Great TED Talks vid: Human life from conception to birth

_{Denyse O'Leary

November 15, 2011

Biology, News, Video}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Comments

Oh the ole 'its true for you but not for me gambit?' :)
Absolute Truth - Frank Turek - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VaGNRP6Q-6Q
and to which this bear repeating:
If I were to show ~~Tantalus~~ Bruce David a human embryo, and ask him “what is this”, meaning in a biological taxonomy sense, the only correct answer is that it is a human being- a homo sapien. There is no debate about this. It is analogous to showing Tantalus my dog, and asking him what this is, in a biological-taxonomy sense. There is only one answer: Canis lupus familiaris. A domestic dog. That’s it. It’s not a cat or a tree. There’s no debate. There are no opinions, only correct answers and incorrect answers. Failure to answer correctly is evidence of ignorance or dishonesty. – Michael Egnor, professor of neurosurgery at SUNY, Stony Brook
relevant quote:
Truth is the first casualty of war: Excerpt: Every war proceeds along this path. Those who stand to be killed, dismembered, and dispossessed, are demonized (i.e. dehumanized),,,, Only later are the stories revealed to be gross exaggerations, often outright fabrications. http://www.mediamonitors.net/gowans13.html
Poem:
All Things Bright And Beautiful - Canon In D - Pachebel http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4082996/
bornagain77_{November 18, 2011
November
11
Nov
18
18
2011
03:24 PM
3
03
24
PM
PDT}

The difference, Bornagain, is that I only claim that my beliefs are true for me. You two insist that yours are true absolutely. My basic point in beginning this thread was that different people can have legitimate differences of opinion regarding what constitutes a human being, and thus whether abortion is murder or not. In this whole discussion, you have both been attempting to prove that you are right and I am wrong, whereas I have simply been defending my stance that I and others have equally valid opinions as you two do. This is a common pattern in all our debates. You and StephenB fight tooth and nail to prove that you are right, and I simply defend the proposition that my beliefs constitute a legitimate and valid intellectual/spiritual/philosophical position. This, by the way, is why you always lose. You assume the burden of proving that which is unprovable.Bruce David_{November 18, 2011
November
11
Nov
18
18
2011
02:56 PM
2
02
56
PM
PDT}

So Bruce, you will not accept evidence against your a priori convictions (paragraph 1), but you will accept evidence for them (paragraph 2)??? How conveniently dogmatic of you! Oh wait, according to you that is what me and StephenB are suppose to be; :) and I guess that is not up for countermanding evidence either :)bornagain77_{November 18, 2011
November
11
Nov
18
18
2011
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PDT}

Correction to 19.1.1.1.2: I should have said that I take it as true a priori that a human being is a soul conjoined with a HUMAN body.Bruce David_{November 18, 2011
November
11
Nov
18
18
2011
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PDT}

StephenB: Not every belief is subject to evidence. Some beliefs are held as a priori convictions. And certainly it is disingenuous to ask what argument would persuade me that I am wrong. Obviously, if I have thought it through carefully (which I have), there isn't any of which I am aware. So, my statement that a human being is a soul conjoined with a body is a priori, not subject to evidence, and there is no argument of which I am aware that would cause me to change my mind about that. (Although I don't on principle rule out the possibility that someone could advance such an argument. I just can't tell you what it would be.) That said, I will restate the evidence which leads me to believe that the soul doesn't join the body until the brain is sufficiently developed to receive it. The evidence is primarily from the books "Journey of Souls" and "Destiny of Souls", by Michael Newton, in which several people under hypnosis relate the process of having been born into their current incarnation, and this is what they report. Also, it makes sense to me that an incoming soul would not merge with the body until there is a developed brain with which to merge. To do so would have them trapped in a body with basically nothing to do for several months. Why would they do that? So, if the evidence from those books were different, I would have a different idea of the process. But it isn't, so I don't.Bruce David_{November 18, 2011
November
11
Nov
18
18
2011
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT}

The point is that you did not provide an honest answer to an honest question. I asked you what arguments or what kind of evidence would convince you that you are wrong. You simply told me what you believe to be true. That doesn't speak to my question at all. Why couldn't you just be honest enough to say, "No amount of evidence or no kind of argument could ever persuade me that I am wrong."StephenB_{November 17, 2011
November
11
Nov
17
17
2011
11:04 PM
11
11
04
PM
PDT}

