Why the Right Wing Rejects Science

Thank you for tacitly admitting that you cannot substantiate your utterly bogus allegation.

Have a nice day!

 

And none of those falsifies the fact that human life begins at conception.

 

They are legally able to do so but that does not change the fact that those who have an abortion terminate a human life.

 

Of COURSE it doesn't change the fact that abortion terminates a human life....who said it did ???????

...and for the thousandths time , that is what abortion is for...that is the reason for abortion.....


Why do you keep on and on and on about it????

 

Mindless obsession to the exclusion of all other facts, reason and logic is a clear sign of being closed off to all but one thing only.

Not hard to guess what that thing is given the specific obsession in this instance.

 

Funny stuff - you are supporting another poster who also realizes that conception is the beginning of human life and abortion terminates a human life.

 

Derideo_Te claims that conception does not result in a human life. The reason for abortion is to terminate a human life.

 

Oh I'm not finished yet. I would really like to know what sort of "fact" you would accept to "prove" that this statement:

"..do you think that ANY argument about when life starts will change women's need to have an abortion "

Is political, rather than scientific?

 

He never said abortion did not terminate a human life.....NO one did...

The post of mine you responded to:

Of COURSE it doesn't change the fact that abortion terminates a human life....who said it did ??????? NO ONE.

...and for the thousandths time , that is what abortion is for...that is the reason for abortion.....


Why do you keep on and on and on about it????

 

It isn't me he's supporting if you're saying I said the beginning of human life is conception.


YOU are twisting the words in every post...very dishonest, untruthful and silly....


It would be stupid to say that "abortion terminates a human life" equals "human life begins at conception".


They are two different things....

 

There are lots of types of people who reject scientific output, but the majority of people who reject the scientific method itself are the post modernists on the left.

Isn't that a more important problem to solve?

 

Ahh, the soft science of the social sciences. Aren't sociology courses more of a lefty thing?

Yes, I do believe they are.

As for rejecting scientific output, all we have to do is look at some of the people who the left won't allow onto their pristine safe ivory tower spaces to see what they think of the output.

Even some of the more well recognized left leaning scientists are quite quick to reject scientific output.

Oppenheimer was accused of being a communist, and not without some justification. He later on became a staunch critic of thermonuclear weapons because of the damage that they are capable of. He was against even trying to develop the technology because of that damage. One of the first tree huggers, I guess.

How did the russkies figure out how to do it so quickly after the manhattan project did? Hmmm....

Then there's Chomsky (a known communist sympathizer and anarchist) who became famous because of his theories on language acquisition - specifically, universal and generative grammar - which is decidedly much more theoretical than the radical behaviorism of Skinner who he threw under the bus on his way to the top in the field of linguistics. Skinner was a real lab rat compared to the pencil pushing pansies who subscribed to the then new field of cognitive science. Since you can't directly observe a cognition, Chomsky headed the charge away from science.

 

“There are no hard distinctions between what is real and what is unreal, nor between what is true and what is false. A thing is not necessarily either true or false; it can be both true and false."

-some liberal "scientist" (I mean playwright)

 

There are five different perspectives. In order to claim that yours is correct - it is you that has to falsify all the others

Moving on though .. supposed that there was some expert consensus that claimed "Human life begins at conception"

How does this impact the abortion debate ?

 

No, it isn't.

Just because a discipline employs the scientific method doesn't make it a Science. Parapsychology also employs the scientific method, but no one would claim it is a Science.

 

He said that life does not start with conception and therefore life is not terminated by abortion. Curiously he is silent on all this ??

 

It is entirely and completely accurate to state that "abortion terminates a human life" and "human life begins at conception". I've been completely consistent on the preceding.

 

Human life begins at conception. Falsify that. And then move on to proving which one of the five or more other human life starting points is correct. Start a new thread on the subject.

 

Your continued "misrepresentation" of what others have posted certainly has destroyed what tiny tiny amount of credibility you had....

















He never said abortion did not terminate a human life.....NO one did...

The post of mine you responded to:

Of COURSE it doesn't change the fact that abortion terminates a human life....who said it did ??????? NO ONE.

...and for the thousandths time , that is what abortion is for...that is the reason for abortion.....


Why do you keep on and on and on about it????

 

Why not let him speak ??

It is important that everyone understand that human life begins at conception and that abortion terminates a human life. Are you suggesting that everyone agrees that abortion terminates a human life ??

 

If you believe two different sentences with different words mean exactly the same thing then there is no help for you....You are being deliberately obtuse because you know you're wrong and just can't admit it....if you can't see that two different sentences with different words mean different things then you are only making your self look so foolish ....



YOU are twisting the words in every post...very dishonest, untruthful and silly....


It would be stupid to say that "abortion terminates a human life" equals "human life begins at conception".



They are two different things....the fact that you can't see the difference or refuse to acknowledge the difference speaks volumes about you and none of it good..

 

OH! NOW you are saying """"human life begins at conception and that abortion terminates a human life""

So you FINALLY admit they are two different things! HA HA! Hope you're as embarrassed as you should be!

 

Life begins at conception and abortion terminates a human life. Very simple and completely consistent. Also very easy to understand and not falsifiable. There is no twisting of words.

 

Those facts have always been separate. Human life begins at conception. Abortion terminates a human life. Therefore any abortion after conception terminates a human life. I've said this from day one. Again very simple statements of fact which can not be falsified.

 

Your reading comprehension shortcoming is not my problem.

Where did FH post that "conception is the beginning of human life"?

Where did I post that abortion does not end a human life?