You mean the party of debauchery? Treason? Sex trafficking? Vote fraud? Pedophilia? Hebephilia? Secret foreign agents? Infidelity? Insurrection? You mean Republicans?

Right, anything to stop you ethics free, morality free, education free Trumptards led by the least moral person ever to hold office. How does removing all reproductive rights from women accomplish that?

Do you even know what “morals” are? I don’t think so.

Hilariously, Republicans tried to block a bill to help supply babies with formula, because they care so much about babies that they want them to starve to death if it costs $.03 to feed them…but no problem to waste $10 billion in a PR stunt “inspecting” Mexican trucks at the border with zero results.
Edit: They also spent two years screaming about not wearing a mask because they have full body autonomy…the right to spread deadly diseases, and no one has the right to give them a shot to prevent those preventable deaths.
They also leave no exceptions if the woman’s life is endangered by the pregnancy…which would kill both the woman and the zygote.
So much for “pro life”.
Such outrageous hypocrites and liars. The party of irrational hate and fear, immorality and prejudice, thy name is Republican.

Don’t say she didn’t warn you.
Oklahoma just passed an anti abortion law that makes using most forms of contraception murder, and calls a fertilized zygote a human being.
*promote as a reminder that Republicans told us who they were and what they planned decades ago…and a warning that this will become federal law if they get control back.
VOTE!

I think you do.
Already many states have, or are in the process of, defining conception as the point when cells become a human, and denying the implantation and successful incubation of that zygote/blastocyst is murder, meaning in a real legal sense even contraception is murder as most work by not allowing the fertilized egg to implant. That means essentially all chemical contraception, IUDs, etc are murder weapons.
This is not hyperbole or exaggeration, it’s the actual law being enacted in Louisiana, possibly Mississippi, likely Texas, eventually all 22 states outlawing abortion.
It’s not just about abortions, it’s about women being forced back in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant, and returning to the misogynistic ideals of the man Alito gleefully quoted in the leaked decision, Sir Matthew Hale, who believed husbands can’t be prosecuted for raping their wives (it’s their right), and disobedient women are likely witches.
I’m pretty sure you understand.

BTW- still waiting to hear how much more in taxes you’re willing to pay to support the unwanted children this policy forces on mostly poor women. *crickets*

No one understands Republicans. Their ideas are completely divorced from reality, science, reason, sanity, and morality.

If you don’t like the law, you can just move (remember, that’s your answer to why it’s ok for Republicans to CHANGE the laws). There are plenty of places where abortion is illegal….mostly shithole countries as you call them. Don’t make America one of those.

More lies and nonsense.
No one kills children like that besides Republicans getting secret back alley abortions…I only know you people do that because you accused others, and that’s a guarantee you guys do it no matter how outrageous and unreal the claim.
That is what WILL happen to embryos (not children you tool) in back alley abortion clinics without the proper tools, doctors, and zero oversight. Abortions won’t stop because you drove them into back alleys, they’ll just get more horrific, and that will be 100% on your heads.

Have Republicans set up agencies to take these unwanted children, over 600000 per year, and raise them all at now $275000 each and rising 3% per year? Have Republican doctors figured out how to force live births (without endangering the woman) at 6 weeks or later, and incubators to bring it to term? That’s probably another million on average. Of course not, let those babies starve or be abandoned to the elements, as long as they get born. You aren’t going to spend money to raise them, that’s the rape victim’s responsibility to raise their rapist’s baby. If they didn’t want that responsibility, they shouldn’t have gotten raped.

Are Republicans prepared to be forced to live in hospitals as living dialysis machines, living blood pumps, and living donors of any organ they have two of? If saving lives is important, you would have done all that before trying to remove women’s rights to their own bodies….but you haven’t done any of that because you don’t see women as people who deserve rights to control their own bodies, what’s put in them, and what they have to let grow inside them. Of course not. That’s inconvenient, so fuck those people who need your organs to live. Saving lives isn’t worth losing YOUR bodily autonomy….it’s only worth stripping others of theirs. Hypocrites.

