Science-Technology
See other Science-Technology Articles
Title: Bill Nye’s unscientific tirade on abortion
Source:
Life Site News
URL Source: https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinio ... caba610ac-f3ce8fa0c7-397379915
Published: Sep 28, 2015
Author: James D. Agresti
Post Date: 2015-09-28 23:55:07 by redleghunter
Ping List: *Pro-Life* Subscribe to *Pro-Life*
Keywords: None
Views: 6197
Comments: 47
In a new viral video starring Bill Nye, the famed "Science Guy" declares that laws protecting "unborn people" are "based on ignorance" and reflect a "a deep scientific lack of understanding." He also says that if you support such laws, you "literally or apparently literally don't know what you’re talking about." Nye's video was released during an ongoing battle in Congress over sending taxpayers' money to Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider. Several large media outlets have glowingly covered the video, including the Washington Post, Newsweek, and the Huffington Post. Nye's central argument is that human embryos should not be protected by law, because many of them perish from natural causes before they implant in the womb. Based on this, he claims that if you think life begins at fertilization and is worthy of protection: Moreover, Nye's logic and his use of the phrase "didn't become a human" assume that life does not begin at fertilization, a notion that is contrary to science. The science of biology has revealed that there are four empirical attributes of life (growth, reproduction, metabolism, and response to stimuli), and the science of embryology has shown that all of these are present at fertilization. Furthermore, the sciences of genetics and embryology have proven that the genetic composition of humans is formed during fertilization, and as the textbook Molecular Biology explains, this genetic material is "the very basis of life itself." In accord with these facts, the medical textbook Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects states: "The zygote and early embryo are living human organisms." And an organism, in the words of Webster's College Dictionary, is "any individual life form considered as an entity." Nye also states that opposition to abortion is based on an "interpretation of a book written 5,000 years ago" that makes people "think that when a man and a woman have sexual intercourse they always have a baby." That statement is manifestly false. The Bible says no such thing, and everyone who has ever had repeated sex without birth control knows that a baby does not always result. Furthermore, miscarriages (technically called "spontaneous abortions") are often visibly obvious to those who have suffered them. These are not modern revelations of science but realities that have been obvious since the dawn of mankind. Contrary to Nye's straw man, Biblically-based opposition to abortion is not rooted in unscientific fallacies but in principles about the value and uniqueness of each individual from the moment of conception. Incidentally, these principles are consistent with science. Beyond the scientific facts that show life begins at fertilization, modern science has also revealed that each human embryo is biologically unique and irreplaceable. Poster Comment: As I stated on the other Nye thread. He is a fake science guy. Then whom are you going to sue? Whom are you going to imprison? Every woman who's had a fertilized egg pass through her? Every guy who's sperm has fertilized an egg and then it didn't become a human? Have all these people failed you? That statement is irrelevant to the issue of abortion, just as the statement that "all people eventually die" is irrelevant to the issue of murder. Both of these issues are about people actively ending the lives of others, not nature taking its course.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: redleghunter (#0)
Sounds like that character Mark Steyn is always tweaking, the fake Noble Prize laureate. Non auro, sed ferro, recuperando est patria
Something is wrong with his brain. Someone needs to cut it out of his head to study what went wrong with it.
And go through his face.
True. They die of natural causes. But that doesn't give anyone a license to intervene in that process. Hell, WE are all going to die of natural causes. Does that mean WE shouldn't be protected by law? Can we experiment on the terminally ill because "they're going to die anyways"?
Which makes him a perfect fit the the alternate universe which we now inhabit. Fake president. Fake republic. Fake Government. Orwell was right. "Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD . . . " ~Psalm 33:12a
yeah he's a fake TV scientist . He has his bachelor’s in mechanical engineering . Putting on a lab coat and a bow tie did not change that fact. He isn't thinking it through . A woman has to know she's pregnant to decide to get an abortion. That makes his whole implanting argument mute. The baby is already in the womb implanted . The baby is already releasing the pregnacy hormones in the mom that get identified in the pregnancy tests . The baby has already developed 10,000 times larger than it was at conception in the 1st month of pregnancy. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
I doubt very much he was born that way so he's a self made moron...
