Bill Nye: The Science of Abortion

Dr. Jones wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:Won't answer the question?

What's there to answer?   This is about the bible vs science as they pertain to abortion.  Your deflection is pretty pitiful.

I looked back at the discussion thus far.

You were the first to mention God in this discussion.

Still not sure why.

The right or wrong about abortion can be answered using simple logic.

Or are you saying a discussion of God and/or the Bible is needed to do so?

So you're saying you really are that stupid.  I think you need to read the thread again.  Find someone to read it to you if you have to.  Maybe Gomerr.  The original article made the implication that he was referring to the bible in his podcast.  I agree.  Apparently the Grand Poobah does as well, because he refrenced Nye's hash of Christian theology in his post.   Above all of these examples is just plain and simple common sense, of which you apparently have none.

Going to personal attack mode, I see.

Whatever floats your boat.

You must be referring to the ONE instance the word Bible is used in the article YOU posted:

Nye is sympathetic to those holding long-standing religious beliefs. However, he makes a point to say that books written many centuries ago for a different society with a different set of priorities (in other words, the Bible) can’t be a guide for contemporary understanding.

That is the only mention of the word Bible. Not one time were the words Christian or religious used.

The author refers to there being a different set of priorities in the Bible than we have today.

That is sad but true of a lot of people, you included. For people like you, it is all about ones SELF. You don't want a little thing like an inconvenient pregnancy get in the way of the way you want to live your life, regardless of the poor choices you have made.

For people like you, there is no moral compass.

But go ahead, continue to say it's OK to murder human beings with unique DNA. You will find out one day how wrong you were.

Your argument is the stupid one.

Centuries ago people died of all kinds of diseases-- of natural causes. Your logic says that since people died then, we might as well kill innocent people now. You know, since ITS THE SAME THING.

Religiously speaking, would you say that life begins at intercourse or delivery?

There you go again, bringing religion into a question that can easily be answered with simple logic.

BladeRunner wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:Won't answer the question?

What's there to answer?   This is about the bible vs science as they pertain to abortion.  Your deflection is pretty pitiful.

I looked back at the discussion thus far.

You were the first to mention God in this discussion.

Still not sure why.

The right or wrong about abortion can be answered using simple logic.

Or are you saying a discussion of God and/or the Bible is needed to do so?

So you're saying you really are that stupid.  I think you need to read the thread again.  Find someone to read it to you if you have to.  Maybe Gomerr.  The original article made the implication that he was referring to the bible in his podcast.  I agree.  Apparently the Grand Poobah does as well, because he refrenced Nye's hash of Christian theology in his post.   Above all of these examples is just plain and simple common sense, of which you apparently have none.

Going to personal attack mode, I see.

Whatever floats your boat.

You must be referring to the ONE instance the word Bible is used in the article YOU posted:

Nye is sympathetic to those holding long-standing religious beliefs. However, he makes a point to say that books written many centuries ago for a different society with a different set of priorities (in other words, the Bible) can’t be a guide for contemporary understanding.

That is the only mention of the word Bible. Not one time were the words Christian or religious used.

The author refers to there being a different set of priorities in the Bible than we have today.

That is sad but true of a lot of people, you included. For people like you, it is all about ones SELF. You don't want a little thing like an inconvenient pregnancy get in the way of the way you want to live your life, regardless of the poor choices you have made.

For people like you, there is no moral compass.

But go ahead, continue to say it's OK to murder human beings with unique DNA. You will find out one day how wrong you were.

Your argument is the stupid one.

Centuries ago people died of all kinds of diseases-- of natural causes. Your logic says that since people died then, we might as well kill innocent people now. You know, since ITS THE SAME THING.

Religiously speaking, would you say that life begins at intercourse or delivery?

There you go again, bringing religion into a question that can easily be answered with simple logic.

By logic do you mean science?

Liberals trip over themselves trying to find a shred of life on another planet yet when it comes out of a vagina with a beating heart the are not so certain. These bastards are the evil spawn from Satan and someday they will receive their just rewards...gnashing of teeth you Godless cretins.

