Science tells us when life begins

zar45

Recruiting Coordinator
Gold Member
Jun 13, 2016
6,436
16,822
113

If he didn't want people to say the bill criminalized abortion of an ectopic pregnancy, he shouldn't have written a bill that said "The offense of trafficking abortion-inducing devices or drugs is a class A felony if the abortion was performed or induced or was attempted to be performed or induced on a woman who has an ectopic pregnancy"

You can't just say "well I didn't mean make aborting an ectopic pregnancy a class A felony" when the plain meaning of the text is making aborting an ectopic pregnancy a class A felony.
 

HuskerO

Defensive Coordinator
Sep 11, 2006
7,744
3,135
113
If he didn't want people to say the bill criminalized abortion of an ectopic pregnancy, he shouldn't have written a bill that said "The offense of trafficking abortion-inducing devices or drugs is a class A felony if the abortion was performed or induced or was attempted to be performed or induced on a woman who has an ectopic pregnancy"

You can't just say "well I didn't mean make aborting an ectopic pregnancy a class A felony" when the plain meaning of the text is making aborting an ectopic pregnancy a class A felony.
Yes, it could have been written better. But instead of throwing a big ol' hissy fit & making claims that you don't know are true, ask people to clarify what they meant. Then they can go back to the drawing board to make language clearer to what they meant.

EDIT: I'm guessing he probably didn't think he needed to say "legal vs illegal". He just thought it was implied.

I appreciate you conceding that I didn't move the goalpost & that no one has tried to outlaw ectopic pregnancy treatment thus far.
 
Last edited:

jbskers

College Football Hall of Fame
Gold Member
May 29, 2001
24,067
16,405
113
Honest question for both sides........

If a baby conceived in rape can be condemned to death, why can’t rapists?
 

zar45

Recruiting Coordinator
Gold Member
Jun 13, 2016
6,436
16,822
113
Yes, it could have been written better. But instead of throwing a big ol' hissy fit & making claims that you don't know are true, ask people to clarify what they meant. Then they can go back to the drawing board to make language clearer to what they meant.

EDIT: I'm guessing he probably didn't think he needed to say "legal vs illegal". He just thought it was implied.

I appreciate you conceding that I didn't move the goalpost & that no one has tried to outlaw ectopic pregnancy treatment thus far.
The plain meaning of the text of the original bill criminalized abortions of ectopic pregnancies. When the plain text says one thing and the author says they intended another, a court will side with the plain text. It wasn't just a bill that could have been written better. It was a bill that criminalized abortions of ectopic pregnancies and people would have gone to jail had it passed as written. Intent aside.
 

HuskerO

Defensive Coordinator
Sep 11, 2006
7,744
3,135
113
The plain meaning of the text of the original bill criminalized abortions of ectopic pregnancies. When the plain text says one thing and the author says they intended another, a court will side with the plain text. It wasn't just a bill that could have been written better. It was a bill that criminalized abortions of ectopic pregnancies and people would have gone to jail had it passed as written. Intent aside.
No it wouldn't. Besides it doesn't matter. Rarely does the original text ever stay that way even before it comes to a vote. They put something out there, then clarifications, adjustments & changes are made as deemed necessary, then they vote on it. You act like the process is whatever is originally presented will be the final word & no changes are being looked into even from the original writer.

The point @steinek11 was trying to make on the ectopic pregnancy issue, is that the big meanie GOP was intentionally trying outlaw treatment for ectopic pregnancies. I've shown that's not true.
 

zar45

Recruiting Coordinator
Gold Member
Jun 13, 2016
6,436
16,822
113
No it wouldn't. Besides it doesn't matter. Rarely does the original text ever stay that way even before it comes to a vote. They put something out there, then clarifications, adjustments & changes are made as deemed necessary, then they vote on it. You act like the process is whatever is originally presented will be the final word & no changes are being looked into even from the original writer.

