God kills most unborn babies! God aborts more babies than are born!

If life starts truly starts at Conception, then God is, the world’s most prolific abortionist. Most fertilized eggs get washed away without ever implanting in the uterus. [3] [4] [5] [6] Many of the ova that do implant abort spontaneously very early in pregnancy. This scientific truth remained unknown to the public.

  1. Life begins at conception (Catholic Church , Vice President Joe Biden,  Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, Wikipedia, [10])
    Life begins at conception and God aborts most life

    tru

  2. 50% to 90 % of all conceived ova never get implanted and born, due to natural causes [3] [4] [5] [6]. Women are unaware of this gigantic holocaust in their bellies.
  3. If life starts at conception, then more "babies" get killed then born
  4. Hence most residents of Heaven are souls of embryos that were never born, never developed brains, and never had thoughts, emotions, experiences, hopes, dreams, or desires. [9]
  5. Or,  Unchristened Embryos, Destination: Hell?
  6. Why do bioconservatives like Robert George not advocate the rescue of naturally conceived unimplanted embryos? They are live human beings with a soul.
  7. "If the embryo loss that accompanies natural procreation were the moral equivalent of infant death, then pregnancy would have to be regarded as a public health crisis of epidemic proportions: Alleviating natural embryo loss would be a more urgent moral cause than abortion, in vitro fertilization, and stem-cell research combined," declared Michael Sandel, a Harvard University government professor, also a member of the President’s Council on Bioethics.
  8. “The policy of a Romney administration is to oppose abortion with exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother,” [1]. So rape or incest justify murder of an innocent child? Up to what age?
  9. If fire breaks out in a fertility clinic, would you save a 2 year old child, or save 10 lives in a petri dish with 10 fertilized blastocysts? oocytes[2]

Human-Stupidity Analysis

Wikipedia shows many other options to define as the beginning of life.  We are showing that the popular concept of "conception is the beginning of life" causes extreme logical problems: over half of all life never gets born, due to natural causes.

So other definitions need to be found (Wikipedia).

Late term abortions, of course, lead down a slippery slope until Peter Singer‘s philosophy that provides logical argument why "abortion" should be allowed into the first month after birth. We will not discuss this further, rather we will return to the absurdity of "conception at birth", defended by most US politicians of both parties. ovum-and-sperm


Why does god murder/abort so many babies?

Current estimates say that 60-80% of fertilized eggs probably fail to implant and then another 15-20% of the fertilized eggs that do implant spontaneously abort.
So… that gives us a 34%-16% survival rate for fertilized eggs or to flip it around God murders between 66% and 84% of all babies.
Why if God is opposed to abortions does he kill so many babies?

 


Is Heaven Populated Chiefly by the Souls of Embryos?

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “God kills most unborn babies! God aborts more babies than are born!” »
God kills most unborn babies! God aborts more babies than are born… » continues here »

Share

Legal right to renounce child support empowers women, increases birth rates

Contractual freedom to agree about child support rights

Many women want to have a baby, but, for some reason, don’t find the appropriate man or husband. A man willing to the father and take on fatherly duties. The typical solution is to “forget” to take the pill or just let the man falsely assume she is taking birth control.

child-support-hearing1) Women should have right to renounce rights to father’s child support

We propose that

a) A woman should be empowered to contractually agree with a man to have his baby and not demand any child support.

Advantages:

  1. In most developed countries, more babies are urgently needed. This probably will lead to higher birth rates. The richer, more educated, more capacitated women will have children of their choice, that are wanted.
  2. No manipulation needed, no dishonesty about accidentally “forgotten birth control” to get pregnant against the man’s expressed wish
  3. female empowerment: the woman can have her wish, pick the father of her choice and have a baby.
      1. Most men would feel honored to be chosen as a father, without being obliged to support the baby nor having to get along with the woman for the next 20 years.
      2. many men would, voluntarily, by mutual agreement give some aid and support in child raising, in spite of the waiver.
  4. funny-pictures-child-support-catIt fixes our perverted system in which
    1. the most irresponsible and uncontrolled, least intelligent and poorest men have the most offspring
      1. these people are the most unfit genetically (their offspring will be less intelligent and have less self control)
      2. these people are also most unfit as parents and educators: they are less responsible, less intelligent
      3. these people are less unfit financially to provide a good home
    2. society pays for these offspring, with welfare that often encourages the poor to have more offspring to receive more money. These children are not welcome and loved, they are either accidents or planned to increase welfare income. A bad and traumatic start of a life for a baby.
    3. The well-to-do fear child support payments. Poor deadbeats that are unable to pay, and anonymous one night stances can get unlimited offspring without legal and financial responsibility
  5. island-child-supportb) A man should be allowed to contractually assume all child care and support obligations after birth

    Equally, a man can agree to take a child, after birth, assuming all child care and support.

