The assertion that science is “unequivocal” keeps being raised, but where is the scientific demonstration – the tests of a falsifiable hypothesis about the beginning of life.
Actually, you choice of the word “unequivocal” is a bit of a tell. Scientists, and I am speaking here as a scientist, tend to avoid words like “unequivocal.” The methodology of science is based on disproof, not on proof. Our methods rely on empirical studies that “fail to disprove” essentially, but the possibility remains that a different method might disprove. It takes a a lot fo research for scientists to conclude something has moved by the possibility of disproof.
This caution inherent in science is used by opponents of scientific conclusions (in areas like climate change or vaccine safety) as a sort of “gotcha” game – “See, they are not really certain.”
I welcome your invocation of science. All I ask is that if you are going to rely on science, play be the rules that scientists have long established and followed.
LouC
184
Any person who has supported and still supports our so called and ongoing “war on terror” cannot also be pro-life.
It just isn’t possible.
You can pretend you can do (be) both, but it will be a lie, a hypocrisy.
1 Like
Guvnah
185
Actually, it’s not.
You had just finished talking about slaves and the owners’ right to kill them. It was legal.
Legality is NOT everything. Matters of right and wrong can be wrongfully allowed under the law.
The whole distraction of the word “murder” is a convenient deflection for the pro-abortion rights crowd. I cringe when I see pro-lifers introduce that term into an abortion discussion because the requisite derailment is sure to follow. Someone back there even admitted that. (Paraphrased: Use manslaughter, and we’ll shut up about that…)
JayJay
186
For me, the hypocrisy is that pro-life value all human life equally when this is unequivocally not true.
No one does. Everyone values some human lives above others.
Then we will invariably get the argument that “Well we may not value all human lives equally but we don’t human kill the lives we don’t value”…this is also false, because if one supports the policies that value one set of human lives over another, and the end result of those policies is death for the unvalued humans, then you are as guilty as if you were the one that pulled the trigger.
As has been said, valuing life in the womb is the easiest stance a “pro lifer” can take…because it requires absolutely no personal sacrifice.
Whereas a pro-lifer REALLY proving they value all human life equally would indeed entail a very large amount of personal sacrifice.
The usual suspects will now chop up my post in response to avoid dealing with the subjects they’d rather not explore.
1 Like
there are 600k abortions a year
the cost to raise a child to age 18 is about 230k
thats 130B
about 30% of america want to see abortion banned
thats about 100m people
are you willing to pay an extra 1300 a year in taxes to pay for the raising of all these unwanted children?
not just you but every other pro birther.
1 Like
Guvnah
188
Germany, with the horrors of its own Josef Mengele history, requires that at most, only three embryos can be created with each IVF cycle, and that all of them must be implanted. No abuse of “excess” human lives is allowed.
In the USA it’s a utilitarian approach. It’s cheaper to make a whole bunch at once. And then you can test and experiment to select the ones that best-fit your preferences, and discard the rest. Eugenics in our midst.
Actually it is.
“Matters of right and wrong can be wrongfully allowed under the law.” Pro-lifers believing they are right and the other is wrong is no more true than Pro Choice people believing they are right and the other side is wrong, so we are left with what is legal and what isn’t to dictate the orderliness of our society.
It’s not a distraction, its terminology, and using a word incorrectly leads to a false premise, simple as that.
Cringe all you want, no one cares.
Guvnah
190
A million. But yes, even a half million is a genocide.
Guvnah
191
I posted it.
And I don’t do scavenger hunts for people who don’t pay attention.
JayJay
192
Germany’s embryo law likely results in more deaths than if they adopted the US position…at least on implantation rules because requiring the implantation of all embryos- even those not suited for implantation or development…results in more fetal reductions due to non-viability.
Germany is also a mass of contradictions with its abortion laws in general.
Guvnah
193
Pro-life does not kill lives that they (as you put it) value less. If I value my own life more than yours, I’m not going to kill you (or advocate for the right to kill you) because of it.
JayJay
195
Addressed in the part of my post you predictably ignored.
I won’t praise myself as a prophet too much because it’s far too easy to predict what you will do.
Guvnah
196
All these deflections and nuances and arguments … to justify the killing of one’s own child.
2 Likes
Guvnah
198
Why?
It’s all just justifications for continuing the right to deliberately kill one’s own child.
Guvnah
200
And abuse thereof.
All for the continuation of deliberately and calculatedly killing one’s own child.
2 Likes
You’ve posted a great deal… I have reviewed the thread and none of your posts answer my question. You can hide behind the “I’m not going to do it excuse” but I’m not the one calling people names…
If there is a post that answers my question, provide it. Whether your provide it not your response is clear.
Science rests on data… No scientist when asked for a reference to their work would respond with a “you go find it” response.
Faith is an anathema to a secular person. You are correct that it is a waste of time to talk about faith to them. But for a person of faith, secular arguments are every bit as meaningless.
I really don’t care what science has to say about conception. I believe human life begins there, regardless of what the science has to say.
