Topic: Abortion is the leading cause of death during the pandemic, killing 37 million (Read 1087 times)

1. So somebody might have said. But where can anybody find selection in cause and effect? Oh, that's right. In the Great First Cause. Everybody defines words in any way they want. Before evolution theory, the idea of natural selection was barely heard as a definition as evolutionists use it nowadays.

6. Not sure what that means. Laws are made based on the way they are stated. The results of making bad laws often cause harm to many people. But if you mean laws of nature, the laws of nature are to save human life, not murder it.

1. "Natural selection is the process through which populations of living organisms adapt and change." - nat.geographic
"Natural selection is one of the central mechanisms of evolutionary change and is the process responsible for the evolution of adaptive features." - https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-009-0128-1

Oh yeah, I forgot, that you made your own very definition of words, my bad. I've forgotten that even the definition of words are false for you.

4. Right, point proven indeed

5. Ohhhh, another point proven, can't even manage to prove your point aren't you? silly

6. ohhhh, ergo, we should diminish all kinds of law, as it results to contrast within each other. Nice idea einstein.

1. Oxford doesn't go deep enough. Natural selection is the selecting that people make by cause and effect... based on how they feel because of all kinds of things... like the food they ate last night.

The ability to abort a child doesn't make it right. The promise of life to a person through conception is the breaking of a promise if there is abortion.

4. No use responding/replying to a zygote. English isn't understood by a zygote.

5. You are playing games replying like that. But, it is amazing that you can even reply, being in zygote form. Super-zygote, right?

6. Situations in life deprive people of all kinds of freedoms. A woman who aborts her own child, has deprived that child of the freedom to live, a freedom that she is accepting for herself. Try jumping to the moon, sometime. People are prohibited from doing all kinds of things in life. Regarding the person she is carrying, if there is no real danger to her life, the mother should bear the child, and give it up for adoption if she doesn't want it... not murder it.

1. "Natural Selection is the process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring." - Oxford Dictionary,

Oh nooo, I think I should wake up 

And by your own definition, really? woman have the ability to naturally abort a child? WOW

3. Welcome

4. Point proven, given that is your response 

5. But you said "Don't you see that there is a difference between maliciously destroying somebody's limb through amputation, and saving a person's life through amputation?" right? when were discussing about if Amputations are murder or not.

You are proving another point while disproving your previous one. 

6. Wait, so you are saying that she is required to take the responsibility of raising a child she was forced to carry, and live life from it?

In that case, you are depriving that woman from her rights and liberty as she didn't consent in the process in the first place, and being pregnant limits a persons actions as she is "responsible" to be healthy for the safety of the unborn child. Ergo, you are committing a criminal act.

^^^ Just remember that f-1 uses the determination idea rather than what is really happening. That's part of the reason why so many of his posts end up in circular referencing. He's caught like a tiger chasing its tail.

ok so 7.8bill people =3.9bll females
with the age range from 1-100 if you broke it down as 390m per 10year age bracket
you can discount off 6 age brackets of 0-10 and 50-100. meaning
=1.56bill woman of 'conception possible age'

so badecker wants to think 2% of woman able to conceive are murderers each year. meaning
2% kill in year 1 (37m of 1.56b)
2% kill in year 2(another 37m of 1.56b)
2% kill in year 3(another 37m of 1.56b)
and so on for 35 years of 15-50
well add that up for all the woman from 15-50. would mean that 70% of all conceptionable age women have killed atleast once in 35 years,

70%.. um. no just no. us figures are more like 24%. uk figures are under 20%. so if the 70% math based on badecker sources was correct some other countries must be in the high 90% just to balance out to 70%
..in my opinion the 37m(70%) is just too high a number to even be accurate
..
i must bring back the argument that badecker does not understand:
the definition of murder.
what gestational state 'life' is determined as.
the legal rights a woman has over her body.
.. also to note
also a high majority of 'abortions' occured in the first 12 weeks. involving swallowing a pill and having a heavy period to clearout. so not exactly a story that sounds like murder

That other report  - the OP - was just plain wrong. That is, let's hope it was wrong, and that abortions aren't increasing this fast.


Abortion Leading Cause of Death Worldwide in 2020 -- Killing 42.6 Million People, Study Finds

1. The only selection that there is comes from people choosing. It's something that all people have the ability to do naturally. Wen they use their natural selection to select abortion, abortion is done by natural selection. Wake up!

3. Well, thanks. It's nice of you to join me in our circular referencing.

4. When you get as silly as stating something like that, they only thing possible is that you are still in zygote form.

5. No, we don't agree on that. What we might agree on the idea that it is, possibly, the lesser of two evils in some cases... very few cases.

6. You are driving on a winding mountain road. You go around a curve, and there is a rock in the road that slid down the mountain. Because it was around the curve, you didn't see it on time to swerve or brake. Bang! You get a flat.

What do you do? You get out of the car, you take your hunting rifle with you, and you shoot the heck out of the rock, right? Once you have killed it really dead, you go over and give it a good kick, just for good measure, and you break your foot. So, you reload, and shoot it some more.

Stuff happens. Abortion from rape is still abortion, and the woman will have to live with the fact that she killed a baby, all her life... even though she may be comforted by the idea that she did some kind of justice... even though she may harden herself against the idea that she killed another person.

Aborting for any reason other than a serious threat against the life of the mother is murder... even when it is the lesser of two evils.

1. Yeah, the one who said that abortion is natural selection, maybe dumb or what

3. hmmmmmmmm, well I proved my point, and you just go back in circles, so feel free to.

4. Researches proves that there is no response nor associate actions done as you poke or whisper in the "zyogte", ergo as far as the researches states, it is not living.

5. So we agree that abortion is not a murder, if it is medical related, right?, Okay that's a good run, very nice progress.

Okay how about abortion related to rape. Can you say that aborting the child from this situation should be consider as murder?, cause it is kind of correlational as the raped victim will experience different kinds of mental disorder as she can remember the past trauma from the rape just by looking the bump in his tummy, or just by knowing that a criminals seedlings are inside hers.

1. I wonder whose topic it is?

3. Are you asking if we should drop #3? Just say it plain out. Or do you want to fill up the pages with continous countering?

4. Did you ever ask a zygote in its language if it has feelings, emotions, consciousness? However, it's obvious that even if you knew its language, you would have enough sensitivity to formulate the questions properly.

So you think that seeds are not alive, but simply are some form of inanimate object, right? But do you have proof? The point is being sure of what you are doing in abortion, so that you don't risk murdering a person.

5. You ask such silly questions. Don't you see that there is a difference between maliciously destroying somebody's limb through amputation, and saving a person's life through amputation? We are not talking about aborting to save somebody's life. Abortion for that has its place. We are talking about arbitrary abortion. We are talking about abortion in general.

1. Guess who put sentences with no relevance to the topic.

3. back to definition I already counter argued, are we?  

4. Life doesn't mean of body parts, it is about the principle of life itself, the consciousness as I've mentioned long before. Zygotes doesn't have feelings, emotions, consciousness, and even parts as you mentioned. The only thing you can justify is the chromosomes which is just part of growing.

given your argument, Seeds have sets of chromosomes, and you consider them as life form? no. This is same with zygote, yes they have chromosomes but you don't consider them as life form yet.

