simply because a zygote has formed does not equate to a "separate life form has been made". There are plenty of ways that it can fail to develop into a human being that is subsequently entitled to Constitutional rights.

By alleging that a zygote is an "unborn child" you are not only perverting the rights of women but you are also violating the 1st Amendment by insisting that your personal religious belief be endorsed and imposed on others.

 

[Vigilante]

You typed all the BS only to end up agreeing with me that you don't know what the hell you are talking about when it comes to animals?!! Dont ever say anything stupid again and we wont have to get off topic. Does that make sense to you? Man is not the only animal that murders.

Good Lord!

Killing vs Murder

We often come across words like kill and murder in newspapers and TV to inform us about the demise of people in accidents and also about those who lose their lives because of an attack in a planned manner by other human beings. Though the end result is the same with the loss of human life in both a killing, as well as a murder, the law makes a difference between kill and murder while sentencing a culprit accused of murder. There is a difference between a man getting killed in an accident and a man getting murdered, and it is this difference that will be highlighted in this article.
Kill
Kill is a term that is used to denote death of human beings though it is also used for death of animals, as well. However, we shall confine ourselves to loss of human lives in this article. The word is broad and encompasses all instances of loss of human lives whether accidental, intentional or planned. A man may be killed in a car accident or he may be killed by another human being. If a man gets killed in a workplace because of ignorance or fault of another person, the accused is still charged with killing and not murder.
Murder
Murder is a term that is reserved for intentional killing of a human being. Any instance where the death of a human being is because of malicious intent and action of another person is referred to as a murder. Murderer either meticulously plans and then carries it out or hits another human being in a fit of rage. It is not necessary for a murder to be gruesome or violent as culprits can make it look like an accidental killing in some cases. The only instance where a murder is still a killing is where a soldier guns down another soldier in a war.
What is the difference between Killing and Murder?
• A murder is a killing of a human being that is planned and intentional, whereas killing is a generic term that is used more in accidental killing.
• Killing indicates loss of life and whether it is an accident or a natural disaster, loss of lives is referred to as killing of people.
• The most important distinction between a killing and murder is that of motivation and intent. A murder has the intent and is planned, whereas killing does not have intent.
• You can kill animals but in case of human beings, you murder them.
• When the loss of life is accidental, the term used is killing.
• Loss of lives because of natural disaster and epidemic is also killing.
• Soldiers kill, they do not murder in war.
• Murder is more serious than killing in the eyes of the law and, therefore, carries a harsher sentence.

Difference Between Killing and Murder: Killing vs Murder

Dont try and switch to the legal definition now that you have been proven wrong about how animals do kill for fun and a variety of other reasons. Save your BS for someone that doesn't know better.

Humans are flawed simply because they look at the act of killing as a morality issue. Animals have no concept of morals. Morals are a man-made, and what separates us from other species. No other animal has morals. An animal kills simply because that is what it feels needs to be done in order to allow its own gene pool to continue, and to exist!

Animals murder...yeah, right!

 

[Vigilante]

The woman is not pregnant until the egg implants into her uterus. Therefore, preventing the implantation is not an abortion.

We are not talking being pregnant we are talking when life begins. There is an uncertain period of time between when a separate human life has begun, and a woman becomes pregnant. Preventing the joining of a sperm and an egg, to many of us is OK, as no separate life form has been made, one with a separate DNA.

Simply because a zygote has formed does not equate to a "separate life form has been made". There are plenty of ways that it can fail to develop into a human being that is subsequently entitled to Constitutional rights.

By alleging that a zygote is an "unborn child" you are not only perverting the rights of women but you are also violating the 1st Amendment by insisting that your personal religious belief be endorsed and imposed on others.

Why YES, it does! That Zygote, if left alone, and if it continues to develop naturally becomes a man or woman. It does not become a bird, or fish. If it fails to develop NATURALLY, there is NO PERSON RESPONSIBLE for it's death, thus NO MURDER. IF someone prevents that zygote from developing naturally, they INTERFER with it's development, FUNDAMENTALLY KILLING IT.... by deliberately ending a human life, and being that that ZYGOTE has to become human, thereby inevitably and LOGICLY it is HUMAN, and not a bird or fish, etc. That by every definition of murder, is a MAN CAUSED MURDER!

BTW, I have NO RELIGIOUS beliefs, I'm agnostic, and simply state the logic of the situation. A woman supposed rights, IS THE ONLY EXCEPTION for the PROSECUTION of her for the crime of murder. If the father kills the baby inside her, which he is half responsible for, he is charged with murder.

