Ask a democrat

[Wyatt earp]

So, if it is "genetic" when is a person's genetic predisposition first determined? What biological moment BEGINS that determination?

Likely at conception but no one knows. Humans (most of them but not people like you) aren't that simple.

When does science tell us a new organism's genetics are first determined?

Depends on the organism. In sexual reproduction (as with humans), the genetics start at conception but whether that combination will stay as it started (or is even valid) takes time. If the combination is too fucked up, like a single Y and no X, you are dead as a door nail. X0 (just one X) can live but not Y0.

I asked when the genetics are FIRST determined.

You answered (I think correctly) that a human being's genetics "genetics start at conception."

Can you tell me why that (conception) is not indicative in any way of when and how a human being's "life begins?"

It is indicative of when a "potential" human life begins (or several), it just doesn't make any difference when trying to work out at at what stages we grants rights to developing anything. Biology isn't the law, the law isn't biology.

Try this, I grant (for the sake of argument) that a brand new conception has the same rights of a fully grown human being. Then, the conception divides into twins. Are they half persons? Then it merges and we now have conjoined twins. That's one body so is it one life or two? Based on minds it's two, on bodies it's one. These are legal not biological debates.

Biology can't help you in this case.

Sounds like a lot of mumble jumble to me..

Hence you ghey and lame.


.

 

[RightyTighty]

Yes, ask a democrat about why he/she supports such policies and we will do our best to explain why. Not all democratic policies are supported by all democrats of course.

Make it brief....

One example: Why do you want to tax soda? My answer to this...I don't. But obesity and health cost are going up big time.

Why do Democrats think that $800,000 of taxpayer money is better spent on the study of penis washing in Africa than on something else such as infrastructure improvement or cancer research?

Penis washing can save lives What's a human life worth to you?

It doesn't cost anything to tell people to wash their dick, jackass.

Actually it does, and you have to know the right way, and teach them the right way, and figure out if that will save lives (we know it will). If dick-washing was so simple we wouldn't have to teach new mothers of baby boys, young boys, teenagers, and men (especially after circumcision) how to wash those little dicks. And 800 K in a four trillion budget isn't even a rounding error, it's the petty cash for buying donuts on Friday.

 

[RightyTighty]

Likely at conception but no one knows. Humans (most of them but not people like you) aren't that simple.

When does science tell us a new organism's genetics are first determined?

Depends on the organism. In sexual reproduction (as with humans), the genetics start at conception but whether that combination will stay as it started (or is even valid) takes time. If the combination is too fucked up, like a single Y and no X, you are dead as a door nail. X0 (just one X) can live but not Y0.

Against the average American, I'm fucking Einstein but if you grow up in the US you get used to having shit your way and not giving a fuck about others. If you're a decent person you fight against that but most aren't.

A legend in your own mind are you?


So how many peer reviewed papers you published?


.

My personal life is (unless I share it) personal. Now, what's my public IP?

If I disclose it I would get banned forever...

But it is funny you live in Detroit...






.

What's really funny is, I am 1,400 miles away. My ISP could be there (unlikely) but who knows these days. Where the core routers go I do not know.

1400 hundred miles away?

I thought you said 1200 miles away?


.

A good guess (then I looked it up).

 

[RightyTighty]

Likely at conception but no one knows. Humans (most of them but not people like you) aren't that simple.

When does science tell us a new organism's genetics are first determined?

Depends on the organism. In sexual reproduction (as with humans), the genetics start at conception but whether that combination will stay as it started (or is even valid) takes time. If the combination is too fucked up, like a single Y and no X, you are dead as a door nail. X0 (just one X) can live but not Y0.

I asked when the genetics are FIRST determined.

You answered (I think correctly) that a human being's genetics "genetics start at conception."

Can you tell me why that (conception) is not indicative in any way of when and how a human being's "life begins?"

It is indicative of when a "potential" human life begins (or several), it just doesn't make any difference when trying to work out at at what stages we grants rights to developing anything. Biology isn't the law, the law isn't biology.

Try this, I grant (for the sake of argument) that a brand new conception has the same rights of a fully grown human being. Then, the conception divides into twins. Are they half persons? Then it merges and we now have conjoined twins. That's one body so is it one life or two? Based on minds it's two, on bodies it's one. These are legal not biological debates.

