Can we just accept that the left is never going to understand biology?

[Skylar]

It really is pointless trying to discuss anything related to that branch of study with them, from whether sexual reproduction is a type of reproduction to whether life begins before or after toddlerhood. I mean, think about it. They don't need to listen to what you're saying about it, since they already know they're more intelligent, educated, enlightened, compassionate, perfect, and good than any non-leftist could ever be. They don't need any facts you could provide, since they're more than capable of making up their own as necessary. They don't even need each others' opinions on the matter, since a core aspect of their ideology is that there is no objective reality and so what's true is what's true for you. So I have to ask, why even broach the topic with them when we approach it from such irreconcilably different directions?

It's not about understanding biology, it's just about honesty.

For some reason, my pro-choice brethren don't want to be honest about the fact that a fetus is human life.

Is a single cell with unique DNA a person? Is it a baby? And if you believe it is, would it follow that an acorn is an oak tree?

And be honest.

You just did it again, you just illustrated my entire point.

To directly answer your question, an embryo (or whatever stage of it you want to identify) is human life.

Human life. Not a person or a baby. Human life.

Do you agree with my answer or not?

.

With the understanding that we're not talking about a baby or a person, sure. I agree with that. Its a cell, it has unique human DNA. Its life. Its not a human. And it could become a person.

 

[Mac1958]

It really is pointless trying to discuss anything related to that branch of study with them, from whether sexual reproduction is a type of reproduction to whether life begins before or after toddlerhood. I mean, think about it. They don't need to listen to what you're saying about it, since they already know they're more intelligent, educated, enlightened, compassionate, perfect, and good than any non-leftist could ever be. They don't need any facts you could provide, since they're more than capable of making up their own as necessary. They don't even need each others' opinions on the matter, since a core aspect of their ideology is that there is no objective reality and so what's true is what's true for you. So I have to ask, why even broach the topic with them when we approach it from such irreconcilably different directions?

It's not about understanding biology, it's just about honesty.

For some reason, my pro-choice brethren don't want to be honest about the fact that a fetus is human life.

Is a single cell with unique DNA a person? Is it a baby? And if you believe it is, would it follow that an acorn is an oak tree?

And be honest.

You just did it again, you just illustrated my entire point.

To directly answer your question, an embryo (or whatever stage of it you want to identify) is human life.

Human life. Not a person or a baby. Human life.

Do you agree with my answer or not?

.

With the understanding that we're not talking about a baby or a person, sure. I agree with that. Its a cell, it has unique human DNA. Its life. Its not a human. And it could become a person.

You're semantically separating the embryo from the baby, and I just don't think that's honest.

We'll have to disagree.

.

 

[Skylar]

It really is pointless trying to discuss anything related to that branch of study with them, from whether sexual reproduction is a type of reproduction to whether life begins before or after toddlerhood. I mean, think about it. They don't need to listen to what you're saying about it, since they already know they're more intelligent, educated, enlightened, compassionate, perfect, and good than any non-leftist could ever be. They don't need any facts you could provide, since they're more than capable of making up their own as necessary. They don't even need each others' opinions on the matter, since a core aspect of their ideology is that there is no objective reality and so what's true is what's true for you. So I have to ask, why even broach the topic with them when we approach it from such irreconcilably different directions?

It's not about understanding biology, it's just about honesty.

For some reason, my pro-choice brethren don't want to be honest about the fact that a fetus is human life.

Is a single cell with unique DNA a person? Is it a baby? And if you believe it is, would it follow that an acorn is an oak tree?

And be honest.

You just did it again, you just illustrated my entire point.

To directly answer your question, an embryo (or whatever stage of it you want to identify) is human life.

Human life. Not a person or a baby. Human life.

Do you agree with my answer or not?

.

With the understanding that we're not talking about a baby or a person, sure. I agree with that. Its a cell, it has unique human DNA. Its life. Its not a human. And it could become a person.

You're semantically separating the embryo from the baby, and I just don't think that's honest.

You've already said that its not a person, not a baby.

So what distinction are we disagreeing on?

 

[Mac1958]

It's not about understanding biology, it's just about honesty.

For some reason, my pro-choice brethren don't want to be honest about the fact that a fetus is human life.

Is a single cell with unique DNA a person? Is it a baby? And if you believe it is, would it follow that an acorn is an oak tree?

And be honest.

You just did it again, you just illustrated my entire point.

To directly answer your question, an embryo (or whatever stage of it you want to identify) is human life.

Human life. Not a person or a baby. Human life.

Do you agree with my answer or not?

.

With the understanding that we're not talking about a baby or a person, sure. I agree with that. Its a cell, it has unique human DNA. Its life. Its not a human. And it could become a person.

You're semantically separating the embryo from the baby, and I just don't think that's honest.

You've already said that its not a person, not a baby.

So what distinction are we disagreeing on?

Your words "it's not a human. It could become a person."

That's really, really, really parsing it. If left alone, unless something goes terribly wrong, it will be a person. A human. A child.

.

 

[Skylar]

Is a single cell with unique DNA a person? Is it a baby? And if you believe it is, would it follow that an acorn is an oak tree?

And be honest.

You just did it again, you just illustrated my entire point.

To directly answer your question, an embryo (or whatever stage of it you want to identify) is human life.

Human life. Not a person or a baby. Human life.

Do you agree with my answer or not?

.

With the understanding that we're not talking about a baby or a person, sure. I agree with that. Its a cell, it has unique human DNA. Its life. Its not a human. And it could become a person.

You're semantically separating the embryo from the baby, and I just don't think that's honest.

You've already said that its not a person, not a baby.

So what distinction are we disagreeing on?

Your words "it's not a human. It could become a person."

That's really, really, really parsing it. If left alone, unless something goes terribly wrong, it will be a person. A human. A child.

.

I repeat, you've already said its not a person, not a baby. I'm saying the exact same thing. And then adding that it could become a person.

You have yet to disagree with me without contradicting yourself.

 

[orogenicman]

It really is pointless trying to discuss anything related to that branch of study with them, from whether sexual reproduction is a type of reproduction to whether life begins before or after toddlerhood. I mean, think about it. They don't need to listen to what you're saying about it, since they already know they're more intelligent, educated, enlightened, compassionate, perfect, and good than any non-leftist could ever be. They don't need any facts you could provide, since they're more than capable of making up their own as necessary. They don't even need each others' opinions on the matter, since a core aspect of their ideology is that there is no objective reality and so what's true is what's true for you. So I have to ask, why even broach the topic with them when we approach it from such irreconcilably different directions?

It's not about understanding biology, it's just about honesty.

For some reason, my pro-choice brethren don't want to be honest about the fact that a fetus is human life.

Is a single cell with unique DNA a person? Is it a baby? And if you believe it is, would it follow that an acorn is an oak tree?

And be honest.

You just did it again, you just illustrated my entire point.

To directly answer your question, an embryo (or whatever stage of it you want to identify) is human life.

Human life. Not a person or a baby. Human life.

Do you agree with my answer or not?

.

Biologically speaking, this is simply incorrect.

When Does a Human Life Begin 17 Timepoints - DNA Science Blog

Human life begins here:

14. Week 22. A fetus has a chance of becoming a premature baby if delivered...

The ability to survive outside the body of another sets a practical limit on defining when a sustainable human life begins.

Until the fetus is able to survive outside the wound, the mother has control over whether or not she can or will carry it to term. It is her body and mind that is most impacted by the pregnancy, and thus is her decision.

 

[Mac1958]

You just did it again, you just illustrated my entire point.

To directly answer your question, an embryo (or whatever stage of it you want to identify) is human life.

Human life. Not a person or a baby. Human life.

Do you agree with my answer or not?

.

With the understanding that we're not talking about a baby or a person, sure. I agree with that. Its a cell, it has unique human DNA. Its life. Its not a human. And it could become a person.

You're semantically separating the embryo from the baby, and I just don't think that's honest.

You've already said that its not a person, not a baby.

So what distinction are we disagreeing on?

Your words "it's not a human. It could become a person."

That's really, really, really parsing it. If left alone, unless something goes terribly wrong, it will be a person. A human. A child.

.

I repeat, you've already said its not a person, not a baby. I'm saying the exact same thing. And then adding that it could become a person.

You have yet to disagree with me without contradicting yourself.

Okay, got it, never mind.

This little exercise has illustrated my point.

.

 

[Skylar]

With the understanding that we're not talking about a baby or a person, sure. I agree with that. Its a cell, it has unique human DNA. Its life. Its not a human. And it could become a person.

You're semantically separating the embryo from the baby, and I just don't think that's honest.

You've already said that its not a person, not a baby.

So what distinction are we disagreeing on?

Your words "it's not a human. It could become a person."

That's really, really, really parsing it. If left alone, unless something goes terribly wrong, it will be a person. A human. A child.

.

I repeat, you've already said its not a person, not a baby. I'm saying the exact same thing. And then adding that it could become a person.

You have yet to disagree with me without contradicting yourself.

Okay, got it, never mind.

This little exercise has illustrated my point.

.

The only one being evasive is you. I've agreed with you and added to your point, acknowledging that what we BOTH agree isn't a baby and isn't a person could become one.

You have yet to even disagree with me.

 

[Mac1958]

You're semantically separating the embryo from the baby, and I just don't think that's honest.

You've already said that its not a person, not a baby.

So what distinction are we disagreeing on?

Your words "it's not a human. It could become a person."

That's really, really, really parsing it. If left alone, unless something goes terribly wrong, it will be a person. A human. A child.

.

I repeat, you've already said its not a person, not a baby. I'm saying the exact same thing. And then adding that it could become a person.

You have yet to disagree with me without contradicting yourself.

Okay, got it, never mind.

This little exercise has illustrated my point.

.

The only one being evasive is you. I've agreed with you and added to your point, acknowledging that what we BOTH agree isn't a baby and isn't a person could become one.

You have yet to even disagree with me.

I admit that a fetus - at any stage - is innocent human life, and I can certainly understand the pro-lifers' sincere and passionate position that they don't want to slaughter that innocent human life. I have carefully weighed the two sides of the issue and decided that the ability to choose whether to carry that innocent human life to term or not is overall in the best interest of a society, yet would have no problem looking at term restrictions.

That's where I am, semantics notwithstanding.

.

 

[Skylar]

You've already said that its not a person, not a baby.

So what distinction are we disagreeing on?

Your words "it's not a human. It could become a person."

That's really, really, really parsing it. If left alone, unless something goes terribly wrong, it will be a person. A human. A child.

.

I repeat, you've already said its not a person, not a baby. I'm saying the exact same thing. And then adding that it could become a person.

You have yet to disagree with me without contradicting yourself.

Okay, got it, never mind.

This little exercise has illustrated my point.

.

The only one being evasive is you. I've agreed with you and added to your point, acknowledging that what we BOTH agree isn't a baby and isn't a person could become one.

You have yet to even disagree with me.

I admit that a fetus - at any stage - is innocent human life, and I can certainly understand the pro-lifers' sincere and passionate position that they don't want to slaughter that innocent human life.

So a cell with unique DNA is an 'innocent human life'. I wasn't aware that a cell had guilt or innocence. Or was capable of either. You're playing semantic games, for all of your complaints about it. And 'slaughtering innocent human life' really insinuates that you do consider this both a person and a baby. Or at least that a cell with unique DNA is as valuable as any person.

I don't consider an acorn to be an oaktree. Nor do I consider a cell to be a person or a human. We're far more than DNA and cytoplasm. Any person with as much brain activity and consciousness as is exhibited by that cell would be legally dead. And rightly so.

Per the prolife version of 'human life', you could scoop out a person's brain. You could remove everything that makes them human, every memory, every capacity to think, feel, or relate. And as long as you left enough of the brainstem to keep the heart pumping what limbs and organs are left is still an 'innocent human life.' Both our law and any reasoning person can recognize the distinction between biological life and being alive as a person. As what makes us alive isn't merely metabolic processes. And the prolife argument reduces us to nothing more than this.

Being a person involves consciousness and at least a semblance of autonomy. As the part you 'if left alone' argument that you completely omitted...is that if left alone it would instantly die. That it must, without a moment's pause, constantly use the body of another. That it cannot be left alone for an instant and continue to develop.

