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

[NYcarbineer]

If the fertilized egg is a person then you could be charged with murder for disposing of a test tube containing fertilized eggs at a fertility clinic.
Or, more likely, the fertility clinic couldn't legally exist at all.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

20,000 children die every DAY around the world from starvation and illness.

From what I see conservatives believe life beings at conception and ends at birth. Once you are born they don't want to know you exist. If a woman tries to come to the U.S. with a newborn baby so the baby can have a life they want the border patrol to physically kick them out with great prejudice.

Conservatives beliefs are based on what makes them feel good in the moment and what they don't have to exert any effort or money on. Their lives are spent in a never ending quest to make their beliefs seem noble.

But they aren't.

Stop spending money on your computer hobby cons and go save the children that are dying while you type your angry vomit into the ether.

Life does begin around conception. Please refer to the intro lecture I posted explaining exactly how it works. I also posted a fairly comprehensive "Embryology 101" thread in another section a while back as well. It was funny how all of the people denying the existence of any link between sex and reproduction totally ignored it. That said, it's something that public policy should take into account, which is why I'll never vote GOP on the issue either. I'm absolutely with you that we need to stop persecuting Mexican refugees and start demonizing welfare-receiving mothers as a small start.

Come to think of it, I remember your username and writing style from the last thread. Please ignore all of this.

Would you put a woman to death for 1st degree murder for using the so-called morning after pill?

Please refer to the first page: "I feel like you're trying to write the issue of abortion specifically between the lines. Read only what I actually said and you'll be closer to what I was actually saying. That's explained again below in my reply to Sonny Clark."

This applies. I understand that you're single topic, but this thread wasn't about abortion specifically. It was about the general and irreconcilable differences between liberal and non-liberal approaches to reality as demonstrated by the total disconnect when it comes to questions in biology. I'm absolutely against capital punishment btw. It's barbaric and beneath us as higher beings.

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.

"In mine, facts are true independently of whether anyone acknowledges them or not. In yours, facts are what is commonly agreed to be true." What is thought to be true is irrelevant to what is actually true. We were bound by the laws of physics long before we began to understand them. Almost the entire global population exists despite you having never met, seen, or thought of any of those individual people. In my reality, the axiom that "what's true is true for you" is so obviously wrong it can barely even be considered. That yours and mine differ on this is what the OP was actually about.

Speaking of biology, you are going to have to explain to us leftists why every single Republican presidential candidate in the 2012 election cycle either believed in creationism, or else admitted that they didn't believe in the biological theory of evolution, the best documented scientific theory in history. Leftists don't understand biology? HA! Give us a friggin break!

Evolution is pretty much the reason. A religious predisposition has proven useful enough over the course of our history that it's become the norm. This tendency is only weakening lately because education is making it harder to believe in traditional religions though it's still relatively strong in the US. A (likewise declining) majority of the US population is to some degree conservative. Religion and conservatism both work well together, as both are about enforcing social order and binding people through common belief and culture. It logically follows that the candidates of the conservative party would be strongly inclined to be religious, both authentically and to appeal to their target demographic. Traditional religion opposes evolution as it competes with its own stories of how humans came to be. I could explain in a lot greater depth had I not literally just come off a twelve hour shift.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

It's sad how the board's one-note abortion posters (C_Clayton_Jones, Dragonlady, NYcarbineer, and Skylar) did so well at turning this into being about their subject. On the plus side, it's done an outstanding job of proving my basic point.

 

[IsaacNewton]

20,000 children die every DAY around the world from starvation and illness.

From what I see conservatives believe life beings at conception and ends at birth. Once you are born they don't want to know you exist. If a woman tries to come to the U.S. with a newborn baby so the baby can have a life they want the border patrol to physically kick them out with great prejudice.

Conservatives beliefs are based on what makes them feel good in the moment and what they don't have to exert any effort or money on. Their lives are spent in a never ending quest to make their beliefs seem noble.

But they aren't.

Stop spending money on your computer hobby cons and go save the children that are dying while you type your angry vomit into the ether.

You're chock full of left loon talking points.

The truth hits hard doesn't it. I see you are still wasting money online while children are dying. Why are you so anti-life?

Conservatives know science like a desert knows water.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

20,000 children die every DAY around the world from starvation and illness.

From what I see conservatives believe life beings at conception and ends at birth. Once you are born they don't want to know you exist. If a woman tries to come to the U.S. with a newborn baby so the baby can have a life they want the border patrol to physically kick them out with great prejudice.

Conservatives beliefs are based on what makes them feel good in the moment and what they don't have to exert any effort or money on. Their lives are spent in a never ending quest to make their beliefs seem noble.

