https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-10-04/donald-trump-coronavirus-concerning-period-48-hours-critical/12729740

Trump claims medicines are miracles from God, clearly he has no idea what a miracle is and I'm wondering how come Hydroxycloroquine didn't keep him safe, that was supposed to be Trump's miracle drug?

Physician historian Jacalyn Duffin has examined Vatican sources on 1400 miracles Overwhelmingly the miracles cited in canonizations between 1588 and 1999 are healings, and the majority entail medical care and physician testimony.


The Church has no difficulty in turning to scientific expertise because it just sees the work of science as part of our work on earth as ordained by God. They see no contradiction in questioning the world and what has happened by asking for scientific testimony along with religious testimony.
https://www.catholicweekly.com.au/meet-jacalyn-duffin-the-atheist-scientist-who-believes-in-miracles/

Is HC a miracle drug in the fight against the virus? No. If it was, we’d know by now. But it does seem to help in certain cases, such as when administered early to patients with no underlying conditions, or as a prophylactic for front line personnel. The President is old and overweight . So he has 2 underlying issues .
Recent news on HQ confirms it's effectiveness for patients it applies to .
In a series of randomized controlled trials, the malaria drug hydroxychloroquine did not show a statistically significant impact on the prevention or treatment of COVID-19. But when data from five of those trials were combined, researchers found that early use of the drug by people who were not hospitalized yielded a statistically significant 24% reduction in risk of infection, hospitalization or death.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-science-idUSKBN26N3F1

In Michigan, a study of more than 2,500 patients at six Detroit-area hospitals found that HC, administered early, significantly cut the death rate. “Our analysis shows that that using hydroxychloroquine helped save lives,” said Steven Kalkanis, CEO of the Henry Ford Health System. “It needs to be used early,” he added. “It needs to be used in a hospital setting.”
https://www.henryford.com/news/2020/07/hydro-treatment-study


In New York City, researchers with the Mt. Sinai Health System studying more than 6000 patients with Covid-19 found they died at a lower rate when treated with HC. In the study, after adjusting for other risk factors, the Mt. Sinai researchers found that “hydroxychloroquine use was associated with decreased in-hospital mortality.”

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11606-020-05983-z

A massive study of more than 300,000 people in India , including front line medical personnel, found that HC provided prophylactic benefits. “The task force of medical experts, including physicians and super specialists, have recommend and backed the drive to administer HC in cluster areas and high exposure cases,” a senior medical official told the Indian Express. “The benefits seem to far outweigh the debate around its risks and it has certainly helped in implementing the preventive strategies.”
https://indianexpress.com/article/india/vadodara-administration-drive-hcq-helping-in-containing-covid-19-cases-say-docs-as-analysis-begins-6486049/

I am glad he is taking Regeneron's antibody cocktail. I have owned stock in Regeneron since it was a start up.

Augustine said that miracles are not contrary to nature .....only to our understanding of nature .

Tom I know this, I have seen miracles, not drug induced cures, for Trump to suggest it is a miracle mocks God and you don't want to do that

Tom I know this, I have seen miracles, not drug induced cures, for Trump to suggest it is a miracle mocks God and you don't want to do that
God works in mysterious ways....

you know what really mocks God . Professing to be a Catholic and then being pro-abortion , (that is of course if that is what Quid believes . He has changed his position multiple times since 1973 ;being dragged along by his party) .

Calling a drug a miracle in contemporary English lexicon is to say that it is a very effective medical treatment that cures very difficult diseases to cure .

for Trump to suggest it is a miracle mocks God and you don't want to do thatI think that's a little over the top. I hear people rather frequently refer to God's providence as "a miracle". They don't intend that to be taken too literally. It's just a way, in many cases, to simply say that ultimately, God is to be praised for their provision.


you know what really mocks God . Professing to be a Catholic and then being pro-abortion , (that is of course if that is what Quid believes . He has changed his position multiple times since 1973 ;being dragged along by his party) .Exactly, exactly correct. Thank you for saying it.

God works in mysterious ways....

Yes if he saved Trump it is mysterious but then..............................

Yes if he saved Trump it is mysterious but then..............................
Trump seems to be knocking himself to become a COVID martyr -- takes unapproved meds, gets out of bed and sits fully dressed and maskless at a desk importantly signing a blank sheet of paper, leaves the hospital for a short drive (in a hermetically sealed SUV, germs wildly floating around inside) so he can wave to anyone who's looking....

Yes if he saved Trump it is mysterious but then..............................Oh? So you can understand God saving, let's say, YOU, but not Trump? Wow. What a statement. I sincerely hope that surely I misunderstood your comment.

Oh? So you can understand God saving, let's say, YOU, but not Trump? Wow. What a statement. Hopefully you meant something else.

I'm sure there are many Christian people praying for Trump, and maybe he will answer them in the affirmative, but let us pray he gives Trump some common sense that would be a miracle. as to Trump, he too can be saved just as all of us can, but it takes true faith in God

Psalm 52

Oooh

Why do you boast of, evil?
Oh, you mighty men
Why do you boast all of the day
Your ways are disgraceful in the eyes of the Lord
Your tongue plots destruction like a blade

You wallow in deceit
And you love evil more than good
And you love lies
And every harmful word, oh lying tongue

Oooh

Surely God will bring you down to
Everlasting ruin
He will uproot you from the land
Then the righteous, they will see and
They will see and fear
They will laugh at him and they will say

Here is the one
The one who did not make the Lord his strength
But trusted in his wealth
And he grew strong, destroying others

Oooh





But I am like an olive tree
Flourishing in the house of God
I trust in Him, in His unfailing love
And I will praise You evermore
For all the things that You have done
And I will hope, I will hope in Your name
For Your name is good
And I will praise You
And I will sing
In the presence of Your saints

Why does the loony right-wing always refer to pro-CHOICE as pro-abortion? The majority of those who support people choosing abortion for themselves are personally against abortion for THEMselves. They support CHOICE, not ABORTION. Why is the distinction so hard to understand?

'Clete - love that Psalm, I'm a big fan of the Psalms - greatest religious poetry ever composed, maybe best ANY poetry ever.

Why does the loony right-wing always refer to pro-CHOICE as pro-abortion? The majority of those who support people choosing abortion for themselves are personally against abortion for THEMselves. They support CHOICE, not ABORTION. Why is the distinction so hard to understand?

'Clete - love that Psalm, I'm a big fan of the Psalms - greatest religious poetry ever composed, maybe best ANY poetry ever.

It's all about "freedom" I think I heard of it spoken once before freedom to live was obliviated by misguided views on what constitutes freedom

yes Athos it is amazing what the Spirit of the Lord comes up with when speaking through men but how David anticipated Trump so accurately we can only put down to god given inspiration

hmm . I would never murder but I approve others rights to choose committing murder . You can't be pro choice without being pro abortion. Pro Choice is the vague term used to justify being pro abortion. “Freedom to choose what ?”

hmm . I would never murder but I approve others rights to choose committing murder . You can't be pro choice without being pro abortion. Pro Choice is the vague term used to justify being pro abortion. “Freedom to choose what ?”

Freedom to CHOOSE to have or to not have an abortion. What is so hard to understand? If pro-choice is vague then so is pro-life.

Your premise is faulty. To most people, abortion is NOT murder. A fetus is not a child for at least two-thirds of the gestation period. That is one of the positions of the pro-choice faction. The pro-choice people understand that the anti-abortion people claim human life begins at conception.

That has been discussed and argued about frequently here. There's no need to hash it all out again with no conclusion in sight that is satisfactory to both sides. Each side has given their point of view.

had to respond when you called my position that of the 'loony right-wing'; and yes I have no intention to rehash it except to respond to your reply . Science is on my side . After birth a human goes through various stages of development baby ,youth ,teen years ,adult elderly etc. We all change. That is true before birth also . A single cell human zygote, or a more developed human embryo, or human fetus is a human being and that's the way they are supposed to look at those particular periods of development.

