^this is the most religious you will ever see me get
2 Likes
Blockquote
According to who? By whose definition? What science backs that? If any does now, it won’t as more truth surfaces.
I probably need to back off of this thread.
If any of you want to know how the Bible lays it out, I can comply, but I doubt I would change anyone’s mind who is “professing themselves to be wise.”
3 Likes
1 Like
Only the “good” scientists say this.
These are likely also the scientists that cannot succinctly define a woman as someone with “xx” chromosomes, and the ones who insist 8-month lockdowns will save the world.
We believe the scientists but only when it suits our narrative.
Exactly. What pro choice people want is the power to choose if it is human or not, when it is convenient for them. They will scream double murder when a pregnant woman is killed, murder when violence causes a miscarriage but, an abortion is just getting rid of a clump of cells.
On YouTube you can watch just about any surgical procedure. Brain surgery, amputations, heart surgery, including giving birth. If a fetus is not human,why not show the procedure?
3 Likes
You can only have it one way:
-
Colonization and invasion are evil, everywhere, across the board. People who consider themselves inidigenous to an area or continent should be encouraged and praised in their savage efforts to drive out an invading force.
-
Colonization and invasion are naturally occurring elements of the human animal, as it follows both an evolutionary and learned directive to expand, explore, and conquer.
This line of questioning leads the inquisitive mind further:
Indigenous peoples are those who have been born in an area or on an entire landmass since…?
If we follow certain evolutionary narratives, such as the “Out of Africa” theory (debunked many times, yet still put forward by those with an axe to grind as viable), who can claim “indigenous” status to anywhere, or can all claim indigenous to everywhere?
Either there are more nuances to consider than a simple: “Colonists are murderers,”
and judging a character from the past with the morality of the present is a certain recipe for an ignorant concept of history…
Or-
Man is an animal, might is right, and bleeding hearts should be left to exsanguinate.
You can only have it one way.
In short, if you want my take:
‘Indigenous peoples’ defended their homeland from invasion with savage ferocity.
Columbus/Europeans conquered them.
Conquest and expansion are inevitable.
Those pushing guilt on Columbus’ heirs and those pushing the celebration of ‘indigenous peoples’ are engaged in conquest by another—conniving, cowardly, snake-like—means.
2 Likes
It’s only a life and a baby, if the woman wants it to be I guess.
What if a woman was murdered while pregnant on the way to the abortion clinic?
The law still says double homicide - odd. I agree a fetus seems to only be deemed a person when it is convenient to some.
1 Like
The smartest minds in the country couldn’t prove abortion is killing a human, so why do you think you can?
It’s your belief. Not a fact.
Do you think someone can be pro-choice and also be a good person?
1 Like
Secular good or Biblical good?
3 Likes
The fact that you’re ending a life I don’t think has ever been in question. Even the viability argument doesnt say its not a life, just that it cant survive outside the mother. Again, this is more the moral debate opposed to the legal. For the most part even the most hardcore leftist will admit its a human life, well except for the “lump of cells” crowd i guess.
2 Likes
So anyone who doesn’t believe in life starts at conception is “one of those crazy lump of cell people”? Or is there room for nuance there?
Not my quote.
Just stating even most pro abortion people admit youre ending a life.
Scientifically speaking?
What are your thoughts on whe life begins?
But there is a point where nuance no longer exists, if you are honest.
I’ll follow the doctors recommendation of viability at 22 weeks. Till then it’s still a part of moms body and should be considered as such IMO.
Sure. And everyone’s line is a little different.
Do you think a good person can be knowledgeably pro-choice?
FWIW, I don’t think you’re a bad person for being prolife.
Secularly they can be good. Just not much of a standard to aspire to be.
1 Like
But thats not what viability means. It doesn’t state its part of mom’s body, just that in most cases it cant live outside of her body. A separate life, dependant on another.
1 Like
Know your science. That baby’s blood is not the mother’s blood. In that aspect the baby is not “part” of the mother. The baby is unique to the mother.
2 Likes
Sure, and my interpretation is that because it is entirely dependent on Mom for life, it is a part of mom and life is still being created. Once it’s not entirely dependent on Mom, it becomes its own human being-life has been created.
Does it depend on Mom for life? Yes. So the life still resides in mom, which she is still giving to baby. Once the life has been given to baby, he no longer requires mom to stay alive.