Free debating tips for pro-legalized abortionists

I probably shouldn’t help pro-legalized abortion advocates with their arguments, but our reasoning is so strong that I’m willing to aid them.  Plus, it will save us time in not having to refute so many bad arguments.

Here are some free tips.  Before you type another pro-legalized abortion argument:

  1. Ask yourself what the science textbooks affirm.  Science can be wrong, but it is so unanimous in this case that you should have strong scientific and logical arguments of your own if you are taking the opposite view – especially when the scientific argument is the opposite of the politically correct argument (I emphasized that in anticipation of the  “but you don’t believe in Darwinian evolution” claim).  If you don’t believe the fact of science that the unborn are distinct human beings then I’m not sure why you’d believe anything in science.  And it isn’t like these scientists are biased against abortion.  They probably favor it, but they have the intellectual integrity to state the obvious: A new human being is created at conception.  Therefore, skip any arguments insisting that the unborn aren’t human, are just a bunch of cells that become human later, etc.
  2. Ask yourself whether your argument would also justify killing unwanted humans outside the womb.  If so, you might want to try another angle.  This will eliminate the appeals to viability, dependency, awareness, etc. because infants and others wouldn’t meet some or all of those.  This is the “trot out the toddler” argument.
  3. Ask yourself if the argument addresses the same thing for the rights of human beings in the womb.  If not, you have assumed what you should be proving.  This will eliminate most of your arguments, such as delivering the baby could impact the mother’s economic status / education / career / romantic life / etc. Those reasons may add psychological / emotional complexity to the situation, but they don’t justify killing human beings outside the womb.  Therefore, they don’t justify killing human beings inside the womb.
  4. Remember that your “unborn humans are parasites!” argument makes you look foolish to the middle ground, it fails factually and logically on several levels and it puts you in the position of supporting the killing of fully delivered babies that are still connected to the mother via the umbilical cord (you might be in favor of that, but it isn’t the kind of thing that scores you points in front of undecided people).
  5. Don’t ever play the “most pregnancies end in miscarriage” card, because it fails mightily and contradicts your premise.  First, know that most people understand the difference between someone outside the womb being murdered versus dying of natural causes, and they also understand the difference between deliberate destruction inside the womb and a miscarriage.  Second, using your logic women should never have abortions because miscarriages would be so likely.  Why spend all that money on a risky medical procedure if it will likely happen anyway for free?
  6. Determine whether professional pro-abortionists have already conceded the points you are trying to make.  If so, you probably shouldn’t use those arguments. Here’s an example from one of the most radically pro-abortion people in the country (he even supports infanticide):

Peter Singer, contemporary philosopher and public abortion advocate, joins the chorus in his book, Practical Ethics. He writes: It is possible to give ‘human being’ a precise meaning. We can use it as equivalent to ‘member of the species Homo sapiens’. Whether a being is a member of a given species is something that can be determined scientifically, by an examination of the nature of the chromosomes in the cells of living organisms. In this sense there is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and eggs is a human being.

I hope this helps make your debates more productive!

30 thoughts on “Free debating tips for pro-legalized abortionists

  1. Your points fail.
    1) Scientist have proven that it is human tissue, not that it is a human being. In fact scientist have proven it is only a potential life, not a real life.
    2) No need to reach the idea of what happens outside the womb, because it is not a human being, it is human tissue. And if one gives it the rights of a human being then that leads to the death of other humans. Read the “Law of Charity” at http://www.naturalabortionlaws.com
    3) There is no toddler in the womb, a person cannot assume the zygote will even live because 70 percent die. Therefore, why take away the rights of a woman, cause the death of another human or do other pro life sins simply to save what may or may not be life?
    4) The reach to claim that it is not a parasite fails,—- it is not a baby, it is not a toddler, it is not a human being and it is living off the mother. Who cares if it is or is not a parasite. It is clearly not a human being.
    5) I am a professional advocate so to speak, so what I say is what professionals say. And I say that anyone that is pro life is causing death.

    These are the laws that determine the morality of abortion: http://www.naturalabortionlaws.com

    • Ah, that’s the problem with pro-aborts. They just can’t face facts. It is a strong delusion, but I suppose it makes sense when you are rationalizing the destruction of the most vulnerable humans.

      Your points fail.
      1) Scientist have proven that it is human tissue, not that it is a human being. In fact scientist have proven it is only a potential life, not a real life.

      Hmmm . . . I provided quotes from 10+ embryology texts plus other sources and you provided _______________.