The point @steinek11 was trying to make on the ectopic pregnancy issue, is that the big meanie GOP was intentionally trying outlaw treatment for ectopic pregnancies. I've shown that's not true.
Yes it would. The plain text of the bill criminalized aborting ectopic pregnancies. The law is what's written on paper, not what's written in his heart.

Thankfully, there was an outcry that prompted them to amend the bill and remove that provision. After the outcry is when the writer made a statement about his intent. But again, that statement directly contradicted the plain meaning of the text. Which I think points to incompetence.

If he were truly writing about "illegal" abortions of ectopic pregnancies, then he would have amended the bill to clarify that and still include "illegal" abortions of ectopic pregnancies. He did not. He took it out entirely. Is it now his intention that "illegal" abortions of ectopic pregnancies are not further criminalized through this bill, when his "original intent" was that they were? I think not. Which I think also points to incompetence.

One might think that the absurdity of the outcome of the plain meaning of the text points to an alternative meaning, such as "illegal" abortions of ectopic pregnancies. However, an Ohio Bill attempted a similarly absurd legislation of aborting ectopic pregnancy. Which I think points to systemic incompetence surrounding the abortion of ectopic pregnancies. It's almost as if complicated medical conditions are best handled by the women and experts whom they consult.
 

HuskerO

Defensive Coordinator
Sep 11, 2006
7,744
3,135
113
Yes it would. The plain text of the bill criminalized aborting ectopic pregnancies. The law is what's written on paper, not what's written in his heart.

Thankfully, there was an outcry that prompted them to amend the bill and remove that provision. After the outcry is when the writer made a statement about his intent. But again, that statement directly contradicted the plain meaning of the text. Which I think points to incompetence.

If he were truly writing about "illegal" abortions of ectopic pregnancies, then he would have amended the bill to clarify that and still include "illegal" abortions of ectopic pregnancies. He did not. He took it out entirely. Is it now his intention that "illegal" abortions of ectopic pregnancies are not further criminalized through this bill, when his "original intent" was that they were? I think not. Which I think also points to incompetence.

One might think that the absurdity of the outcome of the plain meaning of the text points to an alternative meaning, such as "illegal" abortions of ectopic pregnancies. However, an Ohio Bill attempted a similarly absurd legislation of aborting ectopic pregnancy. Which I think points to systemic incompetence surrounding the abortion of ectopic pregnancies. It's almost as if complicated medical conditions are best handled by the women and experts whom they consult.
I'm not going to argue with you anymore on what would / wouldn't happen or how the clarification came about. We're not going to change each others minds, that much is clear.

Ectopic pregnancies and abortions are two different things. Just because there may be some similarities doesn't mean you handle them the same way, especially when it comes to law, and we're actually seeing that right now. And rightly so.
 

zar45

Recruiting Coordinator
Gold Member
Jun 13, 2016
6,436
16,822
113
I'm not going to argue with you anymore on what would / wouldn't happen or how the clarification came about. We're not going to change each others minds, that much is clear.

Ectopic pregnancies and abortions are two different things. Just because there may be some similarities doesn't mean you handle them the same way, especially when it comes to law, and we're actually seeing that right now. And rightly so.
"I'm not going to argue with you anymore"...Continues to argue.

If terminating ectopic pregnancies and abortion were universally understood to be mutually exclusive, there wouldn't be carve outs in abortion bills for ectopic pregnancies. There are carve outs.

Terminating an ectopic pregnancy is terminating a unique human life.

I think it is correct that a unique living human blastocyst is not given the same moral weight as the mother.
 

HuskerO

Defensive Coordinator
Sep 11, 2006
7,744
3,135
113
"I'm not going to argue with you anymore on what would / wouldn't happen or how the clarification came about."...Continues to argue.
Yeah... Weird how you cut my sentence off and didn't include the entire thing. Such a douche bag move.

