you need to stop lying These Are the 5 People Who Died in the Capitol Riot A police officer was beaten (die later) , a rioter was shot, and three others died during the rampage; and 4 capitol police officers later committed suicide.
House Republicans wrote a letter to Yahoo 'Chief Executive Officer' Marissa Mayer, but she hasn't been CEO since 2017 This pretty succenctly summarizes the current Republicans - angry, eager to find reasons to be offended so they can demand redress, but completely disconnected from the actual facts of the situation.
One woman was shot and killed. The other rioters that died had medical issues or drug overdoses, their deaths were not caused by the riot. Officer Sicknick's death was ruled natural causes and there was no causal link established between anything that happened during the riot and the stroke he suffered hours later. Officer's that committed suicide for unspecified reasons at later dates can hardly be said to have died during the riot and it is very dubious to attribute their deaths to the riot. Maybe read some more before calling people a liar.
An embryo is a single or a cluster of undifferentiated cells. It has no mind, heart or lungs and most importantly for this debate cannot survive and will die very rapidly outside of a human body or failing to attach to the uterine wall. A 30 year old man has differentiated organs, can respire on his own can survive without being inside another human body. Further if a 30 year old mans cells were to start rapidly dividing and rapidly adding new cells that differentiate that would be called Cancer. A sperm cell is a single cell with no mind or heart and cannot survive long outside of a human body also. You’re taking one similarity and using that as the lynchpin of your argument while saying the several similarities that others have cited don’t matter. You’ve set up a selective bias to dismiss other facts that you find inconvenient. Also I see you use the term “fetus” even though we were talking about “embryos” developmentally they are not the same. I presume you know that and we’re trying a rhetorical substitution. That said while a fetus is differentiated with different organs by definition it is is still in utero so previous arguments apply. Except that most don’t agree that there is another life that is there so you’re basing your argument on an a priori that isn’t accepted. leaving that aside you still avoid the issue that an embryo or a fetus is biologically dependent on another human being. While a 30 year might be socially dependent it’s not a matter of literally being within another human to survive. To grant you a courtesy you’re not granting other and for intellectual honesty I’ll accept the proposition that a fetus is a life. That doesn’t mean that body autonomy doesn’t exist for the mother or is your contention that the mother’s right to control of her own body is less than the right of the child’s to exist within her and taking her resources away? Does the right to life then mean that someone’s who’s life is endangered is entitled to the biology of another’s? Should we mandate that if someone is dying of kidney failure a suitable donor has to give up a kidney? Are people dying of leukemia entitled to the bone marrow of others? Should giving blood be mandated? If the right to life is sacrosanct over the right to control of ones body then the answer should be yes to all the above.
A sperm cell will never think or feel. A sperm cell is not a unique human genetic code. A sperm cell is what a male contributes to the process of generating a new human. It combines with an egg, which is not a unique human genetic code that could eventually think and feel. An egg is what a female contributes to the process of generating a new human. When sperm meets egg and fertilization occurs, there is a full human genetic code generated that has all of what will become an adult one day already included in that single cell, circumstances permitting. That is the difference between a sperm and an embryo. No one despairs that they lost their sperm cell. It is a deliberately silly comparison used to belittle the importance of the human life terminated by abortion. I used both the terms fetus and embryo and adult and infant because they are all the same being, a human being. There is no argument to be made that a sperm cell is a human being. The difference between a man and an embryo is time. The difference between a man and a sperm cell is incomparable. I disagree with your assertion. Pro-choice people maintain that there is not another life, because their argument falls apart if that obvious fact is recognized. An amoeba is a single celled organism, but no one doubts that it is alive. No, there is no reasonable argument that an embryo is not another life. It goes from a living entity that consumes energy and undergoes cell division and development to a non-living entity with no activity through the process of abortion. What's more, this is obvious and scientifically indisputable. That it is a human life is likewise indisputable. It's DNA is entirely human. No, the non-existence of a second human life is a convenient fiction upon which the foundation of the pro-choice movement is built. I don't avoid it at all. There are two circumstances in which a human life can be naturally biologically dependent upon another human, being a child in utero and some instances of being a conjoined twin. Any other scenario is some artificial construction. Yes, it does. Let's examine the other natural example. If you are a conjoined twin and one twin is entirely dependent upon this shared connection to survive, could the other twin demand separation and the death of their twin? Of course not. To suggest such a thing would be barbarous. There have been several court cases wherein courts and doctors agonized over the ethics of separating twins when both would die within months if they remained together, but one could live a healthy life if they sacrificed the other. They were analogized to a pair of climbers, one who had fallen and was dangling by a rope, and the other could not maintain his grip, so they would both soon fall to their deaths. They said that the climber could cut the rope to save his own life, as the other's death was inevitable and it was a question of clinging on to allow him to live a few more moments and both die, or cut the rope and slightly hasten the death of the dangling climber, but provide a very good chance at survival for the other. In the event of a normal pregnancy, they are in a similar situation, except that the climber who is not dangling is nearly certain to be able to bring them both safely back to solid footing, a circumstance under which it is not at all lawful or ethical to cut the rope and condemn the other climber to death. You can cut the rope to save your life, but not because it is inconvenient or even torturous to drag your friend back to the ledge. None of these situations are analogous. To compare them to the climbing analogy above, it would be like saying everyone is required to respond to the mountain and attempt to save trapped climbers. No one suggests such a thing. It would be a wonderful thing to do to donate blood and bone marrow and a kidney and part of a liver, but there is no one already biologically dependent upon you. It would be wonderful to hear that a climber is in trouble and respond to the mountain to rescue him, but there is obviously no mandate to do so.
