Liberals Perverted Science

the fact that some of you idiots don't understand what human life is very frustrating.

It is a biological fact human LIFE begins at the moment of conception. It is a genetic human that is living. It is a human life.

What many of you idiots are talking about instead is personhood, sentience, or perhaps a more abstract concept of "being", etc. This is fine. But stop arguing like fucking retards. Stop saying things like "oh it's a journey, who is to say when the journey begins??!" This is about the most mind numblingly painfully stupid thing I have ever read. It begins when There are 46 pairs of chromosomes.

I am a-o-k with making hamburgers out of zygotes and fetuses. Lets grind and mash them up into a tasty sausage and put it on our pizzas. Just don't argue like fucking moonbats.
 
Last edited:
The point is we don't know.
Click to expand...

This is where you are just factually and biologically wrong. You have presented NO evidence to support this assertion, and it is ludicrous on its face, because we most certainly DO know when human life begins.
 
apple0154 said:
It cheapens what it means to be a human being. It means we condone classes of human beings and we've been down that road before.
Click to expand...

What's the difference between a baby at 8.5 months in the womb and a baby just born? The brain and skull are still developing. The baby doesn't have any wants or needs or goals in life other than basic primal urges to shit cry and eat. It can't even walk and early on a baby can barely crawl, it's essentially a vegetable. Yet we can't kill live born babies now can we?

I can't even ninja kick you in the uterus if you are pregnant.
Scott peterson is on death row for two murders, while at the same time we don't recognize a fetus as a human being.

I am mostly pro-choice, that is to say, I am pro-aborting fetuses.

But no time in american history has both sides of the debate on an issue used such moronic arguments. Religious idiots think souls are in zygotes and pro-choicers (who are otherwise intelligent people) will stare blankly at you with an empty head and 100% seriously state that we don't know when human life begins (and other such bullshit)... it's cognitive dissonance by women because they don't want to consider the prospect that they might have made baby soup.

I want to be clear to everyone my current rants are not so much a support of either view, but rather a condemnation of idiocy.
 
Last edited:
Who mourns the death of the over 50% of "human beings"? Not only do we not mourn but in most cases we don't know exactly when and society is not overly concerned. That is the way we treat that "class" of human being and that's the problem.
Click to expand...

Once again, whether a human life is "mourned" does not change what it is! Whether a human life ceases to exist, doesn't change what it was. It doesn't matter if 99.99999% of the fetuses are spontaneously aborted, it doesn't change what they are. You continue to argue from a position in which you define "life" in the way you want to define it, and not by the criteria required in science. You continue to use parameters and classifications to distinguish a difference, when there is no difference in the organism based on these things.

It cheapens what it means to be a human being. It means we condone classes of human beings and we've been down that road before.
Click to expand...

This is where you go from bizarre to sublimely ridiculous. It "cheapens" what it means to be a human being when you deny the factual scientific evidence of when human life begins! YOU are the one trying to "classify" humans based on ability, functionality and stage of development, instead of biological fact. Is it just amazingly ironic this is what you are accusing others of doing?
 
Exoendo said:
the fact that some of you idiots don't understand what human life is very frustrating.

It is a biological fact human LIFE begins at the moment of conception. It is a genetic human that is living. It is a human life.

What many of you idiots are talking about instead is personhood, sentience, or perhaps a more abstract concept of "being", etc. This is fine. But stop arguing like fucking retards. Stop saying things like "oh it's a journey, who is to say when the journey begins??!" This is about the most mind numblingly painfully stupid thing I have ever read. It begins when There are 46 pairs of chromosomes.

I am a-o-k with making hamburgers out of zygotes and fetuses. Lets grind and mash them up into a tasty sausage and put it on our pizzas. Just don't argue like fucking moonbats.
Click to expand...

If you'll notice, in my arguments I was careful not to make specific references to life. Life is not the core of the issue. We take life all the time - when you are take an antibiotic you are taking life. The thing about a person that makes a person worthy of protection is obviously something other than the fact that it's alive. It's something other than the fact that it's genetically human.
 
