Liberals love science - until it proves them wrong.

[Sparko]

Do you feel the same way about unborn chickens? If not, why not?

the eggs are CHICKEN eggs and are not part of the mother chicken. also most eggs we eat are not even fertilized. so yes, they are chicken.

[Sparko]

You're right, I'm so sorry.

I should have remembered that I'm supposed to just sit still, and take the constant generalizing of liberal philosophy on this site - but never generalize conservatives.

sure. if you want to discuss how conservatives are hypocritical regarding science, go ahead and start a new thread on it.

but your post was merely an ad hom. you dismissed the op by attacking the reporter instead of the actual OP. that is classic ad hom.

[Sparko]

starlight, most "pro choice" argue that the fetus is merely a clump of cells, not a person, or merely part of the mother's body and therefore they can do whatever they want with their body. Science tells us that from the moment of conception, the zygote is a distinct human being and not part of the mother's body. she is merely the host.

[Jaecp]

starlight, most "pro choice" argue that the fetus is merely a clump of cells, not a person, or merely part of the mother's body and therefore they can do whatever they want with their body. Science tells us that from the moment of conception, the zygote is a distinct human being and not part of the mother's body. she is merely the host.

How many threads has it been where someone, often me, explains what pro choice people actually believe? How are you still straw manning this?

[Sparko]

How many threads has it been where someone, often me, explains what pro choice people actually believe? How are you still straw manning this?

sure just show me a post where a prochoice says that the zygote is a distinct human being/person and yet we have the right to kill it. other than starlight who thinks we have the right to perform abortions on already born babies.

[Starlight]

starlight, most "pro choice" argue

As Jaecp has mentioned, why exactly are you telling me what pro-choice people believe...? I live in a country where the vast majority of people are pro-choice and where abortion is not a seriously-debated political issue. I know what pro-choice people in general think on the issue because nearly everyone I know is pro-choice.

that the fetus is merely a clump of cells,

Yes. Most people think of a fetus as a clump of cells. That is scientifically correct. It is a clump of cells. It would also be true to say that any living creature is a clump of cells.

not a person,

Personhood is a philosophical, and separately, a legal, concept. There is no such thing as a scientific definition of a "person".

or merely part of the mother's body

It's dependent on the mother. It does not have the ability to sustain itself independently. In that sense it is part of the mother's body. It would meet the scientific definition of the term "parasite" if not for the fact that it is the same species of the mother (parasites are dependent organisms of a different species).

Science tells us that from the moment of conception, the zygote is a distinct human being and not part of the mother's body.

? The zygote is embedded within the mother's womb. It is physically within the space occupied by the mother's body. It is physically connected to her body via the umbilical cord etc. That seems awfully like being part of her body to me.

[lilpixieofterror]

I say kids should learn in bio or sex-ed class

a) unborn is human
b) how unborn child develop in womb (with pics)
c) what abortion does (graphic pics optional)

All basic settled science. Teach the facts, libs!!!

But that would mean an end to sleep whomever you want and having to deal with the possible consequence of your actions. We can't have that now.

[lilpixieofterror]

This person's objections come in two flavors: they don't understand the issue, or they create a strawman. Unsurprising for an opinion piece in the NY Post.

Edit: To elaborate: solutions to climate change, GMO regulation = strawman, abortion, IQ, transpeople = misunderstanding.

Irony at it's finest.

[lilpixieofterror]

Do you feel the same way about unborn chickens? If not, why not?

Still trolling away, eh FF?

[lilpixieofterror]

Solar power and wind can replace it, fifty times over.

Take the total footprint of a nuclear powerplant, safezone and all. Cover the same area with solar panels and in some cases the yearly production is the same.

I think you're being a wee bit optimistic here, at least at the moment. Solar power works well in where I grew up (Southern California), but not so well in places like Alaska or Washington state. Likewise, no other power source seems to be able to solve our transportation problems either (batteries have limited range, solar requires lots of surface area, nuclear only is practical on large ocean going ships, and I'm not aware of any real replacement for aircraft). For now at least, we're going to need fossil fuels until we can solve these problems.

[lilpixieofterror]

I feel like you're missing the point. The question of "is a fetus, scientific speaking, a member of the human species?" is not usually considered by liberals to be a relevant question in determining whether abortion is moral or not.

Usually the morality of most liberals revolves around the extent to which higher brain functions are present or not. So a liberal is likely to be more interested in the state of the brain development of the foetus - something science can help answer - than they are about whether it meets any particular criteria of 'human'.

He's not missing the point at all. You want it to be legal to murder 3 month old babies, so you're hardly in the position to tell anybody about morals. In a large sense though, I'm sorry, drawing random lines in the sand at things like, 'higher brain functions' is just an arbitrary line to excuse away the fact that you want it to be legal to murder children.

You don't actually. Vaccines are made of dead viruses. Injecting them into the body gives the immune system a chance to learn what those viruses look like, and create antibodies for them. As a result, when the body encounters live versions of the viruses, the immune system immediately identifies them and has the antibodies for them ready to deploy immediately. Over the decades, we've learned that on the whole there's not really much that can go wrong with vaccines. As a result of that knowledge, gained over decades, that vaccines are not dangerous, organisations like the FDA just wave them through without requiring extensive testing. If, in 100 years time, we've learned that every GMO worked fine, we can stop bothering to test new ones as thoroughly at that point.