5. Who would harm a person by fun anyway. Amputations is part of medical procedures, and if done correctly, it can save lives. If you're saying that amputating a body part is murder, then healthcare professionals are murderer?

you must be living in the 1500's
its the womans body. the woman goes through the procedure. its the womans choice.
if men could get pregnant. then yea men can then make that choice. but no man should have power over a woman

no contract is formed between a man and a woman when they have sex, in regards to children.
you must be either a 15yo kid that has yet to have a sexual relationship. or a really repressed old guy that just hates women and never wanted a relationship. because its obvious you have no personal experience of sex

i can imagine you stupidly walking up to a woman in a bar and handing her a contract for her to sign talking about pregnancy.. but here is a tip. talking about pregnancy and contracts on first date is not a good pickup line

when a woman verbally consents to sex. that is an agreement. which is different from a contract. the agreement is for sexual pleasure. its not based on life long/life altering commitments

That's where your problem exists. You simply scan something that is written, and miss a whole lot of what was said, and then you think somebody else flip-flops, when it is really you who is flip-flopping by jumping from point to point without thinking. Isn't it about time that you slow down a little so you can really learn something?

You might even find that when a woman voluntarily - or negligently - gets pregnant, that she has formed a lawful trust with the man as the creator, herself as trustee, and the coming child as beneficiary. It's in the standard setup of her pregnancy.

People can do lots of things. For example, ISIS can go out there and decapitate people. The can do it. But the simple fact that they can do it doesn't necessarily make it right.

The woman can abort, but that doesn't make it right. If the man finds out that she is actively aborting his child against his approval, he would be more right than she to execute her for killing his child. After all, the agreement was to make a child. By aborting, she is not only breaking her agreement, but she is killing a human life.

If she or they didn't want the child in the first place, there is a little thing called abstinence that works real well.

back in those days. there was no civilisation. women got treated like animals. they were raped and some brave women would find ways to end the pregnancy by their rapist.

yes abortion is not a modern process. its been around longer than you think
as for nature.. now your throwing your god principals away and instead invoking your darwin principals.
you are a funny man. you can never actually understand a topic and form a concrete opinion that will stay.

heck you even say nature should take care of it and not laws. then you say you want laws to take care of it and not nature

well in nature. before laws woman could end their pregnancy. as it was their body.
well in law. abortions are a thing

i find it funny how your nature mindset actually wants more laws to control human decision about their body
i find it funny how your antigov oversight mindset wants more laws to control human decision about their body

you flip flop so much that you are not even making any valid points any more.
so take some time and work out which side of the fence you sit on eg nature or gov oversight.
then come back with a concrete opinion that does not waiver

1. Seems that we lost the gist of this, somewhere along the line.

2. Exactly! Check the pinks^^.

3. That's a very interesting religion you have there! [religion... "something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice" - https://www.dictionary.com/browse/religion?s=t

4. Same chromosomes at the base. In other words, the same pattern is in it all. Just because the pattern for the arms and legs hasn't been executed, yet, doesn't mean that the zygote isn't a person. You are limiting the person's life in a way that is not a certainty.

You don't go out hunting, see a patch of brown in the bushes, shoot without knowing exactly what it is in the bushes, and then wonder why your spouse is late bringing the wild onions to prepare dinner.

When you can prove that a zygote is NOT a stage in the life of a person, then come back with the proof.

5. The studies are wrong, but mostly based on the desire to be wrong. The promise for an adult life is there in the life of the zygote. How long does it take a sperm and egg to combine their chromosomes after the sperm enters the egg? You have about that long before it becomes a person.

6. So, be careful not to harm a person in any way, because it might be considered murder. Dr. Martin Luther of the Lutheran Church explained the "Thou shalt not kill" commandment this way. "We should fear and love God that we may not hurt nor harm our neighbor in his body, but help and befriend him in every bodily need [in every need and danger of life and body]." How much closer of a neighbor can you have than the new life supported in Mommy's tummy?

1. What do you imply in your statement? something irrelevant I see, and go see a psychiatrist as you may seem to need it. Cause you really go to and ask non-living organisms a questions, fr.

2. ---------dumb---------

3. part of my personal religion is to believe that your personal religion is not a religion, and your religion is not needed for any arguments  8

4. If it is arbitrary judgement in the first place, you are simply deciding from your whim and assumptions. When in fact, 100 year old and a zygote is far different from one another as I've mentioned above

5. The complexity that you mentioned have been studied for time and time, and research shown it is does not have feelings as this zygote only will have "living capability" after 9 -11 weeks which are now called as "FETUS"

Another thing, if you are just comparing chromosomes to be the point of reference and justification in your definition of "MURDER", then amputating someones arm when needed can be considered "MURDER" from your definition as it has full sets of chromosomes in it 

1. Just because you naturally select to not naturally select your personal, natural selection, doesn't mean you don't. Go to the rock and ask it to select something. Go to the blade of grass and ask it to naturally select something. Go to the fish or the elk or the bird and ask them to naturally select something. If they select anything for you, it is by programming - instinct - not by selection. However, if you select to abort, you have selected... the only natural selection we know about.

In other words, nature has programming selected by the Programmer of the Universe. Nature doesn't select. It only follows the complex programming. But since you have a touch of the Great Programmer in you, you can naturally select, a thing nature can't do.

2. You like pink? Here and two places above.

3. Part of my personal religion is to believe nature isn't religious. But it seems that you have a religion of non-religion. Are you really trying to declare yourself to not have any meaning?

4. Same chromosomes in the zygote as the hundred-year-old, and every stage in between. Unsafe, arbitrary judgment that murdering one is not murdering the other.

5. A zygote feels. How do we know? Because we can watch it react, under the microscope, when it is poked. Because of how complex it is, we call this feeling sensing. How cruel you are to poke at a zygote under a microscope, not caring if you have killed a person or not.

1. what? abortion is part of natural selection? ohhhhhh then why did it became a murder?

2. just pure dumb, so cute

3. Nature, then became religious, As I said, your religious comments will not have any meaning in this arguments

4. I agree when it became a "FETUS" it would be a murder, but the topic is when it is a zygote, that is if aborted, it won't be a murder.

5. Zygote and a 100 year old is not correlated to one another when you topic what life is. A 100 year old person is a person who lived 100 years of his/her life as a human being, as a living organism with organs intact, while a zygote isn't. Zygote is not a person as this cell doesn't have senses at all, a fetus does, but a zyogte doesn't.

1. But in the case of abortion, the natural selection is murder, or there isn't any abortion.
    Got a tummy ache? Maybe if you treated that dis-ease with dinner, the tummy ache would go away, naturally.

2. I will highlight for you, above.

3. The complexity of nature is way beyond what could happen by the odds. We are starting to understand a little about the complexity of it. As you explain, nature doesn't have a mind for thinking. But the Creator did, so He made nature for us. And just to point us into an understanding of Him, He made nature so complex that only stupidity can deny Him.

4. You lump everybody together when you say "countries." Average people trade and barter. It's the leaders who make fiat so that they can use the fiat to leach off the people. People see an advantage in using fiat, so they use it without realizing that the leaders are making a fortune off them thru their use of it.
    If your interfering with the property of others isn't in a big way - like chemtrails interfering with the lives of everybody who the chemtrails are sprayed over - any inappropriate interfering will be dealt with by your neighbor, when he asks you to stop interfering with his property.
    Abortion is interfering with the property of the new person who can't easily ask you to stop. But when a fetus at later stages of the pregnancy realizes that it is being aborted from the outside, it fights as much as it can to live.

5. Some of the abortion is just as you say. But all of the abortion is murdering a person. If we agree to disregard the fact of the chromosomes being the same in the fertilized egg as they are in the hundred-year-old person, we would still only be guessing if we suggest that the zygote is not human. We don't have the ability to determine if the zygote is simply a stage in the life of a person... without chromosomes, that is.
    If we throw in the chromosomes, we see that the zygote is absolutely a person, and that the zygote stage is simply one of many stages in the lives of people.

Abortion is murder.

1. That's why people adopt while if they get sick, they just die from "Natural selection" aren't they. There are many diseases that can't be treated, and if we will see history, "Oh shit" they just die cause they don't have medicine.

2. For the second time, who even said about murdering someone to reduce the population?

3. Nature here nature there, as if like they have mind of their own. Your argument is pretty stupid to be honest, to say that nature knows what they are doing. Natures doing their natural way of healing and other things, but it is us "HUMANS" who cultivate the learnings with regards to the process on how shits happen in our "NATURE"

4. You do know how the world works right?, capitalism is what most of countries adopted, and do you think in this point in time, there are places in this world who you can live freely without interfering other peoples properties?, and don't get me wrong this 4th statement is just to debunk your 4th sentence in your reply.

5. abortion is just disposing of zygote which is not human, ergo it is not killing 

When people started to exist, there weren't any doctors or medicine around to heal them from diseases. Nature did that job.

We have laws against murder. But do you want to murder people just to reduce population?

Nature knows what it is doing. We don't need murder to inhibit population that should be grown so that more people can figure out ways to help us all. Reducing population doesn't do this.

Anybody who doesn't like living has the ability to go out and remove himself from life. Since there isn't any population problem, only population regulation in certain areas, let's fix the problem, the regulation. Fix government, and train the people to help themselves.

Proof is that if you walk far enough in any direction, you will come to wide open uninhabited lands, or the oceans that you can boat on. Lots of room for population to expand.

Abortion is killing people.

WHAT? That's why it's a problem, and it is getting worse. A problem doesn't mean immediate destruction or turmoil of the world, it is called a problem in the first place, because if not given the right solution, it can lead to something that people won't like. And who the fuck said about killing mankind of one another, you are the only one suggesting that. And you are the one suggesting that abortion is a murder in the first place.

Put your religious arguments in the trash, cause it won't work mate. Your beliefs is purely superficial based on the bible book.

1. Are you really something, Why would I believe something is a problem without me seeing evidences of the problem, experiencing it, and take pity of it. You do know about the sustainability of our resources to produce goods right. As the population grows, the amount of consumption also increases, which results to resources being consumed than what it can produce, thus leading to depletion of resources which is a problem.

2. your argument with this one sounds like this "If you can't breathe, just breathe", or "If you are dying, just live".

3. Can you show me proofs that they have lived in UNINHABITABLE LANDS. or you are just assuming that they just did.

4. Face Palm, so you see that they've already seen it as a problem given your statement.

5. Religion will never be a solid argument, nice try though.
[/quote]

Don't you even realize that the whole world developed into billions of people without any problems at all? Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Genghis Khan, and many others tried killing off the world. But they failed, because nature is so strong that it works way better than when it is influenced by the medical. Nature has its own way of controlling population. It doesn't need the help of mankind killing each other off.

Your paltry evidence is nothing when compared with the creation that God made. And now you and the governments and scientists are trying to express some flimsy evidence that can't hold a candle to the sun of nature.

I just given you the definitions from front row google dictionaries if you search for religion 
Then you have that sense that I disregard select my own definition. how bad is your reading comprehension. oh my lord

I present evidence, I presented valid arguments and your replies is just like that, what on earth.

You said that "The Idea of Life is not the question", given the points I made about what is life, and the definition of it in every dictionaries, encyclopedias. Ergo you justify that you disregarding the definitions I mention about life which I tackled before your replies to counter validate my points.

Also, you are the one who accuse people of murder, so you are the one justifying the act in the first place 


1. Why do you listen to what other people think without taking a look for yourself? There is so much room in the world that we have room for expansion for another thousand years. Take a look. The people who claim population is too big for the Earth, are the kind of people who wouldn't have enough if each of them was given a habitable planet the size of Jupiter.

2. Don't adopt vertical farming. Rather, do it. If you don't like vertical upward, get out into the ocean and do it downward.

3. Amerindians lived for hundreds of years in much of your so-called uninhabitable land. As I said - and you can calculate it out - the whole population of the world could be stuffed into 2 cubic miles, easily.

4. The people didn't make the China law that said 1 per family. It was the government that made the law. The reason they made it was because they couldn't control such a large number of people. If the population increased to 3 billion in China, much of china would adopt freedom like the USA, and they would eventually destroy Communism.

5. God told Adam and Eve that they weren't supposed to eat of that particular fruit. His next command was to be fruitful and multiply and cover/fill the Earth. God also gave that second command to Noah and his family. God also said that He made the Earth to be inhabited. Nowhere did He tell the people to stop increasing in number. If you want to go against God, He will give you what you want... death... so that He can increase the people who want to follow His commands.


[/quote]

1. Are you really something, Why would I believe something is a problem without me seeing evidences of the problem, experiencing it, and take pity of it. You do know about the sustainability of our resources to produce goods right. As the population grows, the amount of consumption also increases, which results to resources being consumed than what it can produce, thus leading to depletion of resources which is a problem.

2. your argument with this one sounds like this "If you can't breathe, just breathe", or "If you are dying, just live".

3. Can you show me proofs that they have lived in UNINHABITABLE LANDS. or you are just assuming that they just did.

4. Face Palm, so you see that they've already seen it as a problem given your statement.

5. Religion will never be a solid argument, nice try though.

Somebody has to protect naive people like you. But we won't always be able to do that. Prepare for your own protection while you still have a chance.


A woman who uses her rights to make a baby so that she can murder it, is the most despicable type of person that there is. She doesn't really want to be despicable, but she has been trained by murderers like you to be that way.

badecker i dont own a gun. dont want a gun.. yet you do
so you have more murderous intent.

remember you say all ending of life by another persons decision is murder.
yep thats YOUR mindset

though you are slowly starting to admit that its not as clear cut as your mindset thought. you are still kinda stuck wanting to define all death by another persons action as murder

what you are not realising is the reverse psychology being done to knock you out of your stupidity.
it has worked many times where you end up flip flopping and debunking yourself

and for as your 'doing it in gods name' rhetoric.. well thats controlling humans using another entity as the blame. to hide their own rules. the rhetoric is "shifting to gods blame" not 'done in gods name'
(kind of weird you want to defend government laws while pretending to oppose government making laws)

anyways
in nature and basic common law, common sense.. its the pregnant woman that makes the decision. not men. her body her property. an embryo is dependant on the pregnant woman.

but hey if you want to continue with your rhetoric about womans rights to her own property over decisions of keeping or disposal of property in her custody. then you are just flip flopping and debunking your other topics.

i wont argue about your other misunderstandings of the bible. as your comedy just reveals how much you dont understand.

All over the world people are careful to not kill others accidentally. But you wouldn't mind killing just because you think something one way or another.

Turn away from your murdering mindset. God doesn't want to destroy you or have you destroyed. In fact, He sent His Son, Jesus, to die on the cross so that your sins could be taken away from you, and you could be saved. Turn to God and repent, and accept the forgiveness of your sins while you have time. Why would you live in eternal damnation?

badecker your points 1&5 has just debunked your own points about bearing guns

badecker human leaders made the constitution. not god
so which will you listen to:
leaders: bear arms and be prepared to kill
god: dont bear arms turn other cheek and dont kill

if you are going to reply that you have a right to buy a gun but without intent to use it. then you have fallen for the consumerism scripts of making people buy things they dont need
..

anyway
you cannot deny that if a being requires life support. it does not have independent life. and is dependant on the support. it is that support that has the decision power over it.

