My position is not hypocritical at all. I want abortion banned not legal. You on the other hand want it legal...but then you don't.

Pain has nothing to do with whether or not a living human being should be slaughtered in the womb. You either respect life or you don't. YOU DON'T. So you try to come up with ways to make your position look humane. Gee if it can't feel...ok to kill. Absurd. Hitler also probably thought that gassing the Jews was also the humane way to do it.

Abortion is never a necessity unless the mother is dying in the hospital....this rarely but never happens. But to those with a "killing solves every problem" ( both personally and socially) abortion is the saving grace. Hitler had the same ideas.

I do not have to do research on this...you do. Adoption has nothing to do with killing living children. It only does to people like you who thinks killing them is better than life in an adoptive family. You presume to know what their lives would be like...you have NO RIGHT to do this.

I am close to this issue...very close. A soldier is close to the battlefield that he serves on....is that a bad thing?

I happen to work in this field. I have for over 13 years....with pro-life groups...Silent No More, Right to Life in my state, Operation Rescue, and my local CPC. I have seen it all, heard it all. I travel around to conventions,universities, colleges...fairs, Womens Expos, churches, schools....etc. I march in peaceful demonstrations. I picket and hand out information at PP clinics. I am very involved in abortion.

No condolences to me....but to the child I killed...fine. You have no clue, no idea what the majority of women believe about abortion. Basically as I said it is taboo to talk about.

Ever hear someone say....."hey thousandin1...can't have lunch tomorrow gonna get an abortion." Or...."Hey, can't go tonight not feeling well, had an abortion." Or "Hey I know how you feel I had two abortions."

You go to any debate site where abortion is discussed and you not find many women who have had abortions talking about them. Women don't want to talk about it...especially with other people who might judge them. It is one thing you get that you just want to go away. It was not traumatic for me at the time but hit me some 20 years later and about destroyed my life. I had no clue really what I was killing. I wanted and tried to convince myself it was just a blob of tissue. That is not the case as I found out from a doctor in a hospital who was taking care of my niece who was born at 23 1/2 weeks.

It makes me sick to my stomach to hear you say that killing children because they MIGHT NOT FIND A HOME...is better than giving them life. As I said...your worldview and Hitlers are very close.

I call it as I see it. You are pro-abortion and you do not value the life in the womb. You told me point blank I was to close to this issue to be objective....so if you can do it..so shall I.

The fact is....you are a man...and society says you don't matter in this. It is not your body, not your choice. The only reason your an issue is for monetary reasons. You should not even have a say or an opinion really...right?

If you want abortion legal for any reason....I question your morality..and your love of children...you bet I do.

No I am not. We are here to do what......you tell me? Is this a serious debate site or one for kids to just play around in?

I try to provide evidence for what I am stating. I certainly would not resort to swearing or making pot shots at people.

Sentence enhancers? LMAO

The fact is you have a potty mouth which takes away from anything constructive you could ever say.

Is happiness childish? Depends on what the action is...that expresses it.

I believe at conception that the life is a person and so does society or we would not be debating that fact here... or have debated it in the past. Abortion still after being legal for over 40 yrs still a hot topic that still divides the nation and families. It is taboo today as most women will not admit to having one. Why? Have you ever had one to know? You never see television programs where the characters nonchalantly mention they have had or are getting an abortion do you? No. People don't discuss it...because it is about killing and that is personal when you are the one who has killed. Pro-aborts like to detach themselves from the personhood argument...why? Because then..if they convince themselves that which is being slaughtered isn't a person, abortion isn't so bad. No woman would need an abortionist if there wasn't killing involved. Someone has to kill to make the procedure successful. The abortionist kills the life. It is not the life of a rock, or a hamburger or a cow. It is the life of a living human...that if left alone would become.......like we are. You were a person after you were conceived did you know that? And your mother obviously allowed you to live...she recognized YOUR PERSONHOOD.

Louise Brown was the worlds first test tube baby. Was she conceived in her mothers womb? No. She was conceived in a test tube. She became all she would ever be in THAT TEST TUBE. She only grew and used her mothers womb to grow. She was a person.

Being human....?

Why don't you show me why the life does not deserve to be called part of the human race?

God was not drunk...but you might be.

We have free will...if you fail...you did it yourself. There is a difference between wrong and right. You do not have to choose to do bad....its the blame game for you humanists. Everyone is at fault but you guys.

He created that turtle that little guy for you to enjoy. And you said the turtle is loving its surroundings. But your turtle could die I hate to tell you. Because you can't control what he thinks or does. He might get a disease? In fact they can make you sick as they carry salmonella in their urine. And chances are if this little guy gets bigger he will outgrow his tank and need to get into a bigger tank or you will have to release him to a place where he has room.

Can't answer it can you? LMAO

I am not claiming to know and prove. You are.

What was that first cause...if God was not the intelligent designer?

I do have a position and it is not hypocritical like yours.

Pain is the only issue for you. If something can feel pain then ya can't kill it. If it doesn't ya can. How absurd that reasoning is.

My niece was born at 23 1/2 weeks...she felt pain. She had multiple surgeries as she was in the hospital for over 5 months. You would have said she couldn't feel pain that aborting her would be ok.

Killing a living human being is wrong whether they can feel it or not. And there are methods to use to make sure the unborn can't feel pain.

Abortion is brutal. Have you ever seen one? What is your connection to this issue?

Is there something wrong with abortion? yes or no

Ya can't sit the fence on this one. You either are pro-life or you are not. Your position is immoral on every level.

You are pro-abortion in every sense of the word. You don't care if the unborn are killed. You are trying to talk yourself into making your position moral...and it's not.

I do NOT HAVE TO RESEARCH THIS...I KNOW FIRST HAND ABOUT ABORTION. What really ticks me off are people who pretend to know and don't. Ever had one?

Ever felt a child move inside your body? Ever see your child's ultrasound? Ever hear the machine that tears the living child apart?

You know nothing apart from what you read.

I have had an abortion and I know...all about it. I has affected my life since getting one in 1978.

Adoption has NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS issue.

You hate children.

This is the thing......and the question for you people who reject God to answer.

If God did not create the universe who did? What is the first cause? How did everything come to be.

Try with every fiber in your beings to answer this without acting like children. Because if you can't that means you can't address the issue.

Could you please answer a few questions for me.

You obviously are a pagan and denounce God. With that said....could you address the first cause. What was that first cause that set everything in motion. And then tell me how much faith it takes to believe what you believe.

Thanks.

You want me to mention God so you then can discredit that argument?

I am a Christian and I believe we were....before we were even in the womb. But one need not be a person of faith to acknowledge what science says..that a new human beings life starts at conception.

DEfend the position that from conception it isn't what science says it is.

What is the blob you are talking about?

From the second the egg and sperm unite and fertilization takes place...it is a human being. It has everything it needs to become a living functioning member of society. It is not a part of its mother other than using her body as a safe place to grow.

A blob? Nothing could be further than the truth.

It is a developing organism from the start....not a blob.

"The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."

[Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]

Highly specialized cells.....does not sound like a blob to me.

"The zygote contains DNA from the mother and the father, combined to form the full set of genetic material that will control the cellular production of the new baby. In some cases, two eggs are released in the same menstrual cycle, and they are both fertilized, forming two zygotes. If both zygotes develop, they become fraternal twins. The process of producing identical twins involves only a single zygote, which forms into an embryo before dividing into two separate bodies. As the zygote travels down the fallopian tube and into the uterus, it divides and replicates itself. Once it has formed a ball of cells, it is referred to as a blastocyst."

The blastocyst implants itself in the wall of the mother's uterus within a few days of fertilization. There, it continues to grow rapidly, into a ball of several hundred cells. Most of the ball is only one layer of cells thick. This part of the ball becomes the placenta, an organ that serves as a connector to the bloodstream of the mother and helps to mediate development. One region of the blastocyst is three to four cells thick. This region eventually becomes the embryo itself."

"The embryo floats in a thin, fluid-filled membrane called the amniotic sac. It is connected to the placenta via the umbilical cord. During this stage of baby development in the womb, the human shape becomes recognizable. The spinal cord and brain are clearly differentiated from the rest of the body. The heart forms and begins to beat. The arms and legs sprout at the beginning of this stage; by the end, fingers and toes form. As the brain develops, it starts to produce electrical activity doctors can record. The nerve impulses produced by the brain begin to cause the muscles to contract and move.

Teratogens are agents that can cause birth defects by disrupting normal development in the womb. Drugs, alcohol, infection and radiation are the most common teratogens. According to the National Institutes of Health, the embryo is especially sensitive to teratogens because of the great amount of developmental change that occurs during this stage. For this reason, expectant mothers are strongly encouraged to avoid exposure to teratogens during this stage of development."

http://www.livestrong.com/article/95008-baby-development-stages-womb/#ixzz2iN76BXfZ

Blob is not the right term to use...human being is. But if blob makes you feel better about the issue of abortion and what your actually killing then by all means use it.

