"Pro life" is not a conservative position.

[BrokeLoser]

"Wide-framed glasses"?
???????????????????????

You just keep coming up with things to be scared of.

I’m just accurately describing your people.

 

[Concerned American]

Women do not have other species living inside them, weirdo.

Glad to see you've come to the realization that we're talking about humans and not your cat.

 

[TNHarley]

yes and the prolife argument it that the fetus is the victim you twit.

Silly shit

 

[Unkotare]

Now we've established that Loser is afraid of skin, hair, and glasses. What will be next on the coward's list?

 

[Trickster]

Glad to see you've come to the realization that we're talking about humans and not your cat.

My cat is more of a life than a zygote will ever be.

 

[Concerned American]

My cat is more of a life than a zygote will ever be.

LOL, your cat is a target AFAIAC. Vermin.

 

[Trickster]

None of this is an argument.

How come?

You problem is that neither sperm or egg is a complete individual capable of development without its other half. You're just being pedantic when everyone who is honestly debating the topic understand that while your skin is "alive" it isnt a distinct individual, which a fetus is.

A fetus is not a distinct individual. It is not physically individuated from its host and cannot survive being that.

Development implies an active state or that it is not yet developed. What is it developing into?

So because we don't have the ability to tell if a woman is pregnant she isn't? This is just an illustration that you don't understand how pregnancy tests work not.

That was not the point, you moron.

Talk about an argument from emotion. It's alive and an individual.

But ok so once it has brain function abortion should be illegal then?

No. It has no right until it has been born. Treating birth as if it is just something arbitrary is sheer ignorance. The point is very clear cut and the event so major it is celebrated as such across cultures.

The brain of a fetus begins developing about 3 weeks after conception. Brain waves at 6 weeks.

Again, potential does not equate actual. A newborn begins developing into a legal adult at birth; does this mean we should treat them as such?

ok so when does life start?

At birth. But, even then it is not certain. Up until very recently and still today birth is a very risky and dangerous event.

So it's a "potential life" even if at the time of the abortion if the doctor just took the baby out of the uterus it would live on it's own?

That is not how abortions work.

Emotion anyone? That's completely illogical.

Geez. You suck.

 

[Couchpotato]

How come?

It just isnt? I can type words or make statements and say it's an argument for something but that doesn't make it true.

A fetus is not a distinct individual. It is not physically individuated from its host and cannot survive being that.

Of course it is. A tape worm isnt able to live without a host but if you have a tape worm it's not part of your body is it? It's a distinct individual with its own set of DNA and purpose apart from your own. That doesn't make it not an individual organism, and if you remove that tape worm you are killing it are you not?

Development implies an active state or that it is not yet developed. What is it developing into?

So? What is your point here? Humans are developing through a huge part of their life. They spend far more time developing post birth than pre birth. Your contention isnt that a human in development isnt a being worthy of rights is it?

That was not the point, you moron.

So what is your point?

No. It has no right until it has been born. Treating birth as if it is just something arbitrary is sheer ignorance. The point is very clear cut and the event so major it is celebrated as such across cultures.

Birth is arbitrary though. There isnt some line where all babies are born. They can be born halfway though gestation, so you are just conferring rights based on location.

Again, potential does not equate actual. A newborn begins developing into a legal adult at birth; does this mean we should treat them as such?

I'll ask again. Is a fetus alive?

At birth. But, even then it is not certain. Up until very recently and still today birth is a very risky and dangerous event.

So is driving. What is your point? Life is dangerous. We don't get to kill people because some event in their life might kill them anyway.

That is not how abortions work.

Abortions past a certain point do.

Geez. You suck.

Dont get so emotional.

 

[Trickster]

Absolutely shocking how bad people are at thinking. My God.

 

[Concerned American]

Absolutely shocking how bad people are at thinking. My God.

I agree. You should really look within and do something about it. Advice works best when those offering it, follow it.

 

[Trickster]

I agree. You should really look within and do something about it. Advice works best when those offering it, follow it.

I have consistently centered my argument around morality to focus on what the core essential of the debate is, persoonhood and rights.