    This might convince a woman to forego abortion, or to become pregnant.

    This ultimately empowers women, because it still is fully her choice to decide to terminate a pregnancy. She might find it attractive to have a baby without obligations.

    Or she might do it as favor for the man, almost like a surrogate pregnancy.

    All this would help to increase birth rate and reduce the population shortage problem in developed countries.

    Who will pay for children’s needs?

    If one party was relieved of his/her obligation, the other party.

    1. The party that took up the contractual obligation, mostly the mother. After all are women not empowered and independent? Don’t women have professions, salary, self sufficiency. Women did this for centuries and millennia, before the advent of liberated professional women and welfare.
    2. Welfare support. Government already pays support for children of deadbeat dads and moms in poverty. Why can’t they pay for the honest working tax paying father? Whoever took up the responsibility should pay him/herself, unless they are below poverty level.

    Your comments are welcome

    All this is a suggestion and, of course, open to discussion. Please comment

    Contractual freedom to agree about child support rights

    Many women want to have a baby, but, for some reason, don’t find the appropriate man or husband. A man willing to the father and assume fatherly duties. The typical solution is to dupe a man into fatherhood by lying about birth control.

    child-support-hearing1) Women should have right to renounce rights to father’s child support

    We propose that

    a) A woman should be empowered to contractually agree with a man to have his baby and not demand any child support.

    Advantages:

    1. In most developed countries, more babies are urgently needed. This probably will lead to higher birth rates. The richer, more educated, more capacitated women will have children of their choice, that are wanted.
    2. No manipulation needed, no dishonesty about accidentally "forgotten birth control" to get pregnant against the man’s expressed wish
    3. female empowerment: the woman can have her wish, pick the father of her choice and have a baby.
      1. Most men would feel honored to be chosen as a father, without being obliged to support the baby nor having to get along with the woman for the next 20 years.
      2. many men would, voluntarily, by mutual agreement give some aid and support in child raising, in spite of the waiver.
  6. funny-pictures-child-support-catIt fixes our perverted system in which
    1. the most irresponsible and uncontrolled, least intelligent and poorest men have the most offspring
      1. these people are the most unfit genetically (their offspring will be less intelligent and have less self control)
      2. these people are also most unfit as parents and educators: they are less responsible, less intelligent
      3. these people are less unfit financially to provide a good home
    2. society pays for these offspring, with welfare that often encourages the poor to have more offspring to receive more money. These children are not welcome and loved, they are either accidents or planned to increase welfare income. A bad and traumatic start of a life for a baby.
    3. The well-to-do fear child support payments. Poor deadbeats that are unable to pay, and anonymous one night stances can get unlimited offspring without legal and financial responsibility
  7. island-child-supportb) A man should be allowed to contractually assume all child care and support obligations after birth

    Equally, a man can agree to take a child, after birth, assuming all child care and support.

    This might convince a woman to forego abortion, or to become pregnant.

    This ultimately empowers women, because it still is fully her choice to decide to terminate a pregnancy. She might find it attractive to have a baby without obligations.

    Or she might do it as favor for the man, almost like a surrogate pregnancy.

    All this would help to increase birth rate and reduce the population shortage problem in developed countries.

    Who will pay for children’s needs?

    If one party was relieved of his/her obligation, the other party.

    1. The party that took up the contractual obligation, mostly the mother. After all are women not empowered and independent? Don’t women have professions, salary, self sufficiency. Women did this for centuries and millennia, before the advent of liberated professional women and welfare.
    2. Welfare support. Government already pays support for children of deadbeat dads and moms in poverty. Why can’t they pay for the honest working tax paying father? Whoever took up the responsibility should pay him/herself, unless they are below poverty level.