..
personally i think as soon as it gets to the third trimester where the fetus will survive if it was birthed early. then that is the critical point where abortions should not be allowed.
if a fetus would not survive birth/c-section anyway, even at 26th week or more. then its not murder.

Selecting your own definitions for "religion," and disregarding other definitions, seems to be part of your religion.


"If you are disregarding..." I'm not disregarding. It seems to be you who are disregarding some of the stages of a person's life so you can justify murder.



1. Why do you listen to what other people think without taking a look for yourself? There is so much room in the world that we have room for expansion for another thousand years. Take a look. The people who claim population is too big for the Earth, are the kind of people who wouldn't have enough if each of them was given a habitable planet the size of Jupiter.

2. Don't adopt vertical farming. Rather, do it. If you don't like vertical upward, get out into the ocean and do it downward.

3. Amerindians lived for hundreds of years in much of your so-called uninhabitable land. As I said - and you can calculate it out - the whole population of the world could be stuffed into 2 cubic miles, easily.

4. The people didn't make the China law that said 1 per family. It was the government that made the law. The reason they made it was because they couldn't control such a large number of people. If the population increased to 3 billion in China, much of china would adopt freedom like the USA, and they would eventually destroy Communism.

5. God told Adam and Eve that they weren't supposed to eat of that particular fruit. His next command was to be fruitful and multiply and cover/fill the Earth. God also gave that second command to Noah and his family. God also said that He made the Earth to be inhabited. Nowhere did He tell the people to stop increasing in number. If you want to go against God, He will give you what you want... death... so that He can increase the people who want to follow His commands.

Lets cross-reference some definitions for clearer inputs
@https://www.britannica.com/topic/religion - "Religion, human beings’ relation to that which they regard as holy, sacred, absolute, spiritual, divine, or worthy of especial reverence. It is also commonly regarded as consisting of the way people deal with ultimate concerns about their lives and their fate after death."
@oxford dictionary - "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods."
@https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/religion.htm - "Religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence."

So as we can see, the thing in that definition you mentioned as "something one believes" based on other definitions is clearly someone who is controlling, superhuman, God or gods, or anything related to humanity's order of existence. In this case, what @Nelkell007 does is not related to religion or anything, you just mixed words to have your point when you are clearly wrong.

A good example for this is me devoting myself in to science, is it my religion? no, it is what I pursue and what I believed in but it doesn't mean that I don't believe in God to whom I prayed to.


What is murder? @oxford dictionary - "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.", and go search for other sources where they said that is is unjust, or unlawfully, just pick whenever you like.

If you are disregarding what the Idea of life is, then how can you say that there is the existence of life if you are not clear on how you understand what life is? How bizarre


1. the moment that science and most people think that population is a problem, clearly says that it is already a problem.
2. Vertical farming is a good solution, but adopting it is an issue of its own accord. especially now that most farms are now lately being constructed as a residence or somethings, ergo limiting the space for farming
3. about 38%, sure why not, but how many % of those percentages are liveable where people can live their own life, I think most of this land is a place out of nowhere, ergo it is still not a viable solution as you want it to be.
4. Population problems exist just like in China where they already implemented a one-child policy and a two-child policy to control the population. You can't say that they do this just for fun, right? they did it because it's already a problem in that country. Another country is India, with the second-largest population who has a poverty rate of 68.8%, approximately 920 million of their current population.

Many factors are being considered in this problem; resources, geographic location, cost of living, country's economical status, etc.

back to the topic. if badecker the pro-gunner he is.. was to follow his own advice. yep shoot himself looks like a good idea

meanwhile the mother has custody/authority/decision making rights,

..
im surprised badecker has not said how he wants sars-cov-2 to have human rights too seeing as that its incubating in humans too
yep badecker thinks sars-cov-2 is human cells..(facepalm)

lets correct badecker on just a few of his silly rants

1. if you think al death is murder. where there is no defense. then you are now acting like you are not pro-gun.
so you have no reason to bear arms if you wont murder anyone

2.'everyone fit into a square mile' (facepalm)
16inches by 10inches is average shoulder to shoulder room requirement
so imagine we put everyone shoulder to shoulder.
one row of people would be ~4000
with about 6000 columns of people

= only 24million people in a square mile
..however standing ontop of each others heads requires a 325 story building
the tallest building in the world is only 160 floors though

so now if there was a situation where you did push everyone shoulder to shoulder in a building double the tallest building. you would then also need to think about what to do with all the urine and faeces.
oh and all the feeding tubes in their mouth because they have not got room to move their hands

..
a better math solution is to account for a accommodation that fits a bedroom, tv bathroom and kitchen as a minimum
now 14foot by 14 foot would be minimum.

and if we account for the limitations of only 160 floors..
.. well ill save the math.. its about 18 square miles
and thats without gardens paths or roads or plumbing or other facilities like shops. carparks. workplaces
parks. football/entertainment stadiums, sewer treatment/water purification plants

this is now adding up to needing way more then 30 square miles
obviously people want to have more space than something that resembles a prison cell.. even in your fantasy

heck ill even ascii your fantasy minimal living home thats 14x14foot and if everyone lived in tall skyscrapers in a prison style where you never leave your living area, takes up 18square miles with nothing more then living space
 _______________________
| [__]   |      |[__][__]|        |
| |( )|   |      |             |        |
|  toilet |      |   bed    |        |
|       \         |_______|        |
| /      \        |__TV___|        |
|/      _\                              |
|          |  sink            cooker|
|shower|________________|
|    O    | |   o   |         (  )(  )|
|__][__|_|_][_ |_____(_)(_)|

yep even in minimal living. no outdoor life.. needs 18sqare miles

have a nice day
(it only took seconds to do the maths so yes i wasted my fun time on an ascii doodle just for you)

Dictionary for the word religion - https://www.dictionary.com/browse/something - something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

So we can see that anything that a person does in his life is part of his religion. Why? Because whatever he does is what he follows devotedly in his life. If he lived a different way, he would be following something else devotedly... a different religion.


At the time of the sperm combining with the egg, the chromosomes of the resulting cell are the same ones that the person will have through his whole life. These are different than the sperm or the egg before the combining.

Even though many other things are considered, they are simply stage-of-life considerations. They are not existence of life considerations.

The idea of life is not the question. People are buried or cremated all over the place. Hopefully they are already dead when this is done to them. The question has to do with murdering them... same as murdering them at ANY stage of life.



World population is not a problem at all. The problem is some people trying to make population into a problem.

So far, all of the people in the world could be packed into one cubic mile. But, they would easily fit into two.

There is no end to the amount of water available. Graphene can filter salt water into fresh water.

Vertical farming can fix any agriculture problem we might run into for the next thousand years.

About 38% of the land in the USA is owned by government. It has few inhabitants on it... mostly government workers. Bangladesh might have many more people, but Siberia is almost uninhabited. And there is "seasteading."

No population problem exist. But if somebody really likes the idea of murder, how can he make a judgment that someone else should die? He should start by eliminating himself.

May I intervene with this, but in which sentence does @Nelkell007 put religious field in this?

Another things:

1. Child has life, teens have life, an adult has life, but zygote and embryo don't. The thing about is, if you're referring to chromosomes as your main argument, then we shouldn't masturbate cause we will cause sperm and egg to die, which is part of "STAGE OF LIFE". Many other aspects should be considered in considering if a thing is already a life form or not.

