Air Force Academy diversity training tells cadets to use words that 'include all genders​,' drop 'mom and dad'. The Air Force Academy also tells cadets to be 'Color Conscious' instead of 'Colorblind'.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/air-force-academy-diversity-training-tells-cadets-to-use-words-that-include-all-genders-drop-mom-and-dad

If that's not enough, the chief diversity, equity and inclusion officer at the Department of Defense's education wing, who describes herself as a "woke administrator," wrote a series of disparaging posts about White people on Twitter, Fox News Digital found. After Fox News Digital reached out for comment, Wing's Twitter was put on private, but she did not immediately respond. She wrote in June 2020, "I'm exhausted with these white folx in these [professional development] sessions."

Note that the means of dealing with all of this was to hide the tweets by putting her account on "private". Bob and weave, bob and weave. That's the strategy. Everyone should be outraged at these elitist strategies, but you can be sure that liberal dems will simply go about their day unconcerned. As aggravating as Trump's tweets could be, at least he was out there and open about his beliefs and responses. With this current crop, there is a veil of secrecy shrouding their actions. That is far more dangerous.

The military has one mission and one mission only .......... kill people and destroy things . I don't see how all these social experiments the government imposes on them helps accomplish that mission.

Our armed forces are facing the most challenging recruiting environment since the all volunteer force’s inception in 1973. Being woke will not solved it .
The armed forces have become playthings for politicians to carry out political and cultural agendas. This can't help recruiting efforts .

Most "real men" have no inclination to be involved in that nonsense. Sadly, those are the people you really want in the military.

Kam the sham is concerned about diversity in the Space Force.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/20/us/politics/stacey-abrams-abortion-georgia.html

The next step towards diversification is lowering standards for admission.

Good ole Babylon Bee nails it again. Lying is in vogue these days.


Stacey Abrams Claims Obesity Is Just Numbers Manufactured By Her Bathroom Scale.

That is, of course, a spoof on her ridiculous claim that you can't really detect a fetal heartbeat at 6 weeks. She also claimed it is a lie invented by men to control women. What should we expect from a porn author?

her ridiculous claim that you can't really detect a fetal heartbeat at 6 weeks.
You can't. How many pregnancies have you had?

She also claimed it is a lie invented by men to control women.
It is. Men want women to be shapely and have long hair. I've dealt with males all my life. Trust me, you'd hate being a woman.

You can't. How many pregnancies have you had?Please tell me you didn't post this.


It is. Men want women to be shapely and have long hair.In case you missed it, the lie Abrams told was that a fetal heartbeat could not be detected at six weeks. That is such a wild tale that I am beyond amazed you would attempt to agree with it, but in this brave new world of dozens of genders, I should never be surprised at what people believe.

So Abrams now has three strikes. She is a porn author, fat, and a liar. Hmmm. No wonder she's a democrat!!

https://lozierinstitute.org/science-at-6-weeks-unborn-babys-heart-rate-is-approximately-98-beats-per-minute/


The peer-reviewed science on babies at 6 weeks’ gestation includes:



The heart is actively beating at 6 weeks. Between conception and birth the baby’s heart will beat approximately 54 million times.
The baby’s average heart rate is 110 BPM. This will rise to 175 BPM by 9 weeks’ gestation.
The presence of a heartbeat at 6-8 weeks’ gestation correlates with a live birth rate of 98% in normal pregnancies without intervention.
The brain has divided into three primary sections responsible for sensing and decision-making, moving and tracking objects, and vital body functions.
Eyes, ears, and nose start forming.

Please tell me you didn't post this.
Aha! NO pregnancies for you!

"Hearing a baby’s heartbeat for the first time is an exciting milestone for new parents-to-be. A fetal heartbeat may first be detected by a vaginal ultrasound as early as 5 1/2 to 6 weeks after gestation." But not before that! SIX WEEKS is the first audible heartbeat.

From factcheck.org --

Q: When is the human heart fully developed, and when are heartbeats audible during pregnancy?
A: A developing heart has all of its primary structures after about nine weeks of pregnancy. Some forms of ultrasound can detect cardiac activity in an embryo in the sixth week, but a heartbeat wouldn’t be audible until about 10 weeks on a Doppler fetal monitor.

So Abrams now has three strikes. She is a porn author
You've never read a "bodice-ripper thigh-gripper" romance? (It isn't porn, soft-core if anything, verbal and stoking the imagination. Not like the photographic porn you looked at as a teen and young adult -- and probably later.) My childhood friend Elizabeth St. Michel has made tons of money writing her romance novels. This kind of novel is where we wives get ideas to titillate our husbands.

https://imgv2-2-f.scribdassets.com/img/word_document/253332239/original/216x287/d682a5a8b8/1651544779?v=1

I said, "...her ridiculous claim that you can't really detect a fetal heartbeat at 6 weeks." You replied, "You can't." And yet now you post, "SIX WEEKS is the first audible heartbeat."

As is often the case, you are trying an end-run with this, but note that there was nothing said by me about the heartbeat being audible. It was simply said that it could be detected at six weeks which, despite the lying of Abrams and your hopelessly confused position, is absolutely true.
Some forms of ultrasound can detect cardiac activity in an embryo in the sixth week, but a heartbeat wouldn’t be audible until about 10 weeks on a Doppler fetal monitor. So both of your posts agreed with my position and against you. Don't you ever tire of this? Same ole WG.

