Why the Right Wing Rejects Science

You don't know that abortions are performed under local anesthesia? Plenty of links about that right here;

https://www.google.co.za/search?q=a...ome..69i57.11034j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Or you don't understand how the fetus is affected by whatever is in the woman's bloodstream like alcohol or drugs?

http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/addiction/tc/alcohol-or-drug-use-during-pregnancy-overview

So why would a local anesthetic injected directly into the cervix at the base of the uterus not numb the fetus?

Onus would be entirely on you to prove that all of the medical science showing the impact of alcohol and drugs on the fetus does not apply to anesthesia.

 

Your entire post is a deflection from my point. I was in the ER once where the attending physician forgot to administer anesthesia before proceeding with stitches. You attempt to deflect the topic of this particular woman's experience - and the morality behind why she decided what she had been doing is wrong rests on her statement of what she witnessed.

No, there is no onus on me. The lady RN(?) stated that she witnessed a fetus desperately attempting to avoid a suction tube. If you want to contest that, you can provide us evidence that she's lying.

Without it, you're making up positions to suit your bias.

 

Oh, obviously, is it?

Provide your proof, or clam it.

 

I have proven that abortions do have anesthesia and that the fetus would be numbed and therefore incapable of reacting as alleged.

Onus is entirely on YOU, and this RN with an AGENDA, to prove that the abortion took place WITHOUT anesthesia since the both of you are making allegations about the fetus that would never have occurred under anesthesia.

And no, I know you cannot prove that there was no anesthesia which just means that the RN is lying as I have already proven.

But for your sake just consider what it would be like to have a vacuum probe pushed inside of YOU without any anesthesia. Would you feel any pain? Probably? Would you be squirming around? Probably? How would an ultrasound differentiate between your squirming around and whatever is inside of you? It can't because your movements would move things around inside of you too.

Now having considered what it was like to have a probe pushed inside of you without anesthesia and the pain it would cause ask yourself how much anesthetic does it take to numb one of your teeth before it is drilled by your dentist? Not a lot and the anesthesia probably numbs a whole lot more than just your one tooth, right? The injection goes in next to the nerve but your jaw and lips go numb too, right? And then the dentist drills away and you don't feel anything at all, right? Do you jerk around and try to avoid the drill after you have had the anesthetic?

So yes, you are being duped and you can tell that from your own personal experience with local anesthetics. No woman is going to undergo an abortion of that nature without a local anesthetic and the medical procedures require that it be done beforehand. The clinics won't even perform the procedure unless there is someone else to drive the woman home afterwards because they have given her anesthesia.

You have enough information and experience of your own to figure out that what you are seeing in that ad is nothing more than anti-abortion disinformation to push their nefarious agenda against the rights of women.

 

No one asked you to. You haven't proven that the procedure that the lady in the commercial utilized anesthesia, and you certainly didn't question the medically proven fact that anesthesia doesn't always have the intended effect.

No, that's not true at all. She claimed something as fact; her own testimony stands on its merit. If you want to undermine that testimony, counselor, you better start doing a better job.

That is a glittering example of sound logic, to a leftist.

Your hypotheticals are deflection.

You have drawn a conclusion based upon nothing but your own bias. It's clearly a widely-run ad. You'd think that if it were a lie, the pro-abortion crowd would have destroyed it by now.

You can provide proof of the lie, I'd suppose. But you can't.[/QUOTE]

 

Let's remember what instigated this ridiculous attempted by DT to apologize for abortionists.

The claim was that "the only people concerned about morality are theists". Then the deflection windmill kicked into full gear.

I asked if the RN who changed her mind based upon her personal experiences used a "theist" morality.

And I got nothing but deflection into the ridiculous.

 

Your refusal to deal with reality is not my problem.

You have the same nefarious agenda and you have to rely about patently absurd canards because the facts don't support your unconstitutional attacks on women's rights.

Yes, your confirmation bias is coming across loud and clear!

 

You were given LINKS and FACTS but you refused to deal with them because they conflict with your own nefarious agenda.

Your rejection of the facts is not my problem.

 

Those advances were brought about by engineers. There are some of us here who are in the business and yet you think you know, but you don't. Motorola's semi-conductor business was started by an engineer. Making something smaller isn't creating anything new.
Here's what there is - capacitors, coils, resistors, diodes and crystals. That's it, that's all there is. Everything else is a form of one of these. A transistor is a combination of diodes. A transformer is 2 or more coils in close proximity. An integrated circuit(IC), is just the above components in a single package.
There are no new components.
Knowing how to connect and configure these components to perform a desired task requires and engineer, not a scientist.

 

I worked in the semi conductor business for 22 years. I am an engineer but worked very closely with scientists who developed new processes and structures to reduce size and increase speed. That is science.

 

In the world of the pro abortion advocates terminating a human life is moral ??

 

Human life begins at conception. Falsify that. No one has. The hypothesis stands and is proven 360,000 times per day.

Make your case then on the competing hypotheses. And I will falsify them by simply subtracting one day from the criteria.

 

That's funny. It's now immoral to not answer a gotcha question.

 

The number of abortions per year has been going down for decades. Where is the data that show that the ACA has reduced the number of abortions in the US by 40% ??

 

That's the world of the pro abortion who admit that abortion terminates a human life but also that abortion is not immoral. It's twisted and only make a modicum of sense if those favoring abortion consider the human life of the unborn to be inferior to those who make it outside the womb. And then as you point out the only explanation why anyone could possibly disagree with their "champion of goodness" thought process is that those who disagree do so irrationally based on religion (belief in a God). It's a very strange way of thinking (or lack thereof).

 

And there it is - the subordination of the human life created at conception.

 

The Pentagon and politicians and repub war mongers sure think so !!!

 

Yup the UNborn are inferior, they have no rights.....and they will remain inferior while you want to make them superior to any other person...

 

They are all pro abortion ?? Who knew ??

 

Tragic attempt at humor and misrepresentation.

 

YUP, as YOU said, ""In the world of the pro abortion advocates terminating a human life is moral ??"""


Weren't you speaking of "terminating a human life" ? Why, yes you were.....sorry you confused you.

 

Where's the "misrepresentation" ?

""Yup the UNborn are inferior, they have no rights.....and they will remain inferior while you want to make them superior to any other person..."""

 

Think it through.

 

There is some twisted logic there

 

Replace the word 'unborn' with slaves.

You're using the exact same rationalization used to justify slavery.