The Abortion Question

[Sovereign Nation]

(09-26-2015, 07:42 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: Oh okay. Well you might notice that I was responding to bfine's ridiculous point that a fetus is merely alive from conception scientifically, not to your position which you've only now just revealed.

For the record, no, a 1 day old fetus is not a human being.

This would be YOUR opinion.

Of course, guys like you can never tell the difference between your opinions and facts. 

After all perspective is reality to you.

[Brownshoe]

(10-01-2015, 04:30 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: If a person would die of a heart attack, but a cardiac cath saves their life.  The point of death has been moved by technology.

If a drowned child has no pulse, respirations, and brain activity for hours, but is resuscitated back to life; the point of death has been moved by technology.

Traditionally, pulse and respirations were used to determine death.  The ability to measure brain activity has changed the definition of death.  A person with a pulse, respiration, and brain activity is alive.   A person with a pulse, respirations, and no brain activity is dead.  How do we measure brain activity?  Technology.  Again, technology has moved the "point of death" or whatever phrase you used.

No, the point of death is not moved back by technology. Just because someone is prevented from reaching death doesn't mean the point of death has been moved by technology.

[Brownshoe]

(10-01-2015, 11:50 AM)fredtoast Wrote: No one ignores this.

Why can't you argue this point without just making stuff up.

It may be alive, but it is not an individual entitled to individual rights greater than those of the mother.

What am I making up?

[Sovereign Nation]

(09-26-2015, 11:42 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: 1. You haven't pointed out anything other than you're too lazy to even attempt to put together a coherent argument for your position.

2. Asked and answered.

Bfine has pretty much owned you so far.

I would try and be a little more humble in your responses if I were you. 

Though like Bfine has already observed, I am pretty sure I know how your responses will be.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-01-2015, 05:15 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: No, the point of death is not moved back by technology. Just because someone is prevented from reaching death doesn't mean the point of death has been moved by technology.

And a person with a pulse, respirations, and no brain activity?

[Brownshoe]

(10-01-2015, 05:20 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: And a person with a pulse, respirations, and no brain activity?

Brain dead? Coma? Idk because I'm not a doctor. But if your trying to say we keep people alive longer you're just missing the point, because that's not moving the point of Death.

[BmorePat87]

(10-01-2015, 05:19 PM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: Bfine has pretty much owned you so far.

I would try and be a little more humble in your responses if I were you. 

Though like Bfine has already observed, I am pretty sure I know how your responses will be.

alt accounts are cute.

[fredtoast]

(10-01-2015, 05:17 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: What am I making up?

Your claim that people ignore the fact that the fetus is alive.

Some people might, but not the people who made the law.

[fredtoast]

(10-01-2015, 05:10 PM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: This would be YOUR opinion.

I can not find a single definition of "human being" that covers a 1 day old zygote.


Care to post a link to the facts you are relying on to define a zygote as a human being?  That should be pretty easy since you are not just posting your own opinion.

[fredtoast]

(10-01-2015, 05:38 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: alt accounts are cute.

I don't know if he is an alt or not, but it is always suspicious when a person posts just to support another member without adding any new information.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-01-2015, 05:23 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: Brain dead? Coma? Idk because I'm not a doctor. But if your trying to say we keep people alive longer you're just missing the point, because that's not moving the point of Death.

They are dead. Even though by traditional methods they would be considered alive. However, due to the technological ability to measure their brain activity they are dead.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-01-2015, 12:33 PM)Naranja Tigre Wrote: Soldiers are ordered to do what they do.

Jurors are not ordered to find someone guilty. They are ordered to make a choice. The government can not change that choice.

We have an all volunteer military. Jurors receive a summons. In some cases, a judge can overrule a jury.

[Brownshoe]

(10-01-2015, 07:14 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: They are dead. Even though by traditional methods they would be considered alive. However, due to the technological ability to measure their brain activity they are dead.

Knowledge =/= technology. Because we didn't know they were dead doesn't mean they were alive or vice versa. That means we still haven't moved the point of death.

[*bfine32*]

(10-01-2015, 05:56 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I can not find a single definition of "human being" that covers a 1 day old zygote.


Care to post a link to the facts you are relying on to define a zygote as a human being?  That should be pretty easy since you are not just posting your own opinion.

I can't find a single example of a woman having an elective abortion after one day of pregnancy. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-01-2015, 08:27 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: Knowledge =/= technology. Because we didn't know they were dead doesn't mean they were alive or vice versa. That means we still haven't moved the point of death.

Maybe I don't understand your point. Can you explain further?

[Brownshoe]

(10-01-2015, 08:51 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Maybe I don't understand your point. Can you explain further?

We already know that the fetus is alive. We don't consider it an individual based on technology. You brought up that we base death off technology, which we don't.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-01-2015, 08:58 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: We already know that the fetus is alive. We don't consider it an individual based on technology. You brought up that we base death off technology, which we don't.

You brought up the point would opinion change regarding abortion if technology could change the point of fetal viability.

I've have explained repeatedly in multiple ways how technology has affected our opinion on death.

[Brownshoe]

(10-01-2015, 09:30 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: You brought up the point would opinion change regarding abortion if technology could change the point of fetal viability.

I've have explained repeatedly in multiple ways how technology has affected our opinion on death.

It has brain activity and a beating heart, so it's not dead. We know it's a human too. Just because we don't have the technology to prevent its death doesn't mean that it's not an individual.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-01-2015, 09:37 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: It has brain activity and a beating heart, so it's not dead. We know it's a human too. Just because we don't have the technology to prevent its death doesn't mean that it's not an individual.

A zygote is alive before it develops a heartbeat and a pulse.   Are you going to assign individual rights to a single cell without a heartbeat or brain activity which supersedes the rights of the parent?

[GodHatesBengals]

(10-01-2015, 05:19 PM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: Bfine has pretty much owned you so far.

I would try and be a little more humble in your responses if I were you. 

Though like Bfine has already observed, I am pretty sure I know how your responses will be.

Actually, pretty much everything bfine says is empirically, demonstrably wrong; the  only people who think he's "owning" me are a. other people who can't read very well and b. troll accounts like yours.

That's the last I have to say to this "Sovereign Nation" account of yours. You'll have to try create a better fake than this for any further interaction.