[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
LOl. You just can’t get it. Oh well. [/quote]
No, but don’t feel bad. I’m sure you’ll explain it better next time.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
pookie wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
LOl. You just can’t get it. Oh well.
No, but don’t feel bad. I’m sure you’ll explain it better next time.
Pook, baby, will that really make any difference?[/quote]
Well, between PRCalDud’s unfulfilled scientific aspirations; your kitchen drawer inventory and what’s his face “rats are people too” arguments, this thread has been very entertaining. But enlightening? Not so much.
[quote]pookie wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
LOl. You just can’t get it. Oh well.
No, but don’t feel bad. I’m sure you’ll explain it better next time.
[/quote]
Yeah. Maybe it’ll be like our religion discussion, where in six months or so I’ll go back and block-quote the relevant statements I made (and changing none of the wording) to try to make you understand, only then you’ll get it. It just needs time to sink into that Canadian head of yours, Pookie. Don’t feel bad though, I have the same issues with other things. The second time around is always easier.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Don’t feel bad though, I have the same issues with other things. The second time around is always easier. [/quote]
Let me guess: Gay sex?
although I am not a complete fan of FOCA, I am a complete fan of legal abortion.
things change, legislature changes, laws change, but keeping the rights of women first should never change
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
things change, legislature changes, laws change, but keeping the rights of women first should never change
[/quote]
Have you been brainwashed? Do you actually have a point?
[quote]JamFly wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
things change, legislature changes, laws change, but keeping the rights of women first should never change
Have you been brainwashed? Do you actually have a point?[/quote]
I made my point in the entirety of my post which you chose not to quote.
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
JamFly wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
things change, legislature changes, laws change, but keeping the rights of women first should never change
Have you been brainwashed? Do you actually have a point?
I made my point in the entirety of my post which you chose not to quote.
[/quote]
Just get back into the kitchen and make yer man a sammich,li’l lady.
[quote]pookie wrote:
pat wrote:
What about really old people who are losing it, do they stop being people when they lose it?
Depends on what you consider “people”. Was post-1990 Terry Schiavo “people”? If it makes other people happy to keep the body warm for years, fine. You’re not forcing someone to carry them around inside their body, right?
There is no decernable break in the human life cycle except for conception and death.
There’s no break at conception either. Living cells keep on living and start dividing.
Do really drunk people who pass out cease being human until wake up?
No. If you wake them up forcefully, there’s still someone there.
The brain shuts down the higher functioning centers in the case of too much alcohol. So they are by that definition, temporarily not human. It’s a very shallow definition.
You’re mixing being awake with higher brain functions. I’m pretty sure you’ll still see the wave patterns of higher brain functions if you plug them up. They’re drunk, not brain-dead.
But I’ll take eliminating all abortions after 20 weeks as a good start.
I’ll get that law written and passed ASAP.
[/quote]
Actually, a really drunk person who has passed out has actually succeeded in shutting down there higher brain function. They pass out as a protective measure. Not the same as falling asleep drunk, but actually passing out.
Anyhow, it simply to illustrate the absurdity of the “tissue” argument. What is the little blob just moments before “higher brain function” turns on? Is a car not a car when it is off?
I have a picture of a 9 week old aborted baby…The mods won’t let me post it, but it has a head, arms, legs, feet, hands, face, the whole shootin’ match. I can PM it to you if you want to see it.
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
although I am not a complete fan of FOCA, I am a complete fan of legal abortion.
things change, legislature changes, laws change, but keeping the rights of women first should never change
[/quote]
What about the rights of babies just to live?
[quote]pat wrote:
Anyhow, it simply to illustrate the absurdity of the “tissue” argument. What is the little blob just moments before “higher brain function” turns on? Is a car not a car when it is off?[/quote]
It’s a human with no brain function.
What about this boy: Removed: news agency feed article | Information | The Guardian
[i]Unlike Terri Schiavo or Karen Ann Quinlan, who became the subjects of right-to-die battles when they suffered brain damage and became unconscious, Motl’s condition has deteriorated beyond a persistent vegetative state, his physicians say. His brain has died entirely, according to an affidavit filed by one of his doctors.
