Jerusalem Police Limit Muslim Access to Temple Mount Following Violence

Temple Mount Credit Andrew Shiva-compressed (1)
Photo Credit: Andrew Shiva

JERUSALEM (Jerusalem Post) Jerusalem police Sunday evening imposed an age restriction on Muslim worshipers entering the Temple Mount complex following violent clashes at site earlier in the day.

As of Sunday evening, Israeli security forces were limiting entrance to Jerusalem’s contested holy site to men over 50. Access remained open to women of all ages.

Earlier Sunday, masked Palestinian youth threw stones and firecrackers at Israeli police and Border Police on Jerusalem’s Temple Mount.

The violence occurred on the last day of the Muslim festival of Eid al-Adha and on the eve of the Succot Jewish festival of Succot. The security forces managed to subdue the riot, police said.

Continue reading this story >>

Become a Christian News Network Supporter...

Dear Reader, has been of benefit and a blessing to you? For many years now, the Lord has seen fit to use this small news outlet as a strong influential resource in keeping Christians informed on current events from a Biblical worldview. Despite Facebook's recent algorithm changes, which has limited our readership, and, as a result, has affected operational revenue, we continue to strive to bring you the news without compromise and to keep Christ in focus. If you have benefited from our news coverage, would you please prayerfully consider becoming a Christian News supporter by clicking here to make a one-time or monthly donation to help keep the truth widely and freely published and distributed? May Christ continue to be exalted through this work!

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
  • Bruce Morrow

    Hey atheist trolls care to comment on how “Planned Parenthood” commits these gruesome atrocities against the unborn?

    • Terrapin1234

      Wow…so some folks at Planned Parenthood did some horrid acts, and you lash out against atheists? Are all Christians murderers because some kill abortion doctors?

      • Angel Jabbins

        Planned Parenthood was founded by a woman, Margaret Sanger, was an avowed atheist. PP is founded upon the atheistic principles she set forth.

        • Emmanuel

          Principles? That is funny. What’s next, they have morals and ethics? LOL “you’re killing me smalls”

          • Angel Jabbins

            Yes, you are right.”Principles’…very poor choice of words on my part.. Founded upon pure evil would have described it to a tee.

  • WorldGoneCrazy

    With the most recent undercover videos on Planned Parenthood and StemExpress, abortion clinic workers – abortionists, nurses, office personnel, and clinic escorts – may become more interested in leaving the industry. Those who are associated with abortion clinics need to know that there is no statute of limitations on crimes against humanity, and illegal activities that occur within abortion clinics or their property might result in prison time for those onsite, including volunteers. Clinic workers should be aware that undercover investigators, private and governmental, are infiltrating abortion clinics, whether as potential clients or workers or journalists, and that those workers who provide evidence that leads to criminal convictions are generally treated more kindly and, in some cases, even paid for the evidence that they provide, thus also avoiding prison time. The key thing to remember is this: those who provide this information first are the ones who are treated the best. If you are considering leaving the abortion industry, please see (just take the spaces out): http://www .clinicworker .com/ and http://abortionworker .com/

  • WorldGoneCrazy

    Surely all reasonable men and women can come together and show both compassion for human beings and a respect for settled science. The argument against abortion is a moral and scientific one:

    1. Human beings have intrinsic moral value. (basic morality)

    2. What is located in the womb, post-conception, is a distinct individual human being. (settled science)

    3. Therefore, abortion kills a distinct individual human being with intrinsic moral value – one who is guilty of no crime.

    The only difference between a human in the womb and one outside of it is size, level of
    development, environment, and degree of dependency. And each one of those factors, if used to argue for abortion, could be also used as a reason for killing a child OUTSIDE of the womb too. In abortion clinics all across America today, nearly 4000 distinct individual human beings with intrinsic moral value – guilty of no crime but their mere existence – are being led to their deaths, and gruesome ones at that. Can’t we all come together and bring our laws up to date with 21st century science and basic human
    compassion by passing a Life at Conception Act and ending forever this brutal crime against humanity – and the resulting and reprehensible trafficking in baby parts that derives its profit from it?

    • Giraffe-Junk

      #2, can you tell me where you found out that was “settled science”?

      • carmen ramirez

        The science is the number of live births of children born earlier and earlier each time and surviving. with a great deal of help of course but it has been proven that children who can survive outside the womb are bing murdered. if you need the exact cases, actually take the time to look. I assure you that you WILL find them.

        • Terrapin1234

          But your claim that a human being with intelligence exists at conception is entirely wrong.

          • Angel Jabbins

            Good grief …another one who doesn’t know basis high school science. Read my comment above. All human DNA present =one distinct human being

            Here is more documentation for you:

            The following references illustrate the fact that a new human embryo, the starting point for a human life, comes into existence with the formation of the one-celled zygote: Read at http: //www. princeton. edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2. html (Loose all the spaces)

        • Giraffe-Junk

          “What is located in the womb, post-conception, is a distinct individual human being.” What your stating still hasn’t addressed the statement, you’re statement is true about live births earlier and earlier still hasn’t address post-conception as being a distinct individual human being (i.e. a fetus that is 3 days old CANNOT survive outside the womb and has no brain cells, etc. How is that a distinct human being?)

          Further, how is it settled science?

          • Angel Jabbins

            The fetus does not need to have brain cells and be able to survive outside the womb to be a distinct human being. Once the sperm unites with the egg, all the DNA of a distinct human person is present…everything is there…all that is needed is for development and growth to continue.

            Here is a list of 41 quotes from medical experts and medical textbooks that prove human life begins at conception/fertilization.

            “The life cycle of mammals begins when a sperm enters an egg.”
            Okada et al., A role for the elongator complex in zygotic paternal genome demethylation, NATURE 463:554 (Jan. 28, 2010)

            “Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a genetically distinct individual.”
            Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)

            “The oviduct or Fallopian tube is the anatomical region where every new life begins in mammalian species. After a long journey, the spermatozoa meet the oocyte in the specific site of the oviduct named ampulla, and fertilization takes place.”
            Coy et al., Roles of the oviduct in mammalian fertilization, REPRODUCTION 144(6):649 (Oct. 1, 2012) (emphasis added)

            For rest of list of medical text books: http: //www. lifenews. com/2015/01/08/41-quotes-from-medical-textbooks-prove-human-life-begins-at-conception/ (Loose the spaces)

            ****When you went to school, you were taught what to think…not HOW to think. This is BASIC science that any high school student should know. I can’t believe the comments I am reading on this website. This new generation is being dumbed down to the point of absurdity.

        • Mark Bouckaert

          You can’t call a zygote a child. And yes, one day we will be able to “grow” babies outside the womb. That doesn’t mean that I’d classify that any different than what is currently allowed in abortion laws.

          So what’s your point?

      • WorldGoneCrazy

        Hi Giraffe – thanks for your question! It has been settled science for decades, at least, that human life begins at human conception. Here are a couple of peer-reviewed sources for that:

        “Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception). “Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being.” [Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]

        “The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the
        male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.” [Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]

        But, here is the interesting thing: you don’t even need these sources. Ask yourself this: how can what is being aborted be a “clump of cells” at the time of the abortion and yet a “baby” “boy” (admitted by PP on the videos) with arms and legs and a brain and face and heart and liver, etc, when it comes time to dissect?!? That is why you no longer hear the “clump of cells” nonsense from pro-aborts.

        Have a great day!

        • Giraffe-Junk

          Thanks for the answer and honestly, I won’t be addressing the article in particular regarding the fetus that is born “alive” and later dissected, because that is not where my curiosity lies with your statement, and please don’t mistake that, I am not stating if it is right or wrong, but not because I don’t have an opinion on the subject, rather because that is not my subject of interest in this topic.

          So, going back to the statement, “What is located in the womb, post-conception, is a distinct individual human being”

          In your reference, Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3, “The development of a human being begins with fertilization…” does not opinion that the post conception embryo and/or fetus is a distinct individual human being, it is just a statement of how two cells give rise to an organism (human), but giving rise to an eventuality is not conceding to an instant post conception individual.

          In your reference, Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2, is explaining how the fusion of the cells, etc., is part of the fertilization process, again these are indications that a human will become an eventuality, but not a conceding of an instant post conception individual.

          I would beg that a individual human is not the instant of post conception, but rather at some (as yet undetermined) point in the development of the fetus.

          Certainly a sperm and egg produce a zygote, but that zygote, although capable of producing a distinct individual human being, is nothing more than a clump of dividing cells, and I do not mean to sound as if I am demeaning the individual that CAN become, but at this point post-conception, that zygote has no heart, brain, liver, toes, eyes, etc.

          I understand that some have a “religious” objection to abortion and I suspect that most religious believe that a “soul” has inherited the position of the zygote, but forgoing such a discussion, I would disagree with statement #2. Shouldn’t statement #2 read: “What is located in the womb, post-conception, CAN BECOME a distinct individual human being”?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being”

            “The development of a human being begins with fertilization”

            “give rise to a new organism, the zygote”

            It is 100% clear, or should be, that a new human being exists at its developmental beginning, the zygote. The only difference between a zygote and an 18 year old is size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency, NOT human DNA. None of these criteria affect in any way the definition of human being or being human. If you have peer-reviewed medical or biological data that supports a human zygote NOT being a human being, feel free to produce it. Lacking that, statement 2 stands.

            Everything is in place at the zygote stage – nothing more need to be “added” to the mix to make a human being – it is all there:

            “Although life is a continuous process, fertilization (which, incidentally, is not a ‘moment’) is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.” – Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Müller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.

            “It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitues the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual.” – Clark Edward Corliss, Patten’s Human Embryology: Elements of Clinical Development. New York: McGraw Hill, 1976. p. 30.

            So, statement 2 stands. You have a human being – everything from the dimple on your cheek to the color of your eyes and hair, etc, was determined at the moment of your conception, at the zygote stage. This is not only settled science, but uncontroversial. I realize that some have emotional or financial or convenience reasons for wanting an abortion, but such criteria should not result in the unwarranted taking of a human life, one that has committed no crime.

            Interestingly, there are no data for zygote abortions. All of the surgical abortions take place weeks later when there is a beating heart, etc. Chemical abortions can take place relatively early, but that is still a human being being killed.

          • Giraffe-Junk

            So, paraphrasing, you state how the ovum becomes fertilized (that is settled science) and how once fertilized it has the properties to becomes an individual human (that is settle science), but not that the fertilized ovum, zygote, fetus IS an individual human (which has not been addressed in ANY comment). You conjecture that because the settled science of the fertilized ovum and the properties thereof can become an individual that It IS an individual human, but you have no scientific reference that proves it. I understand that you may not concede this point, but it is a very profound point indeed and without actual proof, your point is moot, no matter your insistence. That being stated, your point could be either true or false and one cannot determine, based on your aforementioned comments, the validity of post conception being an individual human. Obviously at some point in the process of fetus to infant, there must be some validity to your ideology, but the process of fertilized ovum to fetus, your point could in-fact be false.
            So, #2 in your previous reference, really isn’t true, to a point (of which has been undermined), that point could be as early as the first few hours or as late as the ninth month, but your “evidence” has no indication of such, but rather how a fertilized egg becomes a zygote and that a zygote carries the DNA to carry out the growth of the zygote to the individual human, but knowing when that occurs is out of reach (apparently of science). I think a better, more honest approach, would be to that that the fetus MAY be an individual human and that you perceive it as such from the instance of conception.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            I really do not understand how you can spin “beginning of a human being,” “development of a human being,” “new organism” into MAYBE a human being? What, just because I did not give you a definition with the word “individual” in it?!? OK, here is one:

            “Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism…. At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun…. The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life.” [Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943]

            “developing individual,” ” a new life has begun” Clear, no?

            Point 2 stands, and has been proven over and over to a reasonable person.

            There. Now you have it. Meanwhile, you have provided ZERO peer-reviewed medical or biological data to show that the zygote, embryo, fetus is NOT a human being. Who is being dishonest here – the one providing all the data or the one sitting back saying “It can’t be so?” MIT must not be so good anymore, if basic logic is not taught there.

            And, of course, if there WERE any uncertainty (and there is not) on when human life begins, then we should err on the conservative side, right, against abortion? So, that we do not wake up and find out we have slaughtered 58 million innocent human beings in the womb, right?

            “fetus MAY be an individual human”

            Are you kidding me?!? That is a picture of a fetus at the top of the page. You are telling me that is NOT a human being?!? What?

            Fetus is just Latin for “little one.”

            baby [bey-bee]

            noun, plural babies.

            1. an infant or very young child.

            2. a newborn or very young animal.

            3. the youngest member of a family, group, etc.

            4. an immature or childish person.

            5. a human fetus.

            6. Informal.

            Sometimes Disparaging and Offensive. a girl or woman, especiallyan attractive one.

            a person of whom one is deeply fond; sweetheart.

            (sometimes initial capital letter) an affectionate or familiar address(sometimes offensive when used to strangers, casualacquaintances, subordinates, etc., especially by a male to a female).

            a man or boy; chap; fellow:

            He’s a tough baby to have to deal with.

            an invention, creation, project, or the like that requires one’s specialattention or expertise or of which one is especially proud.

            an object; thing:

            Is that car there your baby?adjective

            7. of or suitable for a baby:

            baby clothes.

            8. of or like a baby; infantile:

            baby skin.

            9. small; comparatively little:

            a baby car.

            10. treating babies:

            a baby doctor.verb (used with object), babied, babying.

            11. to treat like a young child; pamper.

            12. to handle or use with special care; treat gently.

            Here is a source that uses the term “baby” from the embryonic stage on:

            http://www .babycenter .com/pregnancy-week-by-week

            Here is more:

            Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni, professor of pediatrics and obstetrics at the University of Pennsylvania, stated:

            “I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception…. I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood and that any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes a termination of human life….

            I am no more prepared to say that these early stages [of development in the womb] represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty…is not a human being. This is human life at every stage.”

            Dr. Jerome LeJeune, professor of genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris, was the discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down syndrome. Dr. LeJeune testified to the Judiciary Subcommittee, “after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being.” He stated that this “is no longer a matter of taste or opinion,” and “not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence.” He added, “Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.”

            Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic: “By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.”

            Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School: “It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive…. It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception…. Our laws, one function of which is to help preserve the lives of our people, should be based on accurate scientific data.”

            Dr. Watson A. Bowes, University of Colorado Medical School: “The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter—the beginning is conception. This straightforward biological fact should not be distorted to serve sociological, political, or economic goals.”

            A prominent physician points out that at these Senate hearings, “Pro-abortionists, though invited to do so, failed to produce even a single expert witness who would specifically testify that life begins at any point other than conception or implantation. Only one witness said no one can tell when life begins.”2

            Many other prominent scientists and physicians have likewise affirmed with certainty that human life begins at conception:

            Ashley Montague, a geneticist and professor at Harvard and Rutgers, is unsympathetic to the prolife cause. Nevertheless, he affirms unequivocally, “The basic fact is simple: life begins not at birth, but conception.”3

            Dr. Bernard Nathanson, internationally known obstetrician and gynecologist, was a cofounder of what is now the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). He owned and operated what was at the time the largest abortion clinic in the western hemisphere. He was directly involved in over sixty thousand abortions.

            Dr. Nathanson’s study of developments in the science of fetology and his use of ultrasound to observe the unborn child in the womb led him to the conclusion that he had made a horrible mistake. Resigning from his lucrative position, Nathanson wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine that he was deeply troubled by his “increasing certainty that I had in fact presided over 60,000 deaths.”4

            In his film, “The Silent Scream,” Nathanson later stated, “Modern technologies have convinced us that beyond question the unborn child is simply another human being, another member of the human community, indistinguishable in every way from any of us.” Dr. Nathanson wrote Aborting America to inform the public of the realities behind the abortion rights movement of which he had been a primary leader.5 At the time Dr. Nathanson was an atheist. His conclusions were not even remotely religious, but squarely based on the biological facts.

            Dr. Landrum Shettles was for twenty-seven years attending obstetrician-gynecologist at Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center in New York. Shettles was a pioneer in sperm biology, fertility, and sterility. He is internationally famous for being the discoverer of male- and female-producing sperm. His intrauterine photographs of preborn children appear in over fifty medical textbooks. Dr. Shettles states, I oppose abortion. I do so, first, because I accept what is biologically manifest—that human life commences at the time of conception—and, second, because I believe it is wrong to take innocent human life under any circumstances. My position is scientific, pragmatic, and humanitarian. 6

            The First International Symposium on Abortion came to the following conclusion:

            The changes occurring between implantation, a six-week embryo, a six-month fetus, a one-week-old child, or a mature adult are merely stages of development and maturation. The majority of our group could find no point in time between the union of sperm and egg, or at least the blastocyst stage, and the birth of the infant at which point we could say that this was not a human life.7

            The Official Senate report on Senate Bill 158, the “Human Life Bill,” summarized the issue this way:

            Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being—a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.8


            1 Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981.

            2Landrum Shettles and David Rorvik, Rites of Life: The Scientific Evidence of Life Before Birth (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1983), 113.

            3 Ashley Montague, Life Before Birth (New York: Signet Books, 1977), vi.

            4Bernard N. Nathanson, “Deeper into Abortion,” New England Journal of Medicine 291 (1974): 1189Ð90.

            5Bernard Nathanson, Aborting America (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1979).

            6Shettles and Rorvik, Rites of Life, 103.

            7John C. Willke, Abortion Questions and Answers (Cincinnati, OH: Hayes Publishing, 1988), 42.

            8Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981, 7.

            Now, despite all of my evidence supporting point 2, would you like me to write it this way – would this help?

            1. Human beings have intrinsic moral value. (basic morality)

            2. What is located in the womb, post-conception, is a human being. (settled science)

            3. Therefore, abortion kills a human being with intrinsic moral value – one who is guilty of no crime.

            There, same point. Still moral murder. Does that help, despite the fact that I supported my point above? I will go forward with this presentation if you like, but it does not change the immorality of abortion.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a genetically
            distinct individual.” Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)

            “Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”

            Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.

            “Your baby starts out as a fertilized egg… For the first six weeks, the baby is called an embryo.”

            Prenatal Care, US Department Of Health And Human Services, Maternal and Child Health Division, 1990

            “Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. was first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization:

            “The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.”

            “The zygote and early embryo are living human organisms.”

            Keith L. Moore & T.V.N. Persaud Before We Are Born – Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects (W.B. Saunders Company, 1998. Fifth edition.) Page 500

            Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Miller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.

            “Although life is a continuous process, fertilization… is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.”

            “[All] organisms, however large and complex they might be as full grown, begin life as a single cell. This is true for the human being, for instance, who begins life as a fertilized ovum.”

            Dr. Morris Krieger “The Human Reproductive System” p 88 (1969) Sterling Pub. Co

            “The first cell of a new and unique human life begins existence at the moment of conception (fertilization) when one living sperm from the father joins with one living ovum from the mother. It is in this manner that human life passes from one generation to another. Given the appropriate environment and genetic composition, the single cell subsequently gives rise to trillions of specialized and integrated cells that compose the structures and functions of each individual human body. Every human being alive today and, as far as is known scientifically, every human being that ever existed, began his or her unique existence in this manner, i.e., as one cell. If this first cell or any subsequent configuration of cells perishes, the individual dies, ceasing to exist in matter as a living being. There are no known exceptions to this rule in the field of human biology.”

            James Bopp, ed., Human Life and Health Care Ethics, vol. 2 (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1985)

            Settled science.

          • Giraffe-Junk

            I think everyone knows that all living things (per se) begins as a single cell, the point is, when is that single cell a human, as opposed to when does it have the genetic material to be a human, you can’t seem to differentiate that, which makes any point of conversation with you pointless.

            More to the point, a single, fertilized cell, that has divided once is NOT an actual human.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Thanks for your reply, Giraffe!

            Yes, I do understand the point you are making, I really do, but the point that I am making is that the single cell actually IS human. That is what the science says, the medicine, the biology. It does not LOOK human, but it is. You and I were both once single cell zygotes, and we were both alive at that moment. It was quite literally the beginning of our existence. Prior to that, we did not exist, in the same way that “prior” to the Big Bang, the universe did not exist.

            In fact, this is one of the reasons so many people – of many faiths and no faith – have problems with abortifacient drugs: they can result in the death of a living human being in the zygote / very early embryonic stage. (These drugs also have some nasty side effects for the woman taking them.)

            What is interesting is that, of the 58 million recorded abortions, NONE of those are zygote abortions – they are all in the embryonic / fetal stages. So, based on the science, the number of abortions is actually much larger.

            Anyway, good talking with you and have a great day!

