Why the Right Wing Rejects Science

Onus is not on me to provide you with any "facts".

Instead it is entirely on YOU to come up with substantiation for your own bogus allegation.

That you are still equivocating says volumes.

 

Assumes factoids NOT in evidence.

 

Meaningless anecdotes that do not support the original baseless allegation.

 

Your bizarre illogical fallacy is not based upon what I have actually posted.

It is duplicitous on your part to make false allegations about what other members have/have not actually posted.

 

You have been consistently wrong when it comes to your allegation that "human life begins at conception" because there is no consensus to support that claim.

 

What is a "Science"? Oxford Living says it's:

"The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."

And that doesn't mention the scientific method at all

There is no "Science" there is only knowledge of the real world, and the right wing rejects knowledge of the real world because they so frequently reject reality in favor of what they want to be true.

 

Come on now, obviously it begins at conception.

Trying to find some other moment during the process and saying that's the beginning of human life is dishonest, and you know it.

You can use the argument that a woman has a right to what happens within her body. That argument at least makes sense.

But trying to say that the beginnings of human life are not human life makes you look like you have no moral compass or abstract thought.

 

The same can be said about the left and their approach to genders and race.

 

See above. Tell me the exact stage that separates nonhuman life from human life plz

 

Btw a lack of moral compass and a lack of abstract thought is what makes for a perfect human robot, who will do whatever is asked of him or her.

 

Ironic given that you appear to have no clue as to what actually happens at conception.

A fertilized ovum contains two sets of DNA that belong to other human beings.

Explain exactly how that is a unique "human life"?

The fact is that there is no unique DNA until 72 AFTER conception which means that only those who are ignorant of the actual process involved would even make an allegation that inane.

And just because there is unique DNA does not mean that it will result in an actual "human life" either. Miscarriages, ectopic pregnancies, anencephaly, etc, etc, can all result in the FAILURE of a "human life" to occur.

There is NO CONSENSUS whatsoever as to the "beginning of human life" and it is dishonest to allege that conception is that point.

 

There is no consensus as to when that occurs.

 

Ironic!

 

Explain

 

You just explained it for me. It's two sets that are combined. That is unique.

The occurance of system failure does not justify induced failure, that is idiotic.

Stars can explode, should we induce our sun to do the same? Jesus Christ.

There is no consensus because abortion is arguably the most hotly debated issue in human history, next to gun control and drugs. Science is not immune to the influence of politics.

 

Obviously you utterly failed to comprehend what I actually posted!

Does a "unique human life" consist of two full sets of the DNA from other people?

Since it does not that means that what happens at conception is NOT a unique "human life" irrespective of your semantic dissembling.

That is YOUR idiotic deflection, not mine. I never made any such "justification". Instead I pointed out that there are natural system failures (of around 30%) so are you going to arrange funerals for millions and millions of miscarriages that naturally occur?

Your utterly inane hyperbole says volumes considering that it is based entirely on your own disingenuity!

Assumes factoids not in evidence.

Abortion has occurred throughout human history and the only small segment of the population that gets bent out of shape about it are extreme fundamentalist theists with a political agenda that violates the Constitution.

 

Few things:

1. I am a unique human made up of DNA from my mother and father, as are you. To deny that is idiotic.

2. There are funerals for stillborn babies all over the world. Again, you fail.

3. many would be mothers have gotten bent out of shape about aborting their children, just as their family members have too. But most of all, it's the children themselves who would be most upset. But they don't get a vote.

Finally, the only sensible argument is to say that it's the woman's right. Saying it's not a human is just a cop out so you can kill an unborn baby and say you didn't kill an unborn baby.

 

Since I never denied that the only thing that is idiotic is your disingenuous allegation that I did.

Your woeful ignorance over the difference between a "stillborn baby" and a miscarriage is glaringly obvious.

Assumes extremist fundamentalist theist factoids not in evidence.

Once again you make yet another egregious allegation about something that I have not posted anywhere at all.

That you lack the basic integrity to refrain from dishonest allegations disqualifies you from civil discourse.

 

1. You did deny it was unique human life. Now you're backtracking. You've lost.

2. It takes a little abstract thought to compare a miscarriage to a still born but as I've said, life deniers lack that.

3. You've never tried to argue when life actually begins. I dare you to try.

 

BZZZT Wrong!

Onus is entirely on you to PROVE your BOGUS allegations about me.

Please provide photos of the funerals at toilets where miscarriages have occurred.

BZZZZT WRONG again!

I have pointed out that there is no consensus. That is an argument but those who lack critical thinking skills obviously cannot recognize an argument when they see it.

 

When the law says so, at birth. Only after 8 week's gestation is the potential human legally a fetus.

 

No, science is driven by pragmatism, curiosity, a desire to innovate, to challenge accepted principles and experimentation. The ultimate aim is progress. Religion, on the other hand, is driven by dogma and a need to worship something which can never be proven to exist; blind faith, in other words, and an exercise in pointless futility. A dead end.

 

No it isn't. It isn't 'human' or a 'person' until birth. That's the law. Feel free to challenge it by all means.

 

It's nothing like church. Unless, of course, you can cite an experiment which has attempted to prove the existence of these 'gods', and succeeded?

 

How so?