BackAgain
Neutronium Member & truth speaker #StopBrandon
You can always tell when horseshit has lost. He posts again.Blah, blah, .....is too.
Got smoked.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You can always tell when horseshit has lost. He posts again.Blah, blah, .....is too.
Got smoked.
They are using SCIENCE to determine the beginning of a human life. When would you say human life begins?They are biological ethicists speaking of "life" in a broad biological sense. It isn't "human" life....it's existence, undistinguished from a hen's egg.
I doubt he will want to answer that.They are using SCIENCE to determine the beginning of a human life. When would you say human life begins?
yup the dishonest fucks claim it isnt human until born.I doubt he will want to answer that.
Also, he is likely to conflate the notion of the start of human life with “personhood.”
No...You can always tell when horseshit has lost. He posts again.
No....it is defined in BIOLOGICAL terms.They are using SCIENCE to determine the beginning of a human life. When would you say human life begins?
a fertilized Human egg is a human a fertilized pig egg is a pig pretty simply conceptNo....it is defined in BIOLOGICAL terms.
The same argument applies to fertilization across all species.
See? There you go posting again. Ergo, you’ve lost. Again.No..
False. I quoted the law itself. You? Not so much.You have asserted that your case is"more apt" than mine, but have offered no support for your position.
My original assertion was to dispute yours, you moron.Again, your original assertion was broad and entirely inaccurate. You haven't demonstrated credible authority on matters of the law.
See? There you go posting again. Ergo, you’ve lost. Again.
False. I quoted the law itself. You? Not so much.
I also didn’t speak of “apt.” Your ignorance is showing.
My original assertion was to dispute yours, you moron.
I could assign you some homework, but it’s obvious you couldn’t comprehend it all on your own. (That’s why I quoted excerpts from the SCOTUS case that shows I’m right. I even highlight some of the most pertinent parts in bold. Just for you! You’re welcome.)
Prince v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that the family is not beyond regulation in the public interest, as against a claim of religious liberty. Among other things, the Court said
It is your citation to a case which is inapposite that lacks currency.
So, who should I believe? You or my link? Choices, choices...No....it is defined in BIOLOGICAL terms.
The same argument applies to fertilization across all species.
If you went back to the source paper you would see the distinction made...So, who should I believe? You or my link? Choices, choices...
Is biology science?If you went back to the source paper you would see the distinction made...
It is referenced in your citationIs biology science?
When the unsolicited color commentary begins, you know someone got cleated.I doubt he will want to answer that.
Also, he is likely to conflate the notion of the start of human life with “personhood.”
Does human life begin at conception?It is referenced in your citation
I never said the family was beyond some government involvement.You wanna split hairs now?
Again, for the continuing education of the stupid libtards — like horseshit — this is what’s called a “message” board. In such places, one person may say something. Another may respond. And others may join in.When the unsolicited color commentary begins, you know someone got cleated.
Sick kids should be taken to Psychologists. Not taught that being Queer is Normal.You geniuses can’t figure out that these policies exist because kids are afraid of their parents and their bigotry.
WTF is "normal"?Sick kids should be taken to Psychologists. Not taught that being Queer is Normal.