Even if it was a human, Chris would be wrong with his lie about “90% of scientists.” Not sure why people think a lie will help their argument in cases like this.
Eh… A Human fetus is human, but it is not “a human”. Your toenail clipping are human.
Plus, the humanity or personhood of a fetus doesn’t really matter for the pro-choice position. Simply put, there is no (other) legal situation that can compell you to give up your bodily autonomy.
Example. I can shoot someone in the street in cold blood, and they could die without a blood transfusion. The courts cannot compell me to do something as harmless as donating blood to save that person’s life. A fetus, despite arguably being a person, does not have a right to your blood, your breath, your nutrients, or a space inside your body. Full stop.
Exactly. It’s something like a gish gallop - you can’t really rebut that and explain why it’s a comment made in bad faith, but to casual readers it’s a valid retort.
I had a…call? survey? at some point from an entity that probably gave rise to this data. It was basically a push-poll that used question order and positive reinforcement to try to get people to agree that abortion is murder.
Mostly, it tried to conflate “human” with “a human,” starting out with things like “are cells isolated from humans still human?” “Can cultured cells be called ‘viable?’” “So would you agree that tissue cultured from a human donor is viable, human tissue?”
Even if it was a human, Chris would be wrong with his lie about “90% of scientists.” Not sure why people think a lie will help their argument in cases like this.
Eh… A Human fetus is human, but it is not “a human”. Your toenail clipping are human.
Plus, the humanity or personhood of a fetus doesn’t really matter for the pro-choice position. Simply put, there is no (other) legal situation that can compell you to give up your bodily autonomy.
Example. I can shoot someone in the street in cold blood, and they could die without a blood transfusion. The courts cannot compell me to do something as harmless as donating blood to save that person’s life. A fetus, despite arguably being a person, does not have a right to your blood, your breath, your nutrients, or a space inside your body. Full stop.
Also, even if 90% of scientists did say that… what percentage of those scientists are not biologists?
Do we need to know a geologist’s or physicist’s opinion about “some sort of weird meat-science”?
Like the old “Yeah, sorry, I am a Doctor, but I’m a Doctor of Jazz, not medicine”
They don’t care about facts data or science. They use it to argue in bad faith, not to have a serious convo.
If you call that out they’ll just ignore you and try and get you with some other made up gotcha fact.
Exactly. It’s something like a gish gallop - you can’t really rebut that and explain why it’s a comment made in bad faith, but to casual readers it’s a valid retort.
I had a…call? survey? at some point from an entity that probably gave rise to this data. It was basically a push-poll that used question order and positive reinforcement to try to get people to agree that abortion is murder.
Mostly, it tried to conflate “human” with “a human,” starting out with things like “are cells isolated from humans still human?” “Can cultured cells be called ‘viable?’” “So would you agree that tissue cultured from a human donor is viable, human tissue?”
That sounds like a hell of a survey.
Mine are always like “on a scale of 0 to 10, 0 being very poor and 10 being outstanding, how would you rate the service you have received today?”
Reminds me of this… https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/yes-prime-minister-questionnaire-design-matters
They are asking the questions in a way that gets the answers they want just like in yes prime minister.
Because they are stupid enough that they believe appeal to authority has any meaning.
Because they aren’t arguing to persuade the other party but to persuade the readers/listeners that won’t bother to research if its actually true.