The Glade 4.0

You're making the same appeal to emotion as Ber made in another thread. First of all we have laws protecting life, especially the life of Humans (or H.sapians). These laws are not up for interpretation (at least atm). So your logic does not currently stands.

(Life (cf. biota) is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have self-sustaining biological processes from those that do not —either because such functions have ceased (death), or else because they lack such functions and are classified as "inanimate.")

Human life is not subjective. What is currently under debate is the point of time which a embryo comes to life.

I am making no appeal to emotion just logically conjoining two elements to reveal the ridiculous outcome of trying to hold two contradictory ideals.

Human life is not subjective - thank you. Nothing can be currently debated about which time an embryo "comes to life". Life comes from life. Spontaneous creation was done away with a while ago. Thus if you consider the fetus to be not alive it could not ever become alive - stones don't get up and start talking, plastic doesn't start to respirate. If you are alive, you were alive at every single point in your development up to and including your current point.

How can you even begin to make such an argument?

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Easy, because again you're making the argument of what could become and not what it currently is.

That unfortunately is something I do not believe we'll agree.

I believe based on your postings you place time of life at the point of conception. (If this isnt it than correct me) But even that has a point of time and not the forever life you're discussing.

Further more by your logic, pushing things further. Life should, by theory extend into foreverness, but it doesnt. Even the ending of life can sometimes be subjective. Would you count the ceasation of brain activity as death? What about ones whose brain still works but are unable to wake from comas (sometimes forever) and are unable to sustain their own life without machines?

There has to be a starting and an ending point to life, you can not seriously believe life is forever.

I don't think your addressing my fudnamental question.

If you were not alive as a fetus - how can you claim you are now?

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Just as a catapilla can not claim it is a butterfly, I believe that all life goes through transitions. That is the miracle of life, the only something out of nothing that is currently scientificly provable.

Also remember that I believe essentially a zygot is not living (upto and including the 9th week) but a foetus (approx from the 2nd trimester) is living based on the development of the essential systems.

I'm kinda iffy about the weeks in between (about 3weeks worth) and am currently undecided.

But it HAS to be living lydiaa. Biology doesn't allow for a non-living object to simple become alive. The caterpiller is still alive and a member of the same species as the butterfly - only at a different stage in its life.

This is utterly mind-boggling how someone can claim that at a younger point in a life-cycle there is no life.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

I do not have to give them to anything as a biological imperative. And by you trying to say I am forced to acknowledge that a fetus has rights is an infringement on my right not to believe as you do...

Unless you are God... you know only as much as the most advanced scienctific methods have explained

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut

Of course it does.. where did you think life came from in the first place. It is widely accepted in biology that living organism can come from organic compounds.

You're thinking of the law that you can not create something from nothing. That does not include moving different stuff around to create a new thing which could have the potential to contain life. (this is also why you'll find more religious people in biology)



Ah! You're not allowed to change your argument once you've started it... it's simply not fair hehe. you're either talking about life, or a life cycle. The two are quite different. Also keep in mind that all life cycles have a start and an end. Again it is the start and end point which we do not agree with. You can not hope to give me the argument that "life comes from life" because that implies you do not believe there to be a start and an end to life. So what is it Elmo, please be more clear.

I really cannot get my head around how many dodges you are using in this discussion.

Actually thats a theory and we have no direct observable evidence that life is created at random and accident by organic compounds and energy.

However that isn't what we are talking about. An egg is a living human cell, a sperm is a living human cell. You don't deny this do you? Thus their unions is not creating life from unlife but rather life from life.

I'm not changing my argument. Lifecycle means literally the cycle of life. Notice that a cycle is unbroken, as I've shown before life is coming from life nowhere is any stage not alive.

There is a start and an end to distinct creatures certainly but that is not what we are discussing here. You can trace your inherented genetic code to the same singular genetic mother ancestor I can. Thus through the process of creating a new life (the human lifecycle) we can see the march I am talking about.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

I admit I’m parrying cause you still have not provided what you consider as life. (Note I’ve given my definition or at least understanding of it) Until I have a better understanding of what you define it as, we’re merely talking different languages and would never agree or anything.

While Abiogenesis is a theory, it is unfortunately the best we have atm. Until new information becomes available, I tend to use that as my basis for thought.



Here’s the problem I pointed out in the first paragraph. What we define as life differs greatly, I need to understand your def more clearly before I can go on. It is probably interesting to note that while I consider a sperm living (being able to self replicate and all), I don’t consider an egg living (it does nothing at all if left alone). However also keeping mind that living does not equate to life. Life means something that’s self sustainable (and personal opinion self aware). Cells do not usually carry that capability.

Your idea of life in the last 2 paragraph has started to go into philosophy. I can not debate with you on that here, as that’s a whole other can of worms haha~. We can prob take it to PMs if you want to do so.

I’m discussing the physical life, and the life cycle is actually quite misleading in that it’s not actually a cycle with everyone involved, but concentrated on a singular life. (Unless you’re a phoenix in which case it is an actual full circle) While a cell becomes viable at the point of conception, when it becomes living is again the point of contention.

