wow Darla has the cutest voice ever

Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
It can not sustain its existence. The mother sustains it.

Again, there is a problem here conflating the adjective with the noun. All of those things are alive but they are not all life according to the definition you previously gave. It is only clearly life, according to your definition, once it becomes viable.

I fully agree its a continuing process with no clear markers which is why it is virtually impossible to unequivocally define life or the beginning of life with science alone. SF (and Nova's simple boy) want there to be some black and white answer and there is not.
Click to expand...
It sustains existence. It meets all the conditions of being alive. To argue otherwise is silly. You're trying to differentiate on how it sustains life, not the fact that it does sustain life there are all sorts of examples of nature of life being sustained by symbiotic relationships in which a particular form of life cannot sustain life without a host, are you telling me they aren't alive either?
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
It did not say "human life" it just said "life."

But it does not meet all the conditions. It can't yet sustain it's existence. Separated from the mother it will not gain that ability. And, again, your definition is not unequivocal.

Still, I would not bother arguing that it is not alive, in a certain sense of the word. I really don't care about what is useful for biology. In the sense that is useful for legal protections and medical care it is not yet life anymore than my arm is life or a human life. It is alive cellularly but its not yet alive as a human organism.
Click to expand...

You are admitting that the baby is alive. Saying it can't sustain life on its own is a tacit admission that it is alive. Ergo you are taking a life.

This is why the pro abortion crowd is so dishonest and I have such little respect for them. They are afraid to be honest about their beliefs. They are too chickenshit to say "yeah abortion is taking a life". So they twist themselves in knots talking about "choice" and "reproductive health". They are disingenuous propagandists and the abortion argument is turning away from them as science advances.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
It sustains existence. It meets all the conditions of being alive. To argue otherwise is silly. You're trying to differentiate on how it sustains life, not the fact that it does sustain life there are all sorts of examples of nature of life being sustained by symbiotic relationships in which a particular form of life cannot sustain life without a host, are you telling me they aren't alive either?
Click to expand...

That's a good point and further illustrates how imperfect the definitions are. But that is the nature of those animals. It is not the nature of a human.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Yes....that's what I am saying. It's not as simple as you think to make that determination. A lot of genetic variation occurs in this process of which some estimated 70% of it isn't viable. If a nonviable fertilization results in a zygote that has 24 chromosomal pairs is that human? Is that human life? As a biologist I can't answer that question. So to say that a human life has begun at fertilization is difficult to say. It might be and it might not be. That is why there is no consensus in regards to it being "a human life". There is no argument though that the resulting tissue is alive.
Click to expand...

Again... you speak of viability... that has nothing to do with genetic coding.

If a zygote ends up with 24 pairs of chromosomes, it is still going to be human, it is just likely to have a deformity/debilitation depending on which pair was duplicated. But I have not ever heard of a case where an extra pair suddenly turned the fetus into a monkey or any other species. As a biologist, I am sure you have examples of a non-human fetus that spawned from two humans?
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
It did not say "human life" it just said "life."

But it does not meet all the conditions. It can't yet sustain it's existence. Separated from the mother it will not gain that ability. And, again, your definition is not unequivocal.
Click to expand...

The ability to sustain one's own existence does not define 'life'. Again, people are put on life support that are not brain dead. The ability to sustain one's own existence does not determine if someone is living or human.

Still, I would not bother arguing that it is not alive, in a certain sense of the word. I really don't care about what is useful for biology. In the sense that is useful for legal protections and medical care it is not yet life anymore than my arm is life or a human life. It is alive cellularly but its not yet alive as a human organism.
Click to expand...

exactly... which is why you continue to try and blend the philisophical and legal arguments with the scientific determinations. Your final comment is 100% incorrect. But you are welcome to tell us, finally, what species you think it is at that time. Please... for once... WHAT species is it prior to being human?
 
see how freedomy they are for females in this libertarian world they are tying to create?

Libertarianism is bullshit in this country.

they are yo yos that are made of glass.

You can see right through them and they cant stay in one position long
 
Teflon Don said:
You are admitting that the baby is alive. Saying it can't sustain life on its own is a tacit admission that it is alive. Ergo you are taking a life.

This is why the pro abortion crowd is so dishonest and I have such little respect for them. They are afraid to be honest about their beliefs. They are too chickenshit to say "yeah abortion is taking a life". So they twist themselves in knots talking about "choice" and "reproductive health". They are disingenuous propagandists and the abortion argument is turning away from them as science advances.
Click to expand...

i'll straight up say it. Other than partial birth, I think we should have the right to make delicious fetus soup. stir their itty bitty brains up. They are lower than frogs at that stage.
 
Superfreak said:
Again... you speak of viability... that has nothing to do with genetic coding.

If a zygote ends up with 24 pairs of chromosomes, it is still going to be human, it is just likely to have a deformity/debilitation depending on which pair was duplicated. But I have not ever heard of a case where an extra pair suddenly turned the fetus into a monkey or any other species. As a biologist, I am sure you have examples of a non-human fetus that spawned from two humans?
Click to expand...

potential doesn't define who you are in the here and now. an acorn isn't a tree.
 
evince said:
see how freedomy they are for females in this libertarian world they are tying to create?

Libertarianism is bullshit in this country.

they are yo yos that are made of glass.

You can see right through them and they cant stay in one position long
Click to expand...

you should honestly kill yourself. it really isn't fair what you are putting your family through. you have to know they want to be unburdened by you. do the right thing desh.
 
ahhhh grinadage wants me dead.

Im so scared.


shove your fucking heartless head back up your ass grindage.

the ideas you have in your head best fit In there
 
evince said:
see how freedomy they are for females in this libertarian world they are tying to create?

Libertarianism is bullshit in this country.

they are yo yos that are made of glass.

You can see right through them and they cant stay in one position long
Click to expand...

You are absolutely the most retarded person I have ever encountered...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top