So where are the prolife policies that come with taking a woman's choice to carry a pregnancy to term? You don't get to walk away from prenatal care and counselling, childcare, schooling, teen issues, and education, or the raising of that child. Saying a woman should have thought of that before she did the deed...with a dude...is an inadequate cop out that belies the responsibility of that life when YOU make a choice to take her responsibility from her. No different than throwing a guy in jail and feeding the fool until he gets out. Humans require it so why make a baby a victim of your neglect after being unwanted in the first place?

The failure to admit you don't want the responsibility either, so it's okay to punish both mother and child is the hypocrisy of the so called pro-life crowd to hide their own deadbeat mentality, and visit it on everybody else. Science is no man made miracle but a discovery of the unknown oft speculated, and the miracle is when you APPLY what has been discovered. That requires education of FACTS and not just feelings which makes it a hot emotional topic.

Not just with the subject of abortions, but treatments and care for human sufferings that the discoverers want compensation for the research and work that was put in, so excluding those that can't pay. It's at that point that economics is introduced is when the disasters occur entirely man made, and the less than ideal outcomes are realized.

Why does the loony right-wing always refer to pro-CHOICE as pro-abortion?Because it is?


The majority of those who support people choosing abortion for themselves are personally against abortion for THEMselves.Why are you "personally" against abortion? Isn't your position kind of like saying you would never torture a dog since you are personally opposed to it, but you don't want to restrict someone else's right to do so?

Tal, you are basically saying that it's wrong to expect an adult to act like an adult and carry out her responsibilities to the child she became pregnant with. Same thing with the dad. It's the same as saying that we should expect adults to act like children.

You are exactly right. I don't want the responsibility. That's why I'm not the baby's father. And guess what? You don't either. If you did, you would be out there today working to help young moms and doing that with your own money. Saying that you want to force someone other than Tal to do it is not much of a moral position. Saying that the solution is to just kill the little unborn, unwanted bxstard doesn't strike me as a good solution. And THAT, like it or not, is the solution the "pro-choice" side is advocating for.

had to respond when you called my position that of the 'loony right-wing'

My response using loony right wing was because you have used Quid, Madmim, Emperor etc., as names of Democrats. I'd just as soon drop the whole insult thing if you will.

I'd just as soon drop the whole insult thing if you will.Good idea.

Because it is?

No it is NOT.


Why are you "personally" against abortion? Isn't your position kind of like saying you would never torture a dog since you are personally opposed to it, but you don't want to restrict someone else's right to do so?

If you tortured your dog I would call the authorities since it is against most local laws. Unlike the pro life crowd that advocates murdering abortion doctors, shaming, and denying OTHER care for poor people.


Tal, you are basically saying that it's wrong to expect an adult to act like an adult and carry out her responsibilities to the child she became pregnant with. Same thing with the dad. It's the same as saying that we should expect adults to act like children.


Bullying poor people is not my idea of good guidance or ministering to obvious needs. It's like putting a starving man in jail for stealing bread.


You are exactly right. I don't want the responsibility. That's why I'm not the baby's father. And guess what? You don't either. If you did, you would be out there today working to help young moms and doing that with your own money. Saying that you want to force someone other than Tal to do it is not much of a moral position. Saying that the solution is to just kill the little unborn, unwanted bxstard doesn't strike me as a good solution. And THAT, like it or not, is the solution the "pro-choice" side is advocating for.

The responsibility is yours when you make the choice for her. Seems your way of doing things only applies to poor people though, exclusively it almost seems to be poor women, without regard to situation, circumstance, or aptitude. That is a blatant act of discrimination, no matter how you spin the prochoice position. Pro choicers often acknowledge the need for more services and educational support to HUMANELY help people through the trauma of their "MISTAKES".

Screw your self serving inhumane right wing morality and spin.

What is or is not against the law is not the point. Millions of people around the world have been killed "legally". So I guess you are OK with that since it was not in violation of the laws in existence at that time???

Asking people to be responsible is "bullying"? Well, that is pretty wild.

If you think only poor people go to abortion clinics, you should come to the one I carry a sign at. You would find you are completely deceived. You should see the cars that come in. If those people are poor, then we all need to become poor so we can buy a 50K pickup truck. You're just barking about discrimination to make yourself feel better. You don't care about those women. If you did, you would be trying to help them. Bottom line...you don't know what you're talking about. Any woman who goes in that place can get help by simply asking. And you know who gives the help? If you said the pro-aborts, you would be completely wrong. They are only interested in getting the money. It is ONLY the pro-lifers who give support. That is, of course, unless they take your preferred route and let the clinic kill that bothersome, unwanted, pesky little human being so liberal dems won't have to worry about it anymore. You really like that, Tal? "Kill the little bothersome brat and let me get on my life." That's how it is, my friend.

I sometimes get tired of talking with people who type messages from the safety of their homes and never get out and see how things really are. Put your eyes on the situation and see for yourself. Go to your local clinic. Talk with the pro-lifers. Talk with the women. Don't tell me you've done that because we both know you haven't. Learn a little, and then you can speak intelligently.

Asking people to be responsible is "bullying"? Well, that is pretty wild.

Even if THREE methods of birth control are used, as attested to by female members of this site, a pregnancy can result. Thus, let's bring back chastity belts and institute reversible vasectomies.

Even if THREE methods of birth control are used, as attested to by female members of this site, a pregnancy can result. Thus, let's bring back chastity belts and institute reversible vasectomies.

The anti-abortion crowd prefers "millions of babies murdered" to reversible vasectomies.

Physician historian Jacalyn Duffin has examined Vatican sources on 1400 miracles Overwhelmingly the miracles cited in canonizations between 1588 and 1999 are healings, and the majority entail medical care and physician testimony.

I read the link re J. Duffin and her defense of miracles is simply, "It's a miracle if the recipient believes it's a miracle". That's a nice sentiment but it's hardly science. You seem to be supporting Vatican claims of miracles (1400 of them) but there is no proof of such claims in the article. I'm confused about what your point is.

The anti-abortion crowd prefers "millions of babies murdered" to reversible vasectomies.Completely ridiculous statement with no basis in fact. Why would a pro-life person care about a man getting a vasectomy? And if being Catholic is a problem, then stop being a Catholic, get the vasectomy, and go to a Protestant church.

As to birth control not working, I don't think the answer is to just kill the unborn human being. Is that your solution? "Just kill the unwanted brat!" Is that how it works for you?

As to birth control not working, I don't think the answer is to just kill the unborn human being. Is that your solution? "Just kill the unwanted brat!" Is that how it works for you?
What's your solution?

Have the baby. Need support? Come see the pro-lifers and you will get abundant help. I like my solution a lot better than the typical liberal dem's answer of just killing the unwanted, inconvenient little human being.

You asked a question which I quickly answered, but you did not answer my question. Perhaps you didn't see it, so I'll repeat it. "I don't think the answer is to just kill the unborn human being. Is that your solution?"

Science is on my side . After birth a human goes through various stages of development baby ,youth ,teen years ,adult elderly etc. We all change. That is true before birth also . A single cell human zygote, or a more developed human embryo, or human fetus is a human being and that's the way they are supposed to look at those particular periods of development.

Do you seriously consider zygotes to be human life? When there are enormously more zygotes that are killed through menstruation than continue to development and birth, why are these products of menstruation not buried as humans are buried? Why are there no funeral services for them?

Science can tell us when human life begins from a biological point of view. But do you agree that there is more to human life than biology? Much more? Christianity addresses this by its story in Genesis of Adam and Eve being directly created by God. They are clearly not human life until God breathes life into them - human life or "ensoulment". They are also clearly full-grown adults. Zygotes are not made "in God's image".

The point: Science ignores, as it should, the essential quality of being human which obviously does not occur until some later time in the womb and obviously does not exist in a zygote. So who or what determines the beginning of human life as described here? Religon has an answer as does philosophy. Neither is perfectly true, but it is an attempt to answer the question.

For thousands of years, human life was thought to begin at "quickening" - the sensation a woman feels as the fetus is stirring in her womb. This was Aristotle's belief. Others believe a heart is the beginning of human life, still others the brain. Viability outside the womb is an indicator of human life's beginning. All are far beyond the zygote stage - which occurs at conception. It takes about 24 weeks for a fetus to live outside the womb.

