When Does Life End?

[NOVA]

The problem is you interchange life with human being. They are not the same.

I have repeatedly stated that birth is the point where I consider something a human being. Why? For a number of reasons. First, because the idea of two human beings living in the same body is bizarre beyond belief.

So because YOU find it bizarre we are to ignore the truth ?

In FACT, 2 humans are not living in the same body.
They are 2 different human beings, one living within the other....
and you have to ignore scientific fact to not believe it...

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

It's no dodge. It's like asking how can I prove my avatar is a picture of a cat. It's a picture of a cat because society says it's a picture of a cat. If cats were called dogs it would be a picture of a dog.

Then we have no real need for science or biology, because things are merely what society perceives them to be. If we say the world is flat, then the world is indeed flat and not round, and nothing anyone can argue to the contrary is valid. Thanks for clarifying your profound ignorance.

 

[apple0154]

It is inane to suggest we can't understand that a full term fetus just before birth is not radically different from one just after, only the radical, willing to ignore evidence on order to progress ideation, believes that.

The fact that we cannot tell when it will happen doesn't make it any better that we then, in ignorance, kill "people". The idea that we should be allowed to kill at will a fetus at full term, or during the third trimester for that matter, because it hasn't traveled the canal yet is barbarism to the vast majority of us and I am glad that you are in the minority with your radical view. The brain activity alone tells us that is more than just life, it is a person. When did that happen? That is the question we are trying to answer in this thread.

There is a difference between before and after birth. Just the idea of going from a liquid environment to a gaseous one is a tremendous difference. What organisms can switch back and forth? There are other things that take place, as well.

Of course, there are going to be things in common with a pre-birth and a birth. Many things but that does not mean they are the same.

There has to be a point that is easily recognizable. It's the same thing in everything in life.

I'm sure a person who writes their medical exam was a doctor the day before. Would you want an unlicensed doctor operating on you?

I have nothing against trying to lower abortions but classifying fetuses as human beings is not the way to go. Something so fundamental to a person's freedom, in this case a woman's freedom, has to be clear cut.

Imagine if the freedoms we take for granted were judged on an individual basis like proponents of abortion for serious medical reasons only suggest. Imagine the doctors on-the-take. Imagine the potential for injustice. Imagine your wife or daughter dying or being severely injured because the doctor miscalculated.

Someone's wife or daughter is going to die if abortion is restricted.

 

[Damocles]

There is a difference between before and after birth. Just the idea of going from a liquid environment to a gaseous one is a tremendous difference. What organisms can switch back and forth? There are other things that take place, as well.

Of course, there are going to be things in common with a pre-birth and a birth. Many things but that does not mean they are the same.

There has to be a point that is easily recognizable. It's the same thing in everything in life.

I'm sure a person who writes their medical exam was a doctor the day before. Would you want an unlicensed doctor operating on you?

I have nothing against trying to lower abortions but classifying fetuses as human beings is not the way to go. Something so fundamental to a person's freedom, in this case a woman's freedom, has to be clear cut.

Imagine if the freedoms we take for granted were judged on an individual basis like proponents of abortion for serious medical reasons only suggest. Imagine the doctors on-the-take. Imagine the potential for injustice. Imagine your wife or daughter dying or being severely injured because the doctor miscalculated.

Someone's wife or daughter is going to die if abortion is restricted.

The difference isn't in what the progeny feels, the shock of being born would be impossible had it not already been a person. It's discovered feet, knows its tongue is tactile and reacts to light when introduced. It reacts to voices and can even, sometimes, recognize voices heard previously only in the womb.

Your purposeful lack of knowledge makes me believe you remain deliberately ignorant of actual knowledge solely because you wish to maintain some semblance of humanity while taking the most extreme stance. It is barbaric to suggest we continue abortion on demand for reasons without merit solely because you think that metabolic changes are the magic faerie dust of "person"...

Again, we know your opinion on this, but it is worthless to the argument. Nobody will agree with you.

And nobody will die if it is restricted to solely when it saves the life of the mother, or will permanently disable the mother. It is silly to suggest it would, and especially if my solution that recognizes the rights of both the fetus and the mother is utilized.

