Liberals Perverted Science

Dixie said:
You must understand, this is why you are getting the silly and ridiculous blowback from them! This is why they continue to ignore science, dispute the biological facts, and try to redefine what things are!

They do not want the debate to be about the human rights of the unborn, because that argument is daunting. How do you justify denying human rights to the most innocent of all human life?

So they must maintain an anti-science agenda-based position on this, and refuse to acknowledge the unborn are human. They have to run around sounding like complete and total retards, claiming that we don't know when life begins. They have to try and drag everything off topic and nit pick something trivial, or change the subject, or invoke some absurd and pointless analogy... whatever it takes, because they can't admit the unborn are human.
Click to expand...


Hey, even though science can NEVER offer definitive proof for anything, according to you, in context, I have no problem agreeing that a stage of human life begins at the point of conception, that will inevitably lead to a fully formed human being if it is not interrupted.

But I will never agree that a clump of cells is a human being, with all the rights held by human beings. The life of the body that allows that clump of cells to become a human being will always take precedence; and I'm not just talking about life in terms of life or death, but in terms of it being her decision as to whether or not to carry it.

Eventually, YOUR argument always comes down to "she was askin' for it," and not about the clump of cells being a "life". Because you know what? If it was plausible to do from a biological perspective, and someone could come into your house in the middle of the night and implant an embryo without you knowing it, and it was determined that the only way that embryo could survive to term would be if you carried it, there is no way you would argue that the clump of cells that was suddenly in your body had more of a right to stay there than you had a right to decide to remove it....
 
Onceler said:
Hey, even though science can NEVER offer definitive proof for anything, according to you, in context, I have no problem agreeing that a stage of human life begins at the point of conception, that will inevitably lead to a fully formed human being if it is not interrupted.

But I will never agree that a clump of cells is a human being, with all the rights held by human beings. The life of the body that allows that clump of cells to become a human being will always take precedence; and I'm not just talking about life in terms of life or death, but in terms of it being her decision as to whether or not to carry it.

Eventually, YOUR argument always comes down to "she was askin' for it," and not about the clump of cells being a "life". Because you know what? If it was plausible to do from a biological perspective, and someone could come into your house in the middle of the night and implant an embryo without you knowing it, and it was determined that the only way that embryo could survive to term would be if you carried it, there is no way you would argue that the clump of cells that was suddenly in your body had more of a right to stay there than you had a right to decide to remove it....
Click to expand...

Incoherent rambling? Is that what this is???

There is no "clump of cells" here, you want to define a human being as a clump of cells, in spite of what science tells us it is.

At point of conception, that clump of sperm cells and clump of egg cells combine and the result is a human life, it is never anything else, it will always be a human life until termination. Obviously, it is not yet "born" so whether it has "natural born" rights, is another debate. Whether it has "constitutional rights" is also up for debate, but whether or not it is a human being, is not debatable.

I don't comprehend your assertion that my argument always comes down to "she was asking for it" ...is this based on ANYTHING that I have ever posted? I am not making any moral judgment on women having sex, or their responsibilities regarding birth control, or whatever. I fully support a woman's right to choose whether to practice safe sex, or take whatever risks they wish in life. I do not support a woman's right to avoid responsibility for the consequences of their decisions.
 
Sorry, Dix - science doesn't tell us that a zygote is a fully functional human being. That's why they use the term zygote.

And, according to you, science is only theorizing, anyway...
 
Dixie said:
There is no "clump of cells" here, you want to define a human being as a clump of cells, in spite of what science tells us it is.

At point of conception, that clump of sperm cells and clump of egg cells combine and the result is a human life, it is never anything else, it will always be a human life until termination. Obviously, it is not yet "born" so whether it has "natural born" rights, is another debate. Whether it has "constitutional rights" is also up for debate, but whether or not it is a human being, is not debatable.
Click to expand...

Actually Dixie, a single sperm cell makes it to (or is led to) a single egg cell.

Then they start splitting to form clumps of undifferentiated human tissue.
 
Onceler said:
Sorry, Dix - science doesn't tell us that a zygote is a fully functional human being. That's why they use the term zygote.

And, according to you, science is only theorizing, anyway...
Click to expand...

Science doesn't tell us that you are fully functional, but it does indicate you are a human being. Once the conception of sperm and egg takes place, the organism becomes human life, and it doesn't ever stop being human life until termination. It may experience development and gain functionality for the next 100 years or more, until termination. The human organism never stops developing and growing, so this is a poor criteria to use in defining it.

A zygote is a specific phase of development, there is no such thing as an adult zygote. It is the same descriptor as "infant" or "adolescent" or "geriatric" and it has nothing to do with defining the living organism itself. If the sperm and egg are human, the organism is a human being, whether it is in a zygote stage, fetal stage, infant stage, adolescent stage, or geriatric stage. It is always a human being, never stops being one, never has to acquire anything additional to be one.

You want to continue illustrating the topic of this thread beautifully! I could have gone and dug up all kinds of past quotes from pinheads on this, but you guys have saved me all that time by posting exactly the kind of thing that illustrates the point I made. You absolutely refuse to accept biological fact and science, when it confronts your liberal ideology. You will attempt to redefine what we KNOW is human life, and call it "zygote" to keep from admitting you advocate terminating human life.
 
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.
 
Watermark said:
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...

lol, WM loses protection.......:clink:
 
You're such an idiot. Your premise is somewhat correct. Plenty of times lefties abandon science. But you fail to offer any examples. Most of your arguments are based on vague proofs.

Dixie said:
I have noticed that Liberals will often use "science" as support, justification, or reinforcement for their arguments, however, if "science" somehow contradicts their liberal agenda, they simply ignore it or scoff at how "science" can't prove things conclusively, so we mustn't just accept "science" ....unless of course, it supports some liberal view, then by all means, we must not only accept it, but admit that "science" is infallible.

Several good examples come to mind. Abortion... Science tells us that life begins at point of conception... that is science, no disputing this, no evidence to the contrary exists, it is a basic biological scientific fact that life begins at point of conception. However, the liberal simply refuses to accept science, claiming that when life begins is arbitrary, and subject to some concocted notion of "personhood" instead.
Click to expand...

Not a scientific issue. Can't be answered by science. It's a philosophical issue. When do rights adhere to the individual? When does life begin in the legal sense. No one accepts that life begins at conception. No one mourns the death of a fertilized egg that fails to implant.

Dixie said:
Another great example is global warming/ climate change. This one is especially revealing, because we can follow the timeline from where liberals used "science" to promote this theory about how the planet is warming due to man-made carbon output. For years, we were bashed over the head with this so-called "science" that was irrefutable, couldn't be denied, everyone agreed, science had determined this and those of us who disagreed, well, we just don't believe in science. Low and behold, science discovers it was wrong, the planet isn't warming at all, and these theories have all been pretty much debunked regarding man-made climate change. What do liberals do? Well, they abandon science! All of a sudden, science isn't conclusive anymore, it can't be trusted, there is so much we don't yet know... blah blah blah... they just continue on with their left wing agenda, as if science doesn't mean a thing!
Click to expand...

WTF are you talking about?

Dixie said:
Finally, we have the liberals who want to promote a godless society. Nevermind that every godless society ever known to mankind has eventually failed, that is what liberals want, and they want it now! Charles Darwin wrote a book back at the turn of the 20th century, called Origin of the Species, in which he outlined a theory for how animals may have evolved through the years. Nothing in Darwin's works ever refuted the theory of Creation or Intelligent Design, but liberals will vehemently insist that "science" has proven there is no God, because Darwin's theories must certainly be true, they are "science!" And those of us who don't accept the notion there is no God, well, we are just ignorant of science. Dollars to donuts, if "science" somehow found that Darwin was wrong, and evolution didn't happen in the way he theorized, liberals would do just as they did with climate change, and suddenly begin to debunk science. You see, it's not about science and what is scientific, it's about liberalism and their agenda. That's ALL it's about, nothing more. If "science" can help them, they will use it, but if it hurts them, they simply ignore it or refute it.

Already, there have been many scientific discoveries regarding the origins of man, that Darwinism doesn't begin to explain. There have been discoveries of other animals which refute specific theories espoused for years by evolutionists, but these are all placed neatly in a box and shoved into the closet by liberals, they don't want to hear of such things, because it doesn't help their cause. Despite the fact that no scientist has ever developed a reasonable scientific explanation for origin of life, they continue to insist it is just not possible it was created by intelligent design. Science doesn't make this determination, it never has. This is a conclusion drawn by liberals with an agenda, and based on their own personal beliefs, or lack thereof. Nothing in science supports it, nothing has concluded it, other than liberals who continue to repeat it over and over as if it is a determined fact of life.

They call us 'knuckle-draggers" and "evangelicals" ...they make fun of us and our faith in God, and claim we don't believe in science. But it is the liberal who refuses to accept science, over and over again, anytime science gets in the way of their liberal utopian dream.
Click to expand...

Oh, boo-hoo. Those evil and immoral atheists, that are going to burn in hell, call us names.

BTW, every society (by which you seem to mean government) ever known to mankind has eventually failed, godless or not.
 
RStringfield said:
Not a scientific issue. Can't be answered by science. It's a philosophical issue.
Click to expand...
why?....because you don't want to look at the science?.....can you identify an event in the life cycle of a human being, starting at conception and ending at the cutting of the umbilical cord that would qualify as a triggering event for "human being"-ness?......
 
I see you have difficulty grasping the most basic logic. I'll try once again.

Saying human begins begin at the fertilization of a human cell does not mean every fertilized human cell is a human being.

Saying every journey begins with a first step does not mean every first step results in a journey.

Saying everyone has to first turn on the water tap in order to get a drink does not mean every time a water tap is turned on someone is getting a drink.

If all "A's" are "B's" that does not necessarily mean all "B's" are "A's".

It is absurd to think all fertilized cells are human beings when over 50% are either expelled from the woman's body or absorbed by the woman's body. Not only is it absurd but it shows an outrageous disrespect for human beings, in general.



