Save part of the children

What's the difference?

Ending a hunan life is ending a human life

What's the difference?

Somewhere between mama's teats and being unable to lift its head to even suckle means toddlers cannot.

Tell that to any mother of a two year old 😄

Follow the science...

You haven't described a difference in the two human lives.

The womb is an incubator.

Are babies in incubators fair game since they cannot survive on their own?

Just laying there, soaking up resources, time, and energy.

Not on it's own.

What happened, that whole Stand with Palestine fad losing steam.

Almost none of those memes suddenly and a deluge of baby murder and crossdressing...

Kinda sad...like y'all forgot all about the Beggar of Kyiv and got poor Zelensky struggling to stay relevant so he can get more handouts to keep his people dying for...uh...?

Zygote: This cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo). The expression fertilized ovum refers to a secondary oocyte that is impregnated by a sperm; when fertilization is complete, the oocyte becomes a zygote.

How many have there been?

Oh! I get it now. You have really opened my eyes.

What do I do now?

Is there a club I can join?

Do I fill out a form?

Is there a t-shirt for donating just 95¢ a day?

Can I just show up and be sworn in at the next let's murder babies rally?

Do I bring my own sign or will one be provided?

What about refreshments?

Enough of your nonsense and obfuscation.

What you are advocating and celebrating is immoral and should not be legal.

You're probably worried about climate change ending humanity when it will be caused by reproduction rates.

It is illegal to kill a toddler because it is a human being.

It is also illegal to neglect a toddler.

Argue that a woman should have autonomy over her body and that the toddler is separate tissue no longer in need of your body to survive and see it that gets you off the hook.

A judge would likely add time to your sentence.

You've given your TikTok "science" justifications for murdering babies in the womb, now I have a few questions regarding your advocacy for the snuffing out human life:

1) You agree that initially the embryo is alive - yes/no?

2) What is/are your MORAL reason(s) for advocating baby murder?

3) What do YOU get out of legal baby murder?

The biological line of existence of each individual, without exception begins precisely when fertilization of the egg is successful. The process of fertilization actually begins with conditioning of the spermatozoon in the male and female reproductive tracts.

It does.

That it does not is something y'all dreamed up to assuage your guilt for murdering your babies.

^5

If birthed babies are full humans why can't they survive outside the womb on their own?

To accept the fact that, after fertilization takes place, a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion… The human nature of the human being from conception to old age is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence. Follow the science

Individualism is a quality that distinctly belongs to humans. We each hold a one-of-a-kind genetic identity through our DNA that remains the same throughout our lives. Upon fertilization, genes provide a blueprint for the body, made of a four-letter nucleotide code (A-G-C-T). Considering each cell in the body contains 3,200,000,000 nucleotide pairs, multiplying that by at least 20,000 genes, the human body is truly unlike any other from the moment of conception.

How can they?

They go to the store, buy food, cook it, consume it?

How does the newborn eat?

With scientific advances that can now provide a window into the womb, we are able to recognize many ways a child responds to sensation well before birth:

They like to sleep in the womb while their mother is awake, as the movement rocks them to sleep
They feel the mother’s emotions at the same level of intensity
Babies remember and gain comfort after birth from specific music that was played to them in the womb
Signs of stress and nervous movement appear when the mother is smoking
A cold glass of water makes them shiver
They have hiccups as early as the first trimester
They develop taste buds and lifelong food preferences
Months before birth, the whole body becomes sensitive enough to feel a single hair brushing across it
If there are twins, they begin interacting in specific and planned ways with one another after only three weeks in the womb

The NIH does not publish talking points they publish what they considered to be factual try again

It is wrong to kill biological human beings like the unborn.
The unborn are persons with a right to life.
You and I were once embryos, and it always wrong to kill us.
Abortion deprives the unborn of a future-like-ours
Abortion unjustly impairs a being’s development.

Do you really think the NIH would publish an article that they did not believe was absolutely factual? Follow the science, Lefty..

If it was an opinion it wouldn't be published by the NIH. Try harder

Biologically the human embryo is undoubtedly human; it has human chromosomes derived from human gametes. It is also undoubtedly alive - a new active individual human organism from the moment of fertilisation exhibiting respiration, growth, reproduction, excretion and nutrition.

How many potential artists philosophers doctors lawyers have been murdered in their mother's womb because they were considered to be inconvenient?

Murdering a human in its mother's womb is despicable and barbaric and will be looked upon by Future Generations as an embarrassing horrific episode in human history

How do you equate murdering babies in the womb with a woman being "property"?

killing newborns is immoral. And if what makes killing newborns wrong is that it deprives them of a “future like ours” (even if they don’t have a self-conscious personal experience that will continue into the future), then this will also make it wrong to kill nearly all unborn humans, because they have a FLO as well. Granted, it may not explain why it is wrong to directly kill terminally ill unborn children who will die shortly after birth (and not have a FLO), but it would explain why almost all abortions are immoral.

Additionally, nerve cells form within three weeks of fertilization, a factor that could answer the question, “do preborn babies feel pain?” To that point, some states have recently been implementing legislation to administer anesthesia to the baby during an abortion procedure – a method that would not make sense if it were just a mere clump of cells instead of a living being with human feelings and sensations.

No matter how one looks at it, abortion is murder.

The science of embryology states that from the moment of conception, a human being is formed. The DNA it has is not only human DNA but the DNA of an individual distinct from that of either parent. In forensic criminology DNA is used to distinguish one person from another. So the DNA of an embryo indicates that the embryo is a person.

You think you have the right to murder babies at will.

