Shared publicly  - 
Chris Mooney, author of Unscientific America, offers a disturbing view on how firmly some of our neighbors - even moderately well educated ones - can cling to aphorisms, assertions and just-so stories in order to clutch a politically motivated view - or mis-view - of scientific facts. I agree with Mooney that this effect has done grievous harm to our once-scientific and rational nation. Mooney's article shows that our current Culture War is not about left vs right at all. It is about two very different sets of personalities—and perceptions of reality. And evidence has a limited power to persuade on hot button issues where deep emotions are involved. As a result, the “war on science” has ballooned long past any mere attack upon the credibility of researchers and professors. It now manifests as a general onslaught on all knowledge castes -- including teachers, economists, journalists,civil servants, medical doctors, skilled labor, judges, diplomats... everyone(in other words) who actually knows a lot. All are routinely attacked on you-know-which-murdochian-" news"-network.
Phil Duby's profile photoSyd Seale's profile photoAndrei Lopatenko's profile photoMoshe Vardi's profile photo
Anti-scientific thinking has become a litmus test for the GOP for everything from Global Warming to Creation "Science" to vaccine conspiracy theories. Just ask Rick Santorum or Bill O'Reilly. This stupidity flourishes because the consequences are often delayed until they become catastrophic.
I just hope they will not put the GOP cult within all of our children's minds in our schools.
Better to ask why this happened. In a technologically complex, automated, digitalized, globally competitive economic environment, having a merely average IQ means you will be rendered non-competitive and that you will fail. And people know it. Speaking of the value of science and intelligence just leaves most people with an overwhelming sense of their doom in the modern world.

So when a political demagogue tells people that they don't need education or critical thinking skills because they are the true salt of the earth, what position do you think the majority population is going to adopt? Yours? I don't think so.
If they burn bridges with books there will be more than just salting of the earth. There will be a loss of our present civilization and even more war.
The GOP better get it together that they are heading down a path they should not. I feel the same for any extremist and fundamentalist. They are the cause of destruction and suffering of all.
You also got to thank the creationists for shielding children from other ideas of science.
For when we have sex education it usually comes with a paper, for parents to sign, of children in grade school if they are to know things. There is ways that kids know things but not always healthy.
Biology and health class gives enough information and that is where I think it should be taught most. The rest just get's too political when getting into details. I think there should also be taught what to do to get away from people that are pedophiles and rapists online and in the real world in health class.
This describe the situation in Italy, too. There may be a historical explanation (here, the Catholic Church, monarchs and parties had always based their power on people's ignorance and superstitions), in Italy's case. Just look at who governed my country in the last 5 years....
"It is impossible to reason somebody out of a position they didn't reason themselves into"
+Don McArthur i'm not entirely sure myself, I think it might be Johnathan Swift, but I could be misremembering
+Jennifer Isaacs Yes, I found that via Google, and many like it. I was hoping to nail down authoritatively the original source. That may not be possible, of course.
Politics, at least as usual, is all about using information (often tweaked to be less than accurate) to manipulate others into following orders. You can get this in any area, including science. It's a symptom of mental illness, and the cure is to do everything we can to keep people's bodies (which include their brains), healthy. Most people are seriously sick, physically, and aren't even aware of it, because the problems are subtle and deep, rather than superficial. Nutritional deficiencies, toxins, and lack of freedom are top of the list of common causes of mental illness, and only when we move beyond politics as usual, can we fully explore, understand, and solve these health problems that cause the world to be so confused...
Scientist's and their spokesman have a great deal of blame causing this supposed problem. The false and exaggerated claims of the last half decade have turned much of the public against science with a political message.
The scientific community can only blame themselves. The source of their problem with public perception comes from within their own house. Science needs money. That money comes from government. That means the science must be shaded to please those who appropriate or the source of funding dies and the science stops. This is a phenomenon of human nature that those in the scientific community surely understand. The politicians, unable to control themselves, take these shaded scientific findings and sprint to the nearest microphone to beat their opponents over the head with the data. It appears an educated public is a dangerous thing for some in the scientific community.
Humans seem to be the down fall of themselves, and the world more than they seem to not be parasitic to the earth and it's living. I don't blame a gun, money, beliefs, or ideas on their own. I do blame how they are used with the actions of the individuals responsible. It seems there is always going to be fighting in the social pecking order of humans and who is most superior at being right instead of what is a human right of choice. 'Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status.'
This is what many in politics and religion try to persuade is the right answer to every topic.
A scientific opinion (or finding) does not superseded a religious belief and religious beliefs do not disprove scientific opinions. No amount of science in the world will ever change the mind of a true believer. Both exist together. The public can consider both equally and decide how to support both equally. Just because a religion believes something to be true that science does not support does not change the fact that the members of the religion will, or should, believe any different. Those who attempt to pit science against religion and beliefs against findings of fact are failing to serve either.
+Frank Dunn The problem is the myth "Science needs money." It's a highly disproved theory! Unless, of course, you're studying money. :-)

The sooner we get rid of the ridiculous illusion of "money" and just do what we love, allowing the natural diversity of individuals in a complex species such as humans fill all, or nearly all of the niches of a healthy functioning society (with robots filling the rest), the faster we'll have a healthy, non-political field of science where people are naturally able to do their best work on the most important topics to humanity.
Also, there is politics (manipulation for unhealthy purposes) in all arenas: religion/art, science, education, relationships, and so on. Religion, at it's core, is simply an artistic (emotional) approach to explaining the laws of physics (the omnipotent force creating the universe), it, as with anything else including science, only goes badly when there is mental illness expressing itself as hoarding, greed, anti-social behavior, etc. Get the politics (or at least the idea of authoritarian rule, such as most Western governments and religions, including the US government) out of our society and we'll all have better information, both in qualitative/creative/artistic forms such as in healthy religion, and in quantitative/logical/mathematical forms such as in healthy science.
More over human rights to be recognized in an non authoritative way. Though I would find that would be difficult to do in human social structures. Even other social creatures have territorial fights. I can only hope we would be better at such ways of treating each other with all that we are aware.
The fools will kill us all. Problem is, both sides identify with that statement.
+Jennifer Isaacs "I just hope they will not put the GOP cult within all of our children's minds in our schools."

Ignoring the fact that that's an incoherent sentence, I'll try to tease out the spirit of it and respond.

Children are resilient creatures, and I have no fear that being told that there's a political, religious, scientific or philosophical school of thought contrary to their own or their parents' will damage them beyond all repair. In fact, I believe firmly that exposing children to the wealth of ideas throughout the span of human history is the only way to produce critical thinkers who are capable of leading the next generation wisely.

I'd like to think that most school children are taught orders of magnitude more about the various political platforms than I've ever seen evidenced in public Google+ comment threads, at the very least... When I was in school we studied the modern political parties along with American brands of about a dozen other schools of political thought. If that's not the bare minimum for current education, then I have a pretty serious problem with that.
A cult is one thing and a free society of learning is another. Putting thoughts and hateful, fearful, abusive, and hurtful emotions in a child's head is one thing. Letting them decide if they want to know, teaching them to fish for more than a day, leading them to water to drink, and encouraging that gently knowledge is another.
Now who is to decide the fate of children? It should be the children given the power of knowledge to decide independently right?
Even science is only interpretation. When science becomes political it is merely one power contending against others.
There is cults o all kinds where extremists love to have power over the 'haves and have nots'.
This includes any religion, politic, ect. under such unltraisms from totalitarians. There is a cult like atmosphere that seems to be unavoidable in the history of human cultures.
_ having a merely average IQ means you will be rendered non-competitive and that you will fail_

I tried to leave this alone but I can't. It's just too silly to pass by unremarked. Even if you factor in windage for hyperbole I'm pretty sure that isn't all that much correlation between IQ and success,
Recent studies show IQ is not correlated with success, whether measured with objective criteria (income, job title) or subjective (reported life satisfaction). The quality that does correlate with success is "grit" - the ability to come back repeatedly from disappointments and defeats. Lower-IQ people with grit succeed much more often than higher IQ people without it.
+Steve Rosenquist that is some what true. It is who has the most power, social political skill, and money to manipulate it. To be able to play other people like they have great morals, kill off the competition, and lead countries under a dictatorship of some sort always seems successful when it comes down to some ideas of such success.

Also there are people that you wouldn't think that would do well even when they don't complete high school. Famous and awesome to all the world. They put in elbow grease and did much to help others.
Though I do wonder why people with anti-science beliefs actually use science and things related to science in some form. Some times it is good to know the facts and truth when looking to disprove evidence over something.
People who know things tend to be opinion leaders, setting the tone at the office, steering discussions at a party, speaking out at community events. They also tend to be politically moderate, and thus stand in the way of the Republican agenda. Discredit, decapitate the community leaders and you can have a direct, persuasive channel into the minds of the large pool of voters that they shepherd. Its an obvious political strategy, and its to the detriment of us all.
Interesting I tend to think all to often the smart folks never say anything because it is hard for them since they tend to try to think all sides of an issue. While this goes on those who maybe could never understand or see there are truths all around have already moved to set their beliefs in action. Certain far to either side groups will destroy anyone who is in the middle and the other side because that is the only way they know. Apparently that was why we were created as a republic not a true democracy. I used to believe technoligy would allow us a real one vote for each person at this point it kind of scares me. as Stealers Wheel said " stuck in the middle with you"
One potentially disturbing way of probing one's own world-view for irrational bias is the following test: In regard to a controversy where you strongly support one side and consider the other side's claim to have rational arguments to be a sham, can you summarize their arguments in a way that they themselves would regard as compelling? And could they summarize yours?
Here's another possibility: Ordinary people are becoming smarter, and they're starting to recognize that the "smart people" aren't reliable.

Consider: the Renaissance and the development of the Scientific Method happened in part because people started to recognize that there was an awful lot that the ancients did not know or were flat out wrong about. This led to a new generation seeking out truth for themselves.

At present, the world is waking up and recognizing that the opinion leaders don't know anything. We've seen the "consensus opinion" change back and forth on a number of issues - complete reversals. We've also seen that modern educational methods don't do as well as the methods used a century ago.

Of course, all the soft sciences are a complete mess - their practitioners are so obviously wrong about most things that it's painful to watch. If they were doctors, they'd be at the blood-letting stage of development.

In the past, ordinary people trusted the wisdom of those who are experts in their field. These people have come to realize, however, just how flawed the "experts" really are. Unfortunately, most remain unable to discern which "experts" are real (but flawed) and which "experts" are shams. We are at the beginning of a transition. Still, as they say, the first step is recognizing that you have a problem....
+David Brin I wanted to thank you for thoughtful commentary on all of my books. So, here's the thing.

Nature/nurture: My new book, the Republican Brain (, is about nature. And yet, I am a liberal. But far from ignoring human nature, I am putting it front and center. I am talking about how the left and right differ psychologically, even physiologically, and how this is rooted in deeper and, probably, evolved things about human beings.

Second, nuclear power: In the book, as you'll see, I make a strong case that this is no worthy left-wing parallel to climate change denial on the right. I don't think there is any worthy parallel.

I'm going to crosspost this to your blog. Thanks again for thoughtful commentary. "Some critics of faith have argued that faith is opposed to reason. In contrast, some advocates of faith argue that the proper domain of faith concerns questions which cannot be settled by evidence. This is exemplified by attitudes about the future, which (by definition) has not yet occurred. Logical reasoning may proceed from any set of assumptions, positive or negative. In this view, faith is simply a positive assumption." "Knowledge is a familiarity with someone or something, which can include information, facts, descriptions, or skills acquired through experience or education. " "Truth has a variety of meanings, such as the state of being in accord with fact or reality. It can also mean having fidelity to an original or to a standard or ideal. In a common usage, it also means constancy or sincerity in action or character. The direct opposite of truth is falsehood, which can correspondingly take logical, factual or ethical meanings." "Wisdom is a deep understanding and realization of people, things, events or situations, resulting in the ability to apply perceptions, judgements and actions in keeping with this understanding. It often requires control of one's emotional reactions (the "passions") so that universal principles, reason and knowledge prevail to determine one's actions. Wisdom is also the comprehension of what is true or right coupled with optimum judgment as to action. Synonyms include: sagacity, discernment, or insight."

I bet we can agree to disagree.
To respond to both +Chris Mooney and +Alan Light, the problem is, of course, that many people who argue are unable to recognize fallacies in their own arguments, or to present their cases in a persuasive way, or to be persuaded. Modern science (psychology, to be precise) has been studying the mechanisms of belief systems: how beliefs are formed, how they reinforce one-another, how/why they are resilient and stable, and not likely to change in the face of argument. When I say "belief system" here, I mean any kind of beliefs: belief in science, belief in capitalism, etc. what used to be called "weltanschauung" or "world view".
To respond to +Alan Light, +Steve Rosenquist, +Frank Dunn who come out with statements like "the scientific community has only itself to blame" -- Please be aware that watching science in action is kind of like watching a slaughterhouse in action. There's a whole lotta blood and meat-grinding going on. Its really pretty revolting if you are not used to it. But when you eat a hamburger, you don't think about the slaughterhouse, you think about how good it tastes.

