Now you see why pat does not want this to be about viability and he wants to label it MURDER
(1) The capacity of being alive; capability of living, developing, or reproducing.
(2) The capability (of an embryo, fetus or newborn) of normal growth and development outside the uterus.
(3) The state of being viable; practicability.
Pat holds that a fetus meets the criteria for viability based on definition (1). You, Pittbulll, hold that it might not, based on definition (2). I hold that both definitions apply to a fetus based on our technological capabilities, but that the idea of transplanting a fetus from one uterus to another does not currently meet the criteria for viability based on definition (3).
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
(1) The capacity of being alive; capability of living, developing, or reproducing.
(2) The capability (of an embryo, fetus or newborn) of normal growth and development outside the uterus.
(3) The state of being viable; practicability.
Pat holds that a fetus meets the criteria for viability based on definition (1). You, Pittbulll, hold that it might not, based on definition (2). I hold that both definitions apply to a fetus based on our technological capabilities, but that the idea of transplanting a fetus from one uterus to another does not currently meet the criteria for viability based on definition (3).[/quote]
A fetus lacks the capability of life until a certain point called viabilty.
Viability could very well be viable in another uterus. It is still a viable fetus. It is not a fully developed human being
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
(1) The capacity of being alive; capability of living, developing, or reproducing.
(2) The capability (of an embryo, fetus or newborn) of normal growth and development outside the uterus.
(3) The state of being viable; practicability.
Pat holds that a fetus meets the criteria for viability based on definition (1). You, Pittbulll, hold that it might not, based on definition (2). I hold that both definitions apply to a fetus based on our technological capabilities, but that the idea of transplanting a fetus from one uterus to another does not currently meet the criteria for viability based on definition (3).[/quote]
A fetus lacks the capability of life until a certain point called viabilty.
Viability could very well be viable in another uterus. It is still a viable fetus. It is not a fully developed human being
[/quote]
Pitt, put down the shovel and step away from the hole.
There is no “certain point called viability”. There is a continuum of viability, the farther along a fetus travels the higher the probability of its survival. It doesn’t lak the “capability of life”, it is already alive. The question is whether it will remain alive when its umbilical cord is severed. Our technology is increasing the probability of survival farther and farther backwards along the viability continuum.
I suspect you know what you mean, but you get shit on a lot because, I’m sorry to say, it isn’t immediately apparent from reading your posts. Which seems to imply to me that along with the shovel, your should put down the bong as well. 
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Pitt, put down the shovel and step away from the hole.
There is no “certain point called viability”.[/quote]
The point of viability is fluid . Have you joined the CJS ? If you are talking viable to live outside the womb is different from viable to live inside the womb.
And yes technology effects viability
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
I suspect you know what you mean, but you get shit on a lot because, I’m sorry to say, it isn’t immediately apparent from reading your posts. Which seems to imply to me that along with the shovel, your should put down the bong as well. :)[/quote]
.
What is the CJS?
If you’re referring to the legal encyclopedia, then no.
I do not come here to agree with anyone nor do I come here to make friends . I come here to become a better writer and to have fun . So far I will have to say I have accomplished both . When I quit having fun I will quit coming here . But until I do the CSJ will just have to deal with it 
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
What is the CJS?
If you’re referring to the legal encyclopedia, then no. [/quote]
A society of people that only agree with them selves any one with a differing point of veiw is not welcome . You are first indoctrinated by flattery ’ I refer to it as the Circle Jerk Society . They claim to be the voice of Conservatism
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
What is the CJS?
If you’re referring to the legal encyclopedia, then no. [/quote]
A society of people that only agree with them selves any one with a differing point of veiw is not welcome . You are first indoctrinated by flattery ’ I refer to it as the Circle Jerk Society . They claim to be the voice of Conservatism
[/quote]
Aha.
Thought you were talking about the Corpus Juris Secundum, which is the comprehensive encyclopedia of federal and state law.
In it, words have precise definitions, which is why I thought you were implying that I, who insists upon things being called their proper name, might in some way be associated with it. But now I see you were just being funny.
Guess the comment deserves a laugh.
Seriously, though, the “voice of conservatism”?!
Me?!
You have got to be either kidding, delirious, stoned out of your mind, or a combination of all three.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
What is the CJS?
If you’re referring to the legal encyclopedia, then no. [/quote]
A society of people that only agree with them selves any one with a differing point of veiw is not welcome . You are first indoctrinated by flattery ’ I refer to it as the Circle Jerk Society . They claim to be the voice of Conservatism
[/quote]
Aha.
Thought you were talking about the Corpus Juris Secundum, which is the comprehensive encyclopedia of federal and state law.
In it, words have precise definitions, which is why I thought you were implying that I, who insists upon things being called their proper name, might in some way be associated with it. But now I see you were just being funny.