Not until the late 19th century does human life beginning at conception enter the discussion. By the early 20th century, the Catholic Church had declared abortion to be mortal sin.

Coincidentally, a woman's movement had started around 1850 as women began to enter more fully into what was then a male-dominated society. Both voting and working appeared to be other than woman's traditional role in the home. Forbidding abortion was one way to keep woman tied to the home. In this view, abortion has its roots as murder in the anti-feminist movement of the 19th and 20th centuries. It would last until 1973.

Do you seriously consider zygotes to be human life? When there are enormously more zygotes that are killed through menstruation than continue to development and birth, why are these products of menstruation not buried as humans are buried? Why are there no funeral services for them?You seem to be arguing that unless there is a funeral service, the living being is not human. Wouldn't that be a clearly silly idea?


They are also clearly full-grown adults. Zygotes are not made "in God's image".So we are not humans made in God's image until we become adults? Uh oh. Better hide your kids from the liberal dems.

I have never agreed with the, "It's not a living human being," argument. It is plainly living. If it's not human, then what is it? Very plainly, from the moment of conception, it is a separate, living human being.

You mentioned the viability issue. Should the day come, and it will, when viability is pushed back to 16 or 12 weeks, or even earlier, will you revise your description of when human life begins to 16 or 12 weeks? And since you use 24 weeks, do you consider abortions after 24 weeks to be the killing of a human being?

You seem to be arguing that unless there is a funeral service, the living being is not human.

Not at all. I am pointing out the absurdity of considering zygotes as human life. That should have been pretty obvious to you.


So we are not humans made in God's image until we become adults?

Again, not at all. I was making the point that God himself made life in his image which was hardly a zygote.

1. Your quote. "...why are these products of menstruation not buried as humans are buried? Why are there no funeral services for them?" Now if you don't have to have a funeral to be human, then why would it be necessary to bury a zygote for us to consider it human? Besides, when a zygote dies, the mother is typically unaware of it which would certainly at least partially explain why there is no funeral.

2. You pointed out that Adam was an adult when God breathed the breath of life into him. Now he was not a zygote, but he was also not a teen-ager or a child. So unless you want to extend your argument to those exceptions as well, then your point makes no sense.

I'd still like for you to answer this. "You mentioned the viability issue. Should the day come, and it will, when viability is pushed back to 16 or 12 weeks, or even earlier, will you revise your description of when human life begins to 16 or 12 weeks? And since you use 24 weeks, do you consider abortions after 24 weeks to be the killing of a human being?"

What is or is not against the law is not the point. Millions of people around the world have been killed "legally". So I guess you are OK with that since it was not in violation of the laws in existence at that time???

I'm not okay with the taking of life period but humans are quite good at a variety of ways to do that for a variety of reasons. All pretty stupid on there face, mostly whim and impulse. Flawed choices all except hunger and self defense. Fear is not a good reason, though we have laws accepting that too.


Asking people to be responsible is "bullying"? Well, that is pretty wild.

You aren't asking, you demand responsibility from poor often little educated and helpless people. They are the ones you seek to punish. You do not affect those with education and resources.


If you think only poor people go to abortion clinics, you should come to the one I carry a sign at. You would find you are completely deceived. You should see the cars that come in. If those people are poor, then we all need to become poor so we can buy a 50K pickup truck. You're just barking about discrimination to make yourself feel better. You don't care about those women. If you did, you would be trying to help them. Bottom line...you don't know what you're talking about. Any woman who goes in that place can get help by simply asking. And you know who gives the help? If you said the pro-aborts, you would be completely wrong. They are only interested in getting the money. It is ONLY the pro-lifers who give support. That is, of course, unless they take your preferred route and let the clinic kill that bothersome, unwanted, pesky little human being so liberal dems won't have to worry about it anymore. You really like that, Tal? "Kill the little bothersome brat and let me get on my life." That's how it is, my friend.

Please explain how you know that people are going to health clinics, like PP, and others just for abortions? Is that the only services they offer?


I sometimes get tired of talking with people who type messages from the safety of their homes and never get out and see how things really are. Put your eyes on the situation and see for yourself. Go to your local clinic. Talk with the pro-lifers. Talk with the women. Don't tell me you've done that because we both know you haven't. Learn a little, and then you can speak intelligently.

You should never assume what another has experienced or risk making a bigger A$$ of yourself than you have proved to be by assuming. In fact I've checked all the boxes many, many times. Honestly I'm still learning and understanding after decades of actually doing.

Protestors at clinics would rather holler and shame and spit rather than TALK.

I'm not okay with the taking of life periodOf course you are. You routinely vote for advocates of abortion which is the taking of a human life, period.


You aren't asking, you demand responsibility from poor often little educated and helpless people. They are the ones you seek to punish. You do not affect those with education and resources.I'm not demanding anything. I suggest that people get married prior to sex. That way when pregnancy happens, there are two people in the equation to help, but they are free to do as they please. If a single mom asks for help, she can get lots of it from the pro-lifers. She will get nothing but a bill from your pro-abortion buddies. I will never, ever, ever adopt your strategy of just killing those pesky, unwanted children.

The place we go to is an abortion clinic. That's the business they do. If you ever trouble yourself to go look for yourself, you'll find out.


In fact I've checked all the boxes many, many times.I don't believe for one second that you've ever spent 5 minutes at an abortion clinic speaking with protestors and the women going in.


Protestors at clinics would rather holler and shame and spit rather than TALK.Says the man who's too busy typing on a message board to get off his rear end and go do as I've suggested. Just a lot easier to cast accusations at people who spend their time trying to save the lives that you seem to care nothing at all about.

I suggest that people get married prior to sex.
I did. Did you?

That way when pregnancy happens, there are two people in the equation to help, but they are free to do as they please.
Thus, he's free to walk out -- which he does when he hears about the pregnancy.

1. Your quote. "...why are these products of menstruation not buried as humans are buried? Why are there no funeral services for them?" Now if you don't have to have a funeral to be human, then why would it be necessary to bury a zygote for us to consider it human?

It was to show the absurdity of (fully) human life beginning at conception. You appear to have overlooked the absurdity by your question.


Besides, when a zygote dies, the mother is typically unaware of it which would certainly at least partially explain why there is no funeral.

Again, you are diving into the absurdity by your question.The woman is aware of it during menstruation. Look up "menstruation" to understand your own question.


2. You pointed out that Adam was an adult when God breathed the breath of life into him. Now he was not a zygote, but he was also not a teen-ager or a child. So unless you want to extend your argument to those exceptions as well, then your point makes no sense.

I took the example from the book of Genesis in the Bible. If God had created mankind as a teenager or a child, the Bible would have said so - and so would I.


I'd still like for you to answer this. "You mentioned the viability issue. Should the day come, and it will, when viability is pushed back to 16 or 12 weeks, or even earlier, will you revise your description of when human life begins to 16 or 12 weeks? And since you use 24 weeks, do you consider abortions after 24 weeks to be the killing of a human being?"

Viability at 24 weeks is an average. It can be somewhat longer or sooner. In any case, viability was mentioned along with the heart and the brain as ways some determine the beginning of life. As for me, I believe Roe V. Wade is the best rule available re abortion.

These are very old arguments canvassed many times on AMHD maybe a new SCOTUS will reverse previous decisions but it won't stop abortion, the slaughter of the innocents will continue as people worship in the temple of self

I did. Did you?Yes.


Thus, he's free to walk out -- which he does when he hears about the pregnancy.It does happen, but it's much less likely that the boyfriend walking out, and the hub who walks out gets hit with alimony and child support as well he should. It is still a much, much better situation.

I certainly didn't walk out. Did your husband?

Athos, the woman is not aware of a fertilized egg that never implants.

You can't appeal to Adam. Your logic made no sense.

I do appreciate you answering the question. I am dismayed that you brought up the issue of viability and then proceeded to toss it out, but at least you did answer the question.

It does happen, but it's much less likely that the boyfriend walking out, and the hub who walks out gets hit with alimony and child support as well he should. It is still a much, much better situation.
If I were the child and my father disppears or walks out because I exist, I'd rather be dead. I'd want to be born into a stable situation.

