I get why some view abortion as morally wrong on some level, but controlling your own body can’t be murder.

"You want my fetus? Fine. You take it and YOU Nourish it."

I became a foster parent. I always ask pro-choice people if they will do the same. If there were no children in need, I probably would have had my own instead.

I was meaning when the fetus isn't viable.

Ewww

Yup. If it's a human, with its own rights, they can take it for all I care. A woman's rights must be preserved, it is not her responsibility to donate her body to the state.

Ever wonder why a mother is not required to donate blood to her child if her child gets in an accident? Or why a father is not required to donate a kidney? Or anything like that?

Both of these procedures would surely save the child's life and it could "👀live👀to👀cure 👀cancer."
(Cue the argument of pro Second Amendment "We don't make laws based on the few." Or the Anti-Abortion claims with incest/rap "We don't make laws based on the few.")

Nah, I agree. I just said "ewww".

here's the new chain

"learning? I've taken lots of biology, physical sciences, algebras, botany, and the like. don't say I'm the one learning here. I'm not bragging I promise, but when I first applied to college I had a 4.0. I've seen some science and such. what am I debunking? a human embryo is different from a gorilla embryo. they develop, but never change species. don't throw "you're learning" at me mate."

Fair enough. Then, I suppose I don't understand how you could see an embryo is the same thing as a living human being.

well seeing as how I'm a big c Christian and you are an atheist, ig we look at things a little differently? I'm not saying there aren't differences. every discovered living thing has a given species name. so, what species would you call this baby? embryo, to use your terminology

Agnostic* not athiest. Again, you're misrepresenting data. The purpose of classification is to accurately and as narrowly as possible to describe the nature of something.

An embryo:
- has a "heartbeat" but this is a misnomer for what it actually is.
- does not have a fully developed brain or cerebellum.
- does not have a fully functional CNS
- does not have an endocrine systemj

Given this set of data, it cannot
- feel emotions (endocrine for hormonal release)
- consider its existence or the world around it (lack of brain/cerebellum)
- feel pleasure or pain (lack of CNS)

It is no more "living" in this moment, right now, than a tumor in that it shares your DNA, requires you body to survive. Some tumors have been found to have human hair, and even teeth. (Ironically called demonskin.) It is no more living than someone whose body survived an accident but yields no brain activity.

Yes. You can "give it time." Only in *that time* does the life become relevant. There is no scientific data to point to a soul. No scientific data to provide that a soul is born in an embryo at conception. The typical time for abortion (within the first trimester) is before that embryo becomes relevant in these capacities which is what I understand to be the most acceptable time that people get an abortion. I have no say in it. But they do. It is their body, their choice, their sin to make. Not yours to prevent. Your agenda stops at her rights. And no, an embryo does not have any rights because the GOP haven't even put anything on the table to validate that. This is a half-assed movement, and you know it. It is done poorly and offers nothing for women who are now forced like f**king cattle to give birth. With many, many states advocating no abortion (at all) with no exceptions.

You don't support a movement like this until it has its message right. Because otherwise you're advocating complacency and stagnation with litigation that women now have to fight tooth and nail to get rights for their f**king "unborn children" who those same states fail to recognize as human beings when it comes to taxes, medical insurance, etc. etc.

Yeah. Progressive Christians? Pro-choice because of this very issue. I could go on a rant about progressive vs. conservative Christians. But it's irrelevant.

that's right, sorry. I forget the names that people make up to try to avoid God. but you're also avoiding the fact that the embryo is alive and is a human.

That's so funny that you're trying so hard to flip the script.
Because people use God to explain things they don't understand.
I never said an embryo isn't living nor did I say it wasn't human.
You're trying to say an embryo is a person - it isn't.

ok explain this. I'll address your other point after you do this for me. where did this matter come from? are you familiar with the 1st law of thermodynamics?

Yes. I am. What of it?

I asked another question as well

I figured it was rhetorical, was it not?

no no, I'd like an answer. where did it come from?

Which matter, specifically?

the universe. where did earth come from? obviously it wasn't just "there." and then the stars? the galaxies?

So, you didn't watch the video I sent you.

What was your question?

something about blackberry pies. and then I commented and asked if you were comparing the human race to plants

I see.
No, I am referring to the notion that everything has a development cycle with each stage bearing unique characteristics that separate it from its final stage(s).
Like plants, humans have a development cycle in which the offspring resemble nothing of the finished product. An embryo is not a homo-sapien. It *IS* homo-sapien reproductive matter.

flowers never turn into blackberries. and how does flavor have to do with value? God sees their worth. even if they're only a baby.

