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

Women cringe at that idea, the idea that they cannot give birth anymore frightens them to death, you could never mass convince them to do that.

i know it won't happen... it's one of those "if i were dictator" ideas

Is China still doing that 1 child policy?

as far as i know... honestly though i can understand that policy. it's easy to judge them but we aren't facing the same overpopulation crisis that they are in.

For their sake they need a 1 child policy. To many people there. In fants being left in toilets is a huge thing there.

Originally posted by Lucius
Republicans need to take a stats class.

EDIT - Actually someone already brought that up in another thread.

Whatever. Republicans are filthy degenerate trash.

Nope. That would be dumbasscrats. You have it backwards (as democrats often do). 👆

They're the ones who value a convicted murderer's life more than an innocent unborn baby's. Democrats are a blight on society. 👆

Originally posted by red g jacks
you are right that killing humans is considered acceptable in certain situations

you are wrong that killing sentient beings is not likewise considered acceptable

unless you are a vegetarian.

But we do give so protections, if, granted, not enough to prevent us from killing. And we also have a tendency to provide the greatest legal protections to other intelligent types. Elephants, whales, and so on, which get way more protection than pigs. Beings that can communicate and have culture, in other words.

So, species clearly matters some, yes, but we obviously do not give things that are humans but lack brains protection, and we give things with brains that are not human some, if lesser, protection.

Species is not the only factor, and not the overriding one.

Originally posted by Q99
But we do give so protections, if, granted, not enough to prevent us from killing. And we also have a tendency to provide the greatest legal protections to other intelligent types. Elephants, whales, and so on, which get way more protection than pigs. Beings that can communicate and have culture, in other words.

So, species clearly matters some, yes, but we obviously do not give things that are humans but lack brains protection, and we give things with brains that are not human some, if lesser, protection.

Species is not the only factor, and not the overriding one.

Finally got around to seeing the video and Bil''s argument is flat out wrong.

His argument is that if we treat a zygote as a person that is entitled to full rights, then when one fails to attack to the uterus wall someone needs to be held accountable. The problem is this is a natural death akin to someone dying in their sleep. So no one needs to be held accountable or be punished.

BTW, I am pro-choice but I find this entire argument to be very flawed.

Originally posted by ares834
Finally got around to seeing the video and Bil''s argument is flat out wrong.

His argument is that if we treat a zygote as a person that is entitled to full rights, then when one fails to attack to the uterus wall someone needs to be held accountable. The problem is this is a natural death akin to someone dying in their sleep. So no one needs to be held accountable or be punished.

BTW, I am pro-choice but I find this entire argument to be very flawed.

Even if someone is presumed to have died of natural causes, there is still an investigation to determine the cause of death.

Likewise, if a fertilized egg has personhood rights and fails to implant, then the authorities would have to launch of full-investigation to ensure there was no foul play.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Even if someone is presumed to have died of natural causes, there is still an investigation to determine the cause of death.

Likewise, if a fertilized egg has personhood rights and fails to implant, then the authorities would have to launch of full-investigation to ensure there was no foul play.

So you have it on authority that every person that obviously dies of natural causes in the real world gets a full investigation, too?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Even if someone is presumed to have died of natural causes, there is still an investigation to determine the cause of death.

Likewise, if a fertilized egg has personhood rights and fails to implant, then the authorities would have to launch of full-investigation to ensure there was no foul play.

If I cause the death of a child in a mother's stomach, I go to jail for murder.

Originally posted by long pig
You're not using moral logic, you're using legalistic logic. Libbos tend to see the government as their God, so I understand. I can do it too....

If I cause the death of a child in a mother's stomach, I go to jail for murder.

Yes, but if you could donate bone marrow to a child to save its life and you decide not to, nothing happens to you, because it's your right to your body.

Originally posted by long pig
If I cause the death of a child in a mother's stomach, I go to jail for murder.

The electric chair if you did it willingly.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes, but if you could donate bone marrow to a child to save its life and you decide not to, nothing happens to you, because it's your right to your body.

Originally posted by long pig
My bone marrow isn't a separate entity like a child is.

No, the child that you refuse to save with your bone marrow is a separate entity. But you can refuse anyways, that's fine.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, the child that you refuse to save with your bone marrow is a separate entity. But you can refuse anyways, that's fine.

I'm not even all that anti abortion. But don't fool yourself into thinking you're not killing a child if you do it. Accept your moral failing and move on.

Originally posted by long pig
You are doing some serious mental gymnastics. Do you count to potato?

I'm not even all that anti abortion. But don't fool yourself into thinking you're not killing a child if you do it. Accept your moral failing and move on.

Well, I fundamentally disagree with considering an early term fetus the same as a born child, but further than that. I don't think we can require people to have what amounts to a parasitic relationship even to another full human, to ensure that others survival.

it's not a parasitic relationship. that's just another attempt to misuse scientific language in order to make killing a human seem more acceptable.

a parasitic relationship is by definition between species. a parent/child relationship doesn't qualify.

it's kind of ironic that pro-lifers are supposed to be the religious quacks and yet it seems more often than not it's pro-choice people who lack a basic understanding of biology, or at least ignore it for the sake of rhetoric.