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.
That progressives believe abortion - a procedure which ends the life of another human being - shouldn't be emotionally traumatizing and difficult for the women speaks volumes.
That's why they use terms like clump of cells and zygote...it helps dehumanize it
That and "person". That's the great trap most people who think abortion is wrong on moral grounds fall into. They start arguing using the same terminology, and once they do, they've lost.
More accurately, we don't summarize humanity solely be DNA. If such were the case, then any skin cell would be a human being.
Oh please, the more you post the more ridiculous you get.
An unborn
That progressives believe abortion - a procedure which ends the life of another human being - shouldn't be emotionally traumatizing and difficult for the women speaks volumes.
That's why they use terms like clump of cells and zygote...it helps dehumanize it
And it's why their heads explode when it's suggested that an ultra sound be part of the information given to a women prior to her getting an abortion, so she can make a fully informed decision. I thought progressive were in favor of educating the masses?
Yes, but that's why you fail in this.
You're advocating a medical procedure that has no use...medically. I understand why you want it, but think about it. Will this simply be another way to further demean what life is by how it's viewed? How the procedure is done?
No, stick to the facts of what the decision is, and don't be swayed by shiny things that sound good but in the end do little.
Disagree. Providing an ultra sound to women who are considering an abortion often results in the abortion not occurring ... and that's a good thing. An ultra sound will show them that what they are carrying is, in fact, a human being not some blob of cells.
That progressives believe abortion - a procedure which ends the life of another human being - shouldn't be emotionally traumatizing and difficult for the women speaks volumes.
That's why they use terms like clump of cells and zygote...it helps dehumanize it
That and "person". That's the great trap most people who think abortion is wrong on moral grounds fall into. They start arguing using the same terminology, and once they do, they've lost.
More accurately, we don't summarize humanity solely be DNA. If such were the case, then any skin cell would be a human being. Or at the very least, human life.
Ah...one has fallen into the trap. Excellent.
Does a skin cell have the capabilities ascribed to species? You know, the things that define life. Do you know what are the determining factors for life?
That progressives believe abortion - a procedure which ends the life of another human being - shouldn't be emotionally traumatizing and difficult for the women speaks volumes.
That's why they use terms like clump of cells and zygote...it helps dehumanize it
That and "person". That's the great trap most people who think abortion is wrong on moral grounds fall into. They start arguing using the same terminology, and once they do, they've lost.
More accurately, we don't summarize humanity solely be DNA. If such were the case, then any skin cell would be a human being.
Oh please, the more you post the more ridiculous you get.
An unborn
That progressives believe abortion - a procedure which ends the life of another human being - shouldn't be emotionally traumatizing and difficult for the women speaks volumes.
That's why they use terms like clump of cells and zygote...it helps dehumanize it
And it's why their heads explode when it's suggested that an ultra sound be part of the information given to a women prior to her getting an abortion, so she can make a fully informed decision. I thought progressive were in favor of educating the masses?
Yes, but that's why you fail in this.
You're advocating a medical procedure that has no use...medically. I understand why you want it, but think about it. Will this simply be another way to further demean what life is by how it's viewed? How the procedure is done?
No, stick to the facts of what the decision is, and don't be swayed by shiny things that sound good but in the end do little.
Disagree. Providing an ultra sound to women who are considering an abortion often results in the abortion not occurring ... and that's a good thing. An ultra sound will show them that what they are carrying is, in fact, a human being not some blob of cells.
That progressives believe abortion - a procedure which ends the life of another human being - shouldn't be emotionally traumatizing and difficult for the women speaks volumes.
That's why they use terms like clump of cells and zygote...it helps dehumanize it
And it's why their heads explode when it's suggested that an ultra sound be part of the information given to a women prior to her getting an abortion, so she can make a fully informed decision. I thought progressive were in favor of educating the masses?
Yes, but that's why you fail in this.
You're advocating a medical procedure that has no use...medically. I understand why you want it, but think about it. Will this simply be another way to further demean what life is by how it's viewed? How the procedure is done?
No, stick to the facts of what the decision is, and don't be swayed by shiny things that sound good but in the end do little.
That progressives believe abortion - a procedure which ends the life of another human being - shouldn't be emotionally traumatizing and difficult for the women speaks volumes.
That's why they use terms like clump of cells and zygote...it helps dehumanize it
That and "person". That's the great trap most people who think abortion is wrong on moral grounds fall into. They start arguing using the same terminology, and once they do, they've lost.