I certainly didn't walk out. Did your husband?
Nope. I've been stuck with him for over 50 years.

If I were the child and my father disppears or walks out because I exist, I'd rather be dead. I'd want to be born into a stable situation.So you're suggesting we just kill the child at that point? I mean it's obvious you are suggesting it would make an abortion acceptable, so if that's the case, then why not a six year old?

I was a principal and teacher for more than thirty years. I saw MANY kids go through that exact situation. Not a single one ever indicated they would rather be dead. Your conjecture is very sad.

So you're suggesting we just kill the child at that point? I mean it's obvious you are suggesting it would make an abortion acceptable, so if that's the case, then why not a six year old?
Me as a fetus.

I was a principal and teacher for more than thirty years. I saw MANY kids go through that exact situation. Not a single one ever indicated they would rather be dead. Your conjecture is very sad.
Did you ever dare to ask? They were all emotionally secure, happy, empathetic, centered?

all I can contribute is that I am very glad my birth mother didn't decide to abort me and I have no doubt the same could be said of every aborted fetus should they have been given the opportunity

Of course you are. You routinely vote for advocates of abortion which is the taking of a human life, period.

They MAY be prochoice, not very high on my list of priorities for an elected official, but also promote the kind of governance that will uplift all of us and not just chill for the richest among us. One trick ponies don't get my vote, but I understand your position, it's just not mine.


I'm not demanding anything. I suggest that people get married prior to sex. That way when pregnancy happens, there are two people in the equation to help, but they are free to do as they please. If a single mom asks for help, she can get lots of it from the pro-lifers. She will get nothing but a bill from your pro-abortion buddies. I will never, ever, ever adopt your strategy of just killing those pesky, unwanted children.

You LIE! I've never written a thing about wanting to kill unwanted children or for that matter abandoning them after they are born, wanted or unwanted. Just the opposite, but am interested in knowing more about all that help pro lifers give to women that have their children.


The place we go to is an abortion clinic. That's the business they do. If you ever trouble yourself to go look for yourself, you'll find out.

Never been to such a clinic, and never taken a female for an abortion. I have no clue what you guys have in your small town, but our the women's health clinics I've been to do a full range of female health care, and that includes Planned Parenthood.


I don't believe for one second that you've ever spent 5 minutes at an abortion clinic speaking with protestors and the women going in.[QUOTE]

LOL, doesn't matter what you believe but I have seen what protestors outside our PP clinic is about, mostly raving lunatics, escorted a few women through those lunatics, never for an abortion. I know many pro life advocates, most fairly good people and level headed but weren't just one issue people either. I know some that have terminated pregnancies after having kids already. It's been my experience that pro choicers, like pro lifers have a wide range of feelings on this abortion subject and it's not just a one size fits all opinion.

[QUOTE]Says the man who's too busy typing on a message board to get off his rear end and go do as I've suggested. Just a lot easier to cast accusations at people who spend their time trying to save the lives that you seem to care nothing at all about.

You might still be doing the activist thing my friend, but I admit to being less physically active for a cause as I once was. I won't lie as I was possibly as big a self righteous a$$hole as you still are. Maybe still am, but I find discussing is a better option since I've already been there and done that activist thing, and not just for the abortion cause. As far as abortions go, I've never advocated for them, but do advise the counsel of a doctor when pregnancy is suspected and the rest is between them and that doctor.

Never have I been asked whether or not a person should have an abortion.

Athos, the woman is not aware of a fertilized egg that never implants.

The fertilized egg is flushed out during menstruation. If you had looked up "menstruation" like I suggested, you would know that.


You can't appeal to Adam. Your logic made no sense.

I appealed to the Book of Genesis in the Bible. If my logic made no sense, it's not enough for you to just say so. You need to show why it made no sense.


I do appreciate you answering the question. I am dismayed that you brought up the issue of viability and then proceeded to toss it out, but at least you did answer the question.

I don't why you are dismayed, the issue of viability was brought up earlier. But even so, why the dismay? And why do you say that I proceeded to "toss it out"? By seeming to miss so many obvious points, often in sarcastic language, you make it very difficult to remain civil and continue with whatever is being discussed.

You LIE! I've never written a thing about wanting to kill unwanted children or for that matter abandoning them after they are born, wanted or unwantedNo. You merely vote for and vigorously campaign for those who will continue to allow that very thing to happen, and then act like you have no participation in it. Sorry, but I'm calling you out on that one.


Never been to such a clinic,If you've been to a PP clinic, you've been to an abortion clinic.

You are in favor of abortion when you vote for those in favor of abortion.

Athos, your issue wasn't what happened to the fertilized egg which does not implant. That happens. The issue I raised was that the woman would not be aware of it. She is not.

You say the zygote cannot be made in God's image since that first occurred with Adam, and he was formed fully as an adult. The failure in logic comes in trying to determine where this "image" is imprinted. 3 month fetus? 8 month fetus? 2 year old child? 10 year old child? If not the zygote, then why not? Why are you making that arbitrary decision for the zygote but not for the 2 year old?

You very plainly tossed it out when you said you did not use viability as a standard. You brought up the issue of viability, not me. To say, as you do, that aborting a 24 week fetus is OK when you also acknowledge that the child could live outside the womb is what dismayed me. And please don't complain about sarcasm and civility. You have one of the most biting keyboards on this board. I would suggest you work on your own civility, although to be fair I will say it has been some better lately.

Your characterization that PP or any women's health clinic is exclusively or mostly about just abortions is just old right wing pro-life propaganda. You still have not articulated all that help and services you provide to needy women and children that dems/liberals do not.

Your characterization that PP or any women's health clinic is exclusively or mostly about just abortionsI didn't say that, so you're making it up again. I said that when you go to a PP clinic, you are going to an abortion clinic. Abortions are routinely performed there. Yes, they do other things, but they are still a clinic that does MANY abortions

You surely have implied that's all they do when in fact abortions are a very small part of the total services PP for example provides. What of the VAST majority of other services they provide and how do you tell if a woman is going for an abortion or those other services?

You surely have implied that's all they doNope. Never have. You're making it up again. But no matter what else they do, they kill about 300,000 unborn children a year. You are fine with that. I am not. End of story.

If that's your version, you're welcome to it.

That's not my version. It's how it is. It you can refute it, then go for it, but the silly, meaningless comments accomplish nothing.

Must not be enough people buying into your version of the way things are to make changes. Dontcha hate when that happens?

Must not be enough people buying into your version of the way things are to make changes.That's not how truth is determined. In fact, liberal dems are proving that people will flock to the person promising the most give aways.

You flocked to the dufus because of what he would give you. What human wouldn't?

I "flocked" to Trump because he was anti-abortion, he said he would appoint fed judges who would abide by the rule of law, and because I thought he would balance the budget. Oh well. 2 out of 3. I didn't want him, or any other pres, to "give" me anything. Never really have. I want the feds to leave me alone as much as possible. My trust is not in the government.

That's not my version. It's how it is. It you can refute it, then go for it, but the silly, meaningless comments accomplish nothing.

Great that you now realise that or are you like Trump, your leader full of it

Athos, your issue wasn't what happened to the fertilized egg which does not implant. That happens. The issue I raised was that the woman would not be aware of it. She is not.

I said a huge number of fertilized eggs are flushed out during menstruation. Clearly, that did not mean an egg that continues within the womb. Otherwise, it would not be flushed out during menstruation. I am tempted to characterize your comment with the mis-understanding it deserves, but I'll refrain from doing so and again recommend you learn about menstruation.


You say the zygote cannot be made in God's image since that first occurred with Adam, and he was formed fully as an adult. The failure in logic comes in trying to determine where this "image" is imprinted. 3 month fetus? 8 month fetus? 2 year old child? 10 year old child? If not the zygote, then why not? Why are you making that arbitrary decision for the zygote but not for the 2 year old?

According to Genesis, Adam was formed from dust ("From dust thou art, to dust thou shalt return") and also from clay - either one works.

The failure in logic is all yours. You seem to be saying that Adam's imprint pre-existed Adam. That is not in the Bible (to use your phrase).


