When Does Life End?

Damocles said:
However, you are sure to find out by waiting just a bit. Almost every R that I know and knew at that time simply wanted to have another doctor take a look.

It isn't even close to the same "foolishness" to make sure before you kill something.
Click to expand...
Yes because her own neurologist had NO IDEA what he was talking about. Fuck sakes, conservatives wanted her widow to divorce her dead ass. Every doctor that was connected with the case said she was dead. Your party worships mechanistic life at the expense of all else. Your party would have kept her body functioning for the next 40 years if her parents had their way. She was married to her husband, he was in charge of her care, and the doctors that cared for her said she was dead. But you all see breathing, the twitch of a face from a brain stem firing and GAWD ALMIGHTY she is alive. Complete foolishness. Emotional, mechanistic life worshipping foolishness.
 
Socrtease said:
Yes because her own neurologist had NO IDEA what he was talking about. Fuck sakes, conservatives wanted her widow to divorce her dead ass. Every doctor that was connected with the case said she was dead. Your party worships mechanistic life at the expense of all else. Your party would have kept her body functioning for the next 40 years if her parents had their way. She was married to her husband, he was in charge of her care, and the doctors that cared for her said she was dead. But you all see breathing, the twitch of a face from a brain stem firing and GAWD ALMIGHTY she is alive. Complete foolishness. Emotional, mechanistic life worshipping foolishness.
Click to expand...
We're talking about the beginning, not the end. Please hold on to the topic of the conversation we're in. (Again a sign of lawyers not thinking too well, getting emotional and stuffs).

You argued that it was the "same thing" because you "couldn't be sure the fetus would develop"...

My point was that you could be entirely certain whether or not it would properly develop if you just waited a bit and that it was most certainly not the "same thing" as looking at the end of a life. They aren't even close to the same thing.

BTW - I argued that so long as they had the legal go-ahead it was the family's decision... Just because I point out that something is subjective doesn't mean I disagree with it.
 
Damocles said:
We're talking about the beginning, not the end. Please hold on to the topic of the conversation we're in.

You argued that it was the "same thing" because you "couldn't be sure it would develop"...

My point was that you could be entirely certain whether or not it would properly develop if you just waited a bit and that it was most certainly not the "same thing" as looking at the end of the life.

BTW - I argued that so long as they had the legal go-ahead it was the family's decision, not to force her body to remain alive...
Click to expand...
Absolutely, we have to wait because YOU worship mechanistic life. At some point, I am going to be on your side. But when 66 percent of abortions take place before the 9th week of conception, ALL you are doing is protecting mechanistic life.
 
Socrtease said:
Absolutely, we have to wait because YOU worship mechanistic life. At some point, I am going to be on your side. But when 66 percent of abortions take place before the 9th week of conception, ALL you are doing is protecting mechanistic life.
Click to expand...
Right. I do not "worship" life, I just recognize the difference between something with potential and something with none. You get all excited and start trying to add to what I said with the stuff you want to argue against. That's called a straw man. That might work in court, but it doesn't really work here.
 
Damocles said:
Right. I do not "worship" life, I just recognize the difference between something with potential and something with none. You get all excited and start trying to add to what I said with the stuff you want to argue against. That's called a straw man. That might work in court, but it doesn't really work here.
Click to expand...
Arguing the potentiality of a 9 week old fetus is exactly the same as the argument of Schiavo's POTENTIAL recovery, which those on the right argued the whole time. The potential of advances in medicine, the potential miracle waiting out there because every great once in a while someone comes out of a chronic vegatative state. Because you cannot see that you argue for the same potentiality as they did, you see it as a strawman. It is the exact same argument for potentiality. one may have a greater chance, but it is still only the worship of potential life at the expense of the living individual.
 
Damocles said:
You are looking for a legal definition of "living person", not "life"... I think you lose the point you are trying to make to semantics.
Click to expand...

No, you choose to misunderstand or misrepresent the point based on semantics. It's not my fault you believe that definitions, scientific or otherwise, exist in the concrete. They do not. They only help us to describe things. When they fail to accurately describe they need to be changed.

I am talking about the legal definition of human life. Most understand what that means. And there is no reason that it must agree with whatever scientific definition you think is valid.

The medical (a field of science) definition of life does not agree with your scientific definition. Do you bother to go around correcting doctors when they say that life has ceased at brain death?
 
RStringfield said:
No, you choose to misunderstand or misrepresent the point based on semantics. It's not my fault you believe that definitions, scientific or otherwise, exist in the concrete. They do not. They only help us to describe things. When they fail to accurately describe they need to be changed.

I am talking about the legal definition of human life. Most understand what that means. And there is no reason that it must agree with whatever scientific definition you think is valid.

The medical (a field of science) definition of life does not agree with your scientific definition. Do you bother to go around correcting doctors when they say that life has ceased at brain death?
Click to expand...
I was giving advice, not arguing. You again used "human life" which makes you try to argue that a fetus is not "alive".
 
RStringfield said:
Again, you are wrong. The brain dead may still have their own heart beat. All that is needed is ventilation.

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2001/04/42847
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_death#Organ_donation
Click to expand...

I am not wrong....

Medulla oblongata - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The medulla oblongata is the lower half of the brainstem. In discussions of neurology and similar contexts where no ambiguity will result, it is often referred to as simply the medulla. The medulla contains the cardiac, respiratory, vomiting and vasomotor centers and deals with autonomic functions, such as breathing, heart rate and blood pressure.
Click to expand...
 
Damocles said:
I was giving advice, not arguing. You again used "human life" which makes you try to argue that a fetus is not "alive".
Click to expand...

And I am telling you, your advice is worthless and rather misleading since it pretends there is some one true scientific definition of life. There is not.

There are multiple scientific definitions. They tend to vary from one field to the next. When a biologist can't and need not agree with a biophysicist on the definition, why on earth would they need to agree with a legal definition. They do not need to because definitions depend on context.

Which ever definition you choose to use is not necessarily more valid than any other. Definitions are only good to the degree that they accurately describe what we intend.

When talking strictly about legal/political/ethical matters few people would argue the brain dead are alive. The scientific definition that you allude to does not accurately describe what is commonly meant.
 
Damocles said:
Lack of knowledge doesn't make the decision to kill something any better.
Click to expand...

If one is not sure what it is and it's growing inside their body why shouldn't they have the right to remove it? Let's not forget over 50% of fertilized eggs spontaneously abort. What ever is responsible for such a design (God or nature) I think it's obvious the word "sanctity" doesn't apply in this case.

That's the thing about all this "uniqueness" and "specialness" and "sanctity of life" talk. It's difficult to associate "special" to some thing where over half are being continually discarded. Furthermore, while some are expelled from the body others are absorbed. The average woman must be a "Sybil" with God knows how many souls living inside her.
 
Socrtease said:
This is EXACTLY the type of non-thinking emotionalism that runs the Pro-life movement.


Not quite this ridiculous but close.
Click to expand...

how could it be more ridiculous than trying to equate a sperm cell with a fetus?.....you calling me ridiculous is sort of like a pot trying to call a kettle, a pot.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top