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

[Skylar]

...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.

As has already been explained in this thread but you have failed to read: a fertilized egg. A single cell.

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?

Then you've just abandoned the 'any stage of development' mantra that is the core of the pro-life position.

Thank you. Even you can recognize the absurdity of concluding that a cell is a person. And without this assumption, the pro-life argument collapses. And the 'objective truth' argument collapses. As the conclusion that a cell is a person is a subjective interpretation. Not an objective fact.

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.

Its not a person. What you're describing is biological life. Something an arm and a few functional organs can meet. Something most cells in the human body can mirror. Something yeast can pull off. That's not personhood. It can't think, sense in any meaningful way, it has no level of brain activity that our law would recognize as a person being alive, it lacks any autonomy, any language, any culture, any consciousness. Its a cell.

And a person is more than mere cells.

The prolife conception of 'human life' could have someone with no brain, no head, and only enough of their brainstem in the stump of their neck to keep their organs functioning as being a full person. While the law and any rational person can recognize that such a subtraction removes virtually everything that makes us human.

 

[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.

As has already been explained in this thread but you have failed to read: a fertilized egg. A single cell.

Yet... a fertilized egg, OKA: Zygote... AKA: the initial stage of human development. Which is, as the words require it to be: A Developing human being.

Now, objectively speaking, as noted above, zygote is 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 for your logical train-wreck here, 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 again, disqualified from consideration, by reasonable people, because it is founded in the subjective need of the addle-minded feminist (Reader, pardon the redundancy) therefore, not in reason.

 

[Skylar]

...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.

As has already been explained in this thread but you have failed to read: a fertilized egg. A single cell.

Yet... a fertilized egg, OKA: Zygote... AKA: the initial stage of human development. Which is, as the words require it to be: A Developing human being.

That's not a human being anymore than an acorn is an oak tree. Its the potential to become a human being. Just as an acorn is the potential to become an oak tree.

The prolife argument mandates that an acorn IS an oak tree. That a single cell IS a human being. And neither are objectively true. They've both subjective interpretations.

Now, objectively speaking, as noted above, zygote is 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.

I'm not the 'potential' to be a person. I am a person. Just as an oak tree isn't the 'potential' to be an oak tree. Its an oak tree. You're equating any stage of development with complete development. And they aren't the same thing. They're not even close.

As a single cell can't do virtually anything that makes up a person. It merely metabolizes. And we're so much more than a metabolic process. We're conciousness, we're emotion, we're perception, we're memory, we're culture and language and many things more. The pro-life argument devalues life, ignores virtually everything that makes us human....and reduces us to mere metabolic processes.

Where by any rational standard (and legal one too), there's a difference between being a person and merely being biologically alive. Only people can manage the former. A yeast cell can manage the latter.

 

[Skylar]

Oh, and your stark refusal to question or even discuss your foundation subjective interpretations....your conception of 'god', did not go unnoticed. 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. Its a rhetorical equivalent of nested Russian dolls, each layer of subjectivity and relativism based on another layer of the same inside it.

No wonder you run from even the mention of it. What else can you do?

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

Just, holy ****. I take a quick break to hit the convenience store for my coworkers and come back to... you still talking about the exact same shit as when I left? You do realize that I've literally never seen you discuss anything except abortion, right? Even on threads with no possible relation to the subject? Do you understand how one-track that makes you look? I mean, I get that everyone has their opinions, but you could be just a little less subtle with your agenda when hijacking threads to push the one thing you care about. I'm a staunch atheist btw. There is no "conception of god" to note. Just FYSA.

 

[Skylar]

Just, holy ****. I take a quick break to hit the convenience store for my coworkers and come back to... you still talking about the exact same shit as when I left? You do realize that I've literally never seen you discuss anything except abortion, right? Even on threads with no possible relation to the subject? Do you understand how one-track that makes you look? I mean, I get that everyone has their opinions, but you could be just a little less subtle with your agenda when hijacking threads to push the one thing you care about. I'm a staunch atheist btw. There is no "conception of god" to note. Just FYSA.

And a third post where you you completely avoid any discussion of the fundamental flaws in your argument, your mistakes in your recognition of life, your failure to recognize that your conception of objective is merely your personal opinion, or even a mention of the fundamental distinction between simple biological life and being an actual person.

What's your excuse this time?

 

[NYcarbineer]

...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.

If a fertilized egg is a person than any form of abortion at any time is first degree murder.

99% of Americans won't accept that. 99% of Americans won't accept the real implications of giving a fertilized human egg personhood.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

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.