More accurately, we don't summarize humanity solely be DNA. If such were the case, then any skin cell would be a human being.
Oh please, the more you post the more ridiculous you get.
An unborn
That progressives believe abortion - a procedure which ends the life of another human being - shouldn't be emotionally traumatizing and difficult for the women speaks volumes.
That's why they use terms like clump of cells and zygote...it helps dehumanize it
And it's why their heads explode when it's suggested that an ultra sound be part of the information given to a women prior to her getting an abortion, so she can make a fully informed decision. I thought progressive were in favor of educating the masses?
Yes, but that's why you fail in this.
You're advocating a medical procedure that has no use...medically. I understand why you want it, but think about it. Will this simply be another way to further demean what life is by how it's viewed? How the procedure is done?
No, stick to the facts of what the decision is, and don't be swayed by shiny things that sound good but in the end do little.
Disagree. Providing an ultra sound to women who are considering an abortion often results in the abortion not occurring ... and that's a good thing. An ultra sound will show them that what they are carrying is, in fact, a human being not some blob of cells.
Which, of course, is the goal of the ultrasound. Not medical safety nor necessity.
That's why they use terms like clump of cells and zygote...it helps dehumanize it
That and "person". That's the great trap most people who think abortion is wrong on moral grounds fall into. They start arguing using the same terminology, and once they do, they've lost.
More accurately, we don't summarize humanity solely be DNA. If such were the case, then any skin cell would be a human being.
Oh please, the more you post the more ridiculous you get.
An unborn
That's why they use terms like clump of cells and zygote...it helps dehumanize it
And it's why their heads explode when it's suggested that an ultra sound be part of the information given to a women prior to her getting an abortion, so she can make a fully informed decision. I thought progressive were in favor of educating the masses?
Yes, but that's why you fail in this.
You're advocating a medical procedure that has no use...medically. I understand why you want it, but think about it. Will this simply be another way to further demean what life is by how it's viewed? How the procedure is done?
No, stick to the facts of what the decision is, and don't be swayed by shiny things that sound good but in the end do little.
Disagree. Providing an ultra sound to women who are considering an abortion often results in the abortion not occurring ... and that's a good thing. An ultra sound will show them that what they are carrying is, in fact, a human being not some blob of cells.
Which, of course, is the goal of the ultrasound. Not medical safety nor necessity.
It's necessary to provide a woman all the information she needs to make a well informed decision.
That progressives believe abortion - a procedure which ends the life of another human being - shouldn't be emotionally traumatizing and difficult for the women speaks volumes.
That's why they use terms like clump of cells and zygote...it helps dehumanize it
That and "person". That's the great trap most people who think abortion is wrong on moral grounds fall into. They start arguing using the same terminology, and once they do, they've lost.
More accurately, we don't summarize humanity solely be DNA. If such were the case, then any skin cell would be a human being.
Oh please, the more you post the more ridiculous you get.
An unborn
That progressives believe abortion - a procedure which ends the life of another human being - shouldn't be emotionally traumatizing and difficult for the women speaks volumes.
That's why they use terms like clump of cells and zygote...it helps dehumanize it
And it's why their heads explode when it's suggested that an ultra sound be part of the information given to a women prior to her getting an abortion, so she can make a fully informed decision. I thought progressive were in favor of educating the masses?
Yes, but that's why you fail in this.
You're advocating a medical procedure that has no use...medically. I understand why you want it, but think about it. Will this simply be another way to further demean what life is by how it's viewed? How the procedure is done?
No, stick to the facts of what the decision is, and don't be swayed by shiny things that sound good but in the end do little.
Disagree. Providing an ultra sound to women who are considering an abortion often results in the abortion not occurring ... and that's a good thing. An ultra sound will show them that what they are carrying is, in fact, a human being not some blob of cells.
I understand your point. Mine is that depending on how the procedure would be performed, you can "demonstrate" it's not really human after all, and will simply be another case of dehumanizing the process.
I think if you'll sit down and think hard about this for a few moments, you'll see my point.
That and "person". That's the great trap most people who think abortion is wrong on moral grounds fall into. They start arguing using the same terminology, and once they do, they've lost.
More accurately, we don't summarize humanity solely be DNA. If such were the case, then any skin cell would be a human being.
Oh please, the more you post the more ridiculous you get.
