Pro-abortionists are anti-science

[Sea of red]

This just in! Science has proven that cats and oranges are different species! Liberals can no longer deny that cats and oranges are different species, thanks to this amazing scientific discovery!

People like MM ignore vast amounts of well established scientific inquiry due to prior political/philosophical/religious commitments, and assume other people do the same.

He couldn't tell the difference in credibility between a Brietbart article, and an entry in a peer-reviewed scientific journal entry written by actual scientists if his life depended on it. He accepts neither biological evolution, or climate change, and probably has some other jaw droppers he hasn't shared yet. The irony he displays in talking about others being "anti-science" escapes only himself and DE -- another person that makes a fool out of themselves post after post. You can try to hold his hand in pointing out his hypocrisy, but he won't appreciate the gesture, so you're best not waste too much time on him.

[lilpixieofterror]

What am I dodging? A fetus being human is very old science. It's not a recent revelation. It's common knowledge, and obvious.

Might want pro abortion groups that keep using the term, "parasite" when talking about the unborn than.

[lilpixieofterror]

People like MM ignore vast amounts of well established scientific inquiry due to prior political/philosophical/religious commitments, and assume other people do the same.

He couldn't tell the difference in credibility between a Brietbart article, and an entry in a peer-reviewed scientific journal entry written by actual scientists if his life depended on it. He accepts neither biological evolution, or climate change, and probably has some other jaw droppers he hasn't shared yet. The irony he displays in talking about others being "anti-science" escapes only himself and DE -- another person that makes a fool out of themselves post after post. You can try to hold his hand in pointing out his hypocrisy, but he won't appreciate the gesture, so you're best not waste too much time on him.

And this has what to do with the topic at hand?

[Sea of red]

And this has what to do with the topic at hand?

MM is in no position to call anyone "anti-science" given his extensive track record of dismissing both evolution and climate change.

But you knew that.

[lilpixieofterror]

MM is in no position to call anyone "anti-science" given his extensive track record of dismissing both evolution and climate change.

But you knew that.

And that has what to do with the topic at hand? What does that have to do with pro abortion supporters denying science? Is what he says true or false?

[Sea of red]

And that has what to do with the topic at hand? What does that have to do with pro abortion supporters denying science? Is what he says true or false?

It was an observation that was relevant.

And it's false. But you know that too.

[lilpixieofterror]

It was an observation that was relevant.

And it's false. But you know that too.

And yet instead of showing what he says as being false, you jump straight into a distraction game. Now let me help you get a start:

What MM said about pro abortionist as being against science is wrong because...

There you go. Now why is he wrong?

[Sea of red]

And yet instead of showing what he says as being false, you jump straight into a distraction game. Now let me help you get a start:

What MM said about pro abortionist as being against science is wrong because...

There you go. Now why is he wrong?

Why don't you find somebody else to bother.

[lilpixieofterror]

Bite me.

In other words you have no specific answer beyond ad hominems. What a shame.

[Sea of red]

In other words you have no specific answer beyond ad hominems. What a shame.

I was going to be polite and edit that out, but that too.

[Sea of red]

Back on topic: most pro-choice advocates are well aware of the basic biology of fetal development, and none here deny them. What we disagree with pro-life advocates on is what organisms are valuable, not whether something is an organism, or whether embryos or fetuses contain human genetic information.

[Tassman]

Did you know that pro-abortionists are anti-science? It's true.

This from one of the most notorious science-deniers on TWeb!

It is an undeniable scientific fact that a developing fetus is a human life. Look at any scientific text that details the development of a human being and it will always start with the moment of conception. The zygote is a living organism that if given the same protection afforded any other human life, will, barring complications, develop into a fully functioning human being. But pro-abortionists ignore these facts and instead base their entire argument on the wholly unscientific position of assigning arbitrary value to human life.

No-one is denying that a "developing fetus is a human life" you moron, of course it is. What else would it be, a frog? The issue is the significance we give to each stage of development. The majority agree that fetal viability is the appropriate time to grant the fetus full human rights and protections.

That is to say that pro-abortionists ignore science in favor of dogma.

Nonsense!

It's ironic that this is what they accuse Christians of doing.

It's exactly what your'e doing.

[CMD]

From what I've seen, that a fetus is a living human being is not exactly a universally accepted reality for the pro-choice crowd. I still regularly see things like:

"It's just a pile of goop!"

"It's a parasite!"

"Whether it's alive or not depends on how the mother feels about it!"

...and other such nonsense whenever and wherever there's an abortion discussion taking place.

[Leonhard]

Back on topic: most pro-choice advocates are well aware of the basic biology of fetal development, and none here deny them. What we disagree with pro-life advocates on is what organisms are valuable, not whether something is an organism, or whether embryos or fetuses contain human genetic information.

Actually my experience is that if pushed a feminist will admit that the unborn fetus is a living human, and that humans have the right to life, and that terminating this life is a kind of murder, but would counter that a woman's right to control her own body trumps that, and gives her the right to murder that life.

At the end of the day it seems to me that any argument about personhood, and fetal non-pain is window dressing to that argument.

[Starlight]

Actually my experience is that if pushed a feminist will admit that the unborn fetus is a living human, and that humans have the right to life, and that terminating this life is a kind of murder, but would counter that a woman's right to control her own body trumps that, and gives her the right to murder that life.

At the end of the day it seems to me that any argument about personhood, and fetal non-pain is window dressing to that argument.

I think there are a wide variety of different lines of moral reasoning that lead people to the pro-choice position. I think you are unreasonably doing the diversity and variety of pro-choice views a disservice by suggesting they are actually all the same. I think lots of people have lots of different views. I've seen some people use the "women's right to her body" argument, but that's not one I find particularly compelling myself.

Sea of Red I think better echoes my own view when he describes this as a discussion about "what organisms are valuable". There seems to be a consensus among the pro-life members of this forum that the valuable organisms are those that are members of the human species. I personally do not agree with that assessment, and I am a vegetarian because I view the life of intelligent animals as valuable, and am likewise fine with brain-dead people being taken off life support, because what I see as giving value to these lifeforms is not the presence of human DNA in their cells but rather their minds, and that is why I value animals but not rocks or plants and why I give more value to the higher animals than insects. And what that means is that as the fetus/infant develops its mental capacities I value it increasingly more, and the point at which I value a human infant higher than an adult cow is the point where the former surpasses the later in mental function.

Other pro-choice advocates on this forum draw the line elsewhere in terms of "what organisms are valuable". I believe SoR and Tassman both draw the line at the formation of the central nervous system and related beginnings of EEG brainwaves in the fetus. Since current medical science recognizes that human death occurs with the cessation of brain activity, then it seems reasonably consistent at face value to say that human life begins to be valuable when brain activity begins. I personally think that this position might start to suffer from consistency problems when we extend the scope of consideration to other animals, but I will let them defend their views.

I am suspicious of the extent to which the pro-life members of this forum are speciest, with many having said they value any human more than any animal, and I tend to believe that that is primarily a product of their religion - either being related to their belief that humans have souls and animals don't, or related to God giving man dominion over the earth and the animals in Gen 1. I think the mismatch between their pro-life view of human fetuses and their tolerance for the killings of animals is thus probably primarily a product of their religious views.