|
Post by captainbryce on Jun 21, 2017 21:35:42 GMT
Here's a better question why do liberals who obsess over science ignore observable embryology? [and don't tell me you don't ignore it because you do "it's just a clump of cells" "it's not alive" etc. etc.] We don't ignore it. We just don't consider it relevant in terms of the debate concerning a woman's right to choose. The fact that an embryo will eventually develop into a person if given the opportunity isn't a matter of debate, nor is there any dispute. The question has to do with whether an embryo is currently a human being (before it has developed its ability to survive outside of the womb), and therefore entitled to human rights. And pro choice people like me hold the position that it does not. As far as "obsessing" over science goes, how do you define obsession in this sense? Pointing out scientific arguments that state facts is not an obsession. The climate change debate exists because conservatives ignore scientific facts (primarily the fact that global warming is actually a thing, that humans play a major role in the rate of climate change, and that it ultimately has a devastating effect on the environment for everyone). The abortion debate exists not because liberals ignore the science of embryology, but becuase liberals acknowledge the science that embryos do not have equal rights with people because they are not independent beings yet. And that is something that science absolutely supports!
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jun 21, 2017 21:39:30 GMT
Case in point....Eva's Bodyguard ignores observable embryology. Um, actually he captured it quite thoroughly in his response. It seems rather that YOU are ignoring his fairly detailed observations about observable embryology.
|
|
|
Post by THawk on Jun 21, 2017 21:43:15 GMT
Some very good points in the article. The truth is, it is human nature to care about others - but it also human nature to completely ignore others' plight, if doing something about it will inconvenience them too much. Republicans generally do not care to engage with climate change, because saving the planet generally requires opposing big nasty corporations and the free market, and they see that as a threat to their money. Liberals are pro-choice, or pro-abortion, because they don't want pesky things like nature and life that is 100% human getting in the way of their "sexual freedoms." Most people say they like animals, but not enough to stop eating them - and funding the institutions that torture them horrifically. Most people say they oppose human slavery, but not enough to care to stop buying clothes from companies supplied by sweatshops - I am not innocent of that either. And so on and so on.
|
|
RedRuth1966
Sophomore
@redruth1966
Posts: 113
Likes: 42
|
Post by RedRuth1966 on Jun 21, 2017 22:05:16 GMT
Interesting why? It's entire basis is just silly So, if 'progressives' deny that a foetus, embryo, sperm cell, egg cell isn't alive and isn't Human, what exactly do we think it is? Of course it's Human, what else would it be?
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Jun 21, 2017 22:21:46 GMT
Case in point....Eva's Bodyguard ignores observable embryology. Um, actually she captured it quite thoroughly in her response. It seems rather that YOU are ignoring her fairly detailed observations about observable embryology. Just a note - Eva is a dude. He took his name from an anime character or some such weird stuff.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Jun 21, 2017 22:40:59 GMT
I think abortion is a sad reflection of society in that the embryo, while not a human being, is...or should be precious and I'd wish no one would have to choose between their right to manage their own body vs the life of the embryo. But since it seems society can't escape the dilemma, I (a guy) don't like to imagine I have the right to tell a woman what to do with her body. That make me pro-choice, but not pro abortion.
But as to which is more important in the big scheme of things...abortion vs climate change...climate change is far more important to the human species than abortion. Crassly speaking from a purely environmental standpoint, there's tons of babies born all the time...no shortage, in fact I'd say the world is quickly becoming too crowded. So if some who don't seem to want their own offspring want to do away with them...that's better for the environment and the rest of us. But IF humans are contributing to global warming and if it goes unchecked and progresses the way some think it might and it leads to serious repercussions for the human species then we might be being pretty foolish to ignore it. Why not err on the side of safety and do something rather than just toss it aside so we can enjoy cheap dirty energy for a few more decades?
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jun 21, 2017 22:53:51 GMT
Um, actually she captured it quite thoroughly in her response. It seems rather that YOU are ignoring her fairly detailed observations about observable embryology. Just a note - Eva is a dude. He took his name from an anime character or some such weird stuff. Corrected
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jun 22, 2017 0:22:21 GMT
Um, actually she captured it quite thoroughly in her response. It seems rather that YOU are ignoring her fairly detailed observations about observable embryology. Just a note - Eva is a dude. He took his name from an anime character or some such weird stuff. Just a note - Anime series (Neon Genesis EVAngelion), not character.
|
|
|
Post by scienceisgod on Jun 22, 2017 6:51:39 GMT
Ridiculously stupid article making a ridiculously stupid false equivalency. In the guy's own link about "life beginning at conception" all the quotes really says is that an embryo begins at conception, to which every "liberal" would say "duh." None of them say whether or not the very beginning stage of an embryo should count as a human life. In fact, there is no magical moment when an embryo goes from being not-alive to alive. Even outside of embryo development there's no clear-cut distinction between non-living matter and living matter--see the debate over whether viruses are alive. Here's a good article that covers a lot of scientific and religious ground on the notion of when life begins: www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2017/04/when_does_life_begin_outside_the_christian_right_the_answer_is_over_time.html This is not even remotely comparable to Climate Change, where climatologists, the people who are paid to study climate science and spend their entire lives doing it, are overwhelmingly in agreement that it's occurring, and that the consequences can be catastrophic. In other words, abortion is different because nobody would ever attempt to justify it on the grounds of 97% consensus among bio-ethicists.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Jun 22, 2017 10:48:33 GMT
In other words, abortion is different because nobody would ever attempt to justify it on the grounds of 97% consensus among bio-ethicists. Abortion is different because there is no plausible universe in which 97% of bio-ethicists would ever oppose it. They tend to be rational, you know.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Jun 22, 2017 10:55:05 GMT
Liberals are pro-choice, or pro-abortion, because they don't want pesky things like nature and life that is 100% human getting in the way of their "sexual freedoms." Your ignorance of women's issues continues to parade itself in full display. Liberals support abortion rights not not because having a baby interferes with "sexual freedoms". We support abortion rights because the burden of pregnancy and child rearing has an enormous impact on the conduct of one's entire life. Even if a woman plans on giving the child up for adoption, she faces health risks, expenses, and an enormous degree of inconvenience. It's as if, despite all your pretending to clutch your pearls over animal suffering, when the subject is a human female, all traces of your ability to empathize completely vanish.
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Jun 22, 2017 11:00:03 GMT
I don't know if I'm a liberal...but I care slightly about both issues. Not enough to like...try real hard or anything...just enough to discuss it in private or on a message board or two.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jun 22, 2017 15:54:05 GMT
Ridiculously stupid article making a ridiculously stupid false equivalency. In the guy's own link about "life beginning at conception" all the quotes really says is that an embryo begins at conception, to which every "liberal" would say "duh." None of them say whether or not the very beginning stage of an embryo should count as a human life. In fact, there is no magical moment when an embryo goes from being not-alive to alive. Even outside of embryo development there's no clear-cut distinction between non-living matter and living matter--see the debate over whether viruses are alive. Here's a good article that covers a lot of scientific and religious ground on the notion of when life begins: www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2017/04/when_does_life_begin_outside_the_christian_right_the_answer_is_over_time.html This is not even remotely comparable to Climate Change, where climatologists, the people who are paid to study climate science and spend their entire lives doing it, are overwhelmingly in agreement that it's occurring, and that the consequences can be catastrophic. In other words, abortion is different because nobody would ever attempt to justify it on the grounds of 97% consensus among bio-ethicists. On the most basic level I'd say it's different because it's more of a philosophy (ethical) issue than a scientific issue. While we can ask about certain relevant, scientific facts pertaining to it--when a fetus starts to feel pain, when mind/consciousness develops, when it's viable outside the woman's body, etc.--these facts alone can't tell us where we ought to draw the line for abortion being OK (if it ever is). So the debate is more over an ought (philosophy/ethics) than what is (science). In the case of Climate Change this isn't the case. I doubt anyone would disagree that if human actions are causing climate change that will have devastating consequences then we ought to change to mitigate those effects; rather, the debate is over whether this is happening at all. It's very much a debate about what is (science) as much (if not more so) than what we ought to do.
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Jun 22, 2017 17:14:10 GMT
I used to be against abortions.
Then I read some of blades stupid posts and decided that in some cases it's a good thing.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jun 22, 2017 18:15:55 GMT
I suspect he's already abandoned this discussion after realizing that nobody so far thinks he has much of a logical case.
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Jun 22, 2017 18:16:44 GMT
I suspect he's already abandoned this discussion after realizing that nobody so far thinks he has much of a logical case. Poor blade. He has become a parody of himself.
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Jun 22, 2017 18:21:14 GMT
I suspect he's already abandoned this discussion after realizing that nobody so far thinks he has much of a logical case. Then he will accuse someone else of running from a discussion soon enough...oh wait, he already is. He thinks that people getting tired of his time-wasting bullshit = running from a discussion.
|
|
|
Post by mslo79 on Jul 2, 2017 5:47:50 GMT
faustus5So basically they would rather kill their own child because it's a inconvenience to their lifestyle? ; that makes a lot of sense . it should be a natural instinct for a mother to want to protect her unborn child. some people are really messed up to abort like it's nothing or for inconvenience etc. it's like their conscience has been shut off. If liberals can't even get the abortion issue right (i.e. they put a persons 'choice' higher than a persons right-to-life when it should be the other way around) it's not surprising they are backwards on many other moral issues. it's like if they have no problem with abortion then human life becomes of less value in general to them and once you start down that path, where does it end? ; protecting human life until it's natural end is always the better/moral choice.
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Jul 2, 2017 6:06:21 GMT
Here's a better question why do liberals who obsess over science ignore observable embryology? [and don't tell me you don't ignore it because you do "it's just a clump of cells" "it's not alive" etc. etc.] Here's a better question, you sociopathic and ignorant fool, why do mentally ill fundamentalist Christians insist on telling others how things are, when they have no freakin' clue? Replying to Blade won't do any good. He's been banned.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jul 2, 2017 6:12:21 GMT
Here's a better question, you sociopathic and ignorant fool, why do mentally ill fundamentalist Christians insist on telling others how things are, when they have no freakin' clue? Replying to Blade won't do any good. He's been banned. I told that to the poof last night. Evidently he forgot, or maybe he likes talking to someone who can't talk back.
|
|