Today's election results

[flockofseagulls104]

https://amastyleinsider.com/2022/08/31/ ... ge-update/

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opin ... -goes-woke

Now, on the subject of not bothering to read posts....

Who represents the baby in this 'medical procedure'? Why do you ignore that question?

What does either of these articles, which are about "wokeness", have to do with the discussion? All they discuss is the use of gender pronouns and such, not abortion.

Ear, c'mon now.
I am talking about abortion, SSS is deflecting as he always does, finding an article by so-called experts to disparage Pro Life groups. His 'experts' are fully invested in the leftist woke narrative. An erstwhile scientific group aligning itself in the effort to redefine sex and gender? Advocating hormone therapy and surgery for minors? What ever happened to the Hippocratic oath?

... For gender diverse individuals, standards of care and accepted medically necessary services that affirm gender or treat gender dysphoria may include mental health counseling, non-medical social transition, gender-affirming hormone therapy, and/or gender-affirming surgeries. Clinical guidelines established by professional medical organizations for the care of minors promote these supportive interventions based on the current evidence and that enable young people to explore and live the gender that they choose...

https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/p ... r-children

The AMA is obviously biased in this question. All the lefties here are adamant that the Pro-Life centers are liars. PP has been shown conclusively to lie, mislead and hide what they do behind an image they market to the public. https://youtu.be/Bo0oYCaLbrg PP was founded on the foundation of eugenics and exterminating the black race. https://nypost.com/2020/07/22/planned-p ... fic-bigot/ I do not consider them a credible 'source' for any information. They are very motivated to discredit any entity that opposes them, and they want to divert the conversation to their terms. I want to be real.

The only reason this is in the discussion is because of SSS's diversion from the main topic. A baby is a human life once conceived. And that conception, in the vast majority of cases, is a result of a decision made by two people that could result in a human life. The question is: Are these two people responsible for their decision, or are they automatically considered irresponsible? My point is that an abortion is not just between the mother and the doctor. The child is involved. And so is the father if you want to go there. My question, that everyone is avoiding, is WHO REPRESENTS THE INTEREST OF THE CHILD?

My view is that the pro-abortion side needs to recognize that what they call a 'fetus' or a 'group of cells' is a valid human being. That if left to its natural course without intervention will become a fully functioning human being. In any other situation, this intervention we call abortion would be considered a murder. All of us went through this natural process. And the baby's interests need to be part of the equation.

[silverscreenselect]

The AMA is obviously biased in this question. All the lefties here are adamant that the Pro-Life centers are liars.

You don't have to go very far to find a lot of reputable organizations that feel the pregnancy crisis centers are fraudsters:

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists:

https://www.acog.org/advocacy/abortion- ... fessionals.

Abortion is a safe medical intervention backed by decades of robust data. Despite this fact, many CPC staffs use false and misleading information, emotional manipulation, and delays to divert pregnant people from accessing comprehensive and timely care from patient-centered, appropriately trained, and licensed medical professionals.

They go on to list many of the same fraudulent tactics as in the AMA article and point out that women that visit these centers may avoid or delay seeking real medical help harming their own health.

Illinois law holds crisis pregnancy centers accountable for fraud, misinformation

Deceptive marketing by crisis pregnancy centers prompts [NJ] bills, consumer alert

In Texas, state-funded crisis pregnancy centers gave medical misinformation to NBC News producers seeking counseling

The “Crisis Pregnancy Center” Scam

That's just the first Google page. And as opposed to all the articles from news agencies and medical bodies describing the fraudulent tactics these centers use and the actual harm they can cause, you present the word of ... you and Spock.

And you keep referring to a fetus as a child or a baby. It is not. It is living tissue that has the potential to develop into a baby. My father had a leg amputated in World War II. That leg was also living tissue. Nobody represented its interests in the matter.

[flockofseagulls104]

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles ... -regulated

You don't get anywhere near the whole story by using google. It's past time you understand that.

[silverscreenselect]

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles ... -regulated

You don't get anywhere near the whole story by using google. It's past time you understand that.

Do you have anything other than yours and Spock's unrelated distractions about Google and Planned Parenthood to dispute any of the facts alleged in the news stories and medical journals I cited?

[flockofseagulls104]

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles ... -regulated

You don't get anywhere near the whole story by using google. It's past time you understand that.