      If it is only a potential life, then have a potential abortion. If the unborn weren’t alive, why have an abortion? The fact that they are alive and growing is the “problem.”

      2) No need to reach the idea of what happens outside the womb, because it is not a human being, it is human tissue. And if one gives it the rights of a human being then that leads to the death of other humans. Read the “Law of Charity” at http://www.naturalabortionlaws.com

      Just because you repeat “human tissue, not human being” doesn’t make it true. This is very typical of pro-aborts.

      Yes, I read your “law of charity,” which would be laughable if you weren’t rationalizing the destruction of innocent people. It is a classic zero-sum fallacy. I could write volumes of the stupidity of that claim, but here’s a simple example: It implies that if you kill yourself and your family today that you would save an equivalent number of lives elsewhere. See anything wrong with that?

      3) There is no toddler in the womb, a person cannot assume the zygote will even live because 70 percent die. Therefore, why take away the rights of a woman, cause the death of another human or do other pro life sins simply to save what may or may not be life?

      I didn’t claim there was a toddler in the womb. I claimed that it was a human being at a particular stage of development.

      Re. zygotes dying, do you really not see the difference between killing someone outside the womb versus that person dying of natural causes? The same thing applies inside the womb.

      And that argument is a massive fail on another level: Why have an abortion if “nature” will take care of the job for you 70% of the time? You should be anti-abortion for that reason alone. After all, you would be saving women hundreds of dollars and eliminating the “need” for a risky medical procedure.

      4) The reach to claim that it is not a parasite fails,—- it is not a baby, it is not a toddler, it is not a human being and it is living off the mother. Who cares if it is or is not a parasite. It is clearly not a human being.

      Go re-read the embryology textbooks.

      5) I am a professional advocate so to speak, so what I say is what professionals say. And I say that anyone that is pro life is causing death.

      These are the laws that determine the morality of abortion: http://www.naturalabortionlaws.com

      Thanks so much for visiting and commenting! Radical pro-aborts like you do more to advance the pro-life cause than I ever could. I’m aware that radicals like you won’t be persuaded by scientific facts and basic moral reasoning, but I trust the middle ground to see your arguments for what they are: fully fallacious.

  2. Oh, Russell, please teach me, wise sage! You are the master and I am but a lowly padawan!

    1. I have three sons, and what you have just taught me is that while I was pregnant with each of them, I must have grown a penis, and then lost it, and then grew it back, and then lost it, and then grew it back again, and then lost it again! Have you ever met anyone as talented as me?

    2. Speaking of my son’s penises, since my boys were only “human tissue” while in my uterus, if I could arrange to have them castrated before they were born, would that would be fitting within your natural abortion laws? They’re only tissue, not alive- so I, as an autonomous human being, should have the right to choose which part of “my” tissue I am happy to keep inside me and which part needs to go, right? So, off with their bits! Say, after the castration, my husband is in an accident, and he loses an arm, and so while I’m pregnant, I decide that I want my sons to look just like their dad, and ask a doctor to remove an arm from each of them. They’re just tissue, part of my body, right, no harm, no foul no natural law broken, right?

    3. I was under the impression that 100% of human beings die at some point, and I’m not sure how that fact gives one human the right to kill another human. Can you please teach me, and while you’ve got your chalk out, please explain how “potential life” can die when it’s not “real life” yet?

    4. Oh wow, zing, nice one! I must congratulate you on a nice tidy job of avoiding the question- I don’t think anyone noticed. While you were busy dodging/sidestepping/making no sense, I was wondering about what you would think if I had decided that I didn’t want to have to buy shoes for my one armed potentially-alive, only- tissue eunuchs, and so I asked the Doc to cut both their feet off, remembering, they are still inside me, part of me, so it doesn’t matter, right? I think I’d like them to be shorter too. Can I ask to have their feet taken off at the knees?

    5. Oh my word!! What you say is what goes! I didn’t realise I was talking to God, Russell. I’m sorry, hold on while I take off my shoes. I’m excited to share with you that I’m a professional too, though I’m one of those weird professionals who makes decisions based on research and evidence and other strange scientific methods rather than the “I think it therefore it is” method more common to teenagers and other partly-developed potential humans. I have no idea what kind of professional you are or which professional society you’re a member of, but while we’re sharing, I should mention that I’m a professional advocate for pregnant women, and their children (those who are already born and also those pesky potential-life-parasitic-uterine-hitch-hikers that you’re teaching me to dissect.)
    .
    Thanks for your brilliant teaching. Up until now, I thought I was complete as a woman with no need to apologise for my fertility, but I can see now that I will never be equal to you without invasive surgery or dangerous chemicals to clean my womb of parasites.

