I have a slight understanding of science, yes. For instance I know that creationism is not a scientific theory.
The Bible didn't help us get to the moon, science did. Nor did the Bible help us reduce infant mortality rates through antibiotics.
Originally posted by Omega VisionI'm not sure what part of his rambling you need a science background to understand but please explain.
So, as expected, no one who has even a slight understanding of science is arguing against this. Good looks 👆
His argument was effectively "fertilized eggs" die every day, thus who cares?
To which I rebutted.
Children die everyday, why is murder illegal?
Originally posted by Henry_Pym
I'm not sure what part of his rambling you need a science background to understand but please explain.His argument was effectively "fertilized eggs" die every day, thus who cares?
To which I rebutted.
Children die everyday, why is murder illegal?
Nonsensical comparison. Child murder is constantly protested and deplored. Fertilised eggs that don't attach happen constantly and plentifully, are well known about, but are completely ignored in a moral sense. No-one has ever or will ever do anything about them because they are not given the 'alive' status that some people- arbitrarily by Nye's logic- give to the one that attaches. This is not an oversight of any sort by the pro-life crowd- this is intentional thinking.
Regardless of your ultimate opinion on abortion, Nye has raised a reasonable logical issue here and straight dismissal is a poor response.
Originally posted by Ushgarakso because you care, it validates my point.
Nonsensical comparison. Child murder is constantly protested and deplored. Fertilised eggs that don't attach happen constantly, are well known about, but are completely ignored in a moral sense. No-one has ever or will ever do anything about them because they are not given the 'alive' status that some people- arbitrarily by Nye's logic- give to the one that attaches.Regardless of your ultimate opinion on abortion, Nye has raised a reasonable logical issue here and straight dismissal is a poor response.
If we care about fetal killings, it is a solid comparison.
I'm not even sure what point you are making there; it seems meaningless. The point is pro-life people don't care about fertilised but un-attached eggs. There's no campaign to save them on the idea that they are living things that it would be murder to kill- and as I say, nor will there ever be.
He is making a reasonable logical point about the criteria being used to define a fetus as alive being completely arbitrary.
Originally posted by Ushgarakok I'll make a more apt analogy.
I'm not even sure what point you are making there; it seems meaningless. The point is pro-life people [b]don't care about fertilised but un-attached eggs. There's no campaign to save them on the idea that they are living things that it would be murder to kill- and as I say, nor will there ever be.He is making a reasonable logical point about the criteria being used to define a fetus as alive being completely arbitrary. [/B]
Because there is incurable diseases, those cure-able should also not be treated.
Or more concise, "bad things happen, so why try?"
Originally posted by Henry_Pym
ok I'll make a more apt analogy.Because there is incurable diseases, those cure-able should also not be treated.
Or more concise, "bad things happen, so why try?"
I can see where you are going, but we constantly try to treat all diseases, even the ones we cannot currently cure. We work towards a world where w can treat everything. We see that as a moral drive.
There's no equivalent for fertilised but unattached eggs. No-one will ever care about them.
Nye's argument is not 'it happens a lot so why care?'. It is in fact rather the opposite of that, although done as parody- "It happens all the time so why aren't you caring?"- aimed at the pro-life crowd. It's purely a point aimed at the argument that fertilisation is the point where life begins- if people really believed that, so his argument goes, they would be trying to save all the fertilised eggs, not just those that attach.
Lacking that logic, the implication is that certain pro-lifers fixate on fertilised-and-attached eggs in a completely arbitrary manner. As Nye is arguing for a scientific basis for abortion- not a surprise considering his background- then arbitrary, uninformed decisions are as bad as it gets for him.