Dead is dead

[Timshel]

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/

 

[Truth Detector]

Another idiots argument; thank you for again removing any doubt what a brain dead dunce you are.

 

[Timshel]

Another idiots argument; thank you for again removing Amy doubt what a brain dead dunce you are.

Who is Amy? Is she as incapable of a response as you are?

 

[Truth Detector]

Who is Amy? Is she as incapable of a response as you are?

There, I fixed it for you because I know you're an ignorant dunce who likes to feign innocence when he makes incredibly stupid commentaries.

My mistake doesn't make your dimwitted stupidity any less repugnant or stupid however. Carry on dunce.

 

[Timshel]

There, I fixed it for you because I know you're an ignorant dunce who likes to feign innocence when he makes incredibly stupid commentaries.

My mistake doesn't make your dimwitted stupidity any less repugnant or stupid however. Carry on dunce.

And your correction does not make your post AMYmore responsive.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

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/

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.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Another idiots argument; thank you for again removing any doubt what a brain dead dunce you are.

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.

 

[MAGA MAN]

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/

This argument assumes the mother had no choice in having her egg fertilized. It is therefore a bullshit argument, except in the case of rape.

 

[Dantès]

Another idiots argument; thank you for again removing any doubt what a brain dead dunce you are.

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!

 

[Timshel]

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.

Dude, did you even bother reading? The biological definition is not proper in this context.

 

[Timshel]

This argument assumes the mother had no choice in having her egg fertilized. It is therefore a bullshit argument, except in the case of rape.

Where? It does not make any such assumption.

 

[MAGA MAN]

Where? It does not make any such assumption.

Of course it does. We live in a time where birth control, including abstinence, is cheap and proven effective. And it has always taken two to tango.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

if the fetus isn't alive, why do you have to kill it?......

 

[canceled.2021.1]

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/

And yet yo mama chose life

 

[Timshel]

Of course it does. We live in a time where birth control, including abstinence, is cheap and proven effective. And it has always taken two to tango.

So?

 

[MAGA MAN]

So?

So your argument assumes otherwise.

 

[Timshel]

So your argument assumes otherwise.

Nope, it certainly does not. I made no mention of a woman getting pregnant due to lack of effective birth control to prevent it.

 

[Airstrip One]

Better dead than red!

 

[cawacko]

Percy Harvin is @ died

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Dude, did you even bother reading? The biological definition is not proper in this context.

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?