re: A message from Neil deGrasse Tyson to science deniers (Video)

quote:

---

Brain activity.

---

Ridiculous. Brain dead people are still legally protected from being murdered.

quote:

---

Yes I am aware of the claim you are making. I am asking for you to support this claim with some sort of logical argument. Simply restating the claim doesn't make it any more true.

---

I've already done so. Carrying a fetus, feeding a toddler, and operating machinery are all completely different. It's a bad point. I'd hope I don't need to explain why they are different.

quote:

---

Carrying a fetus, feeding a toddler, and operating machinery are all completely different.

---

of course they are, but that doesn't mean anything in regards to dependency on them

quote:

---

I'd hope I don't need to explain why

---

I'm sure you do, but if you hope to have any consensus with me then I insist. Explain why biological dependency is so different from logistical or mechanical dependency so as to justify the slaying of the dependent.

quote:

---

how she might have been raped.

---

What's rape got to do with the child?

quote:

---

of course they are, but that doesn't mean anything in regards to dependency on them

---

It does in regards to their relevancy here.

quote:

---

Explain why biological dependency is so different from logistical or mechanical dependency so as to justify the slaying of the dependent.

---

I already did. We don't own people anymore. That alone is all the distinction that is needed. You don't agree, and that's fine.

quote:

---

and another unsupported position!

---

When you make an irrelevant point, it absolves me of the need to support the counter to that point.

The relevancy has to do with the person being kept alive, not the means by which a person is kept alive.

The argument is that if a pre-born child cannot sustain it's own life without assistance from a source outside itself (such as its mother), then it is not viable and is not really a person. The rebuttal is that personhood is not a status given and taken away due to self-sustainability.

A person that requires insulin shots to stay alive is not less of a person than someone who can create a sufficient amount of insulin on their own. A person that requires food provided to them to survive is no less of a person than someone who can acquire food for themselves. A person who requires a ventilator, a feeding tube, or a donor kidney is no less of a person because they cannot continue living in their current state without that assistance from something or someone outside of themselves. Likewise, a pre-born child should not be given a different status simply because it cannot sustain its own life outside of its mother.

quote:

---

That is very much in doubt. I mean, vaccines are also known to cause Autism and other maladies

---

Stop it. Your ignorance gets people killed.

quote:

---

of course they are, but that doesn't mean anything in regards to dependency on them



It does in regards to their relevancy here.

---

Not really. You argue that abortion is ok if the baby is not viable without a womans body. He is asking is any human being can be killed if life is not viable without the aid of outside forces. They are, essentially the same. One depends on a woman, and the other depends on a machine.

I would take it one step further that pointing out that once born, a baby cannot survive without someone feeding and caring for it. Does that make killing it ok?

quote:

---

We don't own people anymore.

---

Which has nothing to do with the ethics of abortion. Nobody has full rights over their own bodies. If you think you do, try selling a kidney on the internet.

quote:

---

What, like fat in the diet causes heart disease so low fat diets are recommended, but then someone wasn't satisfied with that "fact" and did further research and found that high carbs and elevated inflammation in the vessels were the more likely culprit?

Consensus in real science should always be questioned. That questioner is not a "science denier", that is a scientist.

---

Maybe, just maybe, they continued to study the subject matter and made more discoveries. They more than likely continued to collect data using the low fat approach and found similar data as they did before and concluded that it wasn't fat that was the culprit. Science is ever changing with new discoveries. Some hard core facts are exactly nailed down until some years after the initial discovery.