Let's talk the Science.Posted By Brian McFarland |
WhooshOriginally Posted by Richard Davis
What is nuanced about what the cells which are developing into a human being ARE?
There is NO nuance. There is fact, and that fact is that the DNA in those developing cells are HUMAN DNA cells.
No nuance there pal.
The only NUANCE is to determine when the right to kill that developing HUMAN BABY outweighs the Right of the HUMAN BABY to live.
Let's talk the Science.Posted By Brian McFarland |
Exactly. His first reply to Jim's nuanced question was to do what? Attack Rod and other unnamed "lefties" (who haven't even chimed in) and do some name calling. So, nuanced discussion or mud fight?Originally Posted by James Lacey
I'm ready to talk about science and nuance as long as you entirely and wordlessly accept my binary and simplistic viewpoint. Otherwise, I'm going to yell at you, call you names, and claim you are a Buffon, loser, idiot, etc.
Let's talk the Science.Posted By Brian McFarland |
That's also true of those hair follicles you wash down the shower drain on a regular basis. Murderer.Originally Posted by Richard Davis
What is nuanced about what the cells which are developing into a human being ARE?
There is NO nuance. There is fact, and that fact is that the DNA in those developing cells are HUMAN DNA cells.
No nuance there pal.
The only NUANCE is to determine when the right to kill that developing HUMAN BABY outweighs the Right of the HUMAN BABY to live.
Let's talk the Science.Posted By Brian McFarland |
Be happy that it's beyond your capability to understand.Originally Posted by James Lacey
It's hilarious. How in the world can one person lack so much self-awareness?
Let's talk the Science.Posted By Brian McFarland |
You know, I don't think "bully" is the right descriptor here. From M.W.: "one who is habitually cruel, insulting, or threatening to others who are weaker, smaller, or in some way vulnerable".Originally Posted by Jim MoscheckAnd there you are being a "Richard" again. You really don't think you are an internet bully? Really?
Let's talk the Science.Posted By Brian McFarland |
No shit. Jim explained why, too (it's not possible for a child to consent). You don't understand that? YikesOriginally Posted by Darian Rachal
James, why are you incapable of recognizing that the matter may have been consensual? The child had reached puberty at an early(10 or 11) age. The fact that it may have been consensual in no way justifies what occurred. You and others seem to have a problem with my use of the word consensual.
Let's talk the Science.Posted By Brian McFarland |
No, I'm not and you're not getting it.Originally Posted by Darian Rachal
Brian, you are speaking in a strictly legal context. I'm not stupid!
Let's talk the Science.Posted By Brian McFarland |
Let's talk the Science.Posted By Brian McFarland |
I know, right? Why would any normal person anywhere even suggest that a 10-year-old can consent (no matter what words come out of their mouth)? That's some f'd up shit right there.Originally Posted by Jim Moscheck
I guess they do things differently down in Louisiana. I was going to comment when you first posted, now you're saying that the child "may have" consented? That's just sick. You're not doing yourself any favors by doubling down.
Let's talk the Science.Posted By Brian McFarland |
Yup, you're a creep.Originally Posted by Darian Rachal
You obviously are incapable of understanding my point. Make an effort to view the situation less emotionally. Perhaps you have too much estrogen coursing through your body.