Indeed. His argument is flawed. That's why Nye is a fake 'science guy." "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."---Romans 5:6
But his vids make good fodder for the Leftist sheeple. "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."---Romans 5:6
Furthermore, the sciences of genetics and embryology have proven that the genetic composition of humans is formed during fertilization, and as the textbook Molecular Biology explains, this genetic material is "the very basis of life itself." http://www.justfacts.com/aboutus.asp Moreover, if Catholic doctrine is to be forced upon everyone by the authority of the Federal government, then we should just openly recognize the conception argument as an argument to criminalize the morning after pill. If a woman were raped, taking a morning after pill would be considered attempted murder. Abortifacient use after implantation would be treated the same, regardless of a governmental decree about pre-implantation. If eggs fertilized in vitro are test tube babies with full rights of personhood, would it be mandatory that every egg be returned via a turkey baster? If a hundred eggs were collected, fertilized, and kept in cryogenic storage, would the lady have a hundred dependent children for purposes of tax deductions? What is the legal status of the human life created by scientists in petri dish or test tube? How are those rights, if any, to be enforced? After 18 years in cryogenic storage, would they still be minors? Could they sue in federal court, demanding that they be implanted and demanding a constitutional right to be born? Moreover, official church teaching, bearing a nihil obstat and imprimatur, and the infallible teaching of the pope on doctrines of faith and morals, dictates that "any action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act [sexual intercourse], or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" (Humanae Vitae 14). This includes sterilization, condoms and other barrier methods, spermicides, coitus interruptus (withdrawal method), the Pill, and all other such methods. And, "up until 1930, all Protestant denominations agreed with the Catholic Church’s teaching condemning contraception as sinful." Would it be a proper governmental function to ban condoms, barriers, and even withdrawal? I suppose they can make the sale of condoms unlawful but I am unsure what branch of law enforcement will monitor all to catch lawbreakers in the act of withdrawal. There are some areas where the government just does not belong. This is an area for religion and philosophy, not legislation and courts. http://www.catholic.com/tracts/birth-control In 1968, Pope Paul VI issued his landmark encyclical letter Humanae Vitae (Latin, "Human Life"), which reemphasized the Church’s constant teaching that it is always intrinsically wrong to use contraception to prevent new human beings from coming into existence. Contraception is "any action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act [sexual intercourse], or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" (Humanae Vitae 14). This includes sterilization, condoms and other barrier methods, spermicides, coitus interruptus (withdrawal method), the Pill, and all other such methods. The Historic Christian Teaching Few realize that up until 1930, all Protestant denominations agreed with the Catholic Church’s teaching condemning contraception as sinful. At its 1930 Lambeth Conference, the Anglican church, swayed by growing social pressure, announced that contraception would be allowed in some circumstances. Soon the Anglican church completely caved in, allowing contraception across the board. Since then, all other Protestant denominations have followed suit. Today, the Catholic Church alone proclaims the historic Christian position on contraception. Evidence that contraception is in conflict with God’s laws comes from a variety of sources that will be examined in this tract. Nature Contraception is wrong because it’s a deliberate violation of the design God built into the human race, often referred to as "natural law." The natural law purpose of sex is procreation. The pleasure that sexual intercourse provides is an additional blessing from God, intended to offer the possibility of new life while strengthening the bond of intimacy, respect, and love between husband and wife. The loving environment this bond creates is the perfect setting for nurturing children. But sexual pleasure within marriage becomes unnatural, and even harmful to the spouses, when it is used in a way that deliberately excludes the basic purpose of sex, which is procreation. God’s gift of the sex act, along with its pleasure and intimacy, must not be abused by deliberately frustrating its natural end—procreation. Scripture Is contraception a modern invention? Hardly! Birth control has been around for millennia. Scrolls found in Egypt, dating to 1900 B.C., describe ancient methods of birth control that were later practiced in the Roman empire during the apostolic age. Wool that absorbed sperm, poisons that fumigated the uterus, potions, and other methods were used to prevent conception. In some centuries, even condoms were used (though made out of animal skin rather than latex). The Bible mentions at least one form of contraception specifically and condemns it. Coitus interruptus, was used by Onan to avoid fulfilling his duty according to the ancient Jewish law of fathering children for one’s dead brother. "Judah said to Onan, ‘Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.’ But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and he slew him also" (Gen. 38:8–10). The biblical penalty for not giving your brother’s widow children was public humiliation, not death (Deut. 25:7–10). But Onan received death as punishment for his crime. This means his crime was more than simply not fulfilling the duty of a brother-in-law. He lost his life because he violated natural law, as Jewish and Christian commentators have always understood. For this reason, certain forms of contraception have historically been known as "Onanism," after the man who practiced it, just as homosexuality has historically been known as "Sodomy," after the men of Sodom, who practiced that vice (cf. Gen. 19). Contraception was so far outside the biblical mindset and so obviously wrong that it did not need the frequent condemnations other sins did. Scripture condemns the practice when it mentions it. Once a moral principle has been established in the Bible, every possible application of it need not be mentioned. For example, the general principle that theft is wrong was clearly established in Scripture; but there’s no need to provide an exhaustive list of every kind of theft. Similarly, since the principle that contraception is wrong has been established by being condemned when it’s mentioned in the Bible, every particular form of contraception does not need to be dealt with in Scripture in order for us to see that it is condemned. Apostolic Tradition The biblical teaching that birth control is wrong is found even more explicitly among the Church Fathers, who recognized the biblical and natural law principles underlying the condemnation. In A.D. 195, Clement of Alexandria wrote, "Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted" (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2). Hippolytus of Rome wrote in 255 that "on account of their prominent ancestry and great property, the so-called faithful [certain Christian women who had affairs with male servants] want no children from slaves or lowborn commoners, [so] they use drugs of sterility or bind themselves tightly in order to expel a fetus which has already been engendered" (Refutation of All Heresies9:12). Around 307 Lactantius explained that some "complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife" (Divine Institutes 6:20). The First Council of Nicaea, the first ecumenical council and the one that defined Christ’s divinity, declared in 325, "If anyone in sound health has castrated himself, it behooves that such a one, if enrolled among the clergy, should cease [from his ministry], and that from henceforth no such person should be promoted. But, as it is evident that this is said of those who willfully do the thing and presume to castrate themselves, so if any have been made eunuchs by barbarians, or by their masters, and should otherwise be found worthy, such men this canon admits to the clergy" (Canon 1). Augustine wrote in 419, "I am supposing, then, although you are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame. Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility [oral contraceptives]" (Marriage and Concupiscence 1:15:17). The apostolic tradition’s condemnation of contraception is so great that it was followed by Protestants until 1930 and was upheld by all key Protestant Reformers. Martin Luther said, "[T]he exceedingly foul deed of Onan, the basest of wretches . . . is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed. Accordingly, it was a most disgraceful crime. . . . Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore, God punished him." John Calvin said, "The voluntary spilling of semen outside of intercourse between man and woman is a monstrous thing. Deliberately to withdraw from coitus in order that semen may fall on the ground is doubly monstrous. For this is to extinguish the hope of the race and to kill before he is born the hoped-for offspring." John Wesley warned, "Those sins that dishonor the body are very displeasing to God, and the evidence of vile affections. Observe, the thing which he [Onan] did displeased the Lord—and it is to be feared; thousands, especially of single persons, by this very thing, still displease the Lord, and destroy their own souls." (These passages are quoted in Charles D. Provan, The Bible and Birth Control, which contains many quotes by historic Protestant figures who recognize contraception’s evils.) The Magisterium The Church also, fulfilling the role given it by Christ as the identifier and interpreter of apostolic Scripture and apostolic tradition, has constantly condemned contraception as gravely sinful. In Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI stated, "[W]e must once again declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun, and, above all, directly willed and procured abortion, even if for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as licit means of regulating birth. Equally to be excluded, as the teaching authority of the Church has frequently declared, is direct sterilization, whether perpetual or temporary, whether of the man or of the woman. Similarly excluded is every action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" (HV 14). This was reiterated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church: "[E]very action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible is intrinsically evil" (CCC 2370). "Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means . . . for example, direct sterilization or contraception" (CCC 2399). The Church also has affirmed that the illicitness of contraception is an infallible doctrine: "The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable. Contraception is gravely opposed to marital chastity, it is contrary to the good of the transmission of life (the procreative.aspect of matrimony), and to the reciprocal self-giving of the spouses (the unitive.aspect of matrimony); it harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of human life" (Vademecum for Confessors 2:4, Feb. 12, 1997). Human Experience Pope Paul VI predicted grave consequences that would arise from the widespread and unrestrained use of contraception. He warned, "Upright men can even better convince themselves of the solid grounds on which the teaching of the Church in this field is based if they care to reflect upon the consequences of methods of artificially limiting the increase of children. Let them consider, first of all, how wide and easy a road would thus be opened up towards conjugal infidelity and the general lowering of morality. Not much experience is needed in order to know human weakness, and to understand that men—especially the young, who are so vulnerable on this point—have need of encouragement to be faithful to the moral law, so that they must not be offered some easy means of eluding its observance. It is also to be feared that the man, growing used to the employment of anti-conceptive practices, may finally lose respect for the woman and, no longer caring for her physical and psychological equilibrium, may come to the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer as his respected and beloved companion" (HV 17). No one can doubt the fulfillment of these prophetic words. They have all been more than fulfilled in this country as a result of the widespread availability of contraceptives, the "free love" movement that started in the 1960s, and the loose sexual morality that it spawned and that continues to pervade Western culture. Indeed, recent studies reveal a