Notice that if you ask "When does life begin?" you get a definition, not a fact. What does this mean for the debate between pro-choicers and pro-lifers, one side defining life to begin at birth, the other at conception? Doesn't it mean that it's a problem without a solution?
You are comparing apples and oranges.
More like apples and rocket science.
No, your name doesn't bother me because I don't give a shit about you. Did I accuse you of being a christian or a troll? Nope. Didn't even answer my post.
I love how you assert your own opinions as fact and common sense.
You're basically saying that we, for some reason, HAVE TO find a common ground? It can't be an individual thing, people shouldn't be allowed to decide for themselves whether or not to have an abortion, but society should come to common grounds? Politics and government should invade your uterus and tell you what to do? Even suggesting that the government has anything to do, or any right to meddle with a woman's own body is pure idiocy.
And just because %61 of people believe something doesn't make it true, we of all should know, as Atheists in a theist world.
Also, if I say that I believe a fetus' life does not deserve legal acknowledgment or protection, and I base this on nothing but my own personal common sense and opinion. How can you prove me wrong, or claim that your own opinion is more true than my opinion? You can't, and that basically boils down to the main question of this discussion. You however like to act like your personal opinions and conclusions are universally true.
No one blindly trusts science. Science is the best method we have for discerning reality and discovering truth. The scientific method has been demonstrated to be the best method for obtaining the truth about anything.
Science is also verifiable. You don't have to trust it blindly, just go verify it.
It is also self policing. The greatest thing a person in the sciences can do is disprove another persons theory.
When life begins may not be something that can be answered. There are various ideas of when life begins. Some say it begins when a baby is able to feel, some say when it can live on its own, and some say once the sperm fertilizes the egg.
This really isn't the question that should be asked in the context of this issue. The question that should be asked is what is the criteria for qualifying as a person endowed with rights? This is something that, absent the presence of illogical emotions, we can answer using reason. I think you will be hard pressed to find someone who feels that a blastocyst should be endowed with the same rights as you or I.
I could be wrong though.
Based on your previous posts I really should end my part of the discussion here. I will only continue if you are capable of acknowledging the fallibility principle. If not, my responses and everyone else's responses to your posts are pointless and you do not truly care about the truth or logic..
Galileo - wasn't battling science, but religion.
Newton - Also wasn't battling science, but expanding it.
Einstein - Thought so far outside of the box, he rearranged. Therefore presented new and far-reaching concepts which were unheard of prior. Also was not battling science, but expanding it. In fact he built off some of Newton's ideas.
Riemann - Was a mathematician not a scientist per se. Though the Riemann-Roch theroem did allow for scientific advancements.
Johannes Kepler - mathematician and astrologer who's discoveries about planetary motion helped lead the way later for people such as Newton and Einstein. He was also a contemporary of Galileo.
Copernicus -- As with Galileo battled against the religious concept of an Earth-centric solar system. He was the first to propose that the Earth revolved around the sun and not the other way around.
So no true battles against science, but of religious doctrine. Which as we know, isn't truly science.
Religion and science are not the same thing by any stretch.
Religion is dogma based on faith.
Science on the other hand is based on observation and repetitive testing and peer review.
It's just that simple.
Now the religious have attempted to hold back scientific progress for centuries. Galileo's experience with the Church is a prime example of that. Why is that? Because it caused people to question faith and when they question faith, they question religion. We can't have people questioning religion, now, can we? At least not if we intend on using religion to control them.
Btw, C&P'ing huge blocks of text like that really dissuades people from reading what you have to say.
How does the Vatican control science today? What say does it have over secular journals and secular universities?
Misanthrope that is pure babble. The market controls science these days, not the government. There are plenty of special interests besides the Vatican and the governement who have money. I am well aware of politics. It was rather ridiculous of you to bring in American right and Left politics into a discussion about the Vatican. Absurd... You have your head in the right and left. I am an aristocratist and I don't give a crap about it.
It seems you know nothing about education or research.
The government encourages certain types of research that help its interest, not all, and you can't provide a shred of evidence that proves otherwise. However, most research done in the world is not influenced in this way. You just don't seem to know anything about science or research.
There are so many journals, so many studies and so many universities that that neither the government nor the Vatican can control them all. If you actually looked at all the studies done over the past year alone, you would drop this nonsensical position of ignorance.
Isn't that just what the Vatican wants you to believe though? If as you say they control what is researched in every university in the world because all grant money only ever comes from nobody other than the Vatican, then how can you trust history?
Wouldn't the Vatican have had its hands all over that too?
I do not believe that anyone said a word about Galileo being an atheist. Or any of the other people you mentioned. He simply said they were fightin religious indoctrination. Which is correct. If I were to say that someone is figting against the church/religion on abortion or gay marriage, I would not be declaring them an atheist.
But the Vatican is paying me to say these things.
Since the Vatican controls the bloody world? Are you serious? I believe our government pulled funding from Catholic adoption services, since they were running them according to daogma. And our government also refused to renew the Catholic churches contract to help sex trafficking victims, because they did not give them access to contraceptives, abortion, and sterilization. Sounds to me like the Vatican must be asleep or looking the other way, if they control the world, cause Catholics are getting their butts kicked in politics over here.
Furthermore, the government controls all science? Hardly. When someone graduates college with a degree in whatever scientific field they have chosen, the CIA does not swoop in and carry them to a government research facility and tell them what to research. A scientist can work for whoever he wants, or no one. He can research whatever he wants. Period. If a scientist chooses to work for the government, then puts out false information, he will be called out by the rest of the scientific community, debunked, and he will loose all credibility. A scientist who is constantly proven wrong will not be getting paid to do much research. So, as someone mentioned earler, science is self-policing. This is very true. A scientist must have credibility.
But, once again, the Vatican paid me to say all of this to help cover up that you are actually right. It's a conspircay.
Scientists have no answer and neither do religious people, because when life begins is a stipulation or definition. Once you have the definition, which comes first, THEN you look for facts.
This is why it will be a neverending argument, unless/until 100% of the people adopt the same definition. And that's not going to happen.
"Science does not know everything"
That's a good thing, and one of science's strengths. You're not trying to assert the fallacy that "science does not know everything" = "science does not know anything" are you?