MSNBC host says newborn infants don't count as 'alive' unless parents decide they do...

Originally posted by arpgme
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

Originally posted by SaturnFX
life is defined by an active brain. no active brain, no life. quite simple.

Oh, really?

In SCIENCE class, I was taught that life is defined by "consisting of cells".

By the way, the first part of the baby to grow is The Heart. A beating heart is the essence of LIFE.

Consisting of cells is also cancer and bacteria.
Personhood requires cerebral functioning.
If you choose to become pedantic, you may "win" the battle here, but forfeit the war. Yes, you are correct that life is a very basic definition, but to be alive...to be a person, this is a different matter entirely.

incidentally, notice how I made my point without using caps.

reply to post by SaturnFX

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Consisting of cells is also cancer and bacteria.

So what? Killing cancer and bacteria is about survival.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Personhood requires cerebral functioning.
If you choose to become pedantic, you may "win" the battle here, but forfeit the war. Yes, you are correct that life is a very basic definition, but to be alive...to be a person, this is a different matter entirely.

We aren't talking about "person-hood" we are talking about "aliveness". The first thing to develop is the beating heart - made of cells - it is a living thing.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
incidentally, notice how I made my point without using caps.

So what? Sometimes I want to stress words and I'm too lazy to use bold. Oh well...

Originally posted by arpgme
Personhood requires cerebral functioning.
If you choose to become pedantic, you may "win" the battle here, but forfeit the war. Yes, you are correct that life is a very basic definition, but to be alive...to be a person, this is a different matter entirely.

We aren't talking about "person-hood" we are talking about "aliveness". The first thing to develop is the beating heart - made of cells - it is a living thing.

Matters not
Whats your stance on euthanasia? What about killing things like insects that simply bug us?
life is not something to be protected at all costs...people are, life however is just a description of motor functions the way you put it.

reply to post by SaturnFX

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Matters not
Whats your stance on euthanasia?

That's a completely different situation.

There is a difference between killing something that isn't in agonizing and continuous endless suffering and killing a being with a beating heart still developing.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
What about killing things like insects that simply bug us?

A living being is made of cells and if something has a beating heart it is living.

It is not considered immoral to kill a bug because that is not a part of the human species and the laws are created to protect ones own species (supposedly).

We're talking about a new born human life who was healthy and had a beating heart suddenly just having its life ended.

Originally posted by arpgme
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Matters not
Whats your stance on euthanasia?

That's a completely different situation.

There is a difference between killing something that isn't in agonizing and continuous endless suffering and killing a being with a beating heart still developing.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
What about killing things like insects that simply bug us?

A living being is made of cells and if something has a beating heart it is living.

It is not considered immoral to kill a bug because that is not a part of the human species and the laws are created to protect ones own species (supposedly).

We're talking about a new born human life who was healthy and had a beating heart suddenly just having its life ended.

edit on 8-8-2013 by arpgme because: spelling

Actually, a fetus is not a new born..its not born..its a fetus. it has no thoughts, no more life than a cadaver living by machines.
There is potential for life, but during the initial stages, it is simply a machine being kept "alive" by machines alone.

No thinking, no person...same with the person being kept alive my machