Why do you hate

[Hollie]

At any point along the continuum from conception to death he or she is fully human and has the appropriate attributes he or she should have at that point in the life cycle. That isn’t conjecture. That is scientific fact based on evidence.

We only get one shot as we are each genetically distinct. Never again will that person be created.

A building begins with a blueprint, then a hole in the ground, etc. At any point along the continuum from planning to completion, that building and has the appropriate attributes it should have at that point in the life cycle. Would you consider that blueprint to be the same as a finished house? Could you live in that hole in the ground? That blueprint (DNA) may have all the information needed to assemble a house but it is not a house.

As for uniqueness, you seem more fixated than even God. Miscarriages and infant mortality were very common throughout much of human history.

thats just stupid,,,a building requires outside intervention where as a child needs only to be left alone to live,,,

I wonder what the next excuse/analogy will be,,,

What do you think prenatal care is if not “outside intervention”

 

[ding]

To determine if it is murder you would have to look at the motivation, among other things.

What motivations would make killing not murder? Does it matter if it is abortion or euthanasia?

Mercy versus selfishness.

So if a fetus is deformed and would endure a life of pain, abortion is a mercy and is OK?

Don’t you think it is silly to make up exceptions to define the rule?

That is the difference between ideology and reality.

No. That is you trying to make a fringe argument.

 

[ding]

At any point along the continuum from conception to death he or she is fully human and has the appropriate attributes he or she should have at that point in the life cycle. That isn’t conjecture. That is scientific fact based on evidence.

We only get one shot as we are each genetically distinct. Never again will that person be created.

A building begins with a blueprint, then a hole in the ground, etc. At any point along the continuum from planning to completion, that building and has the appropriate attributes it should have at that point in the life cycle. Would you consider that blueprint to be the same as a finished house? Could you live in that hole in the ground? That blueprint (DNA) may have all the information needed to assemble a house but it is not a house.

As for uniqueness, you seem more fixated than even God. Miscarriages and infant mortality were very common throughout much of human history.

That house can be replicated over and over where as that new, genetically distinct human being - that has never existed before - will never exist again. It’s his only one shot.

I’m not making a religious argument. I am making a right and wrong argument. God has nothing to do with this.

Yes, miscarriages happen. They happen all the time. So what? It doesn’t change the fact that it is wrong to knowingly end a human life. Especially when the vast majority of abortions are done for convenience; for selfish reasons.

 

[ding]

At any point along the continuum from conception to death he or she is fully human and has the appropriate attributes he or she should have at that point in the life cycle. That isn’t conjecture. That is scientific fact based on evidence.

We only get one shot as we are each genetically distinct. Never again will that person be created.

A building begins with a blueprint, then a hole in the ground, etc. At any point along the continuum from planning to completion, that building and has the appropriate attributes it should have at that point in the life cycle. Would you consider that blueprint to be the same as a finished house? Could you live in that hole in the ground? That blueprint (DNA) may have all the information needed to assemble a house but it is not a house.

As for uniqueness, you seem more fixated than even God. Miscarriages and infant mortality were very common throughout much of human history.

You do realize that a house is property, right?

Do you believe it is wise to treat human lives as property?

 

[ABikerSailor]

At any point along the continuum from conception to death he or she is fully human and has the appropriate attributes he or she should have at that point in the life cycle. That isn’t conjecture. That is scientific fact based on evidence.

We only get one shot as we are each genetically distinct. Never again will that person be created.

A building begins with a blueprint, then a hole in the ground, etc. At any point along the continuum from planning to completion, that building and has the appropriate attributes it should have at that point in the life cycle. Would you consider that blueprint to be the same as a finished house? Could you live in that hole in the ground? That blueprint (DNA) may have all the information needed to assemble a house but it is not a house.

As for uniqueness, you seem more fixated than even God. Miscarriages and infant mortality were very common throughout much of human history.

thats just stupid,,,a building requires outside intervention where as a child needs only to be left alone to live,,,

I wonder what the next excuse/analogy will be,,,

Hate to tell you, but until the child is old enough to be viable outside the womb, it still requires the mother's intervention to be "built". And, whatever the mother does during the pregnancy can have a direct impact on the child (smoking, drinking, drugs, etc.).

