Read Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V, Part VI, Part VII, Part IX, and Part X. Pro-lifers can share their thoughts at #livetweetingabortion.
Angie Jackson.jpgWARNING: Vulgarity ahead.
Live tweeting aborter Angie Jackson has repeatedly stated on her blog and to the press her aim is to “demystify” RU-486 abortions, as she told ABC News.
The problem is the 1st rule of demystifying is one must herself be demystified before attempting to demystify. If not, the result is the blind leading the blind, as a great person Angie doesn’t like very well once stated, adding, “When one blind person leads another, both will fall into the same pit.”…

With the everlasting hope no one is beyond climbing out of a self-created pit, I’d like to demystify Angie on a couple points, the 1st being the characteristics of the preborn baby she killed.
We have to start by accepting Angie’s premise, as she has written several times, that she was 4 weeks and 1 day pregnant. That said, she tweeted:
Angie, embryo not a female.png
The scientific facts are that the fusion of the egg and sperm, each containing 23 chromosomes, creates a new 1-celled human with 46 chromosomes. The newly created human is unique. Gender, intelligence, eye color, shoe size, etc., are determined by the 46 chromosomes at fertilization. Never before in the history of the world has this exact individual human existed. Never again in history will another exactly like this human exist.
Angie also tweeted:
Angie, no heart.png
heart, embryo, wikipedia.pngBecause “facts matter kids,” Angie needs to correct that misstatement if concerned about intellectual honesty.
In fact, Angie’s baby’s heart began beating on about day 21, according to Wikipedia, which developed the illustration, right. Click to enlarge.
Angie, since your point seemed to be that having no heart or heartbeat made your baby less human, what does it mean that your baby did have a heart and heartbeat? Does this mean you think abortions of babies with heartbeats is wrong?
Angie also tweeted:
angela, no heart, no brain.png
angie, cells.png
We’ve already established Angie’s assertions about her baby’s heart were incorrect. What about the brain? What about his or her level of development? Here is a a chart of the prenatal development of a 4-week-old preborn baby, according to The Endowment for Human Development….
Angie, brain, heart.png
Angie’s baby in fact did have a brain. Her baby’s brainwaves would remarkably have been discernible when s/he was only 42 days old. Again, Angie, does your attempt to minimize the humanity of your baby by incorrectly asserting the fact s/he had no brain mean you disapprove of abortions of babies with brains, including your own?
Angie’s aforementioned tweets are also examples of repeated attempts to minimize her baby’s humanity because s/he was very small and was only “2 layers of cells.” In actuality, even at 1/8 inch in length, Angie’s baby was remarkably developed. Angie may not have watched the video I previously posted, so I’ll replay it.
So when does size and development matter, Angie? Because you apparently think they do. At what point in a baby’s preborn development does size become significant, in your opinion?

Finally, Angie tweeted:
angie, egg.png
angie, fetus.png
I wouldn’t have bothered with this point except that Angie attempted to mock pro-lifers to “[L]earn biology would ya?”
In fact, scientifically speaking, Angie’s baby was neither an “egg” nor a “fetus.” S/he was considered an embryo at this age, and would have been called so until the end of his or her 8th prenatal week.
Here’s hoping that in the spirit of demystification Angie will correct her false statements.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...