"It is always amusing to see someone make a post which is completely out of touch with reality."
A self-descriptive statement if ever there was one.
"Can you produce any evidence that humans are not driven by instinct to project a construct of personhood on the unborn?"
Can you produce evidence that they do? Argument by assertion is not a valid form of reasoning. You also aren't very good at following the point. I wasn't talking about 'humans', but specific individuals. There may be - and probably are - some people who do have such an innate sense that foetuses are human. That isn't all people. That isn't even most people.
The fundamental flaw is that you yourself are reacting emotionally and are cloaking your pseudointellectualism - your scientism - in obtuse language.
"In not a single post have I suggested that group 1 or 2 above sees embryonic stem cell therapy as emotionally equivalent to human sacrifice. He is essentially defending his communtity against a charge that has never been made ... All I have done is suggest that the idea appeals to the masses because of that subconscious similarity."
Cavilling is not valid argument. Your wordplay is convincing only to yourself.
"It is outdated, antiquated, science, like a geocentric universe. "
Argument from assertion is not valid.