No you have not. see 11bornagain77_{November 17, 2011
November
11
Nov
17
17
2011
07:57 PM
7
07
57
PM
PDT}

Convenience is not and never has been a test of truth.Bruce David_{November 17, 2011
November
11
Nov
17
17
2011
07:55 PM
7
07
55
PM
PDT}

You already dredged up this quote, and I already answered it. See 4.1 and following.Bruce David_{November 17, 2011
November
11
Nov
17
17
2011
07:52 PM
7
07
52
PM
PDT}

Of related interest:
Follow the Stem Cell Money - November 2011 Excerpt: “At long last after 10 years of unremitting hype, reality has caught up with embryonic stem cell claims,” Josephine Quintavalle from Comment on Reproductive Ethics said. “If Geron is abandoning this project it is because it is simply not working, despite the millions of dollars and hot air that has been invested in the promotion of this research.”,,, Adult stem cells race ahead: Meanwhile, Azellon Cell Therapeutics got a funding windfall for its clinical trials on a “Stem Cell Bandage” therapy, which uses a patient’s own stem cells from bone marrow to repair torn knees and other injuries. Investors seem keen on putting their money where the real hope is. http://crev.info/content/111115-follow_the_stem_cell_money
bornagain77_{November 17, 2011
November
11
Nov
17
17
2011
06:12 PM
6
06
12
PM
PDT}

That should read, "their survival rate, whatever it is, has nothing to do with their biological status as human beings."StephenB_{November 17, 2011
November
11
Nov
17
17
2011
05:07 PM
5
05
07
PM
PDT}

I understand. No amount of evidence or no kind of argument could ever convince you that you are wrong because you have conveniently defined a human being by standards that cannot be measured or ascertained, which means that you are impervious to all evidence and all arguments.StephenB_{November 17, 2011
November
11
Nov
17
17
2011
05:04 PM
5
05
04
PM
PDT}

DrREC: "So the 1/2 of all fertilized embryos that fail to implant are human beings." It's more like 20-30%, I think, although that number might also include unnatural deaths due to chemicals, but yes, they are biologically human. Inasmuch as their sex is determined prior to implantation, it should be obvious that their humanity has already been confirmed, unless, of course, you think it is possible for a living thing to be a male or a female nothing. In any case, their survival rate, whatever it is, have to do with the fact of their biological status as human beings?StephenB_{November 17, 2011
November
11
Nov
17
17
2011
04:35 PM
4
04
35
PM
PDT}

And yet:
If I were to show ~~Tantalus~~ Bruce David a human embryo, and ask him “what is this”, meaning in a biological taxonomy sense, the only correct answer is that it is a human being- a homo sapien. There is no debate about this. It is analogous to showing Tantalus my dog, and asking him what this is, in a biological-taxonomy sense. There is only one answer: Canis lupus familiaris. A domestic dog. That’s it. It’s not a cat or a tree. There’s no debate. There are no opinions, only correct answers and incorrect answers. Failure to answer correctly is evidence of ignorance or dishonesty. - Michael Egnor, professor of neurosurgery at SUNY, Stony Brook
bornagain77_{November 17, 2011
November
11
Nov
17
17
2011
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PDT}

OK so your position is men do not have any reproductive rights. And perhaps men and women should think of what you said BEFORE having sex. But I guess that is too much to ask.Joseph_{November 17, 2011
November
11
Nov
17
17
2011
03:44 PM
3
03
44
PM
PDT}

I've already answered that a couple of times. See 4.1.1.1 for details. The short answer is, a human being is a human body conjoined with a soul. The body by itself, absent the soul, to me is not a human being.Bruce David_{November 17, 2011
November
11
Nov
17
17
2011
03:17 PM
3
03
17
PM
PDT}

StephenB, Given, then, that you reject the testimony of scientists themselves regarding what is and is not scientific fact, what I'm left with is that you want me to accept what is and is not scientific fact entirely on your say so. Forgive me if I decline that invitation.Bruce David_{November 17, 2011
November
11
Nov
17
17
2011
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PDT}