Republicans LOVE killing, all republicans LOVE the death penalty for lesser and lesser crimes and younger and younger convicts. It’s not about stopping life from starting (which happens at first breath, not conception), it’s about controlling those that are their lessors. That’s why there’s no exceptions for rape, incest, or endangering the mother (except extremely rare cases in a few places). You don’t care a whit about what happens to the baby, even less about the mother, they’re nothing more than an incubator to your incel ilk.

Blobs aren’t children….or is that what you call your children? It would explain a lot. Nerve pulses aren’t a heartbeat without a heart. Humans don’t have tails. Zygotes aren’t people. I know you disagree with these scientific and medical facts, that only proves they’re correct.

Once again, you make up nonsense based on your pure ignorance, Cartman. You just look dumber, more sexist, and more dishonest daily.

@newtboy

"Discriminating against people for their legal, culturally accepted, natural behavior makes the person doing the discriminating an asshole. "

Slavery also exists in nature, so it's natural, and once upon a time it was legal and culturally accepted. Discriminating against slave owners though, even back than, is contrary to your claim, quite noble.

"The space study with twins showed that in under a year their genes permanently diverged a full 7%"

You gotta be careful there exactly what is being measured, they did not find that fully 7% of his DNA changed and now was that different. Depending what you measure people also claim that human and chimp DNA only differs by less than 2%...


"Twins aren't genetically identical, even at birth. ...That makes twin studies a piss poor method of gene study."

If you read your own linked article it states:
Twins share the same genes but their environments become more different as they age. This unique aspect of twins makes them an excellent model for understanding how genes and the environment contribute to certain traits, especially complex behaviors and diseases.

If you bother to read the list of peer reviewed articles I linked, they are comparing mono-zygotic twins to di-zygotic twins. The very basic and largely accepted theory being that if a trait has a genetic component, 1000 twins split from the same zygote should share the trait more often than di-zygotic twins.

My argument though really doesn't care much though. I simply argue that beliefs, choices and behaviours are the result of free will and grounds to judge(discriminate) for and against those you deem good or bad, hurtful or harmful. Similarly, gender, race and ethnicity being things that are in zero way the result of free will and beyond the control of an individual and NOT grounds to judge(discriminate) for or against.

Twins aren't genetically identical, even at birth. They begin separating from each other genetically when the zygote splits. Environmental factors determine how genes are expressed, and those factors are not identical. That makes twin studies a piss poor method of gene study. All it can tell you is how much the environment might effect their expression over time, and they aren't very good at even that.
http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/epigenetics/twins/

Now that genetic testing is cheap, we're finding out most identical twins aren't identical at all. Proper gene testing doesn't assume twins are identical clones for life, it actually disproved that hypothesis. The space study with twins showed that in under a year their genes permanently diverged a full 7% (with a larger temporary change initially that lowered as they returned to similar environments).
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-twins-study-confirms-preliminary-findings


I feel that people often misuse mistaken assumptions to validate their prejudices. If the science isn't clear and validated, using it against others is improper in the extreme.

Discriminating against people for their legal, culturally accepted, natural behavior makes the person doing the discriminating an asshole. Homosexuality is quite present in nature, is now culturally accepted in western cultures, and is legal. Tolerance is a learned behavior I wish was taught better, especially by churches.

Your video, Oats Studios - Volume 1 - Zygote, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

35 years ago I was a zygote!

When I imagine the conceptual aspect of religious experience it comes forth from the brain as something, anything, along these lines. When you want your brother/sister/mama/papa, intent thought your abstract feeling; unknowing and knowing and now you know. You're there with your brother and we're all from the same mother; zygotes to human hive, tricked into individualism maya don't lie.

@ReverendTed

Sorry for the late reply. I was having email issues and didn't know this conversation was still going on. Also, I really don't have the time or energy to read all the posts right now, so apologies if I'm saying something that's already covered. Perhaps tomorrow after work I'll give it all a better look.

I agree that "at birth" is almost certainly not the best place to draw the line for omniscient lawmakers. Unfortunately, we're fresh out of those. We have to draw the line somewhere based on what we actually know. This is why I said before that we need to identify some particular quality (henceforth known as "qX") that we can agree makes a fetus a human. That way, we can say, "No, this fetus has developed qX and is no longer eligible for termination." Of course, once we define qX, then we may also need to be able to test for it, depending on what qX turns out to be, otherwise this is all pointless.