Do you have anything other than yours and Spock's unrelated distractions about Google and Planned Parenthood to dispute any of the facts alleged in the news stories and medical journals I cited?

Do you have any answer to the questions I actually posed before you diverted to this subject to sidestep them?

[Spock]

SSS>>>"And the term is pro-choice, not pro-abortion. Many pro-choice women do not or would not get abortions themselves. They have no problem with women who choose to raise their children or put them up for adoption. They just don't feel they should make the decision for anyone else. It's amazing that many anti-abortion zealots rail on about how the government is making decisions and telling them what to do, when they have no qualms about doing so when the shoe's on the other foot."<<<

Bull crap-if this is true why are the pro-abortion TPTP STRONGLY OPPOSED (in their own words) to pro-life crisis pregnancy centers.

Planned Parenthood>>>"We therefore strongly oppose so-called “crisis pregnancy centers” (CPCs) because of the biased and often inaccurate and misleading information they provide to women seeking honest information about birth control and abortion. CPCs disrespect liberty of conscience and a woman's right to follow her faith's teachings."<<<

The reason is in the quote. It isn't that they are opposed to the clinics per se, but rather because they use misinformation when counseling the women.

"Misinformation" is too polite a word. They deliberately lie to pregnant women. --Bob

I would guess that statiscally 100% of women have 24-hour access to a super computer in their back pocket. Are they too stupid to use it to figure out where they might be able to get an abortion? And which centers do not encourage abortion?

[Bob78164]

The reason is in the quote. It isn't that they are opposed to the clinics per se, but rather because they use misinformation when counseling the women.

"Misinformation" is too polite a word. They deliberately lie to pregnant women. --Bob

I would guess that statiscally 100% of women have 24-hour access to a super computer in their back pocket. Are they too stupid to use it to figure out where they might be able to get an abortion? And which centers do not encourage abortion?

So you're okay with them deliberately lying because you think that the people they're lying to should be able to figure out they're being lied to? --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

"Misinformation" is too polite a word. They deliberately lie to pregnant women. --Bob

I would guess that statiscally 100% of women have 24-hour access to a super computer in their back pocket. Are they too stupid to use it to figure out where they might be able to get an abortion? And which centers do not encourage abortion?

So you're okay with them deliberately lying because you think that the people they're lying to should be able to figure out they're being lied to? --Bob

Well, there he is to put in his two cents.

I would point out that every single 'expert' on the left that trollboy pulls out of his hat always says anything that contradicts his (or her) arguments is a damned lie. It's just sad that none of us can ever find or tell the truth.

But you are right. You seem to be okay with PP deliberately lying. Some of us have figured it out, but several here can't see it when it's right in front of their eyes.

[earendel]

A baby is a human life once conceived.

And there it is, the sticking point. Now this may sound like I'm trolling you, but why do you say that this is true? Why is a fertilized zygote a human being? To use a trite analogy, is an acorn an oak tree?

And that conception, in the vast majority of cases, is a result of a decision made by two people that could result in a human life. The question is: Are these two people responsible for their decision, or are they automatically considered irresponsible? My point is that an abortion is not just between the mother and the doctor. The child is involved. And so is the father if you want to go there. My question, that everyone is avoiding, is WHO REPRESENTS THE INTEREST OF THE CHILD?

My view is that the pro-abortion side needs to recognize that what they call a 'fetus' or a 'group of cells' is a valid human being. That if left to its natural course without intervention will become a fully functioning human being. In any other situation, this intervention we call abortion would be considered a murder. All of us went through this natural process. And the baby's interests need to be part of the equation.

First, and again this shouldn't have to be said, people like me are not "pro-abortion". Second, as far as a "fully functioning human being" is concerned, consider this. A couple who are members of my church conceived, and the doctor determined, after several months' gestation, that if carried to term, the child would be born anencephalic (no brain). They agonized over the decision and in the end decided that she would have an abortion. If you had your way, she would have had to give birth, and then either be responsible for caring for a NON-functioning human being" or watching the child die. I can't believe you would be that callous.

[tlynn78]

A baby is a human life once conceived.

And there it is, the sticking point. Now this may sound like I'm trolling you, but why do you say that this is true? Why is a fertilized zygote a human being? To use a trite analogy, is an acorn an oak tree?

