Abortion is the leading cause of death during the pandemic, killing 37 million

[BADecker]

Embryos are not babies, having said that @BADecker don't you think it's appropriate for women to abort some babies?
Don't you think the world at large is over populated?

Please I need constructive criticism, that's if you want to criticize. don't come from the religious field.

What's your take?

A child is not an adult. So what? You can tell by the chromosomes that they are all stages in a life of a human being. Kill a human at any stage of his life, and it is still murder.

World population is presently not near being a problem.

Since you are coming from the religious field with your questions, how can I answer them without the religious field? Only if you know for an absolute fact that what you say is absolute truth... only then might it start to deviate from the field of religion.

I don't take without an offer being made first.

May I intervene with this, but in which sentence does @Nelkell007 put religious field in this?

Dictionary for the word religion - https://www.dictionary.com/browse/something - something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

So we can see that anything that a person does in his life is part of his religion. Why? Because whatever he does is what he follows devotedly in his life. If he lived a different way, he would be following something else devotedly... a different religion.

Another things:

1. Child has life, teens have life, an adult has life, but zygote and embryo don't. The thing about is, if you're referring to chromosomes as your main argument, then we shouldn't masturbate cause we will cause sperm and egg to die, which is part of "STAGE OF LIFE". Many other aspects should be considered in considering if a thing is already a life form or not.

At the time of the sperm combining with the egg, the chromosomes of the resulting cell are the same ones that the person will have through his whole life. These are different than the sperm or the egg before the combining.

Even though many other things are considered, they are simply stage-of-life considerations. They are not existence of life considerations.

The idea of life is not the question. People are buried or cremated all over the place. Hopefully they are already dead when this is done to them. The question has to do with murdering them... same as murdering them at ANY stage of life.

2. World Population is really problematic right now, increasing at a rate of 1.05% per year or 80 + million annually in the whole world, And as we all know that in order to survive, we must take resources as a source of nutrition, shelter, and clothings. If we dig deeper, it doesn't end there as the hierarchy of social status within each country is correlated to the consumption of resources.

World population is not a problem at all. The problem is some people trying to make population into a problem.

So far, all of the people in the world could be packed into one cubic mile. But, they would easily fit into two.

There is no end to the amount of water available. Graphene can filter salt water into fresh water.

Vertical farming can fix any agriculture problem we might run into for the next thousand years.

About 38% of the land in the USA is owned by government. It has few inhabitants on it... mostly government workers. Bangladesh might have many more people, but Siberia is almost uninhabited. And there is "seasteading."

No population problem exist. But if somebody really likes the idea of murder, how can he make a judgment that someone else should die? He should start by eliminating himself.

[franky1]

lets correct badecker on just a few of his silly rants

1. if you think al death is murder. where there is no defense. then you are now acting like you are not pro-gun.
so you have no reason to bear arms if you wont murder anyone

2.'everyone fit into a square mile' (facepalm)
16inches by 10inches is average shoulder to shoulder room requirement
so imagine we put everyone shoulder to shoulder.
one row of people would be ~4000
with about 6000 columns of people

= only 24million people in a square mile
..however standing ontop of each others heads requires a 325 story building
the tallest building in the world is only 160 floors though

so now if there was a situation where you did push everyone shoulder to shoulder in a building double the tallest building. you would then also need to think about what to do with all the urine and faeces.
oh and all the feeding tubes in their mouth because they have not got room to move their hands

..
a better math solution is to account for a accommodation that fits a bedroom, tv bathroom and kitchen as a minimum
now 14foot by 14 foot would be minimum.

and if we account for the limitations of only 160 floors..
.. well ill save the math.. its about 18 square miles
and thats without gardens paths or roads or plumbing or other facilities like shops. carparks. workplaces
parks. football/entertainment stadiums, sewer treatment/water purification plants

this is now adding up to needing way more then 30 square miles
obviously people want to have more space than something that resembles a prison cell.. even in your fantasy

heck ill even ascii your fantasy minimal living home thats 14x14foot and if everyone lived in tall skyscrapers in a prison style where you never leave your living area, takes up 18square miles with nothing more then living space
 _______________________
| [__]   |      |[__][__]|        |
| |( )|   |      |             |        |
|  toilet |      |   bed    |        |
|       \         |_______|        |
| /      \        |__TV___|        |
|/      _\                              |
|          |  sink            cooker|
|shower|________________|
|    O    | |   o   |         (  )(  )|
|__][__|_|_][_ |_____(_)(_)|

yep even in minimal living. no outdoor life.. needs 18sqare miles

have a nice day
(it only took seconds to do the maths so yes i wasted my fun time on an ascii doodle just for you)

[franky1]

No population problem exist. But if somebody really likes the idea of murder, how can he make a judgment that someone else should die? He should start by eliminating himself.

back to the topic. if badecker the pro-gunner he is.. was to follow his own advice. yep shoot himself looks like a good idea

meanwhile the mother has custody/authority/decision making rights,

..
im surprised badecker has not said how he wants sars-cov-2 to have human rights too seeing as that its incubating in humans too
yep badecker thinks sars-cov-2 is human cells..(facepalm)

[Natsuu]

~SNIP~

May I intervene with this, but in which sentence does @Nelkell007 put religious field in this?

Dictionary for the word religion - https://www.dictionary.com/browse/something - something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

So we can see that anything that a person does in his life is part of his religion. Why? Because whatever he does is what he follows devotedly in his life. If he lived a different way, he would be following something else devotedly... a different religion.

Lets cross-reference some definitions for clearer inputs
@https://www.britannica.com/topic/religion - "Religion, human beings’ relation to that which they regard as holy, sacred, absolute, spiritual, divine, or worthy of especial reverence. It is also commonly regarded as consisting of the way people deal with ultimate concerns about their lives and their fate after death."
@oxford dictionary - "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods."
@https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/religion.htm - "Religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence."

So as we can see, the thing in that definition you mentioned as "something one believes" based on other definitions is clearly someone who is controlling, superhuman, God or gods, or anything related to humanity's order of existence. In this case, what @Nelkell007 does is not related to religion or anything, you just mixed words to have your point when you are clearly wrong.

A good example for this is me devoting myself in to science, is it my religion? no, it is what I pursue and what I believed in but it doesn't mean that I don't believe in God to whom I prayed to.

Another things:

1. Child has life, teens have life, an adult has life, but zygote and embryo don't. The thing about is, if you're referring to chromosomes as your main argument, then we shouldn't masturbate cause we will cause sperm and egg to die, which is part of "STAGE OF LIFE". Many other aspects should be considered in considering if a thing is already a life form or not.

At the time of the sperm combining with the egg, the chromosomes of the resulting cell are the same ones that the person will have through his whole life. These are different than the sperm or the egg before the combining.

Even though many other things are considered, they are simply stage-of-life considerations. They are not existence of life considerations.

The idea of life is not the question. People are buried or cremated all over the place. Hopefully they are already dead when this is done to them. The question has to do with murdering them... same as murdering them at ANY stage of life.

What is murder? @oxford dictionary - "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.", and go search for other sources where they said that is is unjust, or unlawfully, just pick whenever you like.

If you are disregarding what the Idea of life is, then how can you say that there is the existence of life if you are not clear on how you understand what life is? How bizarre

2. World Population is really problematic right now, increasing at a rate of 1.05% per year or 80 + million annually in the whole world, And as we all know that in order to survive, we must take resources as a source of nutrition, shelter, and clothings. If we dig deeper, it doesn't end there as the hierarchy of social status within each country is correlated to the consumption of resources.

World population is not a problem at all. The problem is some people trying to make population into a problem.

So far, all of the people in the world could be packed into one cubic mile. But, they would easily fit into two.

There is no end to the amount of water available. Graphene can filter salt water into fresh water.

Vertical farming can fix any agriculture problem we might run into for the next thousand years.

About 38% of the land in the USA is owned by government. It has few inhabitants on it... mostly government workers. Bangladesh might have many more people, but Siberia is almost uninhabited. And there is "seasteading."

No population problem exist. But if somebody really likes the idea of murder, how can he make a judgment that someone else should die? He should start by eliminating himself.

1. the moment that science and most people think that population is a problem, clearly says that it is already a problem.
2. Vertical farming is a good solution, but adopting it is an issue of its own accord. especially now that most farms are now lately being constructed as a residence or somethings, ergo limiting the space for farming
3. about 38%, sure why not, but how many % of those percentages are liveable where people can live their own life, I think most of this land is a place out of nowhere, ergo it is still not a viable solution as you want it to be.
4. Population problems exist just like in China where they already implemented a one-child policy and a two-child policy to control the population. You can't say that they do this just for fun, right? they did it because it's already a problem in that country. Another country is India, with the second-largest population who has a poverty rate of 68.8%, approximately 920 million of their current population.

Many factors are being considered in this problem; resources, geographic location, cost of living, country's economical status, etc.

[BADecker]

~SNIP~

May I intervene with this, but in which sentence does @Nelkell007 put religious field in this?

Dictionary for the word religion - https://www.dictionary.com/browse/something - something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

So we can see that anything that a person does in his life is part of his religion. Why? Because whatever he does is what he follows devotedly in his life. If he lived a different way, he would be following something else devotedly... a different religion.

Lets cross-reference some definitions for clearer inputs
@https://www.britannica.com/topic/religion - "Religion, human beings’ relation to that which they regard as holy, sacred, absolute, spiritual, divine, or worthy of especial reverence. It is also commonly regarded as consisting of the way people deal with ultimate concerns about their lives and their fate after death."
@oxford dictionary - "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods."
@https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/religion.htm - "Religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence."

So as we can see, the thing in that definition you mentioned as "something one believes" based on other definitions is clearly someone who is controlling, superhuman, God or gods, or anything related to humanity's order of existence. In this case, what @Nelkell007 does is not related to religion or anything, you just mixed words to have your point when you are clearly wrong.

A good example for this is me devoting myself in to science, is it my religion? no, it is what I pursue and what I believed in but it doesn't mean that I don't believe in God to whom I prayed to.

Selecting your own definitions for "religion," and disregarding other definitions, seems to be part of your religion.

Another things:

1. Child has life, teens have life, an adult has life, but zygote and embryo don't. The thing about is, if you're referring to chromosomes as your main argument, then we shouldn't masturbate cause we will cause sperm and egg to die, which is part of "STAGE OF LIFE". Many other aspects should be considered in considering if a thing is already a life form or not.

At the time of the sperm combining with the egg, the chromosomes of the resulting cell are the same ones that the person will have through his whole life. These are different than the sperm or the egg before the combining.

Even though many other things are considered, they are simply stage-of-life considerations. They are not existence of life considerations.

The idea of life is not the question. People are buried or cremated all over the place. Hopefully they are already dead when this is done to them. The question has to do with murdering them... same as murdering them at ANY stage of life.

What is murder? @oxford dictionary - "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.", and go search for other sources where they said that is is unjust, or unlawfully, just pick whenever you like.

If you are disregarding what the Idea of life is, then how can you say that there is the existence of life if you are not clear on how you understand what life is? How bizarre

"If you are disregarding..." I'm not disregarding. It seems to be you who are disregarding some of the stages of a person's life so you can justify murder.

2. World Population is really problematic right now, increasing at a rate of 1.05% per year or 80 + million annually in the whole world, And as we all know that in order to survive, we must take resources as a source of nutrition, shelter, and clothings. If we dig deeper, it doesn't end there as the hierarchy of social status within each country is correlated to the consumption of resources.

World population is not a problem at all. The problem is some people trying to make population into a problem.

So far, all of the people in the world could be packed into one cubic mile. But, they would easily fit into two.

There is no end to the amount of water available. Graphene can filter salt water into fresh water.

Vertical farming can fix any agriculture problem we might run into for the next thousand years.

About 38% of the land in the USA is owned by government. It has few inhabitants on it... mostly government workers. Bangladesh might have many more people, but Siberia is almost uninhabited. And there is "seasteading."

No population problem exist. But if somebody really likes the idea of murder, how can he make a judgment that someone else should die? He should start by eliminating himself.

1. the moment that science and most people think that population is a problem, clearly says that it is already a problem.
2. Vertical farming is a good solution, but adopting it is an issue of its own accord. especially now that most farms are now lately being constructed as a residence or somethings, ergo limiting the space for farming
3. about 38%, sure why not, but how many % of those percentages are liveable where people can live their own life, I think most of this land is a place out of nowhere, ergo it is still not a viable solution as you want it to be.
4. Population problems exist just like in China where they already implemented a one-child policy and a two-child policy to control the population. You can't say that they do this just for fun, right? they did it because it's already a problem in that country. Another country is India, with the second-largest population who has a poverty rate of 68.8%, approximately 920 million of their current population.

Many factors are being considered in this problem; resources, geographic location, cost of living, country's economical status, etc.