 

[Derideo_Te]

We are not talking being pregnant we are talking when life begins. There is an uncertain period of time between when a separate human life has begun, and a woman becomes pregnant. Preventing the joining of a sperm and an egg, to many of us is OK, as no separate life form has been made, one with a separate DNA.

Simply because a zygote has formed does not equate to a "separate life form has been made". There are plenty of ways that it can fail to develop into a human being that is subsequently entitled to Constitutional rights.

By alleging that a zygote is an "unborn child" you are not only perverting the rights of women but you are also violating the 1st Amendment by insisting that your personal religious belief be endorsed and imposed on others.

Why YES, it does! That Zygote, if left alone, and if it continues to develop naturally becomes a man or woman. It does not become a bird, or fish. If it fails to develop NATURALLY, there is NO PERSON RESPONSIBLE for it's death, thus NO MURDER. IF someone prevents that zygote from developing naturally, they INTERFER with it's development, FUNDAMENTALLY KILLING IT.... by deliberately ending a human life, and being that that ZYGOTE has to become human, thereby inevitably and LOGICLY it is HUMAN, and not a bird or fish, etc. That by every definition of murder, is a MAN CAUSED MURDER!

BTW, I have NO RELIGIOUS beliefs, I'm agnostic, and simply state the logic of the situation. A woman supposed rights, IS THE ONLY EXCEPTION for the PROSECUTION of her for the crime of murder. If the father kills the baby inside her, which he is half responsible for, he is charged with murder.

Logically a zygote is not a human. By inferring that it is entitled to the same rights as a citizen you are depriving women of their rights. There is no logical basis for assigning rights to a zygote. There is no logical basis for depriving women of their rights. There is no logical basis for changing legal statutes defining what happens to a zygote/brastocyst/fetus as "murder".

So no, your position is not based upon any logic whatsoever. It stems from your religious beliefs that you lack the honesty to admit to having.

 

[Vigilante]

Simply because a zygote has formed does not equate to a "separate life form has been made". There are plenty of ways that it can fail to develop into a human being that is subsequently entitled to Constitutional rights.

By alleging that a zygote is an "unborn child" you are not only perverting the rights of women but you are also violating the 1st Amendment by insisting that your personal religious belief be endorsed and imposed on others.

Why YES, it does! That Zygote, if left alone, and if it continues to develop naturally becomes a man or woman. It does not become a bird, or fish. If it fails to develop NATURALLY, there is NO PERSON RESPONSIBLE for it's death, thus NO MURDER. IF someone prevents that zygote from developing naturally, they INTERFER with it's development, FUNDAMENTALLY KILLING IT.... by deliberately ending a human life, and being that that ZYGOTE has to become human, thereby inevitably and LOGICLY it is HUMAN, and not a bird or fish, etc. That by every definition of murder, is a MAN CAUSED MURDER!

BTW, I have NO RELIGIOUS beliefs, I'm agnostic, and simply state the logic of the situation. A woman supposed rights, IS THE ONLY EXCEPTION for the PROSECUTION of her for the crime of murder. If the father kills the baby inside her, which he is half responsible for, he is charged with murder.

Logically a zygote is not a human. By inferring that it is entitled to the same rights as a citizen you are depriving women of their rights. There is no logical basis for assigning rights to a zygote. There is no logical basis for depriving women of their rights. There is no logical basis for changing legal statutes defining what happens to a zygote/brastocyst/fetus as "murder".

So no, your position is not based upon any logic whatsoever. It stems from your religious beliefs that you lack the honesty to admit to having.

If a human zygote is not a human, what is it...a ham sandwich? It's simply a STAGE in a humans evolution! I repeat again for those that don't want to understand, or simply FALL back on that old cliché, that religion is responsible for my thinking. I have no religion, I have no idea if there is a GOD or not. Stop your Bullshit with using religion for my reasoning, and a crutch for your defense. I've stated it here, and you can't refute it!

 

[Derideo_Te]

Why YES, it does! That Zygote, if left alone, and if it continues to develop naturally becomes a man or woman. It does not become a bird, or fish. If it fails to develop NATURALLY, there is NO PERSON RESPONSIBLE for it's death, thus NO MURDER. IF someone prevents that zygote from developing naturally, they INTERFER with it's development, FUNDAMENTALLY KILLING IT.... by deliberately ending a human life, and being that that ZYGOTE has to become human, thereby inevitably and LOGICLY it is HUMAN, and not a bird or fish, etc. That by every definition of murder, is a MAN CAUSED MURDER!