 

[ding]

At any point along the continuum from conception to death he or she is fully human and has the appropriate attributes he or she should have at that point in the life cycle. That isn’t conjecture. That is scientific fact based on evidence.

We only get one shot as we are each genetically distinct. Never again will that person be created.

A building begins with a blueprint, then a hole in the ground, etc. At any point along the continuum from planning to completion, that building and has the appropriate attributes it should have at that point in the life cycle. Would you consider that blueprint to be the same as a finished house? Could you live in that hole in the ground? That blueprint (DNA) may have all the information needed to assemble a house but it is not a house.

As for uniqueness, you seem more fixated than even God. Miscarriages and infant mortality were very common throughout much of human history.

thats just stupid,,,a building requires outside intervention where as a child needs only to be left alone to live,,,

I wonder what the next excuse/analogy will be,,,

Hate to tell you, but until the child is old enough to be viable outside the womb, it still requires the mother's intervention to be "built". And, whatever the mother does during the pregnancy can have a direct impact on the child (smoking, drinking, drugs, etc.).

Yep. He is totally dependent on his mother.

 

[dblack]

At any point along the continuum from conception to death he or she is fully human and has the appropriate attributes he or she should have at that point in the life cycle. That isn’t conjecture. That is scientific fact based on evidence.

We only get one shot as we are each genetically distinct. Never again will that person be created.

A building begins with a blueprint, then a hole in the ground, etc. At any point along the continuum from planning to completion, that building and has the appropriate attributes it should have at that point in the life cycle. Would you consider that blueprint to be the same as a finished house? Could you live in that hole in the ground? That blueprint (DNA) may have all the information needed to assemble a house but it is not a house.

As for uniqueness, you seem more fixated than even God. Miscarriages and infant mortality were very common throughout much of human history.

You do realize that a house is property, right?

Do you believe it is wise to treat human lives as property?

Of course not. Neither is it wise to treat property as a human life. The equivocation from you folks is tiresome.

 

[ding]

At any point along the continuum from conception to death he or she is fully human and has the appropriate attributes he or she should have at that point in the life cycle. That isn’t conjecture. That is scientific fact based on evidence.

We only get one shot as we are each genetically distinct. Never again will that person be created.

A building begins with a blueprint, then a hole in the ground, etc. At any point along the continuum from planning to completion, that building and has the appropriate attributes it should have at that point in the life cycle. Would you consider that blueprint to be the same as a finished house? Could you live in that hole in the ground? That blueprint (DNA) may have all the information needed to assemble a house but it is not a house.

As for uniqueness, you seem more fixated than even God. Miscarriages and infant mortality were very common throughout much of human history.

You do realize that a house is property, right?

Do you believe it is wise to treat human lives as property?

Of course not. Neither is it wise to treat property as a human life. The equivocation from you folks is tiresome.

There is no equivocation. It isn’t a matter of conjecture. It has been empirically proven that at conception a new genetically distinct human being has come into existence.

One that has never existed before and will never exist again.

 

[dblack]

At any point along the continuum from conception to death he or she is fully human and has the appropriate attributes he or she should have at that point in the life cycle. That isn’t conjecture. That is scientific fact based on evidence.

We only get one shot as we are each genetically distinct. Never again will that person be created.

A building begins with a blueprint, then a hole in the ground, etc. At any point along the continuum from planning to completion, that building and has the appropriate attributes it should have at that point in the life cycle. Would you consider that blueprint to be the same as a finished house? Could you live in that hole in the ground? That blueprint (DNA) may have all the information needed to assemble a house but it is not a house.

As for uniqueness, you seem more fixated than even God. Miscarriages and infant mortality were very common throughout much of human history.

You do realize that a house is property, right?

Do you believe it is wise to treat human lives as property?

Of course not. Neither is it wise to treat property as a human life. The equivocation from you folks is tiresome.

There is no equivocation. It isn’t a matter of conjecture. It has been empirically proven that at conception a new genetically distinct human being has come into existence.