Personhood and rights are the two things anti-abortionists always dance around thinking theit catch phrases "it's a live" and "it is a human" will save them.

I am confident that my case is the strongest one in here.

 

[Concerned American]

I have consistently centered my argument around morality to focus on what the core essential of the debate is, persoonhood and rights.

Personhood and rights are the two things anti-abortionists always dance around thinking theit catch phrases "it's a live" and "it is a human" will save them.

I am confident that my case is the strongest one in here.

Unsupported confidence is nothing more than foolishness. Carry on.

 

[Couchpotato]

I have consistently centered my argument around morality to focus on what the core essential of the debate is, persoonhood and rights.

Personhood and rights are the two things anti-abortionists always dance around thinking theit catch phrases "it's a live" and "it is a human" will save them.

I am confident that my case is the strongest one in here.

What exactly is moral about killing a human being regardless of where it is in its lifecycle?

 

[BackAgain]

I have consistently centered my argument around morality to focus on what the core essential of the debate is, persoonhood and rights.

Personhood and rights are the two things anti-abortionists always dance around thinking theit catch phrases "it's a live" and "it is a human" will save them.

I am confident that my case is the strongest one in here.

Your confidence is misplaced.

Your wisdom teeth haven’t yet come in. So, you’re not a “person.”

My arbitrary line of demarcation is just as arbitrary and as nonsensical as yours.

 

[Trickster]

What exactly is moral about killing a human being regardless of where it is in its lifecycle?

This is just embarrassing ngl.

 

[Couchpotato]

This is just embarrassing ngl.

For you yeah it kind of is..

 

[Couchpotato]

This is just embarrassing ngl.

Im just going to leave this here.

The Scientific Consensus on When a Human's Life Begins - PubMed

Peer-reviewed journals in the biological and life sciences literature have published articles that represent the biological view that a human's life begins at fertilization ("the fertilization view"). As those statements are typically offered without explanation or citation, the fertilization...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

"Peer-reviewed journals in the biological and life sciences literature have published articles that represent the biological view that a human's life begins at fertilization ("the fertilization view"). As those statements are typically offered without explanation or citation, the fertilization view seems to be uncontested by the editors, reviewers, and authors who contribute to scientific journals. However, Americans are split on whether the fertilization view is a "philosophical or religious belief" (45%) or a "biological and scientific fact" (46%), and only 38% of Americans view fertilization as the starting point of a human's life. In the two studies that explored experts' views on the matter, the fertilization view was the most popular perspective held by public health and IVF professionals. Since a recent study suggested that 80% of Americans view biologists as the group most qualified to determine when a human's life begins, experts in biology were surveyed to provide a new perspective to the literature on experts' views on this matter. Biologists from 1,058 academic institutions around the world assessed survey items on when a human's life begins and, overall, 96% (5337 out of 5577) affirmed the fertilization view. The founding principles of the field Science Communication suggest that scientists have an ethical and professional obligation to inform Americans, as well as people around the world, about scientific developments so members of the public can be empowered to make life decisions that are consistent with the best information available. Given that perspective-and a recent study's finding that a majority of Americans believe they deserve to know when a human's life begins in order to make informed reproductive decisions-science communicators should work to increase the level of science awareness on the fertilization view, as it stands alone as the leading biological perspective on when a human's life begins."


You can admit you were wrong whenever you'd like.

 

[Trickster]

Im just going to leave this here.

The Scientific Consensus on When a Human's Life Begins - PubMed

Peer-reviewed journals in the biological and life sciences literature have published articles that represent the biological view that a human's life begins at fertilization ("the fertilization view"). As those statements are typically offered without explanation or citation, the fertilization...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