Now, I suppose we could say "qX is normally developed in week 25" and draw the line there but then we'll have those who develop sooner and those who develop later and we will inevitably terminate those that should technically not have been. I concede that this could still be a decent law even if we had to define it this way, but we've got a long way to go before we can even consider it. We haven't even defined qX, let alone identified approximately when it develops.

Defining qX alone is a nearly impossible task because most people who are trying to define it are using feelings (It's a defenseless little baby!), mysticism (The soul enters the zygote at conception!) and abstract concepts (Once the fetus has developed consciousness, it's human.) to do so.

Back to your reply, you seem to be dancing around what "illegal" means. Someone once pointed out to me that "It's not a law if it's not enforced". There has to be a penalty for having an abortion or it's pointless to make it illegal. What should be done to people who have (or perform) the procedure even after you've "[limited] their access" to it?

If we want to reduce abortions, we should be focusing efforts on reducing unwanted pregnancies; tell people what they can do rather than what they can't.

those of us not ravished into admiration of these intricate workings of life must be afraid of the implications for some reason... life just is.

just look at pictures of zygotes from different mammals.

We understand you're super spiritual and don't need "evidence" or "reason" to come to ironclad delu..er.. conclusions about what is just and reasonable.


I think it's reasonable to expect police action when you have just been warned it is imminent.

Your morality is "faith-based". You have the faith to believe that obedience to authority is the best outcome. All the time. Duh.

No, I don't believe that. I believe that all authority comes from God and we have a moral duty to obey it, except when it contradicts His direct commands.

Tho most of the folks you debate with,however, have morality based on.. reasons,earnest evaluation,empathy.

I haven't met a single atheist who is able to explain what their moral foundation is beyond whatever they feel like at the time.

You and we are on twooo different uh.. wavelengths. It's a good video tho. = ]

You love the world, I love God who created the world. That's the difference.

OH yeah, quick question. Do all good zygotes go to heaven?

You know like, some eggs get fertilized but god hates them so they don't get attached to the uterus.

I mean, they don't even have time to repent for the sin they were born with just 36 to 72 hours ago! It's just not fair, i think.

Oh yeah! And do sperm have souls too? o_O?

Cause, I been wonderin' about when a person first gets her or his soul and..
you know, like..
worried I might be sendin' all my little guys straight to hell. = /

You should be more worried about where your soul is going, because unless you place your trust in Jesus as Lord, you will face Gods judgement and end up there yourself.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

OH yeah, quick question. Do all good zygotes go to heaven?
You know like, some eggs get fertilized but god hates them so they don't get attached to the uterus.
I mean, they don't even have time to repent for the sin they were born with just 36 to 72 hours ago! It's just not fair, i think.
Oh yeah! And do sperm have souls too? o_O?
Cause, I been wonderin' about when a person first gets her or his soul and..
you know, like..
worried I might be sendin' all my little guys straight to hell. = /

OH yeah, quick question. Do all good zygotes go to heaven?

You know like, some eggs get fertilized but god hates them so they don't get attached to the uterus.

I mean, they don't even have time to repent for the sin they were born with just 36 to 72 hours ago! It's just not fair, i think.

Oh yeah! And do sperm have souls too? o_O?

Cause, I been wonderin' about when a person first gets her or his soul and..
you know, like..
worried I might be sendin' all my little guys straight to hell. = /

@Lawdeedaw I abhor abortion. I wish they never happened. Safe and rare are laudable goals, but I also agree that there is a second human being's life to consider. If it were possible, and I were at risk of losing a child to an abortion, I would wish I could magically grow a womb and carry the baby to term. Still, this argument has to do with the facts of his voting record. He did vote to ban partial birth abortions at the federal level. Further he advanced legislation that would have granted legal personhood to a zygote. I sincerely doubt it would have taken long for every abortion provider in the country to be guilty of murder had it passed. That is, he was perfectly prepared to take away a woman's right to choose.