Why Pro-Abortion Is Anti-Science

[JBeukema]

If you are so ignorant that you do not understand the difference between an induced and a spontaneous abortion you should not even be discussing the issue.

I'm not the one who claimed an abortion's not an abortion. I simply pointed out that an abortion is an abortion regardless of why it occurs- including the reason it's induced.

No, you claimed there is no difference between an induced and a spontaneous abortion. That is why I am mocking you.

cite.

Once again, your illiteracy comes into play.

 

[geauxtohell]

So are we still giving creedence to the scientific opinion of a woman who got a Master's degree in bible school?

If we are, I am about to fall out of my fucking chair.

Cecille can choose to dismiss the obvious objections, but the rest of the sane world realizes that scientific consensus is determined by scientists and not bible study teachers.

Sad but true. Science is a discipline that takes devotion to learn. Any jackass off the street is entitled to their opinion, but those of us that know better give it the proper credence.

Which is nil.

And which is why she has decided to ignore my rather obvious points.

Thanks for all the rep from the people (conservative and liberal) who get this simple point.

 

[Ravi]

Actually, dumbass, they are. Ever hear of a little procedure called "Constitutional Amendment"? I realize that leftists never use it, favoring the illegal judicial fiat instead, but it does exist, and does involve voting.

I bet she has. Constitutional amendments are voted on by the representatives of the people. The people do not directly vote on civil rights...it is unconstitutional.

Dumbass.

Really?

Does that mean that the current proposition in Califirnia to legalize marijuana and allow people to grow it is unconstitutional?

Talk about dumbass statements.

No one's rights are being taken away...rather they are voting to do away with laws that limit rights.

Are you this stupid in real life?

 

[Father Time]

Actually, dumbass, they are. Ever hear of a little procedure called "Constitutional Amendment"? I realize that leftists never use it, favoring the illegal judicial fiat instead, but it does exist, and does involve voting.

I bet she has. Constitutional amendments are voted on by the representatives of the people. The people do not directly vote on civil rights...it is unconstitutional.

Dumbass.

Really?

Does that mean that the current proposition in Califirnia to legalize marijuana and allow people to grow it is unconstitutional?

Talk about dumbass statements.

Read up about the differences between state consitutions and the federal one.

 

[Father Time]

I'm not sure what kind of honest discussion could be had in the first place when the OP's thread title is "Why Pro-Abortion is Anti-Science."

Funny, I've never met a Pro-Abortion person in my life. Words have meaning, and in this case they are used to mischaracterize the position of those who the author disagrees with even before the discussion is started.

Why do pro abortionist keep saying this?

Because you can despise something and still think it has a right to exist.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yes, this is an opinion piece I'm linking to. I'll admit that up front. But the writer makes some very good points quite as well as I could have made them myself, and I think they should be considered and discussed.

Why Pro-Abortion Is Anti-Science - HUMAN EVENTS

In their “Pledge to America,” Republicans are promising to repeal Obamacare, which has imposed taxpayer-funded abortion on the nation. A Quinnipiac University poll found that 67% of the American people do not want their tax dollars to pay for abortion. A poll of likely voters put the number at 72%.

Liberal counter-attacks are resorting to the old slur that Republicans are anti-science. The current issue of Nature bemoans the “anti-science streak on the American right.”

----

In the past, abortion supporters simply denied that the fetus is human: “It’s just a blob of tissue.” Today, however, due to advances in genetics and DNA, virtually no ethicist denies that the fetus is human—biologically, genetically, physiologically human. Even the arch-radical Peter Singer acknowledges that “the life of a human organism begins at conception.” How do liberals get around that scientific fact? By denying the relevance of science.

Liberals argue that the sheer fact of being human does not confer any moral worth. Nor does it warrant legal protection. The turning point is said to be when an individual becomes a “person,” generally defined in terms of self-awareness, autonomy, or other cognitive capabilities.

----

Ethicists disagree even on the point when personhood begins: Is it when the fetus starts to exhibit neural activity, or feels pain, or achieves a certain level of consciousness?

Or even after the child is born? According to British bioethicist John Harris, “Nine months of development leaves the human embryo far short of the emergence of anything that can be called a person.”

----

Pro-lifers have long been castigated for bringing private values into the public square. But actually it is the pro-abortion position that is based on merely personal views and values.

----

Liberals bring the same anti-scientific stance to other life issues, such as euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, and genetic engineering. According to personhood theory, just being part of the human race is not morally relevant.

----

The concept of personhood is so malleable that anyone at any stage of life could be demoted to the status of non-person and denied the right to live.

