Secularists deny science

Ask an embryologists when life begins. Now ask a Christophobic secular progressive. For some reason, the progressive chooses to believe what the lawyers and philosophers say about life beginning only when baby can survive outside mother's womb. But that's not scientifically correct.

 

That's cause with lawyers and philosophers, their ideas can always change while scientists evaluations tend to be harder to debate with evidence, since there is none.

 

Would you guys stop with this idiotic fallacies. The beginning of human development means nothing in this argument, and those who are pro choice never make the fictional argument you guys like to attack since you can't argue with actual facts, logic and reasoning. A developing human embryo/fetus is not considered to be a human being. It doesn't have functioning brain, thought, etc up until a certain point. I think even most pro choice poeple would be OK wtih limit abortions to the first trimester, unless the mother will die without it. At that point, its not a human.

And seriously, you "pro-life" I use quotes because I doubt that, you are just pro birth, then you just do nothing to help the child. 10s of thousands in foster homes without families, thousands starving every day, so many in poverty. The hell with them, right? Lets just fight for some ideological position. YOu don't care about life, you just want to force your religious morals on people. How many pro life people are OK with hunting, slaughtering an actual living, breathing, thinking feeling animal? But they go nuts about a collection of cells development being stopped, when there is no awareness anything is going on

But then again, the same type are OK with suffering of someone who is brain dead like Terri Shiavo because of their same stupid religious beliefs and irrationality

 

Life begins at conception.

Doesn't change the fact that abortion should be legal.

 

Is it a turtle? If it is a bald eagle, then it would be crime to kill it with anything other than a wind turbine. Can we call it a rino?

 

I suspect they’d give a wide range of different answers because they’re just people like the rest of us.

”Christophobic” and secular are contradictory so no such person could exist. Why are you making stuff up?

Lawyers and philosophers no more have a singular view than embryologists and so will give a range of answers to the question of when life begins. The lawyers will give a different set of varying answers as to what the legal position is and should be because that’s not the same question.

Do you have any actual insight on the issues and questions (not the plurals) you’re raising here or are you just interested in fighting mythical beasts?

 

And Jews aren't real humans nor are African slaves. They can be killed on a whim too right? What about the poor or mentally handicapped? Down syndrome people have different chromosomes than normal humans, so they can be killed, euthanized, too right? Hooray for dehumanizing different people you see as "different".

 

And according to hypocritical nosy bodies and bible thumpers, as long as those babies are outside their mommas, they can go without medical insurance for pre-existing conditions and do without those extra few dollars of public funded lunch programs if momma is not able to make a living wage through no fault of her own...Save the Fetus/Screw the Child...the right wing mantra. And btw...boycott or bash any fertility clinics lately?

Oh yeah...those fetuses certainly do not need to breathe clean air or ingest non-contaminated food once they are outside of their mommas if some right wing representatives says it okay to do away with regulations that guarantees these safety precautions in order to line his or her pockets while the bobble head base agrees.

 

Not considered by whom to be a human being? I already stated it, and you reaffirmed it. Decided by lawyers and philosophers, not scientists. Stating it is not human is unscientific. It's wrong. Viability outside the mother's womb is irrelevant. Stages of development are irrelevant. When the egg is fertilized new life begins.

Do you think liberals give more to charity or conservatives? Would a scientific poll help you answer?

 

Interesting. Then you have to believe it's ok for one human to take the life of another human. Most of us believe in that. It's called justice. But this is not justice. This is bestowing on a woman the ability to take another person's life. And for what, a so-called right to privacy? It's pretty astounding when you examine it from an objective SCIENTIFIC perspective. The only arguments for it are emotional and incentive based.

 

Nice straw man. Be nice if you could show an example of any right winger ever saying this. But we all know what you mean, the right wing doesn't want to be forced to pay taxes which gets redistributed unequally and with little oversight to those who make bad decisions in their own lives, but is willing to volunarilly give money to charities much more than left wingers.
http://dailycaller.com/2010/09/23/surprise-conservatives-are-more-generous-than-liberals/

Again, strawman. But in your eyes, its best to kill the human than to have anyone have any struggle in life, like a butterfly coming from a cocoon, you would help it out which would actually kill it, than to have it struggle and get stronger.

 

Platitudes and hyperbole, not based on facts obtained by research. Again, so unscientific of you.

 

They're not being born into some fictional socialist utopia, hand me my Hoover vac, and coat hanger, yee haw!!!!


That's what you just said.