          • Giraffe-Junk

            I’m glad that you got the point, and yes, I do understand your point. However, even if we call the zygote human (due to it’s DNA), at that point (and only that point for the conversation), does it matter if it is aborted/miscarried? I would beg to state that until a form of conscience exists, does it actually matter? “It” doesn’t know of it’s own existence, there are no memories, no “humanity” at this point. Now, that isn’t to bely an argument for the “murder/killing” of another human (at this point in the conversation). In other words, since there is only a future human (in terms of a conscience being) and a physical human (in terms of DNA), why, without a conscience being does it matter? Further, is it in-humane to allow a defective (to the point of suffering) zygote to become a conscience being, to endure life suffering (a subjective term indeed), when, prior to consciousness, we can prevent the suffering?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Now you are adding qualifiers that have nothing to do with being human or with the 3 point argument I made above. You want to wiggle out of the argument, but there is no wiggle room. De-humanizing a human being because of size, level of development, environment or degree of dependency (SLED) can be equally applied outside of the womb. (De-humanization was also practiced by slave owners and Jew gassers, BTW.)

            Your argument on conscience can easily be applied to the newborn, a six month old, even a two year old. Interestingly, Peter Singer advocates for post-birth “abortions” up to the age of 2. He is being entirely consistent with his agreement for abortions in the womb – since it is only the SLED factors that differ with those outside of the womb. I actually had a pro-abort say to me “Children are the property of the parents who have the right to abort them up to the age of 18.” He was NOT kidding. Based on SLED, I believe that man was 100% consistent in his endorsement of abortion.

            The argument stands:

            1. Human beings have intrinsic moral value. (basic morality)

            2. What is located in the womb, post-conception, is a human being. (settled science)

            3. Therefore, abortion kills a human being with intrinsic moral value – one who is guilty of no crime.

            It’s weird: when a person dies in their 80’s, we are sad, of course, but we know she lived a long life. In his 40’s, well, that is sad too, because he is in his prime, but at least he made it to
            adulthood and got to experience a family and kids and career and all. In her 20’s, well just starting out, but at least she made it to adulthood anyway. Teens? Getting pretty sad, there, but still had some life. At 5? Tragic. At 6 months? Incomprehensible. In the womb? Choice. Feelings. Selfishness. The “logic” for killing the most vulnerable of all.

            “I’ve noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born.” — Ronald Reagan

          • Giraffe-Junk

            Seriously, do you have mental issues? I don’t have a clue to what you are ranting about, get back to my previous post, re-read it (maybe after you take your pill), and answer the questions I asked!

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Here I am giving you a post-graduate education in philosophy, science, and human biology, after your work at MIT, and you can’t even thank me for schooling you?!? 🙂

          • Giraffe-Junk

            Are you manic/depressive? Your writing indicates that you are. Since you haven’t addressed any questions I had, that’s hardly a schooling. I did point out that a zygote is conscienceless, just having the DNA from both parents. Keep in mind that you skin cells have the DNA from both parents, are they alive or are YOU alive?
            Since you can’t actually address the questions, It means that you have no answer and unfortunately, for you, no answer means change the subject and never admit that you don’t have an answer and when you are incorrect, your pride, stands in your way of being a REAL man and admitting it. It’s a shame that you can’t just face facts, because living in a made up fantasy world, doesn’t change the real world.
            Sad really.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            No address of the 3 point argument. Got it.

            “Keep in mind that you skin cells have the DNA from both parents, are they alive or are YOU alive?”

            Are you REALLY comparing skin cells with a human being? Were YOU nothing more than skin cells when you were in the womb? (Ask your Mommy.) That is sick – what a moral monster you are!

            You have been provided with peer-reviewed medical and biological sources that prove that human life begins at human conception, and in order to deny the fact that you are on the wrong side of the killing of 58 million innocent human beings in the womb, you must deny basic science. You actually looked at the fetus at the top of this page and said that he MIGHT be human. Sick. It just goes to show that you don’t have to be very smart anymore to get into MIT.

            Next you point to “conscience” as your arbitrary qualifier for being human, but you fail to provide any peer-reviewed medical or biological sources to say that conscience is required in order to be human. And you fail to refute the many peer-reviewed medical and biological sources that I provided that show that conscience is nowhere to be found in terms of defining humanity. Finally, you fail to address the fact that conscience is generally not considered to be present in BORN babies for sometime after birth – some say 2 years or more – showing that your moral compass is so far off that your “logic” actually makes the argument for infanticide! Doubly sick!

            But, you just HAVE to have blind faith that the human in the womb is not human in order to feel better about yourself and your inability to admit that you were wrong on abortion. Disgusting. Please give your toilet paper degree back to MIT – they failed you miserably.

          • Giraffe-Junk

            Nah, I wasn’t comparing skin cells to a human being, I was pointing out that a zygote has the DNA of a human, just like your skin cells. And like your skin cells it has no conscience.
            But, apparently you are to daft to comprehend and only want some argument that isn’t there. My toilet paper degree from MIT was already flushed, so what have you done with your life?
            Your peer reviewed articles only addressed how an egg becomes fertilized not at what point the egg is classified “human”, just because you arbitrarily define it at the point of conception means nothing. My idea that it should be defined at the point of consciousness is no more or less valid that yours.
            It’s a shame that when you loose an argument you turn to turning words to fit your needs to belittle the person. Again, sad that you aren’t man enough to present arguments that are valid and concede when they aren’t, but instead resort to invalid statements about the moral character of the person presenting a different, logical, thought.
            So, what have you done with your life? Any hobbies, anything for fun? Do you have a job? Are you old or young? Is trolling all that you have to show for your life? In the end, when it’s all over, does all of this arguing really matter? Aren’t you just upsetting yourself, causing your own problems?