Doesn't make bit of difference. Whatever you think it is, it's inside another person's body and none of your business.

 

[progressive hunter]

At any point along the continuum from conception to death he or she is fully human and has the appropriate attributes he or she should have at that point in the life cycle. That isn’t conjecture. That is scientific fact based on evidence.

We only get one shot as we are each genetically distinct. Never again will that person be created.

A building begins with a blueprint, then a hole in the ground, etc. At any point along the continuum from planning to completion, that building and has the appropriate attributes it should have at that point in the life cycle. Would you consider that blueprint to be the same as a finished house? Could you live in that hole in the ground? That blueprint (DNA) may have all the information needed to assemble a house but it is not a house.

As for uniqueness, you seem more fixated than even God. Miscarriages and infant mortality were very common throughout much of human history.

thats just stupid,,,a building requires outside intervention where as a child needs only to be left alone to live,,,

I wonder what the next excuse/analogy will be,,,

Hate to tell you, but until the child is old enough to be viable outside the womb, it still requires the mother's intervention to be "built". And, whatever the mother does during the pregnancy can have a direct impact on the child (smoking, drinking, drugs, etc.).

thats not true,,,all she has to do is stay alive and semi healthy and the baby will ''GROW'', and as you said she can do things to stop it or cause it harm,,,,

 

[Hollie]

At any point along the continuum from conception to death he or she is fully human and has the appropriate attributes he or she should have at that point in the life cycle. That isn’t conjecture. That is scientific fact based on evidence.

We only get one shot as we are each genetically distinct. Never again will that person be created.

A building begins with a blueprint, then a hole in the ground, etc. At any point along the continuum from planning to completion, that building and has the appropriate attributes it should have at that point in the life cycle. Would you consider that blueprint to be the same as a finished house? Could you live in that hole in the ground? That blueprint (DNA) may have all the information needed to assemble a house but it is not a house.

As for uniqueness, you seem more fixated than even God. Miscarriages and infant mortality were very common throughout much of human history.

thats just stupid,,,a building requires outside intervention where as a child needs only to be left alone to live,,,

I wonder what the next excuse/analogy will be,,,

Hate to tell you, but until the child is old enough to be viable outside the womb, it still requires the mother's intervention to be "built". And, whatever the mother does during the pregnancy can have a direct impact on the child (smoking, drinking, drugs, etc.).

thats not true,,,all she has to do is stay alive and semi healthy and the baby will grow, and as you said she can do things to stop it or cause it harm,,,,

You angry religious extremists,,,, need to learn that your involvement,,,,, in other people’s personal decisions,,,, are not needed or wanted,,,,

Thank you for not thumping your bibles where it’s not wanted or needed.

 

[progressive hunter]

At any point along the continuum from conception to death he or she is fully human and has the appropriate attributes he or she should have at that point in the life cycle. That isn’t conjecture. That is scientific fact based on evidence.

We only get one shot as we are each genetically distinct. Never again will that person be created.

A building begins with a blueprint, then a hole in the ground, etc. At any point along the continuum from planning to completion, that building and has the appropriate attributes it should have at that point in the life cycle. Would you consider that blueprint to be the same as a finished house? Could you live in that hole in the ground? That blueprint (DNA) may have all the information needed to assemble a house but it is not a house.

As for uniqueness, you seem more fixated than even God. Miscarriages and infant mortality were very common throughout much of human history.

You do realize that a house is property, right?

Do you believe it is wise to treat human lives as property?

Of course not. Neither is it wise to treat property as a human life. The equivocation from you folks is tiresome.

There is no equivocation. It isn’t a matter of conjecture. It has been empirically proven that at conception a new genetically distinct human being has come into existence.

Doesn't make bit of difference. Whatever you think it is, it's inside another person's body and none of your business.

IT becomes our business when she wants to kill a child at tear it from her body,,,

 

[ding]

At any point along the continuum from conception to death he or she is fully human and has the appropriate attributes he or she should have at that point in the life cycle. That isn’t conjecture. That is scientific fact based on evidence.

We only get one shot as we are each genetically distinct. Never again will that person be created.