Ummm for some versions yes, but not for every version. I've debated with anti vaxxers for sometime and I'm quite aware that a number of vaccines do contain live virus strains (although weakened). Some versions also contain a weaker virus that still offers immunity to the stronger strain. Likewise, it's pretty silly that you seriously think vaccines are not tested for years and years because yeah they are tested, they are changed, and they do make developments on vaccines quite often. It is kind of funny though that on a thread talking about anti science of liberals, you sure ended up making mistakes about how the science of vaccines actually work.

Donald Trump, Ben Carson, and Michele Bachmann would beg to differ.

And yet, you seem to ignore the string of anti science, celebrities that seem to spout anti science nonsense that are liberal and liberals seem to adore (as well as your scientific ignorance about how vaccines work and are tested). Sorry, but liberals can be anti science too and no amount of denial will make that fact go away.

[lilpixieofterror]

For this reason, up until the late 70s, being anti-abortion was considered to be one of those weird catholic things. Historically it was a common view that the soul was infused into the fetus at the moment of "quickening" - when the woman could first feel the child kicking within her womb - this was based on some of the bible's poetic language and was often judged to be the legal cut-off for abortion.

Do you have any evidence for this or do you just make up assertions and hope nobody calls you on them?

[rogue06]

It's worth noting that the bible doesn't tell us that.

When I was a Christian my view was:
"God is omniscience, so he knows the future, and knows which fetuses are going to be aborted and which aren't. Therefore he presumably doesn't put eternal souls into the ones that are going to be aborted. Otherwise he'd waste an awful lot of souls, since something like ~70% of fetuses are naturally aborted....
Or, if they do get souls: Given that ~70% of fetuses are aborted naturally anyway, God presumably already has some sensible system set up to deal with their souls (eg maybe by recycling those souls into new fetuses, maybe not putting the souls into them until birth etc) and the ~6% of fetuses that are aborted by human action can thus be handled by him in whatever way he handles those that happen naturally. Either way, abortion is presumably not a big deal."

There's not really anything in the bible (without gratuitous stretching of verses and creative interpretation of poetic language) that says an eternal soul is planted at the moment of conception, or that abortion is bad. In fact, there's various commands to kill infants and perform abortions, and instances of God killing infants and performing abortions. For this reason, up until the late 70s, being anti-abortion was considered to be one of those weird catholic things. Historically it was a common view that the soul was infused into the fetus at the moment of "quickening" - when the woman could first feel the child kicking within her womb - this was based on some of the bible's poetic language and was often judged to be the legal cut-off for abortion.

Although at various times different scholars and theologians debated whether or not it constituted murder, from the days of early Christianity abortion was regarded as wrong and sinful and the Protestant Church continued in this tradition. In his commentary on Exodus 21:22, the 16th century Reformation leader John Calvin wrote:

...the unborn, though enclosed in the womb of his mother, is already a human being, and it is an almost monstrous crime to rob it of life which it has not yet begun to enjoy. If it seems more horrible to kill a man in his own house than in a field, because a man's house is his most secure place of refuge, it ought surely to be deemed more atrocious to destroy the unborn in the womb before it has come to light.

Around the same time Martin Luther said

"Surely at such a time (conception), the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed."

A century later the Church of Scotland minister John Wemyss wrote

The Presbyterians here in the U.S. were particularly outspoken about it, at a convention in Pittsburgh in 1869 they issued the following statement:

"We regard the destruction by parents of their offspring, before birth, with abhorrence, as a crime against God and against nature."

And in 1962 and reaffirmed in 1965 they issued following statement:

"The fetus is a human life to be protected by the criminal law from the moment when the ovum is fertilized.... [A]s Christians, we believe that this should not be an individual decision on the part of the physician and couple. The decision should be limited and restrained by the larger society."

The Protestant churches in general continued this opposition to abortion until 1970 when some churches -- ironically including Presbyterian Church (USA) -- started becoming pro-abortion. One, the Southern Baptist Convention, supported abortion in 1971 but reversed that decision in 1980 and are now staunchly pro-life.

[Jedidiah]

It's a religious thing. Chickens don't have an eternal 'soul' implanted in them at the moment of conception that makes them special and gives them dominion over all other creatures. The bible tells us so.

Where does the Bible mention implantation of souls at the moment of conception. I am not familiar with that verse.

[Leonhard]

I think you're being a wee bit optimistic here, at least at the moment. Solar power works well in where I grew up (Southern California), but not so well in places like Alaska or Washington state.

I'll try to find the study done on how on Alaska, but 22% of its power could be supplied from rooftop solar panels. Solar cells still produce quite a bit even when its overcast. Its keeping them from being covered in frost and snow that would be difficult out there. Beyond that there's long distance powerlines.

Likewise, no other power source seems to be able to solve our transportation problems either (batteries have limited range, solar requires lots of surface area, nuclear only is practical on large ocean going ships, and I'm not aware of any real replacement for aircraft).

Batteries, I agree, are still a bit limited compared to a gasoline tank. However its gotten a lot better. As Tesla has shown you can make a good electric car that go quite a distance before requiring a thirty minute recharging. And battery technology is improving. Doing an all electric infrastructure would be possible, and would quite likely be better performance wise in the long run. Electric engines have full torque, unlike piston engines who have max torque only at certain rpms, leading to delayed response.

I agree for long distance air travel you need something with greater battery density than we currently have on the market.

For now at least, we're going to need fossil fuels until we can solve these problems.

Actually if we decided to go all in, we could in principle do the shift now with our current economy. It would just be enormously expensive. I prefer to see it as an industrial change taking place over decades. We should lean in that direction.