Guess the comment deserves a laugh.
Seriously, though, the “voice of conservatism”?!
Me?!
You have got to be either kidding, delirious, stoned out of your mind, or a combination of all three. [/quote]
I personally like you . That is why I questioned you in the CJS . But there is other criteria besides conservative .
I have to go back to original point because we both got side tracked by your wit
I believe a baby would be viable at around 5 months . (LIVING OUTSIDE THE WOMB)
Zygotes can be transplanted up until 5 weeks and that is aprox %68 of abortions
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Now you see why pat does not want this to be about viability and he wants to label it MURDER [/quote]
Viability is a ridiculous criteria for determining whether or not something is human. Whether something is ‘viable’ or not does not make something what it is. Whether or not a human being is viable does not change the fact that it is a human being. It’s a fake line you made up to justify killing, period. You cannot bring any evidence to the contrary.
Go ahead, bring some evidence that viability makes something that was previously not a human being a human being. I won’t hold my breath.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
(1) The capacity of being alive; capability of living, developing, or reproducing.
(2) The capability (of an embryo, fetus or newborn) of normal growth and development outside the uterus.
(3) The state of being viable; practicability.
Pat holds that a fetus meets the criteria for viability based on definition (1). You, Pittbulll, hold that it might not, based on definition (2). I hold that both definitions apply to a fetus based on our technological capabilities, but that the idea of transplanting a fetus from one uterus to another does not currently meet the criteria for viability based on definition (3).[/quote]
I don’t regard viability as anything other than a point in human development. It’s a non-factor. It makes no difference as to whether the fetus is a human being or not.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
belongs to Mom until viability
[/quote]
It’s life belongs to mom and dad long after it is born. Viability means nothing to the discussion. Whether it is viable outside the womb does not speak to what it is. What it is, is what matters, not what it can do, or not do.
Viability is what this discussion is about .
It’s life is portable after birth. Meaning their are many places it may reside
In the womb it has little choice
[/quote]
No, it’s about whether or not it’s okay to take a human life. Viability doesn’t speak to what it is. It’s just some arbitrary moment of human development you made up to justify your position. It has no scientific or logical basis whatsoever.[/quote]
I thought we were talking about abortion and the circumstances surrounding that subject .
Not whether it is OK to put a bullet in someone’s head
[/quote]
We are, you made up this ‘viability’ criteria. It’s bullshit. It’s an imaginary line. Viability does not make something what it is.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
“Viability” is a fluid concept, and entirely dependent upon our technology. It is currently possible to keep a fetus alive outside of the womb after only about 22 weeks of gestation. Next year that number may drop to 20 weeks. In the future it may be possible to gestate a fetus from zygote to infant entirely in an artificial incubator, which will make the issue of “viability” entirely moot, because every fertilized egg will be theoretically viable. [/quote]
Then if it is viable , by all means remove it and place it where it is wanted
[/quote]
So your real criteria is whether or not a human being is wanted, not whether or not it’s a human being. You are for the killing or unwanted human beings. You don’t give a rats ass about a human life, you only care if that human life is “wanted”. Be honest.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
belongs to Mom until viability
[/quote]
It’s life belongs to mom and dad long after it is born. Viability means nothing to the discussion. Whether it is viable outside the womb does not speak to what it is. What it is, is what matters, not what it can do, or not do.
Viability is what this discussion is about .
It’s life is portable after birth. Meaning their are many places it may reside
In the womb it has little choice
[/quote]
No, it’s about whether or not it’s okay to take a human life. Viability doesn’t speak to what it is. It’s just some arbitrary moment of human development you made up to justify your position. It has no scientific or logical basis whatsoever.[/quote]
I thought we were talking about abortion and the circumstances surrounding that subject .
Not whether it is OK to put a bullet in someone’s head
[/quote]
We are, you made up this ‘viability’ criteria. It’s bullshit. It’s an imaginary line. Viability does not make something what it is.[/quote]
Pat, are you saying a Zygote should have the full rights of a person the second an egg is fertilized? This has some consequences beyond this discussion as Varq pointed out earlier.
Also, if you don’t think imaginary lines should be drawn where rights are concerned it doesn’t sound like you are a big fan of borders. The imaginary line running between the U.S. and Mexico pretty much dooms most of the fetuses and born humans down there and prevents them from pursuing liberty and happiness and statistically even life compared to U.S. citizens.
The reason we even have it is to protect our society and our way of life. There isn’t a way to view the border as anything other than restricting the basic rights of other humans who are not “us” because it benefits “us” and our subjective view of the greater good based on an arbitrary and imaginary line.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
belongs to Mom until viability
[/quote]
It’s life belongs to mom and dad long after it is born. Viability means nothing to the discussion. Whether it is viable outside the womb does not speak to what it is. What it is, is what matters, not what it can do, or not do.