An unborn
And it's why their heads explode when it's suggested that an ultra sound be part of the information given to a women prior to her getting an abortion, so she can make a fully informed decision. I thought progressive were in favor of educating the masses?
Yes, but that's why you fail in this.
You're advocating a medical procedure that has no use...medically. I understand why you want it, but think about it. Will this simply be another way to further demean what life is by how it's viewed? How the procedure is done?
No, stick to the facts of what the decision is, and don't be swayed by shiny things that sound good but in the end do little.
Disagree. Providing an ultra sound to women who are considering an abortion often results in the abortion not occurring ... and that's a good thing. An ultra sound will show them that what they are carrying is, in fact, a human being not some blob of cells.
Which, of course, is the goal of the ultrasound. Not medical safety nor necessity.
It's necessary to provide a woman all the information she needs to make a well informed decision.
So you admit that this has nothing to do with medical necessity or medical safety.
Right?
It's necessary to provide a woman all the information she needs to make a well informed decision
It's necessary to provide a woman all the information she needs to make a well informed decision
It's necessary to provide a woman all the information she needs to make a well informed decision
It's necessary to provide a woman all the information she needs to make a well informed decision
It's necessary to provide a woman all the information she needs to make a well informed decision
It's necessary to provide a woman all the information she needs to make a well informed decision
But none of that is a medical necessity nor has a thing to medical safety, correct?
You're avoiding my question like it was on fire for a reason. If your argument had merit, you wouldn't need to squirm. You could openly, honestly answer my question.
You can't. You have to ask yourself why.
That progressives believe abortion - a procedure which ends the life of another human being - shouldn't be emotionally traumatizing and difficult for the women speaks volumes.
That's why they use terms like clump of cells and zygote...it helps dehumanize it
That and "person". That's the great trap most people who think abortion is wrong on moral grounds fall into. They start arguing using the same terminology, and once they do, they've lost.
More accurately, we don't summarize humanity solely be DNA. If such were the case, then any skin cell would be a human being. Or at the very least, human life.
Ah...one has fallen into the trap. Excellent.
Does a skin cell have the capabilities ascribed to species? You know, the things that define life. Do you know what are the determining factors for life?
Feel free to educate us on the matter.
And um, I'm still waiting for you to explain why if two cells are the same thing as as say, a teen ager......then why when multiple embryos are implanted in a woman's womb on the hope that some will grow to maturity.......that's not child endangerment?
Mass murder unless everyone of them grows?
And wouldn't freezing embryo be kidnapping? Or at the very least, reckless endangerment?
Wouldn't any especially heavy flow from a woman be a crime scene....as a human being just died per your estimation.Or at least, plausibly could have.
If not, why not?
You seem very, very reluctant to discuss these issue. Ignoring any mention of them or refusing to answer these questions everytime they're posed.
Why?
It's necessary to provide a woman all the information she needs to make a well informed decision
It's necessary to provide a woman all the information she needs to make a well informed decision
It's necessary to provide a woman all the information she needs to make a well informed decision
But none of that is a medical necessity nor has a thing to medical safety, correct?
You're avoiding my question like it was on fire for a reason. If your argument had merit, you wouldn't need to squirm. You could openly, honestly answer my question.
You can't. You have to ask yourself why.
I did answer your question. It's medically necessary to fully inform the woman.
That's why they use terms like clump of cells and zygote...it helps dehumanize it
That and "person". That's the great trap most people who think abortion is wrong on moral grounds fall into. They start arguing using the same terminology, and once they do, they've lost.
More accurately, we don't summarize humanity solely be DNA. If such were the case, then any skin cell would be a human being.
Oh please, the more you post the more ridiculous you get.
An unborn
That's why they use terms like clump of cells and zygote...it helps dehumanize it
And it's why their heads explode when it's suggested that an ultra sound be part of the information given to a women prior to her getting an abortion, so she can make a fully informed decision. I thought progressive were in favor of educating the masses?
Yes, but that's why you fail in this.
You're advocating a medical procedure that has no use...medically. I understand why you want it, but think about it. Will this simply be another way to further demean what life is by how it's viewed? How the procedure is done?
No, stick to the facts of what the decision is, and don't be swayed by shiny things that sound good but in the end do little.
Disagree. Providing an ultra sound to women who are considering an abortion often results in the abortion not occurring ... and that's a good thing. An ultra sound will show them that what they are carrying is, in fact, a human being not some blob of cells.