2. World Population is really problematic right now, increasing at a rate of 1.05% per year or 80 + million annually in the whole world, And as we all know that in order to survive, we must take resources as a source of nutrition, shelter, and clothings. If we dig deeper, it doesn't end there as the hierarchy of social status within each country is correlated to the consumption of resources.

A child is not an adult. So what? You can tell by the chromosomes that they are all stages in a life of a human being. Kill a human at any stage of his life, and it is still murder.

World population is presently not near being a problem.

Since you are coming from the religious field with your questions, how can I answer them without the religious field? Only if you know for an absolute fact that what you say is absolute truth... only then might it start to deviate from the field of religion.

I don't take without an offer being made first.

Embryos are not babies, having said that @BADecker don't you think it's appropriate for women to abort some babies?
Don't you think the world at large is over populated?

Please I need constructive criticism, that's if you want to criticize. don't come from the religious field.

What's your take?

A zygote is not a human, it does not even have flesh, a consciousness, feelings, body or face structures, or even bones and skins.

I myself am not born after the sperm meets the egg. It is like a seed, it is not yet a living organism unless you planted it and it started to grow the first leaf. Only then you can say that it is living.

It is good to study science buddy. Or you can even search for the very definition of life as many defines it, and you can see for your self that it is not yet a "life" form when it is just a ZYGOTE!

Abortion is murder, the second the sperm hits the egg that is when you are born.

I’m not surprised hearing that abortion leading cause of death during these pandemic. Yeah as a result of the pandemic there was global lockdown and everyone was advised to stay at home, many couples and even single ma cohabitating together lack some preventive measures and good marital plans to avoid abortion cases or even poverty and bringing a child to the world to suffer.

As a result of the pandemic many couples didn’t put much consideration on using contraceptives during sex and these results to lots of abortion cases these period.

Elon might take you with your physical walker, but your mental walker is way too big for his spacecraft.

 

in which case it is upto elon must to decide who should be allowed in his delivery system. and even when inside the delivery system, elon can terminate the mission. for any reason he chooses.

just being strapped into a space shuttle seat does not give you automatic right to be delivered to space

as for badeckers endless rand about 'embryo has same dna as baby.
sorry but no it doesnt

as cells divide and become different body parts. the dna becomes more detailed. its like a basecode at embryo that then self writes into complex code.

an adult has different dna than it has at embryo.
yep. its why cloning is complex. because you cant just put an adults dna into an empty stem cell/egg
you need to find the base code of the adults complex dna.

..
that is the dumbed down summary. but in very short form if thats too mind bending for you..
.. a zygote is not the same as a embryo, whic is not the same as a blastocyst, which is not the same as a fetus

Bu konuyu baz alacak olursak. Trafik kazaları, açlık vb. nedenlerle yıllık oranı baz alırsak epeyce ölüm oranı var.
İnsanların bilinçsiz yaşamasından, bencil davranışlarından ve düşünmeden eyleme geçmesinden kaynaklı. Bilakis covid salgının ölüm oranının yıllık bazında bu kadar fazla oluşu salgın konusunda toplumların yeterli duyarlılık sağlamamasından kaynaklıdır. Ölüm oranları düşürmek istiyorsak insanların dahada bilnçli olmasını sağlamalıyız. Ücra köylerde hatta ücra kelimesi yanlış olur, norminal düzeyde ilçelerde bile insanlar, toplumun ahlak çerçevesinde uyandırdığı baskılardan dolayı çiftler bariyer yönteminden bile bihaber. Kürtaj da bunun kaçınılmaz sonu oluyor. Vel hâsılı kelam, bilinçli toplum yaşam riskini minimuma düşüren en büyük faktördür.

What in the world happened to you, franky1? Did you go on a bad LSD trip, and come back without much ability to think, but with an ego about 10 times the size you had before?

When Elon Musk gets his moon shot ready, go on out to the moon. Walk around naked on the moon, and see how long you live without life support. You are welcome to take your walker.

There are some great points raised by @BADecker here, and undeniable empirical evidence about the nature and progress of human life cannot be overlooked to further political agendas with ulterior motives.

Human baby is arguably the weakest of all newborns in mammals, and one distinguishing feature separates it from all other babies: that it needs far more meticulous nurture and care compared to all other mammalian life forms.

In fact almost all modern doctors agree that if you just feed and change the diapers of a newborn without taking care of its emotional and social needs, there is a very high chance that it will die...

This places tremendous responsibility of successfully raising a human baby on not just the mother, but on the entire family. If / when the mother decides to keep a baby, the extended family and the greater human society are entering into an unwritten contract with the mother that they will play an active role in the nurturing of such a precious and delicate life form till it's truly independent (as it's compulsory for the development of an intelligent and functional Homo Sapiens), which frankly takes at the very least 4-5 years in modern human species.

Leaving the chromosome debate aside, where @BADecker also is mostly correct despite some other members constantly throwing medical jargon at him to try to obfuscate the truth, it's absurd from an anthropological, socio-economical, ethical and pragmatic perspective that the decision of negating life should rest solely on one human being, whereas the affirmative decision will have far reaching ramifications on the entire species.

What new person? The sperm without an egg will never grow into a new person. And its chromosome set is different than the chromosome set of any embryo.

In addition, if the person who is started by a specific embryo lives to age 100, he/she will have the same chromosome set through all that time.

Further, if there is a difference that makes the person to not be a person at some stage, because of the chromosome set being the same, our judgment that any stage is not a numan is arbitrary at best. Better be safe from murder, except if you intend to murder. Let the process continue from conception to birth. Then, if you don't want the child/human-being, give it up for adoption.

Such cowards. The embryo can't fight back. The embryo doesn't have a gun. You cowards take his/her life because he/she is so weak that it is easy. Cowards.

badecker does not understand things like lungs and consciousness to be able to independently survive..

when is life actually life if the life support is taken away.
badecker will refuse to answer this question

By all means.

So is a sperm. Stop masturbating already BADecker, you murderer!

I actually love this wordings, simple yet powerful, would you mind if I use this to some other places?

This aside, Embryo is not a living organism in the first place. It is just a fertilized egg in the woman's stomach, so the argument of murdering a "HUMAN" is not yet valid. The thinking that it is a murder is actually ridiculous, and many researches and scientific evidence prove this wrong.

ok badecker has just volunteered to house and parent all people on life support.

and no badecker. you are to never. ever take them off life support even if they are minus 3 month. nor plus 90.
oh and ofcourse all them anorexic and depressed people. yea your responsible for them too. you gotta keep them alive for infinity aswell.

you are now the guardian of all people needing life support.

have fun with that.

does your few braincells hurt when your pro-god mindset fights your pro-darwin mindset?
subtle hint: at some point even you will have to make decisions on when/if its best to end the life support for those in your custody dependant on your life support.

The same cell/chromosome structure is present in the fertilized egg, as it is in every other stage of the pregnancy, and the baby to adult to old age, to death. If you kill anyone, from fertilized egg to old-age death, it's murder.

All you are trying to do is make somebody who has a different makeup into somebody to be murdered. You're a throwback to the times before modern medicine existed. You want to destroy anything that doesn't seem perfect. Unborn isn't perfect because it ain't grown up.