Biology can't help you in this case.

Sounds like a lot of mumble jumble to me..

Hence you ghey and lame.


.

Science, and all other forms of rational thought, were never meant for your kind.

 

[RightyTighty]

I'm not. They're going to be recycled (as they are currently). Once they are completely inert no one will even care as long as they've been discharged.

Science, I know you reject said thing, kicks ass.

So where is this land of fairys and magical unicorns you live in?


.

I can't help the fact that you are entirely ignorant of science (and batteries).

Speaking of ignorance of batteries and power generation of all phases.

Find what I said that was wrong? Good luck with that one.

You can never produce more energy than you started with.

Never said I could. If you're doing it right the energy comes free (from that big yellow thing) in the sky.

 

[Wyatt earp]

So where is this land of fairys and magical unicorns you live in?


.

I can't help the fact that you are entirely ignorant of science (and batteries).

Speaking of ignorance of batteries and power generation of all phases.

Find what I said that was wrong? Good luck with that one.

You can never produce more energy than you started with.

Never said I could. If you're doing it right the energy comes free (from that big yellow thing) in the sky.

Again where are you going to get the sand from?


.

 

[Chuz Life]

So, if it is "genetic" when is a person's genetic predisposition first determined? What biological moment BEGINS that determination?

Likely at conception but no one knows. Humans (most of them but not people like you) aren't that simple.

When does science tell us a new organism's genetics are first determined?

Depends on the organism. In sexual reproduction (as with humans), the genetics start at conception but whether that combination will stay as it started (or is even valid) takes time. If the combination is too fucked up, like a single Y and no X, you are dead as a door nail. X0 (just one X) can live but not Y0.

I asked when the genetics are FIRST determined.

You answered (I think correctly) that a human being's genetics "genetics start at conception."

Can you tell me why that (conception) is not indicative in any way of when and how a human being's "life begins?"

It is indicative of when a "potential" human life begins (or several), it just doesn't make any difference when trying to work out at at what stages we grants rights to developing anything. Biology isn't the law, the law isn't biology.

Try this, I grant (for the sake of argument) that a brand new conception has the same rights of a fully grown human being. Then, the conception divides into twins. Are they half persons? Then it merges and we now have conjoined twins. That's one body so is it one life or two? Based on minds it's two, on bodies it's one. These are legal not biological debates.

Biology can't help you in this case.

First things first.

Please explain how a "potential human being" can already physically exist.

 

[Wyatt earp]

When does science tell us a new organism's genetics are first determined?

Depends on the organism. In sexual reproduction (as with humans), the genetics start at conception but whether that combination will stay as it started (or is even valid) takes time. If the combination is too fucked up, like a single Y and no X, you are dead as a door nail. X0 (just one X) can live but not Y0.

I asked when the genetics are FIRST determined.

You answered (I think correctly) that a human being's genetics "genetics start at conception."

Can you tell me why that (conception) is not indicative in any way of when and how a human being's "life begins?"

It is indicative of when a "potential" human life begins (or several), it just doesn't make any difference when trying to work out at at what stages we grants rights to developing anything. Biology isn't the law, the law isn't biology.

Try this, I grant (for the sake of argument) that a brand new conception has the same rights of a fully grown human being. Then, the conception divides into twins. Are they half persons? Then it merges and we now have conjoined twins. That's one body so is it one life or two? Based on minds it's two, on bodies it's one. These are legal not biological debates.

Biology can't help you in this case.

Sounds like a lot of mumble jumble to me..

Hence you ghey and lame.


.

Science, and all other forms of rational thought, were never meant for your kind.

No that would be you ...never think things through..

 

[RightyTighty]

Likely at conception but no one knows. Humans (most of them but not people like you) aren't that simple.

When does science tell us a new organism's genetics are first determined?

Depends on the organism. In sexual reproduction (as with humans), the genetics start at conception but whether that combination will stay as it started (or is even valid) takes time. If the combination is too fucked up, like a single Y and no X, you are dead as a door nail. X0 (just one X) can live but not Y0.

I asked when the genetics are FIRST determined.

You answered (I think correctly) that a human being's genetics "genetics start at conception."

Can you tell me why that (conception) is not indicative in any way of when and how a human being's "life begins?"

