Why the Right Wing Rejects Science

It is the responsibility of everyone to protect defenseless human lives. What correlation is that and how is causation proven ??

 

So democrats answer is to kill the kids before they are in jeopardy.....nice logic.....

 

Funny how leftie’s do not care about human life. Your link proves nothing.

 

That’s the twisted “logic” required by the left to justify their policies.

 

Since no atheist believes in the purely theist concept of "sanctity of life" your earlier claim to being an "atheist" is exposed as being bogus!

Furthermore there can be NO freedom OF religion WITHOUT freedom FROM religion. The SCOTUS has UPHELD the concept of Freedom FROM Religion!

 

This atheist is pro life.

https://www.americamagazine.org/pol...ts-case-against-abortion-respect-human-rights

http://marchforlife.org/pro-life-generation/

Freedom from religion is a fundamental part of the Constitution.

It's amazing how little the left actually knows.

 

Since I was not talking about computer simulations - your post is nonsense.

 

This does not change the fact that the majority of the anti aborts are religious right and derive their position from religious belief.

That said - what is your atheist "Pro Life" argument - for banning all abortion ?

It is the right that claims otherwise.

 

My argument is that human life begins at conception. And that regardless of legality abortion terminates a human life. Approximately half of US citizens agree with that.

 

Considering more than half of US citizens are completely ignorant of the arguments in the abortion debate - this is not surprising. It is also an "appeal to popularity fallacy" but at the end of the day the overwhelming majority is in favor of some form of legal abortion. Even more for things like the abortion pill - (which I take it you are against).

Regardless - your "argument" is not "human life begins at conception". That is your "Premise".

An argument consists of 2 things 1) statement of claim or premise 2) an explanation or evidence that proves or attempts to prove that claim is true.

So - Given me your argument por favor. Why should a single human cell (the zygote) be classified as a living human - when other human cells (brain, heart and so on) are not.

What is the significant difference between the zygote and these other human cells that makes the zygote a living human while the others are not ?

 

Those of us who believe that life begins at conception are exactly correct. And that cannot be disproven.

 

This thread has been hijacked.

if you want to discuss abortion, I would recommend the Abortion Forum:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?forums/abortion.39/

 

Standing on a soapbox saying "I am correct and my claim can not be disproven" is not an argument. It is not up to others to disprove your claim - nor does lack of being able to disprove a claim make that claim true.

Just because you can not prove the moon around pluto is not made of green cheese - does not make that claim true. Nor does twirling around in a circle crying " I am correct, I am correct".

Once again - what is the rational or evidence that proves your claim true ? What is the significant difference between a zygote, and other living human cells - that makes the zygote a living human while the others are not ?

 

Sure it is. Disprove the hypothesis. You cannot. QED via the scientific method.

 

What part of - just because a hypothesis can not be disproven, does not make that hypothesis true (or theory) - are you having trouble understanding ?

Disprove the hypothesis (a zygote is not a living human) same thing. Just because you can not disprove that hypothesis - does not make that claim true.

I was wondering what your "argument was" - if you don't have one this is fine ... just quit with the logical fallacy.

 

I see someone else has already debunked this, so I don't need to.

Quite incorrect. You can be entirely free to practice whatever religion you want without being free from the views of other religions besides your own. Consider Mormons. They can't go more than a week, I'm guessing, without being exposed to the more mainstream Protestant and/or Catholic views on Jesus and God than they get at home and in their temples (I think?). They have freedom OF religion but not freedom FROM religion.

Since I disagree with a great many other SCOTUS opinions, disagreeing with that one bothers me not a whit.

Nice.

Incorrect, as I already pointed out above. We have freedom OF religion in this country, we don't have freedom FROM religion. The two are very much different, and the 1st Amendment guarantees the first, nothing guarantees the second.

1) Statement of claim or premise: The zygote is a living human being deserving of protection of its life from arbitrary destruction.
2) Evidence: The zygote is the combination of the egg from the mother and the sperm of the father, and as such contains a unique DNA pattern that has never occurred in the past and will never occur again in the future. It is not a part of its mother, it is not a part of its father, it is not a clone of either, but a unique individual. Allowed to develop in the natural course of things, it has a 3 in 4 shot at developing into a living, breathing baby. Eggs do not, sperm obviously do not, and no other cell in the human body can develop into another human being on its own. No other cell in the human body has different DNA unless the person has been exposed to toxic radioactivity.
3) Support for claim: The zygote satisfies all seven of the rules for living things: 1) Movement. At the time of fertilization, the zygote will not have moved to the uterus and implanted itself in the uterine wall yet. 2) Respiration. Natural movement of nutrients across the cell wall. 3) Sensitivity. Don't ask me how it knows this, but the zygote knows which direction to go to get to the uterus. 4) Growth. Self-evident. 5) Reproduction. Obviously this will occur much later in life. 6) Excretion. Similar movement of waste across the cell wall. 7) Nutrition. The zygote is self-sustaining until it attaches itself to the uterine wall and establishes a placenta to gain additional nutrition from the mother for further development. Therefore, by the definition given by biology for life to exist, the zygote is alive. And since we can determine exactly what kind of life it is from its DNA, it's a human life.

