Here is a not weirdly censored and un-censored version:

I don't get at all this trend of badly censored words.

MY EYES! NOOOOO! MY INNOCENCE!!!!

I hate it. I downvote every censored post.

Unless you’re a part of .ml, apparently. They auto-censor that stuff for some reason.

Eh... A Human fetus is human, but it is not "a human". Your toenail clippings are human.

Plus, the humanity or personhood of a fetus doesn't really matter for the pro-choice position. Simply put, there is no (other) legal situation that can compell you to give up your bodily autonomy.

Example. I can shoot someone in the street in cold blood, and they could die without a blood transfusion. The courts cannot compell me to do something as harmless as donating blood to save that person's life. A fetus, despite arguably being a person, does not have a right to your blood, your breath, your nutrients, or a space inside your body. Full stop.

I had a...call? survey? at some point from an entity that probably gave rise to this data. It was basically a push-poll that used question order and positive reinforcement to try to get people to agree that abortion is murder.

Mostly, it tried to conflate "human" with "a human," starting out with things like "are cells isolated from humans still human?" "Can cultured cells be called 'viable?'" "So would you agree that tissue cultured from a human donor is viable, human tissue?"

They don't care about facts data or science. They use it to argue in bad faith, not to have a serious convo.

If you call that out they'll just ignore you and try and get you with some other made up gotcha fact.

Also, even if 90% of scientists did say that... what percentage of those scientists are not biologists?

Do we need to know a geologist's or physicist's opinion about "some sort of weird meat-science"?

Like the old "Yeah, sorry, I am a Doctor, but I'm a Doctor of Jazz, not medicine"

Am scientist (not in life sciences). If someone showed me this image, I'd have absolutely no idea what I'm looking at. So that's one for the 10%, I guess.

Because they aren't arguing to persuade the other party but to persuade the readers/listeners that won't bother to research if its actually true.

Because they are stupid enough that they believe appeal to authority has any meaning.

A just a few less cells and it compares to birds, reptiles and fish.

Yeh it's peak, really goes downhill from there.

"Tube that's lumpy on one side and tapers off on the other"

I suggest autoreplacing it with a more technical term.

~~fuck~~ sex

SEX

That's a sexing dolphin.

What fucking word did he write? It’s got a line through it so I can’t read it 😞

Exactly the problem and they all cite a paper written by a pro life conservative who works at the Hamilton foundation which is a conservative 'think tank'.

The paper itself is abysmally stupid. He emailed about 60 000 people with 5 or so confoundingly, unnecessarily complex question (manipulated) and about 30 000 or so responded and then he interpreted the answers and made the conclusion that like 90% of respondents agree that life begins at conception.

Morons say 90% of scientists agree, which is not even what the paper claims at all which itself is not good.

He could have just asked 'does human life begin at conception'? Also he complained (author) in a podcast about the paper about how so many faculty at the college he was st during the paper writing urged him to discontinue the project as for various reasons and then spins that to basically say pro women's rights advocates are in a conspiracy against life and were all democratic demons in a death cult (more or less)

I think it's in the top 5:

1. Capitalism

2. Patriarchy

3. Racism (I consider this tied with patriarchy tbh)

4. Religion

5. People who take two seats on public transit with no justification

I doubt even 10% of the scientists can tell a human embryo apart from a dolphin.

I really expect nobody from the physics, math, social sciences, history, geology, or almost every other department to do it.