It is indicative of when a "potential" human life begins (or several), it just doesn't make any difference when trying to work out at at what stages we grants rights to developing anything. Biology isn't the law, the law isn't biology.

Try this, I grant (for the sake of argument) that a brand new conception has the same rights of a fully grown human being. Then, the conception divides into twins. Are they half persons? Then it merges and we now have conjoined twins. That's one body so is it one life or two? Based on minds it's two, on bodies it's one. These are legal not biological debates.

Biology can't help you in this case.

First things first.

Please explain how a "potential human being" can already physically exist.

Because you don't start out as a human being (even though you have human genetics), you start out as what might (with time and good luck) turn into a human being.

You're going to have a nice tuna-melt sandwich for lunch. What did the toast start out as? Bread. And what the bread start out as? Dough, making the dough a potential loaf of bread for - toast.

 

[RightyTighty]

I can't help the fact that you are entirely ignorant of science (and batteries).

Speaking of ignorance of batteries and power generation of all phases.

Find what I said that was wrong? Good luck with that one.

You can never produce more energy than you started with.

Never said I could. If you're doing it right the energy comes free (from that big yellow thing) in the sky.

Again where are you going to get the sand from?


.

Ah, places with sand.

 

[12icer]

You should check out the infrastructure, science, r&d, education in south America

I want better Always strive to be the best.

Do you agree?

With the idea that dimshit scum want better anything for anyone but themselves HELL NO.

 

[Muhammed]

Yes, ask a democrat about why he/she supports such policies and we will do our best to explain why. Not all democratic policies are supported by all democrats of course.

Make it brief....

One example: Why do you want to tax soda? My answer to this...I don't. But obesity and health cost are going up big time.

Why do Democrats think that $800,000 of taxpayer money is better spent on the study of penis washing in Africa than on something else such as infrastructure improvement or cancer research?

Penis washing can save lives What's a human life worth to you?

It doesn't cost anything to tell people to wash their dick, jackass.

Actually it does, and you have to know the right way, and teach them the right way, and figure out if that will save lives (we know it will). If dick-washing was so simple we wouldn't have to teach new mothers of baby boys, young boys, teenagers, and men (especially after circumcision) how to wash those little dicks. And 800 K in a four trillion budget isn't even a rounding error, it's the petty cash for buying donuts on Friday.

You are full of shit. People don't need to be taught how to wash their dicks. You act as if everyone is as stupid as you are.

 

[12icer]

Speaking of ignorance of batteries and power generation of all phases.

Find what I said that was wrong? Good luck with that one.

You can never produce more energy than you started with.

Never said I could. If you're doing it right the energy comes free (from that big yellow thing) in the sky.

Again where are you going to get the sand from?


.

Ah, places with sand.

So I can act like a liberal and say I assume you to be an atheist, agnostic, or some other non believer. That is your prerogative but In my view the killing of a fetus is purely MURDER. All of your biology, batteries, bullshit about science as being a finite absolute entity are just that bullshit. Batteries even after completely discharged contain pollutants most of which are more dangerous that any fossil fuel emissions. Any type of battery of any chemical compound creates hydrogen. Some types create hydrogen compounds. Electric current is actually the transfer of a valence electron from an ionized compound to a more positively charged substance. The complete structure of all types of electrical energy generation are complex and have far reaching effects. Silicone, and Selenium are both poison in certain quantities, as is Mercury and when used in solar cells the waste cells are pollutants. Also the oil in the transformers, inverters and capacitors will after use contain PCBs, >>>>>_____ . Don't even

 

[Muhammed]

When does science tell us a new organism's genetics are first determined?

Depends on the organism. In sexual reproduction (as with humans), the genetics start at conception but whether that combination will stay as it started (or is even valid) takes time. If the combination is too fucked up, like a single Y and no X, you are dead as a door nail. X0 (just one X) can live but not Y0.

I asked when the genetics are FIRST determined.

You answered (I think correctly) that a human being's genetics "genetics start at conception."

Can you tell me why that (conception) is not indicative in any way of when and how a human being's "life begins?"

It is indicative of when a "potential" human life begins (or several), it just doesn't make any difference when trying to work out at at what stages we grants rights to developing anything. Biology isn't the law, the law isn't biology.