1. Why do you listen to what other people think without taking a look for yourself? There is so much room in the world that we have room for expansion for another thousand years. Take a look. The people who claim population is too big for the Earth, are the kind of people who wouldn't have enough if each of them was given a habitable planet the size of Jupiter.

2. Don't adopt vertical farming. Rather, do it. If you don't like vertical upward, get out into the ocean and do it downward.

3. Amerindians lived for hundreds of years in much of your so-called uninhabitable land. As I said - and you can calculate it out - the whole population of the world could be stuffed into 2 cubic miles, easily.

4. The people didn't make the China law that said 1 per family. It was the government that made the law. The reason they made it was because they couldn't control such a large number of people. If the population increased to 3 billion in China, much of china would adopt freedom like the USA, and they would eventually destroy Communism.

5. God told Adam and Eve that they weren't supposed to eat of that particular fruit. His next command was to be fruitful and multiply and cover/fill the Earth. God also gave that second command to Noah and his family. God also said that He made the Earth to be inhabited. Nowhere did He tell the people to stop increasing in number. If you want to go against God, He will give you what you want... death... so that He can increase the people who want to follow His commands.

[franky1]

badecker your points 1&5 has just debunked your own points about bearing guns

badecker human leaders made the constitution. not god
so which will you listen to:
leaders: bear arms and be prepared to kill
god: dont bear arms turn other cheek and dont kill

if you are going to reply that you have a right to buy a gun but without intent to use it. then you have fallen for the consumerism scripts of making people buy things they dont need
..

anyway
you cannot deny that if a being requires life support. it does not have independent life. and is dependant on the support. it is that support that has the decision power over it.

..
personally i think as soon as it gets to the third trimester where the fetus will survive if it was birthed early. then that is the critical point where abortions should not be allowed.
if a fetus would not survive birth/c-section anyway, even at 26th week or more. then its not murder.

[BADecker]

badecker your points 1&5 has just debunked your own points about bearing guns

badecker human leaders made the constitution. not god
so which will you listen to:
leaders: bear arms and be prepared to kill
god: dont bear arms turn other cheek and dont kill - Godly, Bible reading and believing people, wrote the various versions of the Magna Carta, and the Constitution. This is why both of these documents reflect God's righteousness. They are the basis for strength, the Magna Carta in Britain, and the Constitution in America.

Men: Bear arms and be prepared to kill anyone who would kill you. But do it only in defense.

God: Love your fellow man. Bear arms so that you can kill any corrupt people who want to kill those you love... your family who you love first, and then your God believing neighbors who you also love. How else to love your fellow man? Those corrupt unbelievers who are trying to kill you are to be destroyed.

You don't seem to understand the Old Testament. King David was one of the most bloody killers at times. Yet he was honorable and as righteous as he could be. God called him "a man after my own heart." God's heart is for righteousness. If you don't fight and kill those who are killing you, you are really killing yourself. "Thou shalt not kill..." not even yourself. And especially not the people who are trusting you most for life.

if you are going to reply that you have a right to buy a gun but without intent to use it. then you have fallen for the consumerism scripts of making people buy things they dont need - Thank you for showing yourself to be kinda retarded.
..

anyway
you cannot deny that if a being requires life support. it does not have independent life. and is dependant on the support. it is that support that has the decision power over it. - Thus it is that you are dependent on the Earth. God, Who maintains the Earth, has power over you. Why is it that you want to join with those who are killing off the whole Earth with their vaccines and and abortions? As said in Revelations in the Bible, God will destroy those who destroy the Earth... the Earth which He made to be inhabited.

There are righteous killers in the Earth, who have righteous power to kill. There are unrighteous people on Earth who have the power to kill, but not the right... like abortionists.

..
personally i think as soon as it gets to the third trimester where the fetus will survive if it was birthed early. then that is the critical point where abortions should not be allowed.
if a fetus would not survive birth/c-section anyway, even at 26th week or more. then its not murder.

All over the world people are careful to not kill others accidentally. But you wouldn't mind killing just because you think something one way or another.

Turn away from your murdering mindset. God doesn't want to destroy you or have you destroyed. In fact, He sent His Son, Jesus, to die on the cross so that your sins could be taken away from you, and you could be saved. Turn to God and repent, and accept the forgiveness of your sins while you have time. Why would you live in eternal damnation?

[franky1]

badecker i dont own a gun. dont want a gun.. yet you do
so you have more murderous intent.

remember you say all ending of life by another persons decision is murder.
yep thats YOUR mindset

though you are slowly starting to admit that its not as clear cut as your mindset thought. you are still kinda stuck wanting to define all death by another persons action as murder

what you are not realising is the reverse psychology being done to knock you out of your stupidity.
it has worked many times where you end up flip flopping and debunking yourself

and for as your 'doing it in gods name' rhetoric.. well thats controlling humans using another entity as the blame. to hide their own rules. the rhetoric is "shifting to gods blame" not 'done in gods name'
(kind of weird you want to defend government laws while pretending to oppose government making laws)

anyways
in nature and basic common law, common sense.. its the pregnant woman that makes the decision. not men. her body her property. an embryo is dependant on the pregnant woman.

but hey if you want to continue with your rhetoric about womans rights to her own property over decisions of keeping or disposal of property in her custody. then you are just flip flopping and debunking your other topics.

i wont argue about your other misunderstandings of the bible. as your comedy just reveals how much you dont understand.

[BADecker]

badecker i dont own a gun. dont want a gun.. yet you do
so you have more murderous intent.

Somebody has to protect naive people like you. But we won't always be able to do that. Prepare for your own protection while you still have a chance.

anyways
in nature and basic common law, common sense.. its the pregnant woman that makes the decision. not men. her body her property. an embryo is dependant on the pregnant woman.

but hey if you want to continue with your rhetoric about womans rights to her own property over decisions of keeping or disposal of property in her custody. then you are just flip flopping and debunking your other topics.

A woman who uses her rights to make a baby so that she can murder it, is the most despicable type of person that there is. She doesn't really want to be despicable, but she has been trained by murderers like you to be that way.

[Natsuu]

~SNIP~

Selecting your own definitions for "religion," and disregarding other definitions, seems to be part of your religion.

I just given you the definitions from front row google dictionaries if you search for religion 
Then you have that sense that I disregard select my own definition. how bad is your reading comprehension. oh my lord

~SNIP~

If you are disregarding what the Idea of life is, then how can you say that there is the existence of life if you are not clear on how you understand what life is? How bizarre

"If you are disregarding..." I'm not disregarding. It seems to be you who are disregarding some of the stages of a person's life so you can justify murder.

