BigSqwert Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 QUOTE (Tex @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 06:04 AM) A newborn baby can not survive on its own. Someone has to feed and shelter the baby. So you'd be in favor of killing one month old bags of cells? I'm pretty sure he meant survive without drastic medical intervention. Stop playing dumb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 An embryo cannot survive outside of the womb period. But yeah, that's a typical semantic bait-and-switch. "Survive on its own" as soxbadger is using it clearly means physically capable of surviving outside of the womb, not providing for itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vandy125 Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 It is interesting to note, and maybe I have this wrong, but the thought of being uncomfortable with people making mistakes on convicting people for when to end their lives, but that same correlation is not brought up with a fetus. How do we know we are not making a mistake with when we "decide" that life begins? What if we are wrong on that? Is that something we trust ourselves with considering the thought of not ending the life of some rotten criminal because there could be a mistake? IMHO, there is a correlation on what you trust in regards to both abortion and capital punishment. If you don't trust the process on one end, how can you trust it on the other? In both cases fallible people are making "decisions" on when there should be life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 QUOTE (vandy125 @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 08:33 AM) It is interesting to note, and maybe I have this wrong, but the thought of being uncomfortable with people making mistakes on convicting people for when to end their lives, but that same correlation is not brought up with a fetus. How do we know we are not making a mistake with when we "decide" that life begins? What if we are wrong on that? Is that something we trust ourselves with considering the thought of not ending the life of some rotten criminal because there could be a mistake? IMHO, there is a correlation on what you trust in regards to both abortion and capital punishment. If you don't trust the process on one end, how can you trust it on the other? In both cases fallible people are making "decisions" on when there should be life. +1 Pretty much what I was getting at earlier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 One issue that's not even being addressed is a woman's right to control her own body. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 Vandy, I absolutely agree that I could be wrong. But as of now with the information I have, Im not wrong (at least in my opinion). And as I previously have stated, if science was to change or allow for a fetus at 1 second to be taken from a womb and survive on its own, I would absolutely support that. But as of today we dont have that option. I see nothing compelling about a 1 second fetus being more than a sperm or a egg. Tex, I clearly explained that. I said that if something can live and breathe on its own (a 1 month baby) it is alive. Can a fetus breathe without assistance prior to 3 months, I dont believe so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 10:17 AM) Vandy, I absolutely agree that I could be wrong. But as of now with the information I have, Im not wrong (at least in my opinion). And as I previously have stated, if science was to change or allow for a fetus at 1 second to be taken from a womb and survive on its own, I would absolutely support that. But as of today we dont have that option. I see nothing compelling about a 1 second fetus being more than a sperm or a egg. Tex, I clearly explained that. I said that if something can live and breathe on its own (a 1 month baby) it is alive. Can a fetus breathe without assistance prior to 3 months, I dont believe so. o Wait, so are you saying that until a baby is born it's not alive? I have yet to get a grasp on where that line begins for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 Thats because your not trying. I clearly have explained it, Tex asked about a 1 month baby, I already went over it. Its a waste of time to repos it because its in this same thread, but once again Ill do it. The "dependence" method is only to determine when something comes into being, not when something that has been alive is no longer alive. Its pretty simple: Baby born breathes air = LIVING Fetus inside mother, entirely dependent on mother for survival, can not even survive if c-section and in nicu = not living Area in between, gray, to be left to scientists and drs. If you really cant understand that, its not worth arguing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 10:08 AM) One issue that's not even being addressed is a woman's right to control her own body. We need more government intervention with regards to controlling our bodies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 (edited) QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 11:54 AM) Thats because your not trying. I clearly have explained it, Tex asked about a 1 month baby, I already went over it. Its a waste of time to repos it because its in this same thread, but once again Ill do it. If you really cant understand that, its not worth arguing. No, that's not an answer. I'm asking what is your criteria for being "alive." Edited August 25, 2011 by Jenksismybitch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 11:57 AM) No, that's not an answer. I'm asking what is your criteria for being "alive." Wow. How much more clear can he be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 11:55 AM) We need more government intervention with regards to controlling our bodies. Slightly different situation though when you're talking about two living beings. Unless you don't think a baby has any rights to be protected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 (edited) QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 11:58 AM) Wow. How much more clear can he be? He's given the two extremes, how is that an answer? Edited August 25, 2011 by Jenksismybitch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 12:02 PM) He's given the two extremes, how is that an answer? Either you are playing dumb or you're a complete idiot. He just re-posted his opinion 3 minutes ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 Its simply come to the point where Jenks will accept nothing less than at conception something is alive. I believe that I clearly have stated my position on the matter. But just so its so simple Ill break it down, 1 more time. Fetus inside mother= may or may not be alive, question of fact. Can it survive with help of NICU? If answer is no, not alive, if answer is yes, may be alive. Baby is born, breathes air= alive How is this so hard to grasp? If something can not survive, even with the use of extraordinary medical procedures, its not alive. At least to me. And if you really think you are going to somehow change my opinion, bring some facts to the table. Show me why you believe a 1 second fetus is alive, why it deserves protection. If the answer is, because someday it may be alive, well then I ask you, why do you not protect sperm? Are you against the pill? The idea that I would somehow have the absolute answer to this question is preposterous. But at the end of the day, I think I have the best answer, and that does not necessarily mean its the right answer or that 1000 years from now people will think Im a barbarian. It just means that right now, in my opinion, based on science/legal I believe my answer is the best answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 12:04 PM) Either you are playing dumb or you're a complete idiot. He just re-posted his opinion 3 minutes ago. I've asked him to define "alive" for me...to give me some indication of what that means. He's given me two examples and deferred to scientists and doctors. Great, we've clarified the answer in two situations. I'm asking for some criteria here. Is a heart beat enough? Is brain activity enough? Body movement? Some level of conscious understanding? What? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 12:08 PM) I've asked him to define "alive" for me...to give me some indication of what that means. He's given me two examples and deferred to scientists and doctors. Great, we've clarified the answer in two situations. I'm asking for some criteria here. Is a heart beat enough? Is brain activity enough? Body movement? Some level of conscious understanding? What? How many times must he post this? If something can not survive, even with the use of extraordinary medical procedures, its not alive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 (edited) Right your asking me to define a word that (imo) is incapable of being absolutely defined. Its a question of fact, dependent on the circumstances. I dont think anyone could absolutely define alive, without using comparative examples. Whats your definition of alive? Bigsqwert, And just to be clear, that is only the definition of alive for something that has never been alive. Something that has already been alive (person in coma etc), may have a different definition. Although the more I read my statement, the more I think it can apply to a variety of different situations. I just am not so bold as to say that I have the absolute definition for alive. Edited August 25, 2011 by Soxbadger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 12:05 PM) Its simply come to the point where Jenks will accept nothing less than at conception something is alive. I believe that I clearly have stated my position on the matter. But just so its so simple Ill break it down, 1 more time. Fetus inside mother= may or may not be alive, question of fact. Can it survive with help of NICU? If answer is no, not alive, if answer is yes, may be alive. Baby is born, breathes air= alive How is this so hard to grasp? If something can not survive, even with the use of extraordinary medical procedures, its not alive. At least to me. And if you really think you are going to somehow change my opinion, bring some facts to the table. Show me why you believe a 1 second fetus is alive, why it deserves protection. If the answer is, because someday it may be alive, well then I ask you, why do you not protect sperm? Are you against the pill? The idea that I would somehow have the absolute answer to this question is preposterous. But at the end of the day, I think I have the best answer, and that does not necessarily mean its the right answer or that 1000 years from now people will think Im a barbarian. It just means that right now, in my opinion, based on science/legal I believe my answer is the best answer. I don't think life begins at conception, and i've stated that clearly. Nor am I trying to change your mind. You can have your opinions all you want, i'm just trying to figure out what the hell it is. Your answer is all about survivability. Ok, my bad. You have stated that before. I've viewing this from a different perspective. I guess I don't see how you're not alive if you have a heartbeat and some brain activity, even if you can't survive on your own. Those two things are absent in the dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 12:11 PM) Right your asking me to define a word that (imo) is incapable of being absolutely defined. Its a question of fact, dependent on the circumstances. I dont think anyone could absolutely define alive, without using comparative examples. I don't disagree that it's difficult, but that's why "if it can't survive it's not alive" is too broad of a definition for me to grasp. A person in a vegetative state can't survive, but we don't consider them dead. And I don't understand why the definition has to change when you're talking about being born or dying. Isn't being alive, well, being alive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 12:21 PM) I don't disagree that it's difficult, but that's why "if it can't survive it's not alive" is too broad of a definition for me to grasp. A person in a vegetative state can't survive, but we don't consider them dead. And I don't understand why the definition has to change when you're talking about being born or dying. Isn't being alive, well, being alive? A person in a vegetative state can be kept alive (against their own wishes and with the help of a Republican congress passing laws!) A month-old embryo or an 8 week fetus cannot survive outside the womb, period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 12:37 PM) A person in a vegetative state can be kept alive (against their own wishes and with the help of a Republican congress passing laws!) A month-old embryo or an 8 week fetus cannot survive outside the womb, period. So essentially life is an argument of technological capabilities? I don't know that I have ever heard it expressed that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 Jenks, You just are not reading my posts that carefully. Ive clearly stated that before something is born and after are 2 different situations. In the case of the person in a vegetative they were once alive. Thus they are entitled to more rights than something that never existed. If you want heartbeat and brain activity is when something is alive, thats just looking at the facts differently. But then I assume you have no problem with abortion before heartbeat and brain activity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 25, 2011 -> 12:39 PM) So essentially life is an argument of technological capabilities? I don't know that I have ever heard it expressed that way. Biological, not technological. What exists at 6 or 8 weeks is not recognizably human, nor does it really perform many functions necessary to sustain life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 SS2k, The reason science plays a role is that one day science could be so advanced that at conception you could remove the fetus and save it. If science was able to do that, you wouldnt have an abortion argument. Any person who didnt want it, could merely give it up like adoption. The problem right now is that the fetus cant survive without the mother, and the mother doesnt want it. If you are going to look at that issue (imo) you have to give deference to that which is alive over that which is not. Thus the mother has the say until the fetus can survive, at which point the fetus now has rights and therefore the mother cant take them away. At least thats how I view it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts