History books aren't always accurate depictions. "History is written by the winner." and what not
Fair. But I have yet to see anyone else say otherwise. I haven't looked hard enough though.
no one has survived to say otherwise.
Im sure your Big Book would have been vastly different if written by JC himself.
What does that have to do with? The Bible doesn't cover like anything after the first hundred years after the death of Christ.
No worries. Just examples of my superior know how. :P
History books aren't always accurate depictions. "History is written by the winner." and what not
Fair. But I have yet to see anyone else say otherwise. I haven't looked hard enough though.
no one has survived to say otherwise.
Im sure your Big Book would have been vastly different if written by JC himself.
What does that have to do with? The Bible doesn't cover like anything after the first hundred years after the death of Christ.
Oh no that was just my example. If the loser of the biblical story (JC– although it's weird to call him the 'loser'. but he died so….) had written it himself instead of having others write it and then it get edited by crazy people (and the winners that felt bad about winning), I'm sure the stories and lessons within it's pages would be vastly different.
It assumes that evolution is a fact when it has not been proven.
Evolution is a fact you blind twat. You just have your head so far buried in somewhat old texts that you disregard years and years of scientific study and fossil records that have already proven it. You just don't want science and religion to coexist when it clearly has for quite some time.
For your information, scientific study would not exist if it were not for religion.
Where's your proof?
History books.
Cite it.
No. Do some research. Universities were pretty much invented by the Catholic church.
Wikipedia has spoken. I see what you mean now but that still doesn't negate the original offense. Not to mention that back then it wasn't one religion doing all of the discovering, it was all of them. All religions discovered at least one aspect about science. That should speak for itself of its universal improtance to all beings.
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/AUZSj0hWus5SSHgNtBmb5msHt85GIoalKtcy_kfHqotigNWtuguycAU/ Figured it might be fun to toss this in here, while it's on the topic
(and then the church burned scientists…)
Oh my gosh those first two are so stupid. Loving this rudeness chat.
^^Oof. Idk if that is true (not saying it's not) but it wasn't about the science itself.
Wikipedia has spoken. I see what you mean now but that still doesn't negate the original offense. Not to mention that back then it wasn't one religion doing all of the discovering, it was all of them. All religions discovered at least one aspect about science. That should speak for itself of its universal improtance to all beings.
"The original offence." Whatevs yo.
I mean, the first two have a fair enough point..
Why?
Okay I'll just say it and stop being an ass.
Sperm are not humans. Eggs are not humans Put together they are. There.
I honestly am on board with the last one though.
Wikipedia has spoken. I see what you mean now but that still doesn't negate the original offense. Not to mention that back then it wasn't one religion doing all of the discovering, it was all of them. All religions discovered at least one aspect about science. That should speak for itself of its universal improtance to all beings.
"The original offence." Whatevs yo.
Eh? Bruh I was admitting my information was misguided and rather agressive it was going to come out at some point so I guess it was good it happened on the rudeness chat instead of elsewhere.
Sperm are not humans. Eggs are not humans Put together they are. There.
This is a fair point. I would not say that eating half of cake ingredients is eating cake.
I honestly am on board with the last one though.
doctor visits are no joke.
(an abortion aint cheap either)
But it's not a child….its a clump of cells when abortion is done.
I hate to break it to you, Eris, but you're also a clump of cells, cells are an important part of what makes something alive.
I've done a bit of research, and most abortions are apparently committed at about 5-7 weeks of pregnancy. So what does the fetus resemble at 5 weeks in?
Up close, it looks something like this.
This cute, precious lil thing is only about the size of an apple seed, which is probably why many people often mistake it for being just a clump, they simply haven't looked close enough.
It already has finger stubs, a beating heart, its own DNA, and quite closely resembles a cross between a baby frog and a tiny little potato human.
So let's take an even closer look at it-
At this stage, the baby is already forming many vital organs, including the kidneys, liver, brain, and stomach, along with multiple important systems, such as the circulatory, digestive, and nervous.
This baby is technically already eating and breathing, although due to underdeveloped systems and lack of lungs, it cannot yet survive without the mother providing food and oxygen through the umbilical cord.
…And before you all shout "But it's NOT a baby OR a life! iT's JuSt A cLumP oF CeLLs!!1!111", let's go over a bit more stuff-
What makes something a life?