But they aren't.

Stop spending money on your computer hobby cons and go save the children that are dying while you type your angry vomit into the ether.

You're chock full of left loon talking points.

The truth hits hard doesn't it. I see you are still wasting money online while children are dying. Why are you so anti-life?

Gawd, you're one ignorant mofo. Get some original material, you look like the typical MSNBC loon squawking

 

[rightwinger]

Biology?

Is that like that evolution stuff that has been going on for 6000 years?

 

[IsaacNewton]

Biology?

Is that like that evolution stuff that has been going on for 6000 years?

No no, THAT biology conservatives don't think happens. They pick and choose, as with the bible, what narrow interpretation fits their bizarre world view.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's sad how the board's one-note abortion posters (C_Clayton_Jones, Dragonlady, NYcarbineer, and Skylar) did so well at turning this into being about their subject. On the plus side, it's done an outstanding job of proving my basic point.

Nothing I've said has been refuted. I'd say that's because it's virtually irrefutable.

You, mostly, jabber and ramble.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

Nothing I've said has been refuted.

 

[Skylar]

20,000 children die every DAY around the world from starvation and illness.

From what I see conservatives believe life beings at conception and ends at birth. Once you are born they don't want to know you exist. If a woman tries to come to the U.S. with a newborn baby so the baby can have a life they want the border patrol to physically kick them out with great prejudice.

Conservatives beliefs are based on what makes them feel good in the moment and what they don't have to exert any effort or money on. Their lives are spent in a never ending quest to make their beliefs seem noble.

But they aren't.

Stop spending money on your computer hobby cons and go save the children that are dying while you type your angry vomit into the ether.

Life does begin around conception. Please refer to the intro lecture I posted explaining exactly how it works. I also posted a fairly comprehensive "Embryology 101" thread in another section a while back as well. It was funny how all of the people denying the existence of any link between sex and reproduction totally ignored it. That said, it's something that public policy should take into account, which is why I'll never vote GOP on the issue either. I'm absolutely with you that we need to stop persecuting Mexican refugees and start demonizing welfare-receiving mothers as a small start.

Come to think of it, I remember your username and writing style from the last thread. Please ignore all of this.

Would you put a woman to death for 1st degree murder for using the so-called morning after pill?

Please refer to the first page: "I feel like you're trying to write the issue of abortion specifically between the lines. Read only what I actually said and you'll be closer to what I was actually saying. That's explained again below in my reply to Sonny Clark."

This applies. I understand that you're single topic, but this thread wasn't about abortion specifically. It was about the general and irreconcilable differences between liberal and non-liberal approaches to reality as demonstrated by the total disconnect when it comes to questions in biology. I'm absolutely against capital punishment btw. It's barbaric and beneath us as higher beings.

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.

"In mine, facts are true independently of whether anyone acknowledges them or not. In yours, facts are what is commonly agreed to be true." What is thought to be true is irrelevant to what is actually true. We were bound by the laws of physics long before we began to understand them. Almost the entire global population exists despite you having never met, seen, or thought of any of those individual people. In my reality, the axiom that "what's true is true for you" is so obviously wrong it can barely even be considered. That yours and mine differ on this is what the OP was actually about.

Speaking of biology, you are going to have to explain to us leftists why every single Republican presidential candidate in the 2012 election cycle either believed in creationism, or else admitted that they didn't believe in the biological theory of evolution, the best documented scientific theory in history. Leftists don't understand biology? HA! Give us a friggin break!

Evolution is pretty much the reason. A religious predisposition has proven useful enough over the course of our history that it's become the norm. This tendency is only weakening lately because education is making it harder to believe in traditional religions though it's still relatively strong in the US. A (likewise declining) majority of the US population is to some degree conservative. Religion and conservatism both work well together, as both are about enforcing social order and binding people through common belief and culture. It logically follows that the candidates of the conservative party would be strongly inclined to be religious, both authentically and to appeal to their target demographic. Traditional religion opposes evolution as it competes with its own stories of how humans came to be. I could explain in a lot greater depth had I not literally just come off a twelve hour shift.

Biological life and personhood are two totally different things. Per the standards of 'human life' used by the pro-lifers, you could remove a person's brain, most of their head and if you left enough of the brainstem to keep the heart pumping you have an 'innocent human life'. Where both the law and any rational person would recognize that with those subtractions you've removed virtually everything that makes a person human. And they would be legally dead.

A pro-lifer can't recognize the distinction. And sees a collection of limbs and organs as a complete person. We're more than merely metabolization. And a cell is not a person anymore than an acorn is an oak tree. But per the pro-life position, a cell must be a person. And an acorn must be an oak tree.

