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

[Pedro de San Patricio]

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?

 

[Skylar]

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.

And you start babbling about babbling, while running from the discussion. Shocker.

Back on topic, 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.

Worse for your argument, 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]

All kidding aside, most conservatives admit they don't know when life begins, nobody really knows this. So, if life does begin at conception, then what harm is inflicted by not aborting? On the other hand however, what if life begins at conception and you abort? You have killed a human life.

Maybe we'd rather just err on the side of caution since admittedly we don't know one way or another for sure?

 

[Skylar]

All kidding aside, most conservatives admit they don't know when life begins, nobody really knows this. So, if life does begin at conception, then what harm is inflicted by not aborting? On the other hand however, what if life begins at conception and you abort? You have killed a human life.

Its a subjective, interpretative, difficult call. I argue that the person best suited to make that call is the woman that is pregnant.

I find abortion loathsome. I'd never have one. But the difference between me and pro-lifers (well, most of them) is that I don't feel the need to impose my will on the bodies of unwilling women. As I don't know and I'm not infallible. And the person in the best position to make that call is the person carrying the child.

Giving them the freedom to make that choice is where I stand. I stand with most pro-lifers in trying to convince women not to have abortions. But I won't ever try to legislate or criminalize their choice.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

All kidding aside, most conservatives admit they don't know when life begins, nobody really knows this. So, if life does begin at conception, then what harm is inflicted by not aborting? On the other hand however, what if life begins at conception and you abort? You have killed a human life.

Its a subjective, interpretative, difficult call. I argue that the person best suited to make that call is the woman that is pregnant.

Well of course... I totally agree... thank God I will never be in that situation.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

Back on topic, the concept of personhood far more than notional or philosophical.

It's not even the ******* topic tho. It really isn't.

Here's the actual topic you've been completely ignoring for a straight 18 hours now:

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?

Not once in thirteen pages and almost a solid 24 hour period* have you made even a half assed to address that topic.
*Do you sleep? It's obvious you've never been employed and you're clearly not a caretaker. I don't understand how you can even stay up this long and still be this zealous.

You assumed that it was about abortion instead - again, the only topic I've ever seen you post about on this forum since joining, regardless of what people were talking about before you wandered in - and ran with it. Here's what I said to clarify:

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.

You ignored that as well. Almost every other poster in this thread understood it. You did not. The only difference I can see is that they read what they were replying to. Again, you openly did not.

I called you on your shit:

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.

You ignored this as well and continued on your merry way, happily oblivious to the fact that you had become exactly what the opening post predicted.

But then it gets better. You lay out exactly what you want to discuss instead in the thread you just claimed:

Objectively we have a cell with unique DNA. Whether or not that's a person and human being is definitely open to debate and interpretation. Some would argue that its the potential for a person. Like an acorn is the potential to become an oak tree. Others would argue that it is a person. And that an acorn IS an oak tree.

The objective portions are in agreement. The interpretive points aren't.

This is the topic you just mentioned going back to. And it's just been thirteen pages, mostly consisting of us arguing about what I made the thread about ever since.

Do you understand now why I'm getting sick of your shit? I can overlook your intellectual dishonesty. I can overlook your miseducation. The shit above isn't even an honest attempt to contribute anything. It's pretty blatant Yahoo! Answers quality trolling. Now, again, are you going to take my money or not? I figure I wouldn't miss about $300 a month, and that's more than enough for pills and condoms. You get free immunity to having your choices made for you, whether by other people or the unintended consequences of your actions. I get to know that there's that much a reduction in the risk of an unplanned pregnancy causing some baby to get tossed in the trash. It's a win-win.

 

[Skylar]

Back on topic, the concept of personhood far more than notional or philosophical.

It's not even the ******* topic tho. It really isn't.

Its a direct refutation of your idea that you use objectivity while others don't. A concept discredited by both the subjective nature of your assumption that a cell is a person. And the objective nature of the criteria of a person being alive. None of which a cell can meet.

But keep squirming.

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.

The parts of your claims that are objective aren't in dispute: a cell with unique DNA.

But your argument doesn't stop with biological life. It moves on to personhood. Where a cell is a person. And this is where your argument breaks. As its not a fact that a cell is a person. Its a subjective interpretation. And there are numerous objective criteria used every day to determine if a person is legally alive. None of which a cell can meet.

So you fail the objective and subjective test. Leaving you with personal opinion. Which is fine. Just keep your opinion off of other people's bodies.

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.

You ignored this as well and continued on your merry way, happily oblivious to the fact that you had become exactly what the opening post predicted.

But then it gets better. You lay out exactly what you want to discuss instead in the thread you just claimed:

Objectively we have a cell with unique DNA. Whether or not that's a person and human being is definitely open to debate and interpretation. Some would argue that its the potential for a person. Like an acorn is the potential to become an oak tree. Others would argue that it is a person. And that an acorn IS an oak tree.

The objective portions are in agreement. The interpretive points aren't.

This is the topic you just mentioned going back to. And it's just been thirteen pages, mostly consisting of us arguing about what I made the thread about ever since.

Do you understand now why I'm getting sick of your shit?

Wow....that heart cell question just stumped you. As you'll spit out these enormous, multiparagraph posts about anything, literally anything....but my question. Despite it being immediately germane to your conception of human life.

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

But when I ask you if a heart cell is a human life......you starkly refuse to answer. You're fucked. As we both know how you have to answer if you're being logically consistent. And it demonstrates the absurdity of your entire argument.

Keep running. The question and the contradictions of your logic aren't going anywhere.

 

[rdean]

Love the comment from the picture earlier in the thread, "Something you CHOOSE to believe, not try to understand".