Try this, I grant (for the sake of argument) that a brand new conception has the same rights of a fully grown human being. Then, the conception divides into twins. Are they half persons? Then it merges and we now have conjoined twins. That's one body so is it one life or two? Based on minds it's two, on bodies it's one. These are legal not biological debates.

Biology can't help you in this case.

First things first.

Please explain how a "potential human being" can already physically exist.

Because you don't start out as a human being (even though you have human genetics), you start out as what might (with time and good luck) turn into a human being.

You're going to have a nice tuna-melt sandwich for lunch. What did the toast start out as? Bread. And what the bread start out as? Dough, making the dough a potential loaf of bread for - toast.

In other words, you flunked human biology.

 

[OKTexas]

Yes, ask a democrat about why he/she supports such policies and we will do our best to explain why. Not all democratic policies are supported by all democrats of course.

Make it brief....

One example: Why do you want to tax soda? My answer to this...I don't. But obesity and health cost are going up big time.

So who is on this panel of experts?

.

 

[Chuz Life]

When does science tell us a new organism's genetics are first determined?

Depends on the organism. In sexual reproduction (as with humans), the genetics start at conception but whether that combination will stay as it started (or is even valid) takes time. If the combination is too fucked up, like a single Y and no X, you are dead as a door nail. X0 (just one X) can live but not Y0.

I asked when the genetics are FIRST determined.

You answered (I think correctly) that a human being's genetics "genetics start at conception."

Can you tell me why that (conception) is not indicative in any way of when and how a human being's "life begins?"

It is indicative of when a "potential" human life begins (or several), it just doesn't make any difference when trying to work out at at what stages we grants rights to developing anything. Biology isn't the law, the law isn't biology.

Try this, I grant (for the sake of argument) that a brand new conception has the same rights of a fully grown human being. Then, the conception divides into twins. Are they half persons? Then it merges and we now have conjoined twins. That's one body so is it one life or two? Based on minds it's two, on bodies it's one. These are legal not biological debates.

Biology can't help you in this case.

First things first.

Please explain how a "potential human being" can already physically exist.

Because you don't start out as a human being (even though you have human genetics), you start out as what might (with time and good luck) turn into a human being.

You're going to have a nice tuna-melt sandwich for lunch. What did the toast start out as? Bread. And what the bread start out as? Dough, making the dough a potential loaf of bread for - toast.

Please provide the science based source that supports your (just professed) claim that human beings reproduce by way of metamorphosis... where we have sex to conceive anything less than a human being that only later morphs into something we can not deny is a human being.

 

[RightyTighty]

Depends on the organism. In sexual reproduction (as with humans), the genetics start at conception but whether that combination will stay as it started (or is even valid) takes time. If the combination is too fucked up, like a single Y and no X, you are dead as a door nail. X0 (just one X) can live but not Y0.

I asked when the genetics are FIRST determined.

You answered (I think correctly) that a human being's genetics "genetics start at conception."

Can you tell me why that (conception) is not indicative in any way of when and how a human being's "life begins?"

It is indicative of when a "potential" human life begins (or several), it just doesn't make any difference when trying to work out at at what stages we grants rights to developing anything. Biology isn't the law, the law isn't biology.

Try this, I grant (for the sake of argument) that a brand new conception has the same rights of a fully grown human being. Then, the conception divides into twins. Are they half persons? Then it merges and we now have conjoined twins. That's one body so is it one life or two? Based on minds it's two, on bodies it's one. These are legal not biological debates.

Biology can't help you in this case.

First things first.

Please explain how a "potential human being" can already physically exist.

Because you don't start out as a human being (even though you have human genetics), you start out as what might (with time and good luck) turn into a human being.

You're going to have a nice tuna-melt sandwich for lunch. What did the toast start out as? Bread. And what the bread start out as? Dough, making the dough a potential loaf of bread for - toast.

In other words, you flunked human biology.

Obviously not. A human conception looks the same as many others, including a fish and chicken. Only over time do you know if you have a human and if said human is viable. That's the biology.

 

[Chuz Life]

I asked when the genetics are FIRST determined.

You answered (I think correctly) that a human being's genetics "genetics start at conception."

Can you tell me why that (conception) is not indicative in any way of when and how a human being's "life begins?"

