Stupor Tuesday results

[tomdalton22]

I was wondering the same about you liberal types, particularly those who lean a bit more center/right on fiscal issues...

come on...it's simple. Just tax the shit out of the rich, middle class and businesses and give it to poor people. Big government is the answer to all fiscal issues.

 

[Michchamp]

come on...it's simple. Just tax the shit out of the rich, middle class and businesses and give it to poor people. Big government is the answer to all fiscal issues.

you forgot to mention the best part of the plan: ...and punch TomDulton in the balls repeatedly.

 

[tomdalton22]

you forgot to mention the best part of the plan: ...and punch TomDulton in the balls repeatedly.

good one

 

[sggatecl]

I was wondering the same about you liberal types, particularly those who lean a bit more center/right on fiscal issues...

While I don't full agree with the right's fiscal stance most of the time, it's less egregious than the pro religion, pro birth, anti gay, fuck net neutrality, etc bullshit I see from the left in my eyes.

But you're right, if Dems came to the middle a bit more on economics, the GOP would be doomed. I can't argue with that.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Quite a statement by Mitt Romney just now.

 

[Spartanmack]

While I don't full agree with the right's fiscal stance most of the time, it's less egregious than the pro religion, pro birth, anti gay, fuck net neutrality, etc bullshit I see from the left in my eyes.

But you're right, if Dems came to the middle a bit more on economics, the GOP would be doomed. I can't argue with that.

Pro birth - that's an interesting way to put it and one that might make the left think about what they actually support - the death of innocent human babies.

 

[sggatecl]

Pro birth - that's an interesting way to put it and one that might make the left think about what they actually support - the death of innocent human babies.

The Duggers appreciate your support!

 

[Spartanmack]

The Duggers appreciate your support!

Maybe they do, just as people who murder the most innocent of human beings - defenseless unborn babies - appreciate yours. But I'm not an evangelical Christian and I'm not pro life because of my religion - I defend life because of science and morality. Science tells us it's human life from conception and my morality says it's wrong to kill innocent defenseless humans.

 

[Thumb]

Maybe they do, just as people who murder the most innocent of human beings - defenseless unborn babies - appreciate yours. But I'm not an evangelical Christian and I'm not pro life because of my religion - I defend life because of science and morality. Science tells us it's human life from conception and my morality says it's wrong to kill innocent defenseless humans.

No, it doesn't.

At conception it's simply cells dividing. The point at which it gains consciousness/awareness is unknown. I don't have a problem with people who are pro-life, if that's their personal belief then fine, but don't try to interject science in to your argument. You have a moral issue with abortion, why is that not enough?

 

[Spartanmack]

No, it doesn't.

At conception it's simply cells dividing. The point at which it gains consciousness/awareness is unknown. I don't have a problem with people who are pro-life, if that's their personal belief then fine, but don't try to interject science in to your argument. You have a moral issue with abortion, why is that not enough?

wrong, it does. At conception the zygote has it's own unique human DNA. It's a living organism that never develops into anything other than a human being. And within 3 weeks, before most women even know they are pregnant, the developing human has a detectable heartbeat. I do have a moral issue with abortion and I have science on my side as well.

 

[Michchamp]

wait wait wait, so now republitards care about science?

when did that start?

 

[sggatecl]

wait wait wait, so now republitards care about science?

when did that start?

When they think (incorrectly) that it fits their narrative and agenda.

 

[Gulo Blue]

wait wait wait, so now republitards care about science?

when did that start?

I hate that this is a thing.

 

[Gulo Blue]

No, it doesn't.

At conception it's simply cells dividing. The point at which it gains consciousness/awareness is unknown. I don't have a problem with people who are pro-life, if that's their personal belief then fine, but don't try to interject science in to your argument. You have a moral issue with abortion, why is that not enough?

Not knowing when and what causes consciousness is not a good argument for declaring something not human. Your first sentence, "it's simply cells dividing", implies there's nothing there we don't know about. (That's not some technicality; that's the point of that sentence, making that implication.) That's not a scientific statement. It's an implied conclusion based on no testable thing.

But let's keep going down this path anyway. If there were a scientific argument about when consciousness starts, would you be against aborting after that point?

 

[Thumb]

Not knowing when and what causes consciousness is not a good argument for declaring something not human. Your first sentence, "it's simply cells dividing", implies there's nothing there we don't know about. (That's not some technicality; that's the point of that sentence, making that implication.) That's not a scientific statement. It's an implied conclusion based on no testable thing.