If terminating ectopic pregnancies and abortion were universally understood to be mutually exclusive, there wouldn't be carve outs in abortion bills for ectopic pregnancies. There are carve outs.
You're right, there are carve outs because if there weren't then abortionists (PP, Butcher of Bellevue, etc) would take advantage to try and perform abortions when not needed under the guise of ectopic. They're still mutually exclusive. You don't go to an abortionists if you have an ectopic pregnancy. You don't have an abortion with an ectopic pregnancy.

Terminating an ectopic pregnancy is terminating a unique human life.
Pretty sure your brain is advanced enough to understand situations like ectopic pregnancies vs non-ectopic pregnancies.

I think it is correct that a unique living human blastocyst is not given the same moral weight as the mother.
Well we're just trying to start with a fetus first then work our way from there. Not sure where you stand with that.
 

zar45

Recruiting Coordinator
Gold Member
Jun 13, 2016
6,436
16,822
113
You're right, there are carve outs because if there weren't then abortionists (PP, Butcher of Bellevue, etc) would take advantage to try and perform abortions when not needed under the guise of ectopic. They're still mutually exclusive. You don't go to an abortionists if you have an ectopic pregnancy. You don't have an abortion with an ectopic pregnancy.

If "You don't go to an abortionists (sic) if you have an ectopic pregnancy" than how could so-called "abortionists" "take advantage to try and perform abortions when not needed under the guise of ectopic"?

Pretty sure your brain is advanced enough to understand situations like ectopic pregnancies vs non-ectopic pregnancies.

1. Ectopic vs. non-ectopic is not a binary in practice
2. You've stated that a unique human zygote is human life:

But in the instance that a zygote was created, and implantation was intentionally prevented through some drug, would that be murder?
If you were knowingly pregnant & you terminated that pregnancy then yes, that would be murder.

No different than if the fetus was 24 weeks, a 6-month old out of the womb, a 2 year old, etc etc.

So if a unique human blastocyst, further along than a zygote, is also a human life, then that would be murder, would it not?

But this is all beside the point. You stated that no state has tried to criminalize abortion of ectopic pregnancy. I've given two, Ohio and Missouri. You deflect and give them the benefit of the doubt, and say that "The offense of trafficking abortion-inducing devices or drugs is a class A felony if the abortion was performed or induced or was attempted to be performed or induced on a woman who has an ectopic pregnancy" did not intend exactly what it said, but then infer intent from @steinek11 for sake of your own argument. I was merely answering the question of whether the laws drafted by Republicans had the effect of criminalizing abortions of ectopic pregnancies. Unquestionably they did. I'd have to defer to @steinek11 on whether he meant that Republicans were knowingly and gleefully sentencing women to death for a non-viable pregnancy or if he meant that the effect of the bills they were writing was to criminalize a life-saving procedure. You've given that grace to Rep. Seitz for a far less ambiguous text, we should extend that grace to our fellow Husker fan, @steinek11.
 

HuskerO

Defensive Coordinator
Sep 11, 2006
7,744
3,135
113
If "You don't go to an abortionists (sic) if you have an ectopic pregnancy" than how could so-called "abortionists" "take advantage to try and perform abortions when not needed under the guise of ectopic"?



1. Ectopic vs. non-ectopic is not a binary in practice
2. You've stated that a unique human zygote is human life:



So if a unique human blastocyst, further along than a zygote, is also a human life, then that would be murder, would it not?