I don't read or look at porn. That's your specialty.

I said, "...her ridiculous claim that you can't really detect a fetal heartbeat at 6 weeks." You replied, "You can't." And yet now you post, "SIX WEEKS is the first audible heartbeat."

As is often the case, you are trying an end-run with this, but note that there was nothing said by me about the heartbeat being audible. It was simply said that it could be detected at six weeks which, despite the lying of Abrams and your hopelessly confused position, is absolutely true. So both of your posts agreed with my position and against you. Don't you ever tire of this? Same ole WG.
AUDIBLE is the operant word!!! With very specialized equipment.

I don't read or look at porn.
You NEVER have? EVER???

AUDIBLE is the operant word!!! With very specialized equipment.It is now that you see how nonsensical your replies were. However, I'll let you worry about that. Abrams actually stupidly said, "there is no such thing as a heartbeat at six weeks." You can plainly see that the word "audible" appeared nowhere in her statement. It was just an unspeakably dumb and ignorant comment, and it is sad that someone who claims to have been a librarian couldn't have taken five minutes to see for herself how wrong the statement was.


You NEVER have? EVER???I have done a number of things I now regret. However, that doesn't mean that, like you, I will now try to justify them. Porn is a crime against women in my view. "Soft porn" is a term invented by people who like to read dirty literature and still maintain some self-respect.

Porn is a crime against women in my view.
How is porn a crime against women? And women don't enjoy male porn? Is that a crime against men?

Women are far less likely to watch porn than men are.

It's a crime against women because it causes men to look far too much at women as sex objects rather than how we should view them, which is a life partner with which to raise a family. It creates a ridiculously unrealistic sexual expectation of women by men, and many men go from one woman to another in a vain search for a person who can satisfy their absurd sexual expectations.

Women are far less likely to watch porn than men are.
What rock have you been hiding under?!

Where do you think we get ideas to tease and titillate you men?

What rock have you been hiding under?!The rock of data. You should try it.

The rock of data. You should try it.
Nope, the rock I'm sitting on, even standing on, is the rock of human observation and life experience.

Meaning your own personal experiences which is a titanically terrible rock to take your stand on. If you understood the world of science, you would know that.

Meaning your own personal experiences which is a titanically terrible rock to take your stand on. If you understood the world of science, you would know that.
I've been a professional counselor since 1991. Oh, the real-life stories I've heard!

Read my comment again, but this time think it through carefully.

Data? Gathered by whom? The Mormons? The Pentecostals? The local barber? Data can't compete with real-life admissions and revelations.

The local barber basically equates with you. He also has those real life "admissions and revelations". Still, you don't understand the process of science, so it's hard to explain to you.

Always the putdown. And with no effort to explain "data" and properly assert yourself.

You have no desire to understand.

You have no desire to understand.
I would if you'd drop the attitude and explain.

OK. We can start here. I posted that Stacy Abrams made a false claim that a fetal heartbeat could not be detected at six weeks. Both you and I posted quotes showing that she was plainly wrong. You initially supported her. Do you continue to support her statement?

Dr. Esther Choo: "A fetal 'heartbeat' at six weeks merely reflects electrical activity produced by a tiny, amorphous clump of cells. Within the less than half-an-inch mass, there is not yet any structure recognizable as a heart, no pumping of blood, no circulatory system within which it could be pumped, and no developed end organs to pump it to."
AND
"There is no such thing as a heartbeat at six weeks. It is a manufactured sound designed to convince people that men have the right to take control of a woman's body."
PLUS
Genesis 2:7 (KJV) And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

I will give you credit for trying. Alas, i can give you no credit for being right. You quoted a supporter of Abrams to support Abrams. Unfortunately, your own quote from above, which you must have posted in ignorance, contradicts that silliness. And you certainly cannot quote Abrams to support the quote of...Abrams. That's blatant dishonesty.

https://www.healthline.com/health/pregnancy/when-can-you-hear-babys-heartbeat#Babys-heartbeat

Your Genesis quote has already been demonstrated to be silliness. The man became a living soul because, prior to that, he was only dust of the ground. He had no heartbeat, no brainwaves, no environmental responses, and no breath. He had no more life than dust has. That is scarcely true of an unborn human being. Surely you can see that.

The man became a living soul because, prior to that, he was only dust of the ground. He had no heartbeat, no brainwaves, no environmental responses, and no breath. He had no more life than dust has.
Just like a fetus.

You are really trying to make the argument that a fetus has no more life than dust? Really???

I hope men are the ones who get pregnant in heaven, or maybe it will be the situation during a stay in purgatory first.

You are really trying to make the argument that a fetus has no more life than dust? Really???

Until they take a first breath, they may as well be dust.

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/custom/vgo/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by jlisenbe https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/custom/vgo/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?p=3885080#post3885080)
her ridiculous claim that you can't really detect a fetal heartbeat at 6 weeks.



You can't. How many pregnancies have you had?

I've never been pregnant . That is because MEN CAN'T get pregnant .

However I was the dad in a pregnancy . At 6 weeks my wife and I listened to my daughter's heart beat through a sonogram test .


When Does Baby Have a Heartbeat?

