Is Dovey Pregnant?

[Blandscape]

My point is like you simple, you simply and perfuntory claim life in the womb is not sustainable before 21 weeks. I agree.

Therefore it is a women's right to terminate up to that point.

 

[Dove]

It isn't life.

If its not alive? It's called a MISCARRIAGE.

Now YOU are the one resorting to philosophical/religious beliefs about "what is a life".

That isnt science. Science has a set of criteria that determine if something is alive. And a human being in utero meets those and is scientifically and medically alive.

If its NOT alive....that's a miscarriage.

 

[Blandscape]

Try to keep up.

 

[Dove]

My point is like you simple, you simply and perfuntory claim life in the womb is not sustainable before 21 weeks. I agree.

Therefore it is a women's right to terminate up to that point.

That is definately NOT "therefore".

You are making a philosophical argument that if a human being is currently not viable to live without assistance but WILL be able to live on his/her without assistance in a certain period of time.....they have no human rights for the period in which they are not "viable".

The problem is you are too stupid to understand what you are saying.

I'm keeping up just fine. Wipe the piss off your leg and move.

 

[Blandscape]

It isn't life.

If its not alive? It's called a MISCARRIAGE.

Now YOU are the one resorting to philosophical/religious beliefs about "what is a life".

That isnt science. Science has a set of criteria that determine if something is alive. And a human being in utero meets those and is scientifically and medically alive.

If its NOT alive....that's a miscarriage.

What a stinking pile of horseshite. Does science say that life is sustainable at conception, even under your constrictive criteria?

No it fucking doesn't.

 

[Biggie Smiles]

It isn't life.

If its not alive? It's called a MISCARRIAGE.

Now YOU are the one resorting to philosophical/religious beliefs about "what is a life".

That isnt science. Science has a set of criteria that determine if something is alive. And a human being in utero meets those and is scientifically and medically alive.

If its NOT alive....that's a miscarriage.

Wait. So the retards argument is that since it isn’t viable outside the womb for another 10 weeks or so it isn’t life?

 

[Blandscape]

Ergo it isn't life as you seem to know it.

 

[Blandscape]

It isn't life.

If its not alive? It's called a MISCARRIAGE.

Now YOU are the one resorting to philosophical/religious beliefs about "what is a life".

That isnt science. Science has a set of criteria that determine if something is alive. And a human being in utero meets those and is scientifically and medically alive.

If its NOT alive....that's a miscarriage.

Wait. So the retards argument is that since it isn’t viable outside the womb for another 10 weeks or so it isn’t life?

See even JooDug get's it.

 

[Blandscape]

Wow, we got there in the end.

 

[Blandscape]

Fanks Joo.

 

[Dove]

It isn't life.

If its not alive? It's called a MISCARRIAGE.

Now YOU are the one resorting to philosophical/religious beliefs about "what is a life".

That isnt science. Science has a set of criteria that determine if something is alive. And a human being in utero meets those and is scientifically and medically alive.

If its NOT alive....that's a miscarriage.

What a stinking pile of horseshite. Does science say that life is sustainable at conception, even under your constrictive criteria?

No it fucking doesn't.

Science doesnt say "you can kill any being who cannot live without assistance".

Science tells us that before 21 weeks, if a human in the fetal stage of development is born they will not live.

That's ALL science says

YOU and your PHILOSOPHICAL beliefs are asserting that a human is not currently "viable"(able to live without assistance) they have no human rights and can be killed.

Again you dont understand your own argument or what you saying.....because you are too fucking stupid to understand the distinction between where science ends and your philosophical beliefs begin.

I disagree that human beings are devoid of rights and can be killed legally during a temporary period where they are unable to live without assistance.

In fact.....even fetal humans born between 21 and 37 weeks will still need assistence to live. So according to your shit argument....they have no rights and we can kill them.

