More Conservative Lies For Conservative Morons To Prove How Life begins Where Their Influence Ends

Conservative Comebacks to Liberal Lies by Gregory Jackson - Google SearchClaim: It is uncertain when human life begins; therefore it’s a religious question, not a scientific one. Response: It is an undisputed biological scientific fact that human life begins at conception.

Scientifically life begins at conception.…this new, unique, human creation is a defined sex and is alive, complete and growing….

Lie. The sex of the fetus upon fertilization has nothing in, on or about it that would distinguish it from a cell scraped from another part of the body. In fact, the scrapings would be more complex, more like the human being from which it had at least become an identifiable cell with a role to play; this in contrast to the haploid cell or egg (only half the DNA of donor body) that is then infrequently paired with a similarly haploid sperm cell the male offers, with most cells being washed out during the period, many of them being fully fertilized cells that "God" apparently decided were unworthy of becoming a developing fetus by not allowing it time to become attached to the ovum, which must then make any human so aborted one done by God himself. Conception is actually nothing more than the penetration of the female gamete or haploid cell with its male counterpart, a sperm cell. These two separate, half-cells each have a half-nuclei that remain separate after the cells have then rejoined for a time afterwards. These two nuclei eventually integrate into one whole set of uncombined DNA, split apart into two recombined but half-cells again, join again to make fully separate as well as complete sets of DNA which occupy only one cell however. This then splits into separate cells, which continue the process undifferentiated for some time further again. Now. Where in their did a baby come into the picture...when did life begin? Both cells were living cells despite their lack of the full compliment of genes even before fertilization. Still dead tho? How about after the parent cells combined but before the DNA has? Or when the DNA combines into separte halves making a complete compliment of genes, yet still haven't recombined to make the unique set that will eventually become the signature of any baby that might proceed from a succesful pregnacy devoid of any miscarriages or Holy Abortions as you must presume them to be? Or how about once these cells division begin to start the differentiation process well into pregnacywhen only then do they start to have the difining characteristics of nerve cells, skin cells, etc. but as yet still no brain, heart or limb cells? Or is it when the sex has been determined by the mothers hormonal secretions even later into the pregnancy? Or perhaps when the first braincell makes it's way into the bulb that will eventually become a head? When the first brain cell fires a human signal into a human set of cells perhaps?

The new developing baby has the same 46 human chromosomes he or she will have until death…

. Not at fertilization, i.e conception. Bernard Nathanson, a former abortionist who was personally responsible for 75,000 abortions…in the New England Journal of Medicine…[Nathanson} admitted he has come to know life begins at conception. “There is no longer serious doubt in my mind,” he wrote, “that human life exists from the very onset of pregnancy.” A sperm cell is identifiable as a living human cell. That does not make it a human life. Of the 8 undifferentiated cells that appear some time after fertilization has been successful in causingMieosis and mitosis to create this complete set of chromosomes, if one or seven are taken away, they are all identical to the remaining cell. Are there then 8 babies, 16 ---32 ----64 babies living in the mothers womb? Would removal of 4 be murder of four babies, even though the remainders will go on unaffected due their nature as "stem cells"? The sacred protection of life should be the final word on this topic. The United States Declaration of Independence affirms that the first and most sacred right is the right to “life.”… No human being should be discriminated against based on his or her stage of development, place of residence (inside the womb), or arbitrary notion of “when life begins.” If you have a Had dozen chicken eggs in an omelet dor breakfast, are you lying you tell someone you ate a small flock of chickens that morning? Of course you are, just as eating a bag of acorns doesn't make you a devourer of forests. You are simply a liar Jackson.

Profiling The Conservative Mind

Researchers help define what makes a political conservative By Kathleen Maclay, Media Relations | 22 July 2003 (revised 7/25/03) BERKELEY – Politically conservative agendas may range from supporting the Vietnam War to upholding traditional moral and religious values to opposing welfare. But are there consistent underlying motivations? Four researchers who culled through 50 years of research literature about the psychology of conservatism report that at the core of political conservatism is the resistance to change and a tolerance for inequality, and that some of the common psychological factors linked to political conservatism include: * Fear and aggression * Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity * Uncertainty avoidance * Need for cognitive closure * Terror management "From our perspective, these psychological factors are capable of contributing to the adoption of conservative ideological contents, either independently or in combination," the researchers wrote in an article, "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition," recently published in the American Psychological Association's Psychological Bulletin. Assistant Professor Jack Glaser of the University of California, Berkeley's Goldman School of Public Policy and Visiting Professor Frank Sulloway of UC Berkeley joined lead author, Associate Professor John Jost of Stanford University's Graduate School of Business, and Professor Arie Kruglanski of the University of Maryland at College Park, to analyze the literature on conservatism. The psychologists sought patterns among 88 samples, involving 22,818 participants, taken from journal articles, books and conference papers. The material originating from 12 countries included speeches and interviews given by politicians, opinions and verdicts rendered by judges, as well as experimental, field and survey studies. Ten meta-analytic calculations performed on the material - which included various types of literature and approaches from different countries and groups - yielded consistent, common threads, Glaser said. Cont.....