    I used to think I had lots of choices, including when and with whom I would decide to have sex with, but I can see now that those choices don’t matter, it’s all about submitting to my animal instincts, and even if by my actions, I invite the parasitical-potentially-alive-human-tissue into my uterus, it’s my right to have any part of that tissue removed, for any reason, or no reason at all.

    You’ve motivated me to get pregnant at least twenty more times, so I can keep exercising my rights to control my own body. Since it’s my right, you’re happy, as a taxpayer, to foot the bill for my multiple abortions, correct? I think I need at least 20 abortions, or at least partial abortions, to be complete as an empowered, rights-cherishing woman. Oh Russell, you’re my hero. I was blind, now I see.

    ;o)

  3. Neil, you do realize, don’t you, that if you make the pro-legalized abortion advocates argument for them they will have to rely on falsehoods to argue with you?

    Oh, never mind. Apparently Russel has already proven my point.

  4. Your ideas still fail. Human tissue like the zygote can be frozen and live while a human being cannot be frozen and live. Your sources are simply taken out of context and mean nothing. they are a waste of space. Until you get a source that says that the zygote is a developed human being, that will live past conception too birth, that cannot be frozen and live, and that is not made from material that is already living, your ideas fail. Calling me names will get you nowhere and is a sign of your insecurity regarding these issues.

    You can say the zygote is alive until you are blue in the face. But the fact is that after conception only thirty percent live. So pro lifers are killing living children, adults and other fetuses trying to saved something that may not even be alive.
    Thanks for the opportunity to straighten out your misleading statements.

    • Russell is irritating, but he is still the gift that keeps on giving.

      Human tissue like the zygote can be frozen and live while a human being cannot be frozen and live.

      Ah, so Russell came up with an exotic, personalized definition of what “really alive” means so he can justify destroying innocent human beings. Bonus points for creativity, but he loses those and more for his freaky worldview.

      Your sources are simply taken out of context and mean nothing.

      Uh, yeah, all those secular embryology textbooks mean nothing to do the debate over when life begins.

      • Russell: So a zygote isn’t alive because it isn’t fully “developed”? Explain to me how a single-celled human zygote is in any way less alive than a single-celled bacterium. I’m sure the bacteriologists of the world would be a bit shocked to learn that bacteria aren’t actually “living”.

        Another tip for pro-abortion advocates:

        The scientific community has established beyond any reasonable doubt that human life begins at conception. Arguing this point will only reveal one’s own ignorance. I would recommend that you instead focus your arguments on *when a human life acquires intrinsic value*. Although many of us believe that all human life (regardless of developmental stage) is valuable, you might have some degree of success amongst those who believe that human value can be defined in terms of brain waves, ability to contribute to society, etc.

  5. Russell- it’s your humble student again! I’m sorry to throw some more questions at your brilliant mind, since you haven’t answered my last ones yet, but I am so eager to learn!

    I didn’t think it was possible to abort a human zygote, since that stage only lasts until day 4, before the potential-life-human-tissue is out of the fallopian tube and before the woman can possibly know that she’s pregnant. I was under the impression that abortions always occur in the embyronic, fetal or neonate stages of human development, but you’re the one with all the science behind you, so I’m willing to stand corrected- I want to learn. Have you found those textbook citations about life beginning at any other point besides amphimixis yet?

    Again, you were saying that the unborn aren’t really alive, but then you say that the zygote is alive, in fact it can survive being frozen, a skill that its adult counterparts have lost. Alive? Not alive? Potentially alive? A little bit alive but not enough alive that when we remove it we’re killing it? What’s our official position, dear tutor? And if it’s what we can do that determines our humanness, I’m starting to wonder if perhaps the foetus is the human being and we adults aren’t since the foetus can breathe fluid, but we’ve lost that ability too. I’m starting to get really confused- please clarify, kind sir.

    So, you’re asking Neil for proof that the zygote is a developed human being because he or she is undeveloped, even though a fully developed human being couldn’t possibly fit in the uterus of a pregnant woman? In our official position, is anyone under the age of 21 considered a human being, since human maturation isn’t complete until then? Is a baby born at 21 weeks less human than a baby born at 42 weeks because the baby at 42 weeks is more developed (though still remarkably undeveloped- he or she can’t even ride a bicycle yet!)