It is indicative of when a "potential" human life begins (or several), it just doesn't make any difference when trying to work out at at what stages we grants rights to developing anything. Biology isn't the law, the law isn't biology.

Try this, I grant (for the sake of argument) that a brand new conception has the same rights of a fully grown human being. Then, the conception divides into twins. Are they half persons? Then it merges and we now have conjoined twins. That's one body so is it one life or two? Based on minds it's two, on bodies it's one. These are legal not biological debates.

Biology can't help you in this case.

First things first.

Please explain how a "potential human being" can already physically exist.

Because you don't start out as a human being (even though you have human genetics), you start out as what might (with time and good luck) turn into a human being.

You're going to have a nice tuna-melt sandwich for lunch. What did the toast start out as? Bread. And what the bread start out as? Dough, making the dough a potential loaf of bread for - toast.

In other words, you flunked human biology.

Obviously not. A human conception looks the same as many others, including a fish and chicken. Only over time do you know if you have a human and if said human is viable. That's the biology.

Because everybody knows that science and biology is based ONLY on what we can see with the naked eye.

Right?

 

[RightyTighty]

Depends on the organism. In sexual reproduction (as with humans), the genetics start at conception but whether that combination will stay as it started (or is even valid) takes time. If the combination is too fucked up, like a single Y and no X, you are dead as a door nail. X0 (just one X) can live but not Y0.

I asked when the genetics are FIRST determined.

You answered (I think correctly) that a human being's genetics "genetics start at conception."

Can you tell me why that (conception) is not indicative in any way of when and how a human being's "life begins?"

It is indicative of when a "potential" human life begins (or several), it just doesn't make any difference when trying to work out at at what stages we grants rights to developing anything. Biology isn't the law, the law isn't biology.

Try this, I grant (for the sake of argument) that a brand new conception has the same rights of a fully grown human being. Then, the conception divides into twins. Are they half persons? Then it merges and we now have conjoined twins. That's one body so is it one life or two? Based on minds it's two, on bodies it's one. These are legal not biological debates.

Biology can't help you in this case.

First things first.

Please explain how a "potential human being" can already physically exist.

Because you don't start out as a human being (even though you have human genetics), you start out as what might (with time and good luck) turn into a human being.

You're going to have a nice tuna-melt sandwich for lunch. What did the toast start out as? Bread. And what the bread start out as? Dough, making the dough a potential loaf of bread for - toast.

Please provide the science based source that supports your (just professed) claim that human beings reproduce by way of metamorphosis... where we have sex to conceive anything less than a human being that only later morphs into something we can not deny is a human being.

Sex isn't required to make a human. And what humans make in the bedroom (although we could do human-hybrids in the lab) is of human genetics. Whether it will be a person or go right down the toilet, that we have to wait and see on. Time is what turns a conception into something we grant rights to. Most will never make it that far. Nature doesn't play fair or give a damn if you don't make the cut.

 

[Muhammed]

I asked when the genetics are FIRST determined.

You answered (I think correctly) that a human being's genetics "genetics start at conception."

Can you tell me why that (conception) is not indicative in any way of when and how a human being's "life begins?"

It is indicative of when a "potential" human life begins (or several), it just doesn't make any difference when trying to work out at at what stages we grants rights to developing anything. Biology isn't the law, the law isn't biology.

Try this, I grant (for the sake of argument) that a brand new conception has the same rights of a fully grown human being. Then, the conception divides into twins. Are they half persons? Then it merges and we now have conjoined twins. That's one body so is it one life or two? Based on minds it's two, on bodies it's one. These are legal not biological debates.

Biology can't help you in this case.

First things first.

Please explain how a "potential human being" can already physically exist.

Because you don't start out as a human being (even though you have human genetics), you start out as what might (with time and good luck) turn into a human being.

You're going to have a nice tuna-melt sandwich for lunch. What did the toast start out as? Bread. And what the bread start out as? Dough, making the dough a potential loaf of bread for - toast.

In other words, you flunked human biology.

Obviously not. A human conception looks the same as many others, including a fish and chicken. Only over time do you know if you have a human and if said human is viable. That's the biology.

Bullshit, humans have different DNA than fish or a chicken. Like most Democrats, your ignorance of science is astounding.