Dead is dead

Mott the Hoople said:
I'm not the one that cited "science" to support their argument and further the point your trying to make is unclear.

Though you're point about viability is a valid bioethical discussion. It doesn't change the fact that a fetus, embryo, blastocyst, etc, are alive. No matter how you rationalize or argue, there is no contextuality about the fact that it is alive.

It appears that you are trying to use the issue of viability as a context for when it is morally appropriate to end a life which doesn't change the fact that it is alive. Which is why I question why you would bring science into the discussion?
Click to expand...

Dense much?

That is my point, it may be alive in the context of a biological definition just as a virus might be life in another. It's not alive in a legal or medical context. Remove it from the mother prior to 20-24 weeks and it is as dead as that girl in Texas. It's life prior to that point is completely dependent on the mother and it is not a separate life in any meaningful legal or medical sense.

I am not arguing against the biological definition. The definition that SOME biologists prefer is not valid in this context.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
Dense much?

That is my point, it may be alive in the context of a biological definition just as a virus might be life in another. It's not alive in a legal or medical context. Remove it from the mother prior to 20-24 weeks and it is as dead as that girl in Texas. It's life prior to that point is completely dependent on the mother and it is not a separate life in any meaningful legal or medical sense.

I am not arguing against the biological definition. The definition that SOME biologists prefer is not valid in this context.
Click to expand...
Then why the ad hom on science deniers in your OP? It seriously detracted from your point which, as I pointed out, was not clear in your OP.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I don't always agree with String but for you to call someone as well read and articulate as String a dunce is simply the pot calling the kettle black.
Click to expand...

When someone as dishonest as this dunce tries to claim a fetus in a woman's whomb isn't alive, I struggle to find intelligence in such moronic claims.

I call his stupidity for what it is. I don't know who "String" is; but the poster who authored this thread spams this forum with the stupidity of a dunce. Your selective outrage and opinion has been noted.

One thing you will never prove is that anything I post is dishonest or false. Now spare me any more of your whiney selective drivel. The man is a dishonest dunce of epic proportions.

Ironic that the person you defend as being intelligent claims that your dense...in that regard I agree with the dunce; you're dense.
 
Dantès said:
You needed to edit a simple compound sentence calling someone else an idiot! WOW! I think that says all we really need to know about you!
Click to expand...

I believe in the axiom that one should never argue with a repugnant idiot like yourself; you will only attempt to drag everyone and the discussion down to your lowlife level, then beat everyone with experience.

Carry on dunce.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Then why the ad hom on science deniers in your OP? It seriously detracted from your point which, as I pointed out, was not clear in your OP.
Click to expand...

Just taking a shot at sf who pretends his position is supported by science. Sure the fetus is alive in some sense but without the intensive life support provided by the mother it will die very quickly. It's not much different than that dead girl on life support.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
Unless...

Even though science deniers like sf argue differently, a human is not seperately alive from the mother until viable. If the fetal development is only to the point that if born it would be medically and legally dead then the fetus is medically and legally dead.

The "miracle" of life is a process that is not complete at fertilization and requires intensive support from the mother in those species with live birth. The fetus is on an extreme form of life support which burdens and endangers the mother and until viable is not really alive in any sense that would make it a rights bearing individual. To demand that a woman be enslaved for the purpose of bearing the fetus and stripped of rights to control her own medical decisions is obscene and not supported by any science.

Dunderheads, like sf can find some out of context definition that says it is alive and focus solely on the semantics. But the real issue here is not biological, but medical, legal and ethical. A potential life cannot and should not trump an actual existing life.

Definitions are contextual and imperfect. The knowledge you might glean from a dictionary is limited and experience attaches many caveats and nuances. They are at best understood as guiding more like an unanchored buoy than a post planted firmly in the ground.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ticize-treatment-brain-dead-patients/4394173/
Click to expand...
"The "miracle" of life is a process that is not complete at fertilization and requires intensive support from the mother in those species with live birth. The fetus is on an extreme form of life support which burdens and endangers the mother and until viable is not really alive in any sense that would make it a rights bearing individual. To demand that a woman be enslaved for the purpose of bearing the fetus and stripped of rights to control her own medical decisions is obscene and not supported by any science."

Interesting.....

The "miracle" of life is a process until death....
The "miracle" of life is not complete at fertilization, thats correct, but it undeniably begins there....
The "miracle" of life does require intensive support from the mother in those species with live birth....both before and even after the birth in many cases.
The "miracle" of life endangers no one as long as no abnormalities develop...as a matter of fact...nothing endangers anyone's life as long as no abnormalities develop.
To demand that either life be forfeited for the convenience of the other, and stripped of rights that every human being is endowed with is obscene and should not be supported by civil people.....
Women are not stripped of their right to make any medical decision that would eliminate an immediate threat to their life.....keeping in mind, pregnancy is not a disease, not a sickness...and under normal circumstances, will progress and end as nature intended without any life threatening effects on either person........and, pregnancy IS fully preventable in the first place......

