Liberals Perverted Science

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.

no one "mourns" because no one is aware it happens....as I said, that 50% occurs within the first two days.....if you aren't aware that fertilized egg existed, how can you "mourn" it.....

your response clearly ignores the mourning that DOES occur following a miscarriage, however, when the woman is aware she was pregnant......
 
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.

true....it would be refreshing if pro-choicers would simply acknowledge...."yes, it's a human being, now shut up, we're busy killing it"......
 
Obviously, politically charged.

yet scientifically accurate....and I think a good example of what Dixie was talking about in the opening post....

you think science won't solve the issue of abortion.....I disagree....I believe science will gradually progress to the point that liberals will no longer be able to persuade themselves that the unborn aren't living human beings......

will there still be a majority of pro-"choicers" if they have to admit they are killing children?......I doubt it....

this is a classic example of a situation where liberals MUST ignore science in order to maintain their beliefs.....
 
Baby killers!

What a broken record. Science probably will catch up, because it will find a way to extract embyros and implant them into all of those volunteers who I'm sure will be clamoring for them on the pro-life side.

Grow up...
 
YAAAWNN
We are not going back to blacks on the back of the bus or woman not being able to choose.

Please keep focusing on abortion neodumbasses, and watch your ratings in the teens get to single digits.
 
Baby killers!

What a broken record. Science probably will catch up, because it will find a way to extract embyros and implant them into all of those volunteers who I'm sure will be clamoring for them on the pro-life side.

Grow up...

????....you want to keep killing unborn children and you think it's ME that needs to grow up?......
 
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.

Yes, but a newborn can think, and it has feelings. And it is at least GOING to think on a high level.
 
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, this shift in the scientific consensus you are referencing is something you entirely made up.
 
yet scientifically accurate....and I think a good example of what Dixie was talking about in the opening post....

you think science won't solve the issue of abortion.....I disagree....I believe science will gradually progress to the point that liberals will no longer be able to persuade themselves that the unborn aren't living human beings......

will there still be a majority of pro-"choicers" if they have to admit they are killing children?......I doubt it....

this is a classic example of a situation where liberals MUST ignore science in order to maintain their beliefs.....

Science already knows a fetus doesn't have feelings. That's all I need to know.
 
are you claiming that all 20 of those are testable hypothesis for the origins of life?......is that your final answer?....would you like a lifeline?.....does that mean if I prove any one of them is not testable that you lose the debate?.....would you rather just pick one of them and prove that is testable?.....I will give you a chance to consider......(hint: if I have to pick one I will start with 'extraterrestrial source')......
No, you would have to prove that all are not testable. One at a bloody time. By the way, just because a hypothesis is refuted, does not mean that it is not testable. But go ahead, shoot.
 
Dixie, when people say that science has concluded something, it's a figure of speech. Stop pretending like you've made some deep point.
Sciences or Scientist concludes things all the time. The destinction being that all sceintific conclusions are tentative. They are never absolute proofs.
 
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.
Dang Dixie beat a point to death will ya! Yes, you are right. Human life "Begins" at conception.
 
No, you would have to prove that all are not testable. One at a bloody time. By the way, just because a hypothesis is refuted, does not mean that it is not testable. But go ahead, shoot.

isn't the burden of proof yours?.....you have claimed they are testable.....begin.....though personally, I think the debate would be easier to follow if we did them one at a time.....
 
Last edited:
They actually did that experiment, and used electical sparks to re-create lighting & the conditions of the primordial earth.

Cell-like structures were the end result, but they were not self-replicating. The only thing they can't re-create in the lab is the vast stretches of time that are required for such a random occurance...
You're refering to the Miller-Ulrey experiment, I believe?
 
Back
Top