And if you wanna be consistent this philosophy demands no one has human rights until they can fend for themselves. So infants...toddlers....children all need help to survive so, they are "not a life".

 

[Dove]

Elective abortion are done in free standing clinics by abortionists who have no hospital admission priviledges. These are not done in hospitals, not offered by OBs, are not a normal "healthcare" service.

Can you see the problem here?

You talk about marginalising women but the current system marginalises womens healthcare at it's core by separating abortion from other OBGYN practices. If you agree that some abortion should be available for medical reasons and in the case of rape wouldn't these still be carried out in non medical surroundings thereby lowering the standard of care?

Also when does a baby exist Is it at the moment of conception which seems to be the argument here? If that is the case then both the mini pill and emergency contraception should be banned. One of the ways the mini pill works is that it doesn't allow a fertilised egg to attach to the uterus wall. Is that abortion?

As for the morning after pill

'Keep in mind that fertilization (the union of female ovum, or egg, and male sperm) occurs in the fallopian tube and that fertilization marks the beginning of a new human life - and the beginning of the pregnancy. The newly created child then travels down the fallopian tube to the uterus (womb) where he or she implants. Implantation is necessary for the new child to receive nourishment from the mother and continue developing. The journey from the fallopian tube to the womb takes between five and seven days during which pregnancy cannot be readily detected.
Therefore, if a woman ingests emergency contraception after fertilization has taken place, the third mode of action can occur. The lining of the uterus can be altered causing the woman's body to reject the living human embryo, making implantation impossible and the child will die. This result is called a chemical abortion; therefore emergency contraception is an abortifacient'.

This from a Catholic website called morningafterpill.org. Not exactly unbiased but no views here are unbiased anyway. So is a child fertilisation? It seems to be what is being said and if so it has to be taken that the morning after pill should be outlawed.

Is that right and fair? If not then abortion should be allowed. It's the only answer.

Actually why not define women who fail to fulfill their motherly duty by having their eggs fertilized & subsequently menstruating as abortionists too?

Where does this obsessive insanity end?

I think there's even a passage in the Bible that a man who ejaculates and throws his sperm on the ground as having committed sin hence thrown away a potential life as well.

You are talking a specific man who God specifically told to impregnate his brother's widow who instead pulled out.

It was about disobeying a direct command from God. It had nothing to do with wasting sperm or "potential life" or any of that nonsense.

The major problem I see with religious fundamentalists like yourself is that you move the goalposts around and arbitrarily have decided where the line in the sand is.

Where does life begin?

What constitutes an abortion or a permissile medical procedure?

You see the fundamentalists have no objective legal or even moral standard. So anyone can interpret statutes or religious passages anyway they want.

I havent used a single religious argument. Its YOU guys obsessed with dragging religion into the discussion.

And what goal post did I move? I've been very clear and consistent. You are the one trying to find ways around my points and getting mad when it doesnt work.

Tell me what goal post I supposably moved so I can clarify. Thanks.

 

[Blandscape]

It isn't life.

If its not alive? It's called a MISCARRIAGE.

Now YOU are the one resorting to philosophical/religious beliefs about "what is a life".

That isnt science. Science has a set of criteria that determine if something is alive. And a human being in utero meets those and is scientifically and medically alive.

If its NOT alive....that's a miscarriage.

What a stinking pile of horseshite. Does science say that life is sustainable at conception, even under your constrictive criteria?

No it fucking doesn't.

Science doesnt say "you can kill any being who cannot live without assistance".

Science tells us that before 21 weeks, if a human in the fetal stage of development is born they will not live.

You seem to be confused about the term killing. Not allowing something to survive before it is even born or sentient is not killing, it's the nature of nature. Conception was never the beginning of life. Conception is a mere opportunity for life to continue.

 

[Blandscape]

Elective abortion are done in free standing clinics by abortionists who have no hospital admission priviledges. These are not done in hospitals, not offered by OBs, are not a normal "healthcare" service.

