Posted on 03/23/2014 8:19:43 PM PDT by Olog-hai
I do not like abortion and the harm it causes to the mother, the baby and to our culture.
Indeed.
I get very frustrated with people who insist on claiming that they are pro-life, but not only cannot come up with a single scientific justification for it, they reject scientific explanations of why it is wrong.
Religion is fine, it is a great tool for understanding moral issues, but it cannot substitute for scientific observation (any more than morality can be based on scientific observation).
The way I see it, the inflexible zealots who insist that a complete human being exists at the moment of conception and condemn women for using contraceptives are worse for the pro-life movement than any idiot advocating abortion at any time, no reason necessary. I can't begin to count the number of times I have seen a good solid conservative run on a common sense pro-life platform and lose because their opponent's entire campaign consisted of "If you vote for a pro-life candidate, they'll make contraception and sex illegal!" It does not help at all that a tiny but vocal minority claim to be pro-life, while acting more upset over women using contraceptives than they are about real babies being killed.
I am not a leftist, and your attacks against me for supporting a scientifically based pro-life position are absolutely unjustified.
Your understanding of science is, at best, minimal. You have obviously learned some characteristics of cells and read into that a level of sophistication that simply does not exist. Cells survive because thousands of chemical reactions are occurring at any given time. Despite the fact that those cells exhibit certain behaviors, those behaviors are only chemical reactions—cells, even human cells, are utterly unaware.
Are you really intellectually incapable of grasping the fact that just because a cell or tissue of human origin is alive by the basic definition, it is NOT a human being?
Are you really intellectually incapable of grasping the fact that consciousness/personhood resides in the brain, and that without a living, functioning brain, the rest of the body is just a piece of meat? When the brain is dead, the person is dead. I have no idea what you imagine consciousness is, if not a function of activity of the brain—but whatever you imagine is not scientific, and is not the working definition of the thousands of physicians who must pronounce death every day on the basis of cessation of brain function, or of the scientists who study consciousness. I read a paper recently where someone was studying how long a turkey remains aware once it has been decapitated; the goal of such research is to make slaughter as painless as possible.
It is incredible to me that anyone can be as unaware as you of the processes going on in their own brain. Your lack of self-awareness and absence of any true scientific understanding of, well, anything do not make my completely science based explanations inaccurate in any way. If you find a factual inaccuracy, you are free to point out the inaccuracy and provide the correct information (preferably sourced from a reliable medical journal, or easily confirmed by anyone familiar with medical literature). Your inability to factually counter any thing I have stated, while frothing at the mouth and insulting me is a strong indication to me that you have no facts on your side. Your entire claim to be “pro-life” appears to be more a concern about whether women use contraceptives; you have yet to express any concern in this thread about the killing of real babies who actually do have a central nervous system capable of feeling, of being aware, and of knowing their environment.
I am not a leftist, and your attacks against me for supporting a scientifically based pro-life position are absolutely unjustified.
Your understanding of science is, at best, minimal. You have obviously learned some characteristics of cells and read into that a level of sophistication that simply does not exist. Cells survive because thousands of chemical reactions are occurring at any given time. Despite the fact that those cells exhibit certain behaviors, those behaviors are only chemical reactions—cells, even human cells, are utterly unaware.
Are you really intellectually incapable of grasping the fact that just because a cell or tissue of human origin is alive by the basic definition, it is NOT a human being?
Are you really intellectually incapable of grasping the fact that consciousness/personhood resides in the brain, and that without a living, functioning brain, the rest of the body is just a piece of meat? When the brain is dead, the person is dead. I have no idea what you imagine consciousness is, if not a function of activity of the brain—but whatever you imagine is not scientific, and is not the working definition of the thousands of physicians who must pronounce death every day on the basis of cessation of brain function, or of the scientists who study consciousness. I read a paper recently where someone was studying how long a turkey remains aware once it has been decapitated; the goal of such research is to make slaughter as painless as possible.
It is incredible to me that anyone can be as unaware as you of the processes going on in their own brain. Your lack of self-awareness and absence of any true scientific understanding of, well, anything do not make my completely science based explanations inaccurate in any way. If you find a factual inaccuracy, you are free to point out the inaccuracy and provide the correct information (preferably sourced from a reliable medical journal, or easily confirmed by anyone familiar with medical literature). Your inability to factually counter any thing I have stated, while frothing at the mouth and insulting me is a strong indication to me that you have no facts on your side. Your entire claim to be “pro-life” appears to be more a concern about whether women use contraceptives; you have yet to express any concern in this thread about the killing of real babies who actually do have a central nervous system capable of feeling, of being aware, and of knowing their environment.