You very plainly tossed it out when you said you did not use viability as a standard.

I never said that. I very clearly said viability IS a standard (one of them).


To say, as you do, that aborting a 24 week fetus is OK when you also acknowledge that the child could live outside the womb is what dismayed me.

I don't remember saying anything like that so maybe you misread what I wrote. I'll reply if you can give me the details of what you claim I wrote.

1. I've already covered the menstruation argument earlier. I will say that there are not a "huge number" of fertilized eggs "flushed out" during one menstruation event. There could very well not be any. At any rate, it has nothing to do with whether or not the fertilized egg is a human being. You tried to suggest that not having a funeral for those lost lives was somehow significant in relation to the question of its humanity. It actually means absolutely nothing. It would be like saying that the people lost on the Titanic were not human since, after all, they had no funeral.

2. You still have not answered my question. You say that Adam was formed from dust bearing the image of God as a fully formed adult. You then make the unsupported assertion that the zygote does not have that image. So when does a developing human receive the image of God?

3. This is your quote concerning viability. "Viability at 24 weeks is an average. It can be somewhat longer or sooner. In any case, viability was mentioned along with the heart and the brain as ways some determine the beginning of life. As for me, I believe Roe V. Wade is the best rule available re abortion." So you are rejecting viability as the primary standard. In many states a 30 weeks fetus can be aborted. To say that viability is "a standard" is pretty non-committal.


I don't remember saying anything like that so maybe you misread what I wrote. I'll reply if you can give me the details of what you claim I wrote.Viability means the ability to live outside the womb. In the quote above you clearly say that 24 weeks is an acceptable standard for viability. Do you remember now? And if you intend to include a heartbeat and brain waves as part of the decision, even though you attribute that to what "some" believe, then you have to go back much, much farther than 24 weeks. It just seems that you mention all of that, and then bail out and just go with Roe v Wade.

I don't see how any person can say, " In any case, viability was mentioned along with the heart and the brain as ways some determine the beginning of life," and then reject 24 weeks as a limit for abortion. You would be saying that there are three potential standards for determining "the beginning of life", but then refusing to use any of them. Then why even mention them?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/04/30/fact-check-andrew-cuomo-new-york-law-does-not-allow-abortion-up-until-birth/3014473001/

Typically, pregnancies range from 38 to 42 weeks (https://www.pregnancybirthbaby.org.au/pregnancy-37-to-40-weeks) and babies are considered viable at 37 weeks. Across the country:


43 states restrict abortion by gestational age.
19 states ban abortion at 20 weeks of pregnancy.
5 states ban abortion at 24 weeks of pregnancy.
18 states ban abortion based on viability of the fetus.

Alabama has the most restrictive abortion law (https://legiscan.com/AL/text/HB314/2019) in the U.S., banning abortion at any stage of pregnancy and for any reason, including in cases of rape and incest. The law is on hold after (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50223637)a federal judge ruled the ban "defies the United States Constitution."
Virginia has a more lenient law than Alabama in terms of time frame and bans abortion at the third trimester (https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter4/section18.2-74/), which begins at 25 weeks.
A 2018 report from the CDC (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/67/ss/ss6713a1.htm) found that in 2015, there were 638,169 reported abortions in the U.S. Of those, 65% of the procedures were performed at or before the eight-week mark and 91% were performed at or before the 13-week mark. Only 1.3% of abortions recorded were performed at 21 weeks or later.

considered viable at 37 weeks.That is completely ridiculous. Babies are born frequently several weeks premature and do well. No one considers 37 weeks to be the low range of viability. It is an absurd claim.

"Although it continues to be an ethical dilemna and varies based on what part of the world a baby is born, most doctors define the age of viability (https://www.verywellfamily.com/viable-pregnancy-viability-2371666) as being about 24 weeks of gestation (https://www.verywellfamily.com/24-weeks-pregnant-4159040). In many hospitals, 24 weeks is the cutoff point for when doctors will use intensive medical intervention to attempt to save the life of a baby born prematurely."

https://www.verywellfamily.com/premature-birth-and-viability-2371529

The number of abortions performed annually depends on who you listen to. The Guttmacher Institute reports about 850,000 a year. But imagine what this argument would sound like if we were discussing stillborn babies. "Oh, it's not a big deal. It's only a little more than six hundred thousand stillbirths a year. No big deal. They're not made in the image of God anyway. Sometimes they don't even receive funerals."

Now that is not intended to be sarcastic. It is based on what has been discussed here, on input from others.

Look the law up yourself before you dismiss the article as ridiculous. Viability is determined by the duly certified medical attendant within the applicable law and no one else. Maybe that doesn't meet your sense of morality or outrage but it is the law and there is a process when conditions warrant for extra measures.

In addition, literally a thousand unfertilized eggs are washed from the uterus during mensuration.

What law are you referring to? Even Athos agreed that 24 weeks is the average age of viability. You are simply wrong. Even the New York law uses 24 weeks as a general figure, though you are correct in saying it is up to the doctor. That would be the guy making hundreds of dollars off of every abortion he can possibly perform. I'm sure there is no bias there.


literally a thousand unfertilized eggs are washed from the uterus during mensuration.First of all, that is "literally" untrue. A woman typically releases one egg per menstrual cycle. Her ovaries carry a limited number of eggs (several hundred) intended for a lifetime. Your figure of "a thousand" is preposterous.

https://www.enotes.com/homework-help/how-many-eggs-female-release-month-502915#:~:text=A%20female%20releases%20only%201%20 egg%20per%20cycle,over%20a%20period%20of%2030%20or %20so%20years.

But even if it was true, you rather cleverly tried to change the subject from zygotes, which are fertilized eggs, to "unfertilized eggs". That is not the topic.

A woman typically releases one egg per menstrual cycle.
That's not what happens. Your terminology is incorrect.

It's a related topic. https://www.healthline.com/health/womens-health/how-many-eggs-does-a-woman-have#eggs-lostach-month (https://www.healthline.com/health/womens-health/how-many-eggs-does-a-woman-have#eggs-lost-each-month)

Your link is for OVULATION not MENSTRUATION, and no surprise you don't know the difference.

Your link is for OVULATION not MENSTRUATION, and no surprise you don't know the difference.
Bingo! I suspect JL will serve time in Purgatory as a female.

Your link is for OVU.LATION not MENSTRUATION, and no surprise you don't know the differenceOK. I'll go real slow so you two can keep up. A woman ovulates about 14 days after her last period, usually with one egg. About two weeks later, her menstrual cycle ends and if the egg has not been fertilized and implanted, it is discharged. It is ONE egg, not a thousand which is crazy. To outline the number of eggs produced per cycle, you MUST talk about ovulation since that is when the ONE egg is released. Ovulation produces typically one egg which is usually discharged at the end of her cycle. One...egg...at...a...time. Get in now??? O..n...e---e...g...g----a..t----a----t...i...m...e. I'm sorry, but I just can't go any slower than that.

My terminology was exactly correct. One....egg...per...menstrual...cycle. Bear in mind that a menstrual cycle is about a month long. You are the one confusing terminology. For the painfully uninformed among us, ovulation is a part of a woman's menstrual cycle.

A thousand eggs. Laughable. And to be so deceitful as to change the topic from zygotes to unfertilized eggs? Shameful. Purgatory for intentionally lying? Does that happen???

You really need to talk about something else. Your ignorance of the subject is pretty bad. But if you can find a doc that will back up your insanely stupid idea that a woman releases a thousand eggs at a time, I'll look at it. Prepare, however, to be disappointed. You would be much better served to simply admit you made a mistake.

1. I've already covered the menstruation argument earlier.

No, you haven't.


I will say that there are not a "huge number" of fertilized eggs "flushed out" during one menstruation event.

You are correct. I should have said during a woman's lifetime.


At any rate, it has nothing to do with whether or not the fertilized egg is a human being.

It has EVERYTHING to do with that.


You tried to suggest that not having a funeral for those lost lives was somehow significant in relation to the question of its humanity.