A time comes when I should realize I made my point. Your radical and extreme position supporting late term abortions on whim until the very moment of "birth" is unsupported ideation and thankfully unsupported by the vast majority of people in the US. I'd hate to believe that most of them are as willfully ignorant in support of barbarism.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Again, we know your opinion on this, but it is worthless to the argument. Nobody will agree with you.

And nobody will die if it is restricted to solely when it saves the life of the mother, or will permanently disable the mother. It is silly to suggest it would, and especially if my solution that recognizes the rights of both the fetus and the mother is utilized.

A time comes when I should realize I made my point. Your radical and extreme position supporting late term abortions on whim until the very moment of "birth" is unsupported ideation and thankfully unsupported by the vast majority of people in the US. I'd hate to believe that most of them are as willfully ignorant in support of barbarism.

The sad fact is, a LOT of people DO believe like Apple! You are talking to someone who is ignorant of biological facts and devoid of respect for human life. I bet, if a small group were advocating it, you would be able to easily coax people like Apple to support outright genocide against infants, toddlers, or children up to adolescence, by making the argument they are not "persons" because of some other arbitrary criteria, like the ability to care for themselves or make adult decisions. It wouldn't take much, he's already in denial of humanity and when it comes into existence. With a sick tweak or two to what society accepts, we might have Apple here arguing that it's perfectly okay to exterminate people based on their intellectual abilities, or even their 'ethnic purity', because that is precisely where he is at now, he just doesn't have the support base behind him. And no doubt, he would be claiming that we are "cheapening life" to presume these 'sub-human entities' called "teenagers" are people!

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

It takes away the definition of human life in the medical and legal contexts.

No, it may take away the legal definition of 'person', but the medical is ALWAYS going to be that it is HUMAN and ALIVE, thus a human life. Suggesting otherwise is moronic.

It cannot be said to possess human life. Your definition is subjective as it changes based on whether the life is born or not. In the born life is present so long as brain function is present. You are not using that same criteria on the zygote.

Your definition is TOTALLY subjective. Mine is contextual.

WTF? My definition does not change based on birth.

YOU are yet again confusing yourself with your own bullshit.

Again you pretend there is no difference between a brain dead person on life support who has NO chance of recovery and a zygote/embryo that has not developed brain activity that we can detect... YET.

The difference for the final time is that the zygote/embryo/child/progeny etc... DOES HAVE A CHANCE (and a very good one at that) of DEVELOPING BRAIN ACTIVITY THAT WE CAN DETECT. THE BRAIN DEAD ADULT DOES NOT. DO.... YOU.... COMPREHEND.... THIS... YET?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

True as long as one does not incorrectly classify a zygote as a human being. While an elderly adult dying in their sleep may be considered natural it wouldn't be considered natural for, say, over 50% of one-year-old babies to die in their sleep.

Wrong. I don't know what your 50% number is supposed to represent, but assume it is the implantation rate of fertilized eggs/zygotes. Their implantation rate has NOTHING to do with whether or not the zygote is human. NOTHING. Being human is not defined by statistics. It is defined by genetics.

If a zygote is a human being then it's natural to expect it to implant so it can develop into a baby. Otherwise, what is it's purpose?

This is absolutely absurd.

Again, it's both common sense and logical to conclude that if over 50% of fertilized eggs/cells/zygotes expire before implantation they were not human beings.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Actually it is nothing more than complete nonsense that you made up. Implantation statistics have NOTHING to do with determining species.

 

[NOVA]

brain death
n.
Irreversible brain damage and loss of brain function, as evidenced by cessation of breathing and other vital reflexes, unresponsiveness to stimuli, absence of muscle activity, and a flat electroencephalogram for a specific length of time. Also called cerebral death.

THIS is the definition of brain death.....
NOTE, as evidenced by cessation of breathing
and make note it says AND not OR when listing other manifestations of brain death....

Without breathing, the body will cease to function in a short time....
---------
The implication of the definition is...

As long as the brain as sufficient power to make the major organs function...breathing, heart, liver, etc.
YOU ARE ALIVE....
you may be unconscious, in a coma, unable to communicate, in a vegetative state, etc...but you are alive.....