  • Ransom Davidson

    Truly disturbing and very sickening.

  • MessyMaddie2

    If the babies are aborted alive, then cut open while the heart is beating, that is out right murder. Not saying it isn’t murder anyway, but once that baby is out of the mother and alive then killed what would authorities call it? I think anyone involved in these horrendous cases should be arrested and charged with first degree murder.

  • Angel Jabbins

    Where are the Planned Parenthood supporters? Where are the pro-abortion folks? Come on…defend your position now! This what your ideology has led to…not only killing babies in the womb, but now killing them after they are born also…to harvest their organs…for monetary gain!! Talk about a slippery slope….we have slid so quickly into complete barbarianism. How can anyone defend this? Maybe that is why it is so silent here…their mouths are finally stopped…as well they should be at these horrifying revelations. This is nothing short of barbaric and it has been going on for years. And we thought Hitler was a monster. His ideology is alive and well, sadly. This is proof positive!

  • ghhshirley

    Does no one bother with research anymore?

    Did you know that the fetus shown being held in a hand during Holly’s voiceover in the latest deceptively edited video, and in your photo above, was NOT aborted? The fetus was miscarried at 19 weeks in a hospital and named Walter Joshua Fretz by his parents.

    His photos and his parent’s story can be found at the website of the photographer:

    In addition, in the video, Holly O’Donnell says that while she was working at StemExpress, she saw another technician induce the heart of an aborted fetus to begin beating. (FYI: the fetus pictured in dish was not not from Planned Parenthood or Stem Express, note the credit in the video). Holly said, “I knew why it was happening, because the electrical current—the nodes were still firing.” That is not the same as “still beating”. Cardiac cells can beat in a petri dish given the right chemicals.

    By the way, did you know that muscle reflexes can continue for hours after death? That gas formulating in a body can be expelled from time to time which makes it appear that a cadaver is breathing? None of the things that Holly related meant that the fetus was “alive” in any true sense after the abortion. And what you saw on the video was not what Holly was seeing.

    Science matter. Facts matter. And deception…is deception.

    • Emmanuel

      You are right facts do matter. Fact: PP killed this baby for its brain for cash.
      Spin it all you want, but decapitating and dismembering a child for cash is a fact. The videos might be a hoax but these animals are killing living babies.

      • Terrapin1234

        If you bothered to read his post, you’d then understand that the picture above is not from PP as you are claiming. I googled Walter Joshua Fretz and yes, he is right, it’s not from PP. This article is now a lie.

        • bowie1

          The article does not claim the photo above is from Planned Parenthood, but it does show what it looks like at a legal stage for an abortion to take place.

          • ghhshirley

            Just a note, after several people complained that CMP did not put a credit for that baby in a palm scene, they did add a bit of text to indicate it came from elsewhere (that happened on Thursday). After inquires, the parents of that miscarried fetus posted a statement that they had not given CMP permission to use that photo for the video.

        • Emmanuel

          The whole article or just the pic? PP is decapitating and dismembering children for money. Not a lie but a fact. The pic is a lie, shame on the writer for using the wrong pic. apologize for lying. But, PP is a chop shop that the left approves of and keeps giving them the green light to do. FACT!!!!!
          Terrapin, are you ok with opening up a child, like a frog in science class, for cash?

          • ghhshirley

            Let me reiterate the writer of the article used a still pic from the video itself. The writer was not at fault, CMP who created the deceptive video, is.

            I know many of you take every word that Holly related as the gospel truth. I have my doubts about that for two reasons. She admitted that she is “pro-life”, which tells me she has an personal agenda. Nevertheless, it didn’t keep her from continuing her tissue procurement work for the entire time she did work for Stem Express.

            Secondly, she stated that she left her work with Stem Express because she felt could not do the work anymore. She says she thought when she was hired that she was just going to be taking blood. Stem Express stated that she was brought in specifically for tissue procurement and knew that from the get-go.

            Stem Express also stated that the reason she gave them for leaving, in writing, and they actually published an excerpt of it (btw, she was not directly employed by Stem Express, she was a contractor for them) was because they did not give her enough hours for her to financially sustain herself. That in itself also shows that fetal tissue procurement is not done on a grand scale that some might imagine.

            Holly also signed a non-disclosure agreement with Stem Express which she has obviously violated. If she cannot be trusted to keep to that agreement, I find little reason to trust her, especially without some kind of documented proof, on anything she related on the video.

          • Emmanuel

            That is all fine and dandy, but is PP getting paid under the table for baby parts? Are they a baby chop shop?

      • ghhshirley

        That is quite a bit of hyperbole. The fact of the matter is, women go to Planned Parenthood for a legal medical procedure. In a small number of states, in a few clinics within those states, they are offered the opportunity to donate the fetal tissue. Otherwise, it just becomes medical waste. Planned Parenthood is compensated/reimbursed for the costs of preserving and often transporting that tissue.

