40-50% of all embryos are non viable at conception. That means their DNA is flawed. That’s why “they” stop growing. That’s why women miscarry. If life began at conception we would not have 40-50% be spontaneously aborted.
DNA would be the standard method, that is the code on which defines a particular human and all of us are built. Then you can do simple scientific observation - given a chance that single cell will turn into an adult human with that same DNA - plenty of proof of that, all of us in fact.
That's the world we live in today. We have a bunch of old white guys huddling together making up laws to regulate something they have zero knowledge on and zero impact on them.My wife's an embryologist. I guess she's going to hell according to some people.
We're keen to see how crazy some states will go with their laws and how it will impact the fertility clinics and those that need assistance to have children.
If an embryo is spontaneously aborted does that mean a soul is destroyed?40-50% of all embryos are non viable at conception. That means their DNA is flawed. That’s why “they” stop growing. That’s why women miscarry. If life began at conception we would not have 40-50% be spontaneously aborted.
Gonna need to massively update the life expectancy numbers in the US as a result of this. Should put is right squarely at the bottom of the pack where we belong.40-50% of all embryos are non viable at conception. That means their DNA is flawed. That’s why “they” stop growing. That’s why women miscarry. If life began at conception we would not have 40-50% be spontaneously aborted.
If an embryo is spontaneously aborted does that mean a soul is destroyed?
I, for one, welcome our demonic baby overlords.No, it means SATAN has zillions of souls that haven't even been potty trained yet.
The point that I most wanted to make was that a human being when faced with saving children vs embryos will do what is obviously the proper thing to do in that moment, and that in any real world situation that would be to save children. That is because a normal human being tries to do, when it comes to saving lives, what seems like the obvious good. In part that is because embryos are not obvious to a person saving people in a fire, they are frozen inside of machines, and it would also be pointless to try to save them because there would be little hope they would survive outside of cryogenic temperatures which normally nobody reacting to such an event would have on hand. But to say that if someone were capable of rescuing frozen fetuses and others were saving children, in such a case the decision as to where such a person could do the most good might be different.You’re adding additional conditions to create uncertainty. If given the simple choice 100% of people would save the baby.
I am not sure what you want to tell me but I wasn't trying to convince anybody of anything. I was talking about my own opinion on abortion, that the only opinion that would matter to me would be my own but because I am not a woman my opinion has no point because I will never be pregnant myself. If I were a woman and were pregnant I would have to make up my mind as to whether to have a child or not. When I say it isn't my business to tell others what to do about abortion that is for me to act on. I have no control over what other people do to save lives. When others act to prevent abortion on the theory it saves lives I don't think it's any of their business to force that on others.You are not female.
You are also not other people.
Yet you grant other people the right to life, and act against their murder.
But what happens to others is also none of your business....
The whole "their choice" notion falls short on the subject of murder.
If people want to protect the baby, you're not going to convince them.
Ackshually, Atreus said he would slap a baby before he would set fire to a tray of embryos.The point that I most wanted to make was that a human being when faced with saving children vs embryos will do what is obviously the proper thing to do in that moment, and that in any real world situation that would be to save children. That is because a normal human being tries to do, when it comes to saving lives, what seems like the obvious good. ...
Yes, but the question is, not which he would rather harm, but who he would rather save. I used to try to tell him that he tied himself in knots with his insistence on focus on one absolute at the price of another, that other people have an absolute right not to live their lives based on his opinion about what is absolute. Wiser people, deeply religious people, have held that a fetus is not a person and spare themselves all the pro life misery to themselves and what they do in their egotistical certainty to others.
I think there is no reason to sugar coat it. The question is do women have the tight to terminate a life within them that they do not want to have. The answer has to be yes. How can forcing a woman th carry a life she does not want within her anything but the presumptive arrogance of the emotionally uninvolved.The debate isn’t about when life begins because that doesn’t change what the real debate is about, which is whether or not women have full control over their body or not.
If you don’t think women should have full control over their body then it’s a matter of how much control do we want to give them.
You are so right. Will these red states allow people to claim an extra exemption when they have a fertilized egg in their body which happens a lot if couples are sexually active?Life begins when you can claim it on your taxes.
3 weeks pregnant woman attempts suicide and fails, at hospital tests positive for pregnancy. 2 weeks later has a miscarriage.I posted on right wing site the fireman into a burning hospital test. Do you save 6 newborns or go to the IVF clinic and save 500 fertilized eggs. Some of the answers are hilarious. I’ll try to compile and post them later. Let’s say most of the answers were pure anger but no one could solve
At 3 weeks, do you even know that you're pregnant? Unless you keep a meticulous record of your ovulation cycles.3 weeks pregnant woman attempts suicide and fails, at hospital tests positive for pregnancy. 2 weeks later has a miscarriage.
Do we charge the woman with murder or homicide?
Irrelevant to the forced birthers. There was a human life in that woman'sAt 3 weeks, do you even know that you're pregnant? Unless you keep a meticulous record of your ovulation cycles.
Ask them what they would choose if they had to choose between slapping a 6yo girl hard in the face or setting a tray of embryos on fire.I posted on right wing site the fireman into a burning hospital test. Do you save 6 newborns or go to the IVF clinic and save 500 fertilized eggs. Some of the answers are hilarious. I’ll try to compile and post them later. Let’s say most of the answers were pure anger but no one could solve
That's a very concise statement that I tend to agree with. But while that might be the sane answer, it's not the constitutional answer under a strict constructionist point of view.I think there is no reason to sugar coat it. The question is do women have the tight to terminate a life within them that they do not want to have. The answer has to be yes. How can forcing a woman th carry a life she does not want within her anything but the presumptive arrogance of the emotionally uninvolved.
SCOTUS literally bullshitted its way to its opinion.That's a very concise statement that I tend to agree with. But while that might be the sane answer, it's not the constitutional answer under a strict constructionist point of view.
No, it means SATAN has zillions of souls that haven't even been potty trained yet.
Yes, but a strict constitutionalist point of view is a modern interpretation on the right as to how the constitution should be viewed. It is neither correct nor historical but pretends to be. As a liberal who claims to have an inner understanding of the enlightenment that illuminated so much of the founding fathers thinking, I assure you it would not be possible for such men not to know that law is only a proximate attempt at justice and truth, the awareness of which demands a higher living conscious state that can’t ever be fixed or fully formulated in words. Truth constantly refreshes itself depending of the living context in which it is expressed. The conservative justices do not want to see that. Their job is to deal out justice on ideological lines, the very thing the court was put in place to avoid. They are out of step both with the American people and reality.That's a very concise statement that I tend to agree with. But while that might be the sane answer, it's not the constitutional answer under a strict constructionist point of view.
That's a very concise statement that I tend to agree with. But while that might be the sane answer, it's not the constitutional answer under a strict constructionist point of view.