///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Dixie said:
A human egg and human sperm are not human beings, that much you got right. Both the egg and sperm are made up of multiple cells, not just one. A sperm and egg are "living human material" but a fertilized egg becomes a human in state of being, or a "human being." When the sperm permeates the egg and conception occurs, the result is the beginning of a human life. There is no other point at which a human life can begin, this is not arbitrary, this is not up for debate, this is not an unknown. The biology of what something is, doesn't change depending on whether a brain is formed, or whether it spontaneously aborts. Those are red herrings you toss out to muddy the waters.

What we know for sure is, conception begins human life. This is why you find it difficult to even try and defend your point of view without illustrating your stupidity... if 50% of the "cells" die, they must have been living! If they were living organisms, they must be human. If they spontaneously aborted, they have to abort from something.



Again for the stubborn, YES WE DO KNOW WHEN HUMAN LIFE BEGINS! Now you can repeat the opposite over and over again and you can even stick your fingers in your ears and just keep repeating it like a third grader, but it isn't EVER going to make it a fact. The anencephalic baby is a human being! There is no other living organism it qualifies for, there is nothing else it can be! Things are NOT defined by the level of function they have. If your computer stops working, does it cease to be a computer?



A fertilized egg made up of hundreds of cells, containing its own unique DNA, is a human life in its earliest stage of development. There is nothing scientific to suggest it is anything else. Again, this is not about what is "reasonable" to you, this is biology and what man knows for a fact, because of science. If 50% of them "exist" then they must be in a state of "being" ...if they are human organisms, they must be "human beings!" It doesn't matter when they die, that doesn't change what they are.



No, it is an outrage to continue debating with morons who don't accept science. It is an outrage that you can't comprehend the most basic of biological facts, and insist on repeating absurd notions which have no basis in fact or science. It is a further outrage that you maintain a woman has the "right" to kill another human being for the sake of her own vanity and convenience.

Why don't we suspend all drunk driving laws? It's not an alcoholics fault he is drinking and driving, he has a disease! Who are we to tell him what to do with his own body? ...But you say, Dixie, he may kill someone... Well, there is a chance he won't kill anyone. Abortion results in killing someone every time.
Click to expand...
 
apple0154 said:
I see you have difficulty grasping the most basic logic. I'll try once again.

Saying human beings begin at the fertilization of a human cell does not mean every fertilized human cell is a human being.
...
It is absurd to think all fertilized cells are human beings when over 50% are either expelled from the woman's body or absorbed by the woman's body. Not only is it absurd but it shows an outrageous disrespect for human beings, in general.
Click to expand...

/boggle.....so a human being begins at fertilization, but turns into something else sometime prior to being one of the 50% that fails to continue to mature so it isn't a human being when that happens? So, when do the 50% that survive turn back into human beings?.......

continuing....assuming what you say is true, that 50% stage passes by the second day following conception.....can we conclude then that at least the 50% that survive to the third day following conception are human beings?.....or do you object to that as well.....
 
Onceler said:
Hey, even though science can NEVER offer definitive proof for anything, according to you, in context, I have no problem agreeing that a stage of human life begins at the point of conception, that will inevitably lead to a fully formed human being if it is not interrupted.

But I will never agree that a clump of cells is a human being, with all the rights held by human beings. The life of the body that allows that clump of cells to become a human being will always take precedence; and I'm not just talking about life in terms of life or death, but in terms of it being her decision as to whether or not to carry it.

Eventually, YOUR argument always comes down to "she was askin' for it," and not about the clump of cells being a "life". Because you know what? If it was plausible to do from a biological perspective, and someone could come into your house in the middle of the night and implant an embryo without you knowing it, and it was determined that the only way that embryo could survive to term would be if you carried it, there is no way you would argue that the clump of cells that was suddenly in your body had more of a right to stay there than you had a right to decide to remove it....
Click to expand...

Well said!

The great majority of the pro-life folks have no problem allowing a woman to kill an innocent human being (according to their definition) when it is the woman with the defective body. I can't think of a greater disrespect for human beings, in general.

Then some go even further and say exceptions should be made for rape/incest. That means they condone killing an innocent human being based on how it was created, came into existence.

And those folks have the gall to compare pro-choice people to Hitler and the eugenics movements! Their concern goes way past the color of ones eyes or skin and lies with how the cell was fertilized. If Mommy said, "No", you're toast.

:rofl: All we can do is laugh in the face of their absurd logic and beliefs.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
/boggle.....so a human being begins at fertilization, but turns into something else sometime prior to being one of the 50% that fails to continue to mature so it isn't a human being when that happens? So, when do the 50% that survive turn back into human beings?.......

continuing....assuming what you say is true, that 50% stage passes by the second day following conception.....can we conclude then that at least the 50% that survive to the third day following conception are human beings?.....or do you object to that as well.....
Click to expand...

I object to that, as well.

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.

If all it took was fertilizing a cell in order to produce offspring cloning and other experiments would have been common place a long time ago.

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.

Lastly, and the thing that is the most disturbing, is what RStringfield wrote, "No one mourns the death of a fertilized egg that fails to implant."

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.

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top