"Dunderheads, like sf can find some out of context definition that says it is alive and focus solely on the semantics. But the real issue here is not biological, but medical, legal and ethical. A potential life cannot and should not trump an actual existing life."

There are very few abortions performed for medical reasons...most are for the convenience of the mother....

To claim "The "miracle" of life is a process that is not complete at fertilization" and then imply "it", meaning the human in its earliest stage of growth, is not alive displays total ignorance......
 
Last edited:
NOVA said:
"The "miracle" of life is a process that is not complete at fertilization and requires intensive support from the mother in those species with live birth. The fetus is on an extreme form of life support which burdens and endangers the mother and until viable is not really alive in any sense that would make it a rights bearing individual. To demand that a woman be enslaved for the purpose of bearing the fetus and stripped of rights to control her own medical decisions is obscene and not supported by any science."

Interesting.....

The "miracle" of life is a process until death....
The "miracle" of life is not complete at fertilization, thats correct, but it undeniably begins there....
The "miracle" of life does require intensive support from the mother in those species with live birth....both before and even after the birth in many cases.
The "miracle" of life endangers no one as long as no abnormalities develop...as a matter of fact...nothing endangers anyone's life as long as no abnormalities develop.
To demand that either life be forfeited for the convenience of the other, and stripped of rights that every human being is endowed with is obscene and should not be supported by civil people.....
Women are not stripped of their right to make any medical decision that would eliminate an immediate threat to their life.....keeping in mind, pregnancy is not a disease, not a sickness...and under normal circumstances, will progress and end as nature intended without any life threatening effects on either person........and, pregnancy IS fully preventable in the first place......

"Dunderheads, like sf can find some out of context definition that says it is alive and focus solely on the semantics. But the real issue here is not biological, but medical, legal and ethical. A potential life cannot and should not trump an actual existing life."

There are very few abortions performed for medical reasons...most are for the convenience of the mother....

To claim "The "miracle" of life is a process that is not complete at fertilization" and then imply "it", meaning the human in its earliest stage of growth, is not alive displays total ignorance......
Click to expand...

The support the mother supplies prior to 24 weeks is more extensive than our best life support. Without it the fetus would instantly die. It's no more a human life worthy of the legal protection or medical care than is that dead girl on life support in Texas.

You are absolutely wrong about the threat to the mother and you don't have anything to back up your claims about why an abortion is sought.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
Unless...

Even though science deniers like sf argue differently, a human is not seperately alive from the mother until viable. If the fetal development is only to the point that if born it would be medically and legally dead then the fetus is medically and legally dead.
Click to expand...

Now as for the rest of your nonsense... so a person is dead if they are on life support? Do you realize just how stupid that is? Especially as you just lie about ME denying science?

The "miracle" of life is a process that is not complete at fertilization and requires intensive support from the mother in those species with live birth. The fetus is on an extreme form of life support which burdens and endangers the mother and until viable is not really alive in any sense that would make it a rights bearing individual. To demand that a woman be enslaved for the purpose of bearing the fetus and stripped of rights to control her own medical decisions is obscene and not supported by any science.
Click to expand...

1) The above has to do with rights... it has NOTHING to do with science you moron.
2) The woman in 99% of the cases has a CHOICE (along with the man) on whether or not to have sex or not. If so, then whether or not to choose to use protection or not. Everyone knows how a woman becomes pregnant.

3) The question is LEGAL... should the unborn child be entitled to human rights protections or not. That is the argument. It has NOTHING to do with science.

Dunderheads, like sf can find some out of context definition that says it is alive and focus solely on the semantics. But the real issue here is not biological, but medical, legal and ethical. A potential life cannot and should not trump an actual existing life.
Click to expand...

1) It is not semantics moron... it is SCIENCE... GENETICS... BASIC BIOLOGY...
2) There is no 'potential life'... it is a unique human life from conception. To deny that is to deny SCIENCE.
3) Life does not trump life. If the womans life is in danger, then it is life vs. life and a choice has to be made.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Uh...don't know where you studied biology but the fact is...it is still a life and meets all conditions for being alive. Not that I oppose a woman's right to make her own reproductive choices, still and all, you are making a mistake to use science to justify that choice in most cases.
Click to expand...