But let's keep going down this path anyway. If there were a scientific argument about when consciousness starts, would you be against aborting after that point?

I'm not arguing the "human" bit. Sparty said science tells us it's life at conception, I'm simply arguing it doesn't say that. Not definitively anyways.

And my "simply cells dividing" was not inferring anything other than what I said. Once the sperm and egg join to make a single cell zygote, the cells begin to divide but not for a day or two. Sparty also said there was a detectable heartbeat in 3 weeks, though I have read 3 articles that claim the heart and brain don't begin to develop until the 5th week, so I wonder whats beating and where it's sending blood?

As far as the last part of your post, I'm not really going to get in to this argument. I don't like abortion, I think it should be a last resort; not a get out of jail free card that many use it as. But I also don't believe we have the right to choose for someone else what happens to their body. So I'm pro-choice, not to be confused (as it so often is) with pro-abortion.

I replied to him simply because he was using the name of science to argue when life begins, which is not scientifically proven. It's just interpretation of what the definition of life is, etc. Look at the flip side for a moment, no matter how much scientific data the right views on global warming, they don't believe in it either. They argue that science has not proven it, it's simply being interpreted that way.

 

[Spartanmack]

I hate that this is a thing.

When they think (incorrectly) that it fits their narrative and agenda.

It's not a thing, it's leftist propoganda - to them every Republican is a science denying evangelical Christian. It's nonsense. And it's funny that lefties make accusations like sggatecl's, when they're the ones who present arguments based on "consensus" from a kabal of scientists manipulating data and chasing research $, as irrefutable science. Consensus is not part of the scientific method and consensus doesn't "settle" anything. Sorry to burst your bubble, but it's the left who manipulate science when it suits their agenda and ignores it when it doesn't. It's agenda driven, a la carte science for the left. Party of science indeed.

 

[Spartanmack]

I'm not arguing the "human" bit. Sparty said science tells us it's life at conception, I'm simply arguing it doesn't say that. Not definitively anyways.

And my "simply cells dividing" was not inferring anything other than what I said. Once the sperm and egg join to make a single cell zygote, the cells begin to divide but not for a day or two. Sparty also said there was a detectable heartbeat in 3 weeks, though I have read 3 articles that claim the heart and brain don't begin to develop until the 5th week, so I wonder whats beating and where it's sending blood?

As far as the last part of your post, I'm not really going to get in to this argument. I don't like abortion, I think it should be a last resort; not a get out of jail free card that many use it as. But I also don't believe we have the right to choose for someone else what happens to their body. So I'm pro-choice, not to be confused (as it so often is) with pro-abortion.

I replied to him simply because he was using the name of science to argue when life begins, which is not scientifically proven. It's just interpretation of what the definition of life is, etc. Look at the flip side for a moment, no matter how much scientific data the right views on global warming, they don't believe in it either. They argue that science has not proven it, it's simply being interpreted that way.

I believe it is proven. It does say it's life - it's a living organism at conception and it's uniquely human.

And are you sure those articles weren't talking about the 5th week of pregnancy which is roughly the 3rd week since fertilization? Doctors peg pregnancies as of the last day of a woman's previous menstrual cycle, not actual fertilization, which is typically mid-cycle. Anyway, I'm going from memory and you could be right thumby so I'll just give you the extra 2 weeks because they aren't important - the point is, there is a heartbeat before a woman can even tell she is pregnant. She may suspect she's pregnant because she's late but she can't tell without a test.

 

[Gulo Blue]

It's not a thing, it's leftist propoganda - to them every Republican is a science denying evangelical Christian. It's nonsense.

No...I think it's a big deal. It shouldn't be a thing. But somehow we got to a point where republicans have to downplay their belief in man impacting climate change. Every republican isn't a science denying evangelical Christian, but the science deniers have enough clout to make the stereotype stick and most republicans won't challenge it the way it needs to be challenged, by going after the republicans that are wrong.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I'm not arguing the "human" bit. Sparty said science tells us it's life at conception, I'm simply arguing it doesn't say that. Not definitively anyways.

That's fair. Of course it's human and not dead, but that's not what people are getting at anyway.

 

[TheVictors]

Been a while since a thread went all Roe V Wade ...