The truth about the Planned Parenthood hoax revealed

What truth and what facts? That it is gross? That has nothing to do with the claim of killing a baby, because no one scientifically can claim it is baby killing, while I already pointed that out to you.

What exactly are they twisting and weaving? You aren't making any sense.

Is a fetus that is not developing any longer, while threatening the life of a mother without an abortion a choice, or a necessity, for the survival of the mother?

It can also tell a thousand lies if you have no understanding of the science.

One more time. Explain through science how she is killing the baby where the science tells us the Ova is a growing developing baby with living tissue. Explain when and how the Ova was already born.

That has nothing to do with the science, where reality is sometimes unpleasant. Does not prove anything about baby killing.

 

If you had read your own cite you would know that is not true and I majored in biology when I was in college. Just through sopohmore but I think I got a pretty good underpinning of knowledge including embryology.

From your own cite

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.

It is answered in your own cite and taught in biology and embryology. At conception. I was pro-abortion until I study embryology.

"Recently, Dr. Robert George wrote an article outlining this whole topic in more detail. And if you want to really learn your stuff, pick up his excellent book entitled Embryo (I’m in the middle of reading it right now). In his words:
“That is, in human reproduction, when sperm joins ovum, these two individual cells cease to be, and their union generates a new and distinct organism. This organism is a whole, though in the beginning developmentally immature, member of the human species. Readers need not take our word for this: They can consult any of the standard human-embryology texts, such as Moore and Persaud’s The Developing Human, Larsen’s Human Embryology, Carlson’s Human Embryology & Developmental Biology, and O’Rahilly and Mueller’s Human Embryology & Teratology.” – Dr. Robert George
“Human embryos, whether they are formed by fertilization (natural or in vitro) or by successful somatic-cell nuclear transfer (SCNT — i.e., cloning), do have the internal resources and active disposition to develop themselves to the mature stage of a human organism, requiring only a suitable environment and nutrition. In fact, scientists distinguish embryos from other cells or clusters of cells precisely by their self-directed, integral functioning — their organismal behavior. Thus, human embryos are what the embryology textbooks say they are, namely, human organisms — living individuals of the human species — at the earliest developmental stage.” – Dr. Robert George
- See more at: http://fallibleblogma.com/index.php/....n2q46hNU.dpuf

A New, Distinct Human Organism Comes into Being at Fertilization

It is undisputed that a new, distinct human organism comes into existence during the process of fertilization.[1] Scientific literature states the following:

• “The fusion of sperm and egg membranes initiates the life of a sexually reproducing organism.”[2]

• “The life cycle of mammals begins when a sperm enters an egg.”[3]

• “Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a genetically distinct individual.”[4]

• “The oviduct or Fallopian tube is the anatomical region where every new life begins in mammalian species. After a long journey, the spermatozoa meet the oocyte in the specific site of the oviduct named ampulla, and fertilization takes place.”[5]

• “Fertilization – the fusion of gametes to produce a new organism – is the culmination of a multitude of intricately regulated cellular processes.”[6]

The government’s own definition attests to the fact that life begins at fertilization. According to the National Institutes of Health, “fertilization” is the process of union of two gametes (i.e., ovum and sperm) “whereby the somatic chromosome number is restored and the development of a new individual is initiated.”[7] Thus, in the context of human life, a new individual human organism is initiated at the union of ovum and sperm. One textbook similarly explains: Human development begins at fertilization when a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoon) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to produce a single cell – a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.[8]

Thus, a new human organism is created before the developing embryo implants in the uterus – i.e., before that time at which some people consider a woman “pregnant.”

[1] See, e.g., Condic, When Does Human Life Begin? A Scientific Perspective (The Westchester Institute for Ethics & the Human Person Oct. 200, http://bdfund.org/wordpress/wpconten...ife_print.pdf; George & Tollefsen, EMBRYO 39 (200.

[2] Marsden et al., Model systems for membrane fusion, CHEM. SOC. REV. 40(3):1572 (Mar. 2011) (emphasis added).

[3] Okada et al., A role for the elongator complex in zygotic paternal genome demethylation, NATURE 463:554 (Jan. 28, 2010) (emphasis added).

[4] Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012) (emphasis added).

[5] Coy et al., Roles of the oviduct in mammalian fertilization, REPRODUCTION 144(6):649 (Oct. 1, 2012) (emphasis added).

[6] Marcello et al., Fertilization, ADV. EXP. BIOL. 757:321 (2013) (emphasis added).

[7] National Institutes of Health, Medline Plus Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary (2013), http://www.merriamwebster.com/medlineplus/fertilization (emphasis added).

Dr. Alfred M. Bongiovanni, professor of obstetrics, University of Pennsylvania:

“I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception. I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood and any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes a termination of human life.”

Dr. Jerome LeJeune, genetics professor at the University of Descartes in Paris (discoverer of the Down Syndrome chromosome):

“After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being. . . . This is no longer a matter of taste or opinion. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.”

Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School:

“It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception.”

Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic:

“By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.”

Dr. Watson A. Bowes, University of Colorado Medical School:

“The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter—the beginning is conception.”

Dr. Landrum Shettles, pioneer in sperm biology, fertility and sterility, discoverer of male-and female-producing sperm:

“I oppose abortion. I do so, first, because I accept what is biologically manifest—that human life commences at the time of conception—and, second, because I believe it is wrong to take innocent human life under any circumstances.”

Read more: http://www.epm.org/resources/2010/Ja...#ixzz3hCMZuE49

 

I agree. The glandular hysterics of the pro-life crowd are counter-productive. If they have an issue with the legality of what PP did, they should pursue that. But their hysterical rhetoric is as hypocritical as it is embarrassing.

 

I pointed out your cite supports me not you and exactly what that is that twisting.

What does that have to do with anything? The issues has ALWAYS been elective abortion. As pointed out in another thread more black babies are aborted in New York than are birth. Are you going to claim that is because all the babies that were killed were no longer developing and threatening the life of the mother?

And we can all stipulate that if the mothers life is in imminent danger an abortion would save her life abortion is an appropriate action because the baby won't survive either DUH.

What is the lie in the picture?

Read your own cite, an ovum is not a human life. It's an ovum. It is a haploid organism produced by a human female, actually while she is still a baby in the womb, that when fertilized and a complete human genome is created no longer exist, a new human life does. It has been the scientific belief that ALL the ovum a female can produced are produce while she is still a baby in the womb but recent studies are showing that at least in lab mice some replacement MAY be produce during adolescence to replace any that die before they are released during gestation.

You REALLY want to go head to head on the science?

- - - Updated - - -

THEY can't pursue it, the federal government has to go after it. Some states are going after it but they are limited in that the actual law they are violating is a federal law.

So what is hysterical about opposing the purposeful harvesting of babies and their parts so they can be sold to the highest bidder?

 

Lol.... how the hell can they do that?

They're asking that the government do so, that is the only option they have.

ffs, why would anyone need to be told this ?!

 

All I see from the above post is that the only argument one can make for Warren are personal insults against anyone who dislikes her.

 

Show me which GOP law that will strip women of their rights.

*crickets*

 

Please. He asked for relevance.

If you want to join my fan club, I have drink coozies in the gift shop.

 

Hmm, you must not have served to so casually throw the war in a ridiculous comparison. We'll be paying for that war for the next 70 years. I also feel sorry for any females related to you. PP helps more women than you realize.

 

I'll be serious for a minute here: Your response was all about personal insults. I mean, if you really wanted to refute his argument about her irrelevance, maybe you should have stated why she is relevant instead of making it about the poster. You did your argument no favors.

The only fan clubs I'm a member of are God's, my wife, my son, and whoever is signing my paycheck.

 

Lol! Nice try, but under fact 1, that you apparently are not comprehending, which states very clearly, the issue is not when human life begins, but rather when does the life of every human being begin. That is a question that cannot truly be answered, other than to say, those living human body parts are developing in the uterus, which means that to use the union of the egg and sperm as the beginning of life for a human being, has no real factual basis behind it. You are inventing that in your head to allow yourself the excuse that people are killing babies through abortion.

And needless to say the article you posted, does not come up.

 

Your admission that we are discussing HUMAN BODY PARTS sends your own position down in flames.

 

Your reading comprehension notwithstanding... it then goes on to explicitly answer that question, whic is, effectively, when the human organism develops it's own unique dna.

 

Again, you obviously didn't read the whole thing. Maybe it was too long, who knows. But the question as to when life begins was not and cannot be truly answered, which is why your unwarranted baby killing comments are a joke. Try and read another site that is very familiar to us all. It basically is saying the same as my other link; http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/When_does_life_begin?

The question is an easy one that you apparently cannot answer. When the life of the mother is at risk because the fetus is dead inside, should it be a choice or a necessity.

Lol! When does that life begin?

I don't know. When I'm able to decipher your jumbled word usage, I'll let you know.

- - - Updated - - -



THEY can't pursue it, the federal government has to go after it. Some states are going after it but they are limited in that the actual law they are violating is a federal law.