In botany (the scientific study of plants, including their physiology, structure, genetics, ecology, distribution, classification, and economic importance.), blossoms are considered flowers. Blackberry blossoms are the second stage of berry development, a bud being the first.

With regard to the flavor reference, you're deliberately missing the point.

I took botany. technically, flowers are a fruit. a fruit is just the reproductive system of the plant. and blackberries and blackberry flowers are different. flowers contain the angiosperms, and fruits contain the seeds.

They don't?

"What species is a human embryo then, according to what you're saying?"
What I am saying that was intentionally misleading so he would use a classification system used in life science, he would (by extension) recognize the other classification system as it follows the same principles of classification.

no they don't. they produce blackberries

Try again.

evidently you don't understand this. the flower produces the fruit. the fruit grows off the flower. the flower and the fruit are different.

That's nice.
Still, the pictures are right there, multiple stages within the same cluster.

did I mention I studied botany? which one of us was the one to go searching the web? I'm not stupid and I'm not ignorant. and I know what a flower is.

Your impressive PhD aside, did you not LOOK at the picturs, captions below too?
Or do you not trust your own eyes?

look up the definitions for flowers and fruit. I have no idea why we're arguing over this, but whatever.

We're not arguing this, you are, for some mystifying reason, hours after you error has been clarified.

despite your pictures, I actually just looked up the definitions for fruit and flowers, and confirmed what I already knew.

Of course you did.

and I'd love for you to eventually explain where music comes from. or poetry. why do we like some verses but not others, even if they mean the same thing? what is it that appeals to us?

Who are you talking to, and don't y'all get tired of this musical chairs for the sake of partisaning?
You were high-fiving me and thus it was taken by someone else that I was returning in kind, but that ended when I posted facts - PICTURES, no less, of various stages of blackberry flower from bud to fruit - and your only rebuttal was to lie and cite your way-fab PhD in Botany,,,
Now there's a switch, because it turned out I'm not exactly the PRAIZE JAYZUZ AND SAVE THE FETUSES! I seemed to be

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

or am I?

high-fiving you? look, I don't have a party anymore. I don't even stand with people. and neither party reflects my principles. there are some people that do, so until they no longer do, I stand with them. I never said I had a PhD in botany; I never lied. what I said about angiosperms and seeds was true. and then when you still refused to believe me I did a quick web search for the definitions for flowers and fruits, because I'm not arrogant and I don't wish to be ignorant. I do praise God and Christ and I do want to save babies but you should understand my position a bit better

Look up Ilex flowers, male and female (hollies are dioecious) for funziez. LOOK at them.

Oh, and there are more than two parties. That's how I voted but not for either of those two foul bozos. [{Just don't tell anyone, it'll ruin my rep as the one who voted for 'the other side'
tee hee}]

lol fair enough. yes, some plants produce male and female flowers separately and some produce them together. it's amazing that bees can coordinate their pollen gathering efforts and only go to one type of flower each day isn't it?

A human embryo IS a homo sapien.

Technically no. As a homo-sapien is a man who thinks. An embryo is not this, and does not do this.

Technically a human embryo is a homo sapien because that's the name of the species, not level of post-puberty development.

So, you acknowledge that the classification of animals exists. Good. Now you can follow the same school of science, and recognize the development cycle and see that one thing(embryo) is not like the other (fully developed fetus)

tl;dr

I would suggest that if you had an actual point you make it and call it a wrap.
Not my fault that you can't tell the difference between taxonomy, embryology, and philosphy while trying to squeeze them togather through a partisan filter and wing em at me at a faux stance you're attempting to pretend I have because, um, why again?

I don't see how Life science is a partisan filter.

"I am going to admit to a mistake I made. For the reply I sent you I thought I was talking to Beary. I took our conversation from a completely different context."

No, you didn't make a mistake.
See, yous are both:
Arguing
&
Arguing politics

I simply posted minute facts, correcting the both of yous on some minor thingy, and yous were so busy arguing against the other, yous stuck me in it on the faux opposite sides, of which neither I took.

I luv this site, according to the animatronics, I'm a Lefty/Righty/never-Trumper/Trumper/Democrat/Republican/Satanist/Christian/Abortionist/anti-Abortionist/dimwit/copypaster of way fab stuff too good for anybody here to come up with on their own/troll/troll.
Why? Because humans need to label things. Good, bad, me, you, we, them. Been like that my whole life.

See, you, them, everybody.... yous aren't arguing anything. You're not making a point, not trying to convince anyone, not trying to do 'something for ye olde cause. You're making this about ego. That's all this is. A pissing contest for the sake of ego. Like somehow making the biggest stain is going to reinforce an ego with a double plated titanium complete with a set of big concrete nads. Ego.

Ego is irrelevant.

I deal in facts.

Anyways, time to go have some fun with someone about trailer park trash.
ciao!

Would it surprise you if I was genuinely trying to understand how this guy thinks, seeing what he says, recognizing the flaw, and trying to point out the errors of his flaws repeatedly, wondering why there is a blatant refusal to connect said dots...?

just make sure you stick to facts. sometimes we can get so caught up in just trying to prove our opponent wrong that we don't stop to think if we should be having this argument or if we're arguing something that is incorrect. the blackberries were a good example

Interesting.
Nevertheless, species classification and fetal development stages are NOT the same science.

Again, for clarification, technically a human embryo is a Homo sapiens because that's the name of the species, not level of post-puberty development.

Your habit of lumping of sciences (and philosophies) together work well to prove their worthiness as treated separately:

⏺️ "Cerebrophage M

Also, we didn't invent the philosophical concept of evil, we defined it. There *is* a difference. We didn't invent the animal kingdom, we defined it. We didn't invent mammals, we defined them"

⏺️ "ThouMayest

We didn’t invent animals but we invented the concept of categorizing them by phyla, class, order etc. like we invented the concept of categorizing some types of killing as evil and some types of killing as morally justified."

You're reaching.

We didn't invent distnace, yet the concept of it exists. It was always there, we just needed a means to communicate these concepts. In this we are different than most other animals as our capacity for language to communicate is much higher. Even animals have concepts such as "Danger" "mate" "Food" "Help"

Science is science. The cornerstone of science being repeatable results. The top most tenets would be
Scientific knowledge is tentative (subject to change).
Science is empirically based (based on or derived from observation of the natural world).
Science is inferential, imaginative and creative.
Science is subjective and theory laden.
Science is socially and culturally embedded.

This is probably the most widely recognised list of tenets of the nature of science. These tenets are considered appropriate for primary to secondary school learning because they provide a more accurate view of the scientific enterprise and do not require expertise in science to be effectively understood. Each tenet is described in the article Tenets of the nature of science.

There are two additional important aspects:

The distinction between observation and inferences.
The relationships between scientific theories and data.

The way Christians use or outright abuse science with creationist propaganda is enough to make me sick and is a detriment on our education today.

I know that I don't know everything. I know no one ever truly does. And that's okay.
Christians? I don't think they know everything either. And that's fine.
But they all do follow a guy who they think does. A following that is not only biased on so many levels but logically flawed. And the most staunch Right-Wing Christofascists want to (literally) take over the government. Where's the "Patriotic Outrage?".

Total 404.

I am going to admit to a mistake I made. For the reply I sent you I thought I was talking to Beary. I took our conversation from a completely different context.

"Cerebrophage M

Would it surprise you if I was genuinely trying to understand how this guy thinks, seeing what he says, recognizing the flaw, and trying to point out the errors of his flaws repeatedly, wondering why there is a blatant refusal to connect said dots...?"

Not at all, because the dots form a circle around you, and you wish to see at which point they connect to you. Like I said, ego. Not what they think, but how you can make them see how you wish, even themselves.

Nothing personal, that's basically everyone, even almost maybe me (I've chatted personally with more people here that I tend to disagree with than those I've seemed to be more consistently in agreement with)

I guess I get hung up on the ego bit (ego being self-esteem or self-importance).

This is not the place I would go to cater to my ego.

yes

Technically no. As a homo-sapien is a man who thinks. An embryo is not this, and does not do this.

homo-sapien is a species. what species would you call the baby in the womb?

Are you going to use science to debunk science? Because that's good. It shows you're learning. If you want to use biological classifications, you have to recognize the intrinsic anatomical differences from an embryo to a fully formed human.

They are not the same.

What species is a human embryo then, according to what you're saying?

learning? I've taken lots of biology, physical sciences, algebras, botany, and the like. don't say I'm the one learning here. I'm not bragging I promise, but when I first applied to college I had a 4.0. I've seen some science and such. what am I debunking? a human embryo is different from a gorilla embryo. they develop, but never change species. don't throw "you're learning" at me mate.