You still haven't figured out why non-psycopaths value life. Again, not because of DNA sequences, but rather a life's desires, fears etc that we empathize with. Hence why we don't value the life of bacteria or other non sentient beings while also valuing the life of a cat or dog. What's ironic is in an earlier post you said the reason why so many young girls are capable of doing such a horrendous act in your eyes is due to brainwashing. It's quite literally the opposite as the only reason why most people who are anti-choice are anti-choice is through religous indoctrination that a soul exists the moment of conception.
No sense saying all that to StupidMonikor. He's a lawyer. He argues just to argue regardless of what is right or wrong morally or ethically. He defends the domestic terrorists, the loose gun laws, the right to spread Covid, Greg Abbott, Trump, and the psycho leaders who don't give a damn about anything but money. He defends the rights for rapists to sue the nieces, daughters, or other young girls they impregnate if they don't use their body as an incubator for their inbred baby. He doesn't care if that 12 year old child can't possibly raise a child herself, could die giving birth, or be mentally traumatized for life from it all. Keep that embryo alive and let the inbreeding continue. I guess he would be proud to put his young daughter through that if he has one.
Sorry am swamped with work so didn't get back to this sooner. Except ever cell in your body, except for sperm and red blood cells, also has the same genetic code as a complete human being. Under your definition that it's that genetic distinctiveness that defines a human then you're commiting murder every time you spit as your saliva contains a fair amount of cells shed from your mouth. As noted earlier it's not a matter of time that differentiates a man from an embryo. As stated most embryos never develop to the point of differentiation. The fiction that you're arguing is that something with no heart, mind, or anything else other than the genetic material is the same as an adult male. Under the right conditions the cells lining your intestine could become another human yet we don't consider it murder to take a poop. Again you're making an assertion of absoluteness that is not fully agreed upon and biologically isn't even factual given that most embryos never develop. What does artificial have to do with it? If I give someone a kidney transplant is that somehow less that their life is dependent on my own? I'm not familiar with case law on conjoined twins but I presume the answer is that yes you can save one twin even if that means that the life of the other is lost. You've already provided the answer that yes a climber tied to another can cut the cord of the other climber. In other words you've given a justification for abortion. In many type situations such as mountain climbing or in sailing out in the open ocean there is a duty to help someone who needs aid, provided it can be done so without endangering your own life. This has been a situation that has come up with climbing Everest. That you're saying we don't do that again is another argument for abortion. You're pointing out how we don't need to try to save people even though we can.
If those cells were independent individual organisms and not some part of our own body that has the same DNA as the remaining body that remains behind, that would be a good argument. They are not, so it is a terrible argument, but it was a good attempt. No, the cells in your intestinal lining will never become a human. Even if you collected them and implanted them in a woman's uterus, they would still not become a human. You cannot turn an intestine cell into a human. You would have to combine the somatic cell with a denucleated egg to try to generate a clone. An embryo will naturally either become a fetus or die, and the only thing that needs to be added is time. Nothing needs to be done, it will just do one of those things. A 30 year old man will either become a 31 year old man or die. No, there is zero argument that an embryo is both alive and human, scientifically. Its humanity is determined by it's DNA. Its status as alive is that it is undergoing biological processes that living things do that dead things do not. I would love to have some source that disputes either of those, since you are claiming this is not agreed upon. Yes, their life is less dependent on your own. If you have already given them the kidney transplant, then their life is biologically dependent upon your kidney, and you are not allowed to take your kidney away from them, because doing so would be murder. Yes, you can abort if the choice is between both dying or only the baby dying. That is what the climber analogy makes clear. That is also the case with the conjoined twins. What you cannot do is have the option between neither dying and one dying, and select one dying. That is called murder. You can't go climbing with your buddy, be well anchored and in no danger while you are belaying him, then cut his rope so that he falls to his death. I know you are smart enough to understand that, so you are willfully pretending to misunderstand in order to claim that it is an argument in favor of abortion, which is intellectually dishonest. There is no duty when you hear that someone is mountain climbing to rent a helicopter and fly over to try to save them, though there are people who are employed to do that. There is a duty if they are already dependent upon you (i.e. they are dangling on a rope attached to you and you are in no danger) to continue as you are and not deliberately kill them. No, this is not an argument for abortion.
The guy that gave the fist power sign to the January 6 insurrectionists... don't believe he has voted yes to any of Biden's nominees anyway...
4 more years https://news.yahoo.com/milley-disclosures-about-trump-raise-alarm-and-criticism-205106374.html
The problem with the GOP is they are trying to satisfy the vocal minority - the country is moving away from that group of evangelicals and uneducated people at a lightning pace...over 70-30 now... They will continue to shrink until they embrace what the overall country wants....healthcare for example. DD