And that conception, in the vast majority of cases, is a result of a decision made by two people that could result in a human life. The question is: Are these two people responsible for their decision, or are they automatically considered irresponsible? My point is that an abortion is not just between the mother and the doctor. The child is involved. And so is the father if you want to go there. My question, that everyone is avoiding, is WHO REPRESENTS THE INTEREST OF THE CHILD?

My view is that the pro-abortion side needs to recognize that what they call a 'fetus' or a 'group of cells' is a valid human being. That if left to its natural course without intervention will become a fully functioning human being. In any other situation, this intervention we call abortion would be considered a murder. All of us went through this natural process. And the baby's interests need to be part of the equation.

First, and again this shouldn't have to be said, people like me are not "pro-abortion". Second, as far as a "fully functioning human being" is concerned, consider this. A couple who are members of my church conceived, and the doctor determined, after several months' gestation, that if carried to term, the child would be born anencephalic (no brain). They agonized over the decision and in the end decided that she would have an abortion. If you had your way, she would have had to give birth, and then either be responsible for caring for a NON-functioning human being" or watching the child die. I can't believe you would be that callous.

Ear, c'mon, man. The vast majority of "pro-lifers" I know are, while saddened by the necessity, willing to accept certain exceptions. As to "Why is a fertilized zygote a human being?" seriously, dude? I'm no doctor, but I'd bet pretty heavily that in the history of ever, never has a viable, fertilized (human) zygote ever resulted in anything other than a human being (assuming it is allowed to mature unfettered).

[earendel]

Ear, c'mon, man. The vast majority of "pro-lifers" I know are, while saddened by the necessity, willing to accept certain exceptions. As to "Why is a fertilized zygote a human being?" seriously, dude? I'm no doctor, but I'd bet pretty heavily that in the history of ever, never has a viable, fertilized (human) zygote ever resulted in anything other than a human being (assuming it is allowed to mature unfettered).

There is the POTENTIAL to become a human being, but is it human from conception? That's the sticking point. Because the reason usually given by those who hold that a fertilized zygote is a human being is a religious one. I would agree that LIFE begins at conception, but that's not the same as saying that the fertilized ovum is a human being.

[tlynn78]

Ear, c'mon, man. The vast majority of "pro-lifers" I know are, while saddened by the necessity, willing to accept certain exceptions. As to "Why is a fertilized zygote a human being?" seriously, dude? I'm no doctor, but I'd bet pretty heavily that in the history of ever, never has a viable, fertilized (human) zygote ever resulted in anything other than a human being (assuming it is allowed to mature unfettered).

There is the POTENTIAL to become a human being, but is it human from conception? That's the sticking point. Because the reason usually given by those who hold that a fertilized zygote is a human being is a religious one. I would agree that LIFE begins at conception, but that's not the same as saying that the fertilized ovum is a human being.

Just..wow. If it's not a human, Ear, then what? Does it have the POTENTIAL to become a dog? A dinosaur? FROM CONCEPTION, by any rational measure, it is a HUMAN LIFE. Anything else is rank denial.

[flockofseagulls104]

Ear, c'mon, man. The vast majority of "pro-lifers" I know are, while saddened by the necessity, willing to accept certain exceptions. As to "Why is a fertilized zygote a human being?" seriously, dude? I'm no doctor, but I'd bet pretty heavily that in the history of ever, never has a viable, fertilized (human) zygote ever resulted in anything other than a human being (assuming it is allowed to mature unfettered).

There is the POTENTIAL to become a human being, but is it human from conception? That's the sticking point. Because the reason usually given by those who hold that a fertilized zygote is a human being is a religious one. I would agree that LIFE begins at conception, but that's not the same as saying that the fertilized ovum is a human being.

Is a prepubescent child a human being? Can they reproduce? They have the potential.

Ear, don't get into the trollboy habit of just glancing and frantically looking for a contradictory response.

For me, if the left would just acknowledge that when a woman is pregnant that she carries a human being, not a cell mass, and consider that human being in the abortion equation, then perhaps the two sides can come to reasonable compromises. Perhaps the pro-life side can understand the situation you describe and compromise. Perhaps the pro-choice side can understand that it is not wise to use abortion as a contraception method and cooperate with pro-life groups into a hybrid approach with responsible messaging.

Pipe dream, I know.

[kroxquo]

Ear, c'mon, man. The vast majority of "pro-lifers" I know are, while saddened by the necessity, willing to accept certain exceptions. As to "Why is a fertilized zygote a human being?" seriously, dude? I'm no doctor, but I'd bet pretty heavily that in the history of ever, never has a viable, fertilized (human) zygote ever resulted in anything other than a human being (assuming it is allowed to mature unfettered).