    I think what I hear you saying is that an unborn human isn’t a human because there are things he/she CAN do that adults CAN’T do, and also there are things he/she CAN’T do that adults CAN do. Have I learned that lesson correctly?

    I’d really love the list of rules that make one a human being, if you’ve got it handy, because I am starting to suspect that a few of my family members don’t cut the mustard. My ten year old son doesn’t have facial hair yet, and wouldn’t last a day alone in the wilderness, so I am starting to understand that he’s not a human being since he’s still developing and completely dependent on me. He’s a difficult child- do you know any abortion clinics who offer services in the 33rd trimester? Since it’s my right, are you happy to help me pay for it with your taxes?

    ;o)

  6. Michelle said: “Teach me? ” Sure

    No you did not grow a penis.
    But if you have 3 sons, then you statistically have caused the death of 7 other “babies”. There is only a 30 percent chance of a conceptus living until birth. So your intentional sex in an effort to have those three boys led to the death of 7 other “babies”. You aborted 7 to give birth to three.
    But that is not where your killing ended. You are a pro lifer, and are part of a group that is responsible for the death of millions each year. You are violating the Law of Charity and the other laws I have outlined. Part of teaching is demanding that students learn by reading. So read the laws in the link I posted and get back with me.

    As mentioned above, you killed 7 other children in an effort to have these three sons. So why not just cut off the arms, you killed the entire bodies of your other kids. And the other deaths you caused by violating the laws are as varied as your imagination.

    Of course you can’t kill another human being. But you can kill tissue. Just as your hubby had the right to cut off an arm, you have the right to remove your tissue. Otherwise, you should be prosecuted for killing the 7 other children you murdered to get your three boys.

    Of course you can do anything you want to the tissue you created. Just as you can cut off your own tissue in your arm that “you” made, you can cut off the arm of any tissue you create. Of course you could do something like that, after all you killed seven to get three.

    Thanks for calling me God. But I am not. Sorry.

    As a woman you are equal to any man.

    You already submit to your animal instincts.
    That is why you feel no shame for killing 7 to get 3. And why you don’t mind letting starving children die.

    Thanks, but you get an “F” for your ability to understand. Read the Laws that are found here http://www.naturalabortionlaws.com and study them with all your heart. I am certain you will do better next time.

    • Oh noes! Actually, I think that is great, especially if you paste it all and link back here. I am very, very confident that our views will hold up in the public square, especially against your bizarrely extremist views. Said another way, I think most people besides you see the difference between grandma dying in her sleep vs. someone crushing grandma’s skull and ripping her limbs off.

      Oh, and I saw on your page that you like “Catholics for Choice To Kill Innocent But Unwanted Human Beings.” (It is possible that they leave off the everything past the first 3 words, but that’s what they really are.) Do you realize that by definition they are apostate Catholics for disagreeing with the infallibility of their organization’s position, so it is dishonest for them to claim that name?

  7. Hello again
    Michelle said: “Teach me? ” Sure

    No you did not grow a penis.
    But if you have 3 sons, then you statistically have caused the death of 7 other “babies”. There is only a 30 percent chance of a conceptus living until birth. So your intentional sex in an effort to have those three boys led to the death of 7 other “babies”. You aborted 7 to give birth to three.
    But that is not where your killing ended. You are a pro lifer, and are part of a group that is responsible for the death of millions each year. You are violating the Law of Charity and the other laws I have outlined. Part of teaching is demanding that students learn by reading. So read the laws in the link I posted and get back with me.

    As mentioned above, you killed 7 other children in an effort to have these three sons. So why not just cut off the arms, you killed the entire bodies of your other kids. And the other deaths you caused by violating the laws are as varied as your imagination.

    Of course you can’t kill another human being. But you can kill tissue. Just as your hubby had the right to cut off an arm, you have the right to remove your tissue. Otherwise, you should be prosecuted for killing the 7 other children you murdered to get your three boys.

    Of course you can do anything you want to the tissue you created. Just as you can cut off your own tissue in your arm that “you” made, you can cut off the arm of any tissue you create. Of course you could do something like that, after all you killed seven to get three.

    Thanks for calling me God. But I am not. Sorry.

    As a woman you are equal to any man.

    You already submit to your animal instincts.
    That is why you feel no shame for killing 7 to get 3. And why you don’t mind letting starving children die.

    Thanks, but you get an “F” for your ability to understand. Read the Laws that are found here http://www.naturalabortionlaws.com and study them with all your heart. I am certain you will do better next time.