His eyes are fixed and dilated. His body neither moves nor responds to stimulation. His brain stem shows no electrical function, and his brain tissue has begun to decompose.[/i]
In my view, the boy is dead. There’s a functioning human body (at least, while the machines and the drugs are present), but there’s no person left. No one there.
Is shutting off the machines and cutting off the drugs to that boy murder?
[quote]pookie wrote:
pat wrote:
Anyhow, it simply to illustrate the absurdity of the “tissue” argument. What is the little blob just moments before “higher brain function” turns on? Is a car not a car when it is off?
It’s a human with no brain function.
I have a picture of a 9 week old aborted baby…The mods won’t let me post it, but it has a head, arms, legs, feet, hands, face, the whole shootin’ match. I can PM it to you if you want to see it.
What about this boy: Removed: news agency feed article | Information | The Guardian
[i]Unlike Terri Schiavo or Karen Ann Quinlan, who became the subjects of right-to-die battles when they suffered brain damage and became unconscious, Motl’s condition has deteriorated beyond a persistent vegetative state, his physicians say. His brain has died entirely, according to an affidavit filed by one of his doctors.
His eyes are fixed and dilated. His body neither moves nor responds to stimulation. His brain stem shows no electrical function, and his brain tissue has begun to decompose.[/i]
In my view, the boy is dead. There’s a functioning human body (at least, while the machines and the drugs are present), but there’s no person left. No one there.
Is shutting off the machines and cutting off the drugs to that boy murder?
[/quote]
They are already dead, but the two things do not equate. The fetus does have it’s own systems that keep it alive. If those systems cease it is dead, just like your above examples. A tissue does not have a central point from which it draws it’s survival. The fetus does.
A lack of development does not dehumanize it’s life. It is a separate life independent of it’s host, a tissue is not. Development for the fetus is it’s means of survival because it cannot survive as a zygote very long. This struggle in itself is a human/animal trait. The struggle for survival, in it’s early stages it is very primitive it is just trying to develop a tissue cannot develop on it’s own with out the will of it’s host allowing it to do so. The fetus will bring it’s host to it’s knees if it has to in order to survive.
Before you come running with the cancer argument, other than the fact that cancer is a disease, cancer does not develop does not detach itself from it’s host when it is done developing. It just keeps growing until the host dies, but it never develops, it just grows more of itself.
[quote]pat wrote:
They are already dead, but the two things do not equate. The fetus does have it’s own systems that keep it alive.[/quote]
The system that keeps it alive is called the womb. And it’s certainly not its own.
[quote]pat wrote:
They are already dead, but the two things do not equate.[/quote]
Depends at what you look at.
In either case, there is no brain function. One is a person that has ceased to be, the other is one that hasn’t started yet.
[quote]pookie wrote:
pat wrote:
They are already dead, but the two things do not equate.
Depends at what you look at.
In either case, there is no brain function. One is a person that has ceased to be, the other is one that hasn’t started yet.
[/quote]
One is a person that will never again be and one is a person who is coming into being at the very least and who’s life is prevented if not outright terminated (which I do believe is the case) no matter how many neato nifty “enlightened” ways it is spun.
[quote]pookie wrote:
pat wrote:
They are already dead, but the two things do not equate. The fetus does have it’s own systems that keep it alive.
The system that keeps it alive is called the womb. And it’s certainly not its own.
[/quote]
There is a self sustaining mechanism with in the little buger. The womb could do all things right and the fetus die anyway if it’s internal mechanisms are compromised.
[quote]pat wrote:
There is a self sustaining mechanism with in the little buger.[/quote]
Take it out of the womb and see how long it self-sustains.
[quote]pookie wrote:
pat wrote:
There is a self sustaining mechanism with in the little buger.
Take it out of the womb and see how long it self-sustains.
[/quote]
Well we sustain off of the earth…Get off the earth and see how long you last.
Oh boy.