far greater divorce rate in marriages in which contraception is regularly practiced than in those marriages where it is not. Experience, natural law, Scripture, Tradition, and the magisterium, all testify to the moral evil of contraception. Wishful Thinking Ignoring the mountain of evidence, some maintain that the Church considers the use of contraception a matter for each married couple to decide according to their "individual conscience." Yet, nothing could be further from the truth. The Church has always maintained the historic Christian teaching that deliberate acts of contraception are always gravely sinful, which means that it is mortally sinful if done with full knowledge and deliberate consent (CCC 1857). This teaching cannot be changed and has been taught by the Church infallibly. There is no way to deny the fact that the Church has always and everywhere condemned artificial contraception. The matter has already been infallibly decided. The so-called "individual conscience" argument amounts to "individual disobedience." NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors. Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004 IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827 permission to publish this work is hereby granted. +Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004
I always preferred Professor Proton. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0wg0uA79CU Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
The less than 1% argument is way overused. Or do you have data that shows rape has a high conception rate resulting in the millions of abortions each year? Second point before we move on...What did the conceived human life do to be blotted out? Is the conceived human life paying for the sins of the rapist? "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."---Romans 5:6
Why are women storing fertilized eggs in the first place? Why would 100 be collected? If they are being collected for "research" then yes it is immoral. Someone is tampering with the egg and sperm to create a human life with the sole purpose to eventually destroy such life. If a man and woman require invitro fertilization to assist in conception then the purpose is to nurture procreation not destroy the life. "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."---Romans 5:6
After 18 years in cryogenic storage, would they still be minors? Could they sue in federal court, demanding that they be implanted and demanding a constitutional right to be born? This sort of "reasoning" is odd for you. Protecting unborn human life is a Life issue for all Americans. Not just Christians. Again I would offer to you why are mad scientists creating life in a petri dish and then storing them? That's right, for experimentation and eventual harvesting and ultimate destruction. This is the USA not some WWII concentration camp. "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."---Romans 5:6
Ok read all the references. You did not teach me more than I already knew. What's your point? The secular fake science guy invoked bad logic and tried to pass it off as science along with his hideous bow tie. The subject is conception and destroying what has already manifested as human life. You gave me a bunch of references on contraception. That was not the main subject of the Nye video or the Life Site article. What you employed here was the typical distortions the left makes when faced with the FACT human life begins at conception. They scream, "now they will take your rubbers away too!" When that is not the point of either article. But if you want to know what I think, yes the Catholics have the most solid positions on life beginning at conception. They are right. I agree with them as do most Evangelicals. "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."---Romans 5:6
During the early Nineties Bernard Nathanson, the founder of NARAL and the world's leading abortionist, shocked both the pro-abortionist and pro-life movements with a radical change of heart and mind. Nathanson had performed over 100,000 abortions, and he stated, "There can no longer be any doubt that the unborn child is in every sense scientifically a human being as a full grown adult." That observation brought Nathanson to proclaim that abortion is truly evil.and that Christianity is true. Error, indeed, is never set forth in its naked deformity, lest, being thus exposed, it should at once be detected. But it is craftily decked out in an attractive dress, so as by its outward form, to make it appear to the inexperienced … more true than truth itself—Irenaeus, Against Heresies
I referenced Nathanson ,and other leading lefty thinkers /pro-death advocates on the other post about Bill the Fraud . "I think we have deluded ourselves into believing that people don't know that abortion is killing. So any pretense that abortion is not killing is a signal of our ambivalence, a signal that we cannot say yes, it kills a fetus." ( Faye Wattleton ,President of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, from 1978 to 1992) Clinging to a rhetoric about abortion in which there is no life and no death, we entangle our beliefs in a series of self-delusions, fibs and evasions. And we risk becoming precisely what our critics charge us with being: callous, selfish and casually destructive men and women who share a cheapened view of human life...we need to contextualize the fight to defend abortion rights within a moral framework that admits that the death of a fetus is a real death" (Naomi Wolf, feminist author and abortion supporter) "It is possible to give ‘human being’ a precise meaning. We can use it as equivalent to ‘member of the species Homo sapiens’. Whether a being is a member of a given species is something that can be determined scientifically, by an examination of the nature of the chromosomes in the cells of living organisms. In this sense there is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and eggs is a human being." (Peter Singer, 'philosopher' and abortion advocate in his book 'Practical Ethics') "There is simply no doubt that even the early embryo is a human being. All its genetic coding and all its features are indisputably human. As to being, there is no doubt that it exists, is alive, is self-directed, and is not the the same being as the mother–and is therefore a unified whole." (Bernard Nathanson co- founded of NARAL) Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
I had the pleasure of personally hearing Nathanson speak in Kansas City.
Error, indeed, is never set forth in its naked deformity, lest, being thus exposed, it should at once be detected. But it is craftily decked out in an attractive dress, so as by its outward form, to make it appear to the inexperienced … more true than truth itself—Irenaeus, Against Heresies
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0wg0uA79CU LOL forgot about that:) Thanks. "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."---Romans 5:6
The authority of the Federal government is sought to enforce a religious moral position preventing the use of an abortifacient before it is known or knowable that any egg has been fertilized. You would criminalize an abortifacient on the basis that a potential lifeform might exist. You would invoke the power of the federal government to protect the rights of the rapist over the rights of the raped woman. Based on certain religious morality, you have a solid case. It is logical. It is accepted by a tiny minority of people and it is a position having no chance of seeking political success at this time. Nor does it have any legal basis. There is no knowledge of whether there is a zygote or not at the earliest stage. At the time of conception, it remains a single cell. This possible single cell has no rights to invoke under federal law. The truth is that not even many Roman Catholics abide by the more extreme doctrines of the Catholic faith, such as the prohibition of all forms of contraception, including condoms, barriers, and even withdrawal. There is nothing preventing those who choose to do so, to abide by this religious teaching. There is also nothing to justify invoking the authority of the federal government to force this particular religious belief on everyone.
After 18 years in cryogenic storage, would they still be minors? Could they sue in federal court, demanding that they be implanted and demanding a constitutional right to be born? This sort of "reasoning" is odd for you. Protecting unborn human life is a Life issue for all Americans. Not just Christians. Again I would offer to you why are mad scientists creating life in a petri dish and then storing them? That's right, for experimentation and eventual harvesting and ultimate destruction. This is the USA not some WWII concentration camp. This sort of "reasoning" is odd for you. I appear to have posed legal questions which have no answer, so pivot to concentration camps. Protecting the unborn is addressed in Roe v. Wade. Some geniuses decided it would be a good idea to have the U.S. Supreme Court decide the issue and they, and all the rest of America, got their wish. Those in the minority who were dissatisfied with that federal solution, now seek another absurd solution where a minority prevails in having the U.S. Supreme Court impose said minority opinion on the majority, presumably because they fervently believe that is the right thing to do. Protecting unborn human life was not a federal issue when the Constititution was adopted or amended. As for IVF, some folks have difficulty conceiving and desire children. Mad scientists, as you call them, harvest eggs and sperm, fertilize eggs outside the woman's body, and then insert the fertilized egg in the mother. The happy parents shed tears of joy. Of course, there are other variations where, for example, a same sex couple or infertile couple make use of a sperm donor or surrogate mother. In any case, there comes to exist, a fertilized human egg outside the human body. Perhaps multiple eggs get fertilized. Is there a moral obligation to implant them all, or up to eight resulting in Octomom? If the unimplanted egg in the mother's body had the full rights of personhood, what about the unimplanted eggs in a petri dish? When the law is inserted into such topics, one cannot simply ignore unintended consequences that are absolutely certain to arise. If the fertilized egg in the petri dish is the Plaintiff, who is the defendant? How does a court resolve the issue?
What you employed here was the typical distortions the left makes when faced with the FACT human life begins at conception. They scream, "now they will take your rubbers away too!" When that is not the point of either article. But if you want to know what I think, yes the Catholics have the most solid positions on life beginning at conception. They are right. I agree with them as do most Evangelicals. And yet, you are completely flustered when confronted with the obvious that numerous eggs are fertilized in vitro and would presumably have the same rights to personhood you claim for the identical single-cell occurring naturally within the human body. This is in no way a theoretical problem. Lots of such eggs are fertilized. They already exist. The claimed FACT that human life begins at conception, and has all the rights of personhood at conception, a single-cell state, is not a generally accepted position, even when emphasized in capitals. My major objection is to the enforcement of this, or the enforcement of an opposing majority moral position, by the federal government. I am sure that many people philosophically agree with Catholic doctrine regarding contraception. The typical family size in America (and Europe) strongly suggests the primary means of contraception is not the rhythm method.
Abortifacients destroy the embryo. Human life has started already. No longer just a religious moral issue. It is now premeditated taking of a human life. We cannot escape the facts of modern science. The only haven for those who deny the scientific fact of human life beginning at conception is to arbitrarily deem what human life is important and what is allowed to be discarded. History has loads of examples of such practices. "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."---Romans 5:6
You can make the same argument for late term abortion. What in the womb life can hire a civil rights lawyer? Does an embryo have human DNA? The answer is yes. Human life has started. "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."---Romans 5:6
Majority, minority loses meaning when the human life in question cannot defend him or herself. No matter the semantics, science confirms an embryo has human DNA. It's a human life. There's no wiggling out of that. So we either protect that life which is a minority who cannot defend themselves or we arbitrarily "play God" and define life. SCOTUS seems to have this supreme being deal down. "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."---Romans 5:6
Why are we putting fertilized eggs in petri dish in the first place. If what is put in the dish has human DNA it's a human. So the real question is why are we handling human life in such a manner? "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."---Romans 5:6
Our laws are based on moral principles. It is a moral principle to not murder. It is a moral principle to not steal. It was also a principle among our founders to protect the rights of the minority. Are we truly a nation that litigates the validity of protecting human life which cannot defend itself? Should not even be debated. If we are a nation so heartless as to ignore the scientific facts of human life, then we have become soulless minions touting a piece of paper as orthodoxy. "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."---Romans 5:6
www.biofortified.org/2015...-science-guy-and-gmos-oh- my/">http://www.biofortified.org/2015...ience-guy-and-gmos-oh-my/ Bill Nye was against GMOs before he was for it. He wrote an entire screed about how evil they were and then....oopsie! He shouldn't be taken seriously by anyone except the Willie Greens of the world.
Flustered no. The original purpose of in vitro fertilization was to help infertile couples have a child. The embryo is supposed to be implanted. Not put in cold storage for experimentation. The same monsters who got this idea of experimenting with embryos "inspired" the monsters cutting up fully formed babies for research. We are where we are because the Supreme court decided they were the supreme being. "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."---Romans 5:6
We always were this: Indian genocides and broken treaties, slavery and segregation, wars of choice in Asia. And now abortion, killing our own. Politics and devotion to the state drop away within the perimeter fence of the Christian tribe. Our pagan state is evil, always was, always will be. We shall not expend our energy trying to turn a sow's ear into a silk purse. The garden we have to cultivate is closer to home, and as we all do it, the state ceases to have significance. Eventually we will be so numerous that we can take control of it and largely end it, and use what remains of it to suppress the murderers.
At the time of conception, and for days thereafter, there is no embryo. The embryo stage beings with implantation. You assume the destruction before one could exist, and presume the existence of a fertilized egg when such existence is unknown and unknowable. One cannot escape that this is a religious moral issue. Present it to an atheist as a non-religious issue.
I can make the argument for the pre-implantation stage, i.e. pre-embryonic stage, that the existence of a fertilized egg is unknown. How you deny conception too place with a late term abortion is a mystery. That big bump is usually a dead giveaway.
If what is put in the dish has human DNA it's a human. So the real question is why are we handling human life in such a manner? To enable persons who cannot have babies without scientific assistance, to have babies. To the best of my knowledge it is legal in all fifty states. I am unaware of any law or court opinion that has ever held that such fertilized egg has the rights of a person. That you state it to be a human life does not mean it has ever been so considered by the U.S. government, or most people.
It is a moral principle to not murder. It is a moral principle to not steal. It was also a principle among our founders to protect the rights of the minority. Our laws were based upon the English common law. The United States has no moral courts or ecclesiastical courts. If we are a nation so heartless as to ignore the scientific facts of human life, then we have become soulless minions touting a piece of paper as orthodoxy. Not much. The issue was decided in 1973. There remains no scientific evidence of the existence of a soul. The Courts have never recognized any god as the one and only divine god. The issue should not be debated federally as the people never delegated authority to the federal government to cram one religious belief down the throats of all. It is not a function of government to force your beliefs upon others.
Tell that to A K A Stone.
The embryo is supposed to be implanted. This assumes "the" fertilized egg, singular. Generally, multiple eggs are fertilized and delivered. In the case of octomom, eight eggs implanted themselves and became babies. Not all eggs that implant survive to birth. If the clinic fertilizes an egg and the mother dies, becomes ill, or just changes her mind, what becomes of the fertilized egg which you chose to imbue with all the rights of personhood? Is throwing it out murder? Do you support forceable delivery into the mother's body? What is the clinic supposed to do with it? Who said anything about experimentation? One of a couple needs an operation which will render him or her infertile. Eggs or sperm are preserved for future use. In a real case, the couple has split up and one want the stuff in storage to be destroyed according to an agreement, and the other opposes. Courts below the Supreme Court found jurisdiction to hear the case, and parties argued there was jurisdiction because they knew they lacked popular support to obtain an amendment to the Constitution. Opposition want the same court to continue to claim jurisdiction, continue to play god, and they just want their judicial god to render a different decision.