Likewise, when you fly in an airplane, drive a car, use a phone, you don't think about any of the rather wild 19th, 18th and 17th century ugly fights that lead to this; all the wrong things that were printed about electricity and chemical action, all the mistakes and bad thinking about heavier-than-air craft. So, yeah, scientists often talk shit, and often get things completely wrong, but as a process, great things result. So when the Republicans say mean, nasty things about scientists, I fear they are throwing away the baby with the bathwater. Like the Islamic nations, they want the F-15 fighter jets that are the product of science, they just don't want the culture that knows how to create such things.
Insightful post and comments! I notice these effects around continuously.
Yes it is Jeff. I think it always will be too. :/
When faith meets science on the field of reason, science always prevails. Look at Galileo and the Catholic Church. Galileo was imprisoned for life because he disagreed with the "faithful" about the geocentric theory. However, Galileo's correct (and much simpler) theories were accepted because they worked for predicting future events.

Likewise, Einstein's theories were belittled by the Nazi's mainly because Einstein was a Jew. But the power of General Relativity was far greater than the "superman" beliefs of Hitler and Goering.

The reason science prevails over faith is because good science can be tested and proven. If a theory is proven, it allows us to make useful predictions of future events. Faith cannot do that. Science makes continuous progress because it can be tested, the experiments can be replicated, and the ideas of all are equal. This despite the political rhetoric. Scientists do need money, but a significant portion of that money comes from private capital which is repaid many times over. Just ask Alexander Bell, or J Craig Ventner.

How do we overcome the politics of stupidity?
1. Stop teaching our children stupidity like "Creation Science". Spend more time teaching mathematics and science and less time on "feel good" subjects.
2. Require media outlets follow the Fairness Doctrine and reveal the true credentials of psuedo scientists who are on the payroll of corporations with an agenda. See Global Warming.
3. Require corporations that make political "position ads" to provide equal dollars to qualified persons with opposing views.
4. Speak up for science. Don't just let "people of faith" make stupid statements without challenging those false beliefs.

BTW, I am a Christian, but I don't equate that with stupidity or blind belief in false doctrine.
+Linas Vepstas You're right about the scientific method being a contentious thing, and I agree that science (and logic) are undervalued in our society. However, I think Democrats and Republicans are both pretty anti-scientific when it suits their political agenda. I think Libertarians are slightly better, but largely because the party is small enough that the dimmest wits haven't been clamoring to get in.

I'm encouraged by the research into why people hold their opinions in the face of facts, but discouraged because most of the researchers begin with an unmerited assumption that their own beliefs are reasonable and certain opposing beliefs are not - which is to say, they generally begin their experiments with terrible methodology. It is kind of like the studies that find that FOX news viewers are greatly misinformed compared to viewers of other networks ... by comparing their beliefs with what are often the equally false beliefs promulgated by those other networks. The conclusion that FOX news horribly miseducates its viewers is almost certainly correct, but whether it does so more or less than other news sources is up in the air, and the methodology is useless regardless.

In short, there's a lot of work left to do, and I don't see any side as being more inherently "reasonable" than any other. On the plus side, I find a lot of intelligent and reasonable people in unexpected places.
Money is power to politics and politics is power over the people. I agree that all political parties have radical dimwits but aside that the ones that seem to have the most influence in the US are more often than not the wealthier people of the community. Those are the people that decides what happens to the power of their wealth the most.
If an intellectual or a dimwit run the country things get messy. How do we find ways to make sure our leaders are for human rights and understand just enough how to keep things balanced as much as possible?.

I think leaders more often take on more of a celebrity status in lime light than actually lead us any where. Many people seem to rather be entertained and given 'magic tricks'.
As a person with a science degree and an IQ of 136, I find this page to be rather stupid. I give it an IQ or 70. Why? Because you believe in science only when it fits your political agenda. Somehow you think science has become a Democrat. No science is a set of facts, it knows no party. Yes, you can draw some conflicting theories from the same set of data, but given the ability to closely examine and replicate experiments this is usual resolved. But to make my point here is something totally against anything science shows us: it is the aborting a human and saying is not killing a human being. No, instead of sticking to the science you say you believe in, you make up convenient myths about personhood and viability. Scientific fact is very clear: if you kill a human fetus the day before it is born it is the same as killing it the day after it is born. All scientific fact and research points to earlier brain wave activity than we once thought. We have found that the heart beats earlier than we once thought. By putting camera within the womb we again confirm the homosapien contained with in. It even sucks it thumb! So if you say science is a Democrat or that Democrats looks to science for answers, please provide me with even one scientific fact that say that within a female homosapien's womb who is pregnant that it does not contain another homosapien! Lets get real! If Democrats believed in science at all they would certain set some point of development with in the womb as the start of a human life. They would at least be something like brain waves, aggregate cells that form a brain, or perhaps a heart beat. But all of this is just an inconvenient truth. A totally ignored scientific irrefutable fact.
+Mike Kennedy Sigh, I am too stuopid to just let this issue lay there. I have to rebut. First of all, science has not become a democrat. Republican attacks on science have hurt and damaged conservative and right-leaning scientists to the point where almost all of them have turned into democrats, simply to protect their jobs, their reputation, their standing, their work. There really aren't very many republican scientists left, and they feel very lonely. But hey, "the beatings will continue until morale improves".

As to turning science into politics, um, err, not to point out the obvious, but that is the one and only thing that you do in your post. No wonder scientists are turning democratic: arguments such as your send them fleeing away. You can't say things like that, and expect people to react positively. Of course -- you are provoking a hostile reaction. Is that really your intent? To post something here, and loose, shake your head, walk away, mumbling "they're all idiots with an IQ of 70 ..."? Is that the fore-ordained outcome of all this?
No I guess I'm just so tired of people saying they are so smart when they are in the same boat on issues as the people they attack. And yes I shouldn't have written the IQ part, I was angry by the blatant bigotry displayed here. If you are a real scientist it would make no difference what political party you belonged to, or even your personal beliefs. I'm 59 and I have seen a gradual but steady corruption of science as it is turned into politics and greed. It use to be science tried to remain neutral on morality and presented facts and propose theories that could be tested by others and some conclusions drawn. Now if you pick up Scientific America(that was once my fav magazine) your likely to be reading a political rant in some part of the article. A real scientist use to present facts and theories. If his personal bias is easily seen in an article or you can determine his political party from it I think he has failed at this job.
And I have to tell you, Scientist that see the issue of global warming differently are mocked and denied employment because the issue has not been settled in their minds. Go a head and present all the research you want on global warming and such, but lest's keep the politics out of science. Plus you have ignored my point. A large number of Democrats believe in abortion. You say they are the party that favors scientific fact. Tell me how you think science disproves that a human fetus in not a human being.
And keep politics out of religion. Also keep science out of religion too. Probably isn't going to happen even if we wish it.
Jennifer I see them as distinctly different. But science is facts and theories. Science is amoral, no morals can be drawn from it. Politics and religion are in fact what people believe to be true but can not easily be proven.. Religion and culture have always been the place where people have gotten morals. Politics is the way society works out its differences.
No I don't have time tonight to watch the video, but I know what science is and is not. Science is amoral. Science can not assign a different value to an amoeba, a flea, a pig, or a homosapien. It can not assign a different value to a plant over or about the life of an animal. We assign a lower value to a plant to be able to eat it. Most people assign a lower value to an individual animal and kill it, eat it or make something from its hide and such. We(as a rule) don't kill and eat people because we have assigned a higher value to them. This not scientific, it is our morals that make this distinction.
"In its weakest form, science of morality is the idea that we do not need divine authority to be critical of any so-called 'moral system' that causes unreasonable suffering. Daleiden, Harris and others discuss or support a stronger case, however. It is the idea that, once we accept the premises that are necessary for any empirical, secular, and philosophical discussion, we can define "morality" in a relevant way. Presumably, societies can then use the methods of science to provide some of the best answers to 'moral' questions. This means identifying which values and norms (e.g. free speech versus government censorship) are more likely to maximize the well-being of all conscious creatures.
In plainer words, Harris imagines a science premised on the use of the term "morality" to refer to the pursuit of flourishing for every conscious creature." "Realism and anti-realismPhilosophical theories on the nature and origins of morality (that is, theories of meta-ethics) are broadly divided into two classes:Moral realism is the class of theories which hold that there are true moral statements that report objective moral facts. For example, while they might concede that forces of social conformity significantly shape individuals' "moral" decisions, they deny that those cultural norms and customs define morally right behavior. This may be the philosophical view propounded by ethical naturalists, however not all moral realists accept that position (e.g. ethical non-naturalists).
Moral anti-realism, on the other hand, holds that moral statements either fail or do not even attempt to report objective moral facts. Instead, they hold that moral claims are derived either from an unsupported belief that there are objective moral facts (error theory, a form of moral nihilism); the speakers' sentiments (emotivism, a form of moral relativism); or any one of the norms prevalent in society (ethical subjectivism, another form of moral relativism).Theories which claim that morality is derived from reasoning about implied imperatives (universal prescriptivism), the edicts of a god (divine command theory), or the hypothetical decrees of a perfectly rational being (ideal observer theory), are considered anti-realist in the robust sense used here, but are considered realist in the sense synonymous with moral universalism."
Also I think you are mixing philosophy with science. Science can stand alone. Philosophy can be drawn from facts, theories, thoughts, logic, feelings and such, but it is not science. If you mix philosophy with science you end up with philosophy not science. I think you are lumping them together and saying it is science but it is not. It may make you think you are more correct by mixing the two, but it is not science. Many scientist would agree with you, but they are also in error. They are trying to protect themselves from the reality that they are making moralist judgments that are based on their on belief system, not science. They are entitled to believe what they want, but please don't call it science!!
Again, even though I understand the point I disagree. I am not trying to interject religion or faith in this discussion. An atheist can develop a philosophy, but it is not science. Most certainly he can use science to base his philosophy on, but science can not validate a moral position. I am only objecting to the idea that it is being called science not philosophy. Philosophy and religion are similar in this sense that they assign value and morals to society. Science can't not. The "science of morality" is not science at all, it is opinion, based on a philosophy. As a person of faith I acknowledge that I believe in some things that can not be seen or proven.I believe them to be true. I guess I expect that same honesty from any philosophic scientist. They have assigned value and morals by a system that science can not prove to be correct or not.
"Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.
In an older and closely related meaning (found, for example, in Aristotle), "science" refers to the body of reliable knowledge itself, of the type that can be logically and rationally explained (see History and philosophy below).
Since classical antiquity science as a type of knowledge was closely linked to philosophy. In the early modern era the words "science" and "philosophy" were sometimes used interchangeably in the English language. By the 17th century, natural philosophy (which is today called "natural science") was considered a separate branch of philosophy.[3] However, "science" continued to be used in a broad sense denoting reliable knowledge about a topic, in the same way it is still used in modern terms such as library science or political science."

"In general, an opinion is a subjective belief, and is the result of emotion or interpretation of facts. An opinion may be supported by an argument, although people may draw opposing opinions from the same set of facts. Opinions rarely change without new arguments being presented. However, it can be reasoned that one opinion is better supported by the facts than another by analysing the supporting arguments. In casual use, the term opinion may be the result of a person's perspective, understanding, particular feelings, beliefs, and desires. It may refer to unsubstantiated information, in contrast to knowledge and fact-based beliefs."
(To compare in order to show unlikeness or differences; note the opposite natures, purposes, etc., of)

"Truth has a variety of meanings, such as the state of being in accord with fact or reality." "Reality...In a wider definition, reality includes everything that is and has been, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible. A still more broad definition includes everything that has existed, exists, or will exist." "Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument. The word "philosophy" comes from the Greek φιλοσοφία (philosophia), which literally means "love of wisdom"."