I still want to know why you assume humans have rights but dogs don't.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I believe you're entirely incorrect. Living is simply defined as "pertaining to that which is alive". An individual cell is alive, if it were not alive then we could not be alive as we would be made up of entirely non-living elements. I really feel that at this point I lack the ability to make my argument any more simple. I honestly cannot understand how you are differentiating either life and living as terms or make the argument that cells of a living creature are not alive. Life has no bearing on being self aware. Bacteria are alive and are not self aware. It is and has never been a condition for life.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

It doesn't matter what you consider to be life or not, Elmo. A woman's right to control her reproduction is superior to any subjective feeling you have on when life begins.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Once again, no one has the right to decide if another innocent living human should die or not.

Women have entire right over their reproduction - they can consent to sex or not. If through their consent the known consequence of bringing into being another living human occurs they have no right to murder that person simply because that person's existence is inconvenient to them.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Your argument would be like me saying "people have entire right to defend themselves. They can choose a rock or their bare hands".

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Not at all but for the sake of amusement could you try to explain how you see those two arguments as related?

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

A woman has many choices open to them as to how to control their reproduction. Abstinence is just one of them. They can use condoms, the pill, some combination there of, or, they can spend their money on services like abortion.

A woman has sovereignty over their body, before, during, and after conception. Becoming pregnant violates no rights. Under your own philosophy, the woman has not sacrificed her right to property, the right you personally feel grants us soverignty over the body.

The same right that you believe gives us the right to snort coke without the government getting involved is the same right a woman has to have an abortion should she become pregnant.

Your argument about when life begins is an appeal to emotion. You have no evidence that *life* begins at conception. Furthermore, what you consider to be life is an entirely subjective definition.

(Just so folks know, I *do* believe there is a reasonable point at which the woman's right to choose is superseded by the developing child, with some exceptions, most notably threats to mom's or baby's health. I simply think calling conception "life" is not in any way scientifically accurate.)

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Sovreignty over her body yes - however (as has been shown countless times before) the fetus is not her body.

Snorting coke doesn't necessarily cause or attempt to cause the death of another innocent living human - abortion does.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

- My bold added.

Then the provision barring public funds in this bill should be fine with you; they can still use their money, they just can't use mine.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Hehe see you're still refusing to give me a better definition. Can't argue with you if you point at every thing and say well this is life, and I say it is life because I said so. I don’t need logical reasons as to why it’s life because you should totally see it. Since you didn’t read my previous definition, here’s another one (Life - The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.)

Individual human cells are not usually known as alive, but viable (capable of normal growth and development). This is also the term most commonly used to describe the early embryo stage (zygotes) with in the science circle. The term “live cells” are mostly used on bacteria and fungi. You’ll also notice that the self awareness mention is more of a personal opinion, more than anything else.

Stop reading what you want to read from me sweetie and rather than always looking at whats wrong in my post first and just answering that, try to understand my point so you can better refute it. Currently you’re making it very hard to understand the why behind your reasoning, and unfortunately I do not take “because I said so” as a reason.

If public funds are being used to pay for health care, then abortion services fall under that heading. They are health care services for women. They aren't using *yours*, they are using *ours*. Just like how they use *our* funds to drop bombs on other countries. Or how they use *our* tax dollars to fund religious institutions that then go on to fund anti-gay hate efforts (money is fungible, remember?).

Reproduction falls under the heading of health care, including the control of that reproduction.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

This I actually agree with Vindicarre. Pregnancy is a volunteering 'condition', thus should not fall under any public health plan. I'm sure if the private insurance companies would want to pay for it thats fine, but other's tax money should not be used to cover up your own in-conveniences.

Just cause the tax money is being used for other things you don't agree with, doesnt mean you have to use it for something others don't agree with just to even it out.

Of course if it were a necessary life saving procedure (such as neonatal procedures or entropic pregnancies) it would be a different matter.

Pregnancy is *not* always a voluntary condition. In fact, unwanted pregnancies are by their definition involuntary. You may have volunteered to have sex, but that doesn't mean you volunteered to get pregnant. That's like claiming that being the victim of an accidental shooting at a gun range is voluntary because you went to the range. Or that you should not be covered if you are injured in an accident because you chose to drive your car.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Sorry Lyddia but your responses are totally irrational they literally give me a headache when I try to understand how you can have the position you do. It is a fundamental impossibility for an adult human to be alive when at some point previously it was not. This is akin to A=A level thinking here but I till continue despite the ulcer I get every time I try to put myself in your mind. I try to understand a person's thinking precisely because it makes deconstructing their argument and pointing out their logical errors easier - yet I have done that and you simply ignore the errors.

Also you do to show logically how your statments can coexist with other already agreed statements (such as that we living adult humans are alive compared with your statement that a living human fetus is not). You cannot simply discard the existence of these contradictions in your thought process and pretend it does not harm your position.

Discard the nomenclature you use. A fungal cell is alive as any other plant or animal cell if it meets the criteria you've setforth just as much as cherry and fireengine are both red's. Technically viable simply means feasible which means it is a judgement not only of current status but of that status integrated with current goals. A book isn't viable. Reading a book within an hour may be viable depending on your speed of reading and the amount to be read. I hope you see the distinction. This is why your nomenclature is inapplicable to determining life.

Two questions for you.

1. How can we be alive if no part of us is?

2. Which element do you believe individual cells are incapable of in (metabolise, grow, reproduce, respond to stimuli, or adapt)?

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

There isn't an accidental shooting - its a negligent discharge.

That being said I could have an unwated loss in the stock market - that doesn't mean it wasn't a voluntary action that lead to that consequence. Should I have the state bail me out because I am inconvenienced by the result of my own action?

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville