Bill Nye to Anti-Abortionists: "You Literally Don't Know What You're Talking About"

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Ah. Well, it's not.

So you're open to the idea that life [a human sentient life] could begin after conception?

Originally posted by Robtard
So you're open to the idea that life [a human sentient life] could begin after conception?

I'm open to scientific literature that defines what life is and going from there.

And sentience does not determine life. Otherwise, the SCIENTISTS from NASA would look pretty silly being elated at "possible life on Mars" when such life would possibly have been single celled organisms,

Originally posted by Nibedicus

And sentience does not determine life. Otherwise, the SCIENTISTS from NASA would look pretty silly being elated at "possible life on Mars" when such life would possibly have been single celled organisms,

what if "life" does not have a single simple definition for that very reason?

It's the reason I specifically denoted "human sentient life", as to not start arguing over the rights of sperm and such.

But it seems we're there. So then, why aren't you angry over all those "lives" you've murdered into your sheets at night?

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
what if "life" does not have a single simple definition for that very reason?

From what I know, life ISN'T a simple single definition, but a complex list of criteria that needs to be met in order to classify something as "life". From what I know, it is not even COMPLETELY agreed upon yet in the scientific community (correct me if I am wrong, of course, I'm not an expert).

Here's what I got from NASA, tho: http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/starsgalaxies/life%27s_working_definition.html

Living things tend to be complex and highly organized. They have the ability to take in energy from the environment and transform it for growth and reproduction. Organisms tend toward homeostasis: an equilibrium of parameters that define their internal environment. Living creatures respond, and their stimulation fosters a reaction-like motion, recoil, and in advanced forms, learning. Life is reproductive, as some kind of copying is needed for evolution to take hold through a population's mutation and natural selection. To grow and develop, living creatures need foremost to be consumers, since growth includes changing biomass, creating new individuals, and the shedding of waste.

To qualify as a living thing, a creature must meet some variation for all these criteria.

Originally posted by Robtard
It's the reason I specifically denoted "human sentient life", as to not start arguing over the rights of sperm and such.

But it seems we're there. So then, why aren't you angry over all those "lives" you've murdered into your sheets at night?

If life begins at conception, were those conceived?

It's pretty clear that your definition of human life is a "fertilized egg", which comes full circle back to the topic. Why no outcry for the detached fertilized eggs?

Originally posted by Robtard
It's pretty clear that your definition of human life is a "fertilized egg", which comes full circle back to the topic. Why no outcry for the detached fertilized eggs?

Originally posted by Nibedicus
From what I know, life ISN'T a simple single definition, but a complex list of criteria that needs to be met in order to classify something as "life". From what I know, it is not even COMPLETELY agreed upon yet in the scientific community (correct me if I am wrong, of course, I'm not an expert).

Here's what I got from NASA, tho: http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/starsgalaxies/life%27s_working_definition.html

Living things tend to be complex and highly organized. They have the ability to take in energy from the environment and transform it for growth and reproduction. Organisms tend toward homeostasis: an equilibrium of parameters that define their internal environment. Living creatures respond, and their stimulation fosters a reaction-like motion, recoil, and in advanced forms, learning. Life is reproductive, as some kind of copying is needed for evolution to take hold through a population's mutation and natural selection. To grow and develop, living creatures need foremost to be consumers, since growth includes changing biomass, creating new individuals, and the shedding of waste.

To qualify as a living thing, a creature must meet some variation for all these criteria.

i think it's safe to assume that your definition of 'life' as it applies to this topic is not so generalized as nasa's, just as i'm sure that bacteria and viruses also deserve a place within one of those definitions for 'life'. it's just best for everyone that we keep it that way, lest we equate a human being to an apple tree to chicken pox, or worse yet: a single embryonic cell to a baby.

Originally posted by long pig
Since there's no outcry for one bad thing, there should be no outcry for any bad things!

They're the same thing, "fertilized eggs". Try and follow along. kthxbai

Originally posted by Robtard
It's pretty clear that your definition of human life is a "fertilized egg", which comes full circle back to the topic. Why no outcry for the detached fertilized eggs?

Why no real outcry for the kids dying in Africa from atrocities and starvation as we speak?

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
i think it's safe to assume that your definition of 'life' as it applies to this topic is not so generalized as nasa's, just as i'm sure that bacteria and viruses also deserve a place within one of those definitions for 'life'. it's just best for everyone that we keep it that way, lest we equate a human being to an apple tree to chicken pox, or worse yet: a single embryonic cell to a baby.

Except that a tree or virus or apple does not have human DNA.

A fetus has human DNA and is alive by definition. Humsn sperm or an unfertilized egg is not.

Human. Life. Human life.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Why no real outcry for the kids dying in Africa from atrocities and starvation as we speak?

So you agree with Nye, the outcry over abortion is arbitrary. "Save this fertilized egg, but not that one!"

Originally posted by Nibedicus
[..]alive by definition.

you did it again. it's already a topic with inherently tangled semantics. no need to make it worse by asserting singular definitions.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
you did it again. it's already a topic with inherently tangled semantics. no need to make it worse by asserting singular definitions.

You asked, I answered. You don't like my answer, quit asking.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
You asked, I answered. You don't like my answer, quit asking.

if you take constructive criticism as an offense, perhaps you should be the one to disengage. *shrug*

Originally posted by Robtard
So you agree with Nye, the outcry over abortion is arbitrary. "Save this fertilized egg, but not that one!"

I think his logic is misplaced in this "outcry" he/you are talking about. At least for me and many moderate pro-lifers that I know.

Our outcry is not to save every fertilized egg (as we know how nature works, that is impossible). Our outcry is in the actual act of -killing- a potentially VALID fetus that CAN grow to become a full human. There's nothing one can do about natural causes, why go nuts over it?

Bear in mind that I have never been for the banning of abortion. It is a medical procedure and it should be available to those that need it. I am for the regulation of abortion and the maintenance of these regulation in the midst of campaign to deregulate it.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
if you take constructive criticism as an offense, perhaps you should be the one to disengage. *shrug*

Didn't get offended. I just honestly think you didn't like my answer.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
I think his logic is misplaced in this "outcry" he/you are talking about. At least for me and many moderate pro-lifers that I know.

Our outcry is not to save every fertilized egg (as we know how nature works, that is impossible). Our outcry is in the actual act of -killing- a potentially VALID fetus that CAN grow to become a full human. There's nothing one can do about natural causes, why go nuts over it?

Bear in mind that I have never been for the banning of abortion. It is a medical procedure and it should be available to those that need it. I am for the regulation of abortion and the maintenance of these regulation in the midst of campaign to deregulate it.

Fair enough. You're one of the more sensible anti-abortion/not anti-abortion people on her.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
I think his logic is misplaced in this "outcry" he/you are talking about. At least for me and many moderate pro-lifers that I know.

Our outcry is not to save every fertilized egg (as we know how nature works, that is impossible). Our outcry is in the actual act of -killing- a potentially VALID fetus that CAN grow to become a full human. There's nothing one can do about natural causes, why go nuts over it?

Bear in mind that I have never been for the banning of abortion. It is a medical procedure and it should be available to those that need it. I am for the regulation of abortion and the maintenance of these regulation in the midst of campaign to deregulate it.

Fair enough. You're one of the more sensible anti-abortion/not anti-abortion people on here.