That is quite a bunch twisted into a few sentences. Seems you are reservedly agreeing with the scientific fact that human life begins at conception, but then you seem to be advancing a 'bad design' argument in order to justify the morality (or lack thereof) of taking of that human life by abortionists?!? (Each of those points alone is worthy of a book),, You then go on to make a sweeping claim as to the supposedly 'horrid consequences' of accepting the scientific fact that human life begins at conception. But I have to ask on the other hand, in your atheistic zeal to protect the 'right' to take human life through abortion, have you ever once even considered the consequences of 50 million aborted babies in America?
Consequences of Abortion Economic Consequences of Abortion • Less than zero population growth: Not enough skilled workers to support the elderly on Social Security — partly as a result of abortion in America.[6] Physical Consequences of Abortion • Tremendous increase in the level of promiscuity and sexually transmitted diseases.[6] • Fifth leading cause of maternal death in the United States.[6] • An increased risk of breast, cervical, ovarian and liver cancer.[6] • Complications, such as uterine perforation, cervical laceration, and placenta previa can not only cause very severe problems, but they can also lead to problems in future pregnancies, such as miscarriages, premature births, fetal deaths and children born with handicaps, because any problem or change with a woman's reproductive organs may affect the development of her children.[6] • Infection, including pelvic inflammatory disease, occur in 30% of abortions; if not stopped soon enough, they can leave a woman barren.[6] • Ectopic pregnancies-pregnancies developing in the tube-are increasing because sometimes the uterus is scarred and the fertilized egg, the zygote, cannot get down the tube into the uterus and implant. There's scar tissue there from scraping during previous abortions.[6] • Up to 127% risk for premature births in subsequent pregnancies; the rate is higher with multiple abortions. • 2% of women who have abortions suffer life threatening complications, such as bleeding, fever, infections, etc.,[6] • After reviewing thousands of cases, Life Dynamics, Inc., found that injuries and deaths at the hands of abortionists "are not accidents." They are "the result of a persistent callous disregard for human life" -- the baby's and the mother's.[30] • A growing body of research that shows a definite link between abortion and breast cancer. The risk increases when a hormonally normal pregnancy is terminated before 32 weeks. Although abortion advocates picture themselves as being primarily concerned with women's health, they have covered up this information.[12] Click here to view two case histories Psychological Consequences of Abortion • Diminished respect for human life.[6] • Denial: A sense of relief followed by repressed guilt, sadness, and grieving at the death of the aborted baby that would be a woman's natural, feminine feelings and emotions.[6] • More than 100 different psychological reactions including alcoholism, smoking, drug abuse, eating disorders, sexual addictions, and self-destructive behavior.[15] • Post abortion syndrome -- a series of psychological effects experienced by 19% to 60% of women, ranging from mild depression to suicide or attempted suicide.[6] • Overwhelming feelings of regret or guilt during later pregnancies.[6] • Flashbacks and nightmares.[6] • Destruction of trust between men and women. • Increased rates of divorce, domestic violence and child abuse.[6] • Feelings of guilt or regret among fathers of aborted children. "... fathers experience the same negative post-abortion reactions that women do: anger, depression, guilt, and broken relationships. ... No matter how you look at it, a male who pushes a female into an abortion knows he's taking the coward's way out. And a female who goes along with the decision will grieve over it for the rest of her life." -- Men and Abortion by Wayne Brauning, leader of Men's Abortion Recovery Ministries[25] All About the Aftermath of Abortion Click here for the Elliott Institute: After Abortion Review web site • [The knowledge] that abortion kills a child, was discovered too late for millions of women. They are now speaking out, describing the pain and life-long regret of their abortions and the damage that this choice visited on them and their families. Their testimonies speak louder than the seven male justices' opinions in Roe that treated abortion as something good and necessary for women.[44] http://www.straight-talk.net/abortion/consequences.shtml
bornagain77_{November 17, 2011
November
11
Nov
17
17
2011
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PDT}

By the way, Bruce, my question persists: What arguments or evidence for the humanity of the baby would you accept?StephenB_{November 17, 2011
November
11
Nov
17
17
2011
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT}

Yes, really. If I am looking inside a woman's womb via technology and I see a baby sucking its thumb, or, for that matter, fighting for its life, I would know without a doubt that it is not a chimp. Would you be inclined to suspect otherwise?StephenB_{November 17, 2011
November
11
Nov
17
17
2011
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT}