"Peer-reviewed journals in the biological and life sciences literature have published articles that represent the biological view that a human's life begins at fertilization ("the fertilization view"). As those statements are typically offered without explanation or citation, the fertilization view seems to be uncontested by the editors, reviewers, and authors who contribute to scientific journals. However, Americans are split on whether the fertilization view is a "philosophical or religious belief" (45%) or a "biological and scientific fact" (46%), and only 38% of Americans view fertilization as the starting point of a human's life. In the two studies that explored experts' views on the matter, the fertilization view was the most popular perspective held by public health and IVF professionals. Since a recent study suggested that 80% of Americans view biologists as the group most qualified to determine when a human's life begins, experts in biology were surveyed to provide a new perspective to the literature on experts' views on this matter. Biologists from 1,058 academic institutions around the world assessed survey items on when a human's life begins and, overall, 96% (5337 out of 5577) affirmed the fertilization view. The founding principles of the field Science Communication suggest that scientists have an ethical and professional obligation to inform Americans, as well as people around the world, about scientific developments so members of the public can be empowered to make life decisions that are consistent with the best information available. Given that perspective-and a recent study's finding that a majority of Americans believe they deserve to know when a human's life begins in order to make informed reproductive decisions-science communicators should work to increase the level of science awareness on the fertilization view, as it stands alone as the leading biological perspective on when a human's life begins."


You can admit you were wrong whenever you'd like.

Simply dropping a link without summarizing or explaining its relevance is not an argument, it is a lazy appeal to authority. If you want to cite a paper, you should always first actually read it, explain its key points to your opponent, and show how it supports your argument. Otherwise you are just snuggling up with the appearance of science as a rhetorical comfort blanket.

For the record, that paper is very clearly anti-abortion propaganda disguised as an academic article. It takes a moral and philosophical position and tries to present it as “settled scientific fact” which it absolutely is not.

Science can describe biological processes like fertilization, cell division, and fetal development. But it cannot tell us when personhood begins, that is a question up for scholars of ethics, philosophy and law to do. Not biologists.

Claiming there is now a “scientific consensus” is both misleading and intellectually dishonest.

Buuuuuut, since you shared the paper, I will assume you have actually, really read it (cough). So I have a few questions for you about the author's expertise and methodology:

• Is the author a biologist or developmental scientist?
• How were the biologists selected for the survey? Was there selection bias?
• What were the exact survey questions
• Among what group and in what sense is there a “consensus”? How strong is it?

* Have any scientists or academic reviewers disputed the validity or interpretation of this “consensus”?

I am sure if I dropped a link to peer-reviewed Gender Studies paper showing that there are more than two genders, you would toootaaally accept that as academic consensus too and not laugh in my face, right? Or does the “trust the science” thing only apply when it confirms your personal beliefs?

 

[Couchpotato]

Simply dropping a link without summarizing or explaining its relevance is not an argument, it is a lazy appeal to authority. If you want to cite a paper, you should always first actually read it, explain its key points to your opponent, and show how it supports your argument. Otherwise you are just snuggling up with the appearance of science as a rhetorical comfort blanket.

For the record, that paper is very clearly anti-abortion propaganda disguised as an academic article. It takes a moral and philosophical position and tries to present it as “settled scientific fact” which it absolutely is not.

Science can describe biological processes like fertilization, cell division, and fetal development. But it cannot tell us when personhood begins, that is a question up for scholars of ethics, philosophy and law to do. Not biologists.

Claiming there is now a “scientific consensus” is both misleading and intellectually dishonest.

Buuuuuut, since you shared the paper, I will assume you have actually, really read it (cough). So I have a few questions for you about the author's expertise and methodology:

• Is the author a biologist or developmental scientist?
• How were the biologists selected for the survey? Was there selection bias?
• What were the exact survey questions?

K Among what group and in what sense is there a “consensus”? How strong is it?
* Have any scientists or academic reviewers disputed the validity or interpretation of this “consensus”?

I am sure if I dropped a link to peer-reviewed Gender Studies paper showing that there are more than two genders, you would toootaaally accept that as academic consensus too and not laugh in my face, right? Or does the “trust the science” thing only apply when it confirms your personal beliefs?

I quoted it. The part where 96% agreed that life begins at fertilization ie conception. Remember when you said it was totally unscientific to say life began at conception? Just admit you’re wrong and we can move on.

 

[Trickster]

I quoted it. The part where 96% agreed that life begins at fertilization ie conception. Remember when you said it was totally unscientific to say life began at conception? Just admit you’re wrong and we can move on.

Since you won't answer my questions about the paper I feel like I am done with you.