I present evidence, I presented valid arguments and your replies is just like that, what on earth.

You said that "The Idea of Life is not the question", given the points I made about what is life, and the definition of it in every dictionaries, encyclopedias. Ergo you justify that you disregarding the definitions I mention about life which I tackled before your replies to counter validate my points.

Also, you are the one who accuse people of murder, so you are the one justifying the act in the first place 

~SNIP~

1. Why do you listen to what other people think without taking a look for yourself? There is so much room in the world that we have room for expansion for another thousand years. Take a look. The people who claim population is too big for the Earth, are the kind of people who wouldn't have enough if each of them was given a habitable planet the size of Jupiter.

2. Don't adopt vertical farming. Rather, do it. If you don't like vertical upward, get out into the ocean and do it downward.

3. Amerindians lived for hundreds of years in much of your so-called uninhabitable land. As I said - and you can calculate it out - the whole population of the world could be stuffed into 2 cubic miles, easily.

4. The people didn't make the China law that said 1 per family. It was the government that made the law. The reason they made it was because they couldn't control such a large number of people. If the population increased to 3 billion in China, much of china would adopt freedom like the USA, and they would eventually destroy Communism.

5. God told Adam and Eve that they weren't supposed to eat of that particular fruit. His next command was to be fruitful and multiply and cover/fill the Earth. God also gave that second command to Noah and his family. God also said that He made the Earth to be inhabited. Nowhere did He tell the people to stop increasing in number. If you want to go against God, He will give you what you want... death... so that He can increase the people who want to follow His commands.


[/quote]

1. Are you really something, Why would I believe something is a problem without me seeing evidences of the problem, experiencing it, and take pity of it. You do know about the sustainability of our resources to produce goods right. As the population grows, the amount of consumption also increases, which results to resources being consumed than what it can produce, thus leading to depletion of resources which is a problem.

2. your argument with this one sounds like this "If you can't breathe, just breathe", or "If you are dying, just live".

3. Can you show me proofs that they have lived in UNINHABITABLE LANDS. or you are just assuming that they just did.

4. Face Palm, so you see that they've already seen it as a problem given your statement.

5. Religion will never be a solid argument, nice try though.

[BADecker]

~SNIP~

Selecting your own definitions for "religion," and disregarding other definitions, seems to be part of your religion.

I just given you the definitions from front row google dictionaries if you search for religion 
Then you have that sense that I disregard select my own definition. how bad is your reading comprehension. oh my lord

~SNIP~

If you are disregarding what the Idea of life is, then how can you say that there is the existence of life if you are not clear on how you understand what life is? How bizarre

"If you are disregarding..." I'm not disregarding. It seems to be you who are disregarding some of the stages of a person's life so you can justify murder.

I present evidence, I presented valid arguments and your replies is just like that, what on earth.

You said that "The Idea of Life is not the question", given the points I made about what is life, and the definition of it in every dictionaries, encyclopedias. Ergo you justify that you disregarding the definitions I mention about life which I tackled before your replies to counter validate my points.

Also, you are the one who accuse people of murder, so you are the one justifying the act in the first place 

~SNIP~

1. Why do you listen to what other people think without taking a look for yourself? There is so much room in the world that we have room for expansion for another thousand years. Take a look. The people who claim population is too big for the Earth, are the kind of people who wouldn't have enough if each of them was given a habitable planet the size of Jupiter.

2. Don't adopt vertical farming. Rather, do it. If you don't like vertical upward, get out into the ocean and do it downward.

3. Amerindians lived for hundreds of years in much of your so-called uninhabitable land. As I said - and you can calculate it out - the whole population of the world could be stuffed into 2 cubic miles, easily.

4. The people didn't make the China law that said 1 per family. It was the government that made the law. The reason they made it was because they couldn't control such a large number of people. If the population increased to 3 billion in China, much of china would adopt freedom like the USA, and they would eventually destroy Communism.

5. God told Adam and Eve that they weren't supposed to eat of that particular fruit. His next command was to be fruitful and multiply and cover/fill the Earth. God also gave that second command to Noah and his family. God also said that He made the Earth to be inhabited. Nowhere did He tell the people to stop increasing in number. If you want to go against God, He will give you what you want... death... so that He can increase the people who want to follow His commands.

1. Are you really something, Why would I believe something is a problem without me seeing evidences of the problem, experiencing it, and take pity of it. You do know about the sustainability of our resources to produce goods right. As the population grows, the amount of consumption also increases, which results to resources being consumed than what it can produce, thus leading to depletion of resources which is a problem.

2. your argument with this one sounds like this "If you can't breathe, just breathe", or "If you are dying, just live".

3. Can you show me proofs that they have lived in UNINHABITABLE LANDS. or you are just assuming that they just did.

4. Face Palm, so you see that they've already seen it as a problem given your statement.

5. Religion will never be a solid argument, nice try though.
[/quote]

Don't you even realize that the whole world developed into billions of people without any problems at all? Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Genghis Khan, and many others tried killing off the world. But they failed, because nature is so strong that it works way better than when it is influenced by the medical. Nature has its own way of controlling population. It doesn't need the help of mankind killing each other off.

Your paltry evidence is nothing when compared with the creation that God made. And now you and the governments and scientists are trying to express some flimsy evidence that can't hold a candle to the sun of nature.

[Natsuu]

~SNIP~

Selecting your own definitions for "religion," and disregarding other definitions, seems to be part of your religion.

I just given you the definitions from front row google dictionaries if you search for religion  
Then you have that sense that I disregard select my own definition. how bad is your reading comprehension. oh my lord

~SNIP~

If you are disregarding what the Idea of life is, then how can you say that there is the existence of life if you are not clear on how you understand what life is? How bizarre

"If you are disregarding..." I'm not disregarding. It seems to be you who are disregarding some of the stages of a person's life so you can justify murder.

I present evidence, I presented valid arguments and your replies is just like that, what on earth.

You said that "The Idea of Life is not the question", given the points I made about what is life, and the definition of it in every dictionaries, encyclopedias. Ergo you justify that you disregarding the definitions I mention about life which I tackled before your replies to counter validate my points.

Also, you are the one who accuse people of murder, so you are the one justifying the act in the first place  

~SNIP~

1. Why do you listen to what other people think without taking a look for yourself? There is so much room in the world that we have room for expansion for another thousand years. Take a look. The people who claim population is too big for the Earth, are the kind of people who wouldn't have enough if each of them was given a habitable planet the size of Jupiter.