    Your comments are welcome

    All this is a suggestion and, of course, open to discussion. Please comment

    Contractual freedom to agree about child support rights

    Many women want to have a baby, but, for some reason, don’t find the appropriate man or husband. A man willing to the father and assume fatherly duties. The typical solution is to dupe a man into fatherhood by lying about birth control.

    child-support-hearing1) Women should have right to renounce rights to father’s child support

    We propose that

    a) A woman should be empowered to contractually agree with a man to have his baby and not demand any child support.

    Advantages:

    1. In most developed countries, more babies are urgently needed. This probably will lead to higher birth rates. The richer, more educated, more capacitated women will have children of their choice, that are wanted.
    2. No manipulation needed, no dishonesty about accidentally "forgotten birth control" to get pregnant against the man’s expressed wish
    3. female empowerment: the woman can have her wish, pick the father of her choice and have a baby.
      1. Most men would feel honored to be chosen as a father, without being obliged to support the baby nor having to get along with the woman for the next 20 years.
      2. many men would, voluntarily, by mutual agreement give some aid and support in child raising, in spite of the waiver.
  8. funny-pictures-child-support-catIt fixes our perverted system in which
    1. the most irresponsible and uncontrolled, least intelligent and poorest men have the most offspring
      1. these people are the most unfit genetically (their offspring will be less intelligent and have less self control)
      2. these people are also most unfit as parents and educators: they are less responsible, less intelligent
      3. these people are less unfit financially to provide a good home
    2. society pays for these offspring, with welfare that often encourages the poor to have more offspring to receive more money. These children are not welcome and loved, they are either accidents or planned to increase welfare income. A bad and traumatic start of a life for a baby.
    3. The well-to-do fear child support payments. Poor deadbeats that are unable to pay, and anonymous one night stances can get unlimited offspring without legal and financial responsibility
  9. island-child-supportb) A man should be allowed to contractually assume all child care and support obligations after birth

    Equally, a man can agree to take a child, after birth, assuming all child care and support.

    This might convince a woman to forego abortion, or to become pregnant.

    This ultimately empowers women, because it still is fully her choice to decide to terminate a pregnancy. She might find it attractive to have a baby without obligations.

    Or she might do it as favor for the man, almost like a surrogate pregnancy.

    All this would help to increase birth rate and reduce the population shortage problem in developed countries.

    Who will pay for children’s needs?

    If one party was relieved of his/her obligation, the other party.

    1. The party that took up the contractual obligation, mostly the mother. After all are women not empowered and independent? Don’t women have professions, salary, self sufficiency. Women did this for centuries and millennia, before the advent of liberated professional women and welfare.
    2. Welfare support. Government already pays support for children of deadbeat dads and moms in poverty. Why can’t they pay for the honest working tax paying father? Whoever took up the responsibility should pay him/herself, unless they are below poverty level.

    Your comments are welcome

    All this is a suggestion and, of course, open to discussion. Please comment

    Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Legal right to renounce child support empowers women, increases birth rates” »
    Legal right to renounce child support empowers women, increases bi… » continues here »

    Share

    Ultrasound abortion laws, unconscious denial, beef and caged hen eggs

    A few states, in a desperate attempt to create obstacles, require ultrasound before abortion. Not for safety, but to show women their fetus, with a heart beating and little arms and feet, to make women feel bad about killing such a little thing, even if it still has no functioning brain or capacity to feel pain. On the other hand, the same conservatives try to shield the agricultural industry, so that unconscious consumers of eggs, or hamburgers, have no awareness of the cruelty towards feeling adult animals involved in the creation of the meal. No pictures of sick caged hens on supermarket egg cartons!

    Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading »
    Ultrasound abortion laws, unconscious denial, beef and caged hen eggs » continues here »

    A few US states, in a desperate attempt to create obstacles, require ultrasound before abortion. Not for safety, but to show women their fetus, with a heart beating and little arms and feet.  To make women feel bad about killing such a little thing, even if it still has no functioning brain, no capacity to feel pain, no conscious will to live.

    On the other hand, the same conservatives try to shield the agricultural industry, so that unconscious consumers of eggs, or hamburgers, have no awareness of the cruelty towards feeling adult animals involved in the creation of the meal. No pictures of sick caged hens on supermarket egg cartons or of movies of slaughterhouses at the butcher’s!