 

[apple0154]

Replies in blue.

(Msg 796)

Originally Posted by apple0154 I have and still am arguing it. Whether or not States have the right to make abortion illegal has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not a zygote is a human being.

So you do want to argue it then. Good. Stop saying you don't, there's nobody to pander to here.

When did I say I don’t?

As for no significant difference between the moment before birth and the moment after take a fish out of water and see if there is a "significant" difference between a liquid environment and a gaseous one. Or perhaps hold the heads of those people, those who believe that, under water for a time and see if they notice any "significant" difference.

So now you compare a fully developed human fetus (with all that we know) to a fish so you can attempt to feel okay about killing it? Really? And why don't we ask Phelps about moving in water. It doesn't change him to something other than human, nor does it the fetus.

Let me explain what an analogy is. Logic. a form of reasoning in which one thing is inferred to be similar to another thing in a certain respect, on the basis of the known similarity between the things in other respects.
I was comparing one aspect of a human to one aspect of a fish and the aspect in question was the environment in which they live. A fish can not function in a gaseous atmosphere nor a human being in a liquid atmosphere. Being disingenuous is not becoming you.

Then we can change the direction of their blood flow and see if that makes any "significant" difference. And after that we can remove a few assorted veins and see if that makes any "significant" difference.

This is like saying that people fundamentally change when they use a snorkel. It's sad really when you attempt to determine "human being" by simple metabolic change based on the source of oxygen.

Obviously you misunderstood what I said. It’s a change in the direction of blood flow. As for a simple metabolic change take a fish out of water and watch how simple it is.

And for those DNA worshipers who run on the "everyone has unique DNA" wagon it turns out some people have more than one copy. It turns out, while in utero, a "human being", a fertilized cell, can split and become two human beings. And then it can happen that one of those "human beings" can assimilate the other "human being". Are we talking about human beings here?

True, two individuals can be formed from the cell, does that make you feel better that you could be taking two lives over one?

It makes me feel better to know the idea of unique DNA determining a human being is nothing but nonsense. Plain and simple, it is an argument based on a lie.

First there was Bill. Then there was Bill and Jane. Then there was only Bill. Or is Bill even there because, after all, Bill's DNA makeup has changed as well. Who, or what, was that first fertilized cell? Consider the following. "There was one legal case involving a woman with chimerism, who was proven not to be the mother of her own children. Later discovery of embryonic cells with different DNA disproved the earlier DNA results." http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-chimerism.htm"Jane's body was made up of two genetically distinct types of cells.There was only one conclusion: Jane was a mixture of two different people.Kruskall thinks the most likely explanation for this is that Jane's motherconceived non-identical twin girls, who fused at an early stage of thepregnancy to form a single embryo.

Again, does it make it better that if there was an abortion you would have taken two lives rather than one?

Perhaps you can tell me whose life? Bill? Jane? Jill? Bane? Give it your best shot.

For some reason, cells from only one twin have come to dominatein Jane's blood - the tissue used in tissue-typing. In Jane's othertissues, however, including her ovaries, cells of both types live amicablyalongside each other,……"http://www.katewerk.com/chimera.html"A child's genes are inherited from his or her parents, so when a 52-year-old woman from Boston had a completely different set of genes than two of her three children, the medical community was at a loss for an explanation. It took two years for doctors to conclude that she was a "human chimera," someone with two or more distinct sets of genes. For example, DNA extracted from the skin of a human chimera may be different from DNA in the blood. Chimerism -- named after a Greek monster called the chimera with the head of a lion, body of a goat and tail of a snake -- occurs during pregnancy when two embryos that would have resulted in fraternal twins fuse early on in the pregnancy, resulting in one baby with two separate sets of DNA. While some chimeras have two different eye colors, most lead normal lives and never realize their condition." (AOL Health)The undisputed fact a person can have two sets of DNA which resulted in science "proving" a mother did not bear her own children (cough, cough) should caution any rational person to not throw all their proverbial eggs in one basket when it comes to science proving an individual comes into existence at conception. If that was the case we could argue Jane is two individual, unique human beings (or is that "Jane are two individual, unique human beings").As for bloviating, which apparently you enjoy, why don't you try answering the questions in msg 630? Surely you've thought things through, have you not? Don't you find it generally annoying when people spout nonsense without thinking things through?There's only a few questions. Surely one who "knows" so much about human beings shouldn't have any difficulty answering them. Give it a shot.