Anyone care to comment, or even to try to dispute these points?

If you are going to extend to the embryo/fetus, upon conception, the full set of human rights you have in place for born humans -

All abortion must be considered homicide, with the possible exception of saving the life of the mother. Rape/incest exceptions cannot exist.

American society would never accept such a condition, so the point is moot.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I bet she has. Constitutional amendments are voted on by the representatives of the people. The people do not directly vote on civil rights...it is unconstitutional.

Dumbass.

Really?

Does that mean that the current proposition in Califirnia to legalize marijuana and allow people to grow it is unconstitutional?

Talk about dumbass statements.

No one's rights are being taken away...rather they are voting to do away with laws that limit rights.

Are you this stupid in real life?

Your statement was that it is unconstitutional to vote on civil rights. If that is true, than any vote about civil rights would be unconstitutional, even if it was to give more civil rights than currently exist. All I want to know is if you think that is really true, or is it only true if the result is one you do not agree with.

Which one of is dumb?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I bet she has. Constitutional amendments are voted on by the representatives of the people. The people do not directly vote on civil rights...it is unconstitutional.

Dumbass.

Really?

Does that mean that the current proposition in Califirnia to legalize marijuana and allow people to grow it is unconstitutional?

Talk about dumbass statements.

Read up about the differences between state consitutions and the federal one.

Why? I am specifically asking Ravi a question about how Ravi interprets the Constitution. I do not need to understand the difference between constitutions to understand the answer, if I ever get it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm not sure what kind of honest discussion could be had in the first place when the OP's thread title is "Why Pro-Abortion is Anti-Science."

Funny, I've never met a Pro-Abortion person in my life. Words have meaning, and in this case they are used to mischaracterize the position of those who the author disagrees with even before the discussion is started.

Why do pro abortionist keep saying this?

Because you can despise something and still think it has a right to exist.

You admit to being a pro abortionist then?

 

[Father Time]

Why do pro abortionist keep saying this?

Because you can despise something and still think it has a right to exist.

You admit to being a pro abortionist then?

Nowhere in that sentence did I talk about my views on abortion.

All I said was that you can hate something and still be against banning it.

 

[JBeukema]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_illiteracy

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Because you can despise something and still think it has a right to exist.

You admit to being a pro abortionist then?

Nowhere in that sentence did I talk about my views on abortion.

All I said was that you can hate something and still be against banning it.

Why do you refuse to state your position on abortion? An insistence that a person is capable of hypothetically hate something and still be against banning it is not a position.

Do you personally hate abortion?

Are you personally opposed to banning it for whatever reason?

Are you just trying to avoid answering because you are incapable of being honest?

 

[geauxtohell]

So can we all concede that this conversation, like all abortion threads, has sunk into a mud-slinging fest and we aren't actually trying to couch this in some sort of quasi-academic scientific babble by a sunday school teacher?

 

[Cecilie1200]

So can we all concede that this conversation, like all abortion threads, has sunk into a mud-slinging fest and we aren't actually trying to couch this in some sort of quasi-academic scientific babble by a sunday school teacher?

We can certainly all concede that you and the other usual suspects have done your dead-level best to sink this thread and prevent any kind of discussion from happening. Your work here is done, so run along, happy in that knowledge, and maybe the rest of us can get back to the topic you've tried so desperately to divert from.

Please don't kid yourself that anyone at all wanted you here or wants to keep you here. Buh-bye.

 

[Father Time]

You admit to being a pro abortionist then?

Nowhere in that sentence did I talk about my views on abortion.

All I said was that you can hate something and still be against banning it.

Why do you refuse to state your position on abortion? An insistence that a person is capable of hypothetically hate something and still be against banning it is not a position.

Do you personally hate abortion?

Are you personally opposed to banning it for whatever reason?

Are you just trying to avoid answering because you are incapable of being honest?

It's because I'm not sure which side to take anymore and I find myself caring less and less about it.

 

[geauxtohell]

So can we all concede that this conversation, like all abortion threads, has sunk into a mud-slinging fest and we aren't actually trying to couch this in some sort of quasi-academic scientific babble by a sunday school teacher?

We can certainly all concede that you and the other usual suspects have done your dead-level best to sink this thread and prevent any kind of discussion from happening. Your work here is done, so run along, happy in that knowledge, and maybe the rest of us can get back to the topic you've tried so desperately to divert from.

Please don't kid yourself that anyone at all wanted you here or wants to keep you here. Buh-bye.

Oh please. I didn't even show up on your lame thread until a few pages ago. Long after it had turned into a shit-fest.

Good luck getting it "back on the topic". LMAO.