2. Don't adopt vertical farming. Rather, do it. If you don't like vertical upward, get out into the ocean and do it downward.

3. Amerindians lived for hundreds of years in much of your so-called uninhabitable land. As I said - and you can calculate it out - the whole population of the world could be stuffed into 2 cubic miles, easily.

4. The people didn't make the China law that said 1 per family. It was the government that made the law. The reason they made it was because they couldn't control such a large number of people. If the population increased to 3 billion in China, much of china would adopt freedom like the USA, and they would eventually destroy Communism.

5. God told Adam and Eve that they weren't supposed to eat of that particular fruit. His next command was to be fruitful and multiply and cover/fill the Earth. God also gave that second command to Noah and his family. God also said that He made the Earth to be inhabited. Nowhere did He tell the people to stop increasing in number. If you want to go against God, He will give you what you want... death... so that He can increase the people who want to follow His commands.

1. Are you really something, Why would I believe something is a problem without me seeing evidences of the problem, experiencing it, and take pity of it. You do know about the sustainability of our resources to produce goods right. As the population grows, the amount of consumption also increases, which results to resources being consumed than what it can produce, thus leading to depletion of resources which is a problem.

2. your argument with this one sounds like this "If you can't breathe, just breathe", or "If you are dying, just live".

3. Can you show me proofs that they have lived in UNINHABITABLE LANDS. or you are just assuming that they just did.

4. Face Palm, so you see that they've already seen it as a problem given your statement.

5. Religion will never be a solid argument, nice try though.

Don't you even realize that the whole world developed into billions of people without any problems at all? Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Genghis Khan, and many others tried killing off the world. But they failed, because nature is so strong that it works way better than when it is influenced by the medical. Nature has its own way of controlling population. It doesn't need the help of mankind killing each other off.

Your paltry evidence is nothing when compared with the creation that God made. And now you and the governments and scientists are trying to express some flimsy evidence that can't hold a candle to the sun of nature.

WHAT? That's why it's a problem, and it is getting worse. A problem doesn't mean immediate destruction or turmoil of the world, it is called a problem in the first place, because if not given the right solution, it can lead to something that people won't like. And who the fuck said about killing mankind of one another, you are the only one suggesting that. And you are the one suggesting that abortion is a murder in the first place.

Put your religious arguments in the trash, cause it won't work mate. Your beliefs is purely superficial based on the bible book.

[BADecker]

~SNIP~

Selecting your own definitions for "religion," and disregarding other definitions, seems to be part of your religion.

I just given you the definitions from front row google dictionaries if you search for religion  
Then you have that sense that I disregard select my own definition. how bad is your reading comprehension. oh my lord

~SNIP~

If you are disregarding what the Idea of life is, then how can you say that there is the existence of life if you are not clear on how you understand what life is? How bizarre

"If you are disregarding..." I'm not disregarding. It seems to be you who are disregarding some of the stages of a person's life so you can justify murder.

I present evidence, I presented valid arguments and your replies is just like that, what on earth.

You said that "The Idea of Life is not the question", given the points I made about what is life, and the definition of it in every dictionaries, encyclopedias. Ergo you justify that you disregarding the definitions I mention about life which I tackled before your replies to counter validate my points.

Also, you are the one who accuse people of murder, so you are the one justifying the act in the first place  

~SNIP~

1. Why do you listen to what other people think without taking a look for yourself? There is so much room in the world that we have room for expansion for another thousand years. Take a look. The people who claim population is too big for the Earth, are the kind of people who wouldn't have enough if each of them was given a habitable planet the size of Jupiter.

2. Don't adopt vertical farming. Rather, do it. If you don't like vertical upward, get out into the ocean and do it downward.

3. Amerindians lived for hundreds of years in much of your so-called uninhabitable land. As I said - and you can calculate it out - the whole population of the world could be stuffed into 2 cubic miles, easily.

4. The people didn't make the China law that said 1 per family. It was the government that made the law. The reason they made it was because they couldn't control such a large number of people. If the population increased to 3 billion in China, much of china would adopt freedom like the USA, and they would eventually destroy Communism.

5. God told Adam and Eve that they weren't supposed to eat of that particular fruit. His next command was to be fruitful and multiply and cover/fill the Earth. God also gave that second command to Noah and his family. God also said that He made the Earth to be inhabited. Nowhere did He tell the people to stop increasing in number. If you want to go against God, He will give you what you want... death... so that He can increase the people who want to follow His commands.

1. Are you really something, Why would I believe something is a problem without me seeing evidences of the problem, experiencing it, and take pity of it. You do know about the sustainability of our resources to produce goods right. As the population grows, the amount of consumption also increases, which results to resources being consumed than what it can produce, thus leading to depletion of resources which is a problem.

2. your argument with this one sounds like this "If you can't breathe, just breathe", or "If you are dying, just live".

3. Can you show me proofs that they have lived in UNINHABITABLE LANDS. or you are just assuming that they just did.

4. Face Palm, so you see that they've already seen it as a problem given your statement.

5. Religion will never be a solid argument, nice try though.

Don't you even realize that the whole world developed into billions of people without any problems at all? Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Genghis Khan, and many others tried killing off the world. But they failed, because nature is so strong that it works way better than when it is influenced by the medical. Nature has its own way of controlling population. It doesn't need the help of mankind killing each other off.

Your paltry evidence is nothing when compared with the creation that God made. And now you and the governments and scientists are trying to express some flimsy evidence that can't hold a candle to the sun of nature.

WHAT? That's why it's a problem, and it is getting worse. A problem doesn't mean immediate destruction or turmoil of the world, it is called a problem in the first place, because if not given the right solution, it can lead to something that people won't like. And who the fuck said about killing mankind of one another, you are the only one suggesting that. And you are the one suggesting that abortion is a murder in the first place.

Put your religious arguments in the trash, cause it won't work mate. Your beliefs is purely superficial based on the bible book.

When people started to exist, there weren't any doctors or medicine around to heal them from diseases. Nature did that job.

We have laws against murder. But do you want to murder people just to reduce population?

Nature knows what it is doing. We don't need murder to inhibit population that should be grown so that more people can figure out ways to help us all. Reducing population doesn't do this.

Anybody who doesn't like living has the ability to go out and remove himself from life. Since there isn't any population problem, only population regulation in certain areas, let's fix the problem, the regulation. Fix government, and train the people to help themselves.

Proof is that if you walk far enough in any direction, you will come to wide open uninhabited lands, or the oceans that you can boat on. Lots of room for population to expand.

Abortion is killing people.

