Liberals love science - until it proves them wrong.

[seanD]

That's because the topic is fallacious. The pro-science liberal has consistent views. Abortion isn't a scientific issue, it's a philosophical issue. Science supports the liberal position on transperson rights.

I think you've got that completely flipped around. Science supports that life begins at conception. From what I understand, transgenderism is still debatable, yet not at all helped by absurd cases like Caitlyn Jenner.

[Psychic Missile]

I think you've got that completely flipped around. Science supports that life begins at conception. From what I understand, transgenderism is still debatable, yet not at all helped by absurd cases like Caitlyn Jenner.

The abortion issue isn't centered around when life begins. The cause of gender identity disorder is debatable, but the evidence points to transitioning as an appropriate treatment.

[Sparko]

That's because the topic is fallacious. The pro-science liberal has consistent views. Abortion isn't a scientific issue, it's a philosophical issue. Science supports the liberal position on transperson rights.

lol. abortion isn't a science issue because the liberals are inconsistent and hypocritical on whether to support science or not. exactly as the OP states. Liberals ignore science on the topic because it is inconvenient to their agenda.

[Psychic Missile]

lol. abortion isn't a science issue because the liberals are inconsistent and hypocritical on whether to support science or not. exactly as the OP states. Liberals ignore science on the topic because it is inconvenient to their agenda.

The two most common liberal arguments regarding abortion are concerned with personhood and bodily rights, neither of which are a science issue.

[Starlight]

The two most common liberal arguments regarding abortion are concerned with personhood and bodily rights, neither of which are a science issue.

Sparko doesn't understand the difference between science and philosophy.

[Sparko]

The two most common liberal arguments regarding abortion are concerned with personhood and bodily rights, neither of which are a science issue.

exactly my point. They IGNORE the scientific FACT that the fetus is not part of the mother and is a completely separate human being. They claim it is part of the mother, or merely a clump of cells. Well guess what? You are just a clump of cells too. That doesn't make you any less of a human being.

[Sparko]

Sparko doesn't understand the difference between science and philosophy.

actually I do. and that is what I am complaining about. Science is completely ignored and burnt on the altar to philosophy, WHEN it is convenient for the Liberal narrative. And vice versa.

Science is the God of liberalism, except when it is inconvenient.

[Psychic Missile]

exactly my point. They IGNORE the scientific FACT that the fetus is not part of the mother and is a completely separate human being. They claim it is part of the mother, or merely a clump of cells. Well guess what? You are just a clump of cells too. That doesn't make you any less of a human being.

When people call a fetus "a clump of cells", they are typically making the argument that when many, if not most, abortions occur, the fetus lacks the mental and physical capacity to experience pain/distress or that the lack of development disqualifies it from personhood. The former is backed by medical science, the latter is a philosophical argument.

[Sparko]

When people call a fetus "a clump of cells", they are typically making the argument that when many, if not most, abortions occur, the fetus lacks the mental and physical capacity to experience pain/distress or that the lack of development disqualifies it from personhood. The former is backed by medical science, the latter is a philosophical argument.

does it disqualify him from being a human being?

[Psychic Missile]

does it disqualify him from being a human being?

If by human being you mean homo sapiens, of course not. If by human being you mean a legal person, then that's debatable.

[Sparko]

If by human being you mean homo sapiens, of course not. If by human being you mean a legal person, then that's debatable.

Can the law determine that you are not a person? If not, why not?

[fm93]

Thank you, peanut gallery. if you just want to make snide remarks, then leave my thread. I am tired of your constant sniping without any actual contribution to threads.

But...

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post329355

I am saving everything I own to give to the democrats one day. After all, they deserve the fruits of my labor more than I do, right?

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post329584

Big Brother knows best.

[fm93]

In all seriousness, while I disagree with the dichotomy that liberals are necessarily pro-science while conservatives are anti-science, I'm not sure who the author has been interacting with. Literally ever liberal I know believes GMOs are safe. I've never seen any liberal argue that IQ isn't heritable--rather, what I've seen argued is "Trying to justify prejudice against another race by declaring that the entire race is inferior to yours on the basis of IQ is bigotry." And that's absolutely correct, because even if it was the case that literally every single member of one race is inherently less intelligent than every single member of another, that in no way means the first race is inferior in human worth--ESPECIALLY if you believe in a God who has made all human beings in the divine image and shows no favoritism.

And finally, while I'm pro-life myself, the pro-choice argument doesn't deny that fetuses are human beings--it argues that they have not yet developed sentient personhood.

It's certainly wrong for liberals to mount a moral high horse regarding scientific beliefs, and certainly many conservatives are pro-science, but the entire OP and article were both just one big collection of constant sniping at strawmen. Talk about not having any positive contribution.

[Psychic Missile]

Can the law determine that you are not a person? If not, why not?

Yes it can, because personhood is a social construct.

[lilpixieofterror]

When people call a fetus "a clump of cells", they are typically making the argument that when many, if not most, abortions occur, the fetus lacks the mental and physical capacity to experience pain/distress or that the lack of development disqualifies it from personhood. The former is backed by medical science, the latter is a philosophical argument.

Personhood - a made up philosophical belief, with no bases in reality, that was made up to support abortion and deal with the guilt that you're killing your own children.