Reply With Quote
Same difference with anyone who wants to support an arguement with "science" and denies a fetus is a human life. Disgusting and laughable.
You guys should also bring back the draft. And immediately end that socialistic social security program
Same difference with anyone who wants to support an arguement with "science" and denies a fetus is a human life. Disgusting and laughable.
Well the question isn't when life begins, science tells us undeniably that it begins at conception. That is not open to debate. The question is when does a person become endowed with unalienable rights.
The left apparently believes a child becomes coated with these rights only when they pass through the vaginal canal.
Personally, I'm pro choice with a strict time limit so as King of the USA I would declare that a child receives these rights at the end of the first trimester. Why the first trimester? you may ask, well because I'm King of the USA and I'm allowed to deny science if I want to.
Also if 3 months isn't long enough to make your choice then gfy
K swung conservative more than liberal
What? Maybe not to you. I think the argument can be made, and i think on this very forum I’ve taken that position as well. But not gonna pretend it’s some settled truth.
https://www.wired.com/2015/10/scienc...ife-begins/amp
http://www.slate.com/articles/double...over_time.html
To be fair, both sides don't care about anyone who can't vote for them. What this shows tho is the Left's hypocrisy when they argue "science" in gender debates or other debates or when they debate about civil rights and ethical treatment of illegal aliens. It's disingenuous when they make these arguments, not everyone but most hardcore Far Leftists.
why don't you and all pro-birthers go after fertilization clinics that dump "living" embryos?
lol. the topic of abortion isn't some scientific consensus. it's ultimately a question of ethics and morality. now, the question of whether or not the earth's climate is changing due to increased CO2 emissions? that can be quantified.
the issue of whether or not abortion should or shouldn't be legal, if it should be considered murder... those are not questions that scientific paper will conclude with
The "people who argue science" point is aimed at the "when life starts" rhetoric and how it's used to justify murder.
You're one upset little sociopathic Nazi today. Mad that you're Alt Left Nazi Party is getting effed in the A by a party ran by a ing clown.
yes, and the "when life starts" question is not one that has been answered by some scientific consensus
again, i tend to think its closer to conception than most liberals would be comfortable with... but at this point that's my opinion. there isn't really a big field of science devoted to answering the question of when life truly starts in the course of human reproduction
I understand that. It's not aimed at the whole group, but at the people who use the "science" argument and there is a large concentration of pro-choicers that use that argument.
i dont think that "people should be pro abortion" or anything like that. if you personally are not comfortable with the idea of it, then by all means live your life by your beliefs.
but this isn't some issue where 98% of the population clearly believes it's absolutely wrong and you have some 2% fringe out there cutting women's stomachs open and terminating pregnancies for sport.
it's a legitimate question of morality with no clear consensus one way or another. it's why i cant wrap my head around "i think its wrong, so i think it should be illegal for everyone."
i dont really get what you're saying. if somebody's position is squarely against an accepted scientific consensus, i think there's a good basis to say "your position is against science" (though thats a pretty elementary way to phrase it).
i dont think the abortion question really qualifies
I get you, and so you can get me a little more, it is something I can't compromise but do understand the need to evaluate on a case by case basis. That said, I don't push my feelings or beliefs on anyone in any major way and beat dead horses here.
My posts on this subject were specific to this thread and the things I address are aimed to the hypocrites that argue the points I find and cite as hypocritical. Didn't/doesn't really go much further and definitely don't expect me to push this anywhere outside this thread. That's all, really.
its just hard to reconcile the claim that you dont want to push your beliefs on anyone and yet want it to be illegal for everyone. unless i've misstated your position, of course
Would you agree there is a contingency of pro-choicers that employ the "it's not a life" argument?
If so, would you agree that those people argue "science sez" (kind of like the gender fluid "science sez/doesn't say", there isn't a scientific consensus there but it's still argued) ?
That same audience is generally deep rooted Leftists. You can't deny that "morality" and decency isn't a talking point/bragging right of the Left, the Left's candidate lost her lead calling people who didn't agree with them on most issues as "deplorable". I don't know how that can't be taken as a "holier-than-thou" statement. This is the audience my feelings and statements are targeted at.