BTW, I have NO RELIGIOUS beliefs, I'm agnostic, and simply state the logic of the situation. A woman supposed rights, IS THE ONLY EXCEPTION for the PROSECUTION of her for the crime of murder. If the father kills the baby inside her, which he is half responsible for, he is charged with murder.

Logically a zygote is not a human. By inferring that it is entitled to the same rights as a citizen you are depriving women of their rights. There is no logical basis for assigning rights to a zygote. There is no logical basis for depriving women of their rights. There is no logical basis for changing legal statutes defining what happens to a zygote/brastocyst/fetus as "murder".

So no, your position is not based upon any logic whatsoever. It stems from your religious beliefs that you lack the honesty to admit to having.

If a human zygote is not a human, what is it...a ham sandwich? It's simply a STAGE in a humans evolution! I repeat again for those that don't want to understand, or simply FALL back on that old cliché, that religion is responsible for my thinking. I have no religion, I have no idea if there is a GOD or not. Stop your Bullshit with using religion for my reasoning, and a crutch for your defense. I've stated it here, and you can't refute it!

A zygote is a potential human. To call it anything else is illogical and irrational which is what those of strong religious beliefs are when it comes to dealing with this topic. You can deny it all you like but just like the Dover, PA case your position is based on religious beliefs.

 

[Vigilante]

Logically a zygote is not a human. By inferring that it is entitled to the same rights as a citizen you are depriving women of their rights. There is no logical basis for assigning rights to a zygote. There is no logical basis for depriving women of their rights. There is no logical basis for changing legal statutes defining what happens to a zygote/brastocyst/fetus as "murder".

So no, your position is not based upon any logic whatsoever. It stems from your religious beliefs that you lack the honesty to admit to having.

If a human zygote is not a human, what is it...a ham sandwich? It's simply a STAGE in a humans evolution! I repeat again for those that don't want to understand, or simply FALL back on that old cliché, that religion is responsible for my thinking. I have no religion, I have no idea if there is a GOD or not. Stop your Bullshit with using religion for my reasoning, and a crutch for your defense. I've stated it here, and you can't refute it!

A zygote is a potential human. To call it anything else is illogical and irrational which is what those of strong religious beliefs are when it comes to dealing with this topic. You can deny it all you like but just like the Dover, PA case your position is based on religious beliefs.

No, you just don't want to hear FACT, To you a 4 month old in the womb, developed, heart beat, brain waves, but NOT RELEASED from the mothers womb is a potential human, am I wrong here?

 

[Derideo_Te]

If a human zygote is not a human, what is it...a ham sandwich? It's simply a STAGE in a humans evolution! I repeat again for those that don't want to understand, or simply FALL back on that old cliché, that religion is responsible for my thinking. I have no religion, I have no idea if there is a GOD or not. Stop your Bullshit with using religion for my reasoning, and a crutch for your defense. I've stated it here, and you can't refute it!

A zygote is a potential human. To call it anything else is illogical and irrational which is what those of strong religious beliefs are when it comes to dealing with this topic. You can deny it all you like but just like the Dover, PA case your position is based on religious beliefs.

No, you just don't want to hear FACT, To you a 4 month old in the womb, developed, heart beat, brain waves, but NOT RELEASED from the mothers womb is a potential human, am I wrong here?

Logically a 4 month fetus is a potential human. To call it anything else is irrational and illogical and based upon your religious beliefs.

 

[Vigilante]

A zygote is a potential human. To call it anything else is illogical and irrational which is what those of strong religious beliefs are when it comes to dealing with this topic. You can deny it all you like but just like the Dover, PA case your position is based on religious beliefs.

No, you just don't want to hear FACT, To you a 4 month old in the womb, developed, heart beat, brain waves, but NOT RELEASED from the mothers womb is a potential human, am I wrong here?

Logically a 4 month fetus is a potential human. To call it anything else is irrational and illogical and based upon your religious beliefs.

Wrong again. We have seen that 4 month olds can be taken from their mothers womb and survive! You're simply using SEMANTICS for a defense that is indefensible! And calling religious, is another SEMANTIC defense, that holds no water!...When you have a losing hand, you should fold, as logic and science is on my side.

