okay, by the numbers.
1) before the first comma: no. The delusion that there are natural rights is a bad left turn some 18th-century thinkers made. For the last century, the idea has been solely kept on life support by the lunatarians. The empirical support is absent.
2a) if all you wanted to discuss was the weather, we could have spared you, O gentle lurker, some grief.
2b) I am unaware of any basis that is not entirely arbitrary by which a molecule might be assigned divinity.
I prefer Gould’s hypothesis of nonoverlapping magisteria. That puts prepaid to obvious claptrap like creationism.
2c) There is no science suggesting we are born at conception. In fact, reduced
ad absurdum, we are born at, well, birth. The lie is being told for a specific purpose;
vide infra.
The idea that we attain our humanity while still a zygote is ridiculous on the face of it. It is given authority only by those who have deliberately perverted (toxics) or added canonical superstructure to (popers) the core text. Since there is no scriptural basis, the ploy is a component of the comprehensive demonization of a basic biological drive. It is
a tool of authoritarian control made to erode healthy skepticism to the point where the toxics have become a major political mover.
So to suggest I might subscribe to any of these scientifically bankrupt yet socially corrosive* ideas is, by rigorous derivation from first principles,
to call me an idiot.
*witness Gan Greene pushing Christian Nationalism, a totalitarian ambition.
unlike the rabbit, you are not psychotic. Your evil is deliberate and organized, and you bear full responsibility as a vector of
totalibertarian liarrhea.
It is as consciously deceptive as your decidedly toxic (and completely without scriptural, let alone objective, basis) concepts of sex and sexuality, which you have used to speak to
@hanimmal with shockingly crass contempt. Your Weltanschauung is viciously false.
2n+1) have a nice day.