And that's where their argument breaks.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

Biological life and personhood are two totally different things. Per the standards of 'human life' used by the pro-lifers, you could remove a person's brain, most of their head and if you left enough of the brainstem to keep the heart pumping you have an 'innocent human life'. Where both the law and any rational person would recognize that with those subtractions you've removed virtually everything that makes a person human. And they would be legally dead.

A pro-lifer can't recognize the distinction. And sees a collection of limbs and organs as a complete person. We're more than merely metabolization. And a cell is not a person anymore than an acorn is an oak tree. But per the pro-life position, a cell must be a person. And an acorn must be an oak tree.

And that's where their argument breaks.

It seems like your key problem is a fundamental misunderstanding of what our argument is. I'll spell it all out after I get off work. That said, you also seem to have misunderstood that this thread wasn't about your favorite subject specifically but the fact that we're never going to see eye to eye because there's simply no common ground between a relativist and absolutist framework. There is no way to bridge the gap between "truth is decided by common consent" and "truth is independent of opinion".

 

[Skylar]

Biological life and personhood are two totally different things. Per the standards of 'human life' used by the pro-lifers, you could remove a person's brain, most of their head and if you left enough of the brainstem to keep the heart pumping you have an 'innocent human life'. Where both the law and any rational person would recognize that with those subtractions you've removed virtually everything that makes a person human. And they would be legally dead.

A pro-lifer can't recognize the distinction. And sees a collection of limbs and organs as a complete person. We're more than merely metabolization. And a cell is not a person anymore than an acorn is an oak tree. But per the pro-life position, a cell must be a person. And an acorn must be an oak tree.

And that's where their argument breaks.

It seems like your key problem is a fundamental misunderstanding of what our argument is. I'll spell it all out after I get off work. That said, you also seem to have misunderstood that this thread wasn't about your favorite subject specifically but the fact that we're never going to see eye to eye because there's simply no common ground between a relativist and absolutist framework. There is no way to bridge the gap between "truth is decided by common consent" and "truth is independent of opinion".

Notice you don't actually disagree with any point I've raised. Or offer any counter argument. Or refute anything. As you can't.

You are assuming, based on your subjective belief that a cell is a person. That any collection of organs, even without a brain, is a human life. That is not an objective truth. That subjective interpretation. You try and pretend that your subjective interpretations are objective reality. And then conclude that anyone who won't pretend with you can't accept objective reality.

Wrong. Your subjective interpretation is not objective truth. Its merely your opinion. Which you insist you must project upon all women, stripping them of their liberty and imposing your will upon their bodies. The prolife argument is hopeless dependant on an assumption of infallibility, and that based on that assumption, you must rob women of their rights.

The prochoice position doesn't require this assumption. As the only person a pro-choicer attempts to control is themselves.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

Notice you don't actually disagree with any point I've raised. Or offer any counter argument Or refute anything. As you can't.

You are assuming, based on your subjective belief that a cell is a person. That any collection of organs, even without a brain, is a human life. That is not an objective truth. That subjective interpretation. You try and pretend that your subjective interpretations are objective reality. And then conclude that anyone who won't pretend with you can't accept objective reality.

Wrong. Your subjective interpretation is not objective truth. Its merely your opinion. Which you insist you must project upon all women, stripping them of their liberty and imposing your will upon their bodies. The prolife argument is hopeless dependant on an assumption of infallibility, and that based on that assumption, you must rob women of their rights.

The prochoice position doesn't require this assumption. As the only person a pro-choicer attempts to control is themselves.

You didn't get what I said in my reply either. Let's break it down further:
1. I'm getting ready for work. As in, I have a job that takes priority over arguing with someone on the internet. I'm about to leave so that I can do it. I'll return in approximately twelve to fifteen hours, depending on how shitty our relief feels like being today.
2. This thread wasn't about abortion. You read that into the OP, despite explicitly telling you no less than twice to stop ignoring what I said in favor of what you wish I said, and have been trying, along with your three friends, to change the subject to the only subject you can talk about ever since.
3. Despite the above, I'm willing to explain to you (again) what my actual position on your subject of choice is when I return, or at least after I pass the **** out for a few hours. I realize that you're going to happily ignore everything I say and continue to argue with your idea of me in your own little world regardless, just like your butt buddy who has a hard time understanding the idea that someone against capital punishment would oppose capital punishment. We can chalk that up to my own naivete.

 

[rdean]

Republican scientist
an oxymoron.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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?

Yeah... I've noticed that myself and after years of intense study of that phenomenon, the evidence indicates that the Left simply lacks the means to reason objectively.

The Scriptures tell us that this is a function of nature, wherein the being loses the spirit... thus is left as a mere soul, thus losing it's kinship with reality, due to the infestation of evil.

Personally, I doubt that such has ever been more keenly identified than in the following observation from Linda Kimball:

"Nietzsche was the first apostate Christian to gaze fully upon man's loss of faith and its terrifying consequences. With no living God 'up there' to obstruct his vision, the nihilism he saw was agonizing. As there was no longer any Light from God above, there was only darkness in the hermetically sealed world below. The paralyzing darkness that overtook the mind of the 'new' Christ was spiritual. It was not so much,

"....an exterior phenomenon crowding inward but rather an inner blinding that spread outward." (Ravi Zacharias, p. 27)

This was precisely Nietzsche's point. With the death of the personal God of Revelation the darkness of objective meaninglessness would penetrate every avenue of thought and life, making life itself unbearable with the consequence of hedonism, abortion, euthanasia, sodomy, suicide, drugs, crime and murder becoming virtues.

Speaking through the writings of the 'new' Christ, Zarathustra went on to say that because God had died in the 19th century there would follow two terrible consequences beginning in the 20th century. (Romans 1:18)

First, the 20th century would become one of the most evil century's in history, and second, a universal madness (Romans 1:21, 22) would break out and turn the once glorious W. Europe and America upside-down.

Though apostates and the apostatizing professed themselves wise, their cognitive thought processes would become darkened (vain) and with their conscience dead to sin they would become fools, meaning they would accept and publicly profess incredibly stupid conceptions of themselves (i.e., man is an evolved worm, ape or robot; man is evolving into god).

"And I will give children to be their princes, and the effeminate shall rule over them." Isaiah 3:4

In turning away from the Spirit of God and the truth He has given, 'wise' males will become effeminate cowards and females mannish. They will be adolescent emotional-tyrants in adult-size bodies: sinister, greedy, spiteful, vindictive, treacherous, back-stabbing sophists. They will celebrate Lucifer (the devil) and in their madness actively seek the way of Luciferian initiation because they will be spiritually blind in regard to total reality. Like demons they will flee from the cross of Jesus but exalt the devil as the first free thinker, the genetic creator of man, the seething energy and angel of evolution. Truth will be lies, evil will be good, unfaithfulness will be faith and the 'wise' will preach and blaspheme from pulpits, exercise political power, enact legislation, and wield broken law to plunder, punish, and ruin.

Zarathustra has been right on both counts. First, apostatizing W. Europe and America, though dotted here and there by small islands of Light, decency and sanity, are becoming darkened, satanically inverted places ruled by the 'wise,' hence boiling over with madness, particularly Hollywood, academia, mainstream media and the highest, most powerful political offices in the land. Second, Nietzsche was made to show the 'wise' what is in store for them by spending the last eleven years of his life insane."

In short, they're simply delusional... Which was of course the 'mental disorder' that the APA simply decided didn't exist back in the 70s. Which was of course, due to the aforementioned mental disorder.

LOL! With such representing a quite literal example of "The Inmates running the asylum".

 

[Skylar]

Notice you don't actually disagree with any point I've raised. Or offer any counter argument Or refute anything. As you can't.

You are assuming, based on your subjective belief that a cell is a person. That any collection of organs, even without a brain, is a human life. That is not an objective truth. That subjective interpretation. You try and pretend that your subjective interpretations are objective reality. And then conclude that anyone who won't pretend with you can't accept objective reality.

Wrong. Your subjective interpretation is not objective truth. Its merely your opinion. Which you insist you must project upon all women, stripping them of their liberty and imposing your will upon their bodies. The prolife argument is hopeless dependant on an assumption of infallibility, and that based on that assumption, you must rob women of their rights.

The prochoice position doesn't require this assumption. As the only person a pro-choicer attempts to control is themselves.

You didn't get what I said in my reply either. Let's break it down further:
1. I'm getting ready for work. As in, I have a job that takes priority over arguing with someone on the internet. I'm about to leave so that I can do it. I'll return in approximately twelve to fifteen hours, depending on how shitty our relief feels like being today.

That's the second multiparagraph reply you've had time for. You've clearly got time to post. What you don't have is any refutation of my points or rational argument. Which is why you're painstakingly offering us excuses why you're running....rather than simply addressing the points I've raised.

2. This thread wasn't about abortion. You read that into the OP, despite explicitly telling you no less than twice to stop ignoring what I said in favor of what you wish I said, and have been trying, along with your three friends, to change the subject to the only subject you can talk about ever since.