---Bruce: "Very little in science rises to the level of “fact”. It is a fact that technology can discern the fetus' sex prior to implantation, which means that its humanity is already confirmed. ---"Therefore, if the proposition that a human EMBRYO is a human BEING is a scientific fact, as you claim, then every scientist, or at least every biologist, will affirm it as such. It therefore follows that if the proposition were fact, then virtually every biologist would be pro-life, since they would all clearly recognize that abortion is murder." Your logic here is flawed in two ways: First, not everyone is willing to recognize a fact as a fact, as your testimony makes clear. Second, some pro-choice organizations acknowledge that a fetus is biologically human and are quite happy to kill it anyway. Do you want examples? ---"Given that there are plenty of pro-choice biologists, your assertion is clearly false. Q.E.D." That does not follow at all. As indicated, one can be aware that a fetus is a human being and still be pro-choice.StephenB_{November 17, 2011
November
11
Nov
17
17
2011
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT}

Joseph, If you have a pregnant woman who wants to abort a fetus and man who wants to stop her, that's a problem beyond wisdom or legislation. Unless they can come to an agreement, there are only two solutions. 1) The man loses, 2) you force the woman to carry the child. And then she demands parental rights anyway. And then in ten years when they're fighting over custody the father fights dirty and shows the kid paperwork explaining how his mother had to be legally prevented from aborting him. Then the child is scarred for life (but at least alive.) The only real solution is for people to want to do what's right. But you can only legislate what people do. Laws don't make better people any more than guardrails make better drivers. And if you can't make better people then you're always going to have problems without solutions.ScottAndrews2_{November 17, 2011
November
11
Nov
17
17
2011
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT}

StephenB: Here's another response. You obviously believe that when you look at an embryo "fighting for its life", you know what you are looking at: a human being, and that this is "scientific fact", as you have stated earlier. Let's examine that proposition a little. Very little in science rises to the level of "fact". When something does, say the proposition that the planets circle the sun, virtually every scientist accepts it as fact. Therefore, if the proposition that a human EMBRYO is a human BEING is a scientific fact, as you claim, then every scientist, or at least every biologist, will affirm it as such. It therefore follows that if the proposition were fact, then virtually every biologist would be pro-life, since they would all clearly recognize that abortion is murder. Given that there are plenty of pro-choice biologists, your assertion is clearly false. Q.E.D.Bruce David_{November 17, 2011
November
11
Nov
17
17
2011
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT}