    The new ultrasound law not only requires the medical procedure, but also requires that women know they have the option to hear a description of what is seen in the ultrasound, to receive a photograph of the ultrasound image and to view the ultrasound.
    There is no exception for victims of rape or incest.
    The lawsuit argues the ultrasound requirement is “unconstitutionally vague” because it doesn’t explain whether a person performing the ultrasound exam must try to force the woman to accept the envelope containing the photograph. The lawsuit also says it could violate a patient’s right to confidentiality by “exposing their private information to the risk of delivery by third parties.”
    During legislative debate, supporters of the new law said they hoped the ultrasounds could dissuade women from getting an abortion by having to learn more about their pregnancies. Opponents said requiring a procedure that might not be available at a free clinic nearby will make it more difficult and costly for women to get
    abortions.
    The Center for Reproductive Rights has challenged similar ultrasound laws in other states.

    nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/08/louisianas_latest_abortion_law.html
    wwltv.com/news/local/Abortion-clinics-file-suit-against-states-new-abortion-laws-100157199.html

    Normally, human-stupidity is in favor of increasing consciousness. Though, this is more about emotional sentimentailsm then about intellectual awareness.  We also agree with abortion foes, in that i t would be better if abortions could be avoided. If not by abstinence then responsible sexuality with diligent use of birth control. We think these abortion ultrasound movies should be shown BEFORE women have unprotected sex that gets them pregnant in the first place. Of course, consciousness raising would also require showing movies about the hardship of unwed pregnancies and child rearing.

    Now, interestingly, the same conservatives who want to increase women’s consciousness about their fetuses and their abortions, often decry birth control education in school sex ed.

    The anti-abortion conservatives also normally back up the meat industry who actively hides their cruel activities  from the general populace.  The average meat eater would be appalled and turn vegetarian if he were constantly reminded of all the cruelty in industrial caged animal raising and slaughtering. Peter Singer, and many TV stations were consistently denied access to filming US industrial animal farming enterprises.

    Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Ultrasound abortion laws, unconscious denial, beef and caged hen eggs” »
    Ultrasound abortion laws, unconscious denial, beef and caged hen e… » continues here »

    Share

    Religious Right Wants to Force Women to Implant Genetically Defective Embryos

    Genetically Defective Embryos’ Right to Live: “There can be no selection between handicapped and non-handicapped life”

    This is the opinion of the Christian government of the state of Bavaria and of a stong minority of the government of Germany. Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis of embryos to be implanted into women in fertility treatment should be outlawed.

    Even though preventable, without abortion, and without having less offspring, women should be obliged bear defective children. These children will have a life of suffering, make their family suffer and be a burden to society. By simple pre-implantation genetic testing all this suffering could be avoided and instead a happy productive child could be born.

    Religion prefers genetically damaged children to healthy children

    I think only the twisted mind of religion could come up with such a perverted idea of how to create suffering on this earth. All this in the name of the rights of defective embryos! But, instead, a healthy embryo, already available, and ready to be implanted, will be discarded and distroyed.

    German Government Divided over Calls for Embryo Protection

    Artificial insemination: Politicians want new legislation to ban genetic testing of embryos.

    Maria Böhmer of the CDU, a senior official in Merkel’s Chancellery, is also calling for a rapid ban on PGDs. “There can be no selection between handicapped and non-handicapped life,” Böhmer said. The politician argued that it would be impossible to place limits on the selection of traits once doctors were permitted to do PGD tests.

    Following a federal court decision that would allow pre-implantation genetic diagnosis procedures in Germany, a number of conservative politicians are calling for a tightening of German law to ensure that “selection” of embryos cannot take place.

    A growing number of conservative politician in Germany are rallying for a swift prohibition on genetic testing of embryos produced via artificial insemination prior to implantation in a mother’s womb. The politicians with Chancellor Angela Merkel’s conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and its Bavarian sister party, the Christian Social Union (CSU), are reacting to a ruling last Tuesday by the Federal Court of Justice that such procedures were not in violation of the country’s Embryo Protection Law.

    “We need a swift change in the law to make clear that pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) does not lead to selection,” said Markus Söder, the health minister for the state of Bavaria. Söder, a member of the CSU, said he had sympathy for future parents who would want to do this, but that it was unacceptable that embryos could be destroyed through PGD procedures.

    Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Religious Right Wants to Force Women to Implant Genetically Defective Embryos” »
    Religious Right Wants to Force Women to Implant Genetically Defect… » continues here »

    Share

    Abortion foes almost kill the US universal health insurance bill

    Abortion foes (so called pro-lifers) in the US want to interfere into other people’s business.