[Natsuu]

~SNIP~

WHAT? That's why it's a problem, and it is getting worse. A problem doesn't mean immediate destruction or turmoil of the world, it is called a problem in the first place, because if not given the right solution, it can lead to something that people won't like. And who the fuck said about killing mankind of one another, you are the only one suggesting that. And you are the one suggesting that abortion is a murder in the first place.

Put your religious arguments in the trash, cause it won't work mate. Your beliefs is purely superficial based on the bible book.

When people started to exist, there weren't any doctors or medicine around to heal them from diseases. Nature did that job.

We have laws against murder. But do you want to murder people just to reduce population?

Nature knows what it is doing. We don't need murder to inhibit population that should be grown so that more people can figure out ways to help us all. Reducing population doesn't do this.

Anybody who doesn't like living has the ability to go out and remove himself from life. Since there isn't any population problem, only population regulation in certain areas, let's fix the problem, the regulation. Fix government, and train the people to help themselves.

Proof is that if you walk far enough in any direction, you will come to wide open uninhabited lands, or the oceans that you can boat on. Lots of room for population to expand.

Abortion is killing people.

1. That's why people adopt while if they get sick, they just die from "Natural selection" aren't they. There are many diseases that can't be treated, and if we will see history, "Oh shit" they just die cause they don't have medicine.

2. For the second time, who even said about murdering someone to reduce the population?

3. Nature here nature there, as if like they have mind of their own. Your argument is pretty stupid to be honest, to say that nature knows what they are doing. Natures doing their natural way of healing and other things, but it is us "HUMANS" who cultivate the learnings with regards to the process on how shits happen in our "NATURE"

4. You do know how the world works right?, capitalism is what most of countries adopted, and do you think in this point in time, there are places in this world who you can live freely without interfering other peoples properties?, and don't get me wrong this 4th statement is just to debunk your 4th sentence in your reply.

5. abortion is just disposing of zygote which is not human, ergo it is not killing 

[BADecker]

When people started to exist, there weren't any doctors or medicine around to heal them from diseases. Nature did that job.

We have laws against murder. But do you want to murder people just to reduce population?

Nature knows what it is doing. We don't need murder to inhibit population that should be grown so that more people can figure out ways to help us all. Reducing population doesn't do this.

Anybody who doesn't like living has the ability to go out and remove himself from life. Since there isn't any population problem, only population regulation in certain areas, let's fix the problem, the regulation. Fix government, and train the people to help themselves.

Proof is that if you walk far enough in any direction, you will come to wide open uninhabited lands, or the oceans that you can boat on. Lots of room for population to expand.

Abortion is killing people.

1. That's why people adopt while if they get sick, they just die from "Natural selection" aren't they. There are many diseases that can't be treated, and if we will see history, "Oh shit" they just die cause they don't have medicine.

2. For the second time, who even said about murdering someone to reduce the population?

3. Nature here nature there, as if like they have mind of their own. Your argument is pretty stupid to be honest, to say that nature knows what they are doing. Natures doing their natural way of healing and other things, but it is us "HUMANS" who cultivate the learnings with regards to the process on how shits happen in our "NATURE"

4. You do know how the world works right?, capitalism is what most of countries adopted, and do you think in this point in time, there are places in this world who you can live freely without interfering other peoples properties?, and don't get me wrong this 4th statement is just to debunk your 4th sentence in your reply.

5. abortion is just disposing of zygote which is not human, ergo it is not killing  

1. But in the case of abortion, the natural selection is murder, or there isn't any abortion.
    Got a tummy ache? Maybe if you treated that dis-ease with dinner, the tummy ache would go away, naturally.

2. I will highlight for you, above.

3. The complexity of nature is way beyond what could happen by the odds. We are starting to understand a little about the complexity of it. As you explain, nature doesn't have a mind for thinking. But the Creator did, so He made nature for us. And just to point us into an understanding of Him, He made nature so complex that only stupidity can deny Him.

4. You lump everybody together when you say "countries." Average people trade and barter. It's the leaders who make fiat so that they can use the fiat to leach off the people. People see an advantage in using fiat, so they use it without realizing that the leaders are making a fortune off them thru their use of it.
    If your interfering with the property of others isn't in a big way - like chemtrails interfering with the lives of everybody who the chemtrails are sprayed over - any inappropriate interfering will be dealt with by your neighbor, when he asks you to stop interfering with his property.
    Abortion is interfering with the property of the new person who can't easily ask you to stop. But when a fetus at later stages of the pregnancy realizes that it is being aborted from the outside, it fights as much as it can to live.

5. Some of the abortion is just as you say. But all of the abortion is murdering a person. If we agree to disregard the fact of the chromosomes being the same in the fertilized egg as they are in the hundred-year-old person, we would still only be guessing if we suggest that the zygote is not human. We don't have the ability to determine if the zygote is simply a stage in the life of a person... without chromosomes, that is.
    If we throw in the chromosomes, we see that the zygote is absolutely a person, and that the zygote stage is simply one of many stages in the lives of people.

Abortion is murder.

[Natsuu]

~SNIP~

1. That's why people adopt while if they get sick, they just die from "Natural selection" aren't they. There are many diseases that can't be treated, and if we will see history, "Oh shit" they just die cause they don't have medicine.

2. For the second time, who even said about murdering someone to reduce the population?

3. Nature here nature there, as if like they have mind of their own. Your argument is pretty stupid to be honest, to say that nature knows what they are doing. Natures doing their natural way of healing and other things, but it is us "HUMANS" who cultivate the learnings with regards to the process on how shits happen in our "NATURE"

4. You do know how the world works right?, capitalism is what most of countries adopted, and do you think in this point in time, there are places in this world who you can live freely without interfering other peoples properties?, and don't get me wrong this 4th statement is just to debunk your 4th sentence in your reply.

5. abortion is just disposing of zygote which is not human, ergo it is not killing  

1. But in the case of abortion, the natural selection is murder, or there isn't any abortion.
    Got a tummy ache? Maybe if you treated that dis-ease with dinner, the tummy ache would go away, naturally.

2. I will highlight for you, above.

3. The complexity of nature is way beyond what could happen by the odds. We are starting to understand a little about the complexity of it. As you explain, nature doesn't have a mind for thinking. But the Creator did, so He made nature for us. And just to point us into an understanding of Him, He made nature so complex that only stupidity can deny Him.

