Dead is dead

Superfreak said:
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.
Click to expand...

BULLSHIT! I don't give a fuck about the biological definition. I am not a biologists and I am not very interested in that debate.

YOU brought it into the equation with your repeated strawman claims that pro choice denies science. No one is arguing what the biological definition is or should be.

The medical science shows that the fetus can not maintain it own basic life functions if separated from the mother. It does not yet possess the equipment to be a rights bearing individual. It's still human, in the biological sense and maybe in other senses of the word.
 
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...

That said...

1) We agree... it is about the legal rights... should the unborn have them or not. Currently they do not. You think they should not, I think they should. That is debatable. It has always been my position.

2) Please... show an example of the biologists and 'other scientists' who argue the biological definition of life. It should be amusing.
 
Superfreak said:
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.
Click to expand...

Certainly, it is a medical discussion. Viability is medical.

The fetus will not gain brain function without the mother. A fetus and the brain dead child are not the same, but analogous. If the necessaries are not present for legal life then the legal life cannot have begun. The state has no business in demanding that an individual bring a legal life into existence or support the "life" of the dead.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
BULLSHIT! I don't give a fuck about the biological definition. I am not a biologists and I am not very interested in that debate.
Click to expand...

LMAO... then, AGAIN, why the hell did you bring it up?

YOU brought it into the equation with your repeated strawman claims that pro choice denies science.
Click to expand...

No... YOU brought it up in the OP. I did not say ALL pro choice people deny science. But many, like you, DO. Your OP is a perfect example of it.

No one is arguing what the biological definition is or should be.
Click to expand...

Except for you of course. You argued it in your OP.

The medical science shows that the fetus can not maintain it own basic life functions if separated from the mother.
Click to expand...

Which has nothing to do with whether or not it is alive. Nothing. So you admit your OP was incorrect to state that nonsense?

It does not yet possess the equipment to be a rights bearing individual.
Click to expand...

This is opinion... and it is the viable portion of your argument. I disagree with the above position as I believe every innocent human life deserves protection from being ended.

It's still human, in the biological sense and maybe in other senses of the word.
Click to expand...

Glad you are finally accepting biology. Good to see you stop denying science.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
Certainly, it is a medical discussion. Viability is medical.

The fetus will not gain brain function without the mother. A fetus and the brain dead child are not the same, but analogous. If the necessaries are not present for legal life then the legal life cannot have begun. The state has no business in demanding that an individual bring a legal life into existence or support the "life" of the dead.
Click to expand...

Again... you are equating 'dead' to 'not fully developed'. The two are are not comparable. The unborn child is NOT dead. The stupidity of your statement is mind boggling for someone who claims to understand science/biology.
 
Superfreak said:
That said...

1) We agree... it is about the legal rights... should the unborn have them or not. Currently they do not. You think they should not, I think they should. That is debatable. It has always been my position.

2) Please... show an example of the biologists and 'other scientists' who argue the biological definition of life. It should be amusing.
Click to expand...

Are you serious?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#Definitions

[h=3]Biology[/h]Since there is no unequivocal definition of life, the current understanding is descriptive.



Continue reading and you will find alternatives to the "established" (if you can call it that) biological definition of life. Definitions are imperfect. The truth is they are almost never unequivocal and are almost always only descriptive.
 
Superfreak said:
Again... you are equating 'dead' to 'not fully developed'. The two are are not comparable. The unborn child is NOT dead. The stupidity of your statement is mind boggling for someone who claims to understand science/biology.
Click to expand...

If the necessary conditions for legal life are not present in the brain dead then how can they be present in what lacks a brain or would be immediately brain dead without the mother?

There is nothing stupid about what I have said and there is NO science supporting your argument. The science is all against you here but mostly your argument is logically flawed.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
Are you serious?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#Definitions

Biology

Since there is no unequivocal definition of life, the current understanding is descriptive.



Continue reading and you will find alternatives to the "established" (if you can call it that) biological definition of life. Definitions are imperfect. The truth is they are almost never unequivocal and are almost always only descriptive.
Click to expand...

So you are not going to point to anyone who proclaims life doesn't begin at conception? Did not think so...
 
Superfreak said:
So you are not going to point to anyone who proclaims life doesn't begin at conception? Did not think so...
Click to expand...

I just did. I am pointing to those that might argue that life begins before conception, i.e., the sperm and egg are alive in some sense and are human.

The issue here is what the best definition of life for the legal and medical context is, not for biology or any other field of science. Your pretense that the biological definition, which is equivocal, is somehow superior is a misuse of what understanding science provides.
 
Threedee said:
Stringy, why do you hate science?
Click to expand...

Do you have an argument to make?

The biological answer to the question of "when does life begin" is not well established and may not even be meaningful. The science shows that the beginning of life is a process and it's start and end do not have clearly defined boundaries. That is true even if we try to divorce this issue from what it really is, i.e., a moral dilemma.

In the legal medical context there is no use in saying that the same set of conditions that represent "no life" in the brain dead suddenly represent "is life" in a fetus. You position is not pro science, as SF has repeatedly claimed.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
I just did. I am pointing to those that might argue that life begins before conception, i.e., the sperm and egg are alive in some sense and are human.
Click to expand...

No, you didn't. You posted a wiki link. Point to a scientist who argues when a human life begins. The sperm cell and egg cells each contain HALF the genetic coding for a unique human life. It is when they JOIN that the unique human life begins. That is basic biology.

The issue here is what the best definition of life for the legal and medical context is, not for biology or any other field of science. Your pretense that the biological definition, which is equivocal, is somehow superior is a misuse of what understanding science provides.
Click to expand...

yet YOU are again the one that tried to butcher the biological side, only to then proclaim you don't really care about it. So why do you keep trying to argue your moronic butchering of science? We have already agreed that the legal issue is what matters. The medical context you are also butchering, which is not surprising given your complete lack of comprehension of basic biology.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
Do you have an argument to make?

The biological answer to the question of "when does life begin" is not well established and may not even be meaningful.
Click to expand...

Actually, it is very well established with regard to a human life.

The science shows that the beginning of life is a process and it's start and end do not have clearly defined boundaries.
Click to expand...

No, the science does not show that.

In the legal medical context there is no use in saying that the same set of conditions that represent "no life" in the brain dead suddenly represent "is life" in a fetus.
Click to expand...

Again, your ignorance of science is astounding. In the medical context a person who has been born and then pronounced brain dead is not the same as an unborn child whose brain is not fully functioning yet. One brain has NO chance of recovery... the other brain is continuously developing. The ignorance of pretending ANYONE in medicine is comparing the two just goes to further prove how ignorant you are on the topic.

You position is not pro science, as SF has repeatedly claimed.[/QUOTE]
 
Superfreak said:
No, you didn't. You posted a wiki link. Point to a scientist who argues when a human life begins. The sperm cell and egg cells each contain HALF the genetic coding for a unique human life. It is when they JOIN that the unique human life begins. That is basic biology.

yet YOU are again the one that tried to butcher the biological side, only to then proclaim you don't really care about it. So why do you keep trying to argue your moronic butchering of science? We have already agreed that the legal issue is what matters. The medical context you are also butchering, which is not surprising given your complete lack of comprehension of basic biology.
Click to expand...

http://whatislife.stanford.edu/LoCo_files/What-is-Life.pdf

I did not butcher anything, liar. The FACTS are that you are FULL OF SHIT. There is no one biological definition of what is life much less "when life begins."

http://blogs.plos.org/dnascience/2013/10/03/when-does-a-human-life-begins-17-timepoints/

I’m the author of an intro college biology textbook called “Life,” my having nabbed that title before Keith Richards did. Life science textbooks from traditional publishers (I’m with McGraw-Hill) don’t explicitly state when life begins, because that is a question not only of biology, but of philosophy, politics, psychology, religion, technology, and emotions.

It's just more of your lousy semantics arguments and inability to understand the very first line I quoted. Definitions are NOT unequivocal. They are descriptive. They will not provide your little bitty mind with the absolutes on which you insist. And you are LYING through your teeth concerning the notion that there is a consensus among biologist on this subject.

http://www.swarthmore.edu/when-does-personhood-begin.xml

Now deal with my argument. How can conditions that represent "no life" in the brain dead represent "is life" in a fetus?
 
Superfreak said:
Actually, it is very well established with regard to a human life.

No, the science does not show that.

Again, your ignorance of science is astounding. In the medical context a person who has been born and then pronounced brain dead is not the same as an unborn child whose brain is not fully functioning yet. One brain has NO chance of recovery... the other brain is continuously developing. The ignorance of pretending ANYONE in medicine is comparing the two just goes to further prove how ignorant you are on the topic.
Click to expand...

YOU ARE LYING. Point us to the scientist that claims to know when life begins or that argues that it is well established.

Yes, the science shows that the beginning of life is a process that has no definite start or end. Your ignorance of science is astounding and your claim of authority completely unsupported.

The brain of the child will not develop without the mother. The state should not demand that an individual legal life be subordinated to what might become an individual legal life.

I have listed numerous sources to bolster my claims. You have zero.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
http://whatislife.stanford.edu/LoCo_files/What-is-Life.pdf

I did not butcher anything, liar. The FACTS are that you are FULL OF SHIT. There is no one biological definition of what is life much less "when life begins."
Click to expand...

Except there is. Biologically it is when the unique human life is formed. It is at conception. Period.

http://blogs.plos.org/dnascience/2013/10/03/when-does-a-human-life-begins-17-timepoints/
Click to expand...
I’m the author of an intro college biology textbook called “Life,” my having nabbed that title before Keith Richards did. Life science textbooks from traditional publishers (I’m with McGraw-Hill) don’t explicitly state when life begins, because that is a question not only of biology, but of philosophy, politics, psychology, religion, technology, and emotions.
Click to expand...

Perhaps that is what keeps confusing you...

It's just more of your lousy semantics arguments and inability to understand the very first line I quoted. Definitions are NOT unequivocal. They are descriptive. They will not provide your little bitty mind with the absolutes on which you insist. And you are LYING through your teeth concerning the notion that there is a consensus among biologist on this subject.
Click to expand...

LMAO... no moron, I am not lying... it is a basic biological FACT. It is basic genetics.

Now deal with my argument. How can conditions that represent "no life" in the brain dead represent "is life" in a fetus?
Click to expand...

Try reading moron... I have addressed this each time you brought up your stupid 'argument'. It is not the same. Not even close. One brain is DEAD... it will not EVER recover (again... assuming diagnosis is correct). The other brain is DEVELOPING, it WILL become a fully functioning brain (again... yes, there are exceptions, but for the sake of argument, the vast majority will). To try and equate the two is absurd.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top