I'm sure that one day you'll understand what having a job is like. I'm also sure that you'll quickly discover that work isn't a great happy fun thing people do as an optional distraction and hate it as much as the rest of us.

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.

Please go back and read the first page. I know you haven't, because we're still arguing what this thread was about. Here, I'll help you. This was my first reply to your first post:

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.

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.

I didn't say that I was going to sleep on it. I said that I was going to leave for work and return about twelve hours later after my shift. I briefly returned once near the beginning because it was my turn to do the food run. You would already be aware of all of this were you reading and responding to what I post rather than what you wish I had posted. Then again, your difficulties with this task from your very first post in the thread are exactly why we're having this conversation to begin with. I'll admit it was kind of funny when you just started going off about how I must be religious to disagree with you, though.

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.

1. I agree with your first statement. Biological life and personhood are two totally different things. Biological life falls under, well, biology, and personhood is a philosophical concept. If you'll look at the title of the thread, you won't see the term "philosophy" anywhere. You will see "biology". Well, what you in particular read is "abortion". Liberals who aren't single issue fanatics can and clearly did read the former.
2. I'll give you that arguing from extremes is a useful rhetorical tactic. To be alive, at least most of the following must be present: genetic code, organization, metabolism, homeostasis, response to stumuli, growth, and reproduction. Organization means that it's made up of at least one cell, with the cell being the most basic unit of life. Metabolism means that it can process sources of energy to meet its needs. Homeostasis means that it can regulate and maintain its internal temperature. Response to stimuli means that interaction with or by the environment produces effects. Growth means that it can use the energy processed by its metabolism to enlarge its parts. Reproduction means that it can make more of itself. Guess how many apply to a zygote?

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 have a really hard time separating biology and philosphy. I'll make it simple for you: the former (biology) is a hard science, while the latter (philosophy) is an abstract branch of the humanities. The former answers questions about the origins and processes of life. The latter asks open ended questions about the nature, value, and meaning of life. Our approaches to science are shaped by our philosophical orientation. For the fifth or sixth time now, that's what the OP was explicitly saying. It is my philosophy that we exist in a reality which is entirely separate from our minds. A fact will be a fact whether either of us believe it or not. An object will continue to exist even if we look away from it. What we agree it is has no bearing on what it actually is. This is utterly incompatible with the philosophy that reality is defined by common consent or that an entity can be both living and non-living depending on the perspective of the viewer.

With that out of the way, you're completely at liberty to refrain from reproducing by various methods, from abstinence to contraception to sterilization. I've already made the offer once to Dragonlady to pay for her birth control if it would prevent her from conceiving a child just to bag up their corpse and chuck it in the dumpster. I'm extending the same offer to you. If you seriously can't/won't pay for your own protection, then I'm sincerely offering to step up and do so for you on a monthly basis. We can work out the details privately if you choose to step up and take me up on it. I'm sure I could also contribute to the third option if you so choose. Because giving you options to control your reproduction is exactly how I'm going to control your body and rob you of your Diana-given right to kill any children whose existence inconveniences you.

And a third post where you you completely avoid any discussion of the fundamental flaws in your argument, your mistakes in your recognition of life, your failure to recognize that your conception of objective is merely your personal opinion, or even a mention of the fundamental distinction between simple biological life and being an actual person.

What's your excuse this time?

There's your response above. I'll honestly be impressed if you even skim it.

 

[Skylar]

I'm sure that one day you'll understand what having a job is like. I'm also sure that you'll quickly discover that work isn't a great happy fun thing people do as an optional distraction and hate it as much as the rest of us.

I know what excuses look like. And when you write paragraph after paragraph telling us how you don't have time to write paragraphs......its obvious you're full of it. You had the time. You just didn't want to try and defend your turd of an argument.

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.

And again, for the 5 or 6th time, its not a single cell with unique DNA that is in question. That's objectively stipulated by everyone. Its your subjective interpretation that this single cell is a person.

That's as assumption. And interpretation. A subjective belief. Not an objective fact. And that assumption is the core distinction between pro-life and pro-choice. Utterly destroying your 'objective v. subjective' dichotomy. As your argument is based on subjective interpretations.

But in the case of pro-lifers its so much worse. Not only do you have your subjective assumptions, you insist that your subjective assumptions are objective truth. That a single cell IS a person. That an acorn IS an oak tree. And with this you apply an assumption of infallibility. Where you must be right because you believe you are. With your assumed infallibility somehow justifying the infliction of your will on the body of every woman, no matter how hard she tries to fight you off.

A pro-choice advocate needs no such assumption. As the only person a pro choice advocate is seeking to control....is themselves.

1. I agree with your first statement. Biological life and personhood are two totally different things. Biological life falls under, well, biology, and personhood is a philosophical concept.

Nonsense. Cognition, brain activity, response to stimuli, consciousness are all reasonably objective standards. And are used in virtually every state to determine if someone is legally alive or dead. Where a heart may be pumping but the brain is dead.....the person is dead. You can't recognize the distinction.

The law and a rational person could. And that single cell fails every one of those objective standards.

Your subjective interpretation of life as merely metabolization, where a body without a brain, without a head, just a brainstem and a neck stump is an 'innocent human life'. The pro-life position cheapens life, reducing it to mere autonomic functions. And recognizes no aspects of personhood or life beyond cellular function.

No thank you. A headless collection of limbs and organs isn't a person either.

2. I'll give you that arguing from extremes is a useful rhetorical tactic.

Given the 'any stage of human development' standard argues that a single microscopic cell is a person, the position I'm debating against is ridiculously extreme. I'm speaking to you in your idiom.

To be alive, at least most of the following must be present: genetic code, organization, metabolism, homeostasis, response to stumuli, growth, and reproduction.

By that standard, plucking a cell from the human body would be an 'innocent human life'. Riddle me this, batman:

Is a heart cell 'human life' by your standard. Just the one cell, flexing in a petri dish full of nutrient solution. It has genetic code, organization, metabolism, homeostasis, response to stimuli, growth, and reproduction. Its human DNA. Wouldn't it be a person too by your standards?

If not, why not? Remember....biology.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

I know what excuses look like. And when you write paragraph after paragraph telling us how you don't have time to write paragraphs......its obvious you're full of it. You had the time. You just didn't want to try and defend your turd of an argument.

You... don't think that my twelve hour absence - after telling you that I was going to work and would be gone for twelve hours - was due to being at work for those twelve hours? You're actually telling me that I was "running away" from you by reporting for duty and going through that bullshit? No. Just no. **** this. Why am I still wasting time with you? Honestly, woman? Why? Justify this to me. Why are you worth any of my time when you clearly think that your opinion should be more important to me than my paycheck (part of which is on offer to you in the form of a no-strings-attached birth control subsidy)?

And again, for the 5 or 6th time, its not a single cell with unique DNA that is in question. That's objectively stipulated by everyone. Its your subjective interpretation that this single cell is a person.

That's as assumption. And interpretation. A subjective belief. Not an objective fact. And that assumption is the core distinction between pro-life and pro-choice. Utterly destroying your 'objective v. subjective' dichotomy. As your argument is based on subjective interpretations.

But in the case of pro-lifers its so much worse. Not only do you have your subjective assumptions, you insist that your subjective assumptions are objective truth. That a single cell IS a person. That an acorn IS an oak tree. And with this you apply an assumption of infallibility. Where you must be right because you believe you are. With your assumed infallibility somehow justifying the infliction of your will on the body of every woman, no matter how hard she tries to fight you off.

A pro-choice advocate needs no such assumption. As the only person a pro choice advocate is seeking to control....is themselves.

****, you're dishonest. Do you realize that? Do you actually realize how dishonest it is to read to twist my position into one even I would disagree with? Go back and read the post you pulled this from - all of it. I'm done repeating myself when you've consistently failed to read what I actually wrote since hijacking this thread to act as living proof for its premise eleven pages ago.

Nonsense. Cognition, brain activity, response to stimuli, consciousness are all reasonably objective standards. And are used in virtually every state to determine if someone is legally alive or dead. Where a heart may be pumping but the brain is dead.....the person is dead. You can't recognize the distinction.

I told you how to prove your belief. Find any biologist who will refute the criteria I provided. I'll wait.

Is a heart cell 'human life' by your standard. Just the one cell, flexing in a petri dish full of nutrient solution. It has genetic code, organization, metabolism, homeostasis, response to stimuli, growth, and reproduction. Its human DNA. Wouldn't it be a person too by your standards?

If not, why not? Remember....biology.

"Person", "life", and "human" are three different terms with their own unique meanings. A failure to understand that they are not interchangeable has been your single biggest problem so far. What you described is meets the criteria for life. Its human DNA make it genetically human. That does not make it a human, which has a much more narrow meaning. Personhood is a philosophical value judgment which has no place in science. Science tells you the what, why, and how. It can't assign values.