A building begins with a blueprint, then a hole in the ground, etc. At any point along the continuum from planning to completion, that building and has the appropriate attributes it should have at that point in the life cycle. Would you consider that blueprint to be the same as a finished house? Could you live in that hole in the ground? That blueprint (DNA) may have all the information needed to assemble a house but it is not a house.

As for uniqueness, you seem more fixated than even God. Miscarriages and infant mortality were very common throughout much of human history.

You do realize that a house is property, right?

Do you believe it is wise to treat human lives as property?

Of course not. Neither is it wise to treat property as a human life. The equivocation from you folks is tiresome.

There is no equivocation. It isn’t a matter of conjecture. It has been empirically proven that at conception a new genetically distinct human being has come into existence.

Doesn't make bit of difference. Whatever you think it is, it's inside another person's body and none of your business.

You misspelled it’s a person in another persons body that just happened to be irresponsible and expects someone else to pay for their mistakes.

 

[ding]

At any point along the continuum from conception to death he or she is fully human and has the appropriate attributes he or she should have at that point in the life cycle. That isn’t conjecture. That is scientific fact based on evidence.

We only get one shot as we are each genetically distinct. Never again will that person be created.

A building begins with a blueprint, then a hole in the ground, etc. At any point along the continuum from planning to completion, that building and has the appropriate attributes it should have at that point in the life cycle. Would you consider that blueprint to be the same as a finished house? Could you live in that hole in the ground? That blueprint (DNA) may have all the information needed to assemble a house but it is not a house.

As for uniqueness, you seem more fixated than even God. Miscarriages and infant mortality were very common throughout much of human history.

thats just stupid,,,a building requires outside intervention where as a child needs only to be left alone to live,,,

I wonder what the next excuse/analogy will be,,,

Hate to tell you, but until the child is old enough to be viable outside the womb, it still requires the mother's intervention to be "built". And, whatever the mother does during the pregnancy can have a direct impact on the child (smoking, drinking, drugs, etc.).

thats not true,,,all she has to do is stay alive and semi healthy and the baby will grow, and as you said she can do things to stop it or cause it harm,,,,

You angry religious extremists,,,, need to learn that your involvement,,,,, in other people’s personal decisions,,,, are not needed or wanted,,,,

Thank you for not thumping your bibles where it’s not wanted or needed.

Who else is going to speak for the defenseless innocent life?

 

[ding]

At any point along the continuum from conception to death he or she is fully human and has the appropriate attributes he or she should have at that point in the life cycle. That isn’t conjecture. That is scientific fact based on evidence.

We only get one shot as we are each genetically distinct. Never again will that person be created.

A building begins with a blueprint, then a hole in the ground, etc. At any point along the continuum from planning to completion, that building and has the appropriate attributes it should have at that point in the life cycle. Would you consider that blueprint to be the same as a finished house? Could you live in that hole in the ground? That blueprint (DNA) may have all the information needed to assemble a house but it is not a house.

As for uniqueness, you seem more fixated than even God. Miscarriages and infant mortality were very common throughout much of human history.

thats just stupid,,,a building requires outside intervention where as a child needs only to be left alone to live,,,

I wonder what the next excuse/analogy will be,,,

Hate to tell you, but until the child is old enough to be viable outside the womb, it still requires the mother's intervention to be "built". And, whatever the mother does during the pregnancy can have a direct impact on the child (smoking, drinking, drugs, etc.).

thats not true,,,all she has to do is stay alive and semi healthy and the baby will grow, and as you said she can do things to stop it or cause it harm,,,,

You angry religious extremists,,,, need to learn that your involvement,,,,, in other people’s personal decisions,,,, are not needed or wanted,,,,

Thank you for not thumping your bibles where it’s not wanted or needed.

I’m not that angry. And I’m not making a religious argument. I am making a legal argument. I am making a scientific argument.

 

[Hollie]

A building begins with a blueprint, then a hole in the ground, etc. At any point along the continuum from planning to completion, that building and has the appropriate attributes it should have at that point in the life cycle. Would you consider that blueprint to be the same as a finished house? Could you live in that hole in the ground? That blueprint (DNA) may have all the information needed to assemble a house but it is not a house.