And again, amazing human characteristics notwithstanding, it doesn't make it better to kill after the fetus has fully formed. Only your extreme and deliberate ignorance of what we know to be true allows you to hold such a barbaric position, and I am extremely glad of its rarity in our society.

Oh, it’s amazing, all right. Unique DNA? A mixture? Who cares? Just keep arguing they’re human beings regardless of what’s found out. If the premise on which you base your argument changes, no problem. Just change your argument and carry on.

 

[Damocles]

Replies in blue.

When did I say I don’t?

Earlier.

Let me explain what an analogy is. Logic. a form of reasoning in which one thing is inferred to be similar to another thing in a certain respect, on the basis of the known similarity between the things in other respects.
I was comparing one aspect of a human to one aspect of a fish and the aspect in question was the environment in which they live. A fish can not function in a gaseous atmosphere nor a human being in a liquid atmosphere. Being disingenuous is not becoming you.

You were comparing nonsense. The analogy isn't salient, being in liquid doesn't make a person fundamentally different.

Obviously you misunderstood what I said. It’s a change in the direction of blood flow. As for a simple metabolic change take a fish out of water and watch how simple it is.

It's a metabolic change based on the source of oxygen, it doesn't change the thought process even one iota.

It makes me feel better to know the idea of unique DNA determining a human being is nothing but nonsense. Plain and simple, it is an argument based on a lie.

When did I use it? Your are arguing a straw man based on what you want to feel. I ask you to defend your stance that seconds before birth the person faerie shows up and you give me chimeras and twins. It's nonsense, then you attempt to "argue" with a stance I haven't taken.

Perhaps you can tell me whose life? Bill? Jane? Jill? Bane? Give it your best shot.

You brought up the twins, it's your nonsense. Depending on when the abortion took place it is either both or Jane. But pretending that a human life wasn't taken due to chimerism is preposterous and again this doesn't defend anything about your barbaric position that you can kill a fully formed fetus on a whim because it isn't a "person" yet.

Oh, it’s amazing, all right. Unique DNA? A mixture? Who cares? Just keep arguing they’re human beings regardless of what’s found out. If the premise on which you base your argument changes, no problem. Just change your argument and carry on.

And again with this inane straw man. You attempt to distract from your disgusting stance, I understand why you'd want to do that. I'll continue to bring it right back to your insistence that a fully formed fetus isn't a person, even though it has thought, has learned stuff about itself, and often can even recognize their mother's voice immediately after birth.

You, sir, take the most extreme position in the thread and to defend it you give me chimerism, seriously, chimerism. It really is amazing you think that you even make sense at all.

 

[apple0154]

I already answered those questions after you asked me to.

It's hard to take you seriously any longer. You ignore knowledge to take an extreme position then defend it with "chimeras"... Seriously. You are a joke.

Really? Maybe try to answer specifically instead of a general "if the woman's life is in danger or serious medical problem" type reply. Let's get to specifics.

Indulge me just this once. Take one of the questions and give a specific answer. Does the woman who will lose partial eye sight resulting in job and home loss qualify for an abortion? Does a similar woman facing diminished eye sight but no loss of job or home qualify for an abortion?

What about the woman on the ledge of the burning building? If her "offspring" is a threat to her life if she is allowed to kill the fetus is she also allowed to kill the 10 year old? You did say there's no difference between the unborn and the born. Where do you stand?

Take a moment to answer. We're here to discuss, are we not? I understand you to be saying a fetus is a human being, the same as a born child. So let's deal with a few specifics.

It's called thinking things through. Let's give it try.

 

[NOVA]

Apple says:

It makes me feel better to know the idea of unique DNA determining a human being is nothing but nonsense. Plain and simple, it is an argument based on a lie.

Now that about sums up the entire debate....how can you possibly argue with a person that posts a remark like this and believes it.......seriously folks....

