The End of Abortion in America is Coming Soon

No that would be you.

 

I was just helping you out by correcting our error in a nice way but if you insist on being corrected.

1) The zygote is not a fetus

2) A significant number of zygotes never go on to "create" a baby despite being left unmolested. The zygote "might" create a baby. The DNA in the zygote has the potential to create a baby but often that potential is never realized.

Your claim that the zygote necessarily "will" become a baby I your previous post was false. My correction "might" was correct.

3) The zygote cell itself will "never" become or be part of a baby. If a baby manages to get created, that baby will be composed of trillions of cells. The zygote is not one of those cells.

And finally, for about the umpteenth time, that the zygote might create a baby at some point in the future does not make the zygote a baby.

 

most women (and men) do take care of their children .. children being born .. which was not what you stated.

Whose morality .. yours, so again who died and made you king?

 

Nice dodge.

Since you have presented no science that explains why a zygote is a living human. There is nothing to debunk.

Posting a link and stating "Look look .. the science is in there somewhere" is not proof of much.

Failing to point out what claim in the link you are referring when asked (as I did) and then claiming " Science denier" is about as disingenuous as it gets.

 

Please correct me when I'm wrong. So far, you have not shown that I was wrong.

Strawman. Nobody is claiming that a zygote is a fetus.

The zygote will create a baby when it successfully implants and develops. Nobody is claiming unsuccessful implantation or zygotes that fail to develop will became a fetus or create a baby. This is a false argument as well.

My claim was not false. It will become a baby if it implants and develops unmolested. Of course, it "might not" implant or successfully develop, which is irrelevant to the point. It definitely won't develop into anything other than a human being. The zygote will become a baby or more than one baby. There is nothing else that it can become. Regardless of the percentage of those that do not implant or gestate into a fetus, it is still the first point at which all human lives begin. In spite of the fact that some "might" not become a baby, that does not mean that the argument that "life begins at conception" is invalidated. It will become a baby if it implants and develops unmolested. Of course, it "might not" implant or successfully develop. But it definitely won't develop into anything other than a human being. The argument that some pregnancies fail to take is superfluous to the thesis that life begins at conception.

Your understanding of science is somewhat elementary if you think that a zygote cell is supposed to become some part of the overall human anatomy. Nobody is claiming that a zygote cell is supposed to be part of the finished product of a human being. The zygote is merely the blueprint cell that has the DNA map which will create a human being using the DNA of it's two parents. Your point is not proof against the argument that life begins at conception and in fact supports it if anything.

Another strawman. Nobody is saying a zygote is "a baby".

 

When I say public funding, I mean donated by churches or other concerned parties.

 

Thank you for clarifying that which I did not say.

Morality is also something that I did not create.

 

Fortunately that's true. But you just keep on trying anyway since you seem to enjoy it so much.

 

Well more power to you if you want to deny the science that proves life begins at conception. I don't know why some people need to inject strawman arguments which do not prove their points to prove their points but I keep seeing the same nonsense over and over. A zygote is the first point after conception which begins the process of creating a living human. Life does not appear fully developed out of thin air. So, no, you won't see a zygote walking his dog, going shopping, or driving a car.

You seemed to have missed the point in my previous post, and I would repeat it, but why? If it went over your head the first time I should think it would only do the same the second.

What good would it do, really, for me to show you my understanding of the scientific fact that life begins at conception if you are completely un-receptive to the idea based solely on you commitment to abortion on demand?

You are opposed to the science based on your political beliefs, not based on the science. It's a ridiculous label that the left has constantly used against the right in reference to global warming or evolution, when it is in fact the left that refuses to accept scientific knowledge because of political correctness.

- - - Updated - - -

Then that would be privately funded.

 

Quite all right.. I am happy to correct your errors.

did I say you did?

Try reading what is written instead of what you want to see

 

Wikipedia says nothing of the sort about Factcheck.org.

I watched enough to see the deceptive edits. No one who was watched them can truthfully say they depict the sale of fetal tissue.

Yes, some are complete. Probes in Georgia, Indiana, Massachusetts, and South Dakota have found "Planned Parenthood affiliates to be in full compliance with the law. Investigations based on fraudulent videos are a complete waste of tax dollars. And no, there were no lawsuits to prevent the release of videos:
http://www.bustle.com/articles/1023...ent-another-planned-parenthood-videos-release

It's a pro-life propaganda site.

 

Suggest you read a few research articles and books on brain development and nerve development, because according to your logic a heart surgeon doesn't know how a heart develops and works.

 

Lots of lifers claim a zygote is a baby. The religious right wing nuts tried to pass a bill "Sanctity of Life Act" claiming that the zygote was a living human/Homo sapiens, such that the state should be able to protect it as it would any other person.

Good for you if you have figured out that a zygote is not a baby. Then you should have no problem with abortion in the early term.

 

You have not presented any science that proves life begins at conception.

You repeating "I have given proof" over and over again is not proof of much.

You posting a link and claiming "here is the science" and then refusing to discuss or show any evidence from that link backing up your claim is not proof of much.

 

No one is saying that some women do not feel grief after an abortion .. but there again there are women who feel grief after birth as well - http://birthwithoutfearblog.com/2013/11/22/grief-and-guilt-the-birth-trauma-experience/ post-partum depression .. ever heard of it?

There is no such thing as PAS, The American Psychological Association and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists have done extensive research on the subject and their conclusions is that PAS is nothing more than a political bumper sticker.

The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists research showed that there is little to no long term mental health issues associated with abortion, though women who had mental health issues prior to the pregnancy and abortion MAY be more prone to mental issues after . .however this applies to whether they had an abortion or continued the pregnancy through to birth. - https://www.rcog.org.uk/en/news/cam...mbryology-bill/qa-abortion-and-mental-health/

1st link - PAS is not recognised by ANY reliable medical association, let alone as a type of PTSD - In 1990, the American Psychological Association (APA) found that "severe negative reactions [after abortion] are rare and are in line with those following other normal life stresses." The APA updated its findings in August 2008 to account for new evidence, and again concluded that termination of a first unplanned pregnancy did not increase the risk of mental-health problems. A 2008 systematic review of the medical literature on abortion and mental health found that high-quality studies consistently showed few or no mental-health consequences of abortion, while poor-quality studies were more likely to report negative consequences. In December 2011, the U.K. National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health published a systematic review of available evidence, similarly concluding that abortion did not increase the risk of mental-health problems. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_and_mental_health

2nd Link - PAS has been thoroughly destroyed by both the APA and the RCOG, there is no reliable evidence to suggest it exists.

3rd Link - Personal anecdotes are not evidence.

4th Link - The American Pregnancy Association has already been exposed as a pro-life site that promotes misleading and factually incorrect information and as such is an unreliable - http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2...rican-pregnancy-association-hides-links-cpcs/

Your final link deals with a spontaneous abortion, not an induced abortion and as such may very well cause higher depression especially in women where the "baby" was wanted.

no more so than birth causes trauma for raped women, and again there is no reliable evidence that abortions creates or causes any greater trauma than giving birth.

 

Hmm .. so by your logic the government who goes to war is playing God
The court who sentences a criminal to the death penalty is playing God
The person who kills in self-defence is playing God

All of the above are people deciding who live and who dies, you just find that they are justifiable.

 

No it does not, it states that each state MAY restrict abortion or make it illegal after viability .. the reverse is also true, the state MAY decide not to place any restrictions on abortion at all ie if a state decided to revoke all restrictions on abortion it would not be infringing any rights. The states option to restrict abortion after viability has nothing to do with rights of the unborn, it deals with state interests nothing more.

There is no evidence to suggest that abortion cause great harm to the female, in fact far more harm is done during childbirth, and as to the death of the fetus that falls under self-defence and consent.

Just as self-defence is seen as a fundamental right, so will abortion be a fundamental right under self-defence laws.

Jesus said nothing about abortion, which is strange if, as pro-lifers insist, it is a great sin.

 

That is your opinion, one that has very little to support it.

Show me in the bible or in any of Jesus's teachings where is states abortion is immoral?
What harmful practices of abortion are there?
What physical harm do legal abortions cause to women that does not pale into comparison with childbirth?

alleged, not admitted or proven. I do hope you will come back and apologise for your slander after PP are cleared of any wrong doing.

so because YOU don't believe it was widely practised it's irrelevant.

 

What errors?

Right. I didn't create morality. Glad I could clear that up.

 

Thank you for all the nay-saying. Contradiction is not an argument.

 

Factually incorrect, the sperm-egg fusion can take up to 24 hours, and debate is not whether the fusion creates a new cell it is-is that cell a human being and to that there is not consensus.

This is cherry picking science to agree with your bias, the fact of the matter is that until differentiation there is not a human being (and there are debates as whether it is a human being after differentiation) prior to differentiation each of the cells are identical, they are in fact clones of the original (hence why they are called daughter cells), each and everyone of those cells has the potential to become a fully fledged born baby .. if as you assert that a human being exists at conception, then logically you also have to assert that until differentiation takes place there are in fact 100's of human beings.

Except that it doesn't

Wrong, fertilization can take up to 24 hours.

nope it does not.

Except for the fact that your strictly scientific approach is incorrect.

 

Good for you if you have figured out that a zygote will be a baby. Then you should have no problem outlawing all abortions to protect human life.

 

Why do I need to prove that to you? Don't you just know that from ordinary logic and reason? Conception is the very first step in creating a new human being, is it not?

When do you think life begins?

Again, what proof is needed that a sperm fertilizing an egg creates a new life? How do you not know this? It is basic science.

What do you not understand about the basic science that you want me to explain?

 

You have now reached the end of the thread. Please proceed elsewhere.

 

That poll means nothing.

I can make a poll saying "How many Americans want the government to give them $1 Million?"

That would be 100% of people saying yes

But that does not mean it will happen, in fact, very unlikely that it will.

Outlawing abortion will not stop abortion, it will just go underground like drugs the doctors will make even more money.

Prohibition on freedom does not work, when you people learn.