08-15-2015, 01:49 PM
(08-15-2015, 11:15 AM)bfine32 Wrote: 2 things:
1. You can tout your credentials all you want,
You are the one who brought up my line of work. I'm not touting anything, but rather responding to your comment.
Quote:but that still doesn't change the fact that biologists recognize that life begins at conception.
False. As I have already explained sperm cells are alive before conception. Biologist don't recognize a universally accepted "start" to life. The Supreme Court recognizes this fact as one of the reasons they didn't rule on when life begins.
Quote:There may be an outlier or two, but they are generally not taken very seriously.
Actually, the complete opposite is true.
Quote:Doctors use before conception to determine viability not to asert this is when life begins.
Completely false. We use it to estimate gestational age which is different than embryonic age. It doesn't assess viability. The viability of a pregnancy is assessed by ultrasound and serial quantitative HCG measurements.
Quote:2. This thread has derailed from the OP and I accept a great deal of the blame. If anyone wishes to make points unrelated to the Ben Carson issue (wish admittedly seems quite embarrassing) I suggest they do so in the Rubio thread.
I'm not embarrassed by Ben Carson's lie. What we are discussing is germane to the topic of why Ben Carson believes using fetal tissue for research is immoral. I will comment on what I want, when I want, where I want, for as long as I want. Thank you.