"Ethics or "moral philosophy", is concerned primarily with the question of the best way to live, and secondarily, concerning the question of whether this question can be answered. The main branches of ethics are meta-ethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics. Meta-ethics concerns the nature of ethical thought, such as the origins of the words good and bad, and origins of other comparative words of various ethical systems, whether there are absolute ethical truths, and how such truths could be known. Normative ethics are more concerned with the questions of how one ought to act, and what the right course of action is. This is where most ethical theories are generated. Lastly, applied ethics go beyond theory and step into real world ethical practice, such as questions of whether or not abortion is correct. Ethics is also associated with the idea of morality, and the two are often interchangeable."
The way that people think are often in objective or subjective ways.
"Profound discoveries and insights on the frontiers of science do not burst out of thin air but often arise from incremental processes of weaving together analogies, images, and simulations in a constrained fashion. In cutting-edge science, problems are often ill-defined and experimental data are limited."
Still though scientists come in all types as like other people.
I think you're still using "double speak". Political science is the study of politics, while it contains facts it largely depends on opinon to make its point. When I say science I'm talking about facts, reproducable experaments. Hydrogen and oxygen can be combined to make water. No opinion or religion or philosophy is need. You make serious error to compare chemistry with political science. You are giving the impression that you are talking about pure science, but you are not. Like political science what you believe is not repeatable science, while drawn from some scientific fact it is in fact philosophy not science.
So what do you think is pure science +Mike Kennedy ? "Systematic observation of natural phenomena solely for the discovery of unknown laws relating to facts; the study of science alone, not including its relations to other subjects."

"Fact...something that actually exists; reality; truth: ..." "Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. The Oxford English Dictionary says that scientific method is: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses." "A scientific theory is a set of principles that explain and predict phenomena. Scientists create scientific theories with the scientific method, when they are originally proposed as hypotheses and tested for accuracy through observations and experiments. Once a hypothesis is verified, it becomes a theory." "The laws of science are various established scientific laws, or physical laws as they are sometimes called. "Laws" differ from hypotheses, theories, postulates, principles, etc., in that laws are an analytic statements, usually with an empirically determined constant. A theory may contain a set of laws, or a theory may be implied from an empirically determined law."

Via +Axel Kratel

Political science is a form of social science that does have some recreatable evidence involved. "The constitutions of nations are grounded in the constitution of humanity, which science is best equipped to understand."

Please do your research yourself before making opinions.
I'd probably disagree about many things with +Mike Kennedy but I think he's right about this. I think of science as a method of ascertaining knowledge about the universe, not as a set of facts. Either way, science can inform our opinions on ethics, but it cannot determine them. That is not within the realm of science - at least, not yet.

So, for example, with the abortion debate: it is fair to use science to back up one's opinion on when we should protect the life of a child - whether it is from conception, implantation, beating heart, brain waves, birth, or the age of twelve - but our ethical claims themselves - the very decision that life is worth protecting, and why - is not scientific in itself.

It is quite reasonable, then, that one person may value human life in and of itself, another may value the emotional aspect of human nature and wish to protect any being that can feel pain, and yet another may value only the combination of self-aware emotion and intellect that is evident in older children. We might ask science "When is a fetus viable" or "When is a fetus (or a child) self aware?" - but we cannot expect a scientific answer to "What shall be the threshold at which we extend protection to a fetus or a child?"
Alan, someone who at least agrees in part with my view of science! Can I restate what I think you agree with then put ethics and morality totally aside and propose a scientific question to you? I think you have said that science, as of yet, can not determine morality. I think you are implying, but I want to clarify, a point. Do you agree that morality has a subjective quality? I mean by that, two people, especially if from different cultures, could view the same scientific facts and derive a different moral rule from those same facts?
I would have agreed to that part that Mike said about (We might ask science "When is a fetus viable" or "When is a fetus (or a child) self aware?" - but we cannot expect a scientific answer to "What shall be the threshold at which we extend protection to a fetus or a child?"), but he stated "A large number of Democrats believe in abortion." That is not true all the time. Some are very much against that are democrats and some are for that are republican in doing such things. Conservative christian republicans would more likely try to do it in secret with their teen or such rather than most. I never had an abortion and never plan to myself.
Jennifer-nice article, but I don't think there would be any moral conflict for me If I was the doctor mentioned in the story. It would be murder to kill a person and harvest his organs to have any number of lives. I suppose a better story could be created that might pose such a conflict, but that one doesn't. I am looking forward to reading a book by a neurologist called "Why God Won't Go Away". this book has been praised by atheist and believers alike. It is said to present a balanced view of the issue. But first I have to get through a book on teaching social skills to autistic children and it isn't an easy read!
Jennifer—First you statement about republican shows real prejudice. Do you know a large number of sneaky conservatives to base your claim on? I see a large number of Democrats that do believe in abortion. They are very vocal about it. I am sure there are Democrats that don't believe in it, but from what I see they can't climb the latter to a position of power in the party unless they change their view. I was a Democrat for most of my life and pro-life democrats running for any office are far and few between!

Now to the point. No science does not answer when a fetus should be protected because it is a nonsensical question for science to answer. Science does point to fact that have been repeated and proven billions of times. This is what science say and can not be deputed as fact: At no time in the development of a homosapien does it become something else. In other word, while the stage of the life cycle may appear different at no time is it anything other than an individual unique homosapien. It is not as popularly called a “fetus”. It is in fact a homospaien in the fetal stage of development. It is never just a fertilized egg. It can't become a reptile, a chicken or an other primate. It is scientifically a homosapien. It is never just an embryo. It is a homosapien in the embryonic stage. Prenatally and postnatally it is the same unique homosapien. You can moralize anything you want I guess, but the facts remain unchanged. Ending the term of pregnancy ends the life of a very unique, individual like of a homosapien.

Try to provide me with any scientific evidence you can that support the position that killing a homosapien at any point is not killing a homosapien.
These things really have no labels in the end to what people are but in that what people decide to do. So a person of any political party, religion, and belief can say things and do another. There are all kinds of people in the world, and trust is not an easy thing if people are thinking for themselves when it comes to politics and the like.
So I don't label saint or sinner but I do seek the truth of individuals.
Your link is typical blame shifting by people who hate religion.Now its conservative christian's fault there are abortions. Next you will be telling me that the Jews brought the Holocaust on themselves!
What about abortion? No scientific evidence to show?? I'm talking science now. Lets not divert the point to religion or morals.
I had to get off the computer last night. sorry couldn't divulge you in further data until now.
"Differences in religious background (not shown) are even more striking. Fifty-four percent of American women identify themselves as Protestants, but they had only 37% of the abortions. ... Roman Catholics are more likely to abort than Protestants: They account for 31% of the population--and of the abortions. The small group of women who sternly professed no religion, 6% of the population, were responsible for a remarkable 24% of the abortion total.Research: Edwin S. Rubenstein, research director, Hudson Institute, Indianapolis."
+Mike Kennedy I agree that morality currently has what appears to us to be a subjective quality. It may be truly subjective, or we may eventually discover that it is rooted in laws of Nature - but currently we cannot be sure. The neuroscience in the article Jennifer links to is very interesting and suggests that human morality is hardwired, but that still does not address the differences of opinion, or the vast differences we may find some day between human and alien morality.