I was trying to show you the absurdity of claiming life begins at conception. (When I say "life", I mean fully human life). If you truly believed life begins at conception, you would do something about those zygotes that are flushed out. Since you are not at all concerned about those human lives, I suspect your claim of being against abortion because it is murder is a convenient stance that is probably more political than anything. I say this based on your stated belief that abortion is your reason for supporting Trump. It may be the other way around.


You say that Adam was formed from dust bearing the image of God as a fully formed adult. You then make the unsupported assertion that the zygote does not have that image.

I never made that assertion. You have a habit of saying, "You made that assertion", when it is not true. I wish you would stop doing that. Or present a word-for-word direct quote for what you say I said.


[So when does a developing human receive the image of God?This is when. "So God created man in His own image". From the Book of Genesis. After that, God left the continuation of the species up to Adam and Eve - "Be fruitful and multiply". The Book does not say when a developing human receives the image of God.


3. This is your quote concerning viability. "Viability at 24 weeks is an average. It can be somewhat longer or sooner. In any case, viability was mentioned along with the heart and the brain as ways some determine the beginning of life. As for me, I believe Roe V. Wade is the best rule available re abortion."

You quoted me correctly. Thank you. Roe v Wade allows abortion through the second trimester. In certain cases, in the third trimester also.


So you are rejecting viability as the primary standard.

I don't know where you got that from. I never said that I was rejecting viability as the primary standard. In fact, Row v Wade is primarily based on viability.


In the quote above you clearly say that 24 weeks is an acceptable standard for viability.

No, I did NOT say that! I said 24 weeks is an AVERAGE standard.


And if you intend to include a heartbeat and brain waves as part of the decision,

No, here you are in that bad habit again, telling me what I believe. The heartbeat and brain were example of what SOME people maintain. It is not a standard I said I believe in.


even though you attribute that to what "some" believe

Even though? That's exactly who I attributed it to - some. Or "some".


then you have to go back much, much farther than 24 weeks.

I have to do nothing of the sort. I don't know how you make such statements. Now you're telling me what I have to DO, not just what I SAID, or what I THINK!


It just seems that you mention all of that, and then bail out and just go with Roe v Wade.

I mentioned "all of that" because "all of that" was part of the discussion. How you got to"I bailed" out is beyond me.


I don't see how any person can say,

That's pretty obvious because there is so much you don't see with your misrepresentations of me doing, saying and thinking.


In any case, viability was mentioned along with the heart and the brain as ways some determine the beginning of life," and then reject 24 weeks as a limit for abortion. You would be saying that there are three potential standards for determining "the beginning of life", but then refusing to use any of them. Then why even mention them?

I think this question repeats an earlier one. I have answered that one, so I see no need to do it again.

Jl, if you would just present your case as you believe it with supporting facts as possible, I would be more than happy to read them and reply. Telling me what I'm thinking is not a good way to proceed. You can certainly ask me what I think, that's the civil way. But I may or may not give you an answer you like. That's the way these things are.

It has EVERYTHING to do with that.Oh? How's that?


I don't know where you got that from. I never said that I was rejecting viability as the primary standard. In fact, Row v Wade is primarily based on viability.I gave you your own quote. Can't do more than that.


I mentioned "all of that" because "all of that" was part of the discussion. How you got to"I bailed" out is beyond me.No, it wasn't. You brought up the heartbeat, brain, and viability.


I think this question repeats an earlier one. I have answered that one, so I see no need to do it again.Nope.


But I may or may not give you an answer you like. With you guys, I'm just happy to get any kind of an answer. For instance, you still haven't told us when the developing human can be said to be made in the image of God.

You're a NUT!

I gave you your own quote. Can't do more than that.

You MISQUOTED me! I showed you that! Good grief!


No, it wasn't. You brought up the heartbeat, brain, and viability.

Because it was part of the discussion on when life begins. Good grief 2!


For instance, you still haven't told us when the developing human can be said to be made in the image of God.

Why don't you tell us that one? You're the Bible guy.

You MISQUOTED me! I showed you that! Good grief!It is not possible to misquote someone when you copy and paste their text. That's what I did. Own it.


Because it was part of the discussion on when life begins. Good grief 2!That's fine, but when you say you didn't bring them up, you are incorrect.


Why don't you tell us that one? You're the Bible guy.See what I mean???

Hey, I'm just glad we seem to have settled the silly, unbelievable argument (from Tal and WG) about a thousand eggs coming per cycle for women, or that ovulation is not a part of the menstrual cycle. At least that's progress. And I do appreciate your clarification of the comment you made as well, though I should point out that I know of no reason why there should be an assumption that the several hundred eggs released in the average woman's lifetime would be fertilized.

Hey, I'm just glad we seem to have settled the silly, unbelievable argument (from Tal and WG) about a thousand eggs coming per cycle for women, or that ovulation is not a part of the menstrual cycle.
The thousand-eggs idea wasn't what was being debated with you and wasn't what I responded to. It was ovulation vs. menstruation.

https://extendfertility.com/how-many-eggs-do-women-lose-every-month/


But the fact is that there are tons of other eggs that don’t make it past that first stage. Each cycle, maybe 15–20 follicles are activated, but when they don’t mature, they get “reabsorbed” (AKA, they die). This process is called “atresia.”
And then—to make matters even worse—doctors estimate that we lose up to a thousand additional follicles each month, thanks to natural cell death. If you’re counting, that’s up to 1,021 eggs lost each month. Even if you’re pregnant, on birth control, or otherwise not ovulating. And the number lost each month accelerates as you age.


Case closed!

It is not possible to misquote someone when you copy and paste their text. That's what I did. Own it.

You quoted me word-for-word which I acknowledged and thanked you for. You misquoted me elsewhere for which I criticized you.


That's fine, but when you say you didn't bring them up, you are incorrect.

I never said I didn't bring them up. Show me the quote.


See what I mean???

No, I don't. What do you mean? I should think you would know that since you ARE the Bible guy. Do you object to that?


I know of no reason why there should be an assumption that the several hundred eggs released in the average woman's lifetime would be fertilized.

I never said any such thing. When you so badly write things like you have - that's a sign of really being desperate. When your thoughts are public like they are here, your reputation suffers.

The thousand-eggs idea wasn't what was being debated with you and wasn't what I responded to. It was ovulation vs. menstruation.And so you were wrong and wrong. And what I referred to what not menstruation. It was the menstrual cycle. They are not the same thing. I tend to choose my words carefully.

Tal, as is nearly always the case, you didn't bother to read your own link. The FIRST statement made is this. "Well, you’re halfway right. You ovulate one egg per month, usually. This is the single egg that makes it through the whole ovulatory process: the egg follicle is activated, the egg grows and matures, and then—once it reaches maturation—it breaks free from the ovary and begins on its journey down the Fallopian tubes. That’s ovulation."

As anyone with knowledge can tell you, the follicle has the potential to become and release a mature egg, but nearly always does not. Don't believe me? Read it for yourself. And by the way, my link is not some med site trying to get women to pay good money for their services.

An ovarian follicle is a roughly spheroid cellular aggregation set found in the ovaries (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovaries). It secretes hormones that influence stages of the menstrual cycle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menstrual_cycle). Women begin puberty (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puberty) with about 400,000 follicles,[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovarian_follicle#cite_note-Krogh2010-1) each with the potential to release an egg cell (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egg_cell) (ovum) at ovulation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovulation) for fertilization (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertilization).[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovarian_follicle#cite_note-2) These eggs are developed once every menstrual cycle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menstrual_cycle)."

And to make matters worse (for you), this is your quote. Note that you claimed all these hundreds of imaginary eggs were, "washed from the uterus". Well...nope.
literally a thousand unfertilized eggs are washed from the uterus during mensuration.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovarian_follicle

As you said, "Case closed."

I tend to choose my words carefully.

This has got to be the funniest thing I've seen here in months.

You misquoted me elsewhereWhere? And bear in mind that quotes have those quotation marks around them. Paraphrases are not quotes as we settled what seems like a hundred years ago.