BUT, let me add that this whole abortion agenda, was a coverup for the left to pander to a minority of women, simply for their vote. If not for that, the abortion question would still be only sponsored by a few radical leftist feminists!

 

[Derideo_Te]

No, you just don't want to hear FACT, To you a 4 month old in the womb, developed, heart beat, brain waves, but NOT RELEASED from the mothers womb is a potential human, am I wrong here?

Logically a 4 month fetus is a potential human. To call it anything else is irrational and illogical and based upon your religious beliefs.

Wrong again. We have seen that 4 month olds can be taken from their mothers womb and survive! You're simply using SEMANTICS for a defense that is indefensible! And calling religious, is another SEMANTIC defense, that holds no water!...When you have a losing hand, you should fold, as logic and science is on my side.

BUT, let me add that this whole abortion agenda, was a coverup for the left to pander to a minority of women, simply for their vote. If not for that, the abortion question would still be only sponsored by a few radical leftist feminists!

Survival rates at 4 months are very low with a high incidence of developmental disabilities. These facts are scientifically documented. Logic would tell you that the fetus is still only a potential human being outside the uterus since the odds of survival are less than optimal.

Your use of emotive terminology such as "radical leftist feminists" exposes your religious agenda. You simply cannot hide your true motivations in this instance because they are so patently obvious.

 

[Vigilante]

Logically a 4 month fetus is a potential human. To call it anything else is irrational and illogical and based upon your religious beliefs.

Wrong again. We have seen that 4 month olds can be taken from their mothers womb and survive! You're simply using SEMANTICS for a defense that is indefensible! And calling religious, is another SEMANTIC defense, that holds no water!...When you have a losing hand, you should fold, as logic and science is on my side.

BUT, let me add that this whole abortion agenda, was a coverup for the left to pander to a minority of women, simply for their vote. If not for that, the abortion question would still be only sponsored by a few radical leftist feminists!

Survival rates at 4 months are very low with a high incidence of developmental disabilities. These facts are scientifically documented. Logic would tell you that the fetus is still only a potential human being outside the uterus since the odds of survival are less than optimal.

Your use of emotive terminology such as "radical leftist feminists" exposes your religious agenda. You simply cannot hide your true motivations in this instance because they are so patently obvious.

Odds are? Who's talking ODDS? Do they survive, the answer is a resounding YES! Even the LIAR IN CHIEF, has stated....

So you want to argue with obuma?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Wrong again. We have seen that 4 month olds can be taken from their mothers womb and survive! You're simply using SEMANTICS for a defense that is indefensible! And calling religious, is another SEMANTIC defense, that holds no water!...When you have a losing hand, you should fold, as logic and science is on my side.

BUT, let me add that this whole abortion agenda, was a coverup for the left to pander to a minority of women, simply for their vote. If not for that, the abortion question would still be only sponsored by a few radical leftist feminists!

Survival rates at 4 months are very low with a high incidence of developmental disabilities. These facts are scientifically documented. Logic would tell you that the fetus is still only a potential human being outside the uterus since the odds of survival are less than optimal.

Your use of emotive terminology such as "radical leftist feminists" exposes your religious agenda. You simply cannot hide your true motivations in this instance because they are so patently obvious.

Odds are? Who's talking ODDS? Do they survive, the answer is a resounding YES! Even the LIAR IN CHIEF, has stated....

So you want to argue with obuma?

So having failed to substantiate your illogical position you have fallen back on anecdotes and emotional appeals instead. Your concession is duly noted.

 

[Vigilante]

Survival rates at 4 months are very low with a high incidence of developmental disabilities. These facts are scientifically documented. Logic would tell you that the fetus is still only a potential human being outside the uterus since the odds of survival are less than optimal.

Your use of emotive terminology such as "radical leftist feminists" exposes your religious agenda. You simply cannot hide your true motivations in this instance because they are so patently obvious.

Odds are? Who's talking ODDS? Do they survive, the answer is a resounding YES! Even the LIAR IN CHIEF, has stated....

So you want to argue with obuma?

So having failed to substantiate your illogical position you have fallen back on anecdotes and emotional appeals instead. Your concession is duly noted.

And if I may state, your illogical thinking, your semantics ,and ad hominem attack on my supposed religiosity (which I state again, I'm agnostic and have NO RELIGIOUS affiliation), in order to cover up your scientific knowledge, and lack of acknowledging the fact that a human zygote, is, in fact, a STAGE of human development, makes your idiotic statement that I conceded to you, more than moronic! But, you're great entertainment....honey!