    • Russell’s time here as a troll is about finished. I just posted this so people could glance at it the way they glance at a gruesome accident. People like him do much to advance the pro-life cause, because they are so incredibly creepy and immune to the most basic facts and reasoning. Yet even though he helps our cause it is still alarming that there are people this unhinged out there.

  8. again
    Michelle said:
    “but I am so eager to learn!”
    Yes and you have a lot to learn.

    “I didn’t think it was possible to abort a human zygote, since that stage only lasts until day 4, before the potential-life-human-tissue is out of the fallopian tube and before the woman can possibly know that she’s pregnant. I was under the impression that abortions always occur in the embyronic, fetal or neonate stages of human development, but you’re the one with all the science behind you, so I’m willing to stand corrected- I want to learn.”

    Well at least you admit you don’t know what you are talking about. Here is a link for you, once you finish this one I will give you another, then another, then another if you don’t understand the first.

    http://humupd.oxfordjournals.org/content/8/4/333.abstract

    ” Have you found those textbook citations about life beginning at any other point besides amphimixis yet? ”

    I admire your willingness to admit you don’t know much. I you will read any textbook on embryology you will find that once a sperm and egg are dead they cannot form a zygote that is knowingly viable. I know you are not aware of this but the DNA of the egg and sperm existed before conception and carries all the information that will be in the conceptus. I know it is shocking for you, but the only difference between a zygote and an egg and sperm is the distance between the egg and sperm.

    “Again, you were saying that the unborn aren’t really alive, but then you say that the zygote is alive, in fact it can survive being frozen, a skill that its adult counterparts have lost. Alive? Not alive? Potentially alive? A little bit alive but not enough alive that when we remove it we’re killing it? What’s our official position, dear tutor?”
    The egg is tissue, the sperm is tissue and the zygote is tissue. At one billionth of a second before conception there is no difference between the egg/sperm and zygote. They are all living tissue.

    “And if it’s what we can do that determines our humanness, I’m starting to wonder if perhaps the foetus is the human being and we adults aren’t since the foetus can breathe fluid, but we’ve lost that ability too. I’m starting to get really confused- please clarify, kind sir. ”

    Well, I can see you are confused. But I am not. Your fetus is different from a baby. And it is tissue, not a baby. There are major structural changes that occur at birth that you are not aware of. Those changes may not occur and your fetus may die. That is why wise adults know that it is only a potential baby and not a real baby.

    “So, you’re asking Neil for proof that the zygote is a developed human being because he or she is undeveloped, even though a fully developed human being couldn’t possibly fit in the uterus of a pregnant woman?”
    No, it is because we don’t know if the zygote has the correct DNA that would allow it to be considered for birth in its “own” internal system. It has nothing to do with development.
    “ In our official position, is anyone under the age of 21 considered a human being, since human maturation isn’t complete until then? Is a baby born at 21 weeks less human than a baby born at 42 weeks because the baby at 42 weeks is more developed (though still remarkably undeveloped- he or she can’t even ride a bicycle yet!)”
    The DNA code for born humans is not in question. Once a born human exists we know that its structural changes took place, its DNA code is assumed Ok and it is alive. After that there is no right to do anything to the human.
    “I think what I hear you saying is that an unborn human isn’t a human because there are things he/she CAN do that adults CAN’T do, and also there are things he/she CAN’T do that adults CAN do. Have I learned that lesson correctly?”
    No, you get another “F”.
    “I’d really love the list of rules that make one a human being, if you’ve got it handy, because I am starting to suspect that a few of my family members don’t cut the mustard. My ten year old son doesn’t have facial hair yet, and wouldn’t last a day alone in the wilderness, so I am starting to understand that he’s not a human being since he’s still developing and completely dependent on me. He’s a difficult child- do you know any abortion clinics who offer services in the 33rd trimester? Since it’s my right, are you happy to help me pay for it with your taxes?”
    Look if you are unhappy with your child, why not just let him starve to death and save a fetus to replace him. That is what you are doing with all the starving kids in the world.

    • I know it is shocking for you, but the only difference between a zygote and an egg and sperm is the distance between the egg and sperm.

      Not true at all. By that logic, the only difference between you and egg and sperm is the distance between the egg and the sperm and a lot of input of food. Well, that might actually be true, given your total lack of brainpower.

      The egg is tissue, the sperm is tissue and the zygote is tissue.