Believe this - if I had control over what women do with their bodies we'd be making babies not murdering them.

what is the philosophical standard of personhood? The dictionary defines it as, “the state or fact of being an individual; having human characteristics and feelings.” Similarities and differences both prove personhood – having the same systems, structures and sensations as humans while simultaneously possessing uniqueness. Do preborn children hold those same human qualities? Absolutely

perhaps the most defining characteristic of a human starts at just five weeks: the heart begins beating. Following the same logic as when someone is declared dead after the heart stops, wouldn’t it only be fair to say that life, at the very least, begins once the heart starts beating?

You are mistaken.

Embryos are living human beings.

It is and it is.

Yes it is a baby.

At later stages of development it can survive outside the womb.

Can a three year old survive on it's own?

You have no point other than you are an advocate for murdering babies.

My point is, why stop there?

A baby is a parasitic clump of cells until they move out in their own, and often even beyond then.

So toss that ridiculous argument unless you want to allow parents to murder their lazy, unambitious, eatin up all the food, money "borrowing" parasitic children.

You are going to just act cagey.

A three year old CAN NOT survive on it's own. It requires hands on care and observation from another person.

To use your phrase - a three year old is a "parasitic clump of cells".

There is no evidence from anywhere in the world of newborns being tossed out in the wild and surviving on their own.

But, instead of murdering them you can birth them and someone else will gladly assume the responsibility of your irresponsibility.

Stop pretending to be dense.

I have made the same clear and concise statement.

Left unattended a toddler will die.

Does me acknowledging them not having to be physically touching ANOTHER human being make it any more understandable to you?

Let's try that...

ALTHOUGH, a toddler does not have to be physically touching another human being in the same manner that an embryo does, the toddler will die without 24 hour supervision and care from another human being EXACTLY the same as an embryo.

Now, you say that a toddler requires the care described or they will fail to thrive and cease to live.

And then, explain why that is a crime and murdering them in the womb is not.

A FERTILIZED egg cell IS human life.

You refuse to admit that infants, toddlers, adolescents, require 24 hour care from another human being and that they will die without that care from another human being.

You're slippin'...you have stated several times now that an embryo has to be connected to ANOTHER human being.

🤭
You've said the quiet part out loud and admitted an embryo is a human being. Hehehehehe

They do.

Toddlers require 24 hours supervision and care.

Ask any mother, social worker, police officer, family court judge.

You are spewing nonsense.

At conception, the genotype—the inherited characteristics of an individual human being—is established and will remain in force for the entire life of this individual.

Actually what you have depicted is a rabbit embryo. And if you were a pregnant rabbit and wanted to murder your own bunny in your womb you would be committing an atrocity.

Oh, so that person was NOT above chicanery!!!

😄😄😄

You can't guarantee that. It's an assumption. Just as it is your assumption that a embryo can have human DNA and not be a human

🙄 What goes on inside their heads?

No it's not a fact. It's an assumption you have no idea what I know and what I do not know. That's the problem with liberals. They believe their assumptions are facts.

I've seen the photo before and past failed arguments with bloodthirsty degenerates who support abortion. Again that is a failed assumption of yours.

Abortion is one of the most significant wrongs of our time. Children’s lives are lost before they take a breath. Women’s rights are being struck down rather than revered. They are told they can’t embrace their biology, that they aren’t capable of simultaneously carrying their dreams and their child. No one is empowered through abortion, because it isn’t presented as a choice. Loss of life through abortion must come to an end for the 63 million taken.

What else could it be?

Surely you wouldn't try to have a "GOTCHA" moment by posting an image of a pig embryo as ​you are above such chicanery.

Lots of animals looks very similar to humans in the early stages of development.

I absolutely, unequivocally say this:

"From conception and forevermore, it is a living human being."

The law agrees with my view of "from conception and forevermore" as evidenced by statutes that would charge me with the MURDER of an UNBORN CHILD if I assaulted a woman at ANY stage of pregnancy and she subsequently has a miscarriage.

Even IF that woman was on her way to have an abortion when I assaulted her.

I introduced the caveat that she was on her way to get an abortion.

Where you ever a baby?

Just like every living human being in the embryonic stage.

And now here you are saying it's okay to murder people just like yourself...younger than yourself...hopefully not just like you and wanting to murder babies.

Then at several points of your infancy YOU were indistinguishable from a pig, a cat, a rat, an ocelot, you name it, embryo.

What happened?

the developmental and embryologic science clearly demonstrates that the preborn are wholly living individuals of our species (homo sapiens) from the earliest stage of development.

With that, wouldn’t the preborn just be in a different phase of life, just as a newborn differs from a child who differs from an adult? People of every age should inherently hold the same value, without threat to their status of personhood and the human rights that go with it.

we are in a world where millions are spent on marketing abortion to women as “empowerment” from corporations that have everything to gain. Even doctors can be misled on abortion – look at former abortionists like Doctors Anthony Levatino, Kathi Aultman and Patti Giebink. The pro-life movement’s job, especially in a world where Roe is overturned, is to rally around women pre and post-birth. They don’t have to feel like abortion is the only option. Instead, we can lovingly provide hopeful alternatives (such as the adoption option). Give women real choices.

Why is abortion granted a higher power? Why does bodily autonomy apply for one person instead of both? There are a few pro-choice answers. One is that the mother possesses the right to abort because of the child’s dependency on the mother’s body for survival/existence. However, that argument is nullified when considering the many people post-birth who are dependent on others. For example, a toddler’s wellbeing is contingent on its parents, as well as an adult with Alzheimer’s on their caretaker or even a quadriplegic on their doctor. Even if one doesn’t believe they’re bound to take care of someone else, it does not grant them the right to take another’s life.