        If folks have a problem with organ donation or fetal tissue donation, then address that. But abortion is legal in this nation, that is not going to change.

        Defunding Planned Parenthood will not effect their ability to provide abortions since that is all self-pay and supported by private donations.

        What defunding WILL do, however, is limit the ability of women to prevent unwanted pregnancies to begin with, especially poor women and women living in more rural areas. (Never mind that such defunding will also limit STD testing–contributing to the spread of STD’s as happened recently in Indiana, limit the ability to obtain pap smears, breast exams, well women checks, and so on.)

        Many people assume that if funding is shifted to generic community “free clinics”, they can pick up the slack. Texas defunded Planned Parenthood several years ago as well as other family planning centers. This caused 53 clinics to shut down, 14 of which were Planned Parenthood clinics. NONE of the 53 provided abortions.

        The other community clinics were NOT able to handle the number of women who needed care, and most of those clinics are located in urban areas, often 50 to 100 miles away or more from where women live.

        As a result, 10’s of 1000’s of women are now going without healthcare at all. (Texas is also one of the states that did not expand Medicaid). The pregnancy rate in teens is increasing, and there was an increase of about 24,000 unplanned births in 2014 alone, yet the abortion rate did NOT decrease. In the end, this is costing the state and the federal government millions of dollars more because these women need financial assistance as do their children.

        • Emmanuel

          I’m not questioning legality. I know that abortions are legal and done everyday. But, I’m looking at the back door deals and not being up front about it. PP needs to report how many abortions, payments receives, report the buyers and submit tax forms and exceptions for this money. Be up front and TRANSPARENT about your business. Also, the mom or dad or both should sign a form agreeing to the donation of the baby to science and in what area. PP will find the buyer and the parents will pick the science.
          IF they are shady, then PP is a chop shop making profits for themselves.

    • Josey

      Abortion is reprehensible no matter how you want to put it into scientific excuses.

      • LadyGreenEyes

        There are no scientific excuses, either, as science shows that life begins at conception. I posted a few quotes from texts on the subject just up fro here.

    • bowie1

      However, at 19 weeks it is still legal to commit an abortion so it is an accurate representation of what the “fetus” looks like at that stage – so no deception of its humanity is taking place.

      • ghhshirley

        It is deceptive in the fact that most people who viewed the video did not realize that what they were seeing was not what was being portrayed by Holly. In fact, Holly was discussing a 17 week fetus. The purpose was to evoke emotion, to make you believe what you were seeing was something Holly had recorded, and it did so in a highly deceptive manner.

        • bowie1

          A human being in other words.

    • WorldGoneCrazy

      Ma’am, perhaps it never occurred to you that the baby whose face was sliced open and had his brain removed was not available for a photo op.

      • LadyGreenEyes

        Oh, they know, but grasping at that flimsy straw is all they have left at this stage.

    • LadyGreenEyes

      The only deception here is on the part of Planned Parenthood and all of the abortion defenders. A representative shot of a child at the same state is not deception, since, as you even admit, it is stated to be from elsewhere. What was done was testified to having been done, however, and is very true. Note, too, that you called the baby a “body”, and not a “clump of cells”, or whatever other little euphemism you prefer to pretend in your own mind that no baby is involved.

      Science shows that life begins at conception, a new person formed, at that time. You can read this in texts on fetal development and embryology.

      “Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”
      “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).” – Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.

      “Although life is a continuous process, fertilization (which, incidentally, is not a ‘moment’) is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.” – Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Müller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.

      “It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the
      nuclear material each brings to the union that constitues the culmination of the
      process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual.”
      – Clark Edward Corliss, Patten’s Human Embryology: Elements of Clinical Development. New York: McGraw Hill, 1976. p. 30.

      “Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new being is created which is alive and
      will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition.”
      – E.L. Potter and J.M. Craig, Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant, 3rd edition.
      Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1975. p. vii.

      “Every baby begins life within the tiny globe of the mother’s egg… It is beautifully translucent and fragile and it encompasses the vital links in which life is carried from one generation to the next. Within this tiny sphere great events take place. When one of the father’s sperm cells, like the ones gathered here around the egg, succeeds in penetrating the egg and becomes united with it, a new life can
      begin.” – Geraldine Lux Flanagan, Beginning Life. New York: DK, 1996. p. 13.

      • WorldGoneCrazy

        I like most of your quotes and peer-reviewed sources better than most of mine. OK if I copy?

        • LadyGreenEyes

          Be my guest! I found a nice list of those a day or so ago; quite handy stuff.

      • ghhshirley

        Let us say that I agree that life begins at conception and that the embyo/fetus is a “person” (which I do not, the pregnancy is human, the fetus is human–but not yet a person). In this country, no one is obliged to allow another person to use their organs to stay alive.

        For example, the law cannot demand that because one person’s kidney is failing that you must be forced to be hooked up to that person so that your kidney works for him to remove toxins from his blood. The law cannot compel you to donate a kidney…even if you are a parent to an ill child–even if you were responsible for injury to that person that caused the kidney problem, even if that child/person will die without it. Both of these two demands would put you at some degree of risk or medical complications for your own life, for the sake of another.