The biological similarity in all stages of a human life is their chromosomes. Different shapes of a human being are simply stages. Intentionally kill it at any stage, you have murdered.

if the womb is more than 2 months then it can be said to kill...
I had an abortion once because of an unplanned pregnancy, the reason I didn't use the contraceptive injection was because it would make my body ugly. I was once very stressed by a pregnancy that my husband and I did not plan, but my doctor and mother gave a sensible input because my womb was not yet 2 months old so life had not been formed.

so whats the issue
badecker. a virgin wants to assert his machismo republican tyrant mindset on women

things badecker need to understand before even having an opinion on this topic.
*understanding of biological differences between a 7 day embryo vs a 2nd trimester fetus
*legal guardian on dependant where depedant only gets separate power by aging out or emancipation
*legal decision on life or death where there is no conscious thought, or ability to survive without life support
*biology/legal state of what is deemed a viable human independant life

.. we know badecker wont bother learning this stuff
heck badecker has shown that he cant even choose one side. he flip flops between darwin vs god many times

Again, franky1, jumping out of an airplane at 10,000 feet intending to parachute down, is not a death contract. But if the chute doesn't open, it is probable death.

A contract for sex that is not at the same time a contract for pregnancy, might produce a pregnancy if not done correctly.

If the parachute is not packed correctly, or if the wrong parachute is used, death might be the result. If there is no proper contraceptive, or if the contraceptive fails, pregnancy could be the result.

Obviously, you want to confuse the issue. It's your way. It might be simple low IQ. But more than likely you simply have a wrong attitude.

So, what's the issue? Murdering a human being if an unwanted pregnancy is the result of a sex contract or agreement.

So if your argument is that people should get a free "get out of jail" card when faced with the burden of carrying a child that they voluntarily conceived, unless they were raped of course, why stop with abortion then?

If a child is 15 days old post birth, why don't I get to change my mind then and kill the kid. It's my choice right? I produced the child?

Also, how do you sort out the contradiction of the legal system where if a person murders a pregnant woman, it counts as two murders. Why does the legal system recognize a pregnant woman as two entities?

again badecker. a sex contract is not a pregnancy contract. you really need to get out your basement and start dating.
maybe then when you ask a woman back to your basement for the night and say
'lets come back to mine and make babies'
vs
'lets come back to mine and have sex'
you will see the different reaction/response.

also the college student does have a 'get out' clause for the debt.. its called bankruptsy

so for emphasis.
when a woman consents to sex. she is not consenting to starting a family.
please understand that.

it is one of them key details that as a man will really help you in life outside of this forum to know about..

I agree that a woman has pro-choice. But in this way:

If a student takes out loans to go to school in the pursuit of a career, and later finds out that the career isn't something that they want, or later realizes that they will never be able to pay back the school loans, Does such nullify the loan contracts? Of course not. They still need to deal with repaying the loans, even if it is through bankruptcy.

So, if a woman makes a contract for sex with a man, and later finds out there is a pregnancy involved, her pro-choice was to place herself in the way of making a baby, even if she didn't know that such would happen. She made the deal. She exercised her freedom. She got the results of her choice (or carelessness). Now deal with it and raise the kid, or put the child up for adoption (bankruptcy). But don't murder the new human life.

The left says they are pro choice. You are free to do what you would like with your body. If that is true, then how come you would like government guns to force me to wear a mask, stay inside, and undergo vaccination? Oh but wait they say, not wearing a mask could kill someone! Uh huh. Abortion is killing something, if you deem a fetus less valuable than a grown human that is simply your opinion. Is the fetus infinitely more valuable as soon as it is born? Most people would even consider a newborn baby more valuable than a grown human (a debatable determination if you ask me), so for the left the value of the human goes from 0 as a fetus to 1,000,000 as a newborn baby and then 500,000 as a grown adult. Then, judging by the way we have reacted to COVID, as an adult reaches old age they become far more valuable than any other human. Senior citizens? 10,000,000, it doesn't matter how many lives are destroyed or people die of starvation and suicide as long as we can extend the lives of 90 year olds by two weeks.

and their butts the head of another republican contradiction.. with its own head

one day they argue of over population. the next they argue that all death, old, young, dependent,independent is the 'end of the species'

the next they will say the right to die under ones own terms is ok.. the next they will say life needs to be maintained no matter what.

i find it funny how republicans say survival of the fittest and let the weak die off 'coz darwin' then say life is sacred 'coz god'

just make a decision and stick with it. you will end up going insane in your contractions

But they are all forms of life we need to survive as a species.

In Japan, more people have committed suicide than have died from Covid.   :/

Please, franky1. Learn how to think so you pack your chute right every time.

consent to sex. is not the same as consent to pregnancy
dang you must be a virgin

when people have sex. its got nothing to do with consenting to pregnancy.
allowing a penis in a vagina is not a pregnancy contract

please badecker. get a girlfriend. gain some real life experience

A woman's womb is no longer private property when she makes a deal with a man to let him have access to part of it. When she takes on the unwritten trust that she will be the trustee of whatever support she can give for the embryo/fetus/child beneficiary, this doesn't include murdering the beneficiary.

when you get into a taxi. the taxi driver is then not obligated to let you stay in the cab

he can say "sorry its my lunchbreak, get out"
he can say "no i dont accept euros. if you cant pay in dollars get out"
he can say "theres no room in my cab for your 20 wives and 30 children, go hire a minibus"

i know you want to feel like he should be obligated to service you but he is not.
his cab.. his terms of service. dont agree get out

..
in short its the mothers womb and the mothers terms of deciding if she wants to remain pregnant. end of
...

a womans womb is HER private property. so put your republican/freeman mindset to that.
..
a retail store is its own private property. they can set the rules of who is allowed in. same as strip clubs. if they want to make a rule that they can ask people under 18 to leave.. they can.
heck they can have the right to tell people to leave if they dont wear facemasks. thats their right

children dont get full rights until 18. which is why the parent becomes the decision maker about a childrens rights. this includes medical decisions about things like should a child in a vegetative state coma be taken off life support. again the parent decides
which is where a vegetative state embryo/fetus that has no conscious thought or ability to speak for itself nor able to survive without lifesupport system(womb) becomes the mothers choice to keep it or let it pass

A driver trusts other drivers on the road. You trust people you pass when walking on the street. The trust that a woman takes on when she becomes pregnant, might not be a formal trust. That's why enduring marriage is best to be involved... for the benefit of the youngin'.

if a republican places himself in a position whereby he might have a burglar/invaider/militia enter his house, even if he has taken precautions that happen to fail, and certainly if he hasnt taken precautions, what has he done?
he has voluntarily taken on the trusteeship for the beneficiary new occupant. the trusteeship includes caring for the new occupant for 9 months and then ensure that occupant gets a good home after this period.
if he shoots the occupant or evicts the occupant before it can be independant he has murdered aswell as broken the unwritten trust

.......

but
there is no contractual trusteeship
i dont think badecker even knows how contractual trusts work or he would realise his analogy fails


but lets play:
its obvious badecker "trying"(but failing) to use an analogy whereby, in his mind.. a man(settlor) sets up the trust(fertilisation) and obligates the trustee(woman) to administer(be pregnant) or dispose(abort) based on settlors(man) decision of the beneficiary(offspring)

badecker is trying to suggest that men should be the decision makers and woman have to be obligated to male rule

its kind of funny. badecker is obviously a man-child but pretends to be living the mindset of someone in victorian/colonian times.

badecker.. its 2020.. catch up. woman should not be obligated to men just like you dont want to be obligated to the government.

this is where your republican mind is fighting your mindless scripts you read and repeat.
actually try to stop just copying stupid sites scripts and realise where you fail by doing so.

if you truly think woman should be obligated to males. then really truly slap yourself on your face..

but getting to the point. putting badeckers machismo aside. trusts can be disposed of and dissolved.
have a nice day

As usual, o_e_l_e_o fails, so he has to go into lying.

