Pokebball

Interesting contrast. Multiple biologists, all of which have been published and many of their papers having been peer reviewed, present their arguments for life beginning at conception. You post your position on a message board as fact. I tend to believe the medical & science professionals in the first category. Your argument appears to me to get all hung up on stages of development. I think everyone agrees that there are stages.

It really wasn't a blowout. The smallest number of vote swings that would have changed the results was something like 43,000, flipping the EC in Arizona, Wisconsin and Georgia, I believe. Numerous polls suggest if the laptop story wasn't suppressed by those that suppressed it, Trump would have won. And as context, I didn't vote for Trump.

Significant pivot here my friend. You should have kept reading. But I get it, it doesn't fit your agenda.

The majority of biologists believe human life begins at conception. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7245522/#:~:text=View that human life begins,it must be one already. This is pretty solid scientific support that life begins then. And just for giggles, here's link with many medical studies supporting this position. https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html So what about viability? Human life isn't independently viable in many stages and in many conditions of health, even after birth. In fact I'd argue mostly after birth (makes sense because we're talking 9mos vs what, 80yrs). We find ourselves in the hospital our entire lives, increasingly as we get older. We wouldn't have life saving procedures without, not being independently viable. An infant, or even a toddler isn't independently viable, are they? The biological, or scientific, definition of viability is the "ability to survive or live successfully". It doesn't say, "on your own". The independent viability argument, supporting abortion doesn't make sense to me for these reasons. Additionally, I think our scientific advancement since R v W has taken us far beyond religious faith even mattering anymore. Science should be followed here. So while I respect your Catholic Faith, I guess I'd say kudos because the Catholic theologians had it right. Eliminating any sort of argument regarding oophorectomy's or vasectomies or condoms is simple and honestly scientific, right? Unless I'm not understanding your question, conception isn't occurring right? Regading your questions of me, I guess this leaves contraception options that occur immediately after conception. I guess I'd say, if this is the only controversy left on the table, I trust our great country can find a compromise. God help us if we cant. What we haven't addressed are the possible needs for an abortion in the first trimester due to rape or *****. Or perhaps a man and a woman have been so completely and totally irresponsible, given the myriad of options that a responsible human being can use for birth control these days, that we're left with an option of wanting to kill a human life because of them being absolute knuckleheads. I'm sympathetic in rape and ***** cases. In fact, I'm fully in support of aborting the perp for such a disgusting act (I'm kinda joking because I'm anti death penalty. Non-jokingly, some on this board have brought up castration. In rape and *****, I'd consider that). Obviously, drugs and medical procedures can end a pregnancy early in cases of rape and *****. Very early. That would of course depend on the victim reporting early. Easier to do with a rape as opposed to *****, I suppose. I think cases of rape and ***** must fall in our exceptions too, right? I do struggle with a woman claiming rape to justify her abortion in the 3rd trimester.

Human life beginning at conception for you then must be faith based as opposed to science based? Not to be difficult, I'm just trying to understand your position better. When then do you believe life begins scientifically?

Why are you personally against abortion?

Unless it infringes on the life of another, of course. Right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Life was first for a reason.

Health to all! And you didn't answer me the first time, what's a woman? need for a whole lotta health

The baby's health? Is that what you're saying? I haven't seen or been made aware of one abortion that was done for the baby's health.

Trump use to be pro choice. Biden use to be pro life. What's a girl/woman?

I think murdering babies being "basic" has already been covered

so no charge of bribery? Yeah really really really not enough

I stand corrected. They've been friends for 27 yrs. And I'll leave this reply rather than deleting my post. Bribe? Link

You don't yell at clouds?

How would that not be an "infringement"?

The donor has been his close friend since childhood, per CNN. Is this illegal to do? Do these folks make millions writing books, going on speaking engatements, etc.? Sure they do. This is done by everybody, everywhere, all the time. Has this donor financially benefitted by a 5-4 decision, with Thomas the swing vote? get the rope Neither has been adjudicated. Patience grasshopper

Which, of course, is my question.

How has he abused it?

I see how your opinion embarrasses you. Chin up

The Dept of Education and the National Education Assn sure isn't what the GOP wants.

who elects the people in office?

You don't put weed in your baked goods. I would have swore you did and had a few before posting

Or we can ask the few people we get together their opinion of this issue

You and Kav have something in common

Have a couple of beers my friend. Beer is good!