No, I don't. What do you mean?I asked a question. You did not answer it. Parr for the course. Honestly, I knew you wouldn't. Of the three of you, Tal is the only one who will take a stab at answering difficult questions. But I'll repost it for your benefit. "For instance, you still haven't told us when the developing human can be said to be made in the image of God."


I never said any such thing. When you so badly write things like you have - that's a sign of really being desperate. When your thoughts are public like they are here, your reputation suffers.This is the statement of yours I was referring to. "I said a huge number of fertilized eggs are flushed out during menstruation." I suppose we can debate what a "huge" number is. To take it to mean several hundred would certainly not be a stretch at all. But if you consider 80, for example, to be a "huge number", then that would explain what possibly was a misunderstanding.

My thoughts public? I'm happy to be in that situation. Gloriously happy.

My thoughts public? I'm happy to be in that situation. Gloriously happy.

as I said elsewhere; Deluded

Where?

Go find it yourself - it's right there in front of your nose. I'm tired of doing your work for you.


I asked a question. I'll repost it for your benefit. "For instance, you still haven't told us when the developing human can be said to be made in the image of God."

Here's why I didn't answer it --- because you are putting words in my mouth that I never said. This is one of your most annoying habits and you do it far too frequently. Your question assumes I said I would tell you "when the developing human can be said to be made in the image of God." I never made that statement. YOU DID! What I did say, was that you're the Bible guy so you should provide the answer.


My thoughts public? I'm happy to be in that situation. Gloriously happy.

You enjoy being called a nut? Twice? Gloriously? You got your wish.

Go find it yourself - it's right there in front of your nose. I'm tired of doing your work for you.In other words, you have no clue. I have not misquoted you and you know it.


Here's why I didn't answer it --- because you are putting words in my mouth that I never said. This is one of your most annoying habits and you do it far too frequently. Your question assumes I said I would tell you "when the developing human can be said to be made in the image of God." I never made that statement. YOU DID! What I did say, was that you're the Bible guy so you should provide the answer.Excuses, excuses. You're just afraid to answer it. It's still a legit question for the man who claimed to know where the image of God was NOT (zygote), to ask where the image of God begins. "For instance, you still haven't told us when the developing human can be said to be made in the image of God."


You enjoy being called a nut? Twice? Gloriously? You got your wish.I said I'm happy to have MY thoughts pubic, not the foolish comments of others. That's why I don't engage in name-calling the way you do, though in fairness you have improved in that area. Like I've said, when people run out of legit answers, they go to name-calling. It is simply the result of that person's aggravation at having no answers. They are wrong and don't want to admit it.

It's not name calling if it's true. You're just a nut stuck on your own nuttiness is all. You being YOU! You have been consistent in that regard no matter the subject.

No need to come up with a new statement.
Like I've said, when people run out of legit answers, they go to name-calling. It is simply the result of that person's aggravation at having no answers. They are wrong and don't want to admit it.

but what if they are right?

I said I'm happy to have MY thoughts pubic...
This from the man who chooses his words carefully.

Yes it is. That's why I'm happy to stand behind my words. That's why I wasn't alarmed when you asserted I had my terms wrong. As it turned out, that error was yours. Remember your remark about Tal's fake news? "Your link is for OVULATION not MENSTRUATION." Well, I didn't use the term "menstruation". I used the term "menstrual cycle". Your "bingo" reply to Tal put you in the same wrong camp as him.

AHH! That explains why you have reality and BS all mixed up! You really can't tell the difference can you? Are you familiar with invitro fertilization, or the practice of freezing ones eggs? Those processes would be kind of hard if they only had ONE egg to work with wouldn't it?

You just keep digging your hole deeper. You have really reached a very high level of... Well, I won't say it.

How do they come up with all those eggs? Here's how. Please stop being obstinate and look at the bold text that is underlined.

Step 1: Stimulation, also called super ovulation


Medicines, called fertility drugs, are given to the woman to boost egg production.
Normally, a woman produces one egg per month. Fertility drugs tell the ovaries to produce several eggs.
During this step, the woman will have regular transvaginal ultrasounds (https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/003779.htm) to examine the ovaries and blood tests to check hormone levels.

https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/007279.htm#:~:text=In%20vitro%20fertilization%20%2 8IVF%29%20is%20the%20joining%20of,sperm%20has%20at tached%20to%20and%20entered%20the%20egg.

So yep, those ole fertility drugs cause the woman to produce several eggs which she normally does not do. And as the text above explains in a pretty straightforward manner that I used to believe you could understand, she NORMALLY PRODUCES ONE EGG PER MONTH!

Anyone with a science background knows the difference between menstruation and the menstrual cycle. They are not the same thing. Menstruation is the conclusion of the menstrual cycle. Ovulation is also a part of the MC and occurs about halfway through. Are you starting to see this now???

I know you don't realize it, but you are really making an utter fool out of yourself. I would suggest you start arguing for the existence of Martians. You stand a better chance of making some sort of a case there.

Hmm. Seems there is a way for science to harvest more than one egg from a female beyond the NORMAL. Fascinating. Surely you can accept the abnormal release of more than one egg without human direction, in the ovulation process, and the loss of potential eggs through menstruation since and wait for it, normally one egg is released, but many are being matured. What happens to the other eggs that are not NORMALLY released?

Hmm. Seems there is a way for science to harvest more than one egg from a female beyond the NORMAL. Fascinating. Surely you can accept the abnormal release of more than one egg without human direction, in the ovulation process, and the loss of potential eggs through menstruation since and wait for it, normally one egg is released, but many are being matured.None of that has been in dispute.

Look. Have it your way. As you said, a woman releases a thousand unfertilized eggs at a time and they all simply pass though the uterus. All those dumb docs and med experts are wrong and you are right. I'll be sure to let them know.

None of that has been in dispute.

Look. Have it your way. As you said, a woman releases a thousand unfertilized eggs at a time and they all simply pass though the uterus. All those dumb docs and med experts are wrong and you are right. I'll be sure to let them know.

Don't do that. They'll just look at you stupid and give you the big DUH...like I do. Like you said none of what I have written is in dispute by the experts and medical professionals I got the facts from and passed the links to you. Now that that's been settled maybe we can get to the viability of a zygote and the casting of Gods image into man.

Get a peanut butter sandwich first and try the mayo with it.

No. Those med experts must know that the great Tal has decided that a thousand eggs a month pass through a woman's uterus. All the med books are wrong. All your own links were wrong. The great Tal has spoken. Now as to what you are great at, I'll let others decide.

Enough of this insanity.

Now that that's been settled maybe we can get to the viability of a zygote and the casting of Gods image into man.

Yeah, that viability zygote and God image has been run over. Time to get back to it. The zygote being viable is a tough one for the anti-abortion crowd. Hoping jl would enlighten us re his question on the image of God.

Tal! Don't mention God's image to Athos. It terrifies him like a little girl. He absolutely will not answer questions about it. But just in case he forgot... "For instance, you still haven't told us when the developing human can be said to be made in the image of God." Maybe he's just thinking about it. It's only been four days.

I suppose I should be happy he's not employing his usual strategy of allowing a few days to go by, and then insisting that he has already answered it. That's progress!

Tal! Don't mention God's image to Athos. It terrifies him like a little girl. He absolutely will not answer questions about it.

Why do you insist on being such an unmitigated a**hole, a**hole? You twist and turn trying to free yourself from the conundrum you have yourself created.


But just in case he forgot... "For instance, you still haven't told us when the developing human can be said to be made in the image of God."

That is YOUR question a**hole. I never claimed any knowledge here about the image of God in "developing humans" except to cite the Book of Genesis when God created Adam "in his image". You CONSTANTLY misrepresent what I (and others) have written. That is why you have so perfectly earned the nickname of "a**hole" which suits you "to a T".


I suppose I should be happy he's not employing his usual strategy of allowing a few days to go by, and then insisting that he has already answered it.

Well, a**hole, you have now earned a second nickname - liar! What's interesting about this latest lie of yours is that it mirrors exactly what already has been charged against YOU! Psychologists call that projection - attributing one's own unacceptable behavior to another. Think terrified little girl.

We await your answer of your image of God question. Just make sure it's in the Bible.

more argy bargy

I never claimed any knowledge here about the image of God in "developing humans" except to cite the Book of Genesis when God created Adam "in his image". You CONSTANTLY misrepresent what I (and others) have written. That is why you have so perfectly earned the nickname of "a**hole" which suits you "to a T".Oh but you did. You see how you love to make comments and then kind of change them up a few days later? You said the zygote did not bear the image of God. That's why I asked you when that image was imprinted. Remember now???

Thank you for bearing out what I said about you. You get asked an uncomfortable question, and you start running your foul mouth. Well, as I was told in the days of my youth, "Just consider the source." You know, if you can't stand the heat, then stay out of the kitchen. If getting asked a question hurts your feelings that much, then this kitchen is no place for you.

And for your convenience, here it is again. "For instance, you still haven't told us when the developing human can be said to be made in the image of God."


Psychologists call that projection - attributing one's own unacceptable behavior to another. Think terrified little girl.Try having an original thought.

"For instance, you still haven't told us when the developing human can be said to be made in the image of God."

So when you gonna answer the question and stop running YOUR mouth.

Oh but you did. You see how you love to make comments and then kind of change them up a few days later?

Projection!


You said the zygote did not bear the image of God. That's why I asked you when that image was imprinted.

Here is the source of your confusion. You are assuming without a bit of evidence that I claimed to know when "that image" (of God) was imprinted. I never claimed that. I never even claimed any image of God was imprinted on a zygote. In fact, what I DID write was, "Zygotes are not made in God's image".

Positive proof how you turn things around to your own advantage and why we all find it so difficult to exchange ideas with you.


Remember now???

Do YOU?


You know, if you can't stand the heat, then stay out of the kitchen. If getting asked a question hurts your feelings that much, then this kitchen is no place for you.

LOL. Said by the one who disappeared because he found the kitchen too hot. If nothing else, A-Man, you provide occasional comic relief.


And for your convenience, here it is again. "For instance, you still haven't told us when the developing human can be said to be made in the image of God."

I'll excuse you for this based on my reply above. However, at least two of us are curious about YOUR answer to your question.


Try having an original thought.

Now, now, A-Man, you're overdoing the comedy.

I guess I'll have to since no one else seems to be able to drum up the courage.

This is the only scripture on the subject I know of. "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." I see no reason why that cannot be the zygote, but it's hard to say one way or the other. In other words, you cannot categorically say it IS or it IS NOT "imprinted" on the zygote. You can say, however, that everything about the zygote is thoroughly unique. It is in no way simply an appendage of the mother. That is an impossible argument to make.


Here is the source of your confusion. You are assuming without a bit of evidence that I claimed to know when "that image" (of God) was imprinted. I never claimed that. I never even claimed any image of God was imprinted on a zygote. In fact, what I DID write was, "Zygotes are not made in God's image".Nope. There is no confusion. You made a claim to know that the zygote does NOT have the image of God. You have no way to know that. Your original argument was that Adam was created in the image of God as a fully grown adult. So I asked if that logic applied to children, toddlers, infants, fetuses. You have declined to answer that. You were caught in a trap of your own making and it has you upset.


LOL. Said by the one who disappeared because he found the kitchen too hot. If nothing else, A-Man, you provide occasional comic relief.Wow. You get so upset when you get asked a question. Rather tragic, I think. But don't worry too much. I answered it above.

How long did you stand by your pledge of no more name calling? A week? Thought you were a man of your word? Seems not to be the case now, don't you think? Well, I do think we'd be better off if we dropped it and took on a more adult tone.

Well, I do think we'd be better off if we dropped it and took on a more adult tone.

coming from you that is a surprise

I guess I'll have to since no one else seems to be able to drum up the courage.

TRANSLATION: "I'm very sorry for the mistake I made. But I won't admit to it so I'll blame others not being able to "drum up the courage.

However, I'm the one without courage because down deep I have terrified little girl tendencies."


This is the only scripture on the subject I know of.

That is NOT a scripture on a zygote!


"Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." I see no reason why that cannot be the zygote,

But it's not in scripture. You have repeatedly stated that's your standard for knowing.


but it's hard to say one way or the other.

If you see no reason why it CANNOT be scriptural, then why is it hard to say it IS scriptural?


In other words, you cannot categorically say it IS or it IS NOT "imprinted" on the zygote.

Based on your own standard of proof, you should be categorically able to say it is NOT "imprinted".


It is in no way simply an appendage of the mother.

That's too bad since if it were an appendage, I assume your position would be that it IS imprinted.


That is an impossible argument to make.

No one is making that argument. You are the one who is bringing it up.


Nope. There is no confusion.

Plenty of confusion, evidenced by your back-and-forth above.


You made a claim to know that the zygote does NOT have the image of God. You have no way to know that.

Of course, I know that. Unless you want to argue that everything in the universe has the imprint of God, then ok. If you are arguing that the zygote has some unique imprint of God because you say it is a human being, then no, I don't agree. But that shouldn't be news to you. That's been my position all along.


Your original argument was that Adam was created in the image of God as a fully grown adult.

No, it wasn't. My original argument was about abortion and the beginning of human life. Adam came later.


So I asked if that logic applied to children, toddlers, infants, fetuses. You have declined to answer that.

I don't know what "logic" you're referring to. If you're asking whether God imprints his image on other people the way the Bible says he did to Adam, then no.


You were caught in a trap of your own making and it has you upset.

No, jl, there was no trap. What there WAS was you getting caught in your own word salad as clearly shown in the dialogue above.


Wow. You get so upset when you get asked a question. Rather tragic, I think.

No again, Jl. I don't get upset when I'm asked a question. In fact, I like them. Gives me a chance to expound. What DOES get to me however, is some concern and a bit of sadness as I watch you desperately attempting to keep up and embarrassing yourself as you fail miserably. Not totally, every so often you make a good point, but you are far more repetitive than effective. You just don't know when to quit. That is the consensus of the majority here.


But don't worry too much. I answered it above.

I'm glad you did. Gave me a chance to expound.


How long did you stand by your pledge of no more name calling?

More confusion from you. I wonder - will it ever end? I suggested an agreement between myself and tomder - NOT YOU - to stop the insults. There is no point in doing that with you since it's obvious you can't resist snarky comments even in otherwise civil exchanges. I think it's the little girl in you.


I do think we'd be better off if we dropped it and took on a more adult tone.

Jl, that's entirely up to you. I hope you will resist the snide remarks and the tendency to cast ad hominems to others.

What IS "the image of God"?

No again, Jl. I don't get upset when I'm asked a question. In fact, I like them. Gives me a chance to expound. Sure it does. That's why you were so quick to answer this last one?


That is NOT a scripture on a zygote!Can't say that for certain.



"Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." I see no reason why that cannot be the zygote,


But it's not in scripture. You have repeatedly stated that's your standard for knowing.Indeed it is. That's why I hedged a bit in saying, "I see no reason why that cannot be the zygote." It does not say one way or the other. Now perhaps there is a reason why it can't be, but I don't see it.


What IS "the image of God"?
That's a great question. It actually does not read as the "image of God". The text reads, "Let us make man in our image." That is significant. The "image of God" does not seem to be a quality of some kind that is given to us at some point in our development. It is more likely stating that God used Himself as a pattern of sorts for us. Thus we are made in (accordance with) His image, and in (accordance to) His likeness. I've also heard it said that God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and man is body, soul, and spirit. However we interpret it, it makes man absolutely unique from all other animal life.

Might add that it's the first reference to the Godhead (us) which is, to me, really interesting, though it is somewhat indirect.

The Amplified version reads in this fashion. "Then God said, “Let Us (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) make man in Our image, according to Our likeness [not physical, but a spiritual personality and moral likeness]" The reference is to "man" as in "mankind". It is not a specific reference to Adam. I tell the guys at the rehab that it is the basis of our glory and worth. On their worst day they can still say, "I am made in God's image. What a blessing and honor."

Or just the ability to think and create and articulate above the other species of life on this planet. You don't need a religious book to make that observation even if you're ancient man. As more is revealed, then of course more can be understood and defined so the image of God, and even the image of man will of course be ever changing.