We mostly only care about human life and individual human life (we also very much care about entire species continuing to exist that we eat or that keep the ecosystem working). We don't feel bad for eating animals because we're the most evolved species and require animal nutrition for optimal health.
We are the only ones that will potentially be capable of deflecting the next asteroid. We should manage our resources more responsibly and expand out into space. Restricting our population or killing our own is contrary to that cause.
Nothing you wrote has anything to do with life beginning at conception, but a belief in swelling human numbers. I was talking strictly about the anti-scientific belief of "life beginning at conception". That said, I can see some questionable logic in your reply.
Restricting our population may actually be beneficial for the ecosystem and managing resources, if that's your cause. This is the mainstream belief of environmentalists when asked.
Also, exactly how many people would be involved in deflecting an asteroid? Maybe a few hundred scientists and engineers and maybe several thousands to allocate resources and fabricate a giant missile? Earth having 10 billion people or six billion people isn't really relevant here. Surely you won't need anyone in Africa or Central America to do this. (Unless you believe in predestination at birth, where more people would be helpful.)
The life beginning at conception is explained by the fact that that's when the unique genetic code is created and doesn't ever fundamentally change through a person's life. There's no point after conception where you can say that it isn't a human being.
Pro-life people generally don't follow the belief that liberals tend to have that all life is precious and must be prolonged regardless of any other considerations. Liberals tend to think the life of a pedophile is equal to that of a normal law abiding citizen while somehow also considering an unborn baby to be nothing but a clump of cells.
My point of managing resources more responsibly has a hell of a lot to be unpacked:
1. Education.
Your statement about not needing people from Africa and
Central America makes me think that you think that they are somehow
genetically irredeemable. The truth is that we all have the same fundamental
brain capacity, placidity and have the same fundamental spiritual nature
(though you may not believe that part). The only thing actually wrong here
stems from the subject of education, bad education or lack of education.
2. Energy.
We can support the energy needs of a far higher population once we switch
over to mostly nuclear and fusion power and use electric vehicles that are
charged by those energy sources.
3. Food.
We can switch to sustainable methods of farming instead of monocrops that
deplete the soil and crappy grain-fed feedlot meat that have negative
effects on the environment and are inhumane and unhealthy. The are
methods of greening desert land so that it can hold moisture and support
life for growing food.
4. Other resources.
Space technology is important so that we can extract resources from
space.
Maybe a few hundred scientists and engineers and maybe several thousands > to allocate resources and fabricate a giant missile?
You need all the other jobs to support the lives of the people working on that and there's the gradual development of technology that came before just to even have any hope of having the technology of deflecting asteroids. You also need a large enough pool of people to select people that have aptitude for it and are passionate about it. Besides, there's not much point in preserving life if it can't be enjoyed.
Lots to address here and most all of it is irrelevant to the thread topic about "life beginning at conception being science" while wearing masks to not spread disease is not.
Pro-life people generally don't follow the belief that liberals tend to have that all life is precious and must be prolonged regardless of any other considerations.
Wrong. Terri Schiavo and millions languishing hopelessly in nursing homes due to massive strokes or Alzheimer's are there because of people who believe "life must be prolonged at any cost". The resistance to euthanasia and "death with dignity" comes from the theocratic right, including pro-lifers and religious fundamentalists.
Education.
I never said Africans and Central Americans are genetically irredeemable, but you choose to presume that based on nothing. What is factual is that none of these areas have the requisite educational or infrastructure development which has led to achievements in space exploration, rocketry, or even large-scale industrialization needed to accomplish something as grand as protecting earth from an asteroid strike. These are achievements which are primarily from the U.S., Russia, and Europe who actually do have functioning space programs and large-scale industrialization. That's who would do the work of protecting Earth.
Energy, 3. Food, 4. Other Resources
Reasonable thoughts, but still far off in time. Human population is exponentially increasing between now and when that happens.
You need all the other jobs to support the lives of the people working on that and there's the gradual development of technology that came before just to even have any hope of having the technology of deflecting asteroids. You also need a large enough pool of people to select people that have aptitude for it and are passionate about it. Besides, there's not much point in preserving life if it can't be enjoyed.
An interesting perspective on having more versus less people, but not a direct addressing of the issue of abortion.
I have to wonder how "enjoying life" plays into the decision to force an uneducated drug-using single mother to try and raise a child in poverty. Most pro-lifers seem to think that women can be forced to give birth and, upon seeing a child, will become responsible and industrious. More than likely, the child will be raised with neglect and abuse and - once they reach their teens - will become either a criminal or another irresponsible single parent.
It's not true that any of what I said is irrelevant. The argument of when life begins is mostly a straw man to distract from the population control agenda which is the main reason behind the mass promotion of abortion. I'm addressing the reasons why attempts at limiting the population (such as abortion) are not the correct answer.
It all supports the argument that there is absolutely no need to kill human life while it is in the process of formation. The focus should be on fixing the social issues that cause unwanted pregnancy and fixing all the other points I brought up.
Wrong. Terri Schiavo and millions languishing hopelessly in nursing homes > due to massive strokes or Alzheimer's are there because of people who believe "life must be prolonged at any cost". The resistance to euthanasia and "death with dignity" comes from the theocratic right, including pro-lifers and religious fundamentalists.
Ok so people on both sides of the spectrum can have irrational ideas about that. It's also a much more difficult topic because you don't always know when or if a person will wake from a coma or what they would want you to do with them.
I have to wonder how "enjoying life" plays into the decision to force an uneducated drug-using single mother to try and raise a child in poverty. Most pro-lifers seem to think that women can be forced to give birth and, upon seeing a child, will become responsible and industrious. More than likely, the child will be raised with neglect and abuse and - once they reach their teens - will become either a criminal or another irresponsible single parent.
True. But the attention should be focused on fixing the aspects of society that create and perpetuate the existence of uneducated drug-using single mothers. Allowing abortion does not address this, it only enables it and increases it by removing unwanted consequences.
Not allowing the killing of babies is not "forcing" anything, they had sex knowing that they could get pregnant. That same logic of it being "force" would also apply to punishing a woman for drowning her children in a bathtub because she decided she didn't want children anymore.
We mostly only care about human life and individual human life (we also very much care about entire species continuing to exist that we eat or that keep the ecosystem working). We don't feel bad for eating animals because we're the most evolved species and require animal nutrition for optimal health.
We are the only ones that will potentially be capable of deflecting the next asteroid. We should manage our resources more responsibly and expand out into space. Restricting our population or killing our own is contrary to that cause.
Nothing you wrote has anything to do with life beginning at conception, but a belief in swelling human numbers. I was talking strictly about the anti-scientific belief of "life beginning at conception". That said, I can see some questionable logic in your reply.
Restricting our population may actually be beneficial for the ecosystem and managing resources, if that's your cause. This is the mainstream belief of environmentalists when asked.
Also, exactly how many people would be involved in deflecting an asteroid? Maybe a few hundred scientists and engineers and maybe several thousands to allocate resources and fabricate a giant missile? Earth having 10 billion people or six billion people isn't really relevant here. Surely you won't need anyone in Africa or Central America to do this. (Unless you believe in predestination at birth, where more people would be helpful.)
The life beginning at conception is explained by the fact that that's when the unique genetic code is created and doesn't ever fundamentally change through a person's life. There's no point after conception where you can say that it isn't a human being.
Pro-life people generally don't follow the belief that liberals tend to have that all life is precious and must be prolonged regardless of any other considerations. Liberals tend to think the life of a pedophile is equal to that of a normal law abiding citizen while somehow also considering an unborn baby to be nothing but a clump of cells.
My point of managing resources more responsibly has a hell of a lot to be unpacked:
You need all the other jobs to support the lives of the people working on that and there's the gradual development of technology that came before just to even have any hope of having the technology of deflecting asteroids. You also need a large enough pool of people to select people that have aptitude for it and are passionate about it. Besides, there's not much point in preserving life if it can't be enjoyed.
Lots to address here and most all of it is irrelevant to the thread topic about "life beginning at conception being science" while wearing masks to not spread disease is not.
Wrong. Terri Schiavo and millions languishing hopelessly in nursing homes due to massive strokes or Alzheimer's are there because of people who believe "life must be prolonged at any cost". The resistance to euthanasia and "death with dignity" comes from the theocratic right, including pro-lifers and religious fundamentalists.
I never said Africans and Central Americans are genetically irredeemable, but you choose to presume that based on nothing. What is factual is that none of these areas have the requisite educational or infrastructure development which has led to achievements in space exploration, rocketry, or even large-scale industrialization needed to accomplish something as grand as protecting earth from an asteroid strike. These are achievements which are primarily from the U.S., Russia, and Europe who actually do have functioning space programs and large-scale industrialization. That's who would do the work of protecting Earth.
Reasonable thoughts, but still far off in time. Human population is exponentially increasing between now and when that happens.
An interesting perspective on having more versus less people, but not a direct addressing of the issue of abortion.
I have to wonder how "enjoying life" plays into the decision to force an uneducated drug-using single mother to try and raise a child in poverty. Most pro-lifers seem to think that women can be forced to give birth and, upon seeing a child, will become responsible and industrious. More than likely, the child will be raised with neglect and abuse and - once they reach their teens - will become either a criminal or another irresponsible single parent.
It's not true that any of what I said is irrelevant. The argument of when life begins is mostly a straw man to distract from the population control agenda which is the main reason behind the mass promotion of abortion. I'm addressing the reasons why attempts at limiting the population (such as abortion) are not the correct answer.
It all supports the argument that there is absolutely no need to kill human life while it is in the process of formation. The focus should be on fixing the social issues that cause unwanted pregnancy and fixing all the other points I brought up.
Ok so people on both sides of the spectrum can have irrational ideas about that. It's also a much more difficult topic because you don't always know when or if a person will wake from a coma or what they would want you to do with them.
True. But the attention should be focused on fixing the aspects of society that create and perpetuate the existence of uneducated drug-using single mothers. Allowing abortion does not address this, it only enables it and increases it by removing unwanted consequences.
Not allowing the killing of babies is not "forcing" anything, they had sex knowing that they could get pregnant. That same logic of it being "force" would also apply to punishing a woman for drowning her children in a bathtub because she decided she didn't want children anymore.