Your baby's heart starts beating approximately 22 days after conception. It won't be detectable yet—even though it's beating an average of 110 times a minute. But thanks to ultrasound technology, you (and your doctor) should be able to hear baby's heartbeat soon.
When Can You Hear a Baby's Heartbeat? (parents.com) (https://www.parents.com/pregnancy/stages/when-will-i-see-my-babys-heartbeat-on-an-ultrasound/)

that is 3 weeks not 6 weeks

Esther Choo is an emergency physician and professor at the Oregon Health & Science University (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Health_%26_Science_University). She is a popular science communicator who has used social media to talk about racism and sexism in healthcare. She was the president of the Academy of Women in Academic Emergency Medicine and is a member of the American Association of Women Emergency Physicians.

Esther Choo - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esther_Choo)

She is an activist not a real physician

Calm down. She has an M.D. (from Yale U.), has a master's in public health, and is a real physician.

From that Wikipedia article: She earned a medical degree at Yale University (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yale_University) in 2001.[1] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esther_Choo#cite_note-:0-1) She was a resident at Boston Medical Center (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Medical_Center).[1] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esther_Choo#cite_note-:0-1) In 2009, she returned for further training, earning a Master's in Public Health (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master%27s_in_Public_Health) at Oregon Health & Science University (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Health_%26_Science_University).[5] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esther_Choo#cite_note-:4-5)

Until they take a first breath, they may as well be dust.I never cease to be amazed at the lengths to which people will go to maintain their liberal orthodoxy. According to this, dust has a heartbeat. Dust experiences pain. Dust bleeds. Dust grows. Dust has a metabolism. Dust has brainwaves. Dust has its own DNA.

Just amazing.

Dust can even be sanctified as a prophet to the nations! Then the word of the Lord came to me saying,
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I sanctified you;
I ordained you a prophet to the nations” (Jeremiah 1:4-5)

I'm trying to outdo the bizarre notions that drip from the typing fingers of a narrow-minded repub.

And then try to blame someone else. Classic liberal orthodoxy.

How do you know that your own "bizarre notions that drip from the typing fingers of a narrow-minded," liberal do not exceed "the bizarre notions that drip from the typing fingers of a narrow-minded repub?" I consider your views on dust to be beyond bizarre.

And then try to blame someone else. Classic liberal orthodoxy.
Like you do on a consistent basis. Classic conservative orthodoxy.

Name a time I have and you will have a point. I doubt you can. You are copying as you frequently do. Just another end-run.

Name a time I have and you will have a point. I doubt you can. You are copying as you frequently do. Just another end-run.
There isn't enough room to list them all here! My head hurts just thinking about them and the lack of cooperation and synchronicity.

is Choo an Obstetricians or does she specialize in anything prenatal ? Of course not .She practices in emergency rooms and spends a good deal of her time as an activist for extreme progressive causes

I'll use the words libs use..... Peer reviewed scientific concensus says that

The fetal heart rate gradually increases with gestational age from approximately 110 beats per minute (bpm) at 6.2 weeks to approximately 159 bpm at 7.6-8.0 weeks

Role of ultrasound in the evaluation of first-trimester pregnancies in the acute setting - PMC (nih.gov) (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7065984/#:~:text=In%20the%20first%20trimester%2C%20pelvic, and%20other%20pregnancy%2Drelated%20complications)

If no heartbeat is detected that indicates a pregnancy failure.Stacy Abrams and Dr Choo are just plain wrong. There is zero evidence that Dr Edward Hon who invented fetal heart monitoring in 1958 invented his device as a means for men to control woman's bodies . It is an absurd statement .

The facts say that medical textbooks ,leading prenatal heart specialists ;the nation's leading heart hospital and all serious peer reviewed studies conclude that there is a fetal heartbeat at 6 weeks .

There isn't enough room to list them all here!The usual evasiveness. You haven't a clue.


The facts say that medical textbooks ,leading prenatal heart specialists ;the nation's leading heart hospital and all serious peer reviewed studies conclude that there is a fetal heartbeat at 6 weeks .Well said. I'm not sure how to continue a discussion with a person who has so little regard for the truth that she equates an unborn child with dirt. It just boggles the mind.

I ask a simple question ....is there any point in the pregnancy where killing the baby should be illegal ? The way I figure it ;acceptance of abortion before 6 weeks is already a huge political compromise by the pro-life policy makers. I just wonder if there are any acceptable restrictions for the so called pro-choice crowd .


Peter Doocy attempted to get the official WH position from KJP

here was the exchange :



DOOCY: “Republicans are saying we don't want abortion after 15 weeks. Why can't you say how many weeks the president thinks the law should be?”
KJP: “As you know, as you know Kevin McCarthy put out the GOP agenda.”
DOOCY: “I’m not asking about Kevin McCarthy, I’m asking about Joe Biden and his position on abortion. How many weeks?”
KJP: “Peter, I am answering your question. What Republicans are trying to do is take us backwards. They're trying to take away the rights and freedoms of Americans, that's what we're calling out and that's what we're going to continue to call out. House Republicans oppose a pharmacy bill that would deny women essential medications. As of September, 166 House Republicans have signed on to a heartbeat bill that would decide abortion at the federal level even though 28 of those members have since said decisions on abortion should be left to the state. And this week a Michigan GOP official said he wants to ban contraception. So we should really listen to what Republicans are trying to tell us and that's what we are speaking out against. And that's what we're going to talk about - about the national ban that Republicans are continuing, continuing to push when majority of Americans do not want that.”
DOOCY: “We’re all covering the Republican plan. Why can’t you say how many weeks for Biden.”
KJP: “No. I answered your question.”
DOOCY: “You did not answer my question, Karine. Why can’t you say?”

Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, September 23, 2022 - The White House (https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/2022/09/23/press-briefing-by-press-secretary-karine-jean-pierre-september-23-2022/)

The Dems dodge that question all the time because in truth they have no problem with snuffing babies even as they are being born,

KJP: “No. I answered your question.”
DOOCY: “You did not answer my question, Karine. Why can’t you say?”So the truth now becomes apparent. Someone here is channeling KJP!!


The Dems dodge that question all the time because in truth they have no problem with snuffing babies even as they are being born,It might be more complicated. I'm convinced that most (or many? some?) dems are not on board with late term abortions, but they also realize that setting a limit will involve answering the question, "Why did you pick that number of weeks?" That's a dangerous question for them because it forces them to think. If they choose 24 weeks, then why not 22? What is special about 24? And if 22, then why not 18? How are 22 weeks and 18 weeks different? You can see where it is heading. You eventually backup to the moment of conception and are forced to admit that abortion is the taking of an innocent human life at any point in pregnancy. Then they are reduced to pointing out that men cannot become pregnant as if that had any impact at all on the moral consequences of abortion.

It reminds me of a conversation I had with a brainless clinic escort. He claimed that the unborn was not alive until 24 weeks. Oh? Then what is it prior to 24 weeks, dead? And why pick 24 weeks? How is that point different from 23 weeks?

Abortion, the choice of those who do not wish to think about it.

49415

The Dems sponsored ' Women’s Health Protection Act' states exceptions for the 'health of the mother'. That vague language is the loophole they added that overrules any limits in the act . The fact that late term abortions are rare is their defense of this . Who defines when the health of the mother is the deciding factor ? ..... a doctor like Kermit Gosnell ? At least 10,000 murders of babies occur after 20 weeks ;well into the 2nd trimester and where the medicine has advanced where premature babies can be saved

MAGA voters rampage in store in Philadelphia. Well...maybe not.


https://twitter.com/i/status/1573860676417851393

I ask a simple question ....is there any point they have no problem with snuffing babies even as they are being born,
And how do repubs help those babies once they've taken their first breath, especially if they've been born into poverty and broken families or to teen mothers or to women whose birth control didn't work? Those babies become just so much dust to brush away.

I ask a simple questionAnd, predictably, you get no answer. Just more channeling of KJP. The non-answer is the perfect confirmation of this.

I'm convinced that most (or many? some?) dems are not on board with late term abortions, but they also realize that setting a limit will involve answering the question, "Why did you pick that number of weeks?" That's a dangerous question for them because it forces them to think. If they choose 24 weeks, then why not 22? What is special about 24? And if 22, then why not 18? How are 22 weeks and 18 weeks different? You can see where it is heading. You eventually backup to the moment of conception and are forced to admit that abortion is the taking of an innocent human life at any point in pregnancy.

are forced to admit that abortion is the taking of an innocent human life at any point in pregnancy.
Let's chat about this after you've been pregnant and were in a very bad place.

I guess anything beats having to answer a serious question. "I'll say something silly that contributes nothing rather than having to answer a really vital question." And you will doubtless respond by complaining about putdowns. If you don't like them, then get serious in your replies. Stop the silliness.

It bears repeating, even though there is no ghost of a chance it will be answered since the required courage is missing. "I ask a simple question ....is there any point they have no problem with snuffing babies even as they are being born." It's such a great question that I've asked the pro-abortion crowd many times. On only two occasions have I received answers, and in both cases the persons made it clear that they had no problem with an abortion for any reason up through the 38th week.

"I ask a simple question ....is there any point they have no problem with snuffing babies even as they are being born."
Being a mother who has experienced all the ups and downs of pregnancy including a traumatic delivery, I can only begin to imagine becoming pregnant under vile circumstances with no good future for the fetus growing inside me. It's a heart-rending decision to make, to get an abortion, but sometimes it's the only one.

Neither of us has ever been in combat, and yet it would be a stupid argument to suggest that we can have no opinions on war. The same is true of suggesting that a man can have no ideas about abortion. It's just nonsense coming from someone who lacks the courage to answer a simple, basic question. Is there any point in a pregnancy where you would not allow an abortion??? We all know you will not answer that under any circumstances.

It's just nonsense coming from someone who lacks the courage to answer a simple, basic question. Is there any point in a pregnancy where you would not allow an abortion??? We all know you will not answer that under any circumstances.
I DID answer your question and even used my own experience. Very few, if any, pregnant women say, "Oh, gee whiz, I'm so tired of being pregnant. Guess I'll schedule an abortion." Earlier in this thread I noted several reasons why an abortion would be sought. An abortion toward the end of a pregnancy is because the mother's very life is in danger if the pregnancy continues, or because the fetus has become mortally compromised or has died.

It's not my place to "allow" anyone to get an abortion. That's the purview of the one who's pregnant. And I would urge her to get professional counseling before she makes a final decision.

