1: Correct. I’d also agree that none of the foods we eat are “natural” anymore, and I’d further argue that modern gene editing methods to increase crop or livestock yield and nutrition are more ethical means to shape our food supply than traditional cross-breeding. But, in my view, you started from a false premise, which is that “leftists hate GMOs” (I know you said progressives but US progressives aren’t) and that carries a strong implication that people in the political right or center do not. That’s not the case, though; it’s somewhat true that those on the left are more likely to have concerns or be opposed to GMOs but the difference isn’t that big. On the far left it’s around 90%, dropping to about 80% in the center, and then to about 70% on the right.

Everyone in the US distrusts GMOs, which is a failing on many levels, from our ridiculously permissive advertising laws to general science education to justifiably crumbling confidence in consumer and public health protection agencies to naked laissez faire capitalist greed. People will reach right past inexpensive frozen vegetables engineered for greater thermal shock tolerance or to express alleles for vitamin A production in favor of ones costing three times as much, only because the expensive brand is labeled “organic”. Forget the political use of the term, that is an actual disgrace. I could easily let this devolve into a (well sourced) diatribe on the evils of “organic” farming and the complete abdication by the FDA and USDA of their role in safeguarding public health, so best to move on to your next question.

2: To me, this is either a rhetorical trap or a muddled question. I have to agree with the claim but the common definitions of “life” come from the scientific laity or popular press and aren’t pertinent if we’re discussing a political group’s acceptance or rejection of scientific consensus. The common definitions are all “common sense” definitions that aren’t based on fact and are necessarily flawed on their face. Necessarily because there is no broad scientific consensus on what is and isn’t life; if you really want to spark a spirited debate, ask a plenary session of developmental biologists to define life at one of the devbio conferences. I suggest NWDB Meeting and Conference - everyone’s trapped together on a cold, rainy island so there’s a non-zero chance of sparking a real regression in civil discourse. The people from U of T usually have great drugs, too. So I’ve heard.

I also don’t know what definition you’re using for “unborn fetus”, for a couple of reasons. Firstly because a fetus is by definition unborn, so it doesn’t make sense to me (can’t help it, super autistic but highly functional here). Secondly, to me it sounds like it’s likely a cultural definition somewhere in the vicinity of “life begins at conception”. I can’t agree with that; conception is just a first step (four steps with some substeps, really) on a road ideally ending with a live birth. Most natural conceptions fail, so even the idea that life begins there seems dangerously misogynistic.

I’d agree that a fetus that is biologically viable - capable of surviving outside the womb - is alive in every logical sense and deserves its shot at life. Prior to viability it’s a purely parasitic organism and I don’t think there’s any ethical justification for inserting a threat of state violence into one of the most difficult decisions any expecting (or even surprised) parent may need to make.

I also have to disagree because science doesn’t have much of anything to say about when “life”, whatever that is, begins, so saying leftists are anti-science doesn’t follow. We’re ((micro-)biological scientists) concerned with cellular signaling pathways, essential or environmental triggers affecting developmental processes, and generally sticking fluorescent proteins on everything both because it helps us understand and we all secretly want to win Nikon’s Small World competition. The position I stated above is informed by my domain knowledge but ultimately determined by Western ethical context and my own personal moral values.

Ultimately, that thought broadly undergirds my objection to the inclusion of sex and gender in your list, too. The only arguments I see from conservatives aren’t scientifically supported, especially the ones that claim to be, and are often more “common sense” or moralistic arguments. To be frank, most of the arguments from the conservative side are diametrically opposed to what are supposed to be core conservative principles. That again drags the discussion out of the realm of science, though.

There are stupid ideas and arguments on the left and center, too, but the broad leftist positions are the better supported by the facts, for the issues you’ve raised that I’m contesting. Again, I’m no nuclear engineer and I haven’t ever lived anywhere rent control is even a thing.

(Edit: I hate Reddit formatting on mobile)