Republican Poll Shows Abortion is Driving Voters Towards the Democrats

[Zippy]

@PurpnGold

It depends? By stopped I mean permanently stopped.

Including the brain stem?

You do realize it is possible for the brain stem to function long after the upper brain has stopped?

A simple yes or no would suffice.

[PurpnGold]

@WuWei

He is not conscious

A coma is a temporary loss of consciousness. Permanent loss… is dead.

[PurpnGold]

@Zippy

@PurpnGold

It depends? By stopped I mean permanently stopped.

Including the brain stem?

A simple yes or no would suffice.

Yes……

[Samm]

@PurpnGold

@Samm

But your opinion as to what defines a living human is not based in science.

Is defining a dead human… science?

No, that’s simply acceptance of reality.

[biggestal99]

@Samm

. Baby is a linguistic description of a human outside the womb

and fetus is the linguistic description inside the womb.

not baby

Allan

[WuWei]

@PurpnGold

@WuWei

He is not conscious

A coma is a temporary loss of consciousness. Permanent loss… is dead.

How long is temporary?

[Samm]

@PurpnGold

@Samm

@PurpnGold

@Samm

@PurpnGold

@Zippy

@PurpnGold

Don’t be a science denier!

Ok.

According to “Science”, can a dead cell divide?

Now “don’t be a science denier “.

Dead cells cannot divide. A living cell can.

Nobody is denying that a embryo is a living human organism.

But if that living human organism doesn’t develop a brain and consciousness… its was never “alive” it never became a “human being”. It’s a miscarriage effectively.

There you go with the rationalization. It’s okay to kill human organisms as long as they haven’t yet become human beings.

I’m guessing you are against abortion for any reason? I would hope so given the high horse you are on right now.

Where is your line?

I told you. I have no line. If you want to kill your baby do it. Just don’t rationalize it by saying it isn’t a human being.

So you support abortion for any reason at any time?

You know better than that. Support infers approval. I do not approve of killing babies, born or unborn.

Currently, the “universal” legal line for prohibiting the killing of human (with many caveats, of course) is at birth. In ages past, in some societies, it was as much as two years after birth. That is law, based on contemporary morals. Morals change; so does the law. The law could just as easily be changed again to outlaw the killing of human beings at any time prior to birth may it be one month before, two months, three … six or even nine. Or it could be changed to some other rationalized point such as your line of “consciousness” or someone else’s “heartbeat” line. Regardless of what man decides is lawful vs. unlawful, it is not science, it’s moral philosophy.

[biggestal99]

@Samm

My criteria is life.

and my criteria is freedom from govt control.

Allan

[H_Arendt]

@Samm

How does biological development in an organism occur if it is not alive? Dead things don’t develop through cell division following the genetic code in their chromosomes. Living things do.

Your point is logical but not relevant to the discussion. I have been questioning assertions about various things that “the science” proves – such as consciousness at six weeks; thought at 26 weeks or that an embryo is a baby.

While I defend science, I don’t think science is a good method for resolving ethical issues… which I believe this is. I stand on the Talmudic answer to when life begins: as derived from the Book of Genesis. I don’t pretend that is science; it is an ethical position derived by scholars. I respect that other people have other views on when life begins; I only ask that they respect my Biblical beliefs.

[Samm]

@biggestal99

@Samm

. Baby is a linguistic description of a human outside the womb

and fetus is the linguistic description inside the womb.

not baby

Both are linguistic description of humans.

Your semantics game is making you look foolish. Show a little wisdom and stop.

[Samm]

@biggestal99

@Samm

My criteria is life.

and my criteria is freedom from govt control.

Politics, not science.

Just lucky for you, the government infringes on the right of others to kill you. Should they be free of government control too?

[Samm]

@H_Arendt

@Samm

How does biological development in an organism occur if it is not alive? Dead things don’t develop through cell division following the genetic code in their chromosomes. Living things do.

Your point is logical but not relevant to the discussion. I have been questioning assertions about various things that “the science” proves – such as consciousness at six weeks; thought at 26 weeks or that an embryo is a baby.

While I defend science, I don’t think science is a good method for resolving ethical issues… which I believe this is. I stand on the Talmudic answer to when life begins: as derived from the Book of Genesis. I don’t pretend that is science; it is an ethical position derived by scholars. I respect that other people have other views on when life begins; I only ask that they respect my Biblical beliefs.

If my points are not relevant to the discussion, then neither are yours.

[PurpnGold]

@Samm

@PurpnGold

@Samm

But your opinion as to what defines a living human is not based in science.

Is defining a dead human… science?

No, that’s simply acceptance of reality.

Science isn’t used to define “dead”? Weird

[PurpnGold]

@Samm

You know better than that. Support infers approval. I do not approve of killing babies, born or unborn.

Then you are against abortion, for any reason. So you do have a line.

[Oldandtired]

I provided the scientific proof. But those that push for killing babies decided that scientific proof was not enough.
You can pay the writers of peer reviewed journals enough that they will agree with what ever you want pushed. So, I don’t put much stock in peer reviewed journals put out by humans with an agenda.

[Jezcoe]

@Oldandtired

The senate bill has also never been voted on by the senate.

What?

[Zippy]

@PurpnGold

Science isn’t used to define “dead”? Weird

I beg to differ.

Absence of any biological functions would indicate “dead” and biology is most certainly a science.

[H_Arendt]

@Samm

If my points are not relevant to the discussion, then neither are yours.

They are only irrelevant to the discussion of the role of science in the abortion debate, not the issue as a whole.

Sorry if I was not clear about that.

[H_Arendt]

@Oldandtired

I provided the scientific proof. But those that push for killing babies decided that scientific proof was not enough.

 Please point to the post where you provided the scientific proof. I might have missed it.

You can pay the writers of peer reviewed journals enough that they will agree with what ever you want pushed. So, I don’t put much stock in peer reviewed journals put out by humans with an agenda.

If you think authors of articles in peer reviewed journals are paid for their articles that tells me you don’t understand what peer reviewed scientific journals are. The agenda of journal editor is the advancement of science, which is inherently value neutral.

[Oldandtired]

I understand perfectly. You just seem to worship what a bunch of paid partisan authors who wrote what you wanted them to. I know that they all have an agenda and will write what they are paid to write.