+Jennifer Isaacs Those are excellent articles you linked to. I agree absolutely that religious anti-sexuality is largely responsible for America's high abortion rate. I attended a notable Evangelical college, and heard rumors of girls secretly getting abortions. I knew one girl who made the courageous decision to keep her baby, and she was expelled. In those circumstances, and considering the feelings of shame that most girls would feel at being exposed to the community, it is not difficult to believe that it happened with some frequency.

I should note that aside from being expelled, I did not see any indication that the community belittled this girl or held her in lower esteem - but how many would consciously or unconsciously avoid her, and how would being expelled from college affect her life? That is what every student who got pregnant would have to ask herself.

ObTrivia: Philippa Foot, who invented the famous "Trolley Problem" in ethics, was the granddaughter of U.S. President Grover Cleveland. Cleveland was a Democrat at the time, but his policies were what we would call Libertarian. He presided over the U.S. during some of its fastest economic growth.
In Islamic countries there would be forced marriage to rapists that impregnated the teen There is death to those and jail at times as well for the ones who are raped in some of those places.
It varies from culture to culture what happens to be claimed good morals in their mind. Rather maybe something else going on than just believed morals. Hopefully we will figure it out one day before things get any more insane.
+Jennifer Isaacs I make one exception to praising your links. Be very careful of claims of widespread sexual slavery. There have, of course, been such cases, but there is no evidence that these are anything but rare. There are a number of fake charities out there pushing this and fabricating evidence because they know this will get people upset and making donations; the mainstream media loves to report these stories because they combine sex and violence, both of which increase their audience.

Most of this "sexual slavery" is just prostitution, but because prostitution is illegal or heavily regulated in most countries, or because many prostitutes in western Europe are illegal immigrants, the prostitutes have a motive to claim that they have been forced into the industry. Sometimes they can even become legal residents and receive benefits by making these claims, and they at least increase their chance of avoiding punishment for the "crime" of selling sex. There was a similar dynamic at work in the 1960s and 1970s, when homosexuality was illegal. If the police caught two men and one was notably younger (in his teens or early twenties) the younger man would claim he was "seduced" into the homosexual lifestyle. This allowed him to reduce his punishment at the expense of his older companion - but it also led to the widespread but false belief that homosexuals reproduced their kind by "grooming" innocent boys. Of course, all the investigators believed it - it was what they had been told over and over again by the victims involved - but the investigators never realized that they were the ones victimizing these youths, and that their own prejudices had corrupted the source.

If we really wish to end sexual slavery, we should concentrate on ending anti-sexual attitudes and making sex work legal and the status of sex workers verifiable. We should also make it easier for workers of all kinds to cross borders at will, and make it easier to find legitimate work for people of all ages. In a related subject, child labor laws are the chief culprit in underage prostitution in the U.S.A. In Europe, a 16 year old can leave home and get any sort of job they qualify for - in the U.S.A., if a 16 year old cannot stand to live any longer at home, they frequently have no alternative to prostitution because no employer can legally hire them.
I don't blame the under aged children being 'prostituted', but I do blame the Johns for buying them. Poverty can make things difficult and in especially places where there is no help for them to eat.
Child Prostitution
In fact of the matter that slavery and prostitution has been around since the existence of mankind. At least as far back as we know of civilization.
"Question: What are the first known records of slavery, and how has it evolved since then?"
Jennifer--you still haven't answered my question-if you look purely at science and put morality and religion aside do you see any scientific proof that ending a pregnancy does not end the life of homosapien? You can apply your morality later but first will you answer this scientific question? Is there some reason you will not answer? You can certainly answer that you do not know. I have tried to be open and honest about question you asked me, can you return the favor and answer this???
Now are we going into the topic of consciousness and awareness in life? I wish you to clarify what you mean by homosapien +Mike Kennedy .
Just to play devil's advocate, Jennifer, would you prefer these children to starve?

There are many fine charities in the world, but they don't reach everyone (and frequently the money is stolen long before it would reach those who really need it). As a practical matter, those Johns keep these children fed where charities have failed - and the foreign Johns pay better than the locals.

I presume you're aware that in many cases where such children are "rescued", they run away from their rescuers the first chance they get and return to their previous occupation, because they think they are treated better there. Or did none of the "rescue" charities mention that fact?

There is a long history of this sort of thing. Let's not forget that Africans and American Indians were enslaved for their own good, so that they could be Christianized and civilized; nor that women in Europe and America were kept out of many occupations and politics for their own protection, as women are too simple-minded to know their own best interests....

I am aware that there are many bad situations in the world, but I am also aware that I am unable to assist in all cases. Being as this is so, I strive to not impede those whom I cannot help, and to not make a bad situation worse.

In the meantime, the elected officials who supposedly represent me right here in the U.S. continue to deny independence and employment options to anyone under the age of 18, and essentially force the most vulnerable members of American society into prostitution. That is an outrage against children, and it is done in the name of children.
Jennifer, I am talking science. What I mean by homosapien is exactly what science means. It is a subdivision of the primate class commonly referred to as human or modern man. I don't think science can answer the question of consciousness or awareness of life. Those question are in the realm of philosophy, morals or religion. When I say baboon, don't you have a very clear image of what sort of primate that is? I should think that the primate homosapien is just as descriptive, and I would think, since we are both one of them, there would be no question in your mind what one is. I don't see how in science we can come up with a more clear or concise term of what I am talking about. Does the awareness of life or consciousnesses interfere with your ability to recognize what I mean by a baboon?
+Alan Light I do agree that we wouldn't want the children to starve and so their governments need to take care of it's people. That is what they are for right? Even if one would make a business out of prostitution or any thing else one should be able to choose if they wish to do so not be forced into it. How would a infant or child under the age of twelve really know what they want?
There should be some kind of tests for children that wish to go out on their own and make a living or even for run aways that wish to get jobs, 'imo'. Then they can be ready to be out on their own with qualifications as much as an adult would have for living in the real world. Otherwise there should be governments to help them stay away from the cults they came and find ways to become ready for all the things adults do to live life on there own independent feet.
I don't trust charities or politicians easily and this includes religious and non-religious ones.
I am unable to assist in all cases and wish I could help. I try to look at the whole picture of all the politics and facts before I step any where into things. I try not to impede whom I cannot help as well. I try to stick with human rights, truth, and freedom. Freedom is an essential part of how to find ourselves and how others do the same. Some times all we can do is nothing but wait.
Thank you for you clarifying what you meant by homosapien +Mike Kennedy . I was asking this because when does a human fetus become a homosapien? "Like an infant learning to know itself as a physical form now is the time to wake up and know yourself as consciousness and the first step is easy."

Meaning one thing by communication of words and defining them as something else is a thing some do. Thank you for being clear by the common terms of language and not trying to give a hidden meaning behind them in any way.
Now with language there is always that kind of thing of philosophy as well and science exploration of it. Though that is another subject we can discuss if you wish to. Though for now it is time for me to go tend to things in my life.
+Jennifer Isaacs I think of government as protecting rights, not providing for their people - because, after all, the latter requires that they take away from some in order to give to others. In any case, the fact remains that many governments around the world do not provide for children, and in many cases are not able to.

That said, I generally agree. I would hope that no one would be forced into prostitution by poverty. On the other hand, I think that children are generally more capable than we recognize. In the rich world we forget this is so - even I have been surprised when traveling and I discovered children successfully minding a business and handling large sums of money, even though I had my first job and handled hundreds of dollars at the age of nine. Whereas we have had generations that have never seen children working, we have come to expect that children are incapable, and that simply isn't true.

As for what we could do in the United States, I think we should emulate the European model and allow children to leave home by at least age 16, and perhaps even earlier. There is a process by which children can be emancipated, but it is costly and cumbersome. It should be made much easier and possibly take two forms: full emancipation, or allow an older child to choose their own guardian.
If the government controls with law and jails then it should control with helping people be independent not leaches. Government is more of the problem 'usually' when it comes down to fair and just approach of the community. Like you said children do not have the ability very often to provide for themselves because of law\. Child labor would be child labor if they were to be able to call themselves an adult. There should be a chance in knowledge and power given to all to fight for themselves and be responsible for their life.
I must go for now. You have a good one +Alan Light .
Jennifer--I guess I don't see your point. Are you saying that at point of its development it is not a homosapien?? And then becomes one???.Homosapien is a biological classification. I don't see anyway possible that something happens during it development that could change the classification or scientific reality of what it is. I am only talking science. Are you saying that it is not a homosapien until it is aware of itself?? I don't see this as entering into science at all. A dog is a dog at any point in it development. I see no evidence that somehow it becomes a dog at some point and and isn't a dog before.
Jennifer-You are saying that in the life cycle of a homosapien it becomes a person. By person I mean all the attributes of conciseness and awareness of life. Is that correct? Then using science at what point could you use science to set a marker point hwere this would happen?
"Are you saying that it is not a homosapien until it is aware of itself??"
+Mike Kennedy
"Everyone agrees that adult human beings have the right to life. Some people would say that the fertilised cell resulting from conception does not have the right to life. Therefore the right to life is acquired sometime in between those two points, and the big question is 'when?'"
"Abortion is the focus of some of the most intense social, cultural, political, religious, and ethical debates in modern American society. Some regard abortion as something people should be able to choose while others say abortion is a great evil which is destroying the moral fabric of society. Many of the debates turn on the status of the fetus: Is a fetus a person? Does a fetus have moral or legal rights? How we define a person and the fetus may decide the abortion debates."

"An ovum (plural ova, from the Latin word ovum meaning egg or egg cell) is a haploid female reproductive cell or gamete."-- "The term sperm is derived from the Greek word (σπέρμα) sperma (meaning "seed") and refers to the male reproductive cells."

"After a female egg is fertilized, the resulting one-celled organism becomes known as a zygote. Once the egg is fertilized, the zygote begins a two-week period of rapid cell division and will eventually become an embryo. The zygote divides through a process known as mitosis, in which each cell doubles by dividing into two cells. This two-week stage is known as the germinal period of development and covers the time of conception to the implantation of the embryo in the uterus."--

"Consciousness is a term that refers to the relationship between the mind and the world with which it interacts."

"How cells think? How do we know? Cognitive science might help." "Some scientists think microbes are conscious, that that they experience something."
'Conception Slideshow: From Egg to Embryo '

"The human brain perceives the external world through the senses, and each individual human is influenced greatly by his or her experiences, leading to subjective views of existence and the passage of time. Humans are variously said to possess consciousness, self-awareness, and a mind, which correspond roughly to the mental processes of thought. These are said to possess qualities such as self-awareness, sentience, sapience, and the ability to perceive the relationship between oneself and one's environment. The extent to which the mind constructs or experiences the outer world is a matter of debate, as are the definitions and validity of many of the terms used above."

*"One of the most common arguments abortion supporters use when confronting abortion opponents is asking, "So when does life start? When does a fertilized egg become a fetus? When does a fetus become a baby?" ...
But they too cannot answer these questions. The same questions abortion supporters use trying to undermine the anti-abortion position also undermines the pro-abortion position."*
No Jennifer, I am saying that that is the myth that modern society is choosing to believe with no scientific evidence. I have avoided using the term human being because then all of this subject myth comes in about personhood and awareness. Hitler convinced his soldiers not to let the cry of the adult Jews they shot to bother them, because he believed, again with no evidence to support it, that Jews were sub-human and could not be considered persons. I am saying that this same myth that killed so many Jews in still in use today. There is in fact no scientific evidence that shows that a homosapien or human being some how obtains the status of being a person. If it is a person as an adult there is no rational scientific proof to say it once wasn't. If any point could possible be used it would have to be the point that nerve cells or a brain is starting to form. This still has to be disregarded because it is not convenient for society to admit that what is inside a human female is another human. If killing a human who means you no harm is considered murder that logically there is no proof that at anytime within the mother it is not human as well and killing an unborn human is murder as well and should be treated as such. If we devalue human life in this way to the myth of personhood we allow the Hilters and KKK people of the world to continue their work because we have made human life value to be subjective myth.
You know that Hitler was part of the Catholic church and thinking he was doing the right thing all along in his own mind.

On the topic of abortion, Abortion: Rights or Wrongs -- Beyond the Politics of Life an

"A miscarriage may also be called a "spontaneous abortion." This refers to naturally occurring events, not medical abortions or surgical abortions."
Some don't have a choice of what happens but if things are put into law they will be punished for nature killing the fetus.