 

Secular means non-religious. Some non-religious people have an irrational fear of Christians. I don't know why I had to spell that out for you, or how you saw a contradiction.

No, they won't give a wide range of answers. They'll give one answer, scientifically, and perhaps another answer philosophically or legally.

 

A society, a people, a culture either value human life, or they do not. It is that simple. To justify not valuing human life, we come up with arbitrary lines of what is and what isn't a human life. You just gave us your arbitrary line. Created by thought. I can create a line that values human life much greater, by saying from the time of conception, a developing human being is in process, yet a developing human being is still a human life. For it is certainly alive, not dead. And it doesn't require much thought, to discern the difference between alive and dead.

But I got some bad news for you. Life feeds off of other life. We have always hunted and killed animals, to survive, to eat. This is what you are born into as a human being. Other animals feed off of us, for life feeds off of life. So, using that in your argument is quite silly, given the reality you were born into. You may be personally appalled by it, but it is the most natural thing, and therefore nothing is wrong with fitting into the natural world. You act as if you can divorce yourself from what humanity is. Just another animal feeding off of other life. Sorry, can't feel any guilt for being a part of the web of life. I had nothing to do with how nature is organized, for that is beyond my pay grade.

I prefer a society that places human life as the greatest value. And does not place mere convenience for the mother, over human life. Abortion has become birth control, due to human beings being irresponsible, and having no value for any human life, but their own. With modern birth control abortions should be so rare. Yet because this society no longer values human life, abortion is used as birth control, because people are irresponsible and lazy. When you do not value the life of the unborn, you don't value human life. Makes it easier to wage wars, for money, and easier to bomb kids to death, or starve them out with sanctions. Makes it easier for cops to shoot citizens who should not have been killed. Perhaps one day there will be a society that does place human life as the greatest value. When that happens the orphans you speak of will be cared for, and abortions will be very, very rare. No more genocide of the unborn.

 

Where have I dehumanized anyone? Fetuses are most definitely human with all the rights that entails.

Unfortunately no one has the right to deprive another person of their body against that person's will, even if it means they die.

 

I believe fetuses have no right to use a woman's body against that woman's will.

 

I take secular to mean more than simply not religious and I don’t think anyone who has a particularly strong feeling towards a particular religion can be considered secular. It’s something of a moot point since I’d consider the idea of “Christophobia” a fantasy in itself.

Any group of people will give a range of answers. It wouldn’t be such an ongoing debate if that wasn’t the case. There’s nothing especially definitive or conclusive about answers given by people from any particular group, even technically relevant once such as embryologists, philosophers or lawyers.

 

So you are saying the baby is making the conscience decision and the mother is dumb founded as to why the baby is there to begin with? Seems to me, the mother had ample opportunity before engaging in sex to stave off the possibility of becoming pregnant. Now she is killing someone that had not made any choices of their own because of selfish ideology.

 

I find it interesting that if in fact a human life with all its legal protections begins at conception, then GOD himself is the biggest baby killer there has ever been.
Every miscarriage is a murder by his "divine" yet unknowable will. But I guess only humans can be murderers, since god is merely playing with his home made toys.

 

Ah yes, a natural death is "murder by God". What about all the deaths by heart disease or any disease, guess that is "murder by God" too right? We should all live forever in utopia "is God existed".

 

It doesn't matter if it's making a conscious decision or not. No one has the right to deprive another person of their body against that person's will.

And furthermore, the government can't act as proxy to enforce such a right because that right doesn't exist.

 

Except the mother of an unborn baby right? She has the right to deprive the baby that lives inside her after her own decision to engage in the act that will lead to that baby's formation and existence.

BTW, I don't condone there being a government oversight committee on banning abortions. If the woman feels like she can do it, and get away with murder, then by all means, give her the coat hanger and some towels, but don't sanction it either by providing government funds for a procedure.

 

The fetus dies on it own. That's what happens when someone is non-viable and it taken off life support.

However, no one has the right to enslave the body of another to maintain life support.

The government already doesn't fund abortion, so what is your problem?

 

Yes, it dies on its own, but we know it doesn't just die by falling out of the mother.

There is no "enslavement". Enslavement is a conscience choice, which the baby makes none. This is a natural event, the abortion is unnatural. This is where we get the crux of the OP, secularist deny science and side with lawyers and philosophers over scientists.

If the government doesn't fund abortions, then PPH has 2 separate accounts that it can show where they use donations for abortions vs government grants right? I will wait for the documentation.