I DID answer your question and even used my own experience.Perhaps you did, though in a predictably round-about way. You are basically saying you would never object to an abortion all the way through the 38th week for any reason. I think this one statement chillingly sums up your position. "Until they take a first breath, they may as well be dust." Tom pretty well summed up your position with this. "The Dems dodge that question all the time because in truth they have no problem with snuffing babies even as they are being born." I had hoped for better from you.

An abortion is never necessary to save a mother's life towards the end of the pregnancy. In those rare cases, you would simply deliver a live baby. It's just another excuse the lying pro-abortion crowd uses.

Perhaps you did, though in a predictably round-about way. You are basically saying you would never object to an abortion all the way through the 38th week for any reason.
Your gross and deliberate "misunderstanding" of my answers is why I'm reluctant to answer.

An abortion is never necessary to save a mother's life towards the end of the pregnancy. In those rare cases, you would simply deliver a live baby. It's just another excuse the lying pro-abortion cause uses.
"never" and then "rare cases". Yeah, sure. That makes absolutely no sense. AND you are so greatly misinformed.

Your gross and deliberate "misunderstanding" of my answers is why I'm reluctant to answer.OK. I'll just quote you and let the chips fall where they may.

You said, "Until they take a first breath, they may as well be dust."
You said, "It's not my place to "allow" anyone to get an abortion. That's the purview of the one who's pregnant."
You said, "It's a heart-rending decision to make, to get an abortion, but sometimes it's the only one."
You said, "I DID answer your question."

The reason you are reluctant to answer is because your answers eventually reveal your true heart. Unborn babies are just dust to you and you would never oppose any abortion. Those are your words, not mine. Now you are wanting to beat a hasty retreat.

BUT IF YOU DON'T LIKE MY SUMMATION, WHY NOT TRY MAKING A CLEAR AND PLAIN STATEMENT ABOUT WHAT YOU THINK THE LAW SHOULD BE ON ABORTION INSTEAD OF HIDING BEHIND MANY WORDS??? PUT ON YOUR BIG GIRL PANTS AND GIVE IT A SHOT FOR ONCE.

The "rare cases" referred to late term pregnancies which endangered the mother's life.
The "never" referred to the need to kill the unborn baby to save the mother's life.
Perhaps this is clearer. "In those rare cases where a mother's life is endangered by a late term pregnancy, it is never necessary to kill the unborn child since it is actually easier to simply deliver a live baby." It makes sense to anyone who has progressed beyond the fifth grade.

The reason you are reluctant to answer is because your answers eventually reveal your true heart.
I am not reluctant to answer questions from people who don't twist my answers.

Unborn babies are just dust to you
And born babies are just dust to you.

you would never oppose any abortion.
Of course I would!

And your insults and putdowns continue to flow thick and fast.

And born babies are just dust to you.
First you say unborn babies are dust to you. Then, stricken I would think by your conscience (as well you should be), you try to put words in my mouth. Poor and obviously desperate strategy.


you would never oppose any abortion.
You replied, "Of course I would!" Fine. Tell us which ones you would oppose. (Note to other readers. She will never, ever do that. Watch and see.)

These discussions always go off course because I am perfectly happy and even eager to express my beliefs while you run and hide when asked to do so. I'm sure you are a nice person and I'm sure you have tried to help other people in your life, but when you characterize unborn babies as nothing more than dirt, then it's really a sad day. I would say I'm shocked, but very little shocks me anymore.

First you say unborn babies are dust to you. Then, stricken I would think by your conscience (as well you should be), you try to put words in my mouth. Poor and obviously desperate strategy.
You are a fundie Christian and a conservative Republican. Born babies are dust to you. You et al. have no interest in emotionally and even financially supporting them and their mothers/parents (especially if they are not white).

You replied, "Of course I would!" Fine. Tell us which ones you would oppose. (Note to other readers. She will never, ever do that. Watch and see.)
If you can be civil, I will answer this.

You are a fundie Christian and a conservative Republican. Born babies are dust to you. You et al. have no interest in emotionally and even financially supporting them and their mothers/parents (especially if they are not white).A statement from an obviously prejudiced person whose conscience is convicting her for considering unborn children to be mere dirt, so you want to lash out and lie about someone else. I understand but do not approve.


If you can be civil, I will answer this.Civil? You mean "civil" like the desperate, lying comment you made above? That kind of civil? You might want to listen to your own sermon first before preaching it to someone else.

Civil? You mean "civil" like the desperate, lying comment you made above? That kind of civil? You might want to listen to your own sermon first before preaching it to someone else.
I simply took a page from your playbook, calling me all sorts of names and attributing incorrect attributes to me.

Lying is not a page from my playbook. Calling unborn children dirt is not a play from my playbook. Racial prejudice is not a page from my playbook. That all belongs to you as your post clearly showed.


calling me all sorts of names and attributing incorrect attributes to me.Show me where I've done that. Truth is, you are angry because you answered a question (unborn children are dust) and now you're upset because you've been nailed because of it. You would be far better served to simply correct what you said. That will likely open up new cans of worms for you, but at least you wouldn't have that despicable comment on your conscience.

Lying is not a page from my playbook.
I didn't say LYING. (There ya go again.) Read back.

Calling unborn children dirt is not a play from my playbook.
Nope, according to Republicans, they're dust AFTER they're born.

Racial prejudice is not a page from my playbook.
So you love all those refugees and immigrants coming into our country. Got it!

you are angry
I don't get angry, even at you. And my conscience is clear. Maybe I'll start a thread about the LGBTQ+ community I adore and the mini united nations who were the library patrons I enjoyed interacting with every day.

Nope, according to Republicans, they're dust AFTER they're born.Just an angry, foolish comment for which you have no evidence at all. Again, you called unborn children dust, and now you're angry because you got caught in it, so you're lashing out at whoever is available. Why not just "woman up" and try to defend that comment instead of lying about other people and trying to put your words into their mouths? After all, you're the guilty party here.


So you love all those refugees and immigrants coming into our country.Yes, I do.

Nope, according to Republicans, they're dust AFTER they're born.


LOL - good one!

Just an angry, foolish comment for which you have no evidence at all. Again, you called unborn children dust
You initially called them that because I had correlated their lack of breath with Adam who had no breath until God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.

You are lying again. I never called unborn children dust. Here it is from post 31. I had asked you, "You are really trying to make the argument that a fetus has no more life than dust? Really??" Incredibly, you responded, "Until they take a first breath, they may as well be dust."

Earlier, I had even posted, "He (Adam) had no more life than dust has. That is scarcely true of an unborn human being."

Own it. It's yours. And please stop lying. It's becoming a bad habit for you.

You've also never provided any quotes for this. "calling me all sorts of names and attributing incorrect attributes to me." Certainly seems to indicate that comment is...well, let's just say "untrue".

Is all this because you're a MAN...and I'm just...a...woman?

Incredibly, you responded, "Until they take a first breath, they may as well be dust."
What's not true? You can't hold them, interact with them, feed them, diaper them, baptize them, look into their eyes. They're not even breathing.

How sad. A woman becomes pregnant. She treasures her unborn child. She treasures the ultrasounds. She feels the child kick. She feeds the child through her own blood. The baby is completely dependent upon his/her loving mother and comes to know her voice. But since the baby is still in the womb, to WG it is just dirt. After all, it can't be diapered or interacted with, and it doesn't breathe, so what good is it? Just let a doctor tear its arms, legs, and head off, and then be rid of the bothersome little pile of dust.

I really and genuinely feel very sorry for you. What a dark world you have chosen to live in, and how different it is from God's view. “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.” Or as it is said in Psalm 139:16, “Like an open book, you watched me grow from conception to birth; all the stages of my life were spread out before you, the days of my life all prepared before I’d even lived one day.”

No wonder you avoid answering questions.

A woman is raped and is made pregnant by stranger who disappears. Now tell that story.

Don't worry so much about me. I have regular conversations throughout the day and night with my Savior. And several times a week I get messages from Jeremy. I look forward to heaven.

Tell that story? She is carrying a brand new human being, not a pile of dust. He/she has a unique genetic code unlike any other person on the earth. That little baby is counting on his/her mother and is not responsible for what his father did to his mother. The internet is full of accounts written by people whose mother chose to give them life. I would encourage that mother to do the same. Only in your world is the completely innocent killed to cover up the sin of the completely guilty.

You really need to deal with your view of human beings in the womb. They are not dirt!! And your silly idea about breathing being necessary for the baby to be considered alive is just a joke. That has been explained to you repeatedly and, in your darkness, you choose to ignore it. Was Jesus just dust in Mary's womb???

No, you are living in darkness. Jesus did not lead you in the direction of regarding unborn children as dirt. Liberal orthodoxy taught you that.

Nope, you've never been pregnant, especially not after being raped.

You've never been pregnant after being raped either, so does that mean you don't get to have an opinion? That's not a good argument. I was never in a concentration camp, but I still think they were terrible places. I've never been pregnant, but I did learn how to read, comprehend, and think. There are many male OB-GYN doctors. They deliver babies by the thousands. They know more about pregnancy than both of us combined times ten, and yet you are advancing an idea that would put them all out of business. That makes no sense at all.

How do we compare to leftist socialist Europe ? Well it appears that abortion bans appears to be common there .

47 of the 50 nations limit abortions to the 1st 15 weeks or less
5 of those countries limit them to 14 weeks
27 limit to 12 weeks
8 of those countries only allow in that time frame for medical or socioeconomic reasons . And all 50 nations have some restrictions unlike states like California ,Massachusetts, Maryland, and New York. The 3 nations that allow a longer period are Iceland (22 weeks), Netherlands (24 weeks) ,and Sweden (18 weeks)

On-Point-63.pdf (pcdn.co) (https://s27589.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/On-Point-63.pdf)

Good info, Tom. I reposted that on FB.

How do we compare to leftist socialist Europe ? Well it appears that abortion bans appears to be common there .


Anti-abortion is a religious position originated by the Roman Catholic Church in the 19th century when they declared that human life begins at conception. Such a declaration was due to internal Church policy, and had nothing to do with the science of reproduction. If the fundies knew that the Whore of Babylon was responsible for their favorite political position, they'd freak out.

Before that, human life was considered to begin at "quickening", roughly at the end of the second trimester. That's about where Roe v. Wade had it.

The mass of cells at conception clearly is not human life. The baby at birth clearly is human life. Somewhere in between human life begins.