I understand your point. Mine is that depending on how the procedure would be performed, you can "demonstrate" it's not really human after all, and will simply be another case of dehumanizing the process.
I think if you'll sit down and think hard about this for a few moments, you'll see my point.
I do see your point ... but a heartbeat is a pretty convincing argument that the unborn is alive.
It's necessary to provide a woman all the information she needs to make a well informed decision
It's necessary to provide a woman all the information she needs to make a well informed decision
It's necessary to provide a woman all the information she needs to make a well informed decision
But none of that is a medical necessity nor has a thing to medical safety, correct?
You're avoiding my question like it was on fire for a reason. If your argument had merit, you wouldn't need to squirm. You could openly, honestly answer my question.
You can't. You have to ask yourself why.
I did answer your question. It's medically necessary to fully inform the woman.
How so? If she doesn't look at the ultrasound, how does that effect her medical safety or the safety of the procedure in the slightest?
It doesn't. If she looks, if she doesn't look, it has no relevance to the procedure's safety. Or any issue of medical safety.
Its completely unnecessarily medically.
That and "person". That's the great trap most people who think abortion is wrong on moral grounds fall into. They start arguing using the same terminology, and once they do, they've lost.
More accurately, we don't summarize humanity solely be DNA. If such were the case, then any skin cell would be a human being.
Oh please, the more you post the more ridiculous you get.
An unborn
And it's why their heads explode when it's suggested that an ultra sound be part of the information given to a women prior to her getting an abortion, so she can make a fully informed decision. I thought progressive were in favor of educating the masses?
Yes, but that's why you fail in this.
You're advocating a medical procedure that has no use...medically. I understand why you want it, but think about it. Will this simply be another way to further demean what life is by how it's viewed? How the procedure is done?
No, stick to the facts of what the decision is, and don't be swayed by shiny things that sound good but in the end do little.
Disagree. Providing an ultra sound to women who are considering an abortion often results in the abortion not occurring ... and that's a good thing. An ultra sound will show them that what they are carrying is, in fact, a human being not some blob of cells.
I understand your point. Mine is that depending on how the procedure would be performed, you can "demonstrate" it's not really human after all, and will simply be another case of dehumanizing the process.
I think if you'll sit down and think hard about this for a few moments, you'll see my point.
I do see your point ... but a heartbeat is a pretty convincing argument that the unborn is alive.
Actually it's not. The unborn is alive well before a heart develops.
That's why they use terms like clump of cells and zygote...it helps dehumanize it
That and "person". That's the great trap most people who think abortion is wrong on moral grounds fall into. They start arguing using the same terminology, and once they do, they've lost.
More accurately, we don't summarize humanity solely be DNA. If such were the case, then any skin cell would be a human being. Or at the very least, human life.
Ah...one has fallen into the trap. Excellent.
Does a skin cell have the capabilities ascribed to species? You know, the things that define life. Do you know what are the determining factors for life?
Feel free to educate us on the matter.
And um, I'm still waiting for you to explain why if two cells are the same thing as as say, a teen ager......then why when multiple embryos are implanted in a woman's womb on the hope that some will grow to maturity.......that's not child endangerment?
Mass murder unless everyone of them grows?
And wouldn't freezing embryo be kidnapping? Or at the very least, reckless endangerment?
Wouldn't any especially heavy flow from a woman be a crime scene....as a human being just died per your estimation.Or at least, plausibly could have.
If not, why not?
You seem very, very reluctant to discuss these issue. Ignoring any mention of them or refusing to answer these questions everytime they're posed.
Why?
Indeed. You could use the education.
What is life? There are a number of definitions, I kinda like this one, but we can argue any of them if you'd like.
the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death
And how does
Now, could a skin cell meet that qualification? No.
So per you there is no difference. Okay.,then why if two cells are the same thing as as say, a teen ager......then why when multiple embryos are implanted in a woman's womb on the hope that some will grow to maturity.......that's not child endangerment?Is a newly formed zygote equally human to said teenager? Yes, they are both exactly the same....1 member of the species Homo Sapiens Sapiens. A is A.
No, heavy flow is no indicator of crime, which btw was pretty silly of you. If you're going to act like you're not totally outclassed in this discussion, at least try.
As to your freezing scenario, too vague.
As to child endangerment laws, based off how the laws are currently written, they would not be.
