Anyone who starts with the business of defining life other than the definition that would be used under any other circumstance has no basis pointing out anti-vaccine people or those objecting to overhyped climate change concerns as anti-science.

And flexible definitions for what is and isn’t human (based 100% on politics or in the case of Planned Parenthood, money) is horrifying. I read some article a while back that said Downs was on the verge of being eradicated..... it’s not being eradicated, they’re simply killing them off.

So a woman could kill a baby at 8 months because she wants to but she can’t wear a fur coat to the abortion clinic?

WebsterMark wrote on 05/16/19 at 08:31:06:



That's not what I said.

WebsterMark wrote on 05/16/19 at 09:43:34:



No, it's not.

I've never been in favor of late term abortions.  But I've always been in favor of a woman's right to choose.

T And T Garage wrote on 05/16/19 at 09:48:37:


But not a woman’s right to choose fur?.....

When you say woman’s right to choose, you are in favor of giving one person the right to kill another human being for any reason.

And flexible definitions for what is and isn’t human (based 100% on politics or in the case of Planned Parenthood, money) is horrifying. I read some article a while back that said Downs was on the verge of being eradicated..... it’s not being eradicated, they’re simply killing them off.

 Can you reference this?

 I am familiar with this topic regarding genome sequencing and gene editing.  If this is what you are referring to then you are saying altering a parent's genes is killing a potential human prior to intercourse.

 If they are prioritizing abortions based off downs-syndrome that's different.

SMH - again - a fetus is not a human being.  It's not a person.  

It's not a puppy.

What you are willing to pretend is true goes against everything humanity accepted as true on its face since the beginning. Only since Roe vs Wade and the denial of civil rights to the unborn has that twisted ideology been pushed.