But this is all beside the point. You stated that no state has tried to criminalize abortion of ectopic pregnancy. I've given two, Ohio and Missouri. You deflect and give them the benefit of the doubt, and say that "The offense of trafficking abortion-inducing devices or drugs is a class A felony if the abortion was performed or induced or was attempted to be performed or induced on a woman who has an ectopic pregnancy" did not intend exactly what it said, but then infer intent from @steinek11 for sake of your own argument. I was merely answering the question of whether the laws drafted by Republicans had the effect of criminalizing abortions of ectopic pregnancies. Unquestionably they did. I'd have to defer to @steinek11 on whether he meant that Republicans were knowingly and gleefully sentencing women to death for a non-viable pregnancy or if he meant that the effect of the bills they were writing was to criminalize a life-saving procedure. You've given that grace to Rep. Seitz for a far less ambiguous text, we should extend that grace to our fellow Husker fan, @steinek11.
Treatment for ectopic pregnancies have NEVER been an issue for pro-lifers. You continuing to say the same thing over & over, doesn't change the fact that no one is trying to make treatment for ectopic pregnancy illegal let alone criminalize it. Not even in the Ohio bill you linked (see Sec. 2904.35).

Human blastocys. Yes it is human. Pro-lifers have also said life of mother trumps baby in utero.
 

zar45

Recruiting Coordinator
Gold Member
Jun 13, 2016
6,436
16,822
113
Treatment for ectopic pregnancies have NEVER been an issue for pro-lifers. You continuing to say the same thing over & over, doesn't change the fact that no one is trying to make treatment for ectopic pregnancy illegal let alone criminalize it. Not even in the Ohio bill you linked (see Sec. 2904.35).

Human blastocys. Yes it is human. Pro-lifers have also said life of mother trumps baby in utero.
2904.35C is precisely what I'm talking about. "(C) Takes all possible steps to preserve the life of the unborn child, while preserving the life of the woman. Such steps include, if applicable, attempting to reimplant an ectopic pregnancy into the woman's uterus."

Requiring a fictitious procedure, "if applicable", renders that sentence meaningless. It will only serve to muck up the decision making process on a procedure where time is of the essence. In the event that this procedure is pioneered by some doctor somewhere, this 2904.35C becomes a massive liability for doctors who may not immediately have competence in such a procedure.

And once again the determination of an ectopic pregnancy is not binary. It's not 100% verifiably life-threateningly ectopic or 100% verifiably not life-threateningly viable. In your view, it appears, these subjective calls are the difference between murder and a legitimate abortion. How should a doctor error when making that judgment call? Should they risk the felony of aborting? Should they refuse service to the mother and say "I'm 51% sure this won't kill you"?

There are already stories of doctors literally admitting mothers and waiting for them to enter a life threating state before the abortion of the ectopic pregnancy to comply with the law.

And this all ignores the elephant in the room that the logical conclusion of your line of reasoning is that within hours of having sex, women should be prosecuted for murder for getting an abortion.
 

HuskerO

Defensive Coordinator
Sep 11, 2006
7,744
3,135
113
2904.35C is precisely what I'm talking about. "(C) Takes all possible steps to preserve the life of the unborn child, while preserving the life of the woman. Such steps include, if applicable, attempting to reimplant an ectopic pregnancy into the woman's uterus."

Requiring a fictitious procedure, "if applicable", renders that sentence meaningless. It will only serve to muck up the decision making process on a procedure where time is of the essence. In the event that this procedure is pioneered by some doctor somewhere, this 2904.35C becomes a massive liability for doctors who may not immediately have competence in such a procedure.

And once again the determination of an ectopic pregnancy is not binary. It's not 100% verifiably life-threateningly ectopic or 100% verifiably not life-threateningly viable. In your view, it appears, these subjective calls are the difference between murder and a legitimate abortion. How should a doctor error when making that judgment call? Should they risk the felony of aborting? Should they refuse service to the mother and say "I'm 51% sure this won't kill you"?

There are already stories of doctors literally admitting mothers and waiting for them to enter a life threating state before the abortion of the ectopic pregnancy to comply with the law.

And this all ignores the elephant in the room that the logical conclusion of your line of reasoning is that within hours of having sex, women should be prosecuted for murder for getting an abortion.
Jeez your brain is broken. This was never an issue to anyone before and it's going to continue that way.