According to my research, the requirements needed to classify something as "living" are:
(Those are simplified terms that I probably described wrong but you get the point-)
And does this "clump of cells" fit those criteria?
Sure, they may not yet be able to produce offspring, but technically, a 5-year-old still wouldn't have a fully developed reproductive system, so does that mean they aren't actually alive? No. Should you be allowed to kill them if they annoy or inconvenience you? Of course not. They're still humans deserving of life.
But is this creature really human?
Of course! What else would it be???
If a dog got another dog pregnant, that dog wouldn't be pregnant with a fish for crying out loud. Both parents were dogs/canines, the cells contributed were both canine cells, so even if the baby was no more than a clump of cells, it's still a clump of canine cells, making it a dog/canine.
Same goes with humans. Even if it was a clump of cells, those cells are undoubtedly human cells, making it a human.
So now that we've established that it is, indeed, a living, breathing, thinking human, let's go over the dictionary definition of a specific word that everyone says I'm using wrong:
mur·der
/ˈmərdər/
noun
noun: murder; plural noun: murders
1.
the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another."the stabbing murder of an off-Broadway producer"
Huh, that's interesting. And what does "killing" mean?
kill·ing
/ˈkiliNG/
noun
1.
an act of causing death, especially deliberately.synonyms: murder, taking of life, assassination, homicide, manslaughter, liquidation, elimination, putting/doing to death, execution, dispatch, martyrdom, slaughter, massacre, butchery, carnage, bloodshed, destruction, decimation, extermination, eradication, annihilation, wiping out, extinction, patricide, matricide, parricide, infanticide, filicide;
"the community was shocked by the brutal killing"
And one last word:
a·bor·tion
/əˈbôrSH(ə)n/
noun
noun: abortion; plural noun: abortions
1.
the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy."concerns such as abortion and euthanasia"
synonyms: termination, miscarriage; rare feticide
"she had an abortion"
Wow. Would you look at that-
By definition, abortion really is a form of murder.
Whether the murder is justifiable or not is up for debate, but don't yell at me when I refer to abortion as "killing a child", because that is exactly what it is. It's a human deliberately aborting/terminating/ending the life of another human baby while they're still in the womb.
Well anyway, back to the point:
The only time in which the "clump of cells" argument would actually work is during the very first week of pregnancy, where the child actually is a clump of cells.
(I couldn't find any clear pictures, sorry, you'll just have to google stuff)
I personally believe this clump is still alive, still has value, is still a human being, and shouldn't be killed off, but some might argue otherwise, which I can almost understand.
However, no abortions are performed at the one week stage, most people don't even realize they're pregnant at that point. So claiming that "it's not a human child and is just a clump of cells when the abortion takes place" is entirely wrong.
And if all that still isn't enough to show that this baby is not a clump…
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
I've said this a million times. 2nd and 3rd-trimester abortions are exceedingly rare and only done when there is no hope of vitality or the mother's life is in danger.
Which would still be allowed according to this bill. If the mother's life is in danger and the only way to save her is to kill the child, then killing the child should be an option, as long as it's done in the most humane way possible.
What this bill would do is prevent abortions that are only being performed because the mother simply doesn't want a child, which I'd have to agree with. You can't kill any human you don't want to deal with, if that was the case then I'd 100% definitely not be alive right now, just trust me there-
I'm going to ask this once again because no one answered last time:
At what exact point would a baby be considered worthy of life?
Maybe, if someone can reasonably answer this, I might change my views a little. But until there's a clearly visible line between "baby" and "fetus", I'm not shifting.
Ella what the fuck.
Wikipedia has spoken. I see what you mean now but that still doesn't negate the original offense. Not to mention that back then it wasn't one religion doing all of the discovering, it was all of them. All religions discovered at least one aspect about science. That should speak for itself of its universal improtance to all beings.
"The original offence." Whatevs yo.
Eh? Bruh I was admitting my information was misguided and rather agressive
it was going to come out at some point so I guess it was good it happened on the rudeness chat instead of elsewhere.
My apologies. I am sorry for my brusque attitude.
Ella what the fuck.
?
I think that was her direct response to your long rant.
Ella, this is the most beautiful thing I have ever seen.
Well yeah, but which parts about it were "wtf" worthy
(Edit: I'm not saying there weren't any, I don't know everything and I recognize that. It's just hard to learn more when I don't know what it is I need to learn-)
Ella, this is the most beautiful thing I have ever seen.
:D