Abortion Lobby Denies Science Concerning Beginning of Human Life
In a bold new article, abortion advocates attack President Trump’s HHS plan promising protection for Americans “at every stage of life, beginning at conception” by claiming that “life doesn’t begin at conception.”
Simply put, there is no missing link in the cycle of life, life is a continuum. There are no mystical jumper cables that can somehow shock life into inanimate tissue. No biology book ever published identifies where life ceases to exist before and after fertilization. The Sperm containing the DNA from the father is alive, the Egg containing the DNA from the mother is alive, the fertilized egg is alive. At no period does life not exist. Conception is the creating of a new and unique life. A life that is totally separate from the mother’s. The baby at no time is ever “part of a woman’s body.” The baby is hidden from the mother’s body by the placenta and amniotic fluid in order to protect the baby from the mother’s antibodies.
If the baby was part of a woman’s body, it would be impossible to have male children, babies with blood types that conflict with the mother’s, or surrogate mothers. Facts are, the baby is as much a part of the father’s body as it is the mothers, the mother is simply carrying and feeding the child internally, but they are completely separated. It is undeniable that if natural or accidental causes do not end the life a baby, the baby will be born and live a life as a new and unique individual. It is undeniable that an abortion intentionally ends that life. If your mother had had an abortion, you would not be reading this article right now. Be thankful your mother didn’t buy into the lie that your new and unique life didn’t begin at conception…because it did.
- If men delivered the babies, I doubt many women would favor abortion.
- If stopping a baby from continued development and eventual birth isn’t killing a child, what is it?
- Why is a father charged with murder if his actions cause the death of his unborn child?
- If a surrogate mother decides to abort a baby which shares none of her DNA, how can that possibly not be murder?
- If a baby is born prematurely, and its life depends on and is enclosed within a life support system, is that baby then “part of the life support system?” Would unplugging the life support not be considered murder?
- If life doesn’t begin at conception, when does it begin and why?
- If a baby doesn’t share any DNA of its surrogate mother, how could that baby possibly be considered part of the surrogate’s body?
- If a baby is raised in a test tube, do we consider it part of the test tube?
Read More: Abortion Lobby Denies Science Concerning Beginning of Human Life
Ohio Outlaws Selective Abortion of Down Syndrome Babies
The consequences of son preference and sex-selective abortion in China and other Asian countries
Banning Abortions in Cases of Race or Sex Selection or Fetal Anomaly
What do the new ‘gay genes’ tell us about sexual orientation?
Epigenetic ‘tags’ linked to homosexuality in men
Doctor Charged with Killing Fetus by Putting Abortion Pill in Girlfriend’s Tea
Federal agents found fetuses in body broker’s warehouse
Video Catches Planned Parenthood Selling Body Parts of Aborted Babies Without Patient Permission
President Donald Trump Recognized as ‘Pro-Life Person of the Year’ for 2017
Abortion Activist Targeting Pregnancy Centers Says She Wishes She Had Aborted Her 15-Year-Old Son
Dear Pro-Aborts, I Assume You Won’t Mind If I Stomp On These Endangered Sea Turtle Eggs
Truly sick, NARAL celebrate Father’s Day
Women’s March Demonstrator Freaks Out on Pro-Lifer: ‘No Uterus, No Opinion!’
Women’s March-er Boasts About Multiple Abortions: ‘I Don’t Give a F**k!’
Please Like, Share, Subscribe and Comment
NASA Has More Evidence Volcanic Activity Is Heating Up Antarctica’s Ice Sheet
A 2014 University of Texas study found western Antarctica was a literal hotbed for geothermal heat. Researchers concluded that “large areas at the base of Thwaites Glacier are actively melting in response to geothermal flux consistent with rift-associated magma migration and volcanism.”
The following year, another team of U.S. scientists found there’s a huge amount of geothermal heat under western Antarctica. “The high geothermal heat flux may help to explain why ice streams and subglacial lakes are so abundant and dynamic in this region,” the study found.
Earlier this year, Scottish researchers found 91 previously unidentified volcanoes under the Antarctic ice sheet, including one that’s some 13,000 feet tall.
Read More: NASA Has More Evidence Volcanic Activity Is Heating Up Antarctica’s Ice Sheet
An Informative Interview with István Markó
Grégoire Canlorbe: Climate activism is thought of as Marxism’s Trojan horse, a way for its followers to proceed with their face masked, in the never-ending holy war that Marxism claims will be necessary to establish communist totalitarianism. Yet it was actually Margaret Thatcher, the muse of conservative libertarianism, who kick-started the IPCC. How do you make sense of this?
István Markó: More precisely, Margaret Thatcher, although a trained chemist and therefore aware of the mendacious character of such an allegation about carbon dioxide (CO2), was the first proponent to use the excuse of climate implications posed by CO2 to achieve her political ends. At the time, that is, in the mid-1980s, Thatcher was waging war with the almighty coal union. In those days, the UK coal unions were remunerating themselves with public monies and by lobbying via the Labour Party had managed to pass an enormous number of laws and subsidies to keep an industry afloat that was no longer profitable on its own.