There is the POTENTIAL to become a human being, but is it human from conception? That's the sticking point. Because the reason usually given by those who hold that a fertilized zygote is a human being is a religious one. I would agree that LIFE begins at conception, but that's not the same as saying that the fertilized ovum is a human being.

Is a prepubescent child a human being? Can they reproduce? They have the potential.

Ear, don't get into the trollboy habit of just glancing and frantically looking for a contradictory response.

For me, if the left would just acknowledge that when a woman is pregnant that she carries a human being, not a cell mass, and consider that human being in the abortion equation, then perhaps the two sides can come to reasonable compromises. Perhaps the pro-life side can understand the situation you describe and compromise. Perhaps the pro-choice side can understand that it is not wise to use abortion as a contraception method and cooperate with pro-life groups into a hybrid approach with responsible messaging.

Pipe dream, I know.

By extension then,
Citizenship is defined as beginning at birth. Does a fetus have full citizenship rights?
Should paternal child support begin at conception?
Do fetuses count in the census?
Should a pregnant woman be allowed to count an unborn child as a deduction on their taxes?
Should a pregnant woman be allowed to take out a life insurance policy on her unborn child?
Should a pregnant woman be allowed to ride by herself in the HOV lane?

There are a host of legal and ethical questions that would need to be sorted out if we accept that human life begins at conception. What answers do you have for these questions?

[tlynn78]

There is the POTENTIAL to become a human being, but is it human from conception? That's the sticking point. Because the reason usually given by those who hold that a fertilized zygote is a human being is a religious one. I would agree that LIFE begins at conception, but that's not the same as saying that the fertilized ovum is a human being.

Is a prepubescent child a human being? Can they reproduce? They have the potential.

Ear, don't get into the trollboy habit of just glancing and frantically looking for a contradictory response.

For me, if the left would just acknowledge that when a woman is pregnant that she carries a human being, not a cell mass, and consider that human being in the abortion equation, then perhaps the two sides can come to reasonable compromises. Perhaps the pro-life side can understand the situation you describe and compromise. Perhaps the pro-choice side can understand that it is not wise to use abortion as a contraception method and cooperate with pro-life groups into a hybrid approach with responsible messaging.

Pipe dream, I know.

By extension then,
Citizenship is defined as beginning at birth. Does a fetus have full citizenship rights?
Should paternal child support begin at conception?
Do fetuses count in the census?
Should a pregnant woman be allowed to count an unborn child as a deduction on their taxes?
Should a pregnant woman be allowed to take out a life insurance policy on her unborn child?
Should a pregnant woman be allowed to ride by herself in the HOV lane?

There are a host of legal and ethical questions that would need to be sorted out if we accept that human life begins at conception. What answers do you have for these questions?

Yes.

[Bob78164]

Ear, c'mon, man. The vast majority of "pro-lifers" I know are, while saddened by the necessity, willing to accept certain exceptions. As to "Why is a fertilized zygote a human being?" seriously, dude? I'm no doctor, but I'd bet pretty heavily that in the history of ever, never has a viable, fertilized (human) zygote ever resulted in anything other than a human being (assuming it is allowed to mature unfettered).

There is the POTENTIAL to become a human being, but is it human from conception? That's the sticking point. Because the reason usually given by those who hold that a fertilized zygote is a human being is a religious one. I would agree that LIFE begins at conception, but that's not the same as saying that the fertilized ovum is a human being.

I think your concession is mistaken. Or are you saying that a sperm cell and an egg cell aren't alive?

Whether an embryo is or isn't a human being isn't a scientific question that is capable of proof or disproof because in this context, the definition of human being (i.e., a being that should be afforded the protections of law) isn't a scientific question. It's fundamentally a philosophical question, often answered by reference to religious beliefs. Nothing wrong with that, until the adherents of one set of beliefs attempt to force everyone else to live by their beliefs. --Bob

[tlynn78]

Ear, c'mon, man. The vast majority of "pro-lifers" I know are, while saddened by the necessity, willing to accept certain exceptions. As to "Why is a fertilized zygote a human being?" seriously, dude? I'm no doctor, but I'd bet pretty heavily that in the history of ever, never has a viable, fertilized (human) zygote ever resulted in anything other than a human being (assuming it is allowed to mature unfettered).

