Certainly. The fundamental and largely irreconcileable difference is that one side think those rights and that status is endowed at conception, while the other side largely thinks it happens after the first trimester when the fetus shows detectable brain activity. (As measured by EEG.)
I think that depends on what you mean by “fanatical misogynistic loon.” At best, even if Mourdock didn’t add God’s will into the mix (or Akin didn’t spice things up with discredited pseudoscience) the view that abortion should be illegal with no exceptions (in some cases even the life of the prospective mother needn’t be a concern to these folks) is a VERY extreme view even within the pro-life ranks.
Rachel Maddow recently did a story where she explained that what took these extremists down was that they were asked about them. In making a case that is very extreme even among the pro-life crowd, these guys made up excuses: They blamed God, they said that rape doesn’t result in conception because a women’s vagina can detect and fight off rapist sperm, or equating rape with pregnancy out of wedlock.
It violates the separation of church and state in that “human at conception” is a religious belief. They can believe that all they want and practice it among themselves, but they have zero right to try to force their belief off on others who don’t agree.
Three Republicans are vying to be Chair of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology (SST), according to Science Magazine. Akin of course is no longer a member of that body, having been rejected during this election.
The contestants include Dana Rohrabachrer, who opposes programs that fund research and environmental programs overseas. In fact he calls them “Insane”. Wow. He thinks a good way to curb greenhouse gas emissions would be to clearcut tropical forests because he believes that 80 to 90 percent of heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions is “generated by nature itself”.
Jim Sensenbrenner, another hopeful, opposes Scientific Fascism: he applied that term to certain emails exchanged among climate scientists. Congressman Sensenbrenner also characterizes climate science as an international conspiracy, displaying the usual penchant for paranoia among crackpots.
Lamar Smith (R) also wants the job. He is most known for legislating against the internet, sponsoring legislation to expand DMCA, sponsoring Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), as well as mandating that ISPs keep logs of customer data under the guise of curbing child porn. He makes false claims about climate scientists hiding data.
What a swell bunch! It’s not surprising that the professional class is trending Democratic with these bozos in charge.
So all three of the Republicans vying for the House Science Committee chairperson position are Climate Change deniers. How lovely.
This is what Bricker and his buds voted for. They voted for ignorance. Then they dare post here, a place which is supposed to be against it.
They are fucking hypocrites.
I don’t think it necessarily is a religious belief. It certainly is for many, and of course has a very strong religious correlation, but I’m an atheist, and the “having full rights as a human” is meaningful and valid concept to me. I personally do not assign to embryos, but I think it’s reasonable for someone to disagree for secular reasons.
Indeed. Hitchens was anti-abortion - though he did hold some other rather dubious views on women, so I’m not sure how much that proves.
It might be reasonable, but I’ve never met anyone who did. And certainly those who are out rabidly opposing abortion all appear to be doing so for religious reasons.
Hitchens?
Presumably the late journalist and professional gadfly Christopher Hitchens. I’m not quite sure how he got into this discussion either.
He got into this discussion by being an example of an atheist who opposed abortion. Obviously not for religious reasons.
Do you have any links to him discussing it? Looks like I need to change my opinion of anti-abortionists to “religious and/or anti-woman”.
It does nobody any good to purposely misstate a person’s pro-life view. Although I disagree that a fetus is the same as a child, I don’t find it a completely unreasonable view, and feel no need to call someone “anti-woman” who holds that view.
He seems kind of confused on the subject.
Anti-abortionists wish to force women to carry any and all pregnancies to term, no matter what her feelings are on it or if doing so might injure or kill her. That seems very anti-woman to me.
Did you mean to state this as if all anti-abortionists do not support exceptions if the life of the mother is at risk? That is not the case. Note the chart “Circumstances Under Which Abortion Should Be Legal”. I agree that those who think it must illegal under all circumstances must have an anti-woman streak in them.
But I see no reason to believe that of the rest of the pro-lifers. Is it so hard to believe that since they think a fetus is basically the same thing as a born child, that they simply do not want it to be killed? Why the need to assign any more motive to them for their view? If I thought some act was tantamount to killing a child, I would not need to have any kind of bigoted hate towards the group doing that act to be against it.
I speak of anti-abortionists, those who do not want abortion to be allowed for any reason, those who feel they “know the best” for everyone.
Those folks seem to be covered under the “religion” part of my view - I’ve never met anyone who thought a fetus was the same thing as a baby who didn’t have some religious belief about souls or something. (Remember, I’m talking about those who wish to force their views off on everyone else, not people who have made their own personal choice for themselves.)
Also, those people value the life of a non-person more than the life of the woman carrying it. They push and push to make it harder to get abortions, to limit the legal reasons a woman can decide to do it, etc - all based on their personal belief that a fertilized egg is the same thing as a newborn baby. And I’m not even sure they actually care that much about the potential baby, since what sort of life it is going to be born into doesn’t seem to factor into their rush to deny women their right. Which brings us back to anti-woman…
Senator Marco Rubio is considered by many to be a rising sun in the Republican party, a young and energetic up-and-comer who was in the VP mix this year and someone who stands to be in the mix - possibly as a Presidential candidate - in 2016, someone who will unite Latinos who voted against Mitt Romney in record numbers back into the Republican fold again.
And here’s the extent of his scientific education via an interview in GQ Magazine:
There we have it, Republicans! Your leading light cannot answer the simple question about how old the planet is… Because he’s not a scientist. But teach the controversy! Because he knows what is valid science to teach… Just not the actual science… Or something. I don’t know. Makes my head hurt.
Anyway, even Google knows the answer.
but Sarah Palin said you scientists were just in it for the money. We know she would never lie. (damn, this site needs a sarcasm font.)
Can you imagine the reaction if he was asked a basic economics question and he shrugged and said “I’m not an economist, man.” Why is it that politicians, and Americans in general, are not expected to know basic science? Especially if they’re on the friggin’ Senate Science Committee! This man and the entire GOP are an embarrassment to the world.
Even worse… He shrugs and says “I am not an economist” and then throws in that David Copperfield can create jobs with magic and how that view is just as valid a view as that of the economists.
It’s not that he didn’t know basic science that is appalling. Bothersome, yes, but not a deal breaker. A symptom but a very small one.
If he had chuckled and said something like “it’s very old, billions of years old, but I haven’t thought about it since science classes in High School so maybe there’s a better estimate a scientist could give you” and left it at that, some might have shaken their heads. If he just even just said “Ask a scientist” and left it at that, a few more would have laughed but he wouldn’t be in this thread.
No. He was asked a science question and he brought up theologians. Fuck him. He - and the Conservatives on this board who vote Republican - are the problem.
Right. I don’t care that he didn’t have the number memorized. If he said “Hmm, well, I don’t know the exact number” and then whipped out his smart phone and typed it into Google, that would be perfectly legit. It’s not that he didn’t know the answer, it’s that he had no interest in finding the answer, or even in the process that determined the answer.