Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Normal
As I said...you are a typical pro choicer attempting to defend the indefensible and no amount of fact will ever change your mind....You pick and choose sources to complain about and ignore sources that are beyond reproach which say the same thing....intellectual dishonesty at its worst.What was wrong with the paper from sonoworld? It was written by MD's and Doctors of Obstetrics....you don't think they are qualified?What precisely was your objection to the Royal Microscopical Society...you think they aren't qualified"The medical textbook Principle and Practice of Pediatric NeurosurgeryDOI: 10.1055/b-0034-98061 page 269 didn't suit you?How many cells do you think a zygote has? You seem to be so obtuse that unless a source uses precisely the words you have in your mind which are based on an obvious ignorance of the topic you won't accept...the problem is that biological sources are not going to be dumbing themselves down to that level...self protection by sheer stupidity...you must be so proud.The fact that those sources stated exactly the same thing as the sources you so stupidly rejected based on nothing more than fallacious logic should give you a clue...but then, you aren't interested in getting a clue are you? You are interested in defending a position that you know is wrong and one for which you won't be able to face yourself if you ever accept the truth of it.Cutting and pasting dictionary definitions which you don't understand just underscores your ignorance on the topic. You lose....sorry. Live with it...or deny it....or whatever you people do to try to alleviate your own self loathing.
As I said...you are a typical pro choicer attempting to defend the indefensible and no amount of fact will ever change your mind....You pick and choose sources to complain about and ignore sources that are beyond reproach which say the same thing....intellectual dishonesty at its worst.
What was wrong with the paper from sonoworld? It was written by MD's and Doctors of Obstetrics....you don't think they are qualified?
What precisely was your objection to the Royal Microscopical Society...you think they aren't qualified"
The medical textbook Principle and Practice of Pediatric NeurosurgeryDOI: 10.1055/b-0034-98061 page 269 didn't suit you?
How many cells do you think a zygote has? You seem to be so obtuse that unless a source uses precisely the words you have in your mind which are based on an obvious ignorance of the topic you won't accept...the problem is that biological sources are not going to be dumbing themselves down to that level...self protection by sheer stupidity...you must be so proud.
The fact that those sources stated exactly the same thing as the sources you so stupidly rejected based on nothing more than fallacious logic should give you a clue...but then, you aren't interested in getting a clue are you? You are interested in defending a position that you know is wrong and one for which you won't be able to face yourself if you ever accept the truth of it.
Cutting and pasting dictionary definitions which you don't understand just underscores your ignorance on the topic. You lose....sorry. Live with it...or deny it....or whatever you people do to try to alleviate your own self loathing.
