Marco Rubio: Humans Cannot Become Cats

[Jello Biafra]

Starting at around 7:50 of his interview with Chris Cuomo on CNN, Rubio goes off the rails when discussing the idea of whether life begins at conception:

Science has—absolutely it has. Science has decided... Science has concluded that—absolutely it has. What else can it be?
It cannot turn into an animal. It can’t turn into a donkey. The only thing that that can become is a human being.
It begins at conception.
Well, if they can’t say it will be human life, what does it become then? Could it become a cat?

Then he felt so energized by his CNN appearance that he decided to take his nonsense to Twitter:


It is hilarious that so many of the GOP establishment actually believe that this lunkhead would make a good president.

 

[kingofnyc]

fukk rubio

yesterday a state FL poll had
trump 27
bush 26
rubio 7


this fukkbio cant even crack 10% in his own state

 

[drhook94]

By his logic, a human egg is already a human because it cannot feasibly and naturally become anything but a human.

What a clown.

 

[Big Jo]

This is why I will never be anything even remotely close to republican

 

[Domingo Halliburton]

I don't really get how this is a pro-life stance but I didn't watch the video for context either.

 

[kingofnyc]

and rubio & GOP establishment need to STOP with this bullshyt about the science says its a baby

 

[Robbie3000]

Go full retard brehs.

 

[AJaRuleStan]

>It's not human life at conception

What logic are these alleged scientist using to come to that conclusion? Like, what makes their criteria for defining what is objectively "human life" so true? These things always puzzle me. I hear that the rule is, if it can survive outside the womb, then its a person, but that sound so arbitrary. What makes that proposition objectively true?

 

[drhook94]

>It's not human life at conception

What logic are these alleged scientist using to come to that conclusion? Like, what makes their criteria for defining what is objectively "human life" so true? These things always puzzle me. I hear that the rule is, if it can survive outside the womb, then its a person, but that sound so arbitrary. What makes that proposition objectively true?

The reason why that sort of logic isn't sound is because technology will eventually advance to the point where the entirety of human development is possible outside of a human body. So at that point, by that definition, life will actually be at conception.

The argument isn't really a scientific one. Its a moral one, that should be made by individuals, not by politicians, in my opinion.

 

[kingofnyc]

>It's not human life at conception

What logic are these alleged scientist using to come to that conclusion? Like, what makes their criteria for defining what is objectively "human life" so true? These things always puzzle me. I hear that the rule is, if it can survive outside the womb, then its a person, but that sound so arbitrary. What makes that proposition objectively true?

i havnt heard nor read any scientist remotely come to that conclusion

rubio, huckabee, santorum & the rest of the crazy bunch are flat out lying

 

[tru_m.a.c]

and rubio & GOP establishment need to STOP with this bullshyt about the science says its a baby

believe in science except when it comes to climate change brehs

 

[AJaRuleStan]

i havnt heard nor read any scientist remotely come to that conclusion

rubio, huckabee, santorum & the rest of the crazy bunch are flat out lying

What are you talking about specifically? The guy who is arguing with Rubio is the one claiming that scientist said, "It's not human life at conception". Rubio never made that claim, he made the opposite. I'm inquiring about what sort of reasoning did those scientist(The scientist referred to in the vid) use to determine that their assertion is objectively true.

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

humans can't become cats?

 

[kingofnyc]

What are you talking about specifically? The guy who is arguing with Rubio is the one claiming that scientist said, "It's not human life at conception". Rubio never made that claim, he made the opposite. I'm inquiring about what sort of reasoning did those scientist(The scientist referred to in the vid) use to determine that their assertion is objectively true.

at the 7:50 mark rubio says several times that science has determined its a human at conception

all im saying is ' who are these so-called scientist ' just like chris coumo said he could get nearly every scientist to come on his show & they would basically say ' they CAN NOT scientifically make that decision

 

[squiddyB]

Semantics brehs.

Sure, you could argue that a human fetus is a human; but you cannot really argue that a human fetus is a human person - it doesn't think, it doesn't feel, it has no aspirations, no dreams, and - if aborted - no future.