It's necessary to provide a woman all the information she needs to make a well informed decision
It's necessary to provide a woman all the information she needs to make a well informed decision
It's necessary to provide a woman all the information she needs to make a well informed decision
But none of that is a medical necessity nor has a thing to medical safety, correct?
You're avoiding my question like it was on fire for a reason. If your argument had merit, you wouldn't need to squirm. You could openly, honestly answer my question.
You can't. You have to ask yourself why.
I did answer your question. It's medically necessary to fully inform the woman.
How so? If she doesn't look at the ultrasound, how does that effect her medical safety or the safety of the procedure in the slightest?
It doesn't. If she looks, if she doesn't look, it has no relevance to the procedure's safety. Or any issue of medical safety.
Its completely unnecessarily medically.
I notice you continue to dodge my question and believe that woman shouldn't be fully informed of what the abortion they are going to get actually entails.
I haven't said a thing about being 'fully informed'. I'm asking you questions about an ultrasound being *medically necessary' or having any relation to medical safety.
And you can demonstrate no way in which forcing a woman to look at an ultrasound would be either. You simply assert that it is....because.
That and "person". That's the great trap most people who think abortion is wrong on moral grounds fall into. They start arguing using the same terminology, and once they do, they've lost.
More accurately, we don't summarize humanity solely be DNA. If such were the case, then any skin cell would be a human being. Or at the very least, human life.
Ah...one has fallen into the trap. Excellent.
Does a skin cell have the capabilities ascribed to species? You know, the things that define life. Do you know what are the determining factors for life?
Feel free to educate us on the matter.
And um, I'm still waiting for you to explain why if two cells are the same thing as as say, a teen ager......then why when multiple embryos are implanted in a woman's womb on the hope that some will grow to maturity.......that's not child endangerment?
Mass murder unless everyone of them grows?
And wouldn't freezing embryo be kidnapping? Or at the very least, reckless endangerment?
Wouldn't any especially heavy flow from a woman be a crime scene....as a human being just died per your estimation.Or at least, plausibly could have.
If not, why not?
You seem very, very reluctant to discuss these issue. Ignoring any mention of them or refusing to answer these questions everytime they're posed.
Why?
Indeed. You could use the education.
What is life? There are a number of definitions, I kinda like this one, but we can argue any of them if you'd like.
the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death
And how does
Now, could a skin cell meet that qualification? No.
Which qualification does it not meet? Specifically? Skin cells can grow. Reproduce. Have functional activity. And change preceding death. It also metabolizes, responds to external stimuli......all hallmarks of life.
And a human skin cell is undeniably human in its DNA. So its 'scientifically' human life.
It meets everyone of your criteria. Thus, by your own standards, a skin cell is human life.
So per you there is no difference. Okay.,then why if two cells are the same thing as as say, a teen ager......then why when multiple embryos are implanted in a woman's womb on the hope that some will grow to maturity.......that's not child endangerment?Is a newly formed zygote equally human to said teenager? Yes, they are both exactly the same....1 member of the species Homo Sapiens Sapiens. A is A.
Mass murder unless everyone of them grows?
This would be the third or fourth time I've asked you? And each time you've awkwardly avoided the question.
What about my question induces such....squimishness?
No, heavy flow is no indicator of crime, which btw was pretty silly of you. If you're going to act like you're not totally outclassed in this discussion, at least try.
A heavy flow, especially a late one is an indication of a spontaneous abortion. A fertilized egg, a human being, dying.
Why wouldn't there be an investigation? If I went into a toddler's room and there was a pile of blood where the child was supposed to be.....the police would certainly be called. And would certainly investigate.
But a heavy flow indicating a 'human being' had just died, no.
Why? How are they different? A = A according to you.
As to your freezing scenario, too vague.
Not at all. Embryos are frozen all the time. Its one of the most common methods of storage.
But if I did the same to a 1st grader, put them in a freezer and stored them for later.....
.....I might run into problems. Per you, its the same thing. But why isn't it?
As to child endangerment laws, based off how the laws are currently written, they would not be.
A situation where i throw 6 kids into a room and hope one survives? That's child endangerment by any standard of the law.
But unsuprrisngly, emplanting embroys, which you insist are all human beings equivilant to any teen ager.......isn 't. Despite the fact that almost always, at least some of the embryos are going to die.
And the doctor who put them there knows it. The mother knows it. Wouldn't that be mass murder?
If not, why not. Remember, you can recognize NO distinction between them and a fully grown person. A rational person could.....but you're not allowed to.
'Educate' us.