Would it be right to have a motherless child because of maternal death or a orphan alive to survive off the government?

Do you really know your history of the why?
Motherhood by Choice, Not Chance Part I of III
Germany was a "christian" nation. Hitler used the word god in his speeches, but he turned against everything Christianity stood for. In times past everyone belong at one time to a church or some religious group. It was part of culture unlike today where people are free to express their disbelief in god. Hitler, while maybe attending a Catholic church, or even participating in it at one turn against everything his church believed. Besides the Jews, he also sought to eliminate the mentally retarded and other groups he thought were unworthy of life. He did not practice any Catholic beliefs in his life.
Miscarriage do happen, but it does not justify elective abortions. One could never equate miscarriage with elective abortion. Just because infants die from sudden death crib syndrome can not justify us killing a child while it is sleeping! Mother are never put on trial if their children die of medical reason.
But all of this is not the point. We are using all these arguments to devalue the life of a human individual. What is inside a human pregnant female is an other human. That human has a right to be born. In today adoption system there is rarely an infant and for each one given up for adoption there are many couple that that would take it. I don't see any possibility of it being a ward of the state.
Science clearly shows us what we are doing. We are ending the life of a unique human individual when an abortion is preformed. Our laws and morals tell us that killing the innocent is murder. We must, if we claim to be a moral nation, stop ignoring this silent Holocaust.
The Catholic church supported Hitler and slavery at one time and then decided to do as they wished later in history. The same with the inquisition. Still however history cannot be erased but some do try to hide and rewrite out of opinion.

Did you know that there is debate that the egg of a human woman is still a child as well before it is even considered to have a brain. You obviously did not take the time to look at those articles I posted.
Another thing about ending human life. What do you think of the death penalty or war +Mike Kennedy?
No I can't condone anyone or any groups support of Hitler. It has always been a mistake when any Christian group including Catholics does not become involved in the political process or take a stand against evil. Sometimes Christian have thought that just leading an individual christian life was all that was required. The neutral Swiss bankers also supported him. It can not be erased. But at the same time it would be like saying you can't be an American because the country allowed slavery at one time and did not allow women the right to vote. No women stay in America as do African Americans. But again we have lost the topic. Catholic belief has nothing to do with the fact that science tells us that killing an unborn human child is the same as killing it a week after it is born. No amount of religious history or history of atheism changes the facts can it??
But what is evil? It seems the Catholic church, religions, and politics judge ethics and morals all in the same way of guessing and not to provide evidence that it is true or not. So opinion is more important than any thing else +Mike Kennedy ?
The abortion issue can be settle on science and law alone. No faith is needed. If you believe there is a point the child becomes human, it is not in evidence and you are in fact using faith, believing in something that can not be seen. I guess since you did not accept faith and only rational thought and science I thought that you would agree what science says. I don't see my beliefs entering into this discussion since I thought we had rule it out.
I don't expect in these post to answer why evil exist or why I believe that the Catholic church is the one I believe I should belong to. There are better theologians than me that have written volume of this subject. I thought we already decided to agree to disagree about the subject of the god. Am I wrong about this?
What does 'God' have to do with what humans do? So are you then blaming a god or godess for all human behavior and things that happen in nature Mike?
If it is god to blame then he/she should take up the responsibility. If there is humans to blame for human action should then humans judge every human? Should humans be responsible for themselves what would be the moral choices if we do not use any religion?
Is religion more reliable in every way than science based on historic records?
Like I have stated before believe as you wish. I do not really mind what you believe but please do not force your beliefs on me.
I wouldn't mind believing what has an evidence through scientific method for anything. Provided I can proove it on my own with such experiments. Other wise the thought that there being a god or no god is allowed to be debated. Otherwise I see no use in such an argument and there is no need to trust a book that cannot provide such proof through evidence.
I guess we again are off tract. I thought the question was if abortion was murder or not. I thought it is a position that both people of faith and atheist could agree on based solely on science. I think you have already stated that you would never have an abortion, so I think that means you know it to be wrong, sin, or the wrong moral choice. I believe if you know it to wrong and do not try to save the lives of other unborn children you are just as morally responsible. Again I must point to Hitler's Germany. As you say many christian watched and did nothing as train fulls of Jews left their towns, they did nothing as they watch them enter the concentration camps and never come out, even as they saw the smoke rise from the ovens. Albert Einstein said "That the worlds is not so much hurt by evil people but by people who will do nothing about it" 60 million have died in Americas silent Holocaust, Will you be brave enough to even vote against it? Will you dare to even be publicly associated with those who appose this evil?
"I thought we already decided to agree to disagree about the subject of the god. Am I wrong about this?"

Pointless to add then why u add? +Mike Kennedy
Why you want to use Hitler as your shield for reason?

Think on your own why you want anything other than faith in religious moral or people of history. Why do you personally believe in any thing at this present and not based anything completely on what you know from others experience that you never met?
There is American Nazis and Nazis all over the world today. some wish Jews were dead and some Muslims do too.
I do not join extremists in such evil acts and I do vote against having those 'religious extremists' that decide to it.
Jennifer I am sorry if I tried to force my beliefs on you. I thought we had put aside any religious beliefs or lack there of and were solely discussing science and how morality could be drawn from it. I thought you had reintroduced religion and I responded to it. I only used Hitler because he is a good example of someone who convinced other that some human were not person at all,Jews were sub-human and thus their lives could morally be ended. I don't know my American history as well, but I'm sure someone could make the exact same argument about the treatment of native Americans.There was in fact this same devaluation of these “savages” to count them not equal to other humans. Certainly the treatment of Africa Americans would also prove the point. I have enjoyed our conversation so far, but if you do not, say so, and this will be my last post to you. I was trying to pull out the point that if you believe abortion was wrong for you, it would be also wrong for others and the unborn who have been reduce to non persons, zero people, or useless eaters, what ever term that would be used to devalue their humanity.
I think they all are different events in topics of the how, but all are related as well to religion and government. I don't just mean American government either.
Though if you want to relate all to genocide this is where they can become similar perhaps.
"Genocide is defined as "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group", though what constitutes enough of a "part" to qualify as genocide has been subject to much debate by legal scholars."
Just say genocide and don't compare one fetus or baby over the other in race and nationality.
Fetal Genocide? The Right to Choose and Republican Rhetoric
Add a comment...