Let's see. There were half a dozen people came from a fertilized egg. And they each started out with the same chromosome genetics at conception as they had at death after a long life. Oh wait... it was more like ten people. Oh, hang on again... it was really more like 20 people. Oh, I forgot about that 7.5 billion or so around the world.

Why don't you really be honest, and come right out and say that you enjoy murdering people, as long as you can get away with it.

BADecker's first argument was that it was a human life because it has 46 chromosomes. So does a skin cell, so that argument is nonsense.

His argument now is it's a human life because in the right environment it can eventually grow a human. Using nuclear transfer or inducing them to become pluripotent stem cells, so can skin cells, so that argument is also nonsense.

I'm keen to see what completely arbitrary and non scientific definition he comes up with next.

A skin cell is not human life. It is part of the life of a human, but it will not form into a sentient being.

I'm more moderate on abortion, meaning late term abortions are cruel and borderline murder, whereas terminating a zygote isn't that big of a deal to me.

If the woman voluntarily places herself in a position whereby she might have an egg fertilized, even if she has taken precautions that happen to fail, and certainly if she hasn't taken precautions, what has she really done? She has voluntarily taken on the trusteeship for the beneficiary new life. The trusteeship includes caring for the new life for 9 months, and then seeing that the baby gets a good home after it is born. If she terminates that new life, she has murdered, as well as, broken a sacred unwritten trust.

She doesn't have the right to murder the new life. But she may have the ability to use corrupt laws and get away with it even though she doesn't have the right.

The only times it is not murder, is when there is a rape (possibly), when there is certain danger and death for the mother, or when she accidentally does something that she doesn't realize will abort or kill the child in her womb.

The free choice of not having a baby doesn't include a case where there has been a fertilized egg. It includes all cases to keep a fertilized egg from happening. But she better make darn sure that she isn't going to get a fertilized egg out of it. 'Cause if she kills a fertilized egg (or an embryo, or a fetus, or her baby) intentionally, it's murder.


The difference is, if it will grow into a new person, naturally, then it is killing a life. As it is, we haven't for sure advanced to the point where we can clone anyone from some average cell out of a person's body. It certainly doesn't happen naturally regarding people.

If, however, we could clone a person out of some cell, once the process was started, it would be murder to intentionally disrupt the process so that the clone would die... at any stage.


This is correct. But it is not the point. The point is voluntarily placing one's self into the position of getting pregnant, and then killing a new person. Stop the process before you have to murder to keep yourself from becoming pregnant. Abstain, or use a right kind of contraceptive, that doesn't kill the conception, and is foolproof.



Approximately the only time that it is their only option is in certain cases of rape, or in cases of certain death for the mother if she brings the child to birth. If it isn't rape, if the mother is healthy, they have the right/duty to abstain. If they get pregnant, they have the job of bearing the child. If they don't want the child at birth, they have the duty of finding a suitable home for the child. They never have the right to murder, even though they might be able to get away with it.

by the way badecker
a species of deer has 23pairs(46) chromosomes.

so no more deer hunting. and yea go tell your republican buddies that too.. no more AR-15's because 'hunting is murder'

so what would you say to deer vs human. knowing they have same chromosome numbers. how would you next differentiate a human vs deer.
remember in other topics you say you cant see anything at the chromosome level. you been saying that all year so you cant rely on chromosome ID.

so no nano level explanation. tell us at macro level. how would you identify what is human and what is not

is it human if it has a tail
is it human if it has webbed feet
is it human if it can communicate in hill billy american slang as a minimum

be careful how you answer. you may end up debunking yourself

So does a skin cell, so by your logic, exfoliating is genocide.

QFT

Sometimes that is their only option, because scientific illiterate backwards thinking religious nuts like BADecker here are in government.

Every woman has the right to abortion regardless of her reason for doing so. Many females out there need to be educated concerning the risk factors and contraindications of aborting an embryo. Abortion clinics also need to emphasize more about other alternatives to abortion, for example giving the baby up for adoption and also strongly suggestion of taking contraceptives .

This is however a complicated/sensitive issue whether it's a zygote or an embryo, the decision solely depends on the body which carries it 'The woman'. We shouldn't judge or attack those who have chosen not to have a baby because of our belief or cultural differences. I also believe if anyone decides to have an abortion done in an illegal or incompetent clinics, they know the risks involved and still continue negligently.

badecker is happy that if someone enters his property and is not wanted to remain but refuses to remain for a period of 9 months. then he can shoot them. or seek methods to get rid of them
so on that bases if a mother does not want a pregnancy she can end it

funny how badeckers mindset can be used against him so easily.

if badecker think its a adults right to protect their own property(body) and decide on issues involving their dependants in their property(body). then badeckers arguments fall flat, straight away

badecker remember you dont want government telling you what to do involving gun control and freedoms of humans own body.

as for the argument about human life. well if badecker is so 'prolife' even in cases where there is a 'human'(in his mind) that has no vocal/mental ability to make decisions for themselves and no ability to self control their breathing.
should government/law decide or should the next of kin/guardian/parent be in control of it.

if badecker suddenly wants government control of family decision. then lets make it law
all people in coma's or a vegetative state or new born from unwanted mothers.
send them all to badeckers house for him to take care of for decades
..
or will badecker revise his argument to think that those closest and most involved in the 'life' should be the decision makers

Making mistakes by allowing or not allowing things into one's life is common. My link shows that at the time of fertilization of the egg by entry of the sperm into it, both the sperm and the egg are each only half of a human cell regarding chromosomes. Once the connection is made, a complete, new, living cell is created. This new cell will turn into a new person walking about in life (provided it isn't damage in some way). However, it has within it the full pattern for and of the human being.

So, where can one separate it from a real human being, since it is only a stage in the life of the new human? Any suggestion that it is not a human being is an arbitrary suggestion, because the life of a human is constantly changing, even though the life of, say, a 35-y-o night have only tiny changes.

If one can find facts that show that the fertilized egg is not a human, great. But the fact of the whole pattern of its life existing in the new cell at conception, is the fact of a new life.

I'm afraid I can't allow that argument because it is an arbitrary judgement.

A skin cell is just as much a human life as a fertilized egg i.e. not at all.

A sperm is not its own human life. By your logic, we dare not kill any blood corpuscles or any other cells of a human.

Only when a sperm is joined to an egg as one does it become a human being.

Consider https://phys.org/news/2012-04-sperm-eggs-precisely-chromosomes.html to show why neither the sperm or the egg is a human life. They are different than other cells in humans.

By your logic, so is a sperm cell, therefore masturbation makes you worse than Hitler.

I can use completely moronic and baseless statements too! Isn't this fun!

according to your logic its not immoral to enslave you and harvest your labour you are an NPC anyway.

and beat you up every time you try to escape the plantation

The idea that a fertilized egg is not a human being is faulty thinking. Why? Because this is simply a stage in the life of a human being.

For example. If somebody turns 35-y-o today, tomorrow is a different stage in his life. The difference might not be much, but slight as it is, it is a different stage.

The point is, a fetus, an embryo, and a fertilized egg are all bigstages in human life. Destroying anyone at any stage is killing a human being.