Darth Cheney wrote:Liberals trip over themselves trying to find a shred of life on another planet yet when it comes out of a vagina with a beating heart the are not so certain. These bastards are the evil spawn from Satan and someday they will receive their just rewards...gnashing of teeth you Godless cretins.

If I have to choose, on the day of my judgment, whether to stand with atheists or neo-Christians that use the bible to preach hate and contempt for others, I will chose athiests. And do so with my head held high.

First, there is no particular degree that would give someone the right to refer to themselves as a "scientist". Mechanical Engineering however deals with the real world application of physics, which is certainly a scientific field.

Hmmmm. I'll have too inform my daughter of that fact. I'll guess she'll have to chisel the name plaque off of her office door with "Scientist" under her name. Nutz, all those scholarships down the crapper. I told her to go into engineering but noooooo. It had to be chemistry with an emphasis on spectroscopy. And she was such a fan of Bill Nye as a kid.

And here's a good article on why engineers aren't considered scientists. Written by a professor of engineering at Duke.

Engineering Is Not Science
And confusing the two keeps us from solving the problems of the world

In political discourse, public policy debates, and the mass media, engineering is often a synonym for science. This confusion might seem an innocuous shorthand for headline writers, but it can leave politicians, policymakers, and the general public unable to make informed decisions about the technical challenges facing the world today.

Science is about understanding the origins, nature, and behavior of the universe and all it contains; engineering is about solving problems by rearranging the stuff of the world to make new things. Conflating these separate objectives leads to uninformed opinions, which in turn can delay or misdirect management, effort, and resources.

http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/tech-careers/engineering-is-not-science

Engineering is the application of science...and yes they take many, many science courses and actually graduate with a Bachelors of Science designation.

Liberals on the other hand don't know shiste from shinola but they think they do because they "feel" they do without a smidgen of fact.

Dr. Jones wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:Liberals trip over themselves trying to find a shred of life on another planet yet when it comes out of a vagina with a beating heart the are not so certain. These bastards are the evil spawn from Satan and someday they will receive their just rewards...gnashing of teeth you Godless cretins.

If I have to choose, on the day of my judgment, whether to stand with atheists or neo-Christians that use the bible to preach hate and contempt for others, I will chose athiests.  And do so with my head held high.

And who/what exactly does an atheist stand before when he is judged on Judgement Day? Do atheists have a judgement day or do they just want to be included like at Christmas?

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

First, there is no particular degree that would give someone the right to refer to themselves as a "scientist". Mechanical Engineering however deals with the real world application of physics, which is certainly a scientific field.

Hmmmm. I'll have too inform my daughter of that fact. I'll guess she'll have to chisel the name plaque off of her office door with "Scientist" under her name. Nutz, all those scholarships down the crapper. I told her to go into engineering but noooooo. It had to be chemistry with an emphasis on spectroscopy. And she was such a fan of Bill Nye as a kid.

And here's a good article on why engineers aren't considered scientists. Written by a professor of engineering at Duke.

Engineering Is Not Science
And confusing the two keeps us from solving the problems of the world

In political discourse, public policy debates, and the mass media, engineering is often a synonym for science. This confusion might seem an innocuous shorthand for headline writers, but it can leave politicians, policymakers, and the general public unable to make informed decisions about the technical challenges facing the world today.

Science is about understanding the origins, nature, and behavior of the universe and all it contains; engineering is about solving problems by rearranging the stuff of the world to make new things. Conflating these separate objectives leads to uninformed opinions, which in turn can delay or misdirect management, effort, and resources.

http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/tech-careers/engineering-is-not-science

I think your daughter should have listened to daddies advice....

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:Liberals trip over themselves trying to find a shred of life on another planet yet when it comes out of a vagina with a beating heart the are not so certain. These bastards are the evil spawn from Satan and someday they will receive their just rewards...gnashing of teeth you Godless cretins.

If I have to choose, on the day of my judgment, whether to stand with atheists or neo-Christians that use the bible to preach hate and contempt for others, I will chose athiests.  And do so with my head held high.

And who/what exactly does an atheist stand before when he is judged on Judgement Day?     Do atheists have a judgement day or do they just want to be included like at Christmas?

Excellent question. You should ask Darth. He was the one breathing fire and brimstone at all the nonbelievers.

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

First, there is no particular degree that would give someone the right to refer to themselves as a "scientist". Mechanical Engineering however deals with the real world application of physics, which is certainly a scientific field.

Hmmmm. I'll have too inform my daughter of that fact. I'll guess she'll have to chisel the name plaque off of her office door with "Scientist" under her name. Nutz, all those scholarships down the crapper. I told her to go into engineering but noooooo. It had to be chemistry with an emphasis on spectroscopy. And she was such a fan of Bill Nye as a kid.

And here's a good article on why engineers aren't considered scientists. Written by a professor of engineering at Duke.

Engineering Is Not Science
And confusing the two keeps us from solving the problems of the world

In political discourse, public policy debates, and the mass media, engineering is often a synonym for science. This confusion might seem an innocuous shorthand for headline writers, but it can leave politicians, policymakers, and the general public unable to make informed decisions about the technical challenges facing the world today.

Science is about understanding the origins, nature, and behavior of the universe and all it contains; engineering is about solving problems by rearranging the stuff of the world to make new things. Conflating these separate objectives leads to uninformed opinions, which in turn can delay or misdirect management, effort, and resources.

http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/tech-careers/engineering-is-not-science

I think your daughter should have listened to daddies advice....

Why? She had no interest in engineering and she's making more coin as a scientist while getting to work in a cutting edge branch of chemistry. She enjoys her job immensely, so much in fact that she turned down a chance to follow her adviser to MIT. Life is sweet for her.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

First, there is no particular degree that would give someone the right to refer to themselves as a "scientist". Mechanical Engineering however deals with the real world application of physics, which is certainly a scientific field.

Hmmmm. I'll have too inform my daughter of that fact. I'll guess she'll have to chisel the name plaque off of her office door with "Scientist" under her name. Nutz, all those scholarships down the crapper. I told her to go into engineering but noooooo. It had to be chemistry with an emphasis on spectroscopy. And she was such a fan of Bill Nye as a kid.

And here's a good article on why engineers aren't considered scientists. Written by a professor of engineering at Duke.

Engineering Is Not Science
And confusing the two keeps us from solving the problems of the world

In political discourse, public policy debates, and the mass media, engineering is often a synonym for science. This confusion might seem an innocuous shorthand for headline writers, but it can leave politicians, policymakers, and the general public unable to make informed decisions about the technical challenges facing the world today.

Science is about understanding the origins, nature, and behavior of the universe and all it contains; engineering is about solving problems by rearranging the stuff of the world to make new things. Conflating these separate objectives leads to uninformed opinions, which in turn can delay or misdirect management, effort, and resources.

http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/tech-careers/engineering-is-not-science

I think your daughter should have listened to daddies advice....

Why? She had no interest in engineering and she's making more coin as a scientist while getting to work in a cutting edge branch of chemistry. She enjoys her job immensely, so much in fact that she turned down a chance to follow her adviser to MIT. Life is sweet for her.

Because an engineer makes an average of 65% more than a scientist, and they are more than qualified to take on the roll of a scientist in their chosen field, but still hold a degree more applicable for advancement. Your daughter's situation is the exception to the rule. Would she have been passed over for her job with an engineering degree in her field of study with a minor in spectroscopy?

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

First, there is no particular degree that would give someone the right to refer to themselves as a "scientist". Mechanical Engineering however deals with the real world application of physics, which is certainly a scientific field.