As for uniqueness, you seem more fixated than even God. Miscarriages and infant mortality were very common throughout much of human history.

You do realize that a house is property, right?

Do you believe it is wise to treat human lives as property?

Of course not. Neither is it wise to treat property as a human life. The equivocation from you folks is tiresome.

There is no equivocation. It isn’t a matter of conjecture. It has been empirically proven that at conception a new genetically distinct human being has come into existence.

Doesn't make bit of difference. Whatever you think it is, it's inside another person's body and none of your business.

IT becomes our business when she wants to kill a child at tear it from her body,,,

It’s not “our” business. You and the Ayatollah at your madrassah are not the “our” who need to be involved.

 

[ding]

A building begins with a blueprint, then a hole in the ground, etc. At any point along the continuum from planning to completion, that building and has the appropriate attributes it should have at that point in the life cycle. Would you consider that blueprint to be the same as a finished house? Could you live in that hole in the ground? That blueprint (DNA) may have all the information needed to assemble a house but it is not a house.

As for uniqueness, you seem more fixated than even God. Miscarriages and infant mortality were very common throughout much of human history.

You do realize that a house is property, right?

Do you believe it is wise to treat human lives as property?

Of course not. Neither is it wise to treat property as a human life. The equivocation from you folks is tiresome.

There is no equivocation. It isn’t a matter of conjecture. It has been empirically proven that at conception a new genetically distinct human being has come into existence.

Doesn't make bit of difference. Whatever you think it is, it's inside another person's body and none of your business.

IT becomes our business when she wants to kill a child at tear it from her body,,,

I believe it is fair for society to decide.

 

[dblack]

A building begins with a blueprint, then a hole in the ground, etc. At any point along the continuum from planning to completion, that building and has the appropriate attributes it should have at that point in the life cycle. Would you consider that blueprint to be the same as a finished house? Could you live in that hole in the ground? That blueprint (DNA) may have all the information needed to assemble a house but it is not a house.

As for uniqueness, you seem more fixated than even God. Miscarriages and infant mortality were very common throughout much of human history.

You do realize that a house is property, right?

Do you believe it is wise to treat human lives as property?

Of course not. Neither is it wise to treat property as a human life. The equivocation from you folks is tiresome.

There is no equivocation. It isn’t a matter of conjecture. It has been empirically proven that at conception a new genetically distinct human being has come into existence.

Doesn't make bit of difference. Whatever you think it is, it's inside another person's body and none of your business.

IT becomes our business when she wants to kill a child at tear it from her body,,,

That's your claim. If you try to act on it, you're asking for trouble. The mess will take decades to clean up, but in the end, you'll fade away just like the Temperance movement did after Prohibition ended. The bottom line is, government can't control people the way you want.

 

[ding]

You do realize that a house is property, right?

Do you believe it is wise to treat human lives as property?

Of course not. Neither is it wise to treat property as a human life. The equivocation from you folks is tiresome.

There is no equivocation. It isn’t a matter of conjecture. It has been empirically proven that at conception a new genetically distinct human being has come into existence.

Doesn't make bit of difference. Whatever you think it is, it's inside another person's body and none of your business.

IT becomes our business when she wants to kill a child at tear it from her body,,,

It’s not “our” business. You and the Ayatollah at your madrassah are not the “our” who need to be involved.

We live in a shared society with shared consequences. It’s everyone’s business. That’s how societies work.

 

[dblack]

Of course not. Neither is it wise to treat property as a human life. The equivocation from you folks is tiresome.

There is no equivocation. It isn’t a matter of conjecture. It has been empirically proven that at conception a new genetically distinct human being has come into existence.

Doesn't make bit of difference. Whatever you think it is, it's inside another person's body and none of your business.

IT becomes our business when she wants to kill a child at tear it from her body,,,

It’s not “our” business. You and the Ayatollah at your madrassah are not the “our” who need to be involved.

We live in a shared society with shared consequences. It’s everyone’s business. That’s how societies work.

Nope. That's how overbearing intrusive government works. It's how the nanny state works. It's how socialism works. It's NOT how society works.