How can you even imagine you can educate a rube that believes this...
How can you even imagine you can have this dodo understand even rudimentary biological science let alone understand the start of life....

I rest my case and refuse to waste my time on such a thick skull neanderthal....

 

[apple0154]

So because YOU find it bizarre we are to ignore the truth ?

In FACT, 2 humans are not living in the same body.
They are 2 different human beings, one living within the other....
and you have to ignore scientific fact to not believe it...

"2 humans are not living in the same body.They are 2 different human beings, one living within the other"

That is a perfect example of anti-abortionist's logic. It will make a fine addition to my sig.

 

[Damocles]

Really? Maybe try to answer specifically instead of a general "if the woman's life is in danger or serious medical problem" type reply. Let's get to specifics.

Indulge me just this once. Take one of the questions and give a specific answer. Does the woman who will lose partial eye sight resulting in job and home loss qualify for an abortion? Does a similar woman facing diminished eye sight but no loss of job or home qualify for an abortion?

What about the woman on the ledge of the burning building? If her "offspring" is a threat to her life if she is allowed to kill the fetus is she also allowed to kill the 10 year old? You did say there's no difference between the unborn and the born. Where do you stand?

Take a moment to answer. We're here to discuss, are we not? I understand you to be saying a fetus is a human being, the same as a born child. So let's deal with a few specifics.

It's called thinking things through. Let's give it try.

No, there's no need to "indulge" you any longer, every post is an attempt to distract from your insane position that the fetus is fundamentally different seconds before birth because of chimerism and metabolic changes that take place because the source of oxygen changes.

It's really all just nonsense. You can't defend your position so you throw up every distraction you can. You'll thrown in whatever nonsense you can find, but none of it changes anything about my argument.

 

[Damocles]

"2 humans are not living in the same body.They are 2 different human beings, one living within the other"

That is a perfect example of anti-abortionist's logic. It will make a fine addition to my sig.

If you kill the mother and the fetus you will take two human lives, if you kill the fetus, you will take only one. One is not part of the other, that is where the nonsense is, the woman isn't a chimera because she is pregnant. They have two separate bodies, otherwise abortion would be impossible.

 

[NOVA]

"2 humans are not living in the same body.They are 2 different human beings, one living within the other"

That is a perfect example of anti-abortionist's logic. It will make a fine addition to my sig.

Please see that I am given credit for the quote in your sig....

 

[Damocles]

Please see that I am given credit for the quote in your sig....

Abortion would be nonsense if they were "living" in the same body. They each have their own body. If you put a box into another box you still have two boxes.

 

[apple0154]

Then we have no real need for science or biology, because things are merely what society perceives them to be. If we say the world is flat, then the world is indeed flat and not round, and nothing anyone can argue to the contrary is valid. Thanks for clarifying your profound ignorance.

Again, your difficulty in comprehension is astounding. If society referred to apples and oranges as being flat then sphere shaped objects would be known as "flat" objects and flat objects such as a table would be known as "spherical" objects. Society decides how to classify/name an object.

I really do marvel at your ability to function on a day-to-day basis.

 

[apple0154]

The sad fact is, a LOT of people DO believe like Apple! You are talking to someone who is ignorant of biological facts and devoid of respect for human life. I bet, if a small group were advocating it, you would be able to easily coax people like Apple to support outright genocide against infants, toddlers, or children up to adolescence, by making the argument they are not "persons" because of some other arbitrary criteria, like the ability to care for themselves or make adult decisions. It wouldn't take much, he's already in denial of humanity and when it comes into existence. With a sick tweak or two to what society accepts, we might have Apple here arguing that it's perfectly okay to exterminate people based on their intellectual abilities, or even their 'ethnic purity', because that is precisely where he is at now, he just doesn't have the support base behind him. And no doubt, he would be claiming that we are "cheapening life" to presume these 'sub-human entities' called "teenagers" are people!

Here we go, again, with projections. I can just as easily postulate anti-abortionists will start declaring sperm and eggs are human. It wouldn't take much according to your logic.

 

[Minister of Truth]

I could call your arguments moral and human, Apple, but I'd be lying through my teeth...