Crazy right-wing religious fanatics against science...

oh, wait - it's not us.

I wear the label of crazy right-wing religious fanatic (CRWRF) proudly.  I think God had something to do with the reason the universe is here, and the Ten Commandments pretty much sums up how we should be living our life.

I believe that when a teensy little sperm beats out his competition in the "swim for life" and finds his soul mate, also known as an egg (or ovum if you want to get all sciencey about this),  they come together and through the wonders of science, form a zygote.  This little sperm and cute little egg, in celebration of having found true love, and in the knowledge that they have wed until death do them part, go crazy having little children called cells.  During this crazy and wonderful honeymoon period, their little family grows so fast they could fill the first two pews in church on Sunday.  And, bingo - we have a embryo.  Science tells us that little embryo will become a fetus, and that fetus will become a brand spanking new person.

Why is that?  Because when that little sperm and that little egg joined together in marriage, the "two became as one" sharing all they had - which included their deoxyribonucleic acid which, for you non-sciencey types, is known as DNA. And that DNA is different from all other DNA in the whole wide world.  That's the science of this whole baby thing.

So I was a bit confused last week when Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-I believe in science unlike the CRWRF'S) said a few strange non-sciencey things like:

"For states to enact constitutional amendments that say human life begins at conception is “an extreme and radical step.”
and
“For the vast majority of Americans, including people on both sides of the abortion issue, this is an extreme and radical step."
and
"so-called personhood amendments are a “divisive, dangerous, and destructive” attack on women." 

It's seems Debs is in a snit because the CRWRF'S are spreading a bit of science around.  These CRWRF's are actually trying to say when an egg is fertilized it becomes a zygote and that zygote is a person - you know, with like, uh - its very own DNA and all that other sciencey stuff.  How weird is that?

Debs is all hot and bothered about Prop 26 in Mississippi which will define a zygote as a person.  I guess she thinks this is a “divisive, dangerous, and destructive attack on women" because they may be carrying around a puppy or an otter and not, you know, a person.

The opponents of this bill are saying women won't be able to get birth control pills, or if she has an ectopic pregnancy she'll be "left to die on the floor"(that's a favorite position of Nancy Pelosi (D-pretend Catholic)

Let's take a look at that supposition:




So what is this really all about?  These opponents of the CRWRF'S and Prop 26 want to make sure that women can have this person they're "burdened with" (a position held by Barack Hussein Obama (D-let's kill babies) scrapped out and thrown in hazardous waste buckets. 

Want to know how they think about you if you happen to be a CRWRF?

This is chilling:




I love what Matthew Archbold has to say about all this "fertilized egg" business:

Say, What's a "Fertilized Egg" Anyway?

 Right now there are 356 mentions of “fertilized eggs” in the news, according to a quick Google News search, due to the Personhood amendment being voted on in Mississippi.

You see, a fertilized egg to you, me, and anyone with a brain is called an embryo.
As David Schmidt of Live Action points out, “Well there is no such thing as a fertilized human egg. Once a human egg is fertilized, it is no longer an egg but rather called a human zygote or human embryo.”

But that doesn’t stop the media from continuously calling an embryo a “fertilized egg.” In fact, the term “embryo” in related articles accounts for about 1/3 of the news mentions as “fertilized egg.” That’s a rout, folks. The media has found a term to their liking and “embryo” loses again. (Like always. Man, embryos can’t catch a break.)  read the rest - it's excellent

None of this would be complete without a note on what Bishop Joseph Latino has to say in his statement.   


From the U.S. Catholic:

Catholic bishops, including Jackson, Mississippi's Bishop Joseph Latino, are also wary of the idea. Latino wrote in a statement that his diocese is officially taking a neutral stance, letting Catholics rely on their own conscience to decide if they should vote for or against the proposal. He does, however, offer the advice that being pro-life doesn't mean supporting every pro-life initiative, and warns that in this case "the push for a state amendment could ultimately harm our efforts to overturn Roe v. Wade."

Latino's concern is rooted in the fact that such an amendment, even if passed by the state's voters, would immediately face legal challenges. If a court strikes it down, it will set a new legal precedent that actually strengthens the Roe decision, making it ultimately more difficult to overturn.

Really Bishop Latino?  You're willing to say an embryo is not a person so that later you can say it is a person? 


The Truth about Prop 26




More:

Vote Yes on Prop 26