While facing a strike by the British miners, chaired by Arthur Scargill, (nick-named “Arthur the Red”) who was later to found and lead the Socialist Labor Party, Thatcher thought it worthwhile to enshrine the thesis of warming linked to CO2 emissions to wind up the trade unionists holding her country hostage. But she was not really the initiator of the IPCC. The “kick-off,” as you call it, came more from personalities who were involved in hard ecologism, such as Norwegian Gro Harlem Brundtland, who chaired the UN Commission responsible for the famous 1987’s report “Our Common Future,” or Canadian Maurice Strong, who ranks among the founding members of the IPCC.
Read More: An Informative Interview with István Markó
The young and the ignorant are too frequently brainwashed.
They see science as 100% political and hence subject to a ‘majority rules’ political mandate. The author (Ruairí Arrieta-Kenna) is a student at Stanford with a degree in political science and a minor in ‘race and ethnicity.’ He obviously has no scientific training, because he has no clue that science is based on logic and evidence only, not authority and consensus. You might think that he would suspect that authority and consensus are logical fallacies because that has been known since the time of Aristotle. But in our Post-Modern world, I doubt that college students ever pay attention to the wisdom that has been with us for forty centuries.
They certainly will never understand what Nobel Laureate in Physics Richard Feynman meant when he said “Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts” or what Albert Einstein meant by “One man can prove me wrong.” And they have likely never heard the motto of the British Royal Society: “Take no one’s word for it.” That expressed the determination of the Fellows to avoid the domination of authority and to make decisions based on data gathered by experiment.
In his book “Fashionable Nonsense,” the well-known Professor of Physics and Mathematics Alan Sokal talks about how Post-Modernists go so far as to deny the value of truth.
Read More: The young and the ignorant are too frequently brainwashed.
Post Publishing Edit: Jerry Brown: World Needs ‘Brain Washing’ on Climate Change
JAMES DELINGPOLE: HOW THE WORLD BANK KEEPS POOR NATIONS POOR
Its policy of eco-imperialism forces renewables on a reluctant but largely helpless developing world
Nigeria’s Minister of Finance, Kemi Adeosun: ‘We want to build a coal power plant because we are a country blessed with coal, yet we have a power problem. So it doesn’t take a genius to work out that it will make sense to build a coal power plant. However, we are being blocked because it is not green. This is not fair, because they have an entire western industrialization that was built on coal-fired energy.”
There are 1.2 billion people without access to electricity and 2.7 billion without modern cooking facilities. Household air pollution from solid fuels is estimated to have killed 3.5 million people in 2010. The cost of blackouts and brownouts in sub-Saharan Africa is, in some cases, in excess of 5 percent of GDP. Unlike developed nations, these countries do not need their consciences salved by bat-chomping bird-slicing eco-crucifixes. They need energy that works.
Read More: JAMES DELINGPOLE: HOW THE WORLD BANK KEEPS POOR NATIONS POOR
Please like, share, subscribe and comment.
We need to stop building Wind and Solar Farms and start turning our Cities into Green Space. Funny how the people most concerned with global warming are the very people causing it. Climate alarmists like to dress others in their dirty clothes.
Above Joe Bastardi shows the GFS 1-6 day forecast for temperatures across the United States and points out that “the models are so good now that they are picking up the urban heat island (UHI) effect” and building them into the forecasts. Above readers will note that the major metropolitan areas (right where the stations happen to be placed) are all warmer than the surrounding regions.
Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Orlando, Chicago, New York City – among other places – are all showing higher temperatures, around 2°C warmer.
Read More: Advanced Weather Forecasting Models Confirm Urban Heat Island Effect…It’s Very Real
Please like, share, subscribe and comment.
“Ten psychological tactics for avoiding accountability and how to address them” by Kelly O’Donnell (PhyD). According to the article, here are the “tactical tricks”:
- Delegate the matter to someone else internally – diffuse it, distance yourself from it – and do everything to avoid an internal and especially an independent review.
- Avoid, reword, or repackage, the issues – obfuscate the facts, or at least talk tentatively or vaguely about some mistakes in the past and that you or someone could probably have done a better job on … but go no further; rationalise and/or disguise any culpability.
- Focus on minor or “other” things so as to look like you are focusing on the central things, punctuating it all with the language of transparency and accountability.
- Appeal to your integrity and to acting with the highest standards, without demonstrating either.
- Point out your past track record. Highlight anything positive that you are doing or contributing to now.
- Ask and assume that people should trust you without verification. Offer some general assurances that you have or will be looking into the matter and all is okay.
- State that you are under attack or at least that you are not being treated fairly or that people just don’t understand.
- Mention other peoples’ (alleged) problems, question their motives and credibility; dress someone else in your own dirty clothes, especially if they are noisome question-askers or whistleblowers.
- Prop up the old boys’ leadership club, reshuffle the leadership deck if necessary yet without changing leaders or their power or how they can cover for each other in the name of “loyalty” and on behalf of the “greater good”. Try to hold out until the dust settles and the “uncomfortable” stuff hopefully goes away.
- So in short, don’t really do anything with real transparency and accountability; rather, maintain your self-interests, lifestyle, affiliations, and allusions of moral congruity, even if it means recalibrating your conscience – essentially, acting corruptly via complicity, cover-ups, and cowardice.
Read More: Ten Psychological Tactics for Avoiding Climate Science Accountability
Please like, share, subscribe and comment