CNN host destroyed by Weather Channel founder over climate change

[CBradSmith]

So, if a fertilized egg is in a test tube, it is a human being?

Haven't you seen The Matrix??

 

[CBradSmith]

FYI, I'm pro choice up to the point the fetus is medically considered viable outside the womb. The issue I have with abortion is the lack of anesthetic provided to the fetus. I get the whole pro-choice condemnation of that thought as being yet another way to restrict abortion. Science is mixed on the subject and usually falls within the two belief camps, or at least the ideological interpretations do.

Purely from a scientific standpoint, there is evidence that a fetus as early as 8 weeks responds both physically and hormonally to noxious stimuli. We make old dying people comfortable with pain medication just to make sure, even when they show no response to noxious stimuli. We don't euthanize animals with vacuum suction and scissors to the skull. Why don't we? Because it would be considered barbaric and painful. I do think providing pain medication or anesthetic to the fetus is responsible and safe for the mother. Give the fetus a large dose of whatever. If you're going to follow it up with powerful vacuum suction to tear the tissue apart, why does it matter how much the fetus gets? That fetus deserves to be made comfortable, just in case.

Incredibly solid logic to follow.

So, contrary to what some may think, it isn't a "growth" similar to cancer to be cut out?

 

[Medic007]

Incredibly solid logic to follow.

So, contrary to what some may think, it isn't a "growth" similar to cancer to be cut out?

No, it doesn't meet the definition of cancerous cells as those are cells that undergo abnormal growth.

A fertilized human egg follows the instructions provided by the human DNA unless something goes drastically wrong. In those cases, the result is still a human being despite a lack of normal function or anatomy. A non-fertilized human egg is just a human egg. A fertilized human egg can only become a human, therefore a fertilized human egg is a human from the point of fertilization.

 

[CBradSmith]

No, it doesn't meet the definition of cancerous cells as those are cells that undergo abnormal growth.

A fertilized human egg follows the instructions provided by the human DNA unless something goes drastically wrong. In those cases, the result is still a human being despite a lack of normal function or anatomy. A non-fertilized human egg is just a human egg. A fertilized human egg can only become a human, therefore a fertilized human egg is a human from the point of fertilization.

What are those people thinking, then, who deny the science you're describing?

 

[Medic007]

What are those people thinking, then, who deny the science you're describing?

Ideologically instead of scientifically. It's common on both sides of the political aisle. I know your question was rhetorical, but I answered anyhow.

 

[CBradSmith]

Ideologically instead of scientifically. It's common on both sides of the political aisle. I know your question was rhetorical, but I answered anyhow.

Odd as it is, sometimes seemingly intelligent people need it drawn out for them, point by point, in crayon.

This is for multiple purposes...to learn or gain perspective.

But also, more pertinent to boards such as this, the logical flow needs to stare them in the face undeniably. It can serve to reintroduce shame that the individual knowingly evades in fostering their poorly underwritten position. It also serves as a referenced rock foundation by which you now gain leverage. It, by default, undermines any of their other loosely supported positions and strengthens your tightly built ones.

You demonstrate that you come to the table prepared and grounded.

 

[Medic007]

Odd as it is, sometimes seemingly intelligent people need it drawn out for them, point by point, in crayon.

This is for multiple purposes...to learn or gain perspective.

But also, more pertinent to boards such as this, the logical flow needs to stare them in the face undeniably. It can serve to reintroduce shame that the individual knowingly evades in fostering their poorly underwritten position. It also serves as a referenced rock foundation by which you now gain leverage. It, by default, undermines any of their other loosely supported positions and strengthens your tightly built ones.

You demonstrate that you come to the table prepared and grounded.

Even though I'm pro-choice (mostly because I just believe in minding my own business and I don't see the creation of a human as something divine), I enjoy demolishing the typical pro-choice arguments with science.

My favorite is the "can't tell a woman what she can and can't do with her body." That's true, and we shouldn't legislate what anybody can do with their own body, which is why I supported abolishing the stupid Oklahoma tattoo laws. But scientifically, that fetus is not a part of the mother's body. Actually, it is completely separated from the mother by the placenta. The mother's blood feeds the placenta which in turn feeds the fetus. The fetus cannot become part of the mother's body because it is completely different genetically.

 

[CBradSmith]

Even though I'm pro-choice (mostly because I just believe in minding my own business and I don't see the creation of a human as something divine), I enjoy demolishing the typical pro-choice arguments with science.

My favorite is the "can't tell a woman what she can and can't do with her body." That's true, and we shouldn't legislate what anybody can do with their own body, which is why I supported abolishing the stupid Oklahoma tattoo laws. But scientifically, that fetus is not a part of the mother's body. Actually, it is completely separated from the mother by the placenta. The mother's blood feeds the placenta which in turn feeds the fetus. The fetus cannot become part of the mother's body because it is completely different genetically.

I understand.

I was speaking more broadly.

You've devastated two talking point positions in the past week, the conversation on gender/sex and now this.

It may be true that there is a political debate to be had on the expression of preference. But in both cases you have been laser-like in your focus on the underwriting science, generally agnostic about preference in expressing the science (maintaining that wall in the evaluation of what is real), thereby exposing the typical use of the "conflation of meaning" of the position holder when discussing the position.

Some people who hold an untenable position do it unknowingly and some do it willingly.

For the former the conversation can cause introspection and refinement of position. It doesn't necessarily need to change the policy they would prescribe, but they have a better understanding of the reality of the policy.

For the latter it reintroduced shame by laying bear reality alongside a willing bias (the position holder gives no inclination to acknowledge your scientific points).

I've used the phrase "reintroduce shame" twice in the past hour in this thread. I feel the far left has tried to create a rule within Society that makes get largely unnecessary to experience or knowledge shame. The Absolution of the experience of Shame by the individual, or as a tool for gentle edification by a well-intentioned other, is a primary contributor to the current ability of said leftists to further their self identity, post modernist philosophy.

And it is absolutely catastrophic to the fiber of a healthy Society.

This post was alway long-winded way of me expressing a great deal of appreciation for you being in the position you are, trained in the medical field and familiar with scientific fact, and that you gently instruct on those facts, educating those who need it and (as I view it) create the environment for the reintroduction of the experience of Shame for those who knowingly push false facts over reality.

 

[Medic007]

I understand.

I was speaking more broadly.

You've devastated two talking point positions in the past week, the conversation on gender/sex and now this.

It may be true that there is a political debate to be had on the expression of preference. But in both cases you have been laser-like in your focus on the underwriting science, generally agnostic about preference in expressing the science (maintaining that wall in the evaluation of what is real), thereby exposing the typical use of the "conflation of meaning" of the position holder when discussing the position.

Some people who hold an untenable position do it unknowingly and some do it willingly.

For the former the conversation can cause introspection and refinement of position. It doesn't necessarily need to change the policy they would prescribe, but they have a better understanding of the reality of the policy.

For the latter it reintroduced shame by laying bear reality alongside a willing bias (the position holder gives no inclination to acknowledge your scientific points).

I've used the phrase "reintroduce shame" twice in the past hour in this thread. I feel the far left has tried to create a rule within Society that makes get largely unnecessary to experience or knowledge shame. The Absolution of the experience of Shame by the individual, or as a tool for gentle edification by a well-intentioned other, is a primary contributor to the current ability of said leftists to further their self identity, post modernist philosophy.

And it is absolutely catastrophic to the fiber of a healthy Society.

This post was alway long-winded way of me expressing a great deal of appreciation for you being in the position you are, trained in the medical field and familiar with scientific fact, and that you gently instruct on those facts, educating those who need it and (as I view it) create the environment for the reintroduction of the experience of Shame for those who knowingly push false facts over reality.

Well, thank you sir.

My job of the past 22 years has been educational on a daily basis, and very humbling as well. The only reason I've lasted this long mentally was the early separation of my personal emotions from it. Not to say I don't experience emotion, I do everyday I work, but my only personal investment is in my own performance with a large dose of reality that I don't personally save lives. What saves lives is the application of sound evidenced based medicine in a timely manner by a team of healthcare professionals working toward a common goal. But that's also limited by the complexity that is human physiology and pathophysiology, and often, no matter what is done medically, people will die because of whatever insult disrupted their natural physiological processes and they cannot be restored. People like Poketologist are much more well versed in this reality than I am.

 

[CBradSmith]

Well, thank you sir.

My job of the past 22 years has been educational on a daily basis, and very humbling as well. The only reason I've lasted this long mentally was the early separation of my personal emotions from it. Not to say I don't experience emotion, I do everyday I work, but my only personal investment is in my own performance with a large dose of reality that I don't personally save lives. What saves lives is the application of sound evidenced based medicine in a timely manner by a team of healthcare professionals working toward a common goal. But that's also limited by the complexity that is human physiology and pathophysiology, and often, no matter what is done medically, people will die because of whatever insult disrupted their natural physiological processes and they cannot be restored. People like Poketologist are much more well versed in this reality than I am.

Sure thing.

Hopefully what I was saying made some sense.

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

These type of things just keep happening: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/06/too-much-ice-global-warming.php

 

[imprimis]

60% of Millennials willing to give $10 or less to fight global warming. Money doesn't match their mouths.


http://www.dailywire.com/news/17674/exclusive-60-millennials-unwilling-give-more-10-james-barrett#