Tying this back in to the point of this thread, here we have the LEFT denying science, NOT the right.

 

Says the guy bumping a thread well over a year old.

 

Thank you for making an actual argument !

What you did not do however is answer the question presented = How is the Zygote (a single human cell) significantly different from other human cells ( heart, brain and so on) such that one is a living human and the other is not.

1) having human DNA - unique or otherwise - does not necessarily make an entity a living human - all human cells have this.
2) That this particular strand DNA has the program codes for the creation of a human is quite something - however - every cell has this (your claim - only this cell has the capability to create a human is thus false) - the difference is that this particular strand of DNA has the codes for the creation of a human activated.

If your claim is that this difference elevates the zygote to the level of "living human" you will need to explain why.

3) "Satisfying all the rules for living" - agreed - as does every other human cell. Proving the zygote is a living human cell does not prove it is a living human. Cool thought about how it knows which direction the Uterus is

OK then - good start but we are not there yet.

One thing to keep in mind is that the zygote will never actually be one of the cells in the human undergoing creation ... it will never be a cell in the structure of that human. At the zygote stage - not one cell in that human yet exists. I have always contended that it is difficult for me to claim a human exists when not one single cell in that human exists.

The workers (builders if you will) are at the site - the blueprint is in place and the plan and intention but, not one brick has yet been put in place at conception.

The other thing lacking here is a definition of what a living human actually is. It is rather difficult to state that the zygote is a living human if we do not have that benchmark.

Now that said - there are a number of them. Human taxonomy - Subject matter domain within Biology for stating what a Homo sapiens is - is one. This approach states the characteristics required to be classified as "Homo sapiens". This requires membership in a bunch of different clubs - Domain, Family, Phylum and so on. Obviously the zygote does not qualify on this basis. On the basis of this science - the zygote is found wanting.

How about other benchmarks - There are actually 5 different scientific perspectives on "when human life begins" - not to be confused with the claim that a living human exists ... careful now.

These 5 perspectives are Metabolic, Genetic, Embryological, Neurological, Ecological. One of these 5 (genetic) claims conception is the "beginning" - while this perspective is popular among the general public it has fallen out of favor among scientists for various reasons.

So lets look at another possible benchmark - "Significant Brain Function" If this is lacking the doctor pulls the plug and the dirt nap begins. While the patient is a human - it is no longer classified as a "Living Human" - it is clinically dead.

Obviously the zygote fails on this account.

I can go on but you get the point - there is a whole lot to this debate. At the end of the day - the best that the anti abort side can get to is "Experts Disagree"

 

Several “guys” have very recently added to this thread. Whom are you referring to ??

 

The establishment clause guarantees that we are protected from a government imposed religion requirement such as the Church of England or Islam.

 

Please review the scientific method.

 

While I think there are wackadoodles everywhere and on both sides (see: anti-vaxxers, anti GMO nonsense, anti fluoridation nonsense), the issue is with republican politicians denying science. Specifically, evolution and climate change. And these are denied because of religion and economics, respectively.

End thread, you're welcome!

 

Which R politicians deny global warming and evolution ??

 

How about, just an A-list? Otherwise, I direct you to look it up

Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House: "When asked during an election debate Monday if he believed humans cause climate change, the former Republican vice presidential nominee joined the growing number of Republicans who refuse to acknowledge the overwhelming scientific consensus that humans are influencing the Earth’s climate. “I don’t know the answer to that question,” he said according to the Associated Press. “I don’t think science does, either.”

Mitch McConnell, Senate Majority leader: "For everybody who thinks it’s warming, I can find somebody who thinks it isn’t.”.....later, ""I don’t buy” that climate is changing.

President Trump: "The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive."

Hmm, I wonder what the Republican platform on climate change science is?


Evolution: a different issue, as it is less contentious on the policy front. But we have an evolution denier as Vice President. Trump might deny it, if he knew what it was, heh heh

 

No need for review. I am a scientist. Since when is logical fallacy part of "Scientific Method" got a link for that one