There is the POTENTIAL to become a human being, but is it human from conception? That's the sticking point. Because the reason usually given by those who hold that a fertilized zygote is a human being is a religious one. I would agree that LIFE begins at conception, but that's not the same as saying that the fertilized ovum is a human being.

I think your concession is mistaken. Or are you saying that a sperm cell and an egg cell aren't alive?

Whether an embryo is or isn't a human being isn't a scientific question that is capable of proof or disproof because in this context, the definition of human being (i.e., a being that should be afforded the protections of law) isn't a scientific question. It's fundamentally a philosophical question, often answered by reference to religious beliefs. Nothing wrong with that, until the adherents of one set of beliefs attempt to force everyone else to live by their beliefs. --Bob

Or die.

[Beebs52]

I believe life begins at conception. I think there are situations that allow abortion, rape, incest and health of mother or baby. I don't believe in elective abortion as a method of birth control, which is the greatest percentage of abortions. Look it up on Guttmacher.

[Beebs52]

"Whether an embryo is or isn't a human being isn't a scientific question that is capable of proof or disproof because in this context, the definition of human being (i.e., a being that should be afforded the protections of law) isn't a scientific question. It's fundamentally a philosophical question, often answered by reference to religious beliefs. Nothing wrong with that, until the adherents of one set of beliefs attempt to force everyone else to live by their beliefs. --Bob"

He who prevails, prevails. Too bad so sad.

[flockofseagulls104]

There is the POTENTIAL to become a human being, but is it human from conception? That's the sticking point. Because the reason usually given by those who hold that a fertilized zygote is a human being is a religious one. I would agree that LIFE begins at conception, but that's not the same as saying that the fertilized ovum is a human being.

I think your concession is mistaken. Or are you saying that a sperm cell and an egg cell aren't alive?

Whether an embryo is or isn't a human being isn't a scientific question that is capable of proof or disproof because in this context, the definition of human being (i.e., a being that should be afforded the protections of law) isn't a scientific question. It's fundamentally a philosophical question, often answered by reference to religious beliefs. Nothing wrong with that, until the adherents of one set of beliefs attempt to force everyone else to live by their beliefs. --Bob

Or die.

I think the logical and scientific answer is that a human being begins when the sperm cell fertilizes the egg cell and it begins to form what is a human being. That event happens, in the vast majority of cases, when a decision is made by two human beings. Once we all accept that, then we can begin to decide what can occur at that point, and include the interests of the human being that resulted from that decision. (Please be aware I know not all babies start out that way, and those situations will need to be figured out.)

Will it be easy?... No. Compromises will have to made on all sides. But this issue will NEVER be put behind us until that obvious fact is acknowledged. This new human being would not have been conceived without the conscious actions and/or contributions of two people, one male and one female. That human being is not owned by either of the contributors, though the mother has to physically carry the burden of that decision, and her health must be considered. That has to be factored into the three-part equation. But there must be some measure of responsibility tied to that decision, if it results in the conception of another human being.

The moral culture of our past generations took all this into account. Responsibilities were defined and the culture, for the most part, adhered to them. It was not perfect, but if we acknowledge the truth, we now have better ways of coming to some kind of mutual understanding, rather than ignoring obvious scientific facts or changing language to skirt responsibility.

[wbtravis007]

I think your concession is mistaken. Or are you saying that a sperm cell and an egg cell aren't alive?

Whether an embryo is or isn't a human being isn't a scientific question that is capable of proof or disproof because in this context, the definition of human being (i.e., a being that should be afforded the protections of law) isn't a scientific question. It's fundamentally a philosophical question, often answered by reference to religious beliefs. Nothing wrong with that, until the adherents of one set of beliefs attempt to force everyone else to live by their beliefs. --Bob

Or die.

I think the logical and scientific answer is that a human being begins when the sperm cell fertilizes the egg cell and it begins to form what is a human being. That event happens, in the vast majority of cases, when a decision is made by two human beings. Once we all accept that, then we can begin to decide what can occur at that point, and include the interests of the human being that resulted from that decision. (Please be aware I know not all babies start out that way, and those situations will need to be figured out.)