If it ever does become an issue, then you can come back here and say "See, I told you so." to me. Until then, just focus on the main issue & great news that states can stop the intentional killing of human life.
 

zar45

Recruiting Coordinator
Gold Member
Jun 13, 2016
6,436
16,822
113
Jeez your brain is broken. This was never an issue to anyone before and it's going to continue that way.

If it ever does become an issue, then you can come back here and say "See, I told you so." to me. Until then, just focus on the main issue & great news that states can stop the intentional killing of human life.
It was never an issue because Roe v. Wade/Casey constitutionally precluded it from being an issue. Ectopic pregnancies, along with many other birth defects, presented themselves before the 23-24 week line.

Now it's in the political arena. In the crosshairs of 50 state legislatures. The logic that abortion is murder leads to charging women for terminating zygotes hours after sex. You agreed with that:

But in the instance that a zygote was created, and implantation was intentionally prevented through some drug, would that be murder?
If you were knowingly pregnant & you terminated that pregnancy then yes, that would be murder.

No different than if the fetus was 24 weeks, a 6-month old out of the womb, a 2 year old, etc etc.

That's ****ed up.

And the current legislation is already putting women in peril for ectopic pregnancies.

You're still refusing to engage in the ambiguity in diagnosing medical conditions and medical risk. Felony charges lie in those ambiguities. It's already reducing availability and increase liability in the US which already has an extremely high maternal mortality rate for a first world country sitting at 57th.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ehenningsen

HuskerO

Defensive Coordinator
Sep 11, 2006
7,744
3,135
113
It was never an issue because Roe v. Wade/Casey constitutionally precluded it from being an issue. Ectopic pregnancies, along with many other birth defects, presented themselves before the 23-24 week line.

Now it's in the political arena. In the crosshairs of 50 state legislatures. The logic that abortion is murder leads to charging women for terminating zygotes hours after sex. You agreed with that:



That's ****ed up.

And the current legislation is already putting women in peril for ectopic pregnancies.

You're still refusing to engage in the ambiguity in diagnosing medical conditions and medical risk. Felony charges lie in those ambiguities. It's already reducing availability and increase liability in the US which already has an extremely high maternal mortality rate for a first world country sitting at 57th.
How do you determine when one has terminated a zygote?

Women are not in peril for ectopic pregnancies. Not an issue anyone on the pro-life side is trying to stop treatment for.

Okay, so let's work harder on maternal care. No one is against that.
 

HuskerO

Defensive Coordinator
Sep 11, 2006
7,744
3,135
113
The logic that abortion is murder leads to charging women for terminating zygotes hours after sex.
This keeps getting and more stupid the more I read it. There's no way to determine when you are carrying a zygote while it's in that stage of life. You certainly couldn't charge a woman for some made up scenario that could never happen.
 

zar45

Recruiting Coordinator
Gold Member
Jun 13, 2016
6,436
16,822
113
How do you determine when one has terminated a zygote?

Women are not in peril for ectopic pregnancies. Not an issue anyone on the pro-life side is trying to stop treatment for.

Okay, so let's work harder on maternal care. No one is against that.
Pretty easy actually. My sister-in-law is trying to get pregnant through IVF. IVF has zygotes they could knowingly discard. My in-laws decided they don't want children they don't know exist and are only trying for one. They requested that excess be discarded. Murder? They're pro-life and believe life begins at conception.

If you want to get real dystopian about it, I'm sure we have the technology to identify an unimplanted embryo that sheds off. Couple that with a timely plan B receipt. We already jail women for miscarriages, it would stand to reason that moving the line will increase jailing's of women for miscarriages.

You don't have to determine when one has terminated a zygote to severely restrict a woman's choice to undertake an often grave medical risk. You just ban drugs that may or may not keep the egg from implanting, may abort the blastocyst, etc. Missouri hospitals are already no longer giving Plan B to rape victims because of these new laws.

