Ask a democrat

[RightyTighty]

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?

Since you can't see a conception with the human eye, that would be rather difficult. And were you to see a black hole with the naked eye, you wouldn't be seeing it for long before it tore you into a billion pieces.

 

[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.

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.

You are trying to divert but it won't work with me.

Do human beings reproduce by metamorphosis (like frogs and butterfiles do?) or not.

If you say yes, then give us the source that you use to support that claim.

 

[RightyTighty]

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.

I said they look the same (not they are the same). Although, they are really fucking close. What's odd is we don't have that much DNA when compared to wheat. It's complicated.

 

[RightyTighty]

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.

You are trying to divert but it won't work with me.

Do human beings reproduce by metamorphosis (like frogs and butterfiles do?) or not.

If you say yes, then give us the source that you use to support that claim.

Humans reproduce sexually (or we mix it up in the lab). Need a picture?

 

[Chuz Life]

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.

You are trying to divert but it won't work with me.

Do human beings reproduce by metamorphosis (like frogs and butterfiles do?) or not.

If you say yes, then give us the source that you use to support that claim.

Humans reproduce sexually (or we mix it up in the lab). Need a picture?

You claimed that human beings conceive something that is less than a human being that has only the potential to become a human being at some later point in time.

That is called metamorphosis.

The onus is on YOU to provide a source to support that claim.

 

[RightyTighty]

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.

You are trying to divert but it won't work with me.

Do human beings reproduce by metamorphosis (like frogs and butterfiles do?) or not.

If you say yes, then give us the source that you use to support that claim.

Humans reproduce sexually (or we mix it up in the lab). Need a picture?

You claimed that human beings conceive something that is less than a human being that has only the potential to become a human being at some later point in time.

That is called metamorphosis.

The onus is on YOU to provide a source to support that claim.

Hardly a stretch when a potential human being goes from something you need a microscope to see to something that looks like Trump, given seven decades of golf (and hamburgers).

 

[Wyatt earp]

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.

My ass you still have to wack off and make sweat love to your right hand


No?


.

 

[RightyTighty]

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.

My ass you still have to wack off and make sweat love to your right hand


No?


.

Left hand, and I certainly enjoy jerking off as much as the next man. Sometimes the wife is just not in the mood (sometimes I'm not either).

 

[Missouri_Mike]

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.

Solar is highly inefficient. The amount of sunlight required to generate any meaningful amount of electricity is a huge problem resulting in massive infrastructure needs and high costs. That's why they need subsidies to operate otherwise nobody could afford it.

Any other great ideas?

 

[Wyatt earp]

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.

My ass you still have to wack off and make sweat love to your right hand


No?


.

Left hand, and I certainly enjoy jerking off as much as the next man. Sometimes the wife is just not in the mood (sometimes I'm not either).

So who's this pretend wife of yours? The same pretend wife mattew has?


.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

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.

I said they look the same (not they are the same). Although, they are really fucking close. What's odd is we don't have that much DNA when compared to wheat. It's complicated.

You should have quit drinking and jerking off way earlier than this.

 

[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.

Solar is highly inefficient. The amount of sunlight required to generate any meaningful amount of electricity is a huge problem resulting in massive infrastructure needs and high costs. That's why they need subsidies to operate otherwise nobody could afford it.

Any other great ideas?

As per usual, your dogma isn't worth a damn. Solar gets cheaper (and better) every day. And it hardly matters how much the process wastes, it's free energy (once you pay for what's needed to collect and convert it). China knows it's the future - you don't.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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.

My ass you still have to wack off and make sweat love to your right hand


No?


.

Left hand, and I certainly enjoy jerking off as much as the next man. Sometimes the wife is just not in the mood (sometimes I'm not either).

So who's this pretend wife of yours? The same pretend wife mattew has?


.

So let's get this straight, you have a wife but want kids with out sex?


.

 

[RightyTighty]

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.

I said they look the same (not they are the same). Although, they are really fucking close. What's odd is we don't have that much DNA when compared to wheat. It's complicated.

