Yeah....

Because murdering an unborn baby is EXACTLY the same as refusing an violation of your 4th Amendment rights.

What exactly is wrong with your brain Goldstein? Traumatic head injury? Excessive drinking or dope use? Or are you really just very stupid?

Two wrongs don't make a Right.

Other than our American Rights of Privacy, Liberty, Freedom, and Unreasonable Warrantless Searches while traveling in the USA.

@ 1, every time you sign off with a "have a nice day" or some other nicety, I keep in mind times like this, when the real you is on display. It shows that you're a phony.

No need to go over how a zygote isn't a baby, or how anything that can't live on its own is "alive." Facts, as always, mean nothing in the face of your beliefs.

Rand Paul, Douche Canoe

I picture #1 in his moms basement sitting cramped up in an old card board box with the words "Airplane to Italy" hastily scrawled in crayon on the side. Next to him is a wig mannequin with "wife" scrawled on it's Styrofoam forehead.

@1: I love how the man with no education or background in biology is telling us how we should look at gametogenesis through parturition. Seattleblues, I don't tell you how to ply your trade of carpentry.

@6 He can't hear you. He's on an airplane to Italy. With his wife. Remember?

So he had his fourth amendment rights violated while traveling to exercise his first amendment rights.

Personally I am pro-abortion, really wish Goldsteins mother would have had one. But this is America and fortunately people are allowed to have their own opinions even if they don't agree with Goldy's

@7

See, thing about planes is they land. Kind of a minor miracle than in 12 hours or so we can cross half the globe, though it's hard to remember when cramped into an airplane seat made apparently for something other than human beings. It's kind of a running bet which recovery is fastest in our family, jetlag or the back pains from the flight.

@6

Many years ago trained scientists thought heat was transferred through the medium of an invisible liquid called phlogiston. It's only a few decades since trained psychiatrists thought blitzing the brain with electricity could cure schizophrenia.

The worst hubris is that of the dogmatic scientist, certain that only they know anything.

@9: Keep fighting the good fight against those evil, fictional, know everything scientists.
Science is the process of learning new things. Guess what process corrected those false beliefs that are no longer held.
Do you see how that makes your last sentence sound really, really stupid?

@9: I do not claim to know everything about biology. I have no training in carpentry beyond a little woodshop class and a bit of home repairs. You have no training in biology beyond perhaps a little freshman bio, correct? And yet you insist that you know more than people who devote their lives to the study of organic systems. Which is worse: an educated man or an uneducated one making a claim to ultimate knowledge? (I would say the educated one because he should, due to his schooling, know enough to realize that he cannot possibly know all. Your saving grace here is your utter ignorance in these regards.)
Let me tell you something. When demonstrably incorrect theories are thrown off and discarded (as well they should!), it is not by the uneducated but rather by those learned in the appropriate field. The amazing thing about science is that it repairs and improves itself. It does not need the willfully ignorant monkeying with it.

@1 Actually, "murdering an unborn baby" (sic) is an exercise of one's 14th amendment rights. Does that help you see the parallel?

Sb thinks that, because scientists were wring in the past that they must be wrong now.

You were bragging about your command of logic as you learned it at college, SB. Do you remember which fallacy this falls under?

Bad post. Fuck Rand Paul and his Paulian views. Fuck Goldy for his tit-for-tat frivolity re the Constitution.

What we need is mandatory body scanning AND pat-downs for all US Senators and Representatives. Considering that they're less trustworthy than the general population, I'm sure the TSA will make it a priority.

Paul would never see the irony. He is silly enough to think that an embryo can make the person carrying it second class.

@13 - I wanna wait for Seattle Blues but I just can't wait to answer your question for that presumptuous fundamentalist fuck. I'll resist the urge. My prediction is that you'll never hear another word from SB in this thread due to their having nothing more substantive to add to the dialogue.

@ 17, you'll be right about this thread, but he will bring up that "scientists used to think blah blah blah" line somewhere else down the line. It's a stock part of his debate arsenal when the subject is abortion or climate change.

@1: No murder if there's no baby. Scraping out a blastocyst or zygote doesn't count, cuppycakes.

And no pity for Mr. Paul. I hope they snuck a finger up his butt.

It's a tie as to what is more pathetic and indicative of mental illness.

Compulsively posting to a forum that despises you.

Flying to all the way to Italy and your first instinct is to immediately and compulsively post to a forum that despises you.

Or

Maintaining the delusion you're in Italy and compulsively posting to a forum that despises you.

@13

I see. You get to decide what it is I think and respond to that imaginary thing?

Nice game if you're the one making the imaginary thoughts up, I guess.

FYI

I made no proposition logically or otherwise. I merely note that science has gotten it wrong before. So, correect me if I'm wrong, it would be a bit difficult to have made a logical fallacy.

I see. You get to decide what it is I think and respond to that imaginary thing?

That differs from your rhetorical disposition how, exactly? I mean, it lacks your other well-honed technique--the avoidance of challenge to your theses entirely, often accompanied by a proclamation of ignorance that any such challenge was mounted--but the base assumption looks pretty much the same from here.

@ 21, projecting now? I guess my insights about how you conduct yourself on SLOG must be getting to you.

Never mind that for the moment. We both know what it is that you were saying @ 9 - as a response to what was said @ 6, it means only what I said it meant @ 13. Of course, you may have simply written your thoughts @ 9 poorly - if you didn't mean "science is wrong now because it was wrong before," you need to clarify what it was you DID mean. (Or say what it was you wish @ 6 had said - it could be another instance of "Seattleblues replying to what he WISHES was said, as opposed to what ACTUALLY was said.)

@21: If you're not trying to claim that science is unreliable, what point are you making?

@ 24, what do you think he'd say if he mentioned that religion used to believe that there were a multitude of gods? It's about as relevant to his faith as his statement was to this discussion.