What you have been dismissing as only 150 undifferentiated cells (the morulla stage of gestational life) is in fact the earliest age in a lifetime begun at conception. If you had the ability to read the little layman's guide to stem cells and cloning which is linked on my profile page, you would know that I am well educated and very knowledgeable in embryology. But you tried to define me as illiterate, just the way the typical alinsky filth try to do when using alinskyesque tactics to try and take over a debate.
Your continuing effort to define a magic moment when somehow a brain turns on and the owner of the brain is magically conscious from then until death is typical of dishonest, lying, progressive dead souls who want to marginalize a portion of life so they can exploit it for utilitarian means.
You tried to bully your way to dominant position with the following bilge: "Are you really intellectually incapable of grasping the fact that consciousness/personhood resides in the brain?" As yet, you have not defined consciousness, and I am absolutely certain that science has not defined 'it' as some state which magically erupts to full expression at a perfectly defined moment. In fact, Heisenberg's uncewrtainty principle tells us that such a perfect moment is not observable. Yet you dead souls want to define a vague moment and diminish to mere undifferentiated status the being in whom consciousness has not yet displayed at your magic moment as yet undefined!
Deceitful progressives masquerading as conservative usually get caught at this juncture because you exhibit not only diabolical lying but magic thinking.
BTW, do you pray to your little god of science that you have created in your twisted diabolical mind? IS the chemistry occurring in your little gray cells the extent of your consciousness, or is there a dimensional reality which exists connected to but not confined to your little chemistry factory?
And finally, diablo;ical liar, you offered the following, which appears to be your modus operandi, albeit offered not even for the embryonic humans being slaughtered for your god science but for turkeys: "... the goal of such research is to make slaughter as painless as possible." Molech must be so proud of you! Bless your little dead heart.
ping-a-ling
Deceitful progressives masquerading as conservative usually get caught at this juncture because you exhibit not only diabolical lying but magic thinking.
Deceit and magical thinking are what passes for science from that one. It's an insult to science and a heresy to life and mind. I asked her if consciousness died when the brain died and I knew she would not answer that question. The answer would expose the contradiction in her logic that she is well aware exists.
Can we disband the FedGov now? Are we done?
Or do some of you still think this mess can be “fixed”?
The “FedGov” is disbanding itself, frankly. It’s the “FedTyranny” we now have to worry about.
I don’t get the contraception argument at all. That can be a challenge with belief systems. I’ve heard the arguments and they can be quite subtle. The degradation of marriage as the means to propagate and build a family is a direct cause of contraception, they say. I don’t see the link at all.
Many pro-family, devout and conservative people use contraceptives, yet fight with all their might against abortion and same sex marriage. I suspect that the degradation of the family has more to do with the liberal monopoly on information via schools and the media (news, film, television, etc.) in the 20th century. Coupled with government policies that punish marriage and families and encourage mothers to work outside the home. There is a paper from the late 60s or early 70s stating that the government must get housewives into the workforce to pay for the social systems in place. Housewives don’t build GDP or pay taxes. They are an economic burden, despite being the center of any successful culture or society.
exDemMom: Religion is fine, it is a great tool for understanding moral issues, but it cannot substitute for scientific observation (any more than morality can be based on scientific observation).
I don’t agree. Some religions are not fine, they are bad and lead to bad outcomes. I am grateful that the United States of America wasn’t founded by Hindus or Buddhists or Muslims. I think it would be a very, very different country. These three religions are not great tools for understanding moral issues. The countries in which they form a majority of the population prove that. They didn’t find American liberty or tolerance. That came by Christian morality only.
I say that Religion supersedes and encompasses science. Science should influence our beliefs, but cannot replace them. Science can perhaps tell me some truth, but true religion encompasses all truth. It is the Left and often the Catholic Church that seems at odds with science. The Left has long used science as a weapon against religion. Science has placed several Catholic beliefs at risk.
Science cannot tell me what is wrong or right or why. Technocracies quickly look like Soviet, Cuban or North Korean governments. Science has its limits. For my part I do not find a threat from science to my belief in God. A careful reading of the Bible shows that evolution could be occurring during the “days” properly translated as eons or time periods. Adam was placed in a garden in Eden in which the actions of the outside world were null. That’s a miracle that doesn’t conflict with the science of evolution.
Have you read Gerald Schroeder? http://www.amazon.com/The-Science-God-Convergence-Scientific/dp/1439129584
If I am deceitful in describing actual physical processes, then I guess all scientists are deceitful. I'm not surprised that you would characterize me that way--it has been my experience that those who are fascinated by pseudoscience often resort to dismissing real science as some sort of big conspiracy and scientists as liars.
BTW, just curious--have you spoken with your mother's physicians about a possible brain transplant, or maybe replacing the diseased tissue with a prosthetic? Surely, she would feel much better if all that Alzheimer's affected tissue were removed. Since, according to you, the brain is completely separate from any consciousness or thought, this should be a perfectly acceptable treatment for Alzheimer's.
Apparently evil is all this poster has in her.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.