You should have quit drinking and jerking off way earlier than this.

I haven't even gotten going yet.

 

[RightyTighty]

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.

My ass you still have to wack off and make sweat love to your right hand


No?


.

Left hand, and I certainly enjoy jerking off as much as the next man. Sometimes the wife is just not in the mood (sometimes I'm not either).

So who's this pretend wife of yours? The same pretend wife mattew has?


.

So let's get this straight, you have a wife but want kids with out sex?


.

As a good liberal I never wanted kids. And I married a woman who was fine with that. The fewer humans - the better.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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.

Solar is highly inefficient. The amount of sunlight required to generate any meaningful amount of electricity is a huge problem resulting in massive infrastructure needs and high costs. That's why they need subsidies to operate otherwise nobody could afford it.

Any other great ideas?

As per usual, your dogma isn't worth a damn. Solar gets cheaper (and better) every day. And it hardly matters how much the process wastes, it's free energy (once you pay for what's needed to collect and convert it). China knows it's the future - you don't.

So you are a communist?

.

 

[Chuz Life]

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.

You are trying to divert but it won't work with me.

Do human beings reproduce by metamorphosis (like frogs and butterfiles do?) or not.

If you say yes, then give us the source that you use to support that claim.

Humans reproduce sexually (or we mix it up in the lab). Need a picture?

You claimed that human beings conceive something that is less than a human being that has only the potential to become a human being at some later point in time.

That is called metamorphosis.

The onus is on YOU to provide a source to support that claim.

Hardly a stretch when a potential human being goes from something you need a microscope to see to something that looks like Trump, given seven decades of golf (and hamburgers).

Even a tiny microscopic human being (organism) is still a human being. There is no size requirement. Is there?

Still waiting for the source that you think supports your claim that human beings morph out of something less than a human being that was the product of conception.

 

[RightyTighty]

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.

Solar is highly inefficient. The amount of sunlight required to generate any meaningful amount of electricity is a huge problem resulting in massive infrastructure needs and high costs. That's why they need subsidies to operate otherwise nobody could afford it.

Any other great ideas?

As per usual, your dogma isn't worth a damn. Solar gets cheaper (and better) every day. And it hardly matters how much the process wastes, it's free energy (once you pay for what's needed to collect and convert it). China knows it's the future - you don't.

So you are a communist?

.

No.

 

[RightyTighty]

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.

You are trying to divert but it won't work with me.

Do human beings reproduce by metamorphosis (like frogs and butterfiles do?) or not.

If you say yes, then give us the source that you use to support that claim.

Humans reproduce sexually (or we mix it up in the lab). Need a picture?

You claimed that human beings conceive something that is less than a human being that has only the potential to become a human being at some later point in time.

That is called metamorphosis.

The onus is on YOU to provide a source to support that claim.

Hardly a stretch when a potential human being goes from something you need a microscope to see to something that looks like Trump, given seven decades of golf (and hamburgers).

Even a tiny microscopic human being (organism) is still a human being. There is no size requirement. Is there?

Still waiting for the source that you think supports your claim that human beings morph out of something less than a human being that was the product of conception.

A conception, which looks like those of other animals, isn't a human being - it has human genetics. That's all.

To get from that to say, you, is a brutal process and most will not survive. That's life, fetus-lover. As I said, this is a legal and moral debate. Biology won't help you. Biology treats conceptions like bad candy it spits out, more often than not.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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.

Solar is highly inefficient. The amount of sunlight required to generate any meaningful amount of electricity is a huge problem resulting in massive infrastructure needs and high costs. That's why they need subsidies to operate otherwise nobody could afford it.

Any other great ideas?

As per usual, your dogma isn't worth a damn. Solar gets cheaper (and better) every day. And it hardly matters how much the process wastes, it's free energy (once you pay for what's needed to collect and convert it). China knows it's the future - you don't.

So you are a communist?

.

No.

Then why do you point to China and there dirty coal fired air?


.