Will it be easy?... No. Compromises will have to made on all sides. But this issue will NEVER be put behind us until that obvious fact is acknowledged. This new human being would not have been conceived without the conscious actions and/or contributions of two people, one male and one female. That human being is not owned by either of the contributors, though the mother has to physically carry the burden of that decision, and her health must be considered. That has to be factored into the three-part equation. But there must be some measure of responsibility tied to that decision, if it results in the conception of another human being.

The moral culture of our past generations took all this into account. Responsibilities were defined and the culture, for the most part, adhered to them. It was not perfect, but if we acknowledge the truth, we now have better ways of coming to some kind of mutual understanding, rather than ignoring obvious scientific facts or changing language to skirt responsibility.

Ok. Fine. What’s your compromise position?

Not the starting point of negotiation. The policy that you’d be satisfied with.

Do you have one?

[earendel]

Ear, c'mon, man. The vast majority of "pro-lifers" I know are, while saddened by the necessity, willing to accept certain exceptions. As to "Why is a fertilized zygote a human being?" seriously, dude? I'm no doctor, but I'd bet pretty heavily that in the history of ever, never has a viable, fertilized (human) zygote ever resulted in anything other than a human being (assuming it is allowed to mature unfettered).

There is the POTENTIAL to become a human being, but is it human from conception? That's the sticking point. Because the reason usually given by those who hold that a fertilized zygote is a human being is a religious one. I would agree that LIFE begins at conception, but that's not the same as saying that the fertilized ovum is a human being.

Just..wow. If it's not a human, Ear, then what? Does it have the POTENTIAL to become a dog? A dinosaur? FROM CONCEPTION, by any rational measure, it is a HUMAN LIFE. Anything else is rank denial.

Human, yes, but a human BEING? Therein lies the distinction. Generally the idea that a fertilized zygote is a "human being" from the moment of conception is based on the religious concept of the soul, often accompanied by citations from the Bible, which makes this a religious discussion rather than a scientific one. And on that basis, religions disagree over this - for instance, Orthodox Judaism holds that the fetus doesn't become human until it draws its first breath, again citing scripture.

[earendel]

Is a prepubescent child a human being? Can they reproduce? They have the potential.

You misunderstand. A "prepubescent child" is already a human being. The ability to procreate isn't the issue.

Ear, don't get into the trollboy habit of just glancing and frantically looking for a contradictory response.

Are you saying that I really don't believe what I'm saying, and am just "prooftexting"?

For me, if the left would just acknowledge that when a woman is pregnant that she carries a human being, not a cell mass...

But what is it that makes that fertilized zygote a human being? You may believe that it is, but others believe that it isn't. What makes your belief right?

[tlynn78]

There is the POTENTIAL to become a human being, but is it human from conception? That's the sticking point. Because the reason usually given by those who hold that a fertilized zygote is a human being is a religious one. I would agree that LIFE begins at conception, but that's not the same as saying that the fertilized ovum is a human being.

Just..wow. If it's not a human, Ear, then what? Does it have the POTENTIAL to become a dog? A dinosaur? FROM CONCEPTION, by any rational measure, it is a HUMAN LIFE. Anything else is rank denial.

Human, yes, but a human BEING? Therein lies the distinction. Generally the idea that a fertilized zygote is a "human being" from the moment of conception is based on the religious concept of the soul, often accompanied by citations from the Bible, which makes this a religious discussion rather than a scientific one. And on that basis, religions disagree over this - for instance, Orthodox Judaism holds that the fetus doesn't become human until it draws its first breath, again citing scripture.

If you're justifying the killing of an unborn baby by parsing "Human" as opposed to "Human Being" ... I feel sorry for you.

[flockofseagulls104]

Is a prepubescent child a human being? Can they reproduce? They have the potential.

You misunderstand. A "prepubescent child" is already a human being. The ability to procreate isn't the issue.

Ear, don't get into the trollboy habit of just glancing and frantically looking for a contradictory response.

Are you saying that I really don't believe what I'm saying, and am just "prooftexting"?

For me, if the left would just acknowledge that when a woman is pregnant that she carries a human being, not a cell mass...

But what is it that makes that fertilized zygote a human being? You may believe that it is, but others believe that it isn't. What makes your belief right?

What else could it be? Could it end up being a coffee cup? A Kangaroo? It is a cell mass with a purpose. Just as a prepubescent child is a cell mass with a purpose. What is the difference? It is a human being from the moment it is fertilized. It can't be anything else.

Leave religion out of it. What makes your belief right or even scientifically logical? It is just word play. Admit it. Then we can negotiate.