And that 'another'....is a singular and exclusive person. That has rights, feelings, consciousness, and liberties of her own.







.[/QUOTE]

 

[Mac1958]

Your words "it's not a human. It could become a person."

That's really, really, really parsing it. If left alone, unless something goes terribly wrong, it will be a person. A human. A child.

.

I repeat, you've already said its not a person, not a baby. I'm saying the exact same thing. And then adding that it could become a person.

You have yet to disagree with me without contradicting yourself.

Okay, got it, never mind.

This little exercise has illustrated my point.

.

The only one being evasive is you. I've agreed with you and added to your point, acknowledging that what we BOTH agree isn't a baby and isn't a person could become one.

You have yet to even disagree with me.

I admit that a fetus - at any stage - is innocent human life, and I can certainly understand the pro-lifers' sincere and passionate position that they don't want to slaughter that innocent human life.

So a cell with unique DNA is an 'innocent human life'. I wasn't aware that a cell had guilt or innocence. Or was capable of either. You're playing semantic games, for all of your complaints about it. And 'slaughtering innocent human life' really insinuates that you do consider this both a person and a baby. Or at least that a cell with unique DNA is as valuable as any person.

I don't consider an acorn to be an oaktree. Nor do I consider a cell to be a person or a human. We're far more than DNA and cytoplasm. Any person with as much brain activity and consciousness as is exhibited by that cell would be legally dead. And rightly so.

Per the prolife version of 'human life', you could scoop out a person's brain. You could remove everything that makes them human, every memory, every capacity to think, feel, or relate. And as long as you left enough of the brainstem to keep the heart pumping what limbs and organs are left is still an 'innocent human life.' Both our law and any reasoning person can recognize the distinction between biological life and being alive as a person. As what makes us alive isn't merely metabolic processes. And the prolife argument reduces us to nothing more than this.

Being a person involves consciousness and at least a semblance of autonomy. As the part you 'if left alone' argument that you completely omitted...is that if left alone it would instantly die. That it must, without a moment's pause, constantly use the body of another. That it cannot be left alone for an instant and continue to develop.

And that 'another'....is a singular and exclusive person. That has rights, feelings, consciousness, and liberties of her own.







.

I'm willing to admit to the pro-lifers that a fetus is innocent human life. You, apparently, are not. At least that's what I'm guessing from your voluminous parsing, above.

So, and I'll say it again, we'll just have to disagree.

.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Can we just accept that the left is never going to understand biology?"

Nonsense.

The actual question is can we just accept the fact that most on the right are never going to understand Constitutional law, where biology is but one of many factors determining when as a matter of law life begins, what constitutes 'murder' as a fact of law, and when the interests of the state outweigh that of a woman's right to privacy.

The Constitution appropriately and wisely recognizes the right if each individual to decide when life begins in accordance with his own good faith and good conscience, where the state has no authority whatsoever to compel a citizen to believe one way or the other through the force of law.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"So a cell with unique DNA is an 'innocent human life'."

It is if a given individual believes this to be the case, provided he understands that such a belief is personal, subjective, and legally irrelevant.

And the state has no authority to compel him to believe otherwise, nor does one with such a belief have the authority to compel others to believe as he does through the force of law.

 

[Bfgrn]

It really is pointless trying to discuss anything related to that branch of study with them, from whether sexual reproduction is a type of reproduction to whether life begins before or after toddlerhood. I mean, think about it. They don't need to listen to what you're saying about it, since they already know they're more intelligent, educated, enlightened, compassionate, perfect, and good than any non-leftist could ever be. They don't need any facts you could provide, since they're more than capable of making up their own as necessary. They don't even need each others' opinions on the matter, since a core aspect of their ideology is that there is no objective reality and so what's true is what's true for you. So I have to ask, why even broach the topic with them when we approach it from such irreconcilably different directions?

What liberals need to do is what conservatives do...mindlessly CONFORM

 

[Dragonlady]

It really is pointless trying to discuss anything related to that branch of study with them, from whether sexual reproduction is a type of reproduction to whether life begins before or after toddlerhood. I mean, think about it. They don't need to listen to what you're saying about it, since they already know they're more intelligent, educated, enlightened, compassionate, perfect, and good than any non-leftist could ever be. They don't need any facts you could provide, since they're more than capable of making up their own as necessary. They don't even need each others' opinions on the matter, since a core aspect of their ideology is that there is no objective reality and so what's true is what's true for you. So I have to ask, why even broach the topic with them when we approach it from such irreconcilably different directions?