Women are literally, currently in peril. You refuse to acknowledge the nuance and subjectivity that goes into determining whether a pregnancy is ectopic or not. Similarly, whether a pregnancy poses a grave medical risk is also nuanced and subjective and how to handle that should be largely left between women and their doctors. The laws will force more mothers into riskier pregnancies.

No one's against maternal care in theory. Many are against spending the money required to enter the first world. I suspect you may be one of them.

This keeps getting and more stupid the more I read it. There's no way to determine when you are carrying a zygote while it's in that stage of life. You certainly couldn't charge a woman for some made up scenario that could never happen.
You can keep slinging mud, but these are legitimate questions of governance now that Roe is overturned.
 

Nebraska Power

Nebraska Football Hall of Fame
Gold Member
Oct 10, 2009
18,110
38,414
113
Birmingham, AL
For me scientifically it's heartbeat (6 weeks) or brain activity (3 weeks). I mean that's what a doctor is going to use if you're ever in the hospital.

At that point it's a separate human life that should be afforded all the same rights as the mother.
If the pro life side would just leave God out of the argument and go with this they could get so many more people on board. And stop so many more abortions. I mean, you would have to think someone with a dick isn’t a guy to not think a heart beat doesn’t means life. That is some real science denial stuff.

Religion does a lot of good. Helps feed the hungry, build houses for the less fortunate, helps people get sober. I just don’t want it involved in any government policy. Christian, Jewish, Islam whatever. I think religion is a very good thing. Practiced in your own private life.

To me you can use science in this argument.
 

Crazyhole

All-American
Jun 4, 2004
4,016
5,723
113
If the pro life side would just leave God out of the argument and go with this they could get so many more people on board. And stop so many more abortions. I mean, you would have to think someone with a dick isn’t a guy to not think a heart beat doesn’t means life. That is some real science denial stuff.

Religion does a lot of good. Helps feed the hungry, build houses for the less fortunate, helps people get sober. I just don’t want it involved in any government policy. Christian, Jewish, Islam whatever. I think religion is a very good thing. Practiced in your own private life.

To me you can use science in this argument.
When is the last time you heard someone make a religious argument against abortion?
 

Crazyhole

All-American
Jun 4, 2004
4,016
5,723
113
Lol you're kidding right?

But in this particular thread it is mostly liberals bringing it up
No, I'm not kidding. I can't remember the last time I heard somebody cite scripture as an argument against abortion. Pro choicers do quite often, as you pointed out was happening here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HuskerO

HuskerO

Defensive Coordinator
Sep 11, 2006
7,744
3,135
113
IVF has zygotes they could knowingly discard. My in-laws decided they don't want children they don't know exist and are only trying for one. They requested that excess be discarded. Murder?
By the IVF clinic? Yes. Your in-law isn't knowingly terminating a zygote that's inside of her.

Again though, you're discussing something no one is really fighting against at this moment. Maybe down the road pro-lifers will so we can discuss it at that time. For now, it about terminating life at the embryonic & fetal stages.
 

HuskerO

Defensive Coordinator
Sep 11, 2006
7,744
3,135
113
You don't have to determine when one has terminated a zygote to severely restrict a woman's choice to undertake an often grave medical risk.
Haha, what happened to "murder leads to charging women for terminating zygotes hours after sex."? Funny how you changed it to "restricting drug choices".
 

HuskerO

Defensive Coordinator
Sep 11, 2006
7,744
3,135
113
You can keep slinging mud, but these are legitimate questions of governance now that Roe is overturned.
Claiming that we'll start charging women for intentionally killing a zygote is not a legitimate. It's stupid because it's literally impossible to know you're pregnant at that time. Stop with the stupid scenarios (then changing the scenarios) & fake outcomes.
 

HuskerO

Defensive Coordinator
Sep 11, 2006
7,744
3,135
113
We already jail women for miscarriages, it would stand to reason that moving the line will increase jailing's of women for miscarriages.
Come on. In the article, "Poolaw admitted to using illicit drugs while pregnant."

Should women be allowed to use illicit drugs if they were 34 weeks pregnant & not be charged with manslaughter if their baby were to die as a result?
 

HuskerO

Defensive Coordinator
Sep 11, 2006
7,744
3,135
113
No one's against maternal care in theory. Many are against spending the money required to enter the first world. I suspect you may be one of them.
You suspect wrong shit for brains.

I'm all for more money going towards maternal care. And care for both the mother & child once they get home from the hospital.

I've given thousands of my own hard money to causes such as this & will continue to do so. You?
 

HuskerO

Defensive Coordinator
Sep 11, 2006
7,744
3,135
113
You refuse to acknowledge the nuance and subjectivity that goes into determining whether a pregnancy is ectopic or not. Similarly, whether a pregnancy poses a grave medical risk is also nuanced and subjective and how to handle that should be largely left between women and their doctors.
When have I ever refused to acknowledge this?

Woman & doctors can continue to decide how to handle their pregnancy. They just can't have their own child be killed as one of the options in some states unless the mother's life is in danger. Which falls under your "grave medical risk".
 

HuskerO

Defensive Coordinator
Sep 11, 2006
7,744
3,135
113
If the pro life side would just leave God out of the argument and go with this they could get so many more people on board. And stop so many more abortions. I mean, you would have to think someone with a dick isn’t a guy to not think a heart beat doesn’t means life. That is some real science denial stuff.

Religion does a lot of good. Helps feed the hungry, build houses for the less fortunate, helps people get sober. I just don’t want it involved in any government policy. Christian, Jewish, Islam whatever. I think religion is a very good thing. Practiced in your own private life.

To me you can use science in this argument.
Many do actually. But then you get people like @zar4 who will say stupid things like, "what it a woman killed her zygote!!"
 
  • Like
Reactions: EriktheRed

ehenningsen

Nebraska Football Hall of Fame
Gold Member
Nov 18, 2004
17,929
8,569
113
omaha
Liberals claim this is NOT life, even though every one of us looked like this at 6 weeks after conception, with arms, legs, eyes, and a beating heart.

six-week-old-embryo-biophoto-associatesscience-photo-library.jpg


But scientists consider this to be life:
3.5-Ga-old-Apex-Fossi-Primaevifilum-amoenum-521x775.jpg


On our own planet, scientists claim life on Earth started around 3.5 billion years ago, and that life had no arms, legs, eyes, heart, or anything close to the fetus that they deny is alive.

NASA sent numerous missions to the surface of Mars to discover "life". Considering a microbe on Mars is proof of life, and a human being isn't life on earth, the TRUE science deniers are the evil liberals, men and women (and those other categories) that dehumanize our most vulnerable here on earth.

"A key objective of Perseverance’s mission on Mars is astrobiology, including the search for signs of ancient microbial life."
If you want to go that route, then no more meat and stop killing insects or animals.

If every cell counts, be consistent.
 

EriktheRed

Athletic Director
Gold Member
Jul 1, 2001
13,415
16,986
113
If you want to go that route, then no more meat and stop killing insects or animals.

If every cell counts, be consistent.
Odd as people have always eaten meat.

Normal people don't eat babies. Maybe you do in your home.

An insect and a person are the same thing ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!!! Dr. Mengele would have probably agreed, but people with morality would not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oldschool1964

ehenningsen

Nebraska Football Hall of Fame
Gold Member
Nov 18, 2004
17,929
8,569
113
omaha
Odd as people have always eaten meat.

Normal people don't eat babies. Maybe you do in your home.

An insect and a person are the same thing ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!!! Dr. Mengele would have probably agreed, but people with morality would not.
A clump of human cells are just as sentient as one cell creatures.

So if it were really about life sanctity, you have to be consistent.