???? What? who said anything about actions that resort in a pregnancy? LOL wow just take the L and move on because an asinine statement like this won't make your failed analogy better it only makes it worse.
Your inability to recognize facts isn’t my problem.
“Triggered” is you. Long ago, I stopped giving a shit about the opinions of ignorant and dishonest people.the so what is it makes your post make no sense and who is being dishonest? proof? link? qoute?
Wrong, its totally relevant to YOUR statement i just quoted about Anti-abortion claimign science agrees with them.im not anti abortioin
nope you have not
not with any facts that make your claim one also
no, you didnt as proven already
again its YOUR statement its YOUR burden to prove
not a scientific consensus you didnt lol
no its not since its your claim and have yet to post one fact that makes it true
Melting down over this and being so triggered is irrational LMAO it changes nothing it only entertains me
this is your statement
I simply asked based on what science and can you provide a fact that makes that claim also a fact. you can not
1. You only speak for yourself.Soooo still no facts that make your claim also a fact? only your feelings and more triggered meltdowns and failed personal attacks? Got it.
Let us know when that changes and you can provide one fact that makes your claim fact, thanks!
That's part of my job if necessary.
Another post and still nothing, weird, its almost like you think you changed something and you didnt just waste a post and further my entertainment LMAO
so far you nor anybody has posted anything that makes your claim a fact.
Getting angry over that surely wont change it.
To do whatever it takes to win games for the organization that is paying me.
As expected. More pathetic evading and kiddie taunts.Another post and still nothing, weird, its almost like you think you changed something and you didnt just waste a post and further my entertainment LMAO
well we are still in the same spot, heres your qoute
so far you nor anybody has posted anything that makes your claim a fact.
Until you can nothing else you post, personal attacks, triggered meltdowns, dodges, deflections, lies etc etc matters. It just further exposes the reality your statement has no factual support that makes it true.
Please let us know when that changes, thanks!
Again? more anger, personal attacks and triggered meltdowns? LOL . . .wow
You're the one asserting there is a scientific consensus on what is and what is not human life. It is not on me to prove a negative. It's on you to prove the assertion is correct.
100% factually wrong. It was claimed "By scientific, fetuses aren’t “humans”." by another (look one post up for the quote), then you claimed they are right. I asked that person to prove THEIR statement and stated I've never seen any evidence of that and over the years many links have been posted otherwise.
I'm pro-choice and you're out of line. Plenty of people want RvW overturned simply because they believe it should be handled by the States instead of the Fed. Still others read RvW Section 9a and finde that current law fulfills that requirement, meaning that RvW itself bans abortion; they don't want RvW overturned, they want RvW ENFORCED to ban abortion.
No it isn't; what about a foetus so badly deformed during pregnancy that it has no chance of survival, or an anencephalic foetus? There is nothing immoral about terminating a 'life' like that. Then there are the victims of rape who may have no means of supporting a child, let alone wanting to bring up and nurture the consequence of their assault.
So screw any considerations for the wellbeing of those under your care, because a stupid game and money are more important? That is truly sick; you're not in the ****ing army.
You're welcome to all the semantic gymnastics you like, but there is no consensus among scientists on when a developing human embryo/fetus becomes "human." Here's what looks like a good write-up; emphasis added to the quote:100% factually wrong. It was claimed "By scientific, fetuses aren’t “humans”." by another (look one post up for the quote), then you claimed they are right. I asked that person to prove THEIR statement and stated I've never seen any evidence of that and over the years many links have been posted otherwise.
So nope, not on me at all
And the religious right-wing 'pro-life' hypocrites who are the majority opponents to Roe v Wade are experts in morality? Don't make me laugh! Their 'morality' ends as soon as an unwanted child is born and relegated to a life of institutional misery; no parents, no love, no nurturing, no socialisation. Once these kids reach the age of majority they have to fend for themselves and many end up on the streets; homeless, vulnerable and the victims of drug pushers, alcohol abuse and crime. You want to put a child through that because 'morals'?You're welcome to all the semantic gymnastics you like, but there is no consensus among scientists on when a developing human embryo/fetus becomes "human." Here's what looks like a good write-up; emphasis added to the quote:
SCOTT GILBERT WAS walking through the halls of Swarthmore when he saw the poster, from a campus religious group: “Philosophers and theologians have argued for centuries about when personhood begins,” it read. “But scientists know when it begins. It begins at fertilization.” What troubled Gilbert, who is a developmental biologist, was the assertion that “scientists know.” “I couldn’t say when personhood begins, but I can say with absolute certainty scientists don’t have a consensus,” he says.Why Science Can't Say When a Baby's Life Begins
If anything, science has only complicated the personhood debate.www.wired.com
Science can tell us when life begins, but the question of when that life becomes human is not a scientific question. It's a moral question, and on matters or morality scientists are no more the experts than, say, accountants or shopkeepers.
The Constitution proves you wrong. You obviously know that.
Your apparent need to gainsay has left you blind on this issue.
Wouldn't surprise me to learn the average Christian is more charitable than are you.
Foetuses can develop without a brain. That isn't a 'life'. 'Morality' is a moveable feast and what was once considered morally ok, like burning witches, hunting animals for 'trophies' is now morally reprehensible.
Christian charity always comes along with proselytization and moralistic preaching. They prey on those who are most vulnerable in order to spread their religion. It's sick. Charity shouldn't come with caveats.