Science Confirms Human Life Begins at Conception, Unborn Children are Human Beings
(www.lifenews.com)
🏆 - WINNING - 🏆
Comments (17)
sorted by:
Deep down everyone knows this. It is irrefutable that a human pregnancy, if not terminated, produces a human life.
Abortion promoters needed to create the narrative that an embryo is not life to deceive women into having abortions. Very, very few women would have an abortion if they believed they were terminating a life.
But abortions are still traumatic, even for women who claim to believe they were not killing a baby, because deep down they know they are.
I think corrupt people have gotten to women to a point that some (on the left) enjoy the idea of it, especially if a male baby
The debate on this topic is far from over. There are legitimate arguments on both sides. Science however will never be the determinant of the Truth of this. At best it will supply enough evidence that dogma will be created (AKA a consensus belief).
To suggest that "science confirms" anything is ludicrous. Science can't make statements of "truth." it can only show evidence. PEOPLE interpret evidence as "truth," which is subject to their beliefs going in.
Science is not, and can never be a truth machine. That is simply not it's function. It's function is only to make measurements, and present the data, both of which themselves are subject to bias. The interpretations of science are nothing but bias. That doesn't make them wrong, or not good, or not useful, it only makes them not Truth.
Science is useful, it is not Truth.
Regardless of how much people try to abuse science for their own cause, science is the way to truth not truth in and of itself. to say science confirms nothing seems inaccurate or hyperbolic
Science is a path that can bring us closer and closer to the Truth. It can never tell us the Truth. It is completely impossible for science to ever make statements of Truth. The fundamental nature of science is to not trust the science, AKA to question the science.
I assert this is an important concept. One that all too few understand. Implicit in these statements is that science can also NOT bring us closer to the Truth. In other words, even a proper application of the process of science can bring us further from the Truth of the nature of Reality, either some piece of it, or Reality in total. Science is only a process. It is a tool. It is a very, very useful tool, but it can never be Truth, because it is not designed to produce Truth.
Science can NEVER confirm anything. Science can't make any statements of certainty. It can only give better and better probabilities that a specific input to output program is correctly modelled. That is the function of science. It is a tool to create better and better models of Reality. The models are not Reality. Reality does whatever the fuck it wants, regardless of our models. When the models disagree, which is all the time, Reality wins. Reality is the Truth. Science is the model creator. Science can never describe Reality, it can only describe the model.
Thus, science is not Truth, and can never "confirm" anything. That is the most accurate statement that can be made about science in this regard, and is not only not hyperbolic, but is an essential thing to understand about science. If people understood that, along with the fact that science, even when applied correctly, can lead us further from the Truth, I suggest all the science fuckery would cease to exist. The power inherent in "trust the science" would immediately disappear, and it would be appreciated how laughable that statement is.
Science is useful, it is not Truth.
So eventually if you are getting closer to reality prediction in models then you have the truth...
The nature of science, the construction of the scientific process, is only ever to makes statements of improved probabilities. It has no capacity to make statements of absolutes. The moment you think science is saying "this is the truth" is the moment you lose the capacity, as a scientist, to look at evidence to the contrary, which is the opposite of the entire construct of science.
Even in it's statements of probabilities, science doesn't always take steps forward. Sometimes they are sideways, sometimes they are backwards. In general however, it does seem to progress (if allowed, and not controlled). But a step forward, doesn't mean you will ever reach the end. If every step I take is one half the way towards my goal, how many steps will it take to reach the end? Well... infinite steps (the dichotomy paradox). In a system that can't make statements of "1", but only "0.95" or whatever, you can never reach the end. Each step is always less than the "1" needed to get between here and there.
So yes, as your model approaches the asymptote of Reality, eventually you will get there.
But the universe will end first.
I'm not saying it is impossible to understand Truth. I'm saying the tool of science is not one that will be making any statements of what that is. It simply isn't in its capacity. That's not its function. That's not a part of its design.
It's a tool. It's a path, a debate, a dialectic. It's not the Truth. The Truth Is, exactly and precisely, What It Is. Science can never make exact and precise statements, thus it can never tell us the Truth. The best we can hope for in science, is to be less wrong than we were the day before.
Didnt you just use science -the dichotomy paradox- to explain/expose a truth in absolute? The truth is you will never know the truth
I have no idea what you mean by this. No "absolute truth was exposed," nor was it attempted.
The "paradox" (which is something that doesn't actually exist) is based on math (an infinite sum of 1/2^n). Math is logically consistent, it also never makes statements of Truth, because it is axiomatic (see Goedel's thm. of completeness, the Turing machine, etc.). The problem people have is, in logic, we state a thing is "true" when what we really mean is "logically consistent." This unfortunate nomenclature (like "imaginary numbers") is often confusing for many people.
There is a huge difference between "logic true" and "The Truth" AKA Reality. In the case above I was merely showing how the language of science (math) shows, in a self-consistent way, that science can only approach the truth asymptotically (at best), and can never actually reach it.
If you want to explain how you think I've made a logical error, you will have to be more explicit, because your one liner makes no sense to me. I see no error.
This may very well be true. I never made claims that I would. I've tried my whole life and I only have more questions. Nevertheless, that was never my point. My point was that science (which I have also spent my whole life on) will never tell it to me, because it can't.
Forgive me for quoting a singer... but isn't math related to science?
"Science" 🤣🤣🤣 They needed a Slide rule to figure that out?
A long time ago I heard the only thing the mother adds after conception is food, water, and oxygen. The only thing I'm uncertain about is how hormones play into it.
I know someone who's had 7 abortions. And after each one, she's cried for the life she killed. Yet, she continued to get them. To these people, their lifestyle outweighs any obligation to carrying on a human life.
Summary?
You will never be able to legally enforce this. There needs to be a reasonable determination of when a human life begins. It should be after conception but far before birth obviously.