The religious position reversing Roe v. Wade by the US Supreme Court is a violation of the First Amendment. The preponderance of Catholic jurists on the Court is a strong indicator of the Court's reasoning.

I am not taking a religious opinion on this ;either what Catholics believer or that business of dust to dust .

Please show me in the Dobbs v Jackson case where any of the justices made a religious case for Roe's reversal. The majority opinion by Alito was predicated on the fact that Roe was wrongly decided against the concept of federalism and that the "right" to kill babies had been invented by the court in 1973 .

The founding fathers understood well that outside of God, there is no compelling reason to view human life as special and valuable. It's why they appealed in the Declaration to the issue of "all men created equal", and then showed that all rights are God given and thus not subject to the whims of man. "...endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable right, among which are LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

I have no idea why one cannot regard human life as beginning at conception. But if someone wants to speculate on a later date, then it can be considered. I find that most abortion supporters don't care to do that for reasons that were discussed earlier.

I am not taking a religious opinion on this ;either what Catholics believer or that business of dust to dust .

Any anti-abortion position is based on religion as I wrote above. I don't know what dust to dust is.


Please show me in the Dobbs v Jackson case where any of the justices made a religious case for Roe's reversal.

I did not say the justices made a case for religion in reversing Roe. Alioto based it on his opinion that a right to privacy did not exist for lawful abortion. The Court sent the issue back to the states.

The religious position reversing Roe v. Wade by the US Supreme Court is a violation of the First Amendment. The preponderance of Catholic jurists on the Court is a strong indicator of the Court's reasoning.
Too true and very obvious!

human life is not a clump of cells .
The science says human life begins at conception.

"The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual."

('Patten's Foundations of Embryology,' by biology professor Bruce M. Carlson of the University of Michigan)

Harvard University Medical School professor Micheline Matthews-Ross testified before a 1981 U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, "It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception … and that this developing human always is a member of our species in all stages of life"


“I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception…. I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood and that any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes a termination of human life" " I am no more prepared to say that these early stages represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty…is not a human being. This is human life at every stage.”
(Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni, professor of pediatrics and obstetrics at the University of Pennsylvania)


Dr. Jerome LeJeune, professor of genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris, discovered the chromosome pattern of Down syndrome. He testified to the Judiciary Subcommittee :

"Science has proven that a new, human life begins at conception, at the moment when a human sperm attaches to a human egg, generally in the upper portion of the Fallopian Tube, it becomes something new, a Zygote. A zygote is the name of the first cell formed at conception, the earliest developmental stage of the human embryo. Therefore, the argument that a baby is not living upon conception is invalid if scientific evidence proves otherwise. “after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being.”

He stated that this “is no longer a matter of taste or opinion,” and “not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence.”

Yeah, but what do they know? They're just a bunch of highly educated medical doctors.

"Science has proven that a new, human life begins at conception, at the moment when a human sperm attaches to a human egg, generally in the upper portion of the Fallopian Tube, it becomes something new, a Zygote. A zygote is the name of the first cell formed at conception, the earliest developmental stage of the human embryo. Therefore, the argument that a baby is not living upon conception is invalid if scientific evidence proves otherwise. “after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being.”All that is needed from that point on is time. It is certainly alive, and it is certainly human, so in what sense would a person say it is not a living human being?

All that is needed from that point on is time. It is certainly alive, and it is certainly human, so in what sense would a person say it is not a living human being?
Your literalist, cherry-picking brain totally missed my "dust" analogy and turned it on its head.

No. I felt sorry for you and so just moved past that ridiculous nonsense.

Talk about being a name-caller. Here you are. "Your literalist, cherry-picking brain..." And that's in addition to being a completely ridiculous comment to begin with. I can always tell when you are trapped in your own comments. You have to appeal to me being a "literalist" and to cherry-picking, neither of which you understand to begin with.

Of course, you have no interest in asking what the heck I mean by the dust analogy. It's just another opportunity to deny your reality.

Either your memory is very bad or you are lying again. I asked you repeatedly for clarification and you always passed on it. For instance, here is one from post 31 where I asked you, "You are really trying to make the argument that a fetus has no more life than dust? Really??" Also in post 66 there was this. "Why not just "woman up" and try to defend that comment instead of lying about other people and trying to put your words into their mouths?"

You have passed on all of that since, it would appear, you really believe it. But I'll ask it again. Since it certainly seems that you have painted yourself into a corner with that statement, perhaps you should provide some clarification.

Genesis 2:7: "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

Post #49: "And how do repubs help those babies once they've taken their first breath, especially if they've been born into poverty and broken families or to teen mothers or to women whose birth control didn't work? Those babies become just so much dust to brush away."

I don't know what dust to dust is.

see above . I chose not to participate in that silliness

As has been repeatedly explained to you, Adam had no brainwaves, no heartbeat, no sensation to pain, no metabolism, and no other attributes of a living organism such as the unborn baby has. So when God breathed the breath of life into his body, not only did he start breathing, but all of the other life processes started at the same time. He was never an unborn baby. That made both him and Eve unique and thus unique events. Talk about cherry-picking, you have just provided a wonderful example of it!!

How do repubs help? Well, virtually all crisis pregnancy centers are run and funded by conservative, pro-life, and generally Christian organizations. How many of those are you helping to fund? Republicans routinely vote to fund school lunch and breakfast programs, public education, and welfare programs. I know because I saw all of that up close for more than thirty years as a school employee. And that is not to mention the thousands of charitable organizations, many funded and operated by Christian churches, who help out a great deal.

