Liberals Perverted Science

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

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.

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!

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.

[USFREEDOM911]

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.

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!

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.

Globl warming has now become Climate Change; because Liberals have now seen that what they were supporting was falling apart.
They complain that humans are the cause of a massive climb in the CO2 levels; but when presented with what one Volcanic eruption spews into the atmosphere, they ignore it.
Now they've fallen back on trying to say "Well are you saying that Humans don't have ANY AFFECT on the world".
It's a straw man and years from now, they'll be laughed at; but they'll proclaim, "Just think what would have happened, if we hadn't raised public awareness and caused the changes that have happened".

As to evolution, you're right about how they approach their comfortable definition.
I believe in the Bible; but I also believe in evolution and I'm not sure that we're the end result of what was intended.
You deserve a + REP, if it will let me give you one.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

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.

Science is infallible because science is always fallible; if there's ever a mistake in science, it's simply adjusted to fix the mistake.

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.

Biology has created an arbitrary definition of life. It does not make moral judgments. If abortion is murder it would mean nothing to science; science says nothing about morality (besides, of course, in the field of ethics, although that honestly isn't the same thing as science).

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.

Scientists promoted the fact of global warming, not liberals. Conservatives just happened to oppose it because they are degenerate subhumans.

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.

I must have missed the "science disproves global warming" headline Dixie. Could you please link me?

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!

Finally, we have the liberals who want to promote a godless society. Nevermind that every godless society ever known to mankind has eventually failed,

Every conservative society mankind has ever known has 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!"

Darwin's theories provide natural explanations for how life evolved once it got started. You could, of course, backtrack and say that God just love consulted things, but you could do that at any time for anything, and it's a special pleading.

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,

It would be one of the greatest discoveries of all time, and I would gladly accept it as soon as I saw the evidence. It would be truly amazing to find some other theory that fits the evidence as well as evolution. Currently there isn't another one.

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.

Evolution explains every discovery ever. There has never been a discovery in history that evolution didn't 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.

Yeah; scientists adjusted the fucking theory, you moron. Unlike religious people, we don't invent a dogma, find evidence, and ignore the evidence because it doesn't fit the theory. We ADJUST THE FUCKING THEORY IF IT DOESN'T FIT WITH EVIDENCE. Nice how that works, huh?

Despite the fact that no scientist has ever developed a reasonable scientific explanation for origin of life,

There have literally been dozens of reasonable scientific hypothesis for the origin of life.

they continue to insist it is just not possible it was created by intelligent design.

I'll agree it's as likely a possibility of being the result of intelligent design as it being the result of fairies.

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. [/QUOTE]

As science progresses it makes it increasingly obvious that there is going to be a natural explanation for everything. Supernatural explanations were concocted by the human mind in its infancy to describe natural phenomenon it couldn't yet understand; we no longer need the crutch of super naturalism.

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.

[ib1yysguy]

This is the most hilariously projecting thread ever considering the guy who wrote it has one of the worst understandings of science ever.

Solar winds are EXACTLY like winds on earth, according to Dixie. So we can just build sailing ships and ride them.

[cancel2 2022]

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.

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!

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.

Charles Darwin died in 1882, which was the nineteenth century, so how was he able to write Origin of the Species in the twentieth century? Maybe your science could explain that.

[cancel2 2022]

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.

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!

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.

Charles Darwin died in 1882, which was the nineteenth century, so how was he able to write Origin of the Species in the twentieth century? Maybe your science could explain that. Note for the ignorant, it was published in 1859.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

It takes a conservative to say that none of the scientific hypothesis's for life are reasonable but to be presented with the hypothesis "THERE'S AN OLD MAN IN THE SKY THAT MAKES THINGS POOF AND THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED" and take it seriously. Just goes to show you how degenerate their subhuman thought process are. It's truly fascinating; really. Hopefully one day we can study them, and see how to prevent them from ever happening again.

[Lowaicue]

Globl warming has now become Climate Change; because Liberals have now seen that what they were supporting was falling apart.
They complain that humans are the cause of a massive climb in the CO2 levels; but when presented with what one Volcanic eruption spews into the atmosphere, they ignore it.
Now they've fallen back on trying to say "Well are you saying that Humans don't have ANY AFFECT on the world".
It's a straw man and years from now, they'll be laughed at; but they'll proclaim, "Just think what would have happened, if we hadn't raised public awareness and caused the changes that have happened".

As to evolution, you're right about how they approach their comfortable definition.
I believe in the Bible; but I also believe in evolution and I'm not sure that we're the end result of what was intended.
You deserve a + REP, if it will let me give you one.

If YOU believe in the bible that should be reason enough for every man, woman and child who ever gave credence to the book, to throw it on the fire where it belongs.
YOU? Believe in the bible? You? The most foul mouthed, offensive, unchristian ever to have polluted a forum anywhere? Don't be so fucking stupid. There is not a good bone in your body nor in those who cluster about you like the proverbial flies round shite.
Bible my arse!

[Topspin]

Dixie, kill yourself. Your an embarrassment to Bama and your state.

[Onceler]

No disputing that science says life begins at conception? Really?

From the same person who said "Actually, science doesn't "KNOW" anything with absolute certainty. It theorizes, it speculates, it proposes suggestions, but to "KNOW" something, means you have factually concluded it, and science has never done that. "

LOL

[DamnYankee]

Not much of an argument from the libs here. No surprise there.

[apple0154]

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.

The discussion is not about when life begins. Sperm is alive. The egg is alive. Their joining results in a different type of life. It is not the beginning of life. How can anyone make the absurd statement that when two live things join it means it's the start of life. "Life" was always there.

The discussion is about what makes a human being and that is not up to science to determine. It is up to society the same way it is up to people to classify anything.

When it comes to human beings one of the first precepts our society is based on is every person is an individual. That presupposes two human beings can not occupy the same body.

The discussion is "what is a human being?" Sperm is alive. The egg is alive. The fertilized cell is alive. The embryo and the zygote and the fetus are all alive. That is not the point.

Whatever society determines to be a human being means that "thing" has the same rights as all other human beings. It means all human beings are equal to that "thing". Maybe you feel your family members and loved ones are no more important that a fertilized cell and ......maybe you're right. I don't know your family members.



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

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.

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!

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.

.................................................. .................................................. ......

[Cancel 2016.2]

No disputing that science says life begins at conception? Really?

From the same person who said "Actually, science doesn't "KNOW" anything with absolute certainty. It theorizes, it speculates, it proposes suggestions, but to "KNOW" something, means you have factually concluded it, and science has never done that. "

LOL

While I disagree with Dixie on his global warming 'it has been disproven' portion.... science does indeed dictate life begins at conception. That is fact. Whether you want to call that life a 'person' or afford that life 'basic human rights protections' is arbitrary and can be discussed. But genetics does dictate that life begins at the fertilization of the egg. It is at that point that the egg and sperm cells combine to form a unique DNA pattern. Given that the unique cells begin to grow and develop at that point, it is factual to state that it is 'alive'. Therefore it is at that point in which life begins.

[Lowaicue]

While I disagree with Dixie on his global warming 'it has been disproven' portion.... science does indeed dictate life begins at conception. That is fact. Whether you want to call that life a 'person' or afford that life 'basic human rights protections' is arbitrary and can be discussed. But genetics does dictate that life begins at the fertilization of the egg. It is at that point that the egg and sperm cells combine to form a unique DNA pattern. Given that the unique cells begin to grow and develop at that point, it is factual to state that it is 'alive'. Therefore it is at that point in which life begins.

I must remember that 'life' begins at fertilisation when I am harvesting my tomatoes.

[DamnYankee]

I must remember that 'life' begins at fertilisation when I am harvesting my tomatoes.

I knew it: you eat your young!