For example, discussing the Mexicans who get separated from their families- an unabashed, staunch Leftist like RG calls it "evil". Objectively, how much recourse does the government have when the law is being enforced? The law is consensus and fully objective. Who's the authoritarian to deem what evil? I'd bet dollars to pesos that RG is hardcore pro-choice and would probably argue with the established, but not consensus, science that states it isn't a life and why it isn't "evil" to kill a baby but "Evil" to separate a child from their family when their family broke an objective law.
I completely understand and admit it goes both ways but my argument/stance isn't aimed at a whole group and I'm not generalizing a whole group, I'm arguing against a specific group that is large inside of the whole group.
oh, i'm sure there are. i dont know that they'll take that position up until the moment of birth. again, there is legitimate scientific question as to when we could consider a developing zygote/embryo/fetus a life.
yeah. i lot of people who argue things like climate change dont know about the science either. al gore is a good example of a guy who got a good amount of the science wrong in his movie. i dont really know all that much about the scientific argument about gender. sex is defined by your body parts/chromosomes. gender is a social construct and iden y. i learned about that in like 2005-2006 when taking AP psych, so i dont think thats some recent political agenda. it does frustrate me when people use sex and gender interchangeably when having this discussion. not surprised it happens on this forum, but its frustrating when more intelligent commentators like ben shapiro do the exact same thingIf so, would you agree that those people argue "science sez" (kind of like the gender fluid "science sez/doesn't say", there isn't a scientific consensus there but it's still argued) ?
both the left and right always claim to have the moral high ground on every issue, so i dont know that its a "leftist" trait.That same audience is generally deep rooted Leftists. You can't deny that "morality" and decency isn't a talking point/bragging right of the Left, the Left's candidate lost her lead calling people who didn't agree with them on most issues as "deplorable". I don't know how that can't be taken as a "holier-than-thou" statement. This is the audience my feelings and statements are targeted at.
then again, i think the leftists you are talking about probably wouldn't agree with you that abortions themselves are immoral. so they aren't really sacrificing the moral high ground as they think they are arguing a morally correct position. its only contradictory if they're like "well i know abortions are immoral, but i'm going to support them anyway"
that makes sense if you believe in the following construct:For example, discussing the Mexicans who get separated from their families- an unabashed, staunch Leftist like RG calls it "evil". Objectively, how much recourse does the government have when the law is being enforced? The law is consensus and fully objective. Who's the authoritarian to deem what evil? I'd bet dollars to pesos that RG is hardcore pro-choice and would probably argue with the established, but not consensus, science that states it isn't a life and why it isn't "evil" to kill a baby but "Evil" to separate a child from their family when their family broke an objective law.
legal = good
illegal = evil
plus, not everybody will consider a 20 week old fetus to be the same as a born child. so it wouldn't really be right to compare separating that child to taking action against the fetus. you aren't working from equal starting points to draw those comparisons.
i feel you. it frustrates me when somebody who happens to agree with my ultimate position bas izes it by arguing in a horrible way. i see that on this forum with a lot of posters tbhI completely understand and admit it goes both ways but my argument/stance isn't aimed at a whole group and I'm not generalizing a whole group, I'm arguing against a specific group that is large inside of the whole group.
Good stuff and your civility and maturity is very refreshing and appreciated.
...and this is my "serious" posts quota for the next two years....
Those are silly articles not science. The debate is over I said.
got any good links to share?
I don't agree that it's a moral issue in that sense - it seems that people/courts are more likely to oppose abortion if the fetus is viable - with that week being a moving target as technology improves. Is a (same week) baby in the womb in 2005 or 2018 or 2068 any more deserving of a chance of life depending on the level of technology available at the time. Who is to tell whether a particular baby falls in the 25%, 50%, 90% chance of living outside the womb. Are you morally justified with abortion in 2005 but a murderer in 2068? That baby is at the same stage of development in either year.
again, i dont know that states use a specific week as the cutoff point for all abortions. i could be wrong there. but my understanding is that viability is considered on a case by case basis.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
