They are merely developing different-looking humans. We all are developing until our early 30s. What else are they? Monkeys? Even macroevolution adherents don’t believe in 1 species becoming another that quickly. They come from 2 human beings and so they are human beings. He needs a lot of responses and prayers on that one.
He states it that way because pro-abortionists cannot argue that point like they do about when life starts. He is prolife and defends children like no other person in his position. He means no disrespect.
I’m a big fan of the o’reilly factor. I have watched it for a long time and still can’t figure out if he is pro life or not. I mean on one hand he goes after the pro-abortion industry (e.g. tiller) as hard as anyone on tv. On the other hand, was asked by others he never openly admits to being pro-life, and uses pharses like “potential human beings.” If i had to guess i think he is definitely against partial birth abortion, he is probably personally pro life, but he may be a closet pro choice person, or at least someone who tries to be politically correct. I could be wrong. I love the show, but I wish he would use his #1 to show the evils of abortion more than he does.
Hey, I’ll take ‘potential human being’ and day over some of the alternatives. At least it makes some people stop and think.
There are much worse things a babe in utero could be called. Terms like ‘cluster of cells’ or ‘blob of tissue’ or even ‘punishment’ (as Obama called children during one of his campaign speeches).
What I don’t get is how people don’t understand this. It’s pretty basic stuff. Every baby conceived will develop into a human being 100% of the time. (I don’t know, maybe you could make a bizarre argument in the case where the baby receives enough radiation in utero to cause huge mutations. Odds are the poor baby would die first though)
It’s even a pretty easy idea to prove it’s a human baby if you just work backwards. It’s a baby when it’s born. So how about 2 seconds before when it’s just coming down the birth canal? Yep, same physiology, biology, DNA, same everything. Now go back 2 seconds at a time for 9 months, and you can’t possibly find a specific point where you can say it’s gone from “non-human” to human. Except at the time of conception.
It’s pretty much just biology. You can’t change species in 2 seconds. When you break it down into 9 months worth of 2 second intervals you pretty much cut out any ridicules argument that involve comparing say week 1 to 8 or something.
Even at conception, it’s human. the cells are there. Actually, thanks to the secular humanist takeover of science, the soul as the lifeforce of the body is not recognized as being there for the baby at conception.
Oh, I guess I didn’t put that clearly. I did mean the baby is human at conception too. What I meant to say was that the only point you can find where the baby goes from “non-human” to human is at conception. 1 second before there is just a sperm and an ovum separate, and the next they are joined as a zygote (the biological term), and it has become a new human being.
The GOP is strategically softening their perceived hardline stand for the sake of political expediency, which brings into question the moral legitimacy of their prior stand on the topic altogether. The party inteligentsia seem to be reformulating their position on the issue based on the hard calculus of gaining more votes. O’Reilly making this statement is no coincidence. While Bill tries desperately to convince the masses that he is an Independent, his rhetoric clearly betrays him as being solidly in the camp of the GOP. Abortion is a moral, spritual, and social virus, which, if allowed to contaminate our culture much longer, will destroy this nation. It has already become a political football, which is a tragedy. “Potential human”?!! If he made this statement, O’Reilly has evolved from being a “potential idiot” into a fully actualized fool.
They have ads for donating to the UN’s Haitian relief, despite Beck telling us how the League of Nations was NWOish and how it was the predecessor to the UN. I fear, with the interest in Ayn Rand, they’re wanting to be the gimmee the money party. Isn’t that what incites the radical left? They’ll lose their most staunch supporters when money is good or bad. Of course, as Beck says, the progressives have both parties.
He even said that he said that because no one could argue with it. He meant pro-choicers. He is most certainly pro-life.
Lame-o 'Reilly! Get with the science! Who cares if they can argue with it or not when it’s backed by science and common sense? Where’s that backbone from the Stewart interview?