We have occasional disagreements about government authority and whether some power or other has been usurped and rightfully belongs with the States. As I noted with alcohol, the State can devolve power to counties. We have wet and dry counties that co-exist.
Sure. I would ask the atheist at what point from conception to birth we can determine human DNA. Then I would ask the philosopher if he or she were ever a fertilized egg. Then I would ask a lawyer for the definition of premeditated murder. In all our exchanges, other than my tag line, I quoted neither Scriptures nor catechism. I could be accused of pointing out the current science of conception and the philosophical approach to the origins of life for human beings. But here's the rub. Atheists have no reason to consider the timing of life. They can ignore the DNA data, ignore that human life has value before birth. Why? Because to the average atheist there are no moral absolutes. "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."---Romans 5:6
Not so much a give away. If the intent is to destroy what has already started as human life then yes that is an informed decision. Premeditated termination of life. Loads happens within the first 90 minutes of conception: Within 40 minutes there is DNA synthesis. Your argument, if I am correct is it is not human life until the perilous journey to uterine implantation? And that any methods used, consciously, to prevent implantation is not the taking of human life? And as Nye hints at, this is ok because many of the packages travelling towards the uterus naturally do not implant? If I got it right let me know. If I did, then such an approach is akin to saying refugees travelled on a perilous road to a refugee camp and many of them perished due to lack of food and water. That would be the natural perishing Nye is talking about. But in the case you are stating, some enemy force destroys the refugee camp before the natural survivors get there. When they arrive they starve to death or die of exposure. So in the one case the refugees face a natural threat. In the second case someone is purposely trying to get rid of the refugees by cutting off their sanctuary. "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."---Romans 5:6
Well the SCOTUS did. They recognized themselves as gods. In 1973 they determined what is and what is not life. They "played God." And they just again did it with marriage. So please don't tell me our courts don't dabble in the divine. They did it at least twice. Our Constitution and laws were meant for a moral people. Some dead white guy said that over 200 years ago. "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."---Romans 5:6
Comments (41 - 47) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestAs I stated on the other Nye thread. He is a fake science guy.
#2. To: redleghunter (#0)
#3. To: A K A Stone (#2)
"Something is wrong with his brain. Someone needs to cut it out of his head to study what went wrong with it."
#4. To: redleghunter (#0)
"Nye's central argument is that human embryos should not be protected by law, because many of them perish from natural causes before they implant in the womb."
#5. To: redleghunter (#0)
He is a fake science guy.
#6. To: nativist nationalist, redleghunter, A K Stone, mister white, Rufus T Firefly (#1)
#7. To: A K A Stone (#2)
#8. To: misterwhite (#4)
Can we experiment on the terminally ill because "they're going to die anyways"?
#9. To: tomder55 (#6)
He isn't thinking it through . A woman has to know she's pregnant to decide to get an abortion. That makes his whole implanting argument mute. The baby is already in the womb implanted . The baby is already releasing the pregnacy hormones in the mom that get identified in the pregnancy tests . The baby has already developed 10,000 times larger than it was at conception in the 1st month of pregnancy.
#10. To: redleghunter (#0)
Moreover, Nye's logic and his use of the phrase "didn't become a human" assume that life does not begin at fertilization, a notion that is contrary to science. The science of biology has revealed that there are four empirical attributes of life (growth, reproduction, metabolism, and response to stimuli), and the science of embryology has shown that all of these are present at fertilization.
James D. Agresti, the president and primary researcher, holds a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering from Brown University and has worked as a designer of jet engine components and systems, a technical sales professional, and chief engineer of a firm that customizes helicopters. He is also the author of Rational Conclusions, a meticulously researched book evidencing factual support for the Bible across a broad array of academic disciplines.
Birth Control
#11. To: redleghunter (#9)
#12. To: nolu chan, Vicomte13 (#10)
Moreover, if Catholic doctrine is to be forced upon everyone by the authority of the Federal government, then we should just openly recognize the conception argument as an argument to criminalize the morning after pill. If a woman were raped, taking a morning after pill would be considered attempted murder. Abortifacient use after implantation would be treated the same, regardless of a governmental decree about pre-implantation.
#13. To: nolu chan, Vicomte13 (#10)
If eggs fertilized in vitro are test tube babies with full rights of personhood, would it be mandatory that every egg be returned via a turkey baster? If a hundred eggs were collected, fertilized, and kept in cryogenic storage, would the lady have a hundred dependent children for purposes of tax deductions?