4. You lump everybody together when you say "countries." Average people trade and barter. It's the leaders who make fiat so that they can use the fiat to leach off the people. People see an advantage in using fiat, so they use it without realizing that the leaders are making a fortune off them thru their use of it.
    If your interfering with the property of others isn't in a big way - like chemtrails interfering with the lives of everybody who the chemtrails are sprayed over - any inappropriate interfering will be dealt with by your neighbor, when he asks you to stop interfering with his property.
    Abortion is interfering with the property of the new person who can't easily ask you to stop. But when a fetus at later stages of the pregnancy realizes that it is being aborted from the outside, it fights as much as it can to live.

5. Some of the abortion is just as you say. But all of the abortion is murdering a person. If we agree to disregard the fact of the chromosomes being the same in the fertilized egg as they are in the hundred-year-old person, we would still only be guessing if we suggest that the zygote is not human. We don't have the ability to determine if the zygote is simply a stage in the life of a person... without chromosomes, that is.
    If we throw in the chromosomes, we see that the zygote is absolutely a person, and that the zygote stage is simply one of many stages in the lives of people.

Abortion is murder.

1. what? abortion is part of natural selection? ohhhhhh then why did it became a murder?

2. just pure dumb, so cute

3. Nature, then became religious, As I said, your religious comments will not have any meaning in this arguments

4. I agree when it became a "FETUS" it would be a murder, but the topic is when it is a zygote, that is if aborted, it won't be a murder.

5. Zygote and a 100 year old is not correlated to one another when you topic what life is. A 100 year old person is a person who lived 100 years of his/her life as a human being, as a living organism with organs intact, while a zygote isn't. Zygote is not a person as this cell doesn't have senses at all, a fetus does, but a zyogte doesn't.

[BADecker]

~SNIP~

1. That's why people adopt while if they get sick, they just die from "Natural selection" aren't they. There are many diseases that can't be treated, and if we will see history, "Oh shit" they just die cause they don't have medicine.

2. For the second time, who even said about murdering someone to reduce the population?

3. Nature here nature there, as if like they have mind of their own. Your argument is pretty stupid to be honest, to say that nature knows what they are doing. Natures doing their natural way of healing and other things, but it is us "HUMANS" who cultivate the learnings with regards to the process on how shits happen in our "NATURE"

4. You do know how the world works right?, capitalism is what most of countries adopted, and do you think in this point in time, there are places in this world who you can live freely without interfering other peoples properties?, and don't get me wrong this 4th statement is just to debunk your 4th sentence in your reply.

5. abortion is just disposing of zygote which is not human, ergo it is not killing  

1. But in the case of abortion, the natural selection is murder, or there isn't any abortion.
    Got a tummy ache? Maybe if you treated that dis-ease with dinner, the tummy ache would go away, naturally.

2. I will highlight for you, above.

3. The complexity of nature is way beyond what could happen by the odds. We are starting to understand a little about the complexity of it. As you explain, nature doesn't have a mind for thinking. But the Creator did, so He made nature for us. And just to point us into an understanding of Him, He made nature so complex that only stupidity can deny Him.

4. You lump everybody together when you say "countries." Average people trade and barter. It's the leaders who make fiat so that they can use the fiat to leach off the people. People see an advantage in using fiat, so they use it without realizing that the leaders are making a fortune off them thru their use of it.
    If your interfering with the property of others isn't in a big way - like chemtrails interfering with the lives of everybody who the chemtrails are sprayed over - any inappropriate interfering will be dealt with by your neighbor, when he asks you to stop interfering with his property.
    Abortion is interfering with the property of the new person who can't easily ask you to stop. But when a fetus at later stages of the pregnancy realizes that it is being aborted from the outside, it fights as much as it can to live.

5. Some of the abortion is just as you say. But all of the abortion is murdering a person. If we agree to disregard the fact of the chromosomes being the same in the fertilized egg as they are in the hundred-year-old person, we would still only be guessing if we suggest that the zygote is not human. We don't have the ability to determine if the zygote is simply a stage in the life of a person... without chromosomes, that is.
    If we throw in the chromosomes, we see that the zygote is absolutely a person, and that the zygote stage is simply one of many stages in the lives of people.

Abortion is murder.

1. what? abortion is part of natural selection? ohhhhhh then why did it became a murder?

2. just pure dumb, so cute

3. Nature, then became religious, As I said, your religious comments will not have any meaning in this arguments

4. I agree when it became a "FETUS" it would be a murder, but the topic is when it is a zygote, that is if aborted, it won't be a murder.

5. Zygote and a 100 year old is not correlated to one another when you topic what life is. A 100 year old person is a person who lived 100 years of his/her life as a human being, as a living organism with organs intact, while a zygote isn't. Zygote is not a person as this cell doesn't have senses at all, a fetus does, but a zyogte doesn't.

1. Just because you naturally select to not naturally select your personal, natural selection, doesn't mean you don't. Go to the rock and ask it to select something. Go to the blade of grass and ask it to naturally select something. Go to the fish or the elk or the bird and ask them to naturally select something. If they select anything for you, it is by programming - instinct - not by selection. However, if you select to abort, you have selected... the only natural selection we know about.

In other words, nature has programming selected by the Programmer of the Universe. Nature doesn't select. It only follows the complex programming. But since you have a touch of the Great Programmer in you, you can naturally select, a thing nature can't do.

2. You like pink? Here and two places above.

3. Part of my personal religion is to believe nature isn't religious. But it seems that you have a religion of non-religion. Are you really trying to declare yourself to not have any meaning?

4. Same chromosomes in the zygote as the hundred-year-old, and every stage in between. Unsafe, arbitrary judgment that murdering one is not murdering the other.

5. A zygote feels. How do we know? Because we can watch it react, under the microscope, when it is poked. Because of how complex it is, we call this feeling sensing. How cruel you are to poke at a zygote under a microscope, not caring if you have killed a person or not.

[Natsuu]

~SNIP~

1. what? abortion is part of natural selection? ohhhhhh then why did it became a murder?

2. just pure dumb, so cute

3. Nature, then became religious, As I said, your religious comments will not have any meaning in this arguments

4. I agree when it became a "FETUS" it would be a murder, but the topic is when it is a zygote, that is if aborted, it won't be a murder.

5. Zygote and a 100 year old is not correlated to one another when you topic what life is. A 100 year old person is a person who lived 100 years of his/her life as a human being, as a living organism with organs intact, while a zygote isn't. Zygote is not a person as this cell doesn't have senses at all, a fetus does, but a zyogte doesn't.

1. Just because you naturally select to not naturally select your personal, natural selection, doesn't mean you don't. Go to the rock and ask it to select something. Go to the blade of grass and ask it to naturally select something. Go to the fish or the elk or the bird and ask them to naturally select something. If they select anything for you, it is by programming - instinct - not by selection. However, if you select to abort, you have selected... the only natural selection we know about.