When a woman accepts the sacred trust of harboring and maintaining a fertilized-egg/embryo/fetus within herself, killing that person is killing a human being and breaking a sacred trust. Sure, she might have tried to not get pregnant, but the best way is to abstain from sex. A woman can get pregnant by other forms of semen injection into her womb. but this seldom happens. Sex is the way it is normally done.

When BADecker or anyone seems to want to control a woman's life with regard to her active pregnancy, it's only to keep her from becoming a murderer for her own benefit, and for the baby's benefit, as well.

to answer the 'is a fertilised egg the same as a baby' and considered an independent life away from the pregnant woman.. the obvious biology/logic/common sense answer is
if the pregnancy was birthed at the day of decision. would that birth be a viable life that had the lung/heart/brain capacity to have independent survival that same day.

if the pregnancy is not at a stage where there can be independent life that day if separated from the woman. then its not an independent life

woman know by instinct and logic and common sense to not get too excited until the first trimester (12 weeks) because anything can happen. such as miscarriage.
so any argument about the first 12 weeks is moot. and should not be considered under the "killing" category

as for the second trimester, still a risk of miscarriage and other risks. there is no viable life. it wont survive a emergency/early birth. so again pretending the fetus has independent rights is wrong. it is dependant on the pregnant woman and so the woman.. not men/law/strangers. only the pregnant woman should be in control of choice.
the pregnant woman is the guardian/custodian and no one but that woman should have any say in the situation they are in

i do find it funny how badecker a man. wants to regulate what woman can do or not
i do find it funny how badecker a republican wants to regulate it
i do find it funny how badecker, an idiot. cant even research the facts before trying to inch his way into a topic
yet again badecker does not understand a topic and just found some script on some idiot site and is just repeating what he read from there. no independent thought went into badeckers posts

he pretends to want independence from laws and yet he does not understand independence. or laws

Covid-19 is an infectious disease. It spread widely within a country (epidemic), and then around the globe (pandemic). Death toll is not the defining factor in whether or not a thing is classed as a pandemic.


You are making a moral argument rather than a scientific one. Speaking of which, a far bigger cause of death than Covid is the Catholic church: Send missionaries to Africa, convert everyone to Christianity. Teach them that contraception is a sin that sends you to hell. Sit back and watch the chaos unfold.
He made a scientific judgment based on experimentally verifiable facts.

_Edit:
Morality is important. Science and logic are important. The intersection of the two can provide us with fascinating insights. But scientific and logical truths are universal, whereas moral truths are subjective. If you try to use a moral argument to convince people that a fertilised egg is the same as a human being, then you'll only be able to convince those who share your moral outlook. The moral (subjective) definition of a human being is not the same as the scientific (objective) definition, and the moral definition is, from person to person, different.

^^^ Wait. They are different. You made an arbitrary judgment there.

You just made an arbitrary judgement that life starts at conception. There is nothing more human about an egg cell with 23 pairs of chromosomes than there is about an egg cell with 23 single chromosomes. Therefore, menstruation is murder. And by the same metric, male masturbation is murder. Why don't you go on a completely misinformed campaign against masturbation instead?

Sounds like you are missing the point almost completely. Consider the following.

Some people like to stick their finger down their throat to make themselves puke for one reason or another. A few of these get their hand stuck in their mouth and choke to death every year. Absolutely we should warn everybody to be careful when they stick their finger down their throat. But where is the limit for making a pandemic about it or not?

Do we need 100 deaths to call it a pandemic. Or is that too small? How about 200? Or 1,000? So, why haven't we called that abortion thing a pandemic, or the heart disease thing, or the cancer thing? Because these are way more than the Covid thing, both individually, and certainly when combined.

Sure we should save people from Covid. But the pandemic is destroying the economy far more than anything. And the deaths from Covid can barely be found if you compare the size of it to the size of abortions. So, why didn't we have an abortion pandemic decades ago? Abortions have been far bigger than Covid for a long time.

When you look into the details of simple social distancing and wearing masks, you will find that doing these things is more dangerous by far than not doing them. Masks are entirely useless for Covid protection, both for yourself, and for others, for several reasons. They literally don't work.

Do you like the pandemic for nothing? There's nobody stopping you from playing the Covid pandemic game. But take a look at the abortion numbers from the death standpoint. The pandemic is based on something that is tiny, and abortion has-resulted/will-result in killing many more than Covid could ever think of doing. And if the pandemic is not stopped right now, the pandemic process will kill way more than Covid because people will be starving in lockdowns, etc.


Besides, anybody who says that a fetus or an embryo are not people is loony. Why? An example of "why" is found in Silicon Valley. Old guys are spending, say, $8,000 on blood transfusions from young people. Why? Because in the human transition through life, they want to go back to an earlier stage of life.

The point is, a human is in transition from conception to death. To judge that any stage of the person's life is part of a non-person, is to have a total misjudgment. Nobody is smart enough about the way life works to say this with certainty. No matter at what stage of life a person dies, nobody knows that he/she is not a person. Making an arbitrary judgment doesn't change this fact.

People are human beings from conception to death. Killing a fetus or an embryo is killing a human being.

Regardless of the abortion debate, what's the point you're trying to make here? The 'leading' cause of death is the only one we should focus on, and we shouldn't take any precautions to lower the death toll from other causes? Even if it's as simple as wearing a face mask or a bit of social distancing? We shouldn't save lives by wearing masks, because some people die of things that are utterly unrelated? We shouldn't look both ways when we cross a busy road, because some people die from drowning?

Using the phrase "killing a baby" is a ridiculous appeal to emotion. Embryos are not babies.

No it isn't the best solution they could have taken or used contraceptives if they aren't ready for it.
We need to be responsible for our action taking pills or putting condom is easier than killing a baby.

this is always a debate in the general public...
abortion is the best solution for husband and wife who are not planning a pregnancy. it is not easy to support and care for children in this time of crisis. abortion is bad for those who get pregnant without marriage.

A seed is not a tree.
An egg is not a chicken.
An embryo is not a person.

Every time you make a decision, you commit genocide and kill off all those other possible timelines of lives you could have lived. How dare you?

whats not being said is
these are not 38million women that have surgeons put surgical tools up a womans privates and pull out something that resembles a human

in most cases its:
taking the morning after pill
using non clinical/medical tools outside of a healthcare service

yep its where those in poorer countries resort to things like prostitution or their religion forbids contraception. where then end up having to resort to other methods of not remaining pregnant. where in many cases is the same woman becoming pregnant multiple times a year due to lack of contraception.

yep prostitutes take morning after pills regular. much similar scenario as having a mint a morning after a fun night. because their 'client' doesnt want to believe in condoms

so while you conspire with fantasies of 38million thoughts of babies.. the reality is most of those millions are a bunch of cells or something smaller than baked bean

this makes it appear that out of 3.5bil women 1 in 100 are having an abortion per year
but the reality is one woman out of multiple thousand are having more then one abortion a year

so before gathering up just 1000 woman and declaring one as a baby murderer.
gather up 10,000 and inform them that 1 woman is probably having unprotected sex often and give them contraception advice about effective ways to avoid pregnancy.

but hey. enjoy your fantasies

funny part is badecker is a male and from arizona. so should have no say in this as its a topic about women in places he will never go to. so not something he should even try to involve himself with. especially when he doesnt even understand the topic

37 million abortions during the pandemic. And in addition to this, all kinds of diseases, like cancer and heart disease, and wars here and there, and loads of other things. The pandemic isn't even near pandemic stages of loads of other things that are never called a pandemic. The Covid pandemic is one of the most stupid ideas around.


Abortion is the leading cause of death during the coronavirus, killing 37 million worldwide