Discussion: Rubio Slams Liberals' 'Hypocrisy' On Abortion, Climate Change

Discussion for article #222766

"Science is settled, it's not even a consensus, it is a unanimity, that human life beings at conception."

So the science is “settled” on the beginning of life, but he “doesn’t believe” that climate change is man-made… and even if it is, it’s not our job to stop it.

Rubio is either real stupid, real scared, or both.

I’m thinking both.


As far as I’m concerned, life can begin before conception. It doesn’t negate a woman’s Constitutional right to have control over her body and her pregnancy.


Please Sen. Rubio, show me a dozen or more PEER reviewed papers that support your contention that life begins at conception. Please feel free to send it privately.

BUT YOU CANNOT! that is hypocracy!


Exactly. I am perfectly happy to call the fetus a person. But one person doesn’t have the right to crawl inside another person. If they did, what if I demanded the right to take up residence inside Sen Rubio (Ughh!)?


There is no settled “science” on life beginning at conception, because that’s not a testable theory. Yes, cells begin to divide at conception towards creating an individual life, but cells also divide after death or in a petri dish.

The fact is that more than half and as many as two thirds of all conceptions do not result in an individual human life, either not attaching to the uterine wall or resulting in miscarriage. Cells dividing and differentiating happen all the time without resulting in a person.

The question of when cell division starts is a scientific question that can be determined through testing, but the question of when a human being starts is a moral question. There was a time not too far in the past when families who lost a child would name a second child the same with the idea that the first soul would replant in the new baby. There was a time not too far in the past when people didn’t name their kids for six months because so few lived that long. This is because they did not consider them individual entities until they passed a certain point of viability even outside the womb.

Today we have a different standard, but it is a moral standard and not a scientific standard because there is no scientific basis to make this determination. The majority sees viability outside the womb as the measure of an individual entity with rights and privileges because our science has developed far enough that a seven month old fetus can survive as a baby with assistance outside the womb.

Rubio doesn’t even believe morally that full personhood begins at conception, because if he and those like him did believe a fertilized human egg is a full human being then why doesn’t the right have funeral homes, cemetery plots, memorials for every single time a woman has her period three weeks late? They don’t because it is not, and they know it as well as we do.


Typical asshole conservative false equivalency. Republicans love children, at least until they are born. then they consider them parasites suckling off the government teat. You know, what conservatives normally do.


First off, WTF? That is not settled science. There is no hypothesis to test. How would you test when life begins?

Second off, is he pointing out his own hypocrisy? Because he points to (imaginary) settled science to back up his point and calls liberals hypocrites for not believing in (imaginary) settled science, while simultaneously not believing the settled science behind climate change himself. He really wants to have his cake and eat it too on this one.


Super well done! If I had a gold star, I would stick it to my monitor right next to your post.


The logical knot Rubio has to tie here to make a completely bogus point would be laughable if it didn’t represent a sizable chunk of the conservative mindset. Life beginning at conception is not goddamned “settled science” - at all. Not even close. That’s just so unbelievably stupid I can’t believe this is something one of the GOP wonder boys came up with. And then he goes on to not believe legitimately settled science - climate change - simply because it doesn’t fit his wordlview. Wow! This is some Conservapedia level ignorance here. Somebody get the Schlafly’s on the phone!


Human life begins when the baby is born , not before .


I’ll give them 24 weeks, when the fetus is viable outside the womb. But not before that.

1 Like

Very weak, Marco buddy. The question in abortion is about the point at which you become a person, which is a matter of ethics, morality, and philosophy. You’re begging the question by conflating that and the beginning of potential life. Very bogus logic there. I’m not aware that supporting abortion rights involves denying anything that’s settled by science. And no matter what the televangelists say, abortion is a private matter. It doesn’t cause hurricanes or famines or threaten life on earth. Climate change will. Denying the settled science about that will have devastating consequences. Go away now.


I think he’s just desperate for headlines. He keeps trying to make “pronouncements” that he later has to walk back, leaving everyone scratching their heads as to his actual position on issues. Loser.


Mr. Thirsty obviously didn’t watch Sesame Street as a kid. “One of these things is not like the other…”


No, actually, the consensus is that sperm and eggs are both haploid human individuals, and meet the definition for being alive. The diploid individual is not more alive than the two haploid individuals.


Rubio must be positioning himself for Pat Robertson’s endorsement.

It’s a tricky tightrope act, since Rubio can’t explicitly generalize man-made climate change into God’s wrath against abortionists, pagans, and homosexuals. That would make it impossible to pivot back to center for the general election.

So this is what we get. Neither slow nor fast, but half fast.

1 Like

We also “Conveniently ignore” the FACT that you are raging narcissist with delusions of grandeur in your arrogant obsession with personal fame and fortune with no regard for who you destroy or injure in your reckless pursuit of the Presidency.
That, and the FACT that you are massive asshole.

Here is the best response to “Human Life begins at Conception”:


Not sure where the hypocrisy is here? Abortion is legal and whether life starts a conception depends on ones definition of life. And that definition is up for debate even within the scientific community. What is not up for debate is climate change and it’s cause. Now those who are debating it are for some reason petrified of admitting that man made climate change is true and believe that if they deny climate change it will just not happen. So call me a hypocrite if you must, but at least I don’t believe in magical thinking.