Bruce, I call em as I see em!! Moreover, I gave up on 'changing your mind' months ago!!!,,, For instance, I see that you have, many times before, denied the existence of evil and hell, (clearly because of the extreme unpleasantness the thought of them invoke in you (as they do all of us)), and have custom tailored your very own 'personal' religion to accord with that denialist belief. Your religion is some sort of pantheistic hybrid that continually morphs into new forms of personal beliefs, depending on which debate you currently find yourself to be in, or on which set of facts of reality you happen to get nailed with by a theist. That is a brute fact as to how I see your ever plastic beliefs in these debates!!! And while I can sympathize with your extreme distaste for evil and hell, I cannot broker your twisting of all 'inconvenient' facts that may come along to accord with that 'preferred' imaginary belief that you have chosen to believe in,, no matter what the facts may say to the contrary. Denialism at all costs, of the reality of evil and hell, is not a recognized religion in my book!!! notes (for others); Since the reality of evil is overwhelmingly self evident to the vast majority of reasonable people, I will instead focus on the fact that the reality we witness, from our own perspective in the grand scheme of things, conforms to what we would expect to see if hell after death were indeed a real possibility: ,,,Time, as we understand it, comes to a complete stop at the speed of light. To grasp the whole 'time coming to a complete stop at the speed of light' concept a little more easily, imagine moving away from the face of a clock at the speed of light. Would not the hands on the clock stay stationary as you moved away from the face of the clock at the speed of light? Moving away from the face of a clock at the speed of light happens to be the same 'thought experiment' that gave Einstein his breakthrough insight into e=mc2.
Albert Einstein - Special Relativity - Insight Into Eternity - 'thought experiment' video http://www.metacafe.com/w/6545941/ "I've just developed a new theory of eternity." Albert Einstein - The Einstein Factor - Reader's Digest "The laws of relativity have changed timeless existence from a theological claim to a physical reality. Light, you see, is outside of time, a fact of nature proven in thousands of experiments at hundreds of universities. I don’t pretend to know how tomorrow can exist simultaneously with today and yesterday. But at the speed of light they actually and rigorously do. Time does not pass." Richard Swenson - More Than Meets The Eye, Chpt. 12
Yet we have two very different qualities of ‘eternality of time’ revealed by our time dilation experiments;
Time dilation Excerpt: Time dilation: special vs. general theories of relativity: In Albert Einstein's theories of relativity, time dilation in these two circumstances can be summarized: 1. --In special relativity (or, hypothetically far from all gravitational mass), clocks that are moving with respect to an inertial system of observation are measured to be running slower. (i.e. For any observer accelerating, hypothetically, to the speed of light, time, as we understand it, will come to a complete stop). 2.--In general relativity, clocks at lower potentials in a gravitational field—such as in closer proximity to a planet—are found to be running slower. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation
i.e. As with any observer accelerating to the speed of light, it is found that for any observer falling into the event horizon of a black hole, that time, as we understand it, will come to a complete stop for them. — But of particular interest to the ‘eternal framework’ found for General Relativity at black holes;… It is interesting to note that entropic decay (Randomness), which is the primary reason why things grow old and eventually die in this universe, is found to be greatest at black holes. Thus the ‘eternality of time’ at black holes can rightly, and 'scientifically', be called ‘eternalities of decay' and/or 'eternalities of destruction’.
Entropy of the Universe - Hugh Ross - May 2010 Excerpt: Egan and Lineweaver found that supermassive black holes are the largest contributor to the observable universe’s entropy. They showed that these supermassive black holes contribute about 30 times more entropy than what the previous research teams estimated. Roger Penrose – How Special Was The Big Bang? “But why was the big bang so precisely organized, whereas the big crunch (or the singularities in black holes) would be expected to be totally chaotic? It would appear that this question can be phrased in terms of the behaviour of the WEYL part of the space-time curvature at space-time singularities. What we appear to find is that there is a constraint WEYL = 0 (or something very like this) at initial space-time singularities-but not at final singularities-and this seems to be what confines the Creator’s choice to this very tiny region of phase space."
As well we have two different curvatures of space time. One curvature occurs as one approaches the speed of light; i.e. we find that along with time ‘folding in on itself’, to become a higher dimensional ‘eternal now’ framework of time, we find that space also, dramatically, folds in on itself as a observer approaches the speed of light. The 3:22 minute mark of the following video shows the 3-Dimensional world ‘folding and collapsing’ into a tunnel shape, (much like a sheet of paper folding and collapsing into a tunnel shape), around the direction of travel, as a ‘hypothetical’ observer moves towards the higher dimension of the speed of light, (Of note: This following video was made by two Australian University Physics Professors with a supercomputer.)
Traveling At The Speed Of Light – Optical Effects – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5733303/
Here is the interactive website, with link to the relativistic math at the bottom of the page, related to the preceding video;
Seeing Relativity http://www.anu.edu.au/Physics/Searle/
As well we have a 'tunnel curvature' to a eternal 'event horizon' at black holes;
Space-Time of a Black hole http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0VOn9r4dq8
i.e. To reiterate, Black Holes are found to be ‘timeless/eternal’ singularities of destruction and disorder rather than singularities of creation and order, such as the extreme creation and order we see at the creation event of the Big Bang. Needless to say, the implications of this ‘eternality of destruction’ should be fairly disturbing for those of us who are of a ‘spiritually minded' persuasion!
Matthew 10:28 “Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
Moreover we have 'eye witness' testimony of tunnel experiences for both the transition to heaven,,,
Near Death Experience – The Tunnel, The Light, The Life Review – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4200200/
and to hell. The man at the beginning of this video gives testimony of a 'tunnel' in the transition stage from this world to hell:
Hell - A Warning! - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4131476/
This man also speaks of a tunnel in his transition to hell:
Bill Wiese on Sid Roth - video http://vimeo.com/21230371
further note:
The NDE and the Tunnel - Kevin Williams' research conclusions Excerpt: I started to move toward the light. The way I moved, the physics, was completely different than it is here on Earth. It was something I had never felt before and never felt since. It was a whole different sensation of motion. I obviously wasn't walking or skipping or crawling. I was not floating. I was flowing. I was flowing toward the light. I was accelerating and I knew I was accelerating, but then again, I didn't really feel the acceleration. I just knew I was accelerating toward the light. Again, the physics was different - the physics of motion of time, space, travel. It was completely different in that tunnel, than it is here on Earth. I came out into the light and when I came out into the light, I realized that I was in heaven.(Barbara Springer) 'In the 'spirit world,,, instantly, there was no sense of time. See, everything on earth is related to time. You got up this morning, you are going to go to bed tonight. Something is new, it will get old. Something is born, it's going to die. Everything on the physical plane is relative to time, but everything in the spiritual plane is relative to eternity. Instantly I was in total consciousness and awareness of eternity, and you and I as we live in this earth cannot even comprehend it, because everything that we have here is filled within the veil of the temporal life. In the spirit life that is more real than anything else and it is awesome. Eternity as a concept is awesome. There is no such thing as time. I knew that whatever happened was going to go on and on.' Mickey Robinson - Near Death Experience testimony Does Quantum Biology Support A Quantum Soul? – Stuart Hameroff – video (notes in description) http://vimeo.com/29895068
bornagain77_{November 17, 2011
November
11
Nov
17
17
2011
12:19 PM
12
12
19
PM
PDT}