Precisely... it has nothing to do with science and everything to do with LEGAL rights. That is why pro-abortionists like him always sound foolish. Their non-stop attempts to dehumanize the child so that they can justify their position of denying the unborn child rights.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
Dude, did you even bother reading? The biological definition is not proper in this context.
Click to expand...

Dude... you have no clue what you are talking about. You think that YOU can simply redefine words when they don't suit you. You have no comprehension of biology if you think your OP nonsense has anything to do with science.
 
Superfreak said:
Dude... you have no clue what you are talking about. You think that YOU can simply redefine words when they don't suit you. You have no comprehension of biology if you think your OP nonsense has anything to do with science.
Click to expand...


Non responsive. I am not arguing what the biological definition of life is or should be.
 
Superfreak said:
Precisely... it has nothing to do with science and everything to do with LEGAL rights. That is why pro-abortionists like him always sound foolish. Their non-stop attempts to dehumanize the child so that they can justify their position of denying the unborn child rights.
Click to expand...


The part in bold is EXACTLY what I SAID. You insist that your definition must be controlling.

I have not attempted to dehumanize the fetus and certainly not any children.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
Unless...

Even though science deniers like sf argue differently, a human is not seperately alive from the mother until viable. If the fetal development is only to the point that if born it would be medically and legally dead then the fetus is medically and legally dead.

The "miracle" of life is a process that is not complete at fertilization and requires intensive support from the mother in those species with live birth. The fetus is on an extreme form of life support which burdens and endangers the mother and until viable is not really alive in any sense that would make it a rights bearing individual. To demand that a woman be enslaved for the purpose of bearing the fetus and stripped of rights to control her own medical decisions is obscene and not supported by any science.

Dunderheads, like sf can find some out of context definition that says it is alive and focus solely on the semantics. But the real issue here is not biological, but medical, legal and ethical. A potential life cannot and should not trump an actual existing life.

Definitions are contextual and imperfect. The knowledge you might glean from a dictionary is limited and experience attaches many caveats and nuances. They are at best understood as guiding more like an unanchored buoy than a post planted firmly in the ground.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ticize-treatment-brain-dead-patients/4394173/
Click to expand...

Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
The part in bold is EXACTLY what I SAID. You insist that your definition must be controlling.

I have not attempted to dehumanize the fetus and certainly not any children.
Click to expand...

Um, yes, you most certainly did.

You did indeed say the issue is not biological, yet you attempted to reform biology to dehumanize the child, pretending that life is 'not complete at fertilization'.

We agree that the issue is legal. But the rest of your nonsense and denial of science is thus irrelevant. So why did you bring it into the equation?

Oh yeah... so you could dehumanize the child to justify your legal position on the issue.
 
Superfreak said:
Now as for the rest of your nonsense... so a person is dead if they are on life support? Do you realize just how stupid that is? Especially as you just lie about ME denying science?

1) The above has to do with rights... it has NOTHING to do with science you moron.
2) The woman in 99% of the cases has a CHOICE (along with the man) on whether or not to have sex or not. If so, then whether or not to choose to use protection or not. Everyone knows how a woman becomes pregnant.

3) The question is LEGAL... should the unborn child be entitled to human rights protections or not. That is the argument. It has NOTHING to do with science.

1) It is not semantics moron... it is SCIENCE... GENETICS... BASIC BIOLOGY...
2) There is no 'potential life'... it is a unique human life from conception. To deny that is to deny SCIENCE.
3) Life does not trump life. If the womans life is in danger, then it is life vs. life and a choice has to be made.
Click to expand...

Why is stupid to say that some (I did not indicate all) of those on life support are dead? Is that girl in Texas dead, for legal and medical purposes?

Abortion is an issue of rights.

The question is legal, ex-fucking-actly. We are discussing whether it is a life in the legal and medical sense. Your THE BIOLOGICAL DEFINITION OF LIFE (which is disputed and debated by biologists and other scientists), has very little place in the discussion.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
Why is stupid to say that some (I did not indicate all) of those on life support are dead? Is that girl in Texas dead, for legal and medical purposes?

Abortion is an issue of rights.

The question is legal, ex-fucking-actly. We are discussing whether it is a life in the legal and medical sense. Your THE BIOLOGICAL DEFINITION OF LIFE (which is disputed and debated by biologists and other scientists), has very little place in the discussion.
Click to expand...

Again... NO... is is a LEGAL discussion ONLY. There is no medical discussion. NONE. You are trying to equate a brain dead person on life support to an unborn child who has not fully developed the brain. The difference is that a brain dead person on life support will not regain brain function (assuming the doctors correctly diagnosed the person). The unborn child will continue to grow and develop. The two are not the same. Not even close.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top