So to be clear, your 'objective reality' is that 'human life' is a fertilized egg. A single cell.

If so, is a human being the same thing as human life? If so, then you're arguing that this single cell is a human being?

What I'm arguing in what you quoted is that we are never going to find common ground because we're more or less coming from two separate realities. In mine, facts are true independently of whether anyone acknowledges them or not. In yours, facts are what is commonly agreed to be true. In mine, "life" is a defined state with set criteria. In yours, it's a basic right to determine when it begins for yourself. In mine, the entire process of sex works to facilitate the creation of new life. In yours, sex is a pleasurable social activity that sometimes results in pregnancy for reasons. All of that is just pulled from prior conversations you and I have had about it. I'm sure any future discussion will reveal many other differences between our realities' unique versions of science.

In your view of things, your subjective view is fact and everyone else's is opinion. You are a very confused person when it comes to reality, but brainwashing will do that to a person. I feel for you.

And you just summed up the pro-life perspective. They have to believe that their subjective beliefs translate into objective fact....as they're using their beliefs to try and control someone else's body.

We aren't trying to control someone elses body.....the baby inside the woman is not that woman's body....living inside her sure......but a living, breathing human being..............and you can call it anything but a baby because you have to cope with the fact that you support killing innocent babies........a horrible thing to deny...........one day you won't be able to keep doing it.........and then you will truly be sorry....

It is HER body, not yours. It will never be your decision whether that baby is born because you have no right to her body.

The child is not breathing. When it is capable of breathing, it will be capable of living.

If you want women to stop having abortions, start voting for programs for families. Higher wages, maternity leaves, job protection for pregnant workers.

Until you do, stop whining about the babies, because you don't give a shit about the born, only the unborn.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I repeat, you've already said its not a person, not a baby. I'm saying the exact same thing. And then adding that it could become a person.

You have yet to disagree with me without contradicting yourself.

Okay, got it, never mind.

This little exercise has illustrated my point.

.

The only one being evasive is you. I've agreed with you and added to your point, acknowledging that what we BOTH agree isn't a baby and isn't a person could become one.

You have yet to even disagree with me.

I admit that a fetus - at any stage - is innocent human life, and I can certainly understand the pro-lifers' sincere and passionate position that they don't want to slaughter that innocent human life.

So a cell with unique DNA is an 'innocent human life'. I wasn't aware that a cell had guilt or innocence. Or was capable of either. You're playing semantic games, for all of your complaints about it. And 'slaughtering innocent human life' really insinuates that you do consider this both a person and a baby. Or at least that a cell with unique DNA is as valuable as any person.

I don't consider an acorn to be an oaktree. Nor do I consider a cell to be a person or a human. We're far more than DNA and cytoplasm. Any person with as much brain activity and consciousness as is exhibited by that cell would be legally dead. And rightly so.

Per the prolife version of 'human life', you could scoop out a person's brain. You could remove everything that makes them human, every memory, every capacity to think, feel, or relate. And as long as you left enough of the brainstem to keep the heart pumping what limbs and organs are left is still an 'innocent human life.' Both our law and any reasoning person can recognize the distinction between biological life and being alive as a person. As what makes us alive isn't merely metabolic processes. And the prolife argument reduces us to nothing more than this.

Being a person involves consciousness and at least a semblance of autonomy. As the part you 'if left alone' argument that you completely omitted...is that if left alone it would instantly die. That it must, without a moment's pause, constantly use the body of another. That it cannot be left alone for an instant and continue to develop.

And that 'another'....is a singular and exclusive person. That has rights, feelings, consciousness, and liberties of her own.







.

I'm willing to admit to the pro-lifers that a fetus is innocent human life. You, apparently, are not. At least that's what I'm guessing from your voluminous parsing, above.

So, and I'll say it again, we'll just have to disagree.

.

Once again you're arguing with liberals you agree with. You are sick.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Is a single cell with unique DNA a person? Is it a baby? And if you believe it is, would it follow that an acorn is an oak tree?

And be honest.

You just did it again, you just illustrated my entire point.

To directly answer your question, an embryo (or whatever stage of it you want to identify) is human life.

Human life. Not a person or a baby. Human life.

Do you agree with my answer or not?

.

With the understanding that we're not talking about a baby or a person, sure. I agree with that. Its a cell, it has unique human DNA. Its life. Its not a human. And it could become a person.

You're semantically separating the embryo from the baby, and I just don't think that's honest.

You've already said that its not a person, not a baby.

So what distinction are we disagreeing on?

Your words "it's not a human. It could become a person."

That's really, really, really parsing it. If left alone, unless something goes terribly wrong, it will be a person. A human. A child.

.

First you say a fetus is a human being, then you say it will become a human being. Which is it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The anti-abortionists keep throwing it into the faces of the pro-choicers saying that they are killing innocent human life.

But 99% of those same anti-abortionists cannot bring themselves to call for the appropriate punishment of women who have abortions,

which would be in most cases life in prison.

Why are you people pretending you believe that the fetus is a person?

 

[Mac1958]

Okay, got it, never mind.

This little exercise has illustrated my point.

.

The only one being evasive is you. I've agreed with you and added to your point, acknowledging that what we BOTH agree isn't a baby and isn't a person could become one.

You have yet to even disagree with me.

I admit that a fetus - at any stage - is innocent human life, and I can certainly understand the pro-lifers' sincere and passionate position that they don't want to slaughter that innocent human life.

So a cell with unique DNA is an 'innocent human life'. I wasn't aware that a cell had guilt or innocence. Or was capable of either. You're playing semantic games, for all of your complaints about it. And 'slaughtering innocent human life' really insinuates that you do consider this both a person and a baby. Or at least that a cell with unique DNA is as valuable as any person.

I don't consider an acorn to be an oaktree. Nor do I consider a cell to be a person or a human. We're far more than DNA and cytoplasm. Any person with as much brain activity and consciousness as is exhibited by that cell would be legally dead. And rightly so.

Per the prolife version of 'human life', you could scoop out a person's brain. You could remove everything that makes them human, every memory, every capacity to think, feel, or relate. And as long as you left enough of the brainstem to keep the heart pumping what limbs and organs are left is still an 'innocent human life.' Both our law and any reasoning person can recognize the distinction between biological life and being alive as a person. As what makes us alive isn't merely metabolic processes. And the prolife argument reduces us to nothing more than this.

Being a person involves consciousness and at least a semblance of autonomy. As the part you 'if left alone' argument that you completely omitted...is that if left alone it would instantly die. That it must, without a moment's pause, constantly use the body of another. That it cannot be left alone for an instant and continue to develop.

And that 'another'....is a singular and exclusive person. That has rights, feelings, consciousness, and liberties of her own.







.

I'm willing to admit to the pro-lifers that a fetus is innocent human life. You, apparently, are not. At least that's what I'm guessing from your voluminous parsing, above.

So, and I'll say it again, we'll just have to disagree.

.

Once again you're arguing with liberals you agree with. You are sick.

Sometimes I envy the simple, shallow little thought processes of hardcore partisan ideologues.

Most of the time I don't.

.

 

[Mac1958]

You just did it again, you just illustrated my entire point.

To directly answer your question, an embryo (or whatever stage of it you want to identify) is human life.

Human life. Not a person or a baby. Human life.

Do you agree with my answer or not?

.

With the understanding that we're not talking about a baby or a person, sure. I agree with that. Its a cell, it has unique human DNA. Its life. Its not a human. And it could become a person.

You're semantically separating the embryo from the baby, and I just don't think that's honest.

You've already said that its not a person, not a baby.

So what distinction are we disagreeing on?

Your words "it's not a human. It could become a person."

That's really, really, really parsing it. If left alone, unless something goes terribly wrong, it will be a person. A human. A child.

.

First you say a fetus is a human being, then you say it will become a human being. Which is it.

I'll keep this as simple as I can, because I've already said it more than once:

It is human life.

Can I make that any more clear for you?

.