So what is hysterical about opposing the purposeful harvesting of babies and their parts so they can be sold to the highest bidder?[/QUOTE]

 

I'm not following you, but if you are interested in drawing the best conclusion about when life begins, read down at the bottom to Section III. It dives deeper into the nuts and bolts of life's beginning. Which for me, proves beyond a shadow of a doubt, abortions are not baby killing.

 

I agree with this. It truly can not be answered. It might not start until birth, or it might start as soon as there is even the tiniest of brain function.

For me, this sentence in your wiki link was most interesting:

Imo, without human intervention, chance are that a baby would be born once conception happens. Unless nature itself stops the pregnancy, it is our human actions that decides the course. I question whether we have a "right" to intervene just for convenience sake.

I am not religious. In fact, I am agnostic. I am also not anti-abortion. While I am not pro-abortion, I am pro-choice. Abortions to save the life of the mother.....sure. Abortions in cases of incest or rape.....no problem. However, I do not feel abortions should be easy just because it is "convenient"....or the child would be inconvenient. And making a profit from selling fetal baby parts is just wrong.

I do not believe PP is not selling parts for profit just because they say they are not. While I do question the context of the videos, there is just too much there that does indicate inappropriate business. While I think that PP serves other useful functions other than abortions. I also feel that this needs to be deeply investigated before letting PP off the hook.

 

Doesn't say mush for Republican states now does it?

 

Two Republican governors already have. Not to mention, PP would have to be really stupid to do that.

And I am a lot like you with your abortion views. I am pro-choice, but certainly not recreational pro-choice. There are just too many instances where abortion must stay legal, as you pointed out; rape, incest, etc.

 

Those Governors only cleared the facilities in their States. They did not investigate nor clear PP as a complete entity.

People have done stupider things when money and greed are involved. That is why selling fetal baby parts for profit should always remain illegal.

The other day, a friend said to me: "Some people are against using animals for research. They feel it is unethical and immoral. It isn't about the killing as we have been killing animals for survival since life began. While they feel that using animals for research in wrong, some of these same people see no problem with killing a potential human life and using it for research".

I tend to agree with him.

 

""""I am also not anti-abortion. While I am not pro-abortion, I am pro-choice. Abortions to save the life of the mother.....sure. Abortions in cases of incest or rape.....no problem. However, I do not feel abortions should be easy just because it is "convenient"....or the child would be inconvenient"""


You are not Pro-Choice if you want to control the "choice".

An abortion is exactly the same medical procedure if the woman was raped or her life is in danger or she can't afford a kid or doesn't have time for one....exactly the same.


Anti-Choicers like to harp on this word "convenient " like somehow doing convenient things is wrong.


I always wonder how they live their lives doing everything as INconveniently as possible.

Dying giving birth is inconvenient...

Giving up 9 months of your life and suffering pain and temporary and permanent physical damage along with financial loss is inconvenient...

Being poor is quite inconvenient...



But for some having to take the Jag to work rather than being driven in the Rolls is inconvenient............so who is the Great Ruler Who Decides What is Acceptable "Inconvenience" ?

 

well then, that explains it.

Amazing.

 

Except I do not desire to make the choice. I feel that what happens to person's body is their decision. I also never said that abortion should not be available...even for inconvenience. I just said that it should not be easy. As a society, we should have higher moral standards. It does not speak highly about us as a society when we are so willing to end a human life...or a potential human life just because we felt it would be inconvenient.

Yes, it is the same procedure, but the mental difference is there. If you can't understand the difference between someone having something done to them involuntarily (i.e. incest or rape) and someone that got pregnant for a few minutes or hours of self-enjoyment, then I can not help you.

How many women die during child birth? How big of a percentage is it vs the number of children born? Women can have babies even without the help of another person. Babies are born it third world counties where life itself is unhealthy. The chance of a woman dying by giving birth is very very low.

Sorry, but I believe in personal responsibility. That people should take responsibility for their actions. It can be argued that the "choice" was made when the man and woman made the decision to have sex. Most people know the risks. If a person is willing to take the risks, they should take responsibility if there are consequences.

 

For many its a "moral" issue and as they proudly proclaim that they get their morals by following their faith, then perhaps "god" should decide when life begins.

And according to scripture, anything under a month old is not considered a member of the tribe.
If a man were to beat a woman and cause her to miscarriage but doesn't "cause additional mischief" (a euphemism for rape?) he'll pay a pre-determined fine - and be absolved of killing her "fruit".

god has ordered infanticide on a number of occasions. He kills children of blasphemers.

And the real biggie, he performs about as many abortions in America as the Healthcare industry. Approximately 20% of pregnancies end in miscarriage. God's will and all.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/abortion.html

 

I do as long as it's liberals getting them. Eventually, there won't be any left.

 

LOL, a politician told you it isn't so. Didn't you watch her lips move?