 

[hangover]

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

Right wing cons demonize science when it comes to their creationist ideology, and then embrace it when they think they can use it to demonize women that can't afford to have children.

 

[Skylar]

I know what excuses look like. And when you write paragraph after paragraph telling us how you don't have time to write paragraphs......its obvious you're full of it. You had the time. You just didn't want to try and defend your turd of an argument.

You... don't think that my twelve hour absence - after telling you that I was going to work and would be gone for twelve hours - was due to being at work for those twelve hours?

You posted over and over in elaborate multiparagraph posts about how you didn't have time to post.

I called bullshit. If that were true, you wouldn't have had time for your excuses either. Excuses like....

Go back and read the post you pulled this from - all of it. I'm done repeating myself when you've consistently failed to read what I actually wrote since hijacking this thread to act as living proof for its premise eleven pages ago.

Or you could refute or even address my point with a reasoned argument rather than giving homework assignments as an excuse for why you couldn't.

I told you how to prove your belief. Find any biologist who will refute the criteria I provided. I'll wait.

And I've told you that a single cell with unique DNA is stipulated. No one disagrees that that is biologically alive. Where your argument breaks is in the subjective assumption that this single cell is a person. And the concept of personhood far more than notional or philosophical.

There are tangible, objective measures we can take. Cognition, brain activity, response to stimuli, consciousness are all reasonably objective standards. And are used in virtually every state to determine if someone is legally alive or dead.

And your single cell fails any of these standards. By these objective measures, your cell isn't a person. The distinction between biological life and personhood is one that medical science, the law and a rational person could discern.

But you can't. And that is why you failed.

"Person", "life", and "human" are three different terms with their own unique meanings.

A failure to understand that they are not interchangeable has been your single biggest problem so far. What you described is meets the criteria for life. Its human DNA make it genetically human. That does not make it a human, which has a much more narrow meaning. Personhood is a philosophical value judgment which has no place in science. Science tells you the what, why, and how. It can't assign values.

A single heart cell has human DNA. It has organization, metabolism, homeostasis, response to stimuli, growth, and reproduction. It meets your definitions of both 'life' and 'human'.

Once again is this lone heart cell a human life? If not, why not? You have yet to even attempt to answer the question.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Most liberals are dumber than a bag of broken doorknobs.

 

[Skylar]

Most liberals are dumber than a bag of broken doorknobs.

Beyond the school yard name calling, do you have anything substantive to add?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Most liberals are dumber than a bag of broken doorknobs.

Beyond the school yard name calling, do you have anything substantive to add?

I know you are, but what am I?

 

[Skylar]

Most liberals are dumber than a bag of broken doorknobs.

Beyond the school yard name calling, do you have anything substantive to add?

I know you are, but what am I?

Ha! I'm rubber. You're glue.

How do you like them apples?

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

You posted over and over in elaborate multiparagraph posts about how you didn't have time to post.

I called bullshit. If that were true, you wouldn't have had time for your excuses either. Excuses like....

I told you that I had to get ready for work and would return twelve hours later. You ignored it and thought the discussion was going to continue regardless. I told you that I was about to leave. You continued to talk to yourself after I had left. I returned twelve hours later. You called bullshit on the idea that I actually did, in fact, show up for duty, because you found it more comforting to think that I just "ran away" from you. Because, at heart, you think that your twelve page long derail, starting with the second comment of the thread, should be more important to me than than keeping my job and safeguarding people's lives and not going to jail for desertion. You'll understand that I'm quickly losing interest in anything further you have to say - especially when considering that you consider reading the points you're trying to refute to be optional and persist in mixing terminology from totally different fields to build laughable strawmen.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

Ha! I'm rubber. You're glue.

How do you like them apples?

You never cease to demonstrate exactly how you're teaching me to see you. You really don't. Anyway, you still haven't told me yea or nay regarding the free birth control. I can easily set up automatic payments. I'll never even see the money to miss it, you'll have some alternative to being enslaved by a parasite (the horror), and neither of us will have to worry about it again once the modest work on my end is done. It'll just go straight to your account.

 

[bendog]

Ha! I'm rubber. You're glue.

How do you like them apples?

You never cease to demonstrate exactly how you're teaching me to see you. You really don't.

You are incapable of educating. The 14th amendment was never predicated on science, thus you're intentionally being disingenuous by setting up a false analogy, and rather than communication you're just pathetically seeking attention. goodbye.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

Bye.