The only person I know of who considers babies to be dust is you. You have flatly stated it, and you have just passed on an opportunity to clarify your comment. How dark is the world you live in!!

As has been repeatedly explained to you, Adam had no brainwaves, no heartbeat, no sensation to pain, no metabolism, and no other attributes of a living organism such as the unborn baby has.
Neither does a fetus before six weeks.

The fetus has ALL of the attributes of living organisms at ALL stages of development right from the beginning. That includes reproduction, metabolism, growth, cellular structure, movement, and a unique genetic structure. But I'm glad to see you finally acknowledge that the six week fetus does have a heartbeat. That's progress.

The Republican platform has deteriorated greatly during the past years since 1964 because of the election that defined the modern GOP.
https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/178881

Kind of hard to take any article seriously when it starts with a blatant lie. "President Donald Trump’s brazen flirtation with white supremacy finally blew up in the January 6 siege of Capitol Hill." It thus brands itself as a political hack job.

And so he did -- and now is knee deep in white supremacy with QAnon.

You are welcome to your opinion, but your facts are not correct. I'm no expert on QAnon, but I don't think they are generally regarded as white supremacists but are sometimes looked at as anti-Semitic. To suggest that Trump was a white supremacist is an allegation with no support. It's just another expression of TDS.

If there was any credible evidence that Trump instigated the 1/6 demonstration, then it would have already been printed as a headline in every newspaper in America.

If there was any credible evidence that Trump instigated the 1/6 demonstration, then it would have already been printed as a headline in every newspaper in America.
You missed that???

From Wikipedia --
QAnon[a] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/QAnon#cite_note-1) (/ˈkjuː.əˌnɒn/ (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA/English)) is an American political conspiracy theory (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_political_conspiracy_theories) and political movement (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_movement). It originated in the American far-right (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_right_(United_States)) political sphere in 2017. QAnon centers on false claims made by an anonymous individual or individuals known as "Q". Those claims have been relayed, developed and supplemented by numerous communities (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_community) and influencers (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_celebrity) associated with the movement. The core QAnon theory is that a cabal (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabal) of Satanic (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_Satanism),[1] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/QAnon#cite_note-far-right_conspiracy_theory-2)[2] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/QAnon#cite_note-Bracewell-3)[3] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/QAnon#cite_note-Crossley-4) cannibalistic (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_cannibalism) sexual abusers of children (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sex_abuse) operating a global child sex trafficking (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_trafficking) ring conspired against former U.S. President Donald Trump (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump) during his term in office (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Donald_Trump).[7] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/QAnon#cite_note-8)

Trump supporters – many of them QAnon followers – attacked the U.S. Capitol (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack) on January 6, 2021. The Capitol attack was a watershed moment for QAnon and led to a further, more sustained social media crackdown on the movement and its claims.[55] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/QAnon#cite_note-AP-Twitter-56)[56] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/QAnon#cite_note-NYT-DigitalSoldier-57)

Multiple surveys have found that conspiracy theories such as QAnon are most popular among white Americans (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Americans), especially evangelicals (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicals).

So where in there does it say that QAnon is a white supremacist organization?

Why did you leave this out? "QAnon is described as antisemitic or rooted in antisemitic tropes, due to its fixation on Jewish financier George Soros and conspiracy theories about the Rothschild family, a frequent target of antisemites."

I view QAnon as being on about the same level as BLM except that BLM has been responsible for a great deal more violence and seems to be far better financed, but we'd be much better off without both of them.

human life is not a clump of cells .

I agree. A zygote, being a clump of cells, is definitely not human life.



The science says human life begins at conception.

Simply not true. SOME scientists say that, which is more a reflection of their religious stance than their science. Equally, SOME scientists say the opposite - also a religious belief stance. The best scientists - middle-ground scientists - say the question is not a scientific one. It is essentially a philosophical question that does not lend itself to the empirical scientific method.

For all the scientific opinions you listed that are against abortion, I can list an equal number that are pro-choice.

Multiple surveys have found that conspiracy theories such as QAnon are most popular among white Americans (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Americans), especially evangelicals (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicals).

True. The white evangelical worldview fits right in to the QAnon conspiratorial worldview. They both rely on Satan as the mastermind at the root of evil and conspiracy theories. Trump supports both camps. Not because he has any religious beliefs - he has none - but because they are the core group of his support.

And now the Oath Keepers are on the march.

As is usually the case, this will not be answered. "So where in there does it say that QAnon is a white supremacist organization?"

As is usually the case, this will not be answered. "So where in there does it say that QAnon is a white supremacist organization?"
Nowhere. But look at them. What do you see? Listen to them. What do you hear?

I don't waste my time with them, so I can't say. They just seem to be a relatively small fringe group to me. It might very well be true, but the article doesn't lead that way. Of course it also seems possible that BLM is a black supremacist group. I'm not a fan of any organization that focuses on a particular race. It just seems terribly divisive to me.

I do appreciate the forthright answer.

Nowhere. But look at them. What do you see? Listen to them. What do you hear?

Excellent point.

Those who speak and don't know are always a danger and to be guarded against.