Viability is what this discussion is about .
It’s life is portable after birth. Meaning their are many places it may reside
In the womb it has little choice
[/quote]
No, it’s about whether or not it’s okay to take a human life. Viability doesn’t speak to what it is. It’s just some arbitrary moment of human development you made up to justify your position. It has no scientific or logical basis whatsoever.[/quote]
I thought we were talking about abortion and the circumstances surrounding that subject .
Not whether it is OK to put a bullet in someone’s head
[/quote]
We are, you made up this ‘viability’ criteria. It’s bullshit. It’s an imaginary line. Viability does not make something what it is.[/quote]
Pat, are you saying a Zygote should have the full rights of a person the second an egg is fertilized? This has some consequences beyond this discussion as Varq pointed out earlier.
Also, if you don’t think imaginary lines should be drawn where rights are concerned it doesn’t sound like you are a big fan of borders. The imaginary line running between the U.S. and Mexico pretty much dooms most of the fetuses and born humans down there and prevents them from pursuing liberty and happiness and statistically even life compared to U.S. citizens. The reason we even have it is to protect our society and our way of life. There isn’t a way to view the border as anything other than restricting the basic rights of other humans who are not “us” because it benefits “us” and our subjective view of the greater good based on an arbitrary and imaginary line. [/quote]
First of all, and again, a ‘zygote’ is just a stage of human development. Second of all, I am not talking about constitutional rights. I am simply talking about the right to live. Like I stated previously, an illegal alien does not have ‘constitutional rights’ but they do have a right to live. If you kill an illegal alien you will go to prison for murder.
Grant the human life in the zygote stage, the right to live. It doesn’t need to vote, just be allowed to exist without the threat of being killed.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
belongs to Mom until viability
[/quote]
It’s life belongs to mom and dad long after it is born. Viability means nothing to the discussion. Whether it is viable outside the womb does not speak to what it is. What it is, is what matters, not what it can do, or not do.
Viability is what this discussion is about .
It’s life is portable after birth. Meaning their are many places it may reside
In the womb it has little choice
[/quote]
No, it’s about whether or not it’s okay to take a human life. Viability doesn’t speak to what it is. It’s just some arbitrary moment of human development you made up to justify your position. It has no scientific or logical basis whatsoever.[/quote]
I thought we were talking about abortion and the circumstances surrounding that subject .
Not whether it is OK to put a bullet in someone’s head
[/quote]
We are, you made up this ‘viability’ criteria. It’s bullshit. It’s an imaginary line. Viability does not make something what it is.[/quote]
Pat, are you saying a Zygote should have the full rights of a person the second an egg is fertilized? This has some consequences beyond this discussion as Varq pointed out earlier.
Also, if you don’t think imaginary lines should be drawn where rights are concerned it doesn’t sound like you are a big fan of borders. The imaginary line running between the U.S. and Mexico pretty much dooms most of the fetuses and born humans down there and prevents them from pursuing liberty and happiness and statistically even life compared to U.S. citizens. The reason we even have it is to protect our society and our way of life. There isn’t a way to view the border as anything other than restricting the basic rights of other humans who are not “us” because it benefits “us” and our subjective view of the greater good based on an arbitrary and imaginary line. [/quote]
First of all, and again, a ‘zygote’ is just a stage of human development. Second of all, I am not talking about constitutional rights. I am simply talking about the right to live. Like I stated previously, an illegal alien does not have ‘constitutional rights’ but they do have a right to live. If you kill an illegal alien you will go to prison for murder.
Grant the human life in the zygote stage, the right to live. It doesn’t need to vote, just be allowed to exist without the threat of being killed.[/quote]
There are many more basic human rights than just the right to life that do not depend on the constitution.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
belongs to Mom until viability
[/quote]
It’s life belongs to mom and dad long after it is born. Viability means nothing to the discussion. Whether it is viable outside the womb does not speak to what it is. What it is, is what matters, not what it can do, or not do.
Viability is what this discussion is about .
It’s life is portable after birth. Meaning their are many places it may reside
In the womb it has little choice
[/quote]
No, it’s about whether or not it’s okay to take a human life. Viability doesn’t speak to what it is. It’s just some arbitrary moment of human development you made up to justify your position. It has no scientific or logical basis whatsoever.[/quote]
I thought we were talking about abortion and the circumstances surrounding that subject .
Not whether it is OK to put a bullet in someone’s head
[/quote]
We are, you made up this ‘viability’ criteria. It’s bullshit. It’s an imaginary line. Viability does not make something what it is.[/quote]
viable is a word and it has a meaning and that meaning can be applied (probably) in opposing scenarios . Viable is just a word .