Watermark said:
If you'll notice, in my arguments I was careful not to make specific references to life. Life is not the core of the issue. We take life all the time - when you are take an antibiotic you are taking life. The thing about a person that makes a person worthy of protection is obviously something other than the fact that it's alive. It's something other than the fact that it's genetically human.
Click to expand...

its just a pet peeve of mine when people don't know what the fuck they are even arguing..
 
Exoendo said:
the fact that some of you idiots don't understand what human life is very frustrating.

It is a biological fact human LIFE begins at the moment of conception. It is a genetic human that is living. It is a human life.
Click to expand...

So what? That's why I said, abortion is not an issue that science can solve. It's a philosophical issue.

Some people say, "abortion is murder." If one wants to be anal, they could respond "murder is an unlawful killing, therefore it is not murder." While that response is technically true, it's still stupid. It evades the point.

The issue is not about when life begins, but at what point rights bearing individual begin and should be respected as such, philosophically, morally and legally. That does not begin at conception and no society/culture/religion has ever acted as if it did.
 
Exoendo said:
its just a pet peeve of mine when people don't know what the fuck they are even arguing..
Click to expand...

I agree with you, both sides are often stupid. But there is an obvious reason why pro choicers will refuse to concede the point that human life begins at conception. Because those words are politically charged.
 
RStringfield said:
So what? That's why I said, abortion is not an issue that science can solve. It's a philosophical issue.

Some people say, "abortion is murder." If one wants to be anal, they could respond "murder is an unlawful killing, therefore it is not murder." While that response is technically true, it's still stupid. It evades the point.

The issue is not about when life begins, but at what point rights bearing individual begin and should be respected as such, philosophically, morally and legally. That does not begin at conception and no society/culture/religion has ever acted as if it did.
Click to expand...

Before we can have an honest philosophical debate on the morality and ethics of abortion, we must first accept the scientific fact of when human life begins. As I said previously, perhaps an argument can be made regarding the "natural born rights" of the unborn, since they haven't yet been born. Perhaps an argument can be made for their constitutional rights, on the same basis. These are things that could be discussed, once we all accept the facts of reality on when human life begins. Until we do that, all discussion is pointless on this issue, and it will never be settled.
 
Watermark said:
You are simply playing semantic games. The thing that is important about a person is not their human DNA or that their parts work, it's their feelings, desires, and ability to think on a high level. A zygote does not have that. Something without human DNA and that does not meet the biological definition of life, but nevertheless has the things I mentioned, it is more worthy of protection than a zygote.
Click to expand...
I think you propose to prove too much. Infants cannot "think on a high level". That being said I know NO pro-choice person that advocates the killing of newborns, or 8 weekolds. At some point in utero a fetus developes the very real probablity of become someone that can think on a higher level. A heartbeat does not make you equal to a newborn. Kids who are anacephaletic have a heartbeat, but will NEVER be an individual person. Somewhere in the gestational life of a fetus, it surpasses an anacephaletic child and should be protected. Its existence should be more important than the desire of the mother. Only threats to the existence of that mother should supercede the rights of the unborn. I have 3 children. I have seen them in utero. I knew what all my kids were going to look like before they were born. At some point, aborting them would have been murder. The challenge is to determine when that point is.
 
Dixie said:
Before we can have an honest philosophical debate on the morality and ethics of abortion, we must first accept the scientific fact of when human life begins. As I said previously, perhaps an argument can be made regarding the "natural born rights" of the unborn, since they haven't yet been born. Perhaps an argument can be made for their constitutional rights, on the same basis. These are things that could be discussed, once we all accept the facts of reality on when human life begins. Until we do that, all discussion is pointless on this issue, and it will never be settled.
Click to expand...

For you, I doubt it means much more than the politically charged words.

BTW, Dixie if I was going to point out the anti-science of the left, I might start with the cell phone/power lines bs, vaccine hysteria or opposition to GM foods. Most of those spill over the aisle or may not be positions held by the majority of the left. Still, not all righties are arguing that evolution is false, nor is that argument exclusive to the right.

There are anti-science factions in every political group. Certainly, they exist within libertarian circles.

I do think they are more dominant within the Repubs than the Dems.
 
RStringfield said:
For you, I doubt it means much more than the politically charged words.

BTW, Dixie if I was going to point out the anti-science of the left, I might start with the cell phone/power lines bs, vaccine hysteria or opposition to GM foods. Most of those spill over the aisle or may not be positions held by the majority of the left. Still, not all righties are arguing that evolution is false, nor is that argument exclusive to the right.

There are anti-science factions in every political group. Certainly, they exist within libertarian circles.

I do think they are more dominant within the Repubs than the Dems.
Click to expand...

Well, i don't know what you mean "politically charged words" ...do you mean like, "termination of an innocent human life?" Is that "politically charged" or just an obvious statement of fact?

If you read the opening post, abortion was not the only issue I presented. The left routinely uses science to advance a notion, then abandons science when it is inconvenient. Actually, Global Warming/Climate Change is a better example than abortion. On that issue, we can follow the timeline from when libs were using science to bash us "ignorant" people over the head... it was a concluded fact that humans were causing catastrophic global warming, and if we didn't act immediately, we were all doomed. Then when science shifted, and the data recalculated, they find that global warming is not happening at the rate they originally said, and mankind's effects are minimal. Suddenly, liberals don't want to use science anymore, they want to abandon science and what it has discovered, and insist on propping up a myth instead.
 
Dixie said:
Well, i don't know what you mean "politically charged words" ...do you mean like, "termination of an innocent human life?" Is that "politically charged" or just an obvious statement of fact?
Click to expand...

Obviously, politically charged.

Dixie said:
If you read the opening post, abortion was not the only issue I presented. The left routinely uses science to advance a notion, then abandons science when it is inconvenient. Actually, Global Warming/Climate Change is a better example than abortion. On that issue, we can follow the timeline from when libs were using science to bash us "ignorant" people over the head... it was a concluded fact that humans were causing catastrophic global warming, and if we didn't act immediately, we were all doomed. Then when science shifted, and the data recalculated, they find that global warming is not happening at the rate they originally said, and mankind's effects are minimal. Suddenly, liberals don't want to use science anymore, they want to abandon science and what it has discovered, and insist on propping up a myth instead.
Click to expand...

I responded to all your examples.

I don't know what you are talking about on global warming. As I said, your proofs are vague. That some lefties exaggerate global warming, sure. But that global warming is happening still seems to be supported by science as is human contribution to the problem.
 
Politically charged, I mean you only really care about the political ramifications. As an example, while many/most scientists, in relevant fields, will acknowledge global warming and human causes does not imply they all support cap and trade, or that I should I care if they did. There are lots of other issues involved that are not within the fields of hard science in both abortion and global warming.
 
RStringfield said:
Politically charged, I mean you only really care about the political ramifications. As an example, while many/most scientists, in relevant fields, will acknowledge global warming and human causes does not imply they all support cap and trade, or that I should I care if they did. There are lots of other issues involved that are not within the fields of hard science in both abortion and global warming.
Click to expand...

and so it is the responsibility of everyone, whether or not they are members of groups, organised or disorganised, to end this rampant profligacy and to adopt more responsible lifestyles. The changes must be in the way we approach this finite orb on which we travel together and if, for political reasons or out of sheer ignorance, some choose not to we must continue without regard for them or their individual welfare. Our future is more important by far than our past.
 
apple0154 said:
The point is we don't know. What we do know is sometimes babies are born missing the most fundamental parts of what we consider a human being, such as a brain. It is reasonable to conclude there are embryos/zygotes/fetuses that lack sufficient parts/material to become a human being.
Click to expand...

how lame....let's say I run the US Mint.....I'm in charge of the machines that produce $100 bills.......perhaps one in every ten thousand comes up defective because Machine #5 in Row A has a slight glitch....do I therefore decide that all of the $100 bills produced in the US Mint are not $100 bills?.......
 
apple0154 said:
Why do we have problems with some animals in captivity? If all it required was to fertilize a cell and implant it no such problems would exist. Do we know what goes wrong? No, we do not.
Click to expand...

not sure what you are getting at. I grew up on a farm and I can assure you that even forty years ago, almost all domestic animal breeding is done by artificial insemination.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top