    None of the proposals under discussion would ban abortion. None would take away your right to buy abortion coverage with your own money. None would force you to pay for somebody else’s abortion. These are the conceptual parameters on which all sides have, for the time being, agreed.

    So they already clobbered Congress into making special complicated arrangements for abortion foes (so called pro-lifers). Only for this vociferous group. Not for other special interests or religious convictions.

    Abortion, we’re told, is different from other issues caught up in the health care debate. It’s a question of ultimate values, impervious to compromise. […]
    Each side has legitimate worries. Pro-choicers fear that insurers will abandon abortion coverage. Pro-lifers fear that insurers will be forced to include it. Pro-choicers fear that women won’t buy abortion coverage if the premiums are separated up front. Pro-lifers fear that abortion opponents will be suckered into abortion coverage if the premiums aren’t separated up front. We’ll have years of studies, hearings, legislation, and lawsuits to follow up on these concerns and fine-tune the policy.Source: http://www.slate.com/id/2239647/

    • “Pro-lifers” are opposed to abortion and thus want to make sure their money does not go towards funding someone’s abortion
    • Well I am opposed to paying for the war in Iraq.  Did they make special income tax arrangements for me? Those in favor of the Iraq war can pay a special additional war tax.
    • I am also against nuclear weapons. Those who want the US to have nuclear missiles should opt into a special nuclear tax option.
    • I am opposed to keeping people alive in intensive care, when they are brain dead in a coma. Or when they are terminally ill and in pain and are not allowed to die.
      • Some of these guys live for 15 years in intensive care in a coma.
      • Very expensive.
      • Can I please have a health insurance exemption so I don’t have to pay for that?
    • I am totally profoundly against this artificial prolonging of life,  I consider this torture.  It is against my consciousness and against my religion.
    • It is unnatural. In nature, very sick animals and people get mercy killing by predators.

    The above items are ultimate values for me. No compromise is possible. They are my religious belief, so by no means I must be forcet to pay for unjust wars of aggression and painful prolonging of life a against a person’s will. My beliefs on the follwing items are a little less strong, still I think I deserve exemptions in order not to pay for the following items:

    • I am also against paying for diseases people caused to themselves. I don’t want to pay treatment for people who
      • committed suicide attempts
      • abuse alcohol and drugs
      • do extreme sports and have accidents due to their recklessness
      • engange in criminal activities and get shot by police or rival gangs
      • overeat
      • don’t exercise
    • I live in a hot state. I am also opposed to treat people for frost bite. That should be an add-on.
    • I live on ground floor. I don’t want to pay for elevator maintenance.

    So we should have 15 different voluntary private add-on insurance options for each of the following: comatose, terminally ill, obese, self-endangering, reckless, criminal, drug addicted, alcoholics, ……

    Note the absurd idea that parents or young people will, at extra cost,  add insurance for abortion, criminal activity, drug addiction. They will presume that they will not engange in these behaviors, that they will not need the insurance.

    This is religious zealots’ terror.  If you are against abortion, then don’t do abortion. But leave other people alone.

    Actually, I agree that one should use better birth control, to make efforts to avoid needing abortion. But the same people who are against abortion are the ones that are sex education and promotion of birth control.

    Share

    Mother and doctor team excommunicated for live saving abortion in 9 year old rape incest victim. Rapist NOT excommunicated.

    Bishop excommunicates mother and doctors for abortion of 9 year old rape victim whose life was in danger. Rapist stepfather was not excommuncated.
    clipped from news.bbc.co.uk
    Vatican backs abortion row bishop
    A senior Vatican cleric has defended the excommunication in Brazil of the mother and doctors of a young girl who had an abortion with their help.
    The nine-year-old had conceived twins after alleged abuse by her stepfather.
    It comes a day after Brazil’s president criticised the Brazilian archbishop who excommunicated the people involved. Brazil only permits abortions in cases of rape or health risks to the mother. Doctors said the girl’s case met both these conditions, but the Archbishop of Olinda and Recife, Jose Cardoso Sobrinho said the law of God was above any human law. He said the excommunication would apply to the child’s mother and the doctors, but not to the girl because of her age
    “It is a sad case but the real problem is that the twins conceived were two innocent persons, who had the right to live and could not be eliminated,” he said. “Life must always be protected, the attack on the Brazilian Church is unjustified.”
    blog it
    Share