Mr. Milgrams Children

The following "hystorical analysis" of the war in Iraq is exceeded only by the level of astounding ignorance about the previous wars America found itself in. Fighting the ignorance of such men will reduce the stubbornly high numbers of such followers. But I dare anyone to explain the logic or rationale in saying that somehow a fight in one country keeps fights and attacks from happening in America. Please explain the cause and effect behind the strategy this man keeps telling others is one that's grounded in sanity. Of course, explaining why people believe it is the basis of Milgram's "Obedience To Authority" study that showed a frightening tendency for otherwise sane people to separate their own mind from their morals simply by learning an authority figure gave the order to act otherwise. Mycos ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ All the President is Saying is "Give War" a Chance John Peter Muhlenberg distinguished himself in the Revolutionary War rising to the rank of Major General. After the United States won their independence from Great Britain, Muhlenberg continued to serve his country first as a congressman and then as a senator from his home state of Pennsylvania. John's brother, Frederick Muhlenberg, also a minister, chastised his brother for going to war and urging others to follow his lead. However, when the British occupied New York, Frederick joined realized war was the only path to peace and he joined his brother in the Colonial army, distinguishing himself in several battles and ultimately becoming the first Speaker of the House of the U.S. Congress. Like the Muhlenberg brothers, President Bush knows there is now only one way to achieve peace and stability in Iraq. The determined enemy we face must be defeated and held at bay long enough for the newly formed Iraqi Government to reach a political solution to the sectarian violence that is threatening to tear the new nation apart.

Sheeple

Defend Freedom said... "What saddens me is liberal blogs like this one that would rather support the terrorists when they should be supporting our troops. Do I need to remind you we're at war? Well Mr. Freedom Defender, you might remember how Kent State became an example to all of what happens when folks with little education use flags and crosses to replace the missing knowledge; wisdom from which come empathy and reason as factors for basing their decisions about the lives of people who happened to be born in a different country/culture than you. Somewhere among your new enemies is a guy who behaves in a manner so like you that should you meet under different terms, the sister would squeal in shocked delight at the similarity! Just as you regard your leader, so does he wave his flag, proud of country....opinion made of the enemy as described by your respective leaders...a match on everything, right down to penis size !(small obviously). To actually think that fighting a countries wars is your "duty", yet whose piece of the economic pie even smaller than your dick. Yet just because you were raised to think that because some rich-kid-turned-politician had the money and connections to get people like you to start calling him "president", you'll really should chase down and kill total strangers. Dogs on a fox-hunt might do that for their Lord and Master. Yet so would you without first checking anything out for yourself before making such a monstrous decision; to kill that twin of yours from Syria. Just whistle and your good to go kill on command.... without ever using your own mind to make your own decision about who is right or wrong in fact, not "patriotic duty" taught by rulers to there serfs for millennia, precisely for this very occasion only. It's an abrogation of your humanity when you act on orders like a bug acts on instinct. We have the unique ability to think for ourselves; to behave outside the drive or instinct behind such 'pack' behaviors. As such, I find it hard to feel pity for your fate in war when you enter it as a pack-mule rather than a man of wisdom exercising self-awareness. So think again Cracker. This war exists only because the lies PNAC told were believed by you and your ilk. But for your children's sake at least you should distance yourself from having said such things. The embarrassment it'll cause in the future to those who backed the war-criminals and PNAC chicken-hawks who lied for profits and glory, or some like Cheney solely to avoid losing his 'interests' to a peace dividend, one that a nation with a balanced economy and no real threat could surely afford finally. The hundreds of thousands of megatons of nuclear missiles (real WMD's...not 'maybe have/might get one[1]) were gone with the threat of extinction and the Doomsday Clock... now mere planes as 'firebombs' have somehow been stretched out of 9/11 into a delusion of impending death at the hands of religious kooks. How?

Letter to Gingrich and Lott on Iraq

Letter to Gingrich and Lott on Iraq: "o President Clinton expressing our concern that the U.S. policy of 'containment' of Saddam Hussein was failing"