I'm speaking directly the standards of life and your assumptions of objectivity. They're both crap, and I've explained why. In response....you've nothing. Now you're just giving us excuses why you have nothing.

Your entire post now is a face saving measure. And an awkward one.

3. Despite the above, I'm willing to explain to you (again) what my actual position on your subject of choice is when I return, or at least after I pass the **** out for a few hours. I realize that you're going to happily ignore everything I say and continue to argue with your idea of me in your own little world regardless, just like your butt buddy who has a hard time understanding the idea that someone against capital punishment would oppose capital punishment. We can chalk that up to my own naivete.

If you were willing or able, you would have done so. Instead you give me excuses why you can't.

Sleep isn't going to help the fundamental flaws in your arguments, nor magically make your subjective interpretations objective truth. Its still gonna be your personal opinion.

Which is why you failed.

 

[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?

Yeah... I've noticed that myself and after years of intense study of that phenomenon, the evidence indicates that the Left simply lacks the means to reason objectively.

You run into the same problem as Pedro: you merely assume whatever it is you believe is objective truth. But its still just your personal opinion. The application of a meaningless label doesn't magically transform the subjective into the objective. Yet you believe it does. And you're obviously wrong.

Even the basis of your beliefs, 'god', is merely your subjective beliefs backed by your subjective beliefs. That's hopelessly circular and defines nothing objectively. But you cling to the idea that your subjective beliefs define objective reality.....because you believe they do.

That's not how objectivity works. Merely assuming you're infallible doesn't make it so. And its this assumption of infallibility that pro-lifers MUST cling to. As it is on this basis that they believe they are justified in controlling every woman's body.

And concluding that a cell is a person is a subjective interpretation. Not an objective fact. No matter what Appeal to Authority fallacy you offer us.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I'm speaking directly the standards of life and your assumptions of objectivity. They're both crap, ...

ROFLMNAO!

I suppose I'll never tire of watching Relativists weep and gnash their tooth denying the existence of objectivity.

It's like trying to get a blindman to explain a sunrise. Sure, they can recite the solar system construct; wherein the earth's rotation provides the appearance of motion on the part of the sun... etc, etc. But they can't describe a sunrise.

Of course that's not an equitable comparison, because the Relativist would deny the existence of the sun, the earth and any notion that such a thing as 'the sun rise' exists, as such is purely opinion.

... you merely assume whatever it is you believe is objective truth.

LMAO!

SEE! I say it here and it comes out THERE!

Be AMAaaazed...

.

.

.


LOL! Reader, there is just NO HIDING the lowly Relativist.

 

[Skylar]

I'm speaking directly the standards of life and your assumptions of objectivity. They're both crap, ...

ROFLMNAO!

I suppose I'll never tire of watching Relativists weep and gnash their tooth denying the existence of objectivity.

Your subjective interpretations aren't objectivity. They're your subjective interpretations. And concluding that a cell is a person is a subjective interpretation. Not an objective fact.

You're literally arguing that your personal opinions establish objective reality. Which is pure relativism. Your subjective opinions are objectively meaningless.

... you merely assume whatever it is you believe is objective truth.

LMAO!

SEE!

LOL! Reader, there is just NO HIDING the lowly Relativist.

You assuming that that your beliefs define objective reality doesn't make me anything. They're you're subjective assumptions. Slapping a meaningless label on your opinion doesn't magically make it objective truth. Its still just your opinion.

You can't get around that.

And notice you won't touch your hopelessly relativistic and subjective conception of god with a 10 foot pole. Despite this conception being the basis of what you believe is objective reality. You know you can't back your conception objectively, logically, or rationally. All you can do is back it up subjectively....offering us your personal faith.

That's not objectivity.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

...concluding that a cell is a person is a subjective interpretation. Not an objective fact. No matter what Appeal to Authority fallacy you offer us.

Well, let's test that...

Define the cell at issue.

Is it a cell, or a cluster of cells, which are developing into a human being?

I ask because if it is a single mature cell, it's not a person. It's a cell. Can you point us toward the comment wherein someone declared 'a cell' to be a human being?

Now, objectively speaking, a cluster of cells developing into a human being, is developing human life... with the same potential for its life as your life possesses, thus possessing the same rights you possess.

And sadly, Feminist contrivances rationalizing away the humanity of a developing human being, as a means to dismiss the purpose of sexual intercourse, thus avoid the responsibilities intrinsic to such, are logically invalid syllogisms. Thus, objectively speaking, the notion of "Personhood" is disqualified from consideration, by reasonable people.

Now if someone would like to see the Personhood Syllogism, I provide such for you here: "A cell is not a person... only human beings can be persons thus a cell is not human."

LOL! It's perfect ... drivel.