Hmmmm. I'll have too inform my daughter of that fact. I'll guess she'll have to chisel the name plaque off of her office door with "Scientist" under her name. Nutz, all those scholarships down the crapper. I told her to go into engineering but noooooo. It had to be chemistry with an emphasis on spectroscopy. And she was such a fan of Bill Nye as a kid.

And here's a good article on why engineers aren't considered scientists. Written by a professor of engineering at Duke.

Engineering Is Not Science
And confusing the two keeps us from solving the problems of the world

In political discourse, public policy debates, and the mass media, engineering is often a synonym for science. This confusion might seem an innocuous shorthand for headline writers, but it can leave politicians, policymakers, and the general public unable to make informed decisions about the technical challenges facing the world today.

Science is about understanding the origins, nature, and behavior of the universe and all it contains; engineering is about solving problems by rearranging the stuff of the world to make new things. Conflating these separate objectives leads to uninformed opinions, which in turn can delay or misdirect management, effort, and resources.

http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/tech-careers/engineering-is-not-science

I think your daughter should have listened to daddies advice....

Why? She had no interest in engineering and she's making more coin as a scientist while getting to work in a cutting edge branch of chemistry. She enjoys her job immensely, so much in fact that she turned down a chance to follow her adviser to MIT. Life is sweet for her.

Because an engineer makes an average of 65% more than a scientist, and they are more than qualified to take on the roll of a scientist in their chosen field, but still hold a degree more applicable for advancement.  Your daughter's situation is the exception to the rule.  Would she have been passed over for her job with an engineering degree in her field of study with a minor in spectroscopy?

Engineering doesn't offer minors but I'm sure you already knew that.

Darth Cheney wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

First, there is no particular degree that would give someone the right to refer to themselves as a "scientist". Mechanical Engineering however deals with the real world application of physics, which is certainly a scientific field.

Hmmmm. I'll have too inform my daughter of that fact. I'll guess she'll have to chisel the name plaque off of her office door with "Scientist" under her name. Nutz, all those scholarships down the crapper. I told her to go into engineering but noooooo. It had to be chemistry with an emphasis on spectroscopy. And she was such a fan of Bill Nye as a kid.

And here's a good article on why engineers aren't considered scientists. Written by a professor of engineering at Duke.

Engineering Is Not Science
And confusing the two keeps us from solving the problems of the world

In political discourse, public policy debates, and the mass media, engineering is often a synonym for science. This confusion might seem an innocuous shorthand for headline writers, but it can leave politicians, policymakers, and the general public unable to make informed decisions about the technical challenges facing the world today.

Science is about understanding the origins, nature, and behavior of the universe and all it contains; engineering is about solving problems by rearranging the stuff of the world to make new things. Conflating these separate objectives leads to uninformed opinions, which in turn can delay or misdirect management, effort, and resources.

http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/tech-careers/engineering-is-not-science

I think your daughter should have listened to daddies advice....

Why? She had no interest in engineering and she's making more coin as a scientist while getting to work in a cutting edge branch of chemistry. She enjoys her job immensely, so much in fact that she turned down a chance to follow her adviser to MIT. Life is sweet for her.

Because an engineer makes an average of 65% more than a scientist, and they are more than qualified to take on the roll of a scientist in their chosen field, but still hold a degree more applicable for advancement.  Your daughter's situation is the exception to the rule.  Would she have been passed over for her job with an engineering degree in her field of study with a minor in spectroscopy?

Engineering doesn't offer minors but I'm sure you already knew that.

Ummmm..... ya they do.

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

First, there is no particular degree that would give someone the right to refer to themselves as a "scientist". Mechanical Engineering however deals with the real world application of physics, which is certainly a scientific field.

Hmmmm. I'll have too inform my daughter of that fact. I'll guess she'll have to chisel the name plaque off of her office door with "Scientist" under her name. Nutz, all those scholarships down the crapper. I told her to go into engineering but noooooo. It had to be chemistry with an emphasis on spectroscopy. And she was such a fan of Bill Nye as a kid.

And here's a good article on why engineers aren't considered scientists. Written by a professor of engineering at Duke.

Engineering Is Not Science
And confusing the two keeps us from solving the problems of the world

In political discourse, public policy debates, and the mass media, engineering is often a synonym for science. This confusion might seem an innocuous shorthand for headline writers, but it can leave politicians, policymakers, and the general public unable to make informed decisions about the technical challenges facing the world today.

Science is about understanding the origins, nature, and behavior of the universe and all it contains; engineering is about solving problems by rearranging the stuff of the world to make new things. Conflating these separate objectives leads to uninformed opinions, which in turn can delay or misdirect management, effort, and resources.

http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/tech-careers/engineering-is-not-science

I think your daughter should have listened to daddies advice....

Why? She had no interest in engineering and she's making more coin as a scientist while getting to work in a cutting edge branch of chemistry. She enjoys her job immensely, so much in fact that she turned down a chance to follow her adviser to MIT. Life is sweet for her.

Because an engineer makes an average of 65% more than a scientist, and they are more than qualified to take on the roll of a scientist in their chosen field, but still hold a degree more applicable for advancement.  Your daughter's situation is the exception to the rule.  Would she have been passed over for her job with an engineering degree in her field of study with a minor in spectroscopy?

A lot of salary differentials between scientists and engineers are due to private sector vs government employment. NMR spectroscopy is a cross-disciplinary field in chemistry (also in biology and medicine) involving considerable knowledge of quantum physics. I suppose an engineer taking enough hours in NMR spectroscopy could claim it as a minor (if there is such a thing) but outside of chemical engineering (and maybe electrical engineering) I can't see much value for an  engineer to follow this course of studies since most engineering is grounded in classical/Newtonian physics.

Her position could not be filled by an engineer. Educational requirements far exceed that of a BS or Master degree. Need a PhD for this job and there are no minors in graduate studies. One aspect of her job is to train researchers in the proper use of the magnets and quantify the integrity of their results. She is also in charge of the installation, maintenance and calibration of the equipment. This is what a NMR magnet looks like: 

But enough digression.

Bill Nye's argument fails because regardless of the fact that some fertilized eggs are passed naturally and others implant in the uterus beginning a pregnancy, a unique life with it's own DNA is created once the egg is fertilized. The implantation doesn't change that fact. Absent any sickness, accidents or intervention, the new life will grow into a person.

The fact that nature/God causes many fertilized eggs not to implant is a red herring and Nye's attempt to draw a moral equivalence between a natural, spontaneous abortion to a premeditated, deliberate intervention in an otherwise healthy implantation demonstrates an ignorance beyond even a rudimentary understanding of the human reproductive process.

Darth Cheney wrote:Engineering is the application of science...and yes they take many, many science courses and actually graduate with a Bachelors of Science designation.

Liberals on the other hand don't know shiste from shinola but they think they do because they "feel" they do without a smidgen of fact.

Darth, you are probably already aware of this, but one of the big differences between scientists and engineers is that most (not all) scientists end up being flaming liberals and most (not al) engineers end up being conservatives.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:
And who/what exactly does an atheist stand before when he is judged on Judgement Day?     Do atheists have a judgement day or do they just want to be included like at Christmas?

Athiests do not have a judgement day. They go directly to purgatory since Heaven isn't in their belief system

Gomezz Adddams wrote:But enough digression.

Bill Nye's argument fails because regardless of the fact that some fertilized eggs are passed naturally and others implant in the uterus beginning a pregnancy, a unique life with it's own DNA is created once the egg is fertilized. The implantation doesn't change that fact. Absent any sickness, accidents or intervention, the new life will grow into a person.

The fact that nature/God causes many fertilized eggs not to implant is a red herring and Nye's attempt to draw a moral equivalence between a natural, spontaneous abortion to a premeditated, deliberate intervention in an otherwise healthy implantation demonstrates  an ignorance beyond even a rudimentary understanding of the human reproductive process.

He is not likening the two. He's merely stating that hanging your hat on the notion that life begins at fertilization is absurd, because there are many more natural steps that have to occur that are every bit as essential.  Without these additional steps life simply doesn't exist.  It's like baking a cake, your not done once you've mixed the ingredients.  A woman's right to maintain control over her own body as the process occurs is as natural as the gestation process itself.  A process, by the way, that you would know nothing about if it weren't for the very same people that you say don't know what they are talking about.

Jammer wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:Engineering is the application of science...and yes they take many, many science courses and actually graduate with a Bachelors of Science designation.

Liberals on the other hand don't know shiste from shinola but they think they do because they "feel" they do without a smidgen of fact.

Darth, you are probably already aware of this, but one of the big differences between scientists and engineers is that most (not all) scientists end up being flaming liberals and most (not al) engineers end up being conservatives.

Gomezz will be devastated.

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:But enough digression.

Bill Nye's argument fails because regardless of the fact that some fertilized eggs are passed naturally and others implant in the uterus beginning a pregnancy, a unique life with it's own DNA is created once the egg is fertilized. The implantation doesn't change that fact. Absent any sickness, accidents or intervention, the new life will grow into a person.

The fact that nature/God causes many fertilized eggs not to implant is a red herring and Nye's attempt to draw a moral equivalence between a natural, spontaneous abortion to a premeditated, deliberate intervention in an otherwise healthy implantation demonstrates  an ignorance beyond even a rudimentary understanding of the human reproductive process.

He is not likening the two. He's merely stating that hanging your hat on the notion that life begins at fertilization is absurd, because there are many more natural steps that have to occur that are every bit as essential.  Without these additional steps life simply doesn't exist.  It's like baking a cake, your not done once you've mixed the ingredients.  A woman's right to maintain control over her own body as the process occurs is as natural as the gestation process itself.  A process, by the way, that you would know nothing about if it weren't for the very same people that you say don't know what they are talking about.

Leave it up to a bloodluster to denigrate the life of an unborn by comparing it to a cake. No wonder you don't feel bad about the abortions you have had or supported.

Dr. Jones wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

First, there is no particular degree that would give someone the right to refer to themselves as a "scientist". Mechanical Engineering however deals with the real world application of physics, which is certainly a scientific field.

Hmmmm. I'll have too inform my daughter of that fact. I'll guess she'll have to chisel the name plaque off of her office door with "Scientist" under her name. Nutz, all those scholarships down the crapper. I told her to go into engineering but noooooo. It had to be chemistry with an emphasis on spectroscopy. And she was such a fan of Bill Nye as a kid.

And here's a good article on why engineers aren't considered scientists. Written by a professor of engineering at Duke.

Engineering Is Not Science
And confusing the two keeps us from solving the problems of the world

In political discourse, public policy debates, and the mass media, engineering is often a synonym for science. This confusion might seem an innocuous shorthand for headline writers, but it can leave politicians, policymakers, and the general public unable to make informed decisions about the technical challenges facing the world today.

Science is about understanding the origins, nature, and behavior of the universe and all it contains; engineering is about solving problems by rearranging the stuff of the world to make new things. Conflating these separate objectives leads to uninformed opinions, which in turn can delay or misdirect management, effort, and resources.

http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/tech-careers/engineering-is-not-science

I think your daughter should have listened to daddies advice....

Why? She had no interest in engineering and she's making more coin as a scientist while getting to work in a cutting edge branch of chemistry. She enjoys her job immensely, so much in fact that she turned down a chance to follow her adviser to MIT. Life is sweet for her.

Because an engineer makes an average of 65% more than a scientist, and they are more than qualified to take on the roll of a scientist in their chosen field, but still hold a degree more applicable for advancement.  Your daughter's situation is the exception to the rule.  Would she have been passed over for her job with an engineering degree in her field of study with a minor in spectroscopy?

Engineering doesn't offer minors but I'm sure you already knew that.

Ummmm..... ya they do.

Nope