Loves Science, Hates Science

People already knew it by your comparison. I just stated the obvious.

At conception, the zygote meets the requirements for the scientific definition of LIFE. It also has the genetic profile to be classified as HUMAN. Therefore, abortion is taking a HUMAN LIFE.

Since birth control medications prevent implantation (when the embryo attaches to the uterine wall), I would be okay with defining the beginning of HUMAN LIFE at implantation. To be a stickler about life beginning at conception would be to define these medications as abortion drugs, and I, for one, am not ready to do that.

Actions have consequences. EVERYBODY knows that no birth control method is 100% effective. You roll the dice every time you choose to have sex. But society is saying more and more that we don't have to take responsibility for our decisions.

Where did you get these "scientific" definitions?

From the American College of Pediatricians: (http://www.acpeds.org/)

ABSTRACT. The American College of Pediatricians concurs with the body of scientific evidence that human life begins at conception—fertilization. This definition has been expounded since prior to Roe v. Wade, but was not made available to the US Supreme Court in 1973. Scientific and medical discoveries over the past three decades have only verified and solidified this age-old truth. At the completion of the process of fertilization, the human creature emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop. The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is not one of personhood but of development. The Mission of the American College of Pediatricians is to enable all children to reach their optimal physical and emotional health and well-being from the moment of conception. This statement reviews some of the associated historical, ethical and philosophical issues.

OK that's one group founded on Conservative principals and is insanely biased.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_College_of_Pediatricians)

The American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds) is a small association of pediatricians and other healthcare professionals in the United States advocating a socially conservative world view of pediatrics.

The group was founded in 2002 by a group of pediatricians, including Joseph Zanga, a past president of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), as a protest against the AAP's support for adoption by gay couples.[1][2] The group's membership has been estimated at between 60 and 200 members,[1][3] in contrast to the AAP's over 60,000 members.[4]

ACPeds describes itself as "a national organization of pediatricians and other healthcare professionals dedicated to the health and well-being of children... committed to fulfilling its mission by producing sound policy, based upon the best available research, to assist parents and to influence society in the endeavor of childrearing."[5]

Zanga, a founder of ACPeds, has described it as a group "with Judeo-Christian, traditional values that is open to pediatric medical professionals of all religions" provided that they "hold true to the group's core beliefs: that life begins at conception; and that the traditional family unit, headed by a different-sex couple, poses far fewer risk factors in the adoption and raising of children."[6]

The organization's view on parenting is at odds with the position of the American Academy of Pediatrics, which holds that sexual orientation has no correlation with the ability to be a good parent and to raise healthy and well-adjusted children.[3][7][8]

The American College of Pediatricians has been described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a "hate group", with "a history of propagating damaging falsehoods about LGBT people".[9][10]

Ok, how about the NAACP, they definitely aren't conservative: http://naapc.org/why-life-begins-at-conception/

An excerpt:
Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being—a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.8

8Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981, 7.

Well the problem there is the NAACP is not a group of scientists and they don't cite the sources of information or scientists they seem to be basing their opinion on only if judiciary committee which again are not scientists.

Try every Biology book ever written?

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwikndnCiOnMAhVnzoMKHSN-AnkQFggjMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.castlerock.wednet.edu%2FHS%2Fpenner%2Fimages%2FBiology%2FProject%2520class%2FRequirements%2520of%2520Life%2520requirements.pdf&usg=AFQjCNFvy1APgfHJqOPNEb5SQlLBEnp-_g&sig2=Fphd86pLjDAu7oPIygIDAg&bvm=bv.122448493,d.amc&cad=rja

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=9&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwikndnCiOnMAhVnzoMKHSN-AnkQFghZMAg&url=https%3A%2F%2Fprezi.com%2F8ztdzciput-t%2Fthe-8-requirements-of-life%2F&usg=AFQjCNHvI1hqBq5-cX4AwM9sg-5um3mEEw&sig2=t7leN7xceUA4UY4EPp7Qgg&bvm=bv.122448493,d.amc

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjp1M3VienMAhXq5YMKHWUICikQFggcMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fquizlet.com%2F9365982%2Fbiology-7-characteristics-of-life-flash-cards%2F&usg=AFQjCNFER7qxZ6bF-y-8nhtN3xzbfv8kyA&sig2=g740xGZrzzXxOJte75Wzqw&bvm=bv.122448493,d.amc

i think it's more life vs being alive.

A tree is alive. So is a tumor. And an ant. Cells are alive but fdo they have life?

A zygote is alive but there is no way it can survive outside the host/mother. A human zygote has the potential to be a human baby for sure but until it can survive out side the mother it's an embryo or fetus.

Personally I draw the line at full brain activity/consciousness and viability outside the mother to say "abortion is wrong" because at that point you are killing a human being not a human zygote or cluster of cells with the potential to be a human being.

I'm really not trying to be overly argumentative. I think your memes are funny, but there are clear citations in the article. You are also claiming that your opinion on science trumps their opinion on science, so I'm gonna go with the Dr.s and PhDs in the field, sorry.

Religion AND abortion? ! You must really need someone to talk to.

https://imgflip.com/i/14dntn

She also rejects it when it supports vaccines.

Wait. How does science undermine supporting a woman's right to choose whether or not she wants children? That doesn't make any sense.

Well I've been around people that say that they are Pro-Choice because there isn't any science evidence to prove that life begins at conception. And because of the lack of scientific evidence, women who go through with an abortion aren't really taking a life. In other discussions on personal beliefs, those same people provide scientific evidence for their atheistic beliefs. So the point was to highlight how some people will use science to back up a belief or viewpoint while also rejecting science to back up another belief or viewpoint.

You are welcome to disagree with me or, better yet, create your own meme that highlights this same acceptance/rejection of science!

Define death. Death is the opposite of life. How do we know someone is alive? Heartbeat and brainwaves. Science.

The irony is that if a woman WANTS her unborn child but it's killed due to the negligence of another, it's called murder. If she DOESN'T want her child, intentionally ripping it limb from limb as it moves away from pain within the womb is called "choice."

Exactly how bacteria on Mars proves life on another planet, but when the egg is fertilized it's not life. Stupid liberalism at its finest.

What's your definition of "personhood"? You mean that we can kill insane people and liberals because they're braindead?

1. Doesn't even make any sense, must be that "goofy and stupid" idea, you've mentioned. You think that an animate living thing deserves the right to live only if it possesses this your "personhood". Yeah, a new born baby is soo intelligent and possesses personal traits that only an individual with a "personhood" may have. It's just that you view that chopping up an infant is an atrocity. I wonder how much more "personhood" it has than an animal, all newborns are no more intelligent than a monkey, yet I guess you wouldn't say that monkeys have "personhood". Fetus is a living thing that has no intelligence yet, which is a matter of time. When you kill it, you deprive it of a chance to live. Just like had your mother aborted you, you wouldn't have existed now with your DEVELOPED "personhood".

That's one fine example of liberal logic. If you kill it while it's in the womb, it wouldn't get to be fully developed and delivered. "A newborn baby may not be as intelligent as a monkey, but it has fully developed and been delivered." - so is a monkey - it has been born, you know. A newborn baby WAS an embryo. You were an embryo, I was an embryo. Embryo eventually evolves into a baby, you kill a fetus you kill a baby. Jeebus Kris, I can't believe I have to explain shit as simple as that to a person, that claims he's not retarded. That's what you get when you argue with a liberal.

Possibility of miscarriage doesn't validate killing a baby in womb. It's essential for it in order to become a baby to pass through certain stages of development. No ad hominem attacks there. Every human being passes through stages of development or growth: fetal stage, infancy, ... on to old age. I don't think that insulting a person is good, neither is murder. But when i argue with a liberal that vindicates murder, because a fetus doesn't have the cuteness or charms of an infant, which means it's ok to chop it to pieces, i can't help resorting to epithets that truly characterize your kind. I was comparing only their level of intelligence.

Okay- so you are saying that some people say science offers no support for a supreme being, there for they do not believe in one. And they say that science also offers no support that life begins at conception.
Do you see my confusion? These ideas are in agreement and not contradictory. In both cases, they reject a non-science approach.

[image deleted]