Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:
ShooterTX said:
Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:
ShooterTX said:
Mitch Blood Green said:
By making pornhub illegal, Texas has stopped the murder of millions of babies by the hand sock.
You have to be a special kind of stupid to believe that sperm all on it's own, is the same as a baby.
But its perfectly fine to call a fertilized cluster of cells a baby. What about a zygote? Is that a baby?
Yes.
It is basic biology. What distinguishes a one human from another is a unique set of 23 chromosome pairs.
Sperm has 23 individual chromosomes and the egg has another 23. When they combine, the 46 chromosomes form a unique set of 23 chromosome pairs... a unique human being.
If you knew basic biology, you would know that science PROVES that human life begins at conception
Abortion has been around for a long time. The Bible does seem to say life begins at first breath. Gen 2.7, Job 33:4. Exodus 21 says that beating a woman to the point of miscarriage determines a fine. Killing the woman is met with execution (life for a life). why does killing the unborn just result in a fine?
Egyptians had been using abortion for centuries in Biblical times. Others of the same time period had laws against abortion. Our Bible says it warrants a fine while death warrants an execution.
Sperm are alive and can live in womens organs for up to 5 days. Not so long when they are misplaced. They metabolize sugars, grow, swim like champs, and die.
Science proves that human life begins at conception based on the definition of life you use. The Bible says it begins with the first breath.
Its been fun. Repubs trying to make other people conform to their definitions and rules will ruin the party. concentrate on reforming immigration, lowering the debt and fixing health care.
no, Repubs are not trying to make others conform. They are trying to engage in the kind of moral argument you cited in your first para above - what is life, and when does it begin? That is the kind of deeply philosophical question which is at the heart of the purpose of social contract - to protect LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We should not be alarmed in a debate like that to hear that some believe life begins at conception and should be protected, full stop. Neither should we be alarmed that some would argue that the choice should reside with the mother in all cases, full stop. Both are valid points which deserve respect. The debate is not to cast one as right and the other is wrong, but to use democratic processes to find a consensus that reflects, if not respects, at least parts of both sensibilities.
What Repubs did was end a bad legal ruling which forestalled democratic process on abortion with a national mandate. Now the states are free to use democratic process to tinker with the issue, allowing statute to ebb & flow according to the sensibilities of their citizens. That has been my position all along, closer to the absolutist pro-life - life of the mother is the only easily defendable exception. And I'll argue and vote that way. I'll win some and lose some, but most of all I will appreciate it when courts are respectful of self-government and allow us ALL to keep coming back to the public square to debate the issue some more, rather than end the whole experiment in self-government with sweeping judicial fiats.
Democrats just sidestep all of that to pander to women for votes.
