Salesforce CEO Mark Benioff offers to relocate any Texas families affected by new anti-abortion law

Because it isn’t a baby as per the definition of the word.

Which scientific fact is that?
So again, what gives you the ethical or moral authority to turn a woman (or in some cases a child) into a forced unwilling incubator over a bundle of unformed cells?

You are demanding a woman be an unwilling incubator to the state.[/QUOTE]
That is slavery.

Is slavery permitted if it saves lives? Yes or no?

If a woman terminates a born baby is she a murderer?
If she terminates a fetus is she a murderer?
If you answer yes to the first question and no to the second your entire premise is defeated.

You seem very sure of your position to not be able to answer simple questions.

 

An enlightened, educated, tolerant liberal Democrat knows a lot of smart conservatives… what a joke,

Do not patronize us, lass!

 

"Common Language" Now if that is not a fallacious appeal to the ignorant raging masses .. but it is not even that much as you are appealing to a colloquialism .. "With Child" does not actually mean a Child is present according to Science - Linguistics - and a Dictionary

Your desperation for an argument is the only "absurd nonsense" here .. considted of you going round in circles repeating your premise over and over .. hoping repetition will somehow - in some world - consist of an argument

Your claims of Science are a joke .. you have yet to even come up with a definition of what a human is.

So give us your scientific definition of what a human is.

 

Fake News:

SCIENCE! Leading ‘reproductive justice’ professor insists fetal heartbeats do not exist.

"Secular Pro-Life pointed out the discrepancy to Professor Baker on Twitter:"

“In @MsMagazine @CarrieNBaker writes there’s no heart at 6 weeks LMP, then links to a ‘basic embryology textbook’ which states ‘heart begins to pump fluid through blood vessels by day 20, and the first red blood cells appear the next day.’ I’m going with the embryology textbook.”

"In response, Baker blocked Secular Pro-Life. The hyperlinked citation to the textbook was also removed from the column. "

Nuts!

 

Funny how abortion seems to happen to both Republican and Democrat
https://news.gallup.com/poll/246278/abortion-trends-party.aspx

 

Yes and no
heart development


remember gestational age is different from foetal age because gestational age is taken from the last menstrual period



At 6 weeks gestation (4 weeks foetal age) the heart is still a single tube and it beats automatocally because cardiac tissue beats automatically

 

so true. Just like that movie “idiocracy”

 

By definition and our common language.

The human life begins at conception.

The right to life.

No it is not.

Under current law no, that is a legal question not a scientific one.

I have answered everyone.

 

I have defined human and human being and person and baby and you don't get to change the common language in spite of your attacks on those who use it. I have cited from the scientific textbooks to support my position the human life begins at creation, conception, not later. I have shown over and over it is the language of medicine and it is even the language of our government health services.

Facts don't change sorry you don't like hearing them over and over, perhaps you should try to refute them with facts instead of insults.

 

I think your desperation is going over the edge now..............trying to justify the killing of the unborn because of an Uber driver in some made up nonsense.

 

Just another rich man spending his money on philanthropy.

 

I've heard that judges are dropping lawsuits filed against Planned Parenthood.

 

You are the only one changing the common language .. trying to make it mean something it does not - some moron running around talking Gibberish in the common language .. does not turn a zygote into a human.


Good you have defined what a human is - a person - and a baby. Now post which definition you are using. - and show what how the zygote fits that definition

You havn't presented any facts that show a zygote is a human -- the language of medicine ? Doctors call a zygote a zygote - fetus a fetus - a 40 yr old male human .. a 40 yr old male human.

 

Are you denying there is such a thing?? Lols!

 

You can define an apple as an Orange and that will not change what it is

 

Absolutely. Business should never engage in politics publicly. It is always bad business. Partisanship should contain itself to the ballot box.

 

The Democrats do the defining every day, like defining men as women, defining women as a birth-giving person, defining Illegal Alien as a real American

Glad you do agree that all this defining does not change what it is.

 

There might be ulterior motives in that they do not want employees being targeted by whistleblowers which could do more damage to the company as well as loss of productivity from stressed workers

 

Sorry, public politics by businesses is a loser no matter the motivation.

 

Of course not they are different species DUH. Biology 101.

 

False again as I am the one who has cited from the several sources already quoted. And HUMAN zygote is a HUMAN zygote....biology 101. You REALLY believe zygotes just float around out there and some become humans and some become fish?

The are not mutually exclusive..............English grammar 101.

I have quote the scientific text over and over and YES in the language of medicine a HUMAN zygote is a HUMAN. And doctors call unborn babies BABIES as I have shown over and over along with our governments Health and Human Services.

You have posted NOTHING to change that.

 

Don't care what you claim to have done in the past .. which was posting nonsense from Princeton EDU .. none of which proved your claim - nor provided a definition . your argument based on fallacy.

and you have provided nothign from Biology 101 - other than evidence of your lack of understanding of Biology 101 and science in general.

If you can't manage to come up with a definition of what a human is .. all you have is the claim that the zygote meets criteria of some unknown definition of human.

When you figure out which definition of human or person you wish to use ... do let us know.

 

The only desperation going on here is using terms like "unborn" -- inferring unborn human - as if you have shown that one exists - when you havn't .. hopping that repeating your premise over and over in different ways ..constitutes proof of claim.

Sorry mate - driving around in circles is not advancing your argument.