Some peoples hearts are just hardened. If you can't see the humanity in all this then you never will. What is obvious is that you don't respect human life. Killing is your solution to all things...especially getting rid of a child. What gives you that right?

Your entire position is hypocritical. You believe women should have choice...you have an opinion on when life should be saved and when killing it is ok....and then you say that late term abortion is wrong...just because an unborn can feel.

Do you know for a fact that someone who is so called brain dead can't feel.

You say consciousness doesn't matter that it does not take place in the womb...but later...(which is absurd) but that pain matters. LMAO

What if the abortionist makes sure pain isn't an issue...and then kills the unborn would that make you feel better?

Your position is all over the board on this.

Excellent response.....I believe God steps back and allows us to exersize free will. I do not believe God creates people to do evil.

I will not talk to a pagan about my Lord....you are here to demean the faith. Some hearts are hardened...yours is one of them.

Do you have to swear really?

Did you read the evidence I gave as to when science says...A NEW HUMAN LIFE STARTS?

Abortion is killing a living human being. FACT

You call it medical procedure....can you name another medical procedure like it? No...this one kills a living human being. But you pro-aborts try to use more user friendly terms...its killing....it is a procedure that ends, terminates...a life already started, that if left alone would surely be born healthy. In fact you were born that way. You were not terminated, but allowed to live. You help paint a bulls eye on every unborn in the womb.

Your position is hypocritical however. You are wrong....it is a human being, science and our laws say it is.

You talk about choice. Ok...a woman has the right to choose...she alone makes the decision. You say there should be no control on her decision because obviously it is her body.

Then you mention that you think it becomes more of a human when it develops a brain and starts to feel. Could you tell me when that is? Give me the exact time....as we are dealing with killing a life ok?

You talk about legal boundaries...which throws your position into hypocrisy. At that time...YOU WANT TO TAKE THE WOMANS RIGHTS AWAY AND ENSLAVE HER TO YOUR WARPED SENSE OF MORALITY. What makes you think that you can do this? You tell those that want abortion banned they don't have a right...and then you turn around and do the same thing.

You are a hypocrite about abortion.

How did you come up with 20 weeks? LMAo Its a crap shoot for you.

Your position is a joke.

So what about late term babies....are they just a hunk of mass?

You are pro-abortion throughout the nine months right? Or do you want to enslave the woman to your morality?

Did you know when the heart starts beating? Do you know anything about fetal development?

What is your position on abortion?

A pagan trying to understand the Law. Christ came because the Law could not be followed perfectly. We are not held to the Law today. Christ fulfilled it.

You say no offense intended...not sure I am buying it.

It takes the Holy Spirits help to interpret the Word. Do you have the Holy Spirit?

His Wrath will be poured out on unbelievers.

If you do not have the Holy Spirit you have head knowledge of the Bible...you do not know it perfectly. To even say that is absurd.

If you were an expert...you would know about the Law and you clearly do NOT.

Jesus isn't a religion He is Christianity. And being a Christian is about having a personal relationship with HIm.

And people can be brainwashed to beleive anything even the lies about Christ that the humanist tells.

But you certainly feel the need to swear dont' you?

The statement in the way it was said...was childish.

"If you look at the World's main religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hindu, etc.) and many ancient polytheistic religions (Greek, Roman, Egyptian, etc.), they all have a similar story, which fits along this outline. Names obviously aren't the same and stories are a bit different, but if you look at those stories in a metaphorical sense... they're pretty similar.

Christianity is just a term. Modern Christians are obviously monotheistic, but I think it is very possible that the Bible originally spread a polytheistic message."

They don't all say the same thing, they are all different. They don't even pray to the same God.

Different religions make different truth claims on a number of basis issues and they all claim exclusivity.

If we lived with the belief that there is no truth....everything would go...be allowed and everything would be acceptable.

How could we live like that as societies around the world?

There is cause and effect however...

What was the first cause...the first truth?

Well...lets see. I think it's a really complexed question but I will try.

It all boils down to CHANCE...with me. The chance that an egg..or the eye..or our entire planet just came into existence by random chance....not buying it. Is it impossible that a molecule just happened by chance?

Then how about cause and effect? Did something come from nothing? Just some random chance event in perfect harmonious unity so that everything works?

Am I to believe that the cosmos in all of its complexity was created by chance?

R.C Sproul said this..."chance is magic wand to make not only rabbits but entire universes appear out of nothing."

So chance implies no design or designer. The eye as I said is a complexed property.

This is what Darwin had to say about this. "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”

Ok the egg....it is one of the most highly organized and complexed structure in all the world. Sperm meets egg...and a human is created...an animal created so small it can't be seen by the human eye....microscopic with all it needs genetically. It is as small as a grain of salt and yet it has all the instructions it needs to develop.

Now look at our earth...precision and design. Ocean tides, gravitational pull of the moon....coming together perfectly. Even the temperatures on earth...our closeness to other planets. If we were closer to the sun we would burn up...further away we would freeze.

Random Chance? No way. That would take a lot of faith to believe.

Swearing and acting like he did is childish....it shows lack of substance.

No he wanted people to love him not because he forced them or commanded them to love him..

but of our free will.

Would you be happy knowing someone forced you to marry someone you didn't love?

We have the choice to sin or not to sin. Not Gods fault.

God is only good. We are evil. Our standards for good are not Gods standards.

You've heard people say...well I have been a good person my whole life. I gave to the poor, helped people, didn't murder anyone. But good is not good enough in Gods eyes. We are all filthy rags...and sin is sin. You break one you have broken all of them.

You might not have an affair on your spouse...but if you have lusted...looked at pornography and had sexual thoughts...then in the eyes of God you have sinned.

So Gods standards are way above ours.

Man tries to live LIKE A GOD, tries to live without god. The Word says only believers go to heaven...those who accept Christ. Jesus said it Himself, "I am THE WAY, THE TRUTH AND THE LIFE, NO ONE COMES TO THE FATHER BUT THROUGH ME." This is easy to understand...no way to misinterpret what Christ meant.

Now you can reject this...but then you would be denying what Christ said. There is no other way...only ONE WAY.

Christians put God first...so if you walk the walk...then you have to live a Christian worldview...the bible then is your guidebook on morality and how God wants us to live. Humans I don't think are like angels....basically we are sinful beings. We do not deserve to be in heaven...it is only by Gods Grace that we have a chance to go there.

Well I am not a theologian. What is important to me is the gospel and that is pretty easy to understand. I know why I am here....how I came to be...I know what the truth is...and it can be answered in one word....CHRIST.

I wonder about a lot of things, so many things don't make sense to me....but I am not alone, as no one can answer all the mysteries of life.

I do believe there is only one way...and that one way is Christ. It is exclusive to think that way...but all religions are exclusive. Many say Islam and Christianity have a lot alike...I don't believe so, not at all. We worship a different God. That is why it amazes me that people when they make pot shots at the religious...the religion that takes the most heat is Christianity.

Jesus was about love and forgiveness but He also was about wrath and He came to earth and addressed sin. In fact he talked more about sin and the wrath of God than he did about peace and love.

The gospel is easy enough for a child to understand...and that is what I concentrate on.

So I don't know how much we all could agree on.....this as you know is a subject that really excites people....

I try not to get trapped in the head. By this I mean...sometimes I over think an issue, try to analyze it too much. The head is connected to the heart...and my heart is with Christ...I can't answer everything but I don't think that matters.

What you propose is unliveable ......

If we can't dictate what is right and wrong.....can we live in a civilized society that has rules to protect the innocent?

Or don't you think there is innocence?

Can I just kill you...with no consequences to me?

Should I be able to just walk into your home and rob you blind. What you are saying is that you would stand by and allow me to do it? Why? Because I would have the right to do it if I think I have the right to do it.

How do you know there are other universes...where truth would matter?

All we know is what is right in front of us. We live on earth...it is all we know. Are there other planets with people on it like earth? Not that we know....Isn't it odd that we are like we are and no other life exists on other planets that we know of?

But don't you know rape is bad? Or can rape be acceptable?

Well I can't answer everything. And I can see where one would come off that God is mean.

As I parent I often did things to my kids that they thought were mean at the time. My motives were always honorable and I did it out of love. I tried to protect them and they did not have to know everything. I look at Gods reasoning the same way.

I do believe that one day all my questions will be answered.

When people use profanity it discredits themselves. It lowers what they say to be nothing but blabber....no substance at all.

And one of the rules is.......NO SWEARING.

Or can't you read? Either that or you are just here to disrupt and derail the topic that you can't debate?

This might help you....of course we don't know everything..there are mysteries.

"The image of God surrounded by a heavenly council is not uncommon in the Old Testament. The book of Job mentions the “sons of God” (Elohim) presenting themselves before Yahweh (Job 1:6). Isaiah saw a vision of God surrounded by his seraphim. “And I heard the voice of the Lord saying, ‘Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?’” (Isaiah 6:1-8). The prophet Micaiah saw “the Lord sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing beside him on his right hand and on his left” (1 Kings 22:19). Modern ideas about these beings – angels, seraphim, and the host of heaven – are clouded by the elaboration of later ideas. However, the Bible itself does not go into detail about them.