        The same applies for a pregnant woman. No one should force her to continue with a pregnancy (and all pregnancies come with a degree of risk, anything from hypertension, diabetes, stroke, eclampsia…even death)… unless she is willing.

        What I am saying is that it doesn’t matter if we do or do not agree that life or personhood begins at conception. What matters is that each of us, including a pregnant woman, retains the right to bodily autonomy, first, last and always.

        • LadyGreenEyes

          What sort of twisted nonsense have you been studying, that you can post that someone can be human, but “not a person”??? That is flat out stupid. The rest of your argument follows in kind. A baby in the womb isn’t the same as forcing someone to support you on their organs. You are trying to compare some nonexistent, bizarre medical practice with normal procreation, and you sound, frankly. desperate. These continued claims of “bodily autonomy” are the cries of those losing the fight. An and every excuse to make people believe that killing helpless babies is somehow acceptable. That is what matters.

      • Angel Jabbins

        Great resources. Pro-death people are always blabbering on about how science and facts matter…until you show them how science and facts actually prove the exact opposite of their position. They have not a leg to stand on. Science is on the side of LIFE for unborn… HUMAN BEINGS… and are such from the moment of conception.

        • LadyGreenEyes

          Oh, I have seen that! Someone actually tried claiming that their ONE source was valid, but all of the ones I listed were somehow not relevant, even though they are mainly from textbooks on embryology and the like! Truth hurts, sometimes.

  • Emmanuel

    I could only read a few paragraphs. These people are cutting a child open like a frog in 6th grade science class. Disgusting human beings with no souls. PP is a horrible, godless and worthless organization. Hey lefties, I hope you are happy and proud.

  • Josey

    I cried through reading this, my daughter gave premature birth to a baby girl, she was just a little bit older than this one by maybe a couple of weeks, I held my grand daughter in my hands as she passed away, my daughter was devastated as she wanted her baby, we had a burial as the law requires and even would have with out the law requiring it and they just throw these babies away after they are done hacking them up. They should be prosecuted! The thought that these horrendous people are doing this to these little ones, cutting them up, taking body parts, well there are no words to express what I feel right now. Abortion is murder of the innocent, it should not be legal, there are people who want children and can do a great job in raising them, adopt your baby out if you cannot raise it or better yet refrain from sex until you find that one you want to be with and have a family with for the rest of your life, you and your babies deserve it.

    • WorldGoneCrazy

      God bless you for posting this, Josey, and to your daughter, too.

    • LadyGreenEyes

      My oldest lost twin sons that way, so I know just how you feel. Many are at the same stage they were, when she had to tell them goodbye. I cannot fathom how someone could do such a thing voluntarily.

      No words, indeed. I could think of some actions that would suit me. No words, though!


      • Josey

        ty Lady, hugs to you too…God bless

  • Nidalap

    It’s a little sobering to be shown proof of the depths of evil that Man can sink to…

  • Mark Bouckaert

    “I never did, but I think I witnessed some of the other technicians…”. Does this person even work there? And take about heresy.

  • Lisa

    Incredibly evil…..but then again what can you expect from people who kill babies?

  • FoJC_Forever

    Judgement is coming.

  • Daniel Carlson

    This is such a simple, basic thing. You don’t need all the “science” or so-called “accepted science” to justify anything. You just need to be able to put ideology and opinion aside and look at what is plainly there.

    A sperm and an egg unite inside the mother’s womb. At that moment new cells with their very own DNA and genetic instructions begin forming and multiplying. From that moment up until the day we die (and maybe a little after) THAT is who we are. We are a system of genetically instructed dividing cells. Our bodies are entirely dependent upon the fruits of our environment (we don’t create energy from within ourselves, but energy is transferred from external sources to our bodies through digestion and other mechanisms), and this is true from the moment of conception.

    The mother’s DNA does not instruct the unborn’s DNA because the unborn has it’s own set of separate, unique, and specific instructions created by mom and dad (not just mom). Likewise, my mother’s DNA plays no part in my life and hasn’t since I was conceived. Nothing has changed.

    I am no more alive today at 40 than I was 40 years and 9 months ago…or no less alive!

    So the argument about “when life begins” is moot – life begins when the instructions say “create a life” and anyone who denies that such happens at conception is ideologically blinded and numbed.

    And really that’s not the issue anyway. And no, the issue isn’t about the mother’s right to choose (since she has NO RIGHT to end life). The issue is about the fallen nature of humanity wanting to play God – it’s been the same since the beginning. “Hey, if God can give and take life, why can’t I – cause I want to be like God?”

    And why we humans continue to run back to the vomit of our sin and rebellion, I don’t know why, but we do. Abortion is just another example of it. And I wish people would stop fighting for team Satan, repent, and trust in God’s word and grace.

  • Mr Dave

    Planned Parenthood are as evil as Satan is. They are his puppet. Barbaric!

  • AJ2

    I cannot believe what I read. How sick and vile can people be to kill a innocent baby that has done nothing to them. A baby is not a paper towel to throw away. No one should kill a child of God. Abortion is disgusting and vile and so are the people that get them. God will get those that harm his children.

  • AJ2

    God made those babies,Stop talking about science. Only a trashy vile human would get a abortion.

  • Paladin

    yet the demon controlled humanists will still reject