      Not true; a tissue is multiple cells in an organism that all have the same structure and function. Citation:

      http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Tissue

      Gametes are not multiple cells large; they are one cell. So an egg cannot be “tissue”. A zygote’s cells begin to distinguish themselves very early on in the process, and it is a complete organism, not part of one, so it is not tissue, either.

      Nice try, thanks for playing, nice epic fail!

      Well, I can see you are confused. But I am not. Your fetus is different from a baby. And it is tissue, not a baby. There are major structural changes that occur at birth that you are not aware of. Those changes may not occur and your fetus may die. That is why wise adults know that it is only a potential baby and not a real baby.

      CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE! If that is true, then Laci Peterson’s husband shouldn’t have been put on trial for double homicide; after all, he only killed his wife and her tissue that had yet to undergo major structural changes that would take it from being a “potential” human into an actual human. REPEAL FOETAL HOMICIDE LAWS!

      By the way, I assume that you harangue women who go into baby stores with huge bellies and even bigger smiles, talking about their babies? You tell them, “Sorry, but you have a POTENTIAL baby, and what is kicking you in the womb, somersaulting away, and sucking its thumb is NOT a human being”, right? Obviously.

    • Once a born human exists we know that its structural changes took place, its DNA code is assumed Ok and it is alive. After that there is no right to do anything to the human.

      What about children with Cri de Coeur? Downs’ Syndrome, which results in early death? Any number of genetic abnormalities that make it difficult to live for a long time?

      Russell, please name one, just one little one, genetic disease that kills unborn children after the first month of pregnancy but before birth.

      Here’s a hint: you can’t. As much as you dress up your baby-murdering advocacy in biological terms (although, as per above, you must have flunked the course), we all know that by the time a woman knows she is pregnant and has herself at the abortionist’s office, the baby is almost certainly healthy enough to survive until birth. That’s why 93% of abortions are performed on healthy mothers of healthy babies, and many of the “unhealthy” babies are those with Down’s.

  9. Enough with the sarcasm… Russell, I am so sad for you. You have exchanged life for death, truth for lies, love for hate.

    I have not killed any of my children. On the contrary, I have saved the lives of hundreds of children, including several in the past week. I am very blessed that to my knowledge, I never suffered the loss of any of my own biological children through miscarriage. Even if I had lost a child before birth, how does that equate to me killing him or her? By your logic, every parent who loses a child to cancer or a car accident is a murderer.

    Thankyou for confirming that your belief in a woman’s unwavering right to do whatever she wishes with the child in her womb includes even torture or disfigurement of that child, not just death. I have friends who were aborted by their mothers, and lived, some with horrible scars as a result. When did their right not to be harmed by their own mother begin? Most of my abortion-survivor friends are women. Where were their rights when the abortionist poisoned them, removed a limb or forced a premature delivery that has caused lifelong disabilities?

    When was your child aborted? How many years have you been trying to convince yourself that it was the right thing to do by embracing illogical arguments and trolling on pro-life blogs? There is forgiveness and peace in the truth. Love always wins, and abortion is no substitute for love. I pray that one day you will find healing.

  10. Don’t ever play the “most pregnancies end in miscarriage” card, because it fails mightily and contradicts your premise.

    Neil, you missed a fantastic opportunity to quote the Onion: World Death Rate Holding Steady at 100%. An excerpt:

    Death, a metabolic affliction causing total shutdown of all life functions, has long been considered humanity’s number one health concern. Responsible for 100 percent of all recorded fatalities worldwide, the condition has no cure.

    “I was really hoping, what with all those new radiology treatments, rescue helicopters, aerobics TV shows and what have you, that we might at least make a dent in it this year,” WHO Director General Dr. Gernst Bladt said. “Unfortunately, it would appear that the death rate remains constant and total, as it has inviolably since the dawn of time.”

  11. Roxanne said:
    <>>
    Ok you can believe that I guess. We will call that your idea that there is a big difference there.. That just means it is not a baby either and is not a human life because there is a bigger difference between a zygote and a baby..

    <<>>>>>
    I guess you can believe that if you want. Of course if it is not tissue it can’t be a baby either. I can accept that.
    <<>>
    Not quite.
    <<<>>>
    There is no impact of fetal homicide laws.

    <<>>

    I love pregnant women and their children. I am the dad of 4 great kids. I don’t like it when a woman is conned into having kids and then kills them because she never wanted them.

    <<<>>>

    Its born.

    <<<>>>

    Stillbirth.

    <<<<>>>>

    At 1 to 2 weeks about 30 percent miscarry.

    http://www.pregnancyloss

So, what do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s