When Will Trump Supporters Stop Being Wrong?

And?!

Your life began at conception separate from your Mother. You know this. Science and Medicine prove this. The first few weeks of your development absolutely relied on being connected to the umbilical cord in your mother. But you were developing separate from your mother to who you are today.

 

Just stop defending the legal killing of the most innocent for convenience. That is what you are doing. I would say otherwise. But there is no other reason for you to be making this argument.

You could not survive independently for years after your life began at conception.

Abortion is not about the Mother’s body and health. It is about killing the life created by two people for convenience the vast vast majority of the time. There is no law that prohibits the procedure if the Mother’s life is in jeopardy.

 

Hate when my computer gets the ID ten T virus! One of our closest family friends is a PhD in Computer Engineering. I was having a computer issue and he introduced me to this computer virus lol…

 

I was making a significant distinction and as there is no point in discussing the matter further since as I previously stated the beginning of life as a human being is theological rather than biological matter and you and I see it differently and our differences will never really be resolved. On the other issue anti-abortion laws in most states are so vague that unless the mother is on death's door a doctor performing an abortion based on the health of the mother risks loss of his or her license to practice medicine and/or prosecution and imprisonment if an aggressive prosecutor decides that the health of the mother wasn't sufficiently grave as to meet standard of saving the life of the mother.

 

Your life and development began at conception. There is nothing to distinguish!

 

Posts as if Pubs aren't on board with baby killing too. But, it's for a good cause - votes!

 

Asked it before as a rhetorical questions, should the frozen embryos in a cryogenic container be counted for the purpose of determining Congressional representation or for that matter whenever population is used to determine governmental benefits for a specific geographic area? Similarly, should fetuses be counted for tax purposes or for entitlement to government benefits? If that's the case should a woman expecting twins or triplets being entitled to higher benefits than a pregnant woman expecting a single child?

 

Huh?

 

Nice Red Herring!

 

Is this supposed to be definitive because Crichton wrote it? What do you even think the takeaway message is?

Personally, I think his message is off base. It implies there aren’t “debates” in science, that once a single experiment “verifies” something (or the experimenter thinks they demonstrated something sufficiently) that everyone immediately falls in line, ending any future discussion or scientific debate. Do you actually see that as how things work? Seems fundamentally off base, there are many topics in science that have a general “consensus”, but of course are not 100% because they aren’t at the stage of being able to produce verifiable results. It’s like he doesn’t understand the difference between scientific theory and scientific fact or how future results might change consensus on things that still fall in the realm of scientific theory. Crichton might’ve been smart, but this is grade school level misunderstanding here.

Of course great discoveries start with someone “breaking consensus”, but I think it’s a logical fallacy to imply breaking with current consensus is inherently a good thing. It’s neither a good nor a bad thing taken in isolation, on one singular topic. That’s where it sort of does depend on showing a result (the “put up or shut up” when challenging conventional wisdom). On the other hand if one consistently goes against consensus, they are probably just a contrarian, and being contrarian - unlike being a healthy skeptic - actually is mostly just being wrong all the time.

 

That only works for exorcisms.

 

It's probably PEBKAC related..

 

Also what kind of idiot says politics is about consensus? If there was consensus, there would be no need for politics.

 

If we as a society are going to create laws regarding the status of a fetus/embryo, then we need to take it all the way to conclusion. If killing a pregnant woman is double murder, then embryos and fetuses should be counted in the census, be given social security numbers and become a tax exemption as a dependent from conception. Consequently, if a non-citizen is in the US and becomes pregnant, then that embryo is an official US citizen.
The laws we create are a Governmental construct and objections to abortion are coming from a Religious construct. If those that believe in the Religious construct need the Government construct to get their way, then the Government construct has to follow the logic in all aspects. You can't be a little bit pregnant (pun intended).

 

A fool and their laughter are not easily separated. The reason you fear engaging me is you always end up taking the L.

You live in a fantasy world where you think licensed pharmacists are good for society. You think doctors, nurses and physical therapists should be licenced. You probably think electricians, eye doctors and lawyers should be licensed.

The Nobel laureate economist Milton Friedman would say your beliefs are wrong on all counts

 

Are you East Coasters hot enough yet?