#14. To: nolu chan, Vicomte13 (#10)
What is the legal status of the human life created by scientists in petri dish or test tube? How are those rights, if any, to be enforced?
#15. To: nolu chan, Vicomte13 (#10)
#16. To: redleghunter, ALL (#0)
Contrary to Nye's straw man, Biblically-based opposition to abortion is not rooted in unscientific fallacies but in principles about the value and uniqueness of each individual from the moment of conception. Incidentally, these principles are consistent with science. Beyond the scientific facts that show life begins at fertilization, modern science has also revealed that each human embryo is biologically unique and irreplaceable.
#17. To: GarySpFC, redleghunter, all (#16)
During the early Nineties Bernard Nathanson, the founder of NARAL and the world's leading abortionist, shocked both the pro-abortionist and pro-life movements with a radical change of heart and mind. Nathanson had performed over 100,000 abortions, and he stated, "There can no longer be any doubt that the unborn child is in every sense scientifically a human being as a full grown adult." That observation brought Nathanson to proclaim that abortion is truly evil.and that Christianity is true
#18. To: tomder55 (#17)
#19. To: tomder55 (#11)
I always preferred Professor Proton.
#20. To: redleghunter (#12)
The less than 1% argument is way overused. Or do you have data that shows rape has a high conception rate resulting in the millions of abortions each year?
What did the conceived human life do to be blotted out? Is the conceived human life paying for the sins of the rapist?
#21. To: redleghunter (#14)
What is the legal status of the human life created by scientists in petri dish or test tube? How are those rights, if any, to be enforced?
#22. To: redleghunter (#15)
The subject is conception and destroying what has already manifested as human life. You gave me a bunch of references on contraception. That was not the main subject of the Nye video or the Life Site article.
The subject is conception and destroying what has already manifested as human life.
#23. To: nolu chan, Vicomte13 (#20)
The authority of the Federal government is sought to enforce a religious moral position preventing the use of an abortifacient before it is known or knowable that any egg has been fertilized.
#24. To: nolu chan (#20)
There is no knowledge of whether there is a zygote or not at the earliest stage. At the time of conception, it remains a single cell. This possible single cell has no rights to invoke under federal law.
#25. To: nolu chan (#21)
Those in the minority who were dissatisfied with that federal solution, now seek another absurd solution where a minority prevails in having the U.S. Supreme Court impose said minority opinion on the majority, presumably because they fervently believe that is the right thing to do.
#26. To: nolu chan (#21)
If the fertilized egg in the petri dish is the Plaintiff, who is the defendant? How does a court resolve the issue?
#27. To: nolu chan, Vicomte13 (#22)
My major objection is to the enforcement of this, or the enforcement of an opposing majority moral position, by the federal government.
#28. To: nolu chan, Willie Green (#10)
(Edited)
#29. To: nolu chan (#22)
And yet, you are completely flustered when confronted with the obvious that numerous eggs are fertilized in vitro and would presumably have the same rights to personhood you claim for the identical single-cell occurring naturally within the human body. This is in no way a theoretical problem. Lots of such eggs are fertilized. They already exist.
#30. To: redleghunter (#27)
If we are a nation so heartless as to ignore the scientific facts of human life, then we have become soulless minions touting a piece of paper as orthodoxy.
#31. To: redleghunter (#23)
Abortifacients destroy the embryo. Human life has started already.
#32. To: redleghunter (#24)
You can make the same argument for late term abortion.
#33. To: redleghunter (#26)
Why are we putting fertilized eggs in petri dish in the first place.
#34. To: redleghunter (#27)
Our laws are based on moral principles.
Are we truly a nation that litigates the validity of protecting human life which cannot defend itself? Should not even be debated.
#35. To: nolu chan (#34)
It is not a function of government to force your beliefs upon others.
#36. To: redleghunter (#29)
The original purpose of in vitro fertilization was to help infertile couples have a child.
Not put in cold storage for experimentation. The same monsters who got this idea of experimenting with embryos "inspired" the monsters cutting up fully formed babies for research.
We are where we are because the Supreme court decided they were the supreme being.
#37. To: Fred Mertz (#35)
Tell that to A K A Stone.
#38. To: nolu chan, Vicomte13 (#31)
Present it to an atheist as a non-religious issue.
#39. To: nolu chan, Vicomte13 (#32)
I can make the argument for the pre-implantation stage, i.e. pre-embryonic stage, that the existence of a fertilized egg is unknown. How you deny conception too place with a late term abortion is a mystery. That big bump is usually a dead giveaway.
#40. To: nolu chan (#34)
The Courts have never recognized any god as the one and only divine god
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]