In other words, nature has programming selected by the Programmer of the Universe. Nature doesn't select. It only follows the complex programming. But since you have a touch of the Great Programmer in you, you can naturally select, a thing nature can't do.

2. You like pink? Here and two places above.

3. Part of my personal religion is to believe nature isn't religious. But it seems that you have a religion of non-religion. Are you really trying to declare yourself to not have any meaning?

4. Same chromosomes in the zygote as the hundred-year-old, and every stage in between. Unsafe, arbitrary judgment that murdering one is not murdering the other.

5. A zygote feels. How do we know? Because we can watch it react, under the microscope, when it is poked. Because of how complex it is, we call this feeling sensing. How cruel you are to poke at a zygote under a microscope, not caring if you have killed a person or not.

1. What do you imply in your statement? something irrelevant I see, and go see a psychiatrist as you may seem to need it. Cause you really go to and ask non-living organisms a questions, fr.

2. ---------dumb---------

3. part of my personal religion is to believe that your personal religion is not a religion, and your religion is not needed for any arguments  8

4. If it is arbitrary judgement in the first place, you are simply deciding from your whim and assumptions. When in fact, 100 year old and a zygote is far different from one another as I've mentioned above

5. The complexity that you mentioned have been studied for time and time, and research shown it is does not have feelings as this zygote only will have "living capability" after 9 -11 weeks which are now called as "FETUS"

Another thing, if you are just comparing chromosomes to be the point of reference and justification in your definition of "MURDER", then amputating someones arm when needed can be considered "MURDER" from your definition as it has full sets of chromosomes in it 

[BADecker]

~SNIP~

1. what? abortion is part of natural selection? ohhhhhh then why did it became a murder?

2. just pure dumb, so cute

3. Nature, then became religious, As I said, your religious comments will not have any meaning in this arguments

4. I agree when it became a "FETUS" it would be a murder, but the topic is when it is a zygote, that is if aborted, it won't be a murder.

5. Zygote and a 100 year old is not correlated to one another when you topic what life is. A 100 year old person is a person who lived 100 years of his/her life as a human being, as a living organism with organs intact, while a zygote isn't. Zygote is not a person as this cell doesn't have senses at all, a fetus does, but a zyogte doesn't.

1. Just because you naturally select to not naturally select your personal, natural selection, doesn't mean you don't. Go to the rock and ask it to select something. Go to the blade of grass and ask it to naturally select something. Go to the fish or the elk or the bird and ask them to naturally select something. If they select anything for you, it is by programming - instinct - not by selection. However, if you select to abort, you have selected... the only natural selection we know about.

In other words, nature has programming selected by the Programmer of the Universe. Nature doesn't select. It only follows the complex programming. But since you have a touch of the Great Programmer in you, you can naturally select, a thing nature can't do.

2. You like pink? Here and two places above.

3. Part of my personal religion is to believe nature isn't religious. But it seems that you have a religion of non-religion. Are you really trying to declare yourself to not have any meaning?

4. Same chromosomes in the zygote as the hundred-year-old, and every stage in between. Unsafe, arbitrary judgment that murdering one is not murdering the other.

5. A zygote feels. How do we know? Because we can watch it react, under the microscope, when it is poked. Because of how complex it is, we call this feeling sensing. How cruel you are to poke at a zygote under a microscope, not caring if you have killed a person or not.

1. What do you imply in your statement? something irrelevant I see, and go see a psychiatrist as you may seem to need it. Cause you really go to and ask non-living organisms a questions, fr.

2. ---------dumb---------

3. part of my personal religion is to believe that your personal religion is not a religion, and your religion is not needed for any arguments  8

4. If it is arbitrary judgement in the first place, you are simply deciding from your whim and assumptions. When in fact, 100 year old and a zygote is far different from one another as I've mentioned above

5. The complexity that you mentioned have been studied for time and time, and research shown it is does not have feelings as this zygote only will have "living capability" after 9 -11 weeks which are now called as "FETUS"

Another thing, if you are just comparing chromosomes to be the point of reference and justification in your definition of "MURDER", then amputating someones arm when needed can be considered "MURDER" from your definition as it has full sets of chromosomes in it  

1. Seems that we lost the gist of this, somewhere along the line.

2. Exactly! Check the pinks^^.

3. That's a very interesting religion you have there! [religion... "something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice" - https://www.dictionary.com/browse/religion?s=t

4. Same chromosomes at the base. In other words, the same pattern is in it all. Just because the pattern for the arms and legs hasn't been executed, yet, doesn't mean that the zygote isn't a person. You are limiting the person's life in a way that is not a certainty.

You don't go out hunting, see a patch of brown in the bushes, shoot without knowing exactly what it is in the bushes, and then wonder why your spouse is late bringing the wild onions to prepare dinner.

When you can prove that a zygote is NOT a stage in the life of a person, then come back with the proof.

5. The studies are wrong, but mostly based on the desire to be wrong. The promise for an adult life is there in the life of the zygote. How long does it take a sperm and egg to combine their chromosomes after the sperm enters the egg? You have about that long before it becomes a person.

6. So, be careful not to harm a person in any way, because it might be considered murder. Dr. Martin Luther of the Lutheran Church explained the "Thou shalt not kill" commandment this way. "We should fear and love God that we may not hurt nor harm our neighbor in his body, but help and befriend him in every bodily need [in every need and danger of life and body]." How much closer of a neighbor can you have than the new life supported in Mommy's tummy?

[franky1]

When people started to exist, there weren't any doctors or medicine around to heal them from diseases. Nature did that job.

back in those days. there was no civilisation. women got treated like animals. they were raped and some brave women would find ways to end the pregnancy by their rapist.

yes abortion is not a modern process. its been around longer than you think
as for nature.. now your throwing your god principals away and instead invoking your darwin principals.
you are a funny man. you can never actually understand a topic and form a concrete opinion that will stay.

heck you even say nature should take care of it and not laws. then you say you want laws to take care of it and not nature

well in nature. before laws woman could end their pregnancy. as it was their body.
well in law. abortions are a thing

i find it funny how your nature mindset actually wants more laws to control human decision about their body
i find it funny how your antigov oversight mindset wants more laws to control human decision about their body

you flip flop so much that you are not even making any valid points any more.
so take some time and work out which side of the fence you sit on eg nature or gov oversight.
then come back with a concrete opinion that does not waiver