Can you see the problem here?

You talk about marginalising women but the current system marginalises womens healthcare at it's core by separating abortion from other OBGYN practices. If you agree that some abortion should be available for medical reasons and in the case of rape wouldn't these still be carried out in non medical surroundings thereby lowering the standard of care?

Also when does a baby exist Is it at the moment of conception which seems to be the argument here? If that is the case then both the mini pill and emergency contraception should be banned. One of the ways the mini pill works is that it doesn't allow a fertilised egg to attach to the uterus wall. Is that abortion?

As for the morning after pill

'Keep in mind that fertilization (the union of female ovum, or egg, and male sperm) occurs in the fallopian tube and that fertilization marks the beginning of a new human life - and the beginning of the pregnancy. The newly created child then travels down the fallopian tube to the uterus (womb) where he or she implants. Implantation is necessary for the new child to receive nourishment from the mother and continue developing. The journey from the fallopian tube to the womb takes between five and seven days during which pregnancy cannot be readily detected.
Therefore, if a woman ingests emergency contraception after fertilization has taken place, the third mode of action can occur. The lining of the uterus can be altered causing the woman's body to reject the living human embryo, making implantation impossible and the child will die. This result is called a chemical abortion; therefore emergency contraception is an abortifacient'.

This from a Catholic website called morningafterpill.org. Not exactly unbiased but no views here are unbiased anyway. So is a child fertilisation? It seems to be what is being said and if so it has to be taken that the morning after pill should be outlawed.

Is that right and fair? If not then abortion should be allowed. It's the only answer.

Actually why not define women who fail to fulfill their motherly duty by having their eggs fertilized & subsequently menstruating as abortionists too?

Where does this obsessive insanity end?

I think there's even a passage in the Bible that a man who ejaculates and throws his sperm on the ground as having committed sin hence thrown away a potential life as well.

You are talking a specific man who God specifically told to impregnate his brother's widow who instead pulled out.

It was about disobeying a direct command from God. It had nothing to do with wasting sperm or "potential life" or any of that nonsense.

The major problem I see with religious fundamentalists like yourself is that you move the goalposts around and arbitrarily have decided where the line in the sand is.

Where does life begin?

What constitutes an abortion or a permissile medical procedure?

You see the fundamentalists have no objective legal or even moral standard. So anyone can interpret statutes or religious passages anyway they want.

I havent used a single religious argument. Its YOU guys obsessed with dragging religion into the discussion.

Becuase that is all you have based you opinion on.

 

[Omnipotent]

In my state which has the strictess abortion laws you cannot get abortion after 20 weeks unless of course 2 doctors say the baby or mother will, something drastic like that.

The big difference between the USA and the rest of the civilized world is we do not dismember a fetus. The mother has to vaginally deliver the fetus. She has to go throug labour.

Most people cannot bear the thought of late abortion. Spontaneous or otherwise.

Only 5,000 USA women per year have 3rd trimester abortions. I looked it up.

 

[Dove]

It isn't life.

If its not alive? It's called a MISCARRIAGE.

Now YOU are the one resorting to philosophical/religious beliefs about "what is a life".

That isnt science. Science has a set of criteria that determine if something is alive. And a human being in utero meets those and is scientifically and medically alive.

If its NOT alive....that's a miscarriage.

What a stinking pile of horseshite. Does science say that life is sustainable at conception, even under your constrictive criteria?

No it fucking doesn't.

Science doesnt say "you can kill any being who cannot live without assistance".

Science tells us that before 21 weeks, if a human in the fetal stage of development is born they will not live.

You seem to be confused about the term killing. Not allowing something to survive before it is even born or sentient is not killing, it's the nature of nature. Conception was never the beginning of life. Conception is a mere opportunity for life to continue.

I'm not confused at all.

Killing a human being is not letting them survive, you stupid fuck. It's the same fucking thing. You are trying to change the language to dress it up and you are failing.

Would that human in utero continued living if you didnt directly interfere and rip its body apart? Or poison it? Or burn it? Yes? That means you've killed it.

No one where else in nature do we see any other animals having their young ripped from their wombs so the moms can keep their jobs or go to school or hold onto to some scum bag man.

Not allowing another living human to continue living is called KILLING, Bland.

 

[Blandscape]

Life has two options in the genealogical pool, immortality or simply spreading your seed.

There are Greenland sharks that are thought to live to 1,000 years old, and trees even older than that. But the favoured method to pass on gene codes is a short life and sexually promiscuous one. That may result in the casualty of the odd egg or two, but who are we to explain the nature of nature.

 

[Omnipotent]

It isn't life.

If its not alive? It's called a MISCARRIAGE.

Now YOU are the one resorting to philosophical/religious beliefs about "what is a life".

That isnt science. Science has a set of criteria that determine if something is alive. And a human being in utero meets those and is scientifically and medically alive.

If its NOT alive....that's a miscarriage.

What a stinking pile of horseshite. Does science say that life is sustainable at conception, even under your constrictive criteria?

No it fucking doesn't.

Science doesnt say "you can kill any being who cannot live without assistance".

Science tells us that before 21 weeks, if a human in the fetal stage of development is born they will not live.

You seem to be confused about the term killing. Not allowing something to survive before it is even born or sentient is not killing, it's the nature of nature. Conception was never the beginning of life. Conception is a mere opportunity for life to continue.

my midwife Christian MIL puts it better. Every embryo is a life but not every embryo is a potential for life...

And that is about the size of it.

 

[Dove]

Elective abortion are done in free standing clinics by abortionists who have no hospital admission priviledges. These are not done in hospitals, not offered by OBs, are not a normal "healthcare" service.

Can you see the problem here?

You talk about marginalising women but the current system marginalises womens healthcare at it's core by separating abortion from other OBGYN practices. If you agree that some abortion should be available for medical reasons and in the case of rape wouldn't these still be carried out in non medical surroundings thereby lowering the standard of care?

Also when does a baby exist Is it at the moment of conception which seems to be the argument here? If that is the case then both the mini pill and emergency contraception should be banned. One of the ways the mini pill works is that it doesn't allow a fertilised egg to attach to the uterus wall. Is that abortion?

As for the morning after pill

'Keep in mind that fertilization (the union of female ovum, or egg, and male sperm) occurs in the fallopian tube and that fertilization marks the beginning of a new human life - and the beginning of the pregnancy. The newly created child then travels down the fallopian tube to the uterus (womb) where he or she implants. Implantation is necessary for the new child to receive nourishment from the mother and continue developing. The journey from the fallopian tube to the womb takes between five and seven days during which pregnancy cannot be readily detected.
Therefore, if a woman ingests emergency contraception after fertilization has taken place, the third mode of action can occur. The lining of the uterus can be altered causing the woman's body to reject the living human embryo, making implantation impossible and the child will die. This result is called a chemical abortion; therefore emergency contraception is an abortifacient'.

This from a Catholic website called morningafterpill.org. Not exactly unbiased but no views here are unbiased anyway. So is a child fertilisation? It seems to be what is being said and if so it has to be taken that the morning after pill should be outlawed.

Is that right and fair? If not then abortion should be allowed. It's the only answer.

Actually why not define women who fail to fulfill their motherly duty by having their eggs fertilized & subsequently menstruating as abortionists too?

Where does this obsessive insanity end?

I think there's even a passage in the Bible that a man who ejaculates and throws his sperm on the ground as having committed sin hence thrown away a potential life as well.

You are talking a specific man who God specifically told to impregnate his brother's widow who instead pulled out.

It was about disobeying a direct command from God. It had nothing to do with wasting sperm or "potential life" or any of that nonsense.

The major problem I see with religious fundamentalists like yourself is that you move the goalposts around and arbitrarily have decided where the line in the sand is.

Where does life begin?

What constitutes an abortion or a permissile medical procedure?

You see the fundamentalists have no objective legal or even moral standard. So anyone can interpret statutes or religious passages anyway they want.

I havent used a single religious argument. Its YOU guys obsessed with dragging religion into the discussion.

Becuase that is all you have based you opinion on.

No, I have not made one religious argument against abortion. Ever argument I've made is science.

It doesnt matter what I BASE my opinion on. What matters is my ARGUMENTS are based on scientific facts

MY philosophy is pro human rights for all humans. My opinion is based on that

Yours is human rights are limited only for humans who can survive without help. That's what your shit is based on.

 

[Blandscape]

It isn't life.

If its not alive? It's called a MISCARRIAGE.

Now YOU are the one resorting to philosophical/religious beliefs about "what is a life".

That isnt science. Science has a set of criteria that determine if something is alive. And a human being in utero meets those and is scientifically and medically alive.

If its NOT alive....that's a miscarriage.

What a stinking pile of horseshite. Does science say that life is sustainable at conception, even under your constrictive criteria?

No it fucking doesn't.

Science doesnt say "you can kill any being who cannot live without assistance".

Science tells us that before 21 weeks, if a human in the fetal stage of development is born they will not live.

You seem to be confused about the term killing. Not allowing something to survive before it is even born or sentient is not killing, it's the nature of nature. Conception was never the beginning of life. Conception is a mere opportunity for life to continue.

I'm not confused at all.

Killing a human being is not letting them survive, you stupid fuck.

You just said a few posts ago it is not a human being until 21 weeks without massive medical intervention.

Make your mind up.

 

[Blandscape]

Elective abortion are done in free standing clinics by abortionists who have no hospital admission priviledges. These are not done in hospitals, not offered by OBs, are not a normal "healthcare" service.

Can you see the problem here?

You talk about marginalising women but the current system marginalises womens healthcare at it's core by separating abortion from other OBGYN practices. If you agree that some abortion should be available for medical reasons and in the case of rape wouldn't these still be carried out in non medical surroundings thereby lowering the standard of care?

Also when does a baby exist Is it at the moment of conception which seems to be the argument here? If that is the case then both the mini pill and emergency contraception should be banned. One of the ways the mini pill works is that it doesn't allow a fertilised egg to attach to the uterus wall. Is that abortion?

As for the morning after pill

'Keep in mind that fertilization (the union of female ovum, or egg, and male sperm) occurs in the fallopian tube and that fertilization marks the beginning of a new human life - and the beginning of the pregnancy. The newly created child then travels down the fallopian tube to the uterus (womb) where he or she implants. Implantation is necessary for the new child to receive nourishment from the mother and continue developing. The journey from the fallopian tube to the womb takes between five and seven days during which pregnancy cannot be readily detected.
Therefore, if a woman ingests emergency contraception after fertilization has taken place, the third mode of action can occur. The lining of the uterus can be altered causing the woman's body to reject the living human embryo, making implantation impossible and the child will die. This result is called a chemical abortion; therefore emergency contraception is an abortifacient'.

This from a Catholic website called morningafterpill.org. Not exactly unbiased but no views here are unbiased anyway. So is a child fertilisation? It seems to be what is being said and if so it has to be taken that the morning after pill should be outlawed.

Is that right and fair? If not then abortion should be allowed. It's the only answer.

Actually why not define women who fail to fulfill their motherly duty by having their eggs fertilized & subsequently menstruating as abortionists too?

Where does this obsessive insanity end?

I think there's even a passage in the Bible that a man who ejaculates and throws his sperm on the ground as having committed sin hence thrown away a potential life as well.

You are talking a specific man who God specifically told to impregnate his brother's widow who instead pulled out.

It was about disobeying a direct command from God. It had nothing to do with wasting sperm or "potential life" or any of that nonsense.

The major problem I see with religious fundamentalists like yourself is that you move the goalposts around and arbitrarily have decided where the line in the sand is.

Where does life begin?

What constitutes an abortion or a permissile medical procedure?

You see the fundamentalists have no objective legal or even moral standard. So anyone can interpret statutes or religious passages anyway they want.

I havent used a single religious argument. Its YOU guys obsessed with dragging religion into the discussion.

Becuase that is all you have based you opinion on.

Ever argument I've made is science.

No it isn't. So what you are saying is every Western Democracy and their scientists have it wrong, but Dovey has nailed it.

 

[Dove]

It isn't life.

If its not alive? It's called a MISCARRIAGE.

Now YOU are the one resorting to philosophical/religious beliefs about "what is a life".

That isnt science. Science has a set of criteria that determine if something is alive. And a human being in utero meets those and is scientifically and medically alive.

If its NOT alive....that's a miscarriage.

What a stinking pile of horseshite. Does science say that life is sustainable at conception, even under your constrictive criteria?

No it fucking doesn't.

Science doesnt say "you can kill any being who cannot live without assistance".

Science tells us that before 21 weeks, if a human in the fetal stage of development is born they will not live.

You seem to be confused about the term killing. Not allowing something to survive before it is even born or sentient is not killing, it's the nature of nature. Conception was never the beginning of life. Conception is a mere opportunity for life to continue.

my midwife Christian MIL puts it better. Every embryo is a life but not a potential for life...

And that is about the size of it.

I mean.....yeah. A human in the embryo stage is a life. It's not a potential life.

If people are pro choice, they should be honest and rooted in reality. Every abortion is a tragedy and women grieve. It's a life lost.

 

[Blandscape]

Elective abortion are done in free standing clinics by abortionists who have no hospital admission priviledges. These are not done in hospitals, not offered by OBs, are not a normal "healthcare" service.

Can you see the problem here?

You talk about marginalising women but the current system marginalises womens healthcare at it's core by separating abortion from other OBGYN practices. If you agree that some abortion should be available for medical reasons and in the case of rape wouldn't these still be carried out in non medical surroundings thereby lowering the standard of care?

Also when does a baby exist Is it at the moment of conception which seems to be the argument here? If that is the case then both the mini pill and emergency contraception should be banned. One of the ways the mini pill works is that it doesn't allow a fertilised egg to attach to the uterus wall. Is that abortion?

As for the morning after pill

'Keep in mind that fertilization (the union of female ovum, or egg, and male sperm) occurs in the fallopian tube and that fertilization marks the beginning of a new human life - and the beginning of the pregnancy. The newly created child then travels down the fallopian tube to the uterus (womb) where he or she implants. Implantation is necessary for the new child to receive nourishment from the mother and continue developing. The journey from the fallopian tube to the womb takes between five and seven days during which pregnancy cannot be readily detected.
Therefore, if a woman ingests emergency contraception after fertilization has taken place, the third mode of action can occur. The lining of the uterus can be altered causing the woman's body to reject the living human embryo, making implantation impossible and the child will die. This result is called a chemical abortion; therefore emergency contraception is an abortifacient'.

This from a Catholic website called morningafterpill.org. Not exactly unbiased but no views here are unbiased anyway. So is a child fertilisation? It seems to be what is being said and if so it has to be taken that the morning after pill should be outlawed.

Is that right and fair? If not then abortion should be allowed. It's the only answer.

Actually why not define women who fail to fulfill their motherly duty by having their eggs fertilized & subsequently menstruating as abortionists too?

Where does this obsessive insanity end?

I think there's even a passage in the Bible that a man who ejaculates and throws his sperm on the ground as having committed sin hence thrown away a potential life as well.

You are talking a specific man who God specifically told to impregnate his brother's widow who instead pulled out.

It was about disobeying a direct command from God. It had nothing to do with wasting sperm or "potential life" or any of that nonsense.

The major problem I see with religious fundamentalists like yourself is that you move the goalposts around and arbitrarily have decided where the line in the sand is.

Where does life begin?

What constitutes an abortion or a permissile medical procedure?

You see the fundamentalists have no objective legal or even moral standard. So anyone can interpret statutes or religious passages anyway they want.

I havent used a single religious argument. Its YOU guys obsessed with dragging religion into the discussion.

Becuase that is all you have based you opinion on.

Ever argument I've made is science.

No it isn't. So what you are saying is every Western Democracy and their scientists have it wrong, but Dovey has nailed it.

Along with Trump pick Christian fundamentalists in SCOTUS?

 

[Blandscape]

It isn't life.

If its not alive? It's called a MISCARRIAGE.

Now YOU are the one resorting to philosophical/religious beliefs about "what is a life".

That isnt science. Science has a set of criteria that determine if something is alive. And a human being in utero meets those and is scientifically and medically alive.

If its NOT alive....that's a miscarriage.

What a stinking pile of horseshite. Does science say that life is sustainable at conception, even under your constrictive criteria?

No it fucking doesn't.

Science doesnt say "you can kill any being who cannot live without assistance".

Science tells us that before 21 weeks, if a human in the fetal stage of development is born they will not live.

You seem to be confused about the term killing. Not allowing something to survive before it is even born or sentient is not killing, it's the nature of nature. Conception was never the beginning of life. Conception is a mere opportunity for life to continue.

my midwife Christian MIL puts it better. Every embryo is a life but not a potential for life...

And that is about the size of it.

It's not a potential life.

If it cannot survive, it is only a potential life.

 

[Dove]

It isn't life.

If its not alive? It's called a MISCARRIAGE.

Now YOU are the one resorting to philosophical/religious beliefs about "what is a life".

That isnt science. Science has a set of criteria that determine if something is alive. And a human being in utero meets those and is scientifically and medically alive.

If its NOT alive....that's a miscarriage.

What a stinking pile of horseshite. Does science say that life is sustainable at conception, even under your constrictive criteria?

No it fucking doesn't.

Science doesnt say "you can kill any being who cannot live without assistance".

Science tells us that before 21 weeks, if a human in the fetal stage of development is born they will not live.

You seem to be confused about the term killing. Not allowing something to survive before it is even born or sentient is not killing, it's the nature of nature. Conception was never the beginning of life. Conception is a mere opportunity for life to continue.

I'm not confused at all.

Killing a human being is not letting them survive, you stupid fuck.

You just said a few posts ago it is not a human being until 21 weeks without massive medical intervention.

Make your mind up.

Omfg.

Bland, just because a human is not viable for a temporary period of time.....doesnt mean that we should be able to KILL them.

See how you are too stupid for this talk? You dont even grasp your own argument.

 

[Blandscape]

Just like nature intended.

 

[Blandscape]

It isn't life.

If its not alive? It's called a MISCARRIAGE.

Now YOU are the one resorting to philosophical/religious beliefs about "what is a life".

That isnt science. Science has a set of criteria that determine if something is alive. And a human being in utero meets those and is scientifically and medically alive.

If its NOT alive....that's a miscarriage.

What a stinking pile of horseshite. Does science say that life is sustainable at conception, even under your constrictive criteria?

No it fucking doesn't.

Science doesnt say "you can kill any being who cannot live without assistance".

Science tells us that before 21 weeks, if a human in the fetal stage of development is born they will not live.

You seem to be confused about the term killing. Not allowing something to survive before it is even born or sentient is not killing, it's the nature of nature. Conception was never the beginning of life. Conception is a mere opportunity for life to continue.

my midwife Christian MIL puts it better. Every embryo is a life but not a potential for life...

And that is about the size of it.

Every abortion is a tragedy and women grieve. It's a life lost.

I am sure they do grieve, but that is not you choice to make. Is it.

 

[Dove]

It isn't life.

If its not alive? It's called a MISCARRIAGE.

Now YOU are the one resorting to philosophical/religious beliefs about "what is a life".

That isnt science. Science has a set of criteria that determine if something is alive. And a human being in utero meets those and is scientifically and medically alive.

If its NOT alive....that's a miscarriage.

What a stinking pile of horseshite. Does science say that life is sustainable at conception, even under your constrictive criteria?

No it fucking doesn't.

Science doesnt say "you can kill any being who cannot live without assistance".

Science tells us that before 21 weeks, if a human in the fetal stage of development is born they will not live.

You seem to be confused about the term killing. Not allowing something to survive before it is even born or sentient is not killing, it's the nature of nature. Conception was never the beginning of life. Conception is a mere opportunity for life to continue.

my midwife Christian MIL puts it better. Every embryo is a life but not a potential for life...

And that is about the size of it.

It's not a potential life.

If it cannot survive, it is only a potential life.

That is completely factually FALSE.

A "potential life" would be a fertilized egg that didnt implant. Or a wasted gamete.

A human embryo is not "potentially alive". If its NOT alive that's a miscarriage.

You have no idea how to separate YOUR beliefs from facts. In order to call something a "potential life"......you are now using philosophical standards to ruminate on what is a "life".

You need to stick to scientific standards on what defines alive. In a scientific context "a life" means something observable alive by scientific standards. You are using "a life" in a philosophical manner.

 

[Blandscape]

It isn't life.

If its not alive? It's called a MISCARRIAGE.

Now YOU are the one resorting to philosophical/religious beliefs about "what is a life".

That isnt science. Science has a set of criteria that determine if something is alive. And a human being in utero meets those and is scientifically and medically alive.

If its NOT alive....that's a miscarriage.

What a stinking pile of horseshite. Does science say that life is sustainable at conception, even under your constrictive criteria?

No it fucking doesn't.

Science doesnt say "you can kill any being who cannot live without assistance".

Science tells us that before 21 weeks, if a human in the fetal stage of development is born they will not live.

You seem to be confused about the term killing. Not allowing something to survive before it is even born or sentient is not killing, it's the nature of nature. Conception was never the beginning of life. Conception is a mere opportunity for life to continue.

my midwife Christian MIL puts it better. Every embryo is a life but not a potential for life...

And that is about the size of it.

It's not a potential life.

If it cannot survive, it is only a potential life.

That is completely factually FALSE.

A "potential life" would be a fertilized egg that didnt implant. Or a wasted gamete.

Eh? I mean eh?

 

[Biggie Smiles]

It isn't life.

If its not alive? It's called a MISCARRIAGE.

Now YOU are the one resorting to philosophical/religious beliefs about "what is a life".

That isnt science. Science has a set of criteria that determine if something is alive. And a human being in utero meets those and is scientifically and medically alive.

If its NOT alive....that's a miscarriage.

What a stinking pile of horseshite. Does science say that life is sustainable at conception, even under your constrictive criteria?

No it fucking doesn't.

Science doesnt say "you can kill any being who cannot live without assistance".

Science tells us that before 21 weeks, if a human in the fetal stage of development is born they will not live.

You seem to be confused about the term killing. Not allowing something to survive before it is even born or sentient is not killing, it's the nature of nature. Conception was never the beginning of life. Conception is a mere opportunity for life to continue.

I'm not confused at all.

Killing a human being is not letting them survive, you stupid fuck.

You just said a few posts ago it is not a human being until 21 weeks without massive medical intervention.

Make your mind up.

Omfg.

Bland, just because a human is not viable for a temporary period of time.....doesnt mean that we should be able to KILL them.

See how you are too stupid for this talk? You dont even grasp your own argument.

Why do you bother arguing with a mentally Ill idiot like mongscape. ? The guy is a less coherent version of admin