It may be that Genesis 1 refers to “our image” and “our likeness” in order to suggest a link between humanity and the whole realm of the divine. In a similar way Psalm 8 says that Yahweh made the human “little less than” Elohim, a word which interpreters have taken to mean either God himself or the angels."

http://mysteriesofthebible.wordpress.com/2009/12/29/did-god-have-a-heavenly-court/

Hope this helps.

I do not use profanity...but when someone is acting like a child...then call them out. Why do people need to use profanity? This is a debate site...and usually the ones who do this are kids...who just crash the site to disrupt it.

Is it an insult to call someone out on language unbecoming to a debate?

26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” Genesis 1:26

Dr. Charles Ryrie explains the plurals as plurals of majesty: "Gen. 1:26 us . . . our. Plurals of majesty" (Ryrie Study Bible, NIV, p.6).

"The explanation of the first person plural forms is probably that the Creator speaks as heaven's King accompanied by His heavenly hosts" (The New Bible Commentary, p. 82).

"It is possible that this plural form implies a discussion between God and his heavenly court... Alternatively, the plural expresses the majesty and fullness of God's being" (New Jerusalem Bible, p. 19).

"It is now universally admitted that the use of the plural in Gen. 1:26 did not mean to the author that [God was more than one Person.]" (The Word Bible Commentary)

"It's not rational to believe in a supposedly omnipotent God who was defeated by iron chariots, so there goes Christianity, Judaism and Islam."

You said that....implying you know the truth. You made a factual statement.

So again...what is the first cause? You seem to know about about Christianity...the world....so why and how did it all start?

I thought what I said was very nice. You have the potty mouth not me. Look in the mirror.

Lets debate it....there is a debate going on now about this very thing.

You think a woman who is nine months...who walks into an abortion mill and wants to kill her unborn baby...for no reason....should be able to do it.

I don't judge your heart...but your words and actions...the fact that you think this would be moral....is disturbing.

I am for stem cell...but not embryonic stem cell.

Why do you bring up religion? Do you think everyone against abortion has to believe in God? You have no way of knowing.

To say that I don't care is a judgement you can't make...it only makes you feel better to criticize and bash people you disagree with. I value the life in the womb. Science does not talk about size...only that a new humans life begins at conception. It should not matter how big it is or if it can feel or think. The heart starts beating around 22 days it is alive and it is human. What right do you have to take anothers life away to be used in experimentation for other human beings. Why don't we take part of your body to do research? If you think that baby sacrifice is so noble...then why don't you take it one step further and donate your liver, or better yet heart?

So if your standing next to someone who shoots someone dead.....and you eye witness this....the truth about the situation is subjective? Come on.

The people back in the time where they thought the world was flat did not have the capability to prove their assumption. Today we do have that ability and the world is round. Your saying it could be square or triangular or any other shape.

You know you are right.

By implying someone is wrong, you also imply there is right.

Sorta like saying you can't judge someone...and your judging them by saying it.

If truth is truth, it must exclude something-falsehood. If you correct me, you assume error exists. And if you assume error exists, you assume that truth exists.

I don't believe that. Example

If I come to your home and kill your children.....are you telling me that it is not bad...just bad to those who think its bad? The act would not be evil?

Abbsurd and unliveable. Why even attempt to do anything good? We should then abolish prisons...disband our military...and let each one fend for himself. If there is no truth then what does anything matter? If moral relativism is right then there is no basis for opposing genocide, racism or terrorism...etc.

ABSOLUTE....

Absolutely yes.

An accident happens at the corner down the street...ten people see it...but give ten different accounts of what happened. There is still one truth...only one way it happened. Truth is more than our subjective reporting of a car crash. It has objective existence. It has universal application.

And the car crash...the truth is still the truth even if no one knows it or admits it. It's still the truth even if no one agrees what it is. Still the truth if no one follows it.

How would a relativist view this? For him, no fact is in all times and places true. Because everyone has a different point of view we can't ever know what the truth is...and in the case of the car accident...what happened. Some people would even question whether the crash actually happened or not. Relativism does not hang together logically.

The thing is you can't in one breath say that nothing is universally true...and then say my view is universally true. You would be applying your view to everyone but yourself.

Can two people believe contradictory ethical views and both still be correct?

Can rape ever be ok?

Can murder ever be ok?

Can child abuse ever be ok?

Can slavery ever be ok?

Lets take slavery....To speak out against such an atrocity implies the existence of a moral standard to which all people should conform. Insert anything in place of slavery...rape, murder...etc?

Was it wrong that the Allied forces imposed their morality on Hitler who murdered over 6 million Jews? Is it wrong our government imposes morality on those sitting in prison? Was it wrong that the North stopped the South from imposing slavery on blacks? And if you saw someone being raped...would you stand by because you would not want to enforce your morality on someone else?

If moral relativism is true...and there is no one truth....there is no basis then for opposing genocide, racism, terrorism, torture.

I think rape and pedopelia, and child abuse are ok.

Am I right?

Why would you say kill all abortionists? You like violence?

When did Kindergarten get out? Why don't you go get your color book and crayons and draw us a nice picture.

We live in a world of evilness, a world that can't address why we are even here and why and how we got here?

Why don't you explain the first cause. Would love to see the evidence and proof you have to explain what scientists can't begin to address.

What does the ability to talk to people around the globe have anything to do with anything, especially faith in God? Logic and math?

Why don't you address the logic behind all we know started with a big bang? What happens when something explodes? Is their order or chaos?

How do you know there is no God? And how do you know if there is a God that He would not help people? The fact is there is no possible way you can prove there is no God. You would be in the minority of all that have lived to have believed so. The first peoples of the world believed in a high power. To say all this happened...out of nothing? Now that is irrational. Something does not come from nothing.

What is childish is to make pot shots at people who do have faith especially because you can't answer questions that have been asked since the beginning of time.

If you know about the world religions you would see that they DON'T all say the same things. They can't be all right. They are opposed to one another in many ways..especially about the end.

What was the first cause anti-christ?

Tell us the truth of what happened.

Why are we here and how did we get here?

I am not afraid of death...I would like to live a long life however. I know my eternal life will start after I die. I would think someone who is unsure about what happens after death...would be afraid.

You talk about answers to questions. Why since you say the believer knows nothing....don't you explain why we are here and how we got here. What was the first cause?

It is rational to fight to the death for something you believe in. I would fight for Christ and my family. It is rational to encourage others to do good, the right thing.

The facts?

Why don't you share the facts with us all.

What was the first cause?

And address cause and effect...coming from the science angle of it.

Did a big explosion happen? If it did...what caused the explosion and why?

How do you account that evolution formed the universe in perfect harmony...the eye, the egg, life on our planet and on no other?

Why is being in an intelligent creator so irrational..if you can not explain anything either?

I do not believe in violence....the pro-abort believes violence is the answer.

I understand...but I believe he gave free will...other wise...we could do anything and blame it on God. And God is good.

Curious...are you a Christian? Did God create Hitler to kill that many people? Did God create and will the terrorists that took the towers down on 9-11?

You make Him out to be evil.

The fact that you would support shows your morality...or lack thereof.

So you believe a woman should be able to get an abortion for any reason...throught the entire nine months? Yes or no

Its hypocrisy if you say no....she can only kill part of the time.

A pagan praying for me?

I am a sinner saved only by the Grace of God. Christ is my Savior and He will protect me from evil...even on this forum.

Your name is sacreligious....so don't pretend. You mock the Lord and Savior.

Your god is evil....someone who creates someone for evil to do the will of Satan...the ruler of this world.

I question nothing concerning the Lord....I question your words and actions...they speak for themselves. Anyone with the Holy Spirit could see.

You are anti-christ.

Your comment from a pagan I will dismiss.

His plan is not to cause evil to happen. Is He responsible for your vile and hate filled position? No you are. You are responsible for your views and your actions.

His plan is perfect and He knows what you will do...but He does not cause you to do it.

The fact that you would even mention the word Lord...turns my stomach.

If what you say is right...then if someone murdered you...that would be ok, right? All part of his plan. LMAO

The fact is you are trying to derail the topic...because you don't want to address it.

That is not what this debate is about. These are non biased..sources that confirm overwhelmingly that life starts at conception.

Wondering however about your comment....you obviously condone abortion on demand for any reason throughout the entire nine months...right?

No it would not know if someone killed it. Does someone who is sleeping know what is going on? Do you think if someone shot them in the head...they would know someone just killed them?

The unborn in the womb...can cough, move, suck its thumb, kick, roll.

And you know proof positive that an unborn does not feel pain?

Killing someone in the womb can cause distress and emotional trauma...not only for the woman but for others in the family.

Does a newborn have goals?

So when is it killing is ok with you....give me an exact date....since we are talking about slaughter. I would think you would want to be right. So when is it?

You give a date of 22-24 weeks. My niece was born at 23 1/12 weeks over 21 years ago. She just graduated from college in pre-med and is going into medical school. She felt pain...as she had to endure over 20 surgeries. So don't tell me what you state is accurate.

You are for choice......the womans right and then you state she can't get a late term abortion. Do you think you have the right to impose your morality on other women who don't care?

Would terminating your life be wrong? What if someone thought you were horrible and wanted to get rid of you? Was Hitler a good guy...? He wanted to get rid of people too. You just said...terminating a late term baby is wrong? LMAO And then you ask the question....why is terminating the life of someone wrong? Honey your position is not cohesive...or logical.

If there is something wrong with abortion...why are you a pro-abort?

I don't place much weight on statistics. Obviously you do. But you have not really researched this topic to know the bias of the places doing them. If the stats were irrelevant to your argument why did you throw them in? LOL

If you think there is nothing wrong with abortion...why make the laws more restrictive? ARen't you pro-choice? What are you?

Your position makes no sense....allow abortion until?????time, but make more restrictions on abortion.

You have no clue about this topic.

Your post and mouth are vile....no wonder you have the views that you do. Abortion is not funny unless you are just sick.

The First International Symposium on Abortion came to the following conclusion:

The changes occurring between implantation, a six-week embryo, a six-month fetus, a one-week-old child, or a mature adult are merely stages of development and maturation. The majority of our group could find no point in time between the union of sperm and egg, or at least the blastocyst stage, and the birth of the infant at which point we could say that this was not a human life.

The Official Senate report on Senate Bill 158, the “Human Life Bill,” summarized the issue this way:

Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being—a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.

http://www.epm.org/resources/2010/Mar/8/ scientists-attest-life-beginning-conception/

And from the National Review Online

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/226168/when-life-begins/robert-p-george

Modern science long ago resolved the question. We actually know when the life of a new human individual begins.

A recently published white paper, “When does human life begin? A scientific perspective,” offers a thorough discussion of the facts of human embryogenesis and early development, and its conclusion is inescapable: From a purely biological perspective, scientists can identify the point at which a human life begins. The relevant studies are legion. The biological facts are uncontested. The method of analysis applied to the data is universally accepted.

Your life began, as did the life of every other human being, when the fusion of egg and sperm produced a new, complete, living organism — an embryonic human being. You were never an ovum or a sperm cell, those were both functionally and genetically parts of other human beings — your parents. But you were once an embryo, just as you were once an adolescent, a child, an infant, and a fetus. By an internally directed process, you developed from the embryonic stage into and through the fetal, infant, child, and adolescent stages of development and ultimately into adulthood with your determinateness, unity, and identity fully intact. You are the same being — the same human being — who once was an embryo.

It is true that each of us, in the embryonic and fetal stages of development, were dependent on our mothers, but we were not maternal body parts. Though dependent, we were distinct individual human beings. That is why physicians who treat pregnant women know that they are caring not for one patient, but for two. (Of course, in cases of twins and triplets physicians are caring for more than two!)

Why, then, do we seem so far from a consensus on questions of abortion and embryo-destructive research?

Perhaps because the debate over when human life begins has never been about the biological facts. It has been about the value we ascribe to human beings at the dawn of their lives. When we debate questions of abortion, assisted reproductive technologies, human embryonic stem cell research and human cloning, we are not really disagreeing about whether human embryos are human beings. The scientific evidence is simply too overwhelming for there to be any real debate on this point. What is at issue in these debates is the question of whether we ought to respect and defend human beings in the earliest stages of their lives. In other words, the question is not about scientific facts; it is about the nature of human dignity and the equality of human beings.

Robert P. George is McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University.

Condic, a senior fellow of the Westchester Institute for Ethics and the Human Person, published her conclusions in a white paper titled "When Does Human Life Begin?" In the report she addresses the topic using current scientific data in human embryology.

An associate professor of neurobiology and anatomy at the University of Utah School of Medicine, Condic received her doctorate in neurobiology from the University of California, Berkely. Her teaching focuses primarily on embryonic development, and she directs the University of Utah School of Medicine's course in human embryology.

As a scientist and as director of a medical school course in human embryology, I have been considering the general question of when human life begins for quite a few years. The argument put forward in the white paper has grown out of discussions with philosophers, scientists and ethicists, as well as out of my own research in this area.

Yet this topic has come to the fore in the lead-up to the presidential election. While the topic of when life begins has generally been avoided by politicians and government officials, recently a number of prominent figures have offered their interpretations, making this a timely subject to consider with scientific rigor and neutrality.

Q: You define the moment of conception as the second it takes for the sperm and egg to fuse and form a zygote. What were the scientific principles you used to arrive at this conclusion?

Condic: The central question of "when does human life begin" can be stated in a somewhat different way: When do sperm and egg cease to be, and what kind of thing takes their place once they cease to be?

To address this question scientifically, we need to rely on sound scientific argument and on the factual evidence. Scientists make distinctions between different cell types (for example, sperm, egg and the cell they produce at fertilization) based on two simple criteria: Cells are known to be different because they are made of different components and because they behave in distinct ways.

These two criteria are used throughout the scientific enterprise to distinguish one cell type from another, and they are the basis of all scientific (as opposed to arbitrary, faith-based or political) distinctions. I have applied these two criteria to the scientific data concerning fertilization, and they are the basis for the conclusion that a new human organism comes into existence at the moment of sperm-egg fusion.

Here is her research in the paper.

http://www.westchesterinstitute.net/images/wi whitepaperlife_print.pdf

A United States Senate Judiciary Subcommittee invited experts to testify on the question of when life begins. All of the quotes from the following experts come directly from the official government record of their testimony.

Dr. Alfred M. Bongiovanni, professor of pediatrics and obstetrics at the University of Pennsylvania, stated:

“I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception.... I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood and that any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes a termination of human life....

I am no more prepared to say that these early stages [of development in the womb] represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty...is not a human being. This is human life at every stage.”

Dr. Jerome LeJeune, professor of genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris, was the discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down syndrome. Dr. LeJeune testified to the Judiciary Subcommittee, “after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being.” He stated that this “is no longer a matter of taste or opinion,” and “not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence.” He added, “Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.”

Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic: “By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.”

Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School: “It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive.... It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception.... Our laws, one function of which is to help preserve the lives of our people, should be based on accurate scientific data.”

Dr. Watson A. Bowes, University of Colorado Medical School: “The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter—the beginning is conception. This straightforward biological fact should not be distorted to serve sociological, political, or economic goals.”

A prominent physician points out that at these Senate hearings, “Pro-abortionists, though invited to do so, failed to produce even a single expert witness who would specifically testify that life begins at any point other than conception or implantation. Only one witness said no one can tell when life begins.”

Many other prominent scientists and physicians have likewise affirmed with certainty that human life begins at conception:

Ashley Montague, a geneticist and professor at Harvard and Rutgers, is unsympathetic to the prolife cause. Nevertheless, he affirms unequivocally, “The basic fact is simple: life begins not at birth, but conception.”

Dr. Bernard Nathanson, internationally known obstetrician and gynecologist, was a cofounder of what is now the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). He owned and operated what was at the time the largest abortion clinic in the western hemisphere. He was directly involved in over sixty thousand abortions.

Dr. Nathanson’s study of developments in the science of fetology and his use of ultrasound to observe the unborn child in the womb led him to the conclusion that he had made a horrible mistake. Resigning from his lucrative position, Nathanson wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine that he was deeply troubled by his “increasing certainty that I had in fact presided over 60,000 deaths.”

Dr. Landrum Shettles was for twenty-seven years attending obstetrician-gynecologist at Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center in New York. Shettles was a pioneer in sperm biology, fertility, and sterility. He is internationally famous for being the discoverer of male- and female-producing sperm. His intrauterine photographs of preborn children appear in over fifty medical textbooks. Dr. Shettles states,

I oppose abortion. I do so, first, because I accept what is biologically manifest—that human life commences at the time of conception—and, second, because I believe it is wrong to take innocent human life under any circumstances. My position is scientific, pragmatic, and humanitarian.

The information comes from Medical textbooks, Medical dictionaries…from universities such as Harvard and from such medical institutions as Mayo Clinic. Others come from Scientific Encyclopedias. NOTHING CHRISTIAN ABOUT THE SOURCES.

The following references illustrate the fact that a new human embryo, the starting point for a human life, comes into existence with the formation of the one-celled zygote:

1. "Development of the embryo begins at Stage 1 when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte and together they form a zygote."

[England, Marjorie A. Life Before Birth. 2nd ed. England: Mosby-Wolfe, 1996, p.31]

2."Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).

"Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."

[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]

3. "Embryo: the developing organism from the time of fertilization until significant differentiation has occurred, when the organism becomes known as a fetus."

[Cloning Human Beings. Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Rockville, MD: GPO, 1997, Appendix-2.]

4."Embryo: An organism in the earliest stage of development; in a man, from the time of conception to the end of the second month in the uterus."

[Dox, Ida G. et al. The Harper Collins Illustrated Medical Dictionary. New York: Harper Perennial, 1993, p. 146]

5."Embryo: The early developing fertilized egg that is growing into another individual of the species. In man the term 'embryo' is usually restricted to the period of development from fertilization until the end of the eighth week of pregnancy."

[Walters, William and Singer, Peter (eds.). Test-Tube Babies. Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1982, p. 160]

6."The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, thezygote."

[Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]

7."Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism.... At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.... The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life."

[Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943]

8."I would say that among most scientists, the word 'embryo' includes the time from after fertilization..."

[Dr. John Eppig, Senior Staff Scientist, Jackson Laboratory (Bar Harbor, Maine) and Member of the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel -- Panel Transcript, February 2, 1994, p. 31]

9."The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."

[Sadler, T.W. Langman's Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3]

10. "The question came up of what is an embryo, when does an embryo exist, when does it occur. I think, as you know, that in development, life is a continuum.... But I think one of the useful definitions that has come out, especially from Germany, has been the stage at which these two nuclei [from sperm and egg] come together and the membranes between the two break down."

[Jonathan Van Blerkom of University of Colorado, expert witness on human embryology before the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel -- Panel Transcript, February 2, 1994, p. 63]

11."Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being. The common expression 'fertilized ovum' refers to the zygote."

[Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1]

12."The chromosomes of the oocyte and sperm are...respectively enclosed within female and male pronuclei. These pronuclei fuse with each other to produce the single, diploid, 2N nucleus of the fertilized zygote. This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development."

[Larsen, William J. Human Embryology. 2nd edition. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1997, p. 17]

13. "Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."

[O'Rahilly, Ronan and Müller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29. This textbook lists "pre-embryo" among "discarded and replaced terms" in modern embryology, describing it as "ill-defined and inaccurate" (p. 12}]

14. "Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual."

[Carlson, Bruce M. Patten's Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3]

15. "[A]nimal biologists use the term embryo to describe the single cell stage, the two-cell stage, and all subsequent stages up until a time when recognizable humanlike limbs and facial features begin to appear between six to eight weeks after fertilization....

"[A] number of specialists working in the field of human reproduction have suggested that we stop using the word embryo to describe the developing entity that exists for the first two weeks after fertilization. In its place, they proposed the term pre-embryo....

"I'll let you in on a secret. The term pre-embryo has been embraced wholeheartedly by IVF practitioners for reasons that are political, not scientific. The new term is used to provide the illusion that there is something profoundly different between what we nonmedical biologists still call a six-day-old embryo and what we and everyone else call a sixteen-day-old embryo.

"The term pre-embryo is useful in the political arena -- where decisions are made about whether to allow early embryo (now called pre-embryo) experimentation -- as well as in the confines of a doctor's office, where it can be used to allay moral concerns that might be expressed by IVF patients. 'Don't worry,' a doctor might say, 'it's only pre-embryos that we're manipulating or freezing. They won't turn into real human embryos until after we've put them back into your body.'"

[Silver, Lee M. Remaking Eden: Cloning and Beyond in a Brave New World. New York: Avon Books, 1997, p. 39]

None of these sources mention God...or personal beliefs.

Can't wait to hear your reply...the Jackster. Hoping you are investigating some of the information I gave.

If the child won't survive why not let it be born anyway? Why go in and kill it...cut it apart...dissect it.....?

And no women if she was dying on the table would be allowed to die. The child would be induced...

What you want them to do is to play God.

Why bring up capital punishment? To take the focus off of the unborn and abortion?

You want to talk about that make a debate...would be happy to debate that there.

And for your information....I AM NOT FOR CAPITAL PUNISHMENT. Just because someone is pro-life...does not mean they can't be against it.

Do you think a newborn would know if someone killed it? Because it really does not know what is going on.

Is killing someone who is severely mentally disabled ok? How about someone in a comma? Pain is not an issue...anyone can be put under and then killed. This has to do with morality and the right for a human being to live...even if they can't or are unable to speak for themselves.

Your position is hypocritical. You are playing God....its a crap shoot for you.

You have no way of knowing the exact point when something is viable...or feels pain...yet you are willing to let that go...and guess. Is it 24 weeks? 23 1/2? And does the unborn feel emotion? How do you know?

There are two involved in an abortion. The woman that carries the baby and the one she carries. Abortion should just not be about the woman. The unborn is not a part of her. The baby has its own circulatory system, fingerprints, heart, organs...etc. Louise Brown the worlds first test tube baby...was not a part of her mother she was not even conceived in her mother...but in a Petri dish. She used her mothers body as a safe sanctuary to grow.

You give statistics on the occurrence of abortion. First of all there are no statistics that are accurate...most all are biased. Guttmaucher Institute is an arm of Planned Parenthood, the majority of the board members are pro-abortion. There is bias. As of late we have seen clinics all over the country, doctors exposed who are doing late term abortion. It is going on all over and not reported...why? They are guilty. There are far more than the statistics show. But with that said...the Pro-aborts position is based on CHOICE...and the right of the woman TO CHOOSE.

How then can you tell her...that she can't, that because of YOUR particular morals she can't decide for herself? You enslave her....your position is hypocrisy.

People know when they sign up for service that the possibility of war could be an issue. If they felt that strongly against it...they should not sign up. For those that were drafted they still had a choice. There were people exempt because of religion and faith.

Less than 1% of ALL ABORTIONS...are done for health reasons, rape, incest. Bad things happen and when they do should we also do more bad things because of that one bad thing? Does one bad thing...with another bad thing (abortion)...equal something good?

If a woman is dying on the table...and I don't mean emotional issues...I mean dying...then steps should be taken to start labor.

If you are for choice then you must allow the woman to choose...what is best despite what you think morally? And most pro-aborts don't do this. They make a big deal out of CHOICE...THE WOMANS BODY....HER MORALITY....and then they tell her that she can't...her reason is not good enough.

Its hypocrisy.

Is a sperm cell human> Yes Is an egg human? Yes. Do they make a human being? No, not unless they come together...and are fertilized.

I do not find the topic of abortion something to be laughed at...it is not funny. So I don't like sarcasm when it comes to killing unborn children.

The fact is science says that which is in the womb is a living human.

This is not about anything other than killing the innocent life in the womb...not about adoption, war, gay marriage, the elderly, the disabled...none of that. Bringing all that up..is a way to take the focus off of that which is being slaughtered and defended by people like you.

We have decided as a nation when the unborn is viable because we have laws as to when abortion becomes illegal. Your position is pure hypocrisy. You enslave the woman to your morality...and you tell me I don't have the right to do it. Your position is all over the place...nothing consistent. The woman...deserves choice...its her body....a crock...because you take that away from her. It should be your opinion as to when a woman should be able to kill..because God forbid you would not want to deny choice to women. Right?

No you said abortion should be off limits at a certain point. Hypocritical position. You don't know the truth about when life starts based on science....and you don't have enough knowledge to be consistent in position.

No matter what stage the unborn is in....it is still a living human being.

I just don't understand the rationale of you pro-aborts on when viability should be.

What is wrong letting nature take its course? If the child will die it will die naturally. Why go in and kill it?

I am not sure....what great movie has been made...like the old classics?

They are full of violence and sex...lacking in content.

I do believe most the stuff on television is junk...especially the reality TV shows.

What movie has hit epic proportions in the last ten years?

I grew up watching the Soaps and I was not alone. (I am 57 years old) I watched As the World Turns, Guiding Light, Bold and the Beautiful, The Young and the Restless. I remember when they started out as 15 minute shows...then went to 30 minutes.

Let me tell you...during my college days...(1974-48) everyone juggled their class loads around the Soaps...especially The Young and the Restless. They were watched by all ages...and people got emotionally involved in them.

Television is powerful.

First thing in the morning...I turn on the television. I love going to movies..watching movies...but I connect better with television.

My all time favorite show....Frasier. I could recite the episodes. I feel in love with the characters and I know it sounds funny but feel like I know them intimately.

My dad was the same with Mash.

Movies can't do that.....they can't connect people to characters on a personal level.

I believe in God. I believe that He is in complete control. But I also believe that He allowed us free will, stepped back to allow us to exercise it.

It is in our nature that we sin. It is not in Gods nature to sin. It is by our free will that we sin.

I believe God knows what we will do before we do it..but I don't believe He causes us to do it. If that were the case he would be the author of evil...and would create people with the purple to sin.

You are avoiding my question.

No God....the choice of the woman....no restrictions.....

Yes or no....you believe abortion should be allowed throughout the entire nine months....because it is the woman's choice, her body?

So she should be able to kill at nine months...right? Because if you deny her this right, then your position is absolutely hypocritical...as you force your morality on her.

More......

The First International Symposium on Abortion came to the following conclusion:

The changes occurring between implantation, a six-week embryo, a six-month fetus, a one-week-old child, or a mature adult are merely stages of development and maturation. The majority of our group could find no point in time between the union of sperm and egg, or at least the blastocyst stage, and the birth of the infant at which point we could say that this was not a human life.

The Official Senate report on Senate Bill 158, the “Human Life Bill,” summarized the issue this way:

Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being—a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.

http://www.epm.org/resources/2010/Mar/8/ scientists-attest-life-beginning-conception/

And from the National Review Online

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/226168/when-life-begins/robert-p-george

Modern science long ago resolved the question. We actually know when the life of a new human individual begins.

A recently published white paper, “When does human life begin? A scientific perspective,” offers a thorough discussion of the facts of human embryogenesis and early development, and its conclusion is inescapable: From a purely biological perspective, scientists can identify the point at which a human life begins. The relevant studies are legion. The biological facts are uncontested. The method of analysis applied to the data is universally accepted.

Your life began, as did the life of every other human being, when the fusion of egg and sperm produced a new, complete, living organism — an embryonic human being. You were never an ovum or a sperm cell, those were both functionally and genetically parts of other human beings — your parents. But you were once an embryo, just as you were once an adolescent, a child, an infant, and a fetus. By an internally directed process, you developed from the embryonic stage into and through the fetal, infant, child, and adolescent stages of development and ultimately into adulthood with your determinateness, unity, and identity fully intact. You are the same being — the same human being — who once was an embryo.

It is true that each of us, in the embryonic and fetal stages of development, were dependent on our mothers, but we were not maternal body parts. Though dependent, we were distinct individual human beings. That is why physicians who treat pregnant women know that they are caring not for one patient, but for two. (Of course, in cases of twins and triplets physicians are caring for more than two!)

Why, then, do we seem so far from a consensus on questions of abortion and embryo-destructive research?

Perhaps because the debate over when human life begins has never been about the biological facts. It has been about the value we ascribe to human beings at the dawn of their lives. When we debate questions of abortion, assisted reproductive technologies, human embryonic stem cell research and human cloning, we are not really disagreeing about whether human embryos are human beings. The scientific evidence is simply too overwhelming for there to be any real debate on this point. What is at issue in these debates is the question of whether we ought to respect and defend human beings in the earliest stages of their lives. In other words, the question is not about scientific facts; it is about the nature of human dignity and the equality of human beings.

Robert P. George is McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University.

Condic, a senior fellow of the Westchester Institute for Ethics and the Human Person, published her conclusions in a white paper titled "When Does Human Life Begin?" In the report she addresses the topic using current scientific data in human embryology.

An associate professor of neurobiology and anatomy at the University of Utah School of Medicine, Condic received her doctorate in neurobiology from the University of California, Berkely. Her teaching focuses primarily on embryonic development, and she directs the University of Utah School of Medicine's course in human embryology.

As a scientist and as director of a medical school course in human embryology, I have been considering the general question of when human life begins for quite a few years. The argument put forward in the white paper has grown out of discussions with philosophers, scientists and ethicists, as well as out of my own research in this area.

Yet this topic has come to the fore in the lead-up to the presidential election. While the topic of when life begins has generally been avoided by politicians and government officials, recently a number of prominent figures have offered their interpretations, making this a timely subject to consider with scientific rigor and neutrality.

Q: You define the moment of conception as the second it takes for the sperm and egg to fuse and form a zygote. What were the scientific principles you used to arrive at this conclusion?

Condic: The central question of "when does human life begin" can be stated in a somewhat different way: When do sperm and egg cease to be, and what kind of thing takes their place once they cease to be?

To address this question scientifically, we need to rely on sound scientific argument and on the factual evidence. Scientists make distinctions between different cell types (for example, sperm, egg and the cell they produce at fertilization) based on two simple criteria: Cells are known to be different because they are made of different components and because they behave in distinct ways.

These two criteria are used throughout the scientific enterprise to distinguish one cell type from another, and they are the basis of all scientific (as opposed to arbitrary, faith-based or political) distinctions. I have applied these two criteria to the scientific data concerning fertilization, and they are the basis for the conclusion that a new human organism comes into existence at the moment of sperm-egg fusion.

Here is her research in the paper.

http://www.westchesterinstitute.net/images/wi whitepaperlife_print.pdf

More.........

A United States Senate Judiciary Subcommittee invited experts to testify on the question of when life begins. All of the quotes from the following experts come directly from the official government record of their testimony.

Dr. Alfred M. Bongiovanni, professor of pediatrics and obstetrics at the University of Pennsylvania, stated:

“I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception.... I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood and that any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes a termination of human life....

I am no more prepared to say that these early stages [of development in the womb] represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty...is not a human being. This is human life at every stage.”

Dr. Jerome LeJeune, professor of genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris, was the discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down syndrome. Dr. LeJeune testified to the Judiciary Subcommittee, “after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being.” He stated that this “is no longer a matter of taste or opinion,” and “not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence.” He added, “Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.”

Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic: “By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.”

Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School: “It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive.... It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception.... Our laws, one function of which is to help preserve the lives of our people, should be based on accurate scientific data.”

Dr. Watson A. Bowes, University of Colorado Medical School: “The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter—the beginning is conception. This straightforward biological fact should not be distorted to serve sociological, political, or economic goals.”

A prominent physician points out that at these Senate hearings, “Pro-abortionists, though invited to do so, failed to produce even a single expert witness who would specifically testify that life begins at any point other than conception or implantation. Only one witness said no one can tell when life begins.”

Many other prominent scientists and physicians have likewise affirmed with certainty that human life begins at conception:

Ashley Montague, a geneticist and professor at Harvard and Rutgers, is unsympathetic to the prolife cause. Nevertheless, he affirms unequivocally, “The basic fact is simple: life begins not at birth, but conception.”

Dr. Bernard Nathanson, internationally known obstetrician and gynecologist, was a cofounder of what is now the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). He owned and operated what was at the time the largest abortion clinic in the western hemisphere. He was directly involved in over sixty thousand abortions.

Dr. Nathanson’s study of developments in the science of fetology and his use of ultrasound to observe the unborn child in the womb led him to the conclusion that he had made a horrible mistake. Resigning from his lucrative position, Nathanson wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine that he was deeply troubled by his “increasing certainty that I had in fact presided over 60,000 deaths.”

Dr. Landrum Shettles was for twenty-seven years attending obstetrician-gynecologist at Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center in New York. Shettles was a pioneer in sperm biology, fertility, and sterility. He is internationally famous for being the discoverer of male- and female-producing sperm. His intrauterine photographs of preborn children appear in over fifty medical textbooks. Dr. Shettles states,

I oppose abortion. I do so, first, because I accept what is biologically manifest—that human life commences at the time of conception—and, second, because I believe it is wrong to take innocent human life under any circumstances. My position is scientific, pragmatic, and humanitarian. 

No evidence? There has always been evidence, you just ignore it.

Here ya go. This lengthy but your going to get it....The information comes from Medical textbooks, Medical dictionaries…from universities such as Harvard and from such medical institutions as Mayo Clinic. Others come from Scientific Encyclopedias. NOTHING CHRISTIAN ABOUT THE SOURCES.

The following references illustrate the fact that a new human embryo, the starting point for a human life, comes into existence with the formation of the one-celled zygote:

1. "Development of the embryo begins at Stage 1 when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte and together they form a zygote."

[England, Marjorie A. Life Before Birth. 2nd ed. England: Mosby-Wolfe, 1996, p.31]

2."Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).

"Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."

[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]

3. "Embryo: the developing organism from the time of fertilization until significant differentiation has occurred, when the organism becomes known as a fetus."

[Cloning Human Beings. Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Rockville, MD: GPO, 1997, Appendix-2.]

4."Embryo: An organism in the earliest stage of development; in a man, from the time of conception to the end of the second month in the uterus."

[Dox, Ida G. et al. The Harper Collins Illustrated Medical Dictionary. New York: Harper Perennial, 1993, p. 146]

5."Embryo: The early developing fertilized egg that is growing into another individual of the species. In man the term 'embryo' is usually restricted to the period of development from fertilization until the end of the eighth week of pregnancy."

[Walters, William and Singer, Peter (eds.). Test-Tube Babies. Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1982, p. 160]

6."The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, thezygote."

[Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]

7."Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism.... At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.... The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life."

[Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943]

8."I would say that among most scientists, the word 'embryo' includes the time from after fertilization..."

[Dr. John Eppig, Senior Staff Scientist, Jackson Laboratory (Bar Harbor, Maine) and Member of the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel -- Panel Transcript, February 2, 1994, p. 31]

9."The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."

[Sadler, T.W. Langman's Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3]

10. "The question came up of what is an embryo, when does an embryo exist, when does it occur. I think, as you know, that in development, life is a continuum.... But I think one of the useful definitions that has come out, especially from Germany, has been the stage at which these two nuclei [from sperm and egg] come together and the membranes between the two break down."

[Jonathan Van Blerkom of University of Colorado, expert witness on human embryology before the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel -- Panel Transcript, February 2, 1994, p. 63]

11."Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being. The common expression 'fertilized ovum' refers to the zygote."

[Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1]

12."The chromosomes of the oocyte and sperm are...respectively enclosed within female and male pronuclei. These pronuclei fuse with each other to produce the single, diploid, 2N nucleus of the fertilized zygote. This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development."

[Larsen, William J. Human Embryology. 2nd edition. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1997, p. 17]

13. "Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."

[O'Rahilly, Ronan and Müller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29. This textbook lists "pre-embryo" among "discarded and replaced terms" in modern embryology, describing it as "ill-defined and inaccurate" (p. 12}]

14. "Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual."

[Carlson, Bruce M. Patten's Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3]

15. "[A]nimal biologists use the term embryo to describe the single cell stage, the two-cell stage, and all subsequent stages up until a time when recognizable humanlike limbs and facial features begin to appear between six to eight weeks after fertilization....

"[A] number of specialists working in the field of human reproduction have suggested that we stop using the word embryo to describe the developing entity that exists for the first two weeks after fertilization. In its place, they proposed the term pre-embryo....

"I'll let you in on a secret. The term pre-embryo has been embraced wholeheartedly by IVF practitioners for reasons that are political, not scientific. The new term is used to provide the illusion that there is something profoundly different between what we nonmedical biologists still call a six-day-old embryo and what we and everyone else call a sixteen-day-old embryo.

"The term pre-embryo is useful in the political arena -- where decisions are made about whether to allow early embryo (now called pre-embryo) experimentation -- as well as in the confines of a doctor's office, where it can be used to allay moral concerns that might be expressed by IVF patients. 'Don't worry,' a doctor might say, 'it's only pre-embryos that we're manipulating or freezing. They won't turn into real human embryos until after we've put them back into your body.'"

[Silver, Lee M. Remaking Eden: Cloning and Beyond in a Brave New World. New York: Avon Books, 1997, p. 39]

None of these sources mention God...or personal beliefs.

You are avoiding answering my question.

Do you think women should be able to choose at nine months? To kill a child then?

And does the human life in the womb agree to be cut up, burned and thrown away like trash?

So you also want to give women the right to kill at nine months on demand, no reason?

Or do you want to enslave her to your idea of what morality is?

No...honey...you can't be both.

Being pro-choice...how does that help the life in the womb?

You stand with those who don't care about all life. Your position is pro-abortion in every sense of the term. Why don't you like it? If there is something wrong in your opinion about abortion..then why not stand up for life? And if there is nothing wrong with it...why don't you embrace the label? It does represent your position. Abortion is not savage enough for you to want to do what is right and oppose it.

You say your pro-choice...you don't believe that you can tell another what to do with their bodies. So do you condone choice throughout the entire pregnancy? How about a woman who wants to kill at nine months for no reason? You choice then? I bet not. You would enslave the woman to fit your morality at that point. Shouldn't women have the right to kill anytime?

If you say viability matters...you are a hypocrite..because you go against the choice you say that I would want to deny women by wanting abortion illegal...your very own position of wanting killing an option.

You obviously don't care enough about the life in the womb.

Does that make you pro-drugs. Yes it does. I believe that you even would have supported the Souths...wanting to own slaves, right?

You are pro-abortion.

Clever head? LMAO

Your position and worldview sounds like the one Hitler had...kill the undesirables. Kill to solve problems, kill for purely narcissistic reasons. Why don't you just go into the adoptive system and kill them? Wouldn't this be good in the long run?

My comment about the poor and handicapped...is right on, you just can't address it so you try to find excuses. You are pro-abortion. You are pro-abortion to solve the adoption crisis as you put it. You can't address the label...why?

If there is something wrong with abortion then how can you want it legal? If there is nothing wrong with it then why don't you stand up against it? No you are pro-abortion in every sense of the word. You want it legal...you do NOT want any restrictions...to protect the unborn.

I am not the one who condones killing...you do. That which is in the womb is a living human being....THAT IS WHAT YOU CONDONE....KILLING IT. What is every abortionists goal? The goal is to kill that which is in the womb.

I stand on the side of life...you stand on the side of murder...that is what abortion actually is.

Your position paints a bullseye on EVERY UNBORN IN THE WOMB.

As I said....your worldview is similar to Hitlers.

WEll I am not going to argue with a pagan who knows nothing about Christ...or what was believed back in Bible times who just wants to make pot shots at believers.

It is funny that you acknowledge that abortion is tough...and what is sad is that you still support it. You know that which is in the womb is a human...and its ok for you to kill humans. I can only imagine what else you condone.

Pro-abortion means that you want abortion legal so women can kill. Whether you would get one does not matter..you want it legal.

You want killing on the table because you don't think a child could find a home. So better to kill it. How do you know a child would not find a home? You are playing God that is what you are doing. How many other segments of society do you think would be better dead? The handicapped? The poor?

Since you are pro-abortion then I assume you would give the woman the right to kill on demand the whole nine months.

Abortion is cruel...your position is cruel. You are for allowing women to take hits out on the human beings in their womb.

Randy Alcorn had the best answer for this question...and I agree with his so I will post it.

"Many people say, “I’m not pro-abortion, but I’m pro-choice.”

But how would you respond to someone who said, “I’m not pro-rape, I’m just pro-choice about rape”? You’d realize his position implies that rape doesn’t really hurt anyone, and that it’s sometimes justifiable. You’d say, “To be pro-choice about rape is to be pro-rape.”

In exactly the same way, to be pro-choice about abortion is to be pro-abortion.

At first glance the bumpersticker slogan makes sense: “Against Abortion? Don’t Have One.” The logic applies perfectly to flying planes, playing football, or eating pizza...but not to rape, torture, kidnapping or murder.

A Middle Position?

Some imagine that being personally opposed to abortion, while believing others have the right to choose it, is some kind of compromise between the pro-abortion and pro-life positions. It isn’t. Pro-choice people vote the same as pro-abortion people. To the baby who dies it makes no difference whether those who refused to protect her were pro-abortion or “merely” pro-choice about abortion.

The only good reason to oppose abortion is a reason that compels us to oppose others doing it—it’s child killing. Being personally against abortion but favoring another’s right to abortion is self-contradictory. It’s exactly like saying, “I’m personally against child abuse, but I defend my neighbor’s right to abuse his child if that is his choice.” Or “I’m personally against slave-owning, but if others want to own slaves that’s none of my business.” Or, “I’m not personally in favor of wife-beating, but I don’t want to impose my morality on others, so I’m pro-choice about wife-beating.”

A radio talk show host told me she was offended that some people called her “pro-abortion” instead of “pro-choice.” I asked her, on the air, “Why don’t you want to be called pro-abortion? Is there something wrong with abortion?” She responded, “Abortion is tough. It’s not like anybody really wants one.” I said, “I don’t get it. What makes it tough? Why wouldn’t someone want an abortion?” She said, suddenly impassioned, “Well, you know, it’s a tough thing to kill your baby!”

The second she said it, she caught herself, but it was too late. In an unguarded moment she’d revealed what she knew, what everyone knows if they’ll only admit it: abortion is difficult for the same reason it’s wrong—because it’s killing a child.

And there’s no reason good enough for killing a child.

http://www.epm.org/resources/2010/Ap...on-pro-choice/

If we voted in this country on abortion...you would be standing in the line with those who want no protection for the unborn. Your vote kills...the pro-life vote saves...whether you would get an abortion or not.

There is nothing wrong with it if you are pro-abortion, if you do not value life and want women to have the power to kill. In this case kill a living human being. If you want abortion legal...on demand so that women can choose, because it is her body...then how can you tell her the conditions with which she can kill? If there is something wrong with abortion...why support it, if there isn't anything wrong with it...then you must take all restrictions off and allow women free choice. It would be hypocritical for a pro-abort to say....yes a woman should be able to get an abortion...but only a certain number of abortions.

Medical science says life starts at conception. How then can hiring a hit on a new human life be a good thing? I work with many people who do not have faith in God and believe that abortion is immoral...so I believe that one need not believe in God to know abortion is wrong. I happen to believe there is a God and that He is the author of life, that life is sacred. How then from both angles could abortion be a good thing?

If you are a Christian then you should not be ashamed to say why.

This is a debate site…people are here to agree and disagree.

It is a choice. And when abortion was illegal the majority of women had their babies. Less women got pregnant because they knew that abortion was really not an option…it was hard to find illegal abortion clinics and doctors that would perform them. So they thought twice about having sex. Now abortion is an option and many women use it as birth control.

You can't be both. You either want abortions legal…or you want protection for the unborn and want it illegal. One thing your not…Pro-life…not if you want abortion legal. Thats like child abuse. Looking away you know its wrong but its your neighbors right to do it. Do you help the children no.

Now rape is a serious violent act and it is wrong. But that which is created is still a child, innocent at that. It makes no difference to the child whether the mother was raped. So the rape is one violent act…and abortion is the next. The mother chooses to violently end her childs life.

I have known people who have used birth control but still got pregnant. Accidents happen…but, you still are taking the risk…because no birth control is 100% effective…..unless you get fixed. We live in a sexually active society. If more women are keeping their babies because they are not looked down on by society anymore. More couples live together today than get married. TV, radio, magazines, movies…..in general foster the idea that if it feels good it can't be that bad. We are a sexual society and we celebrate the deviant. Kids know about sex earlier than ever today. So I highly doubt that if women have sex they don't know what can happen. Accidents happen…and women know that.

It is sad that what you morally disagree with you don't have the guts to stand up for. So you help to paint a bullseye on every child who is conceived in its mothers womb.

But you are wrong…it is you just don't hear about it. And if you are pro-choice then…what is the problem with it? Do you not want to be put on the spot during the Super bowl if someone in your group says wow…who could be for that? Then you would have to say well I condone it…I am pro-choice? Or you could sit there and hide your opinion and just agree so you don't look bad.

I don't have to look it up. Have you ever heard of Tiller…the doctor that was killed for doing late term abortions? He did them like this as do clinics all over the country. YOU DONT HEAR ABOUT THEM BECAUSE THEY HIDE IT…IT IS ILLEGAL. It is done. Last year alone two late term abortion clinics were shut down…one in LA and one in New Mexico. It is done and you are very naive if you think it isn't. And as I said…..is there something wrong with abortion Saurbaby? If you are pro-choice it should be legal because your position stands on the fact that no woman should have to carry something if she does not want to do it. That would enslave her. So if she wants an abortion say at eight months….it should be ok.

The picture is accurate and true. You yourself said in this post…."Abortion is not done like that ANYMORE." Which….LOL implies that you know it was done and the picture is accurate.

Did you know that in that tiny clump of cells…22 days after conception when most women don't even know they are pregnant…the heart starts beating. Yea…in that blob you think is nothing.

What is the abortionists goal?

And people who are pro-choice want abortions legal. They want laws in place that give the woman the option of killing. And if we had a nationwide vote…and a pro choicer voted…which would he vote…..Pro-choice abortion or no abortion?

So you think abortion is bad…but yet you want it legal so others can do it. LOL

Abortion is taking a life and that is bad. Abortion procedures are inhumane,,,we don't even do it on animals like we do humans.

Nothing is good about abortion.

Now I know why you won't answer the …do you believe the woman has the right to kill throughout her entire pregnancy? Because if you say yes…then wow…you look terrible even to the pro-choicers who use viability as an excuse,,,and if you say no…then you enslave the woman and your excuse that abortion should be legal because its the woman's body and should be her decision….is shot down. What is it….answer the question. I am debating your position on this and need to know. Are you afraid to answer?

It proves that you were blessed with life…..circular or not. The statement Reagan made is true. We are given life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in our Constitution….but without life we can't have the others. And we deny that which is in the womb the things you and I take for granted.

You obviously feel killing is ok, I do not.

You don't think two wrongs make a right in this circumstance because you champion abortion.

Curious …..what situations is abortion wrong?

I have explained why abortion is wrong. It is not right for anyone to be able to kill something like abortion does…on a completely separate human being. I give it personhood….it is immoral. Taking a life like this is wrong. In war…two sides are fighting. Our servicemen and women sign up to go…they take risks. What risk does an unborn take? How can you possibly compare the two? You can't. War is about protection….how can the unborn fight for its protection?

Well obviously you don't think life is sacred…your pro-abortion. LOL

So if someone killed your little girl or boy….you would not consider their lives sacred, special,….that their lives deserved sanctity?

It would be just Oh well……Ill have another kid.

The mother has rights…she had a right to have sex. She had a right to take the risk. But once a life has started….those rights should be put on the back burner until the child is born…then she also has rights to decide what to do with it. Keep it or adopt it out. Its nine short months…to do what is right…to allow something to live…THAT YOU HELPED CREATE. AFter conception it is a separate human being…this is a scientific fact. A FACT. You propose to kill human beings…you say this is ok.

How barbaric and cold is that?

It should not matter whether the child will make it or not. If it doesn't and dies…then it was meant to be. Abortion is premeditated killing. Nothing spontaneous about it….you hire someone to kill someone…in this case the unborn child in the womb….who was invited in BY THE MOTHER, BUT HER RISK HER CHOICE.

I gee the Oprah example to show that…the argument by pro-aborts does not hold water. Most pro-aborts say abortion is good because……the child might have problems…might grow up in poverty……might face lives trials….

I GOT NEWS FOR YA……WE ALL FACE TRIALS. Oprah did in her life…and she overcame them. She grew up in a home that was not healthy or functional. To kill because you think someone MIGHT FACE A SIMILAR LIFE…is still wrong. So don't use this excuse that abortion would save children from a life….so full of misery that they would be better off dead.

You said this…."Again, not necessarily. I support abortion only when a foetus can't be confidently said to lack rationality, autonomy

and self-consciousness."

Now wait one minute here. Can a newborn baby do any of these? No.

What does a newborn have that it didn't have five minutes before in the womb before it was born? LOL

Are you telling me that you want abortion legal….because the woman has a right to her own body…and THEN YOU TELL HER SHE CANT ABORT IN LATER MONTHS? LOL

I am antichoice abortion. I am also antichoice drugs…and rape….and child pornography. You can also add..anti selling body parts,selling organs also abortion for the purpose of selling fetal body parts. All these are laws that prohibit people from doing things that most would not hurt anyone else. But we still have them on the books.

are you pro-on all of these?

If not then you enslave someone from doing something with their body. So you are anti-choice. So why do you fault me for being antichoice abortion?

I believe that science established the fact that the life in the womb is a separate human being from its mother. It does not share organs…does not have the same finger prints…etc. It is simply using the space to grow. It did not ask to be there it was invited by its mother. It was her body also that invited the sperm into the space where conception took place. She is the one who knew what could happen….when she had sex. She took the risk. She should be responsible for what happens. It was her risk and fault…not the unborns.

I am forced everyday to do things I don't want to do. I hate seat belts…but I am forced by law to wear them. And texting in the car. Who should have the right to stop someone from doing this if they are careful. Its their phone…its their car. THEY TAKE THE RISK JUST LIKE THE WOMAN DOES WHEN SHE HAS SEX. We all live by rules many we don't like. I do not like abortion.

I do not fail to see anything…I see things crystal clear. Anyone that opposes protection for the unborn is pro-abortion. Pro in the sense THEY WANT ABORTION LEGAL….WHICH MEANS BABIES DIE. That is not pro-life…even if they would never get one themselves. I go to conventions and seminars with Right to Life. If you stood up and said….."I am pro-choice but I am against abortion"…you would be laughed out of the room. It simply can not be.

Can you be pro-choice and sit back and allow your neighbor to abuse his children? Could you have been pro-choice and allowed slaves like they did in the South? Could you have been pro-choice and turn your head at what Hitler did to those he marched into the ovens?

I am not happy. I am not happy with positions here because they are barbaric and cruel and cold. For me its like looking into the eyes of evil.

Debate is a way of changing hearts as well if someone is open enough to examine their position. Try it…..

You just described evolution in your post. Science can't even begin to address the impossibilities, factual inaccuracies and self contradictions.

And all those flying goats they found and called them ancestors.

Your views are not consistent.

You said….

I don't believe in God or Heaven or Jesus.

Religion is fake.

I am not an atheist.

In trouble I will remember God and will believe.

Actually I don't believe in God.

I believe in ME.

WHAT?

Don't feel bad because scientists can't even tackle that question.

I believe God is eternal that He was the first Cause.

Scientists can prove however that the earth we are on is not eternal…that we did have a beginning. So what was it? What created life as we know it to be? An explosion? Big Bang?

I believe only an intelligent designer could have done all this what we know.

Entropy states that the universe tends to move from a state of order to disorder. There is not mechanism of physics that would organize initial life cells and entropy implies the opposite. Evolution requires inconceivable random development of order from chaos. What it implies is that from this chaos…the most complexed things like the human body…particularly the egg, the eye…is the end product of an entropy law that is accepted as fact. Takes faith to believe that. I place my faith in something else….an intelligent designer who with purpose in mind created all of creation.

Evolution provides no answer for anything. I read the other day that scientists know that our sun is burning out. If there was infinite time, our sun and all other stars would have burned out already.

Science does not agree with you….something can't come from nothing.

I do not think it is bad at all if you name people who make comments. Everything we post our name is tacked on. What your doing is like accusing someone with no evidence. Please use mine if you have a comment about one of my posts whether you agree or disagree.

I loved The Help, War Horse and Bridesmaids not in that order. I would say The Help and War Horse are tied for my faves.

Burdon of proof?

What was the first cause if it was not God?

Do you actually think that something came from nothing?

What is so repulsive about a person who believes in God? What dontcha like?

You said you would "happily" love to do this….why the repulsion?

And why can't you name posters here when you are talking about an issue that they are debating? Are you afraid of hurting someones feelings? I doubt that…so why?

I am inviting you to name me by name next time you do this. Why would you care anyway about hurting someone who is a believer? LOL

Come on put it out there so they specifically can answer your claims. If they are as proud to be a Christian as I am…they won't care and would be happy to address your attack on their position.