Oh, really? So you're saying that you can distinguish between, say a human embryo and a chimp embryo just by looking. Remarkable!Bruce David_{November 17, 2011
November
11
Nov
17
17
2011
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT}

Nice use of ridicule. Taking a page from the Darwinist book of debate tactics, I see.Bruce David_{November 17, 2011
November
11
Nov
17
17
2011
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT}

Thanks, Bruce David. I think you've laid out some interesting thoughts and I appreciate you giving your opinion -- definitely worth thinking about. I'm not familiar with Newton's books, but perhaps will check them out if I get time. I think you've made a decent case that the position that human life begins at the moment of conception is not iron clad. That said, I think there are definitely some good reasons for choosing that timeframe as opposed to others. Ultimately, however, I agree that it is a difficult issue worthy of serious discussion, rather than name-calling and accusations of dishonesty. I hope you'll continue to share your thoughts, and that this thread won't sour you on the whole experience.Eric Anderson_{November 17, 2011
November
11
Nov
17
17
2011
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PDT}

So the 1/2 of all fertilized embryos that fail to implant are human beings? If so, this is the single largest cause of mortality ever. Perhaps we should screen our toilets, and have a mass donor program. No one, not even you, treats every fertilized egg as fully human, nor are you prepared for the consequences of doing so.DrREC_{November 17, 2011
November
11
Nov
17
17
2011
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT}

---"That is “magnetic resonance imaging.” At least you’re consistant in your lack of scientific or medical knowledge. Also, the images you’re thinking of are ultrasounds or direct imaging. Also, the images you’re thinking of are ultrasounds or direct imaging." Fetology involves the use of both MRI's and ultrasounds. Everything turns on the purpose for doing the scanning. Resonance is the more common word, but "resource" is used occasionally. There is a difference between medical practice and medical research and there is a difference between looking a static picture and watching activity in real time. The ultrasound is better for the latter but it doesn't reveal as much detail. ---"One point not made here is that a fertilized egg has a CHANCE of becoming a human. That is, if it implants, doesn’t spontaneously abort, and develops normally." That isn't a "point," it is an opinion, and a false one at that. I have explained WHY human life begins at conception. Now it is time for you to answer those points and try explain WHY you think a human being is not present at conception. You need to tell us how the "it" can develop as a human if it is not already a human. That will require some thinking. Are you up to it.StephenB_{November 17, 2011
November
11
Nov
17
17
2011
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT}

Bornagain, do you honestly believe that refusing to address what I wrote and instead simply hurling insults actually forwards the conversation in any useful way? Do you think there is any chance such a response will change MY mind? Do you think it will have any useful effect on anyone reading this post who isn't already firmly in your camp? What is your purpose for writing such invective?Bruce David_{November 17, 2011
November
11
Nov
17
17
2011
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply