John Oliver Rails Against Supreme Court Change And Death Of Roe V Wade

You can afford BC pills with a minimum wage part-time job. If you or your significant other can't afford them then you probably shouldn't be parting the legs.

 

Ye gods ANOTHER poster seemingly supremely ignorant of the facts of life in relation to contraception.

 

Now you have just repeated the premise "its a baby" as if they constitutes proof of claim followed by another fallacy - that humans calling something "a baby" constitutes proof of claim.

The colloquial term "with child" is a phrase from the old days used to describe a pregnant women can be found in a dictionary. This is another fallacy is that a colloquial term in a dictionary does not mean that this is how a pregnancy is defined - all this means is what the speaker means when using the term "with child" is that the woman is pregnant.

People projecting into the future hardly constitutes proof of claim.

I did not say the zygote was the same as a sperm or heart cell. What I said is that a heart cell is "Human life". It is a fact that not all things that are human life are humans. Claiming "its human life" does not make the zygote a human.

I am glad you brought this up however. FACT - the zygote is a single human cell FACT 2 - a heart cell is a single human cell.

What is the difference between these two cells that one is a full fledged living human "A baby" and the other is just a cell.

This is your big chance to shine. I do not even need defacto Proof. Just some coherent non fallacious justification based on the difference between these two cells.

 

Thank you John Oliver and all the other Democrat talking heads for urging Donald Trump to run for president and to Oliver for promising to contribute to his campaign if he did. Oliver has yet to divulge exactly how much of a contribution he sent. Anyone know?

 

Thank you

That does not help

Want me to quote you on the success rate of abstinence? We have seven billion people on this planet abstinence does NOT work!

I also often wonder about these people - usually male- that get onto chat rooms and discussion boards blaming women, never the men, just the women, for being "slutty"

Often they will also boast of how many times they have "played the field" and nothing has happened to THEM.

Out of every hundred women relying on condoms for birth control 17 will fall pregnant. 46% of all pregnancies are unintentional

And just WHO do you think are those women?

 

A baby's heart begins to beat at 6 weeks. That's pretty early.

 

Don't blame me for your deficiencies in Biology. Since when is a skin or sperm cell "NOT" human life ? Don't blame me for other peoples inability to distinguish between the descriptive adjective use of the word "Human" "human cell, human activity, human life" and the noun usage " A Human, a Living Human".

Of course there are accidental pregnancies. If you do not want to risk having an accident - don't drive. This is a silly argument. If you do not want to risk falling while walking - do not get out of bed in the morning. That does not make falling or having a car accident "not an accident".

If the intent was not to procreate - and contraception was used - it is an accidental pregnancy. If the condom breaks it is an accident = accidental pregnancy.

The responsible thing to do when if this accident happens - and those involved in the accident do not want a baby created out of that accident - is to have an abortion.

 

So..... you are admitting to playing the field?

 

And an anencephalic that has little to no functioning brain also has a heart beat. Extract tow bloody heart muscle cells and they will beat independently

 

Nearly 50 % of women seeking abortion were using some form of contraception

 

Sure - but a zygote has no heart, no brain, and so on. Without getting into when along the path a living human exists .. can we agree that it is not at the zygote stage.

 

But the morning after pill is designed to stop this within 24 hours so apparently this does something to the egg so the sperm can't penetrate it. Sperm showing up later are too late apparently.

Since it's only given a 95 per cent success rate, I'm guessing either the sperm swimmer is faster getting there or the person taking the pill was maybe too close to the deadline or 24th hour and therefore the pill may have not reached the egg before the sperm did 5% of the time..

 

So they say...or possibly some forgot?

 

Another great point

 

Is john oliver that dorky brit trump hater?

Who cares what he thinks?

 

I dont...its not in the mans body

From what I understand it would throw it to the states to decide but we all know what those southern states would do about it, im so glad I live in Washington, great state

 

Community health centers

 

LOL no it isn't.

http://www.morningafterpill.org/how-does-it-work.html
https://www.npr.org/sections/health...g-after-pills-dont-cause-abortion-studies-say

 

Abortion is something the Republicans should have dropped a long time ago. Get a pro-choice pro bill of rights (all of them)/constitutionalist female judge on the bench and watch heads explode.

 

B. "Scientific" myths and scientific fact:

Given these basic facts of human embryology, it is easier to recognize the many scientifically inaccurate claims that have been advanced in the discussions about abortion, human embryo research, cloning, stem cell research, the formation of chimeras, and the use of abortifacients�and why these discussions obfuscate the objective scientific facts. The following is just a sampling of these current "scientific" myths.

Myth 1: "Prolifers claim that the abortion of a human embryo or a human fetus is wrong because it destroys human life. But human sperms and human ova are human life, too. So prolifers would also have to agree that the destruction of human sperms and human ova are no different from abortions�and that is ridiculous!"

Fact 1: As pointed out above in the background section, there is a radical difference, scientifically, between parts of a human being that only possess "human life" and a human embryo or human fetus that is an actual "human being." Abortion is the destruction of a human being. Destroying a human sperm or a human oocyte would not constitute abortion, since neither are human beings. The issue is not when does human life begin, but rather when does the life of every human being begin. A human kidney or liver, a human skin cell, a sperm or an oocyte all possess human life, but they are not human beings�they are only parts of a human being. If a single sperm or a single oocyte were implanted into a woman�s uterus, they would not grow; they would simply disintegrate.

Myth 2: "The product of fertilization is simply a �blob,� a �bunch of cells�, a �piece of the mother�s tissues�."

Fact 2: As demonstrated above, the human embryonic organism formed at fertilization is a whole human being, and therefore it is not just a "blob" or a "bunch of cells." This new human individual also has a mixture of both the mother�s and the father�s chromosomes, and therefore it is not just a "piece of the mother�s tissues". Quoting Carlson:

"... [T]hrough the mingling of maternal and paternal chromosomes, the zygote is a genetically unique product of chromosomal reassortment, which is important for the viability of any species."15 (Emphasis added.)

Myth 3: "The immediate product of fertilization is just a �potential� or a �possible� human being�not a real existing human being."

Fact 3: As demonstrated above, scientifically there is absolutely no question whatsoever that the immediate product of fertilization is a newly existing human being. A human zygote is a human being. It is not a "potential" or a "possible" human being. It�s an actual human being�with the potential to grow bigger and develop its capacities.

Myth 4: "A single-cell human zygote, or embryo, or fetus are not human beings, because they do not look like human beings."

Fact 4: As all human embryologists know, a single-cell human zygote, or a more developed human embryo, or human fetus is a human being�and that that�s the way they are supposed to look at those particular periods of development.

Myth 5: "The immediate product of fertilization is just an �it��it is neither a girl nor a boy."

Fact 5: The immediate product of fertilization is genetically already a girl or a boy�determined by the kind of sperm that fertilizes the oocyte. Quoting Carlson again:

"...[T]he sex of the future embryo is determined by the chromosomal complement of the spermatozoon. (If the sperm contains 22 autosomes and 2 X chromosomes, the embryo will be a genetic female, and if it contains 22 autosomes and an X and a Y chromosome, the embryo will be a genetic male.)"16

Myth 6: "The embryo and the embryonic period begin at implantation." (Alternative myths claim 14 days, or 3 weeks.)

Fact 6: These are a few of the most common myths perpetuated sometimes even within quasi-scientific articles�especially within the bioethics literature. As demonstrated above, the human embryo, who is a human being, begins at fertilization�not at implantation (about 5-7 days), 14-days, or 3 weeks. Thus the embryonic period also begins at fertilization, and ends by the end of the eighth week, when the fetal period begins. Quoting O�Rahilly:

"Prenatal life is conveniently divided into two phases: the embryonic and the fetal. The embryonic period proper during which the vast majority of the named structures of the body appear, occupies the first 8 postovulatory weeks. ... [T]he fetal period extends from 8 weeks to birth ..."17 (Emphasis added.)

Myth 7: "The product of fertilization, up to 14-days, is not an embryo; it is just a �pre-embryo��and therefore it can be used in experimental research, aborted, or donated."

Fact 7: This "scientific" myth is perhaps the most common error, which pervades the current literature. The term "pre-embryo" has quite a long and interesting history. (See Irving and Kischer, The Human Development Hoax: Time To Tell The Truth!, for extensive details and references.) But it roughly goes back to at least 1979 in the bioethics writings of Jesuit theologian Richard McCormick in his work with the Ethics Advisory Board to the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare,18 and those of frog developmental biologist Dr. Clifford Grobstein in a 1979 article in Scientific American,19 and most notably in his classic book, Science and the Unborn: Choosing Human Futures (198.20 Both McCormick and Grobstein subsequently continued propagating this scientific myth as members of the Ethics Committee of the American Fertility Society, and in numerous influential bioethics articles, leading to its common use in bioethics, theological, and public policy literature to this day.....snip~

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html

 

No we can't agree.


Myth 3: "The immediate product of fertilization is just a �potential� or a �possible� human being�not a real existing human being."

Fact 3: As demonstrated above, scientifically there is absolutely no question whatsoever that the immediate product of fertilization is a newly existing human being. A human zygote is a human being. It is not a "potential" or a "possible" human being. It�s an actual human being�with the potential to grow bigger and develop its capacities.

Myth 4: "A single-cell human zygote, or embryo, or fetus are not human beings, because they do not look like human beings."

Fact 4: As all human embryologists know, a single-cell human zygote, or a more developed human embryo, or human fetus is a human being�and that that�s the way they are supposed to look at those particular periods of development.....snip~

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html

 

There are thousands of children who will never see the inside of a loving home. Would you consider adopting one, or does your care disappear as soon as the baby takes its first little breath?

 

Do y’all get all of your news from Facebook or do you just hold on to the ones that fulfill your narrative. I am against abortion in most cases but spreading lies does nothing but make you look uneducated.

 

Does falling or having a car accident warrant destroying something that had no part in causing the accident?

What crime did the procreated child commit that warranted its destruction? Here again is just another example of you trying to make someone else responsible for your actions; and in the worst possible way, that of killing the most innocent among us.

No matter how many mental gymnastics you go through to try to justify your actions, you will never be able to do so; because the answer lies not in your mind, but in your heart.