@mike69 saidSorry weasel boy. Go ask your worthless non-sense questions to someone else trumptarded loser. And no, I do not agree. Nite weasel boy. 🙂
Is this the dumb crap you do when you don’t want to answer.
Voting=people voting their hearts and morals no so much by party. Do you agree or not and why.
If you agree what does this say about yourself and the judgements you like slinging for your self righteous ego and the other sheep.
Let’s get passed this one first slow pop.
- Joined
- 20 May 16
- Moves
- 41665
12 Oct 22
@kingdavid403 saidPlease explain this nonsense and how you came to this conclusion.
Sorry weasel boy. Go ask your worthless non-sense questions to someone else trumptarded loser. And no, I do not agree. Nite weasel boy. 🙂
Are you saying if a baby happens to have to be born by c section early from an issue their a baby and one with no issues on time still inside the mother isn’t because of where the support for life is coming from at the moment?
@kingdavid403 saidOK, King. This will prove it is a baby while in the womb.
Sorry weasel boy. Go ask your worthless non-sense questions to someone else trumptarded loser. And no, I do not agree. Nite weasel boy. 🙂
Mother pregnant with twins.
Twin #1 born at 1PM. The blob that leaves the woman's body is a baby, referred to as such by the nurses and older brother on other side of the glass. Cool. Baby Bill.
Twin #2 is not born until 3PM.
If #1 is a baby, is not #2, inside the womb, a baby? Or, is there a bible passage dealing with that?
I think #2 is a baby if he has the same history as #1. Why would you not agree with that? We are trying to get to the bottom of what you are saying .
12 Oct 22
@mike69 saidYes. It's basic embryology. Why's the concept so hard to understand?
Please explain this nonsense and how you came to this conclusion.
Are you saying if a baby happens to have to be born by c section early from an issue their a baby and one with no issues on time still inside the mother isn’t because of where the support for life is coming from at the moment?
Fertilization -> blastocyst -> embryo -> fetus -> human -> corpse
Every step before 'human' on the timeline is a potential human.
@averagejoe1 saidI expected by "prove" you had something other than a question mark based on a hypothetical birth.
OK, King. This will prove it is a baby while in the womb.
Mother pregnant with twins.
Twin #1 born at 1PM. The blob that leaves the woman's body is a baby, referred to as such by the nurses and older brother on other side of the glass. Cool. Baby Bill.
Twin #2 is not born until 3PM.
If #1 is a baby, is not #2, inside the womb, a baby? Or, is there a ...[text shortened]... 1. Why would you not agree with that? We are trying to get to the bottom of what you are saying .
I haven't been to Bible study in awhile, but I'm 100% certain there's a bunch of passages in the Bible that say that life begins at first breath.
There is nothing I'm aware of in the bible to indicate that a fetus is considered to be anything other than living tissue and, according to scripture, it does not become a living being until after it has taken a breath.
The Bible is pro-choice, as should be most limited government conservatives.
- Joined
- 20 May 16
- Moves
- 41665
12 Oct 22
@wildgrass saidBoth babies at the same point of growth and development at the time of the first being pulled out. One is a baby as per, and so is the other. Why is this concept so hard for you to understand?
Yes. It's basic embryology. Why's the concept so hard to understand?
Fertilization -> blastocyst -> embryo -> fetus -> human -> corpse
Every step before 'human' on the timeline is a potential human.
12 Oct 22
@mike69 saidRight. That's just the medical terminology. But.. are you agreeing there's a difference between a fetus and a human? Generally speaking it's a fetus until it's born.
Both babies at the same point of growth and development at the time of the first being pulled out. One is a baby as per, and so is the other. Why is this concept so hard for you to understand?
Legally, the Supreme Court tried to clear it up 50 years ago based on potential human life. It appears to be re-muddled now.
Morally, I don't know. This forum doesn't do so well with morality. Although religious scholars have long argued that life begins at breath, until recently of course when it's become hyper-politicized.
12 Oct 22
@wildgrass saidActually, the Bible is quite irrelevant to the issue, I just put that in for a little color. So you are saying that this thing inside the mother… the only reason it is not a baby is because it is not breathing. Is that correct??Again, we are talking about a tangible presence here on the earth, its status not guided by any laws or biblical references. It is a tangible blob, that we are trying to figure out when it becomes a baby.
I expected by "prove" you had something other than a question mark based on a hypothetical birth.
I haven't been to Bible study in awhile, but I'm 100% certain there's a bunch of passages in the Bible that say that life begins at first breath.
There is nothing I'm aware of in the bible to indicate that a fetus is considered to be anything other than living tissue and, ...[text shortened]... has taken a breath.
The Bible is pro-choice, as should be most limited government conservatives.
12 Oct 22
@averagejoe1 saidYes, breath is the metric laid out in the Bible and used to define life for millenia.
Actually, the Bible is quite irrelevant to the issue, I just put that in for a little color. So you are saying that this thing inside the mother… the only reason it is not a baby is because it is not breathing. Is that correct??Again, we are talking about a tangible presence here on the earth, its status not guided by any laws or biblical references. It is a tangible blob, that we are trying to figure out when it becomes a baby.
12 Oct 22
@mike69 saidI think their next gambit will be to say something about one has been pulled out and one has not, which distinguishes one being a baby or not. Unbelievable.
Both babies at the same point of growth and development at the time of the first being pulled out. One is a baby as per, and so is the other. Why is this concept so hard for you to understand?
12 Oct 22
@averagejoe1 saidIn that case what's the point of your twins analogy?
My apologies for interjecting the Bible. King David set me off on that. The Bible has nothing to do with this discussion. If that were the case, then we would have to bring the Koran into all this.🙃
12 Oct 22
@wildgrass saidYou mentioned a fetus, and a human. But we are talking about a baby. We are trying to find the baby in all of this. Did I see you just jump from fetus to human, and leave the baby out?!?!?? Liberal-eze at its finest. But u r not a liberal.
Right. That's just the medical terminology. But.. are you agreeing there's a difference between a fetus and a human? Generally speaking it's a fetus until it's born.
Legally, the Supreme Court tried to clear it up 50 years ago based on potential human life. It appears to be re-muddled now.
Morally, I don't know. This forum doesn't do so well with morality. Although re ...[text shortened]... long argued that life begins at breath, until recently of course when it's become hyper-politicized.
12 Oct 22
@wildgrass saidTo restate, they are both identical in every way, and y’all Pointed out that one starts to breathe a couple hours before the other. That is their only difference. So how can you call one a baby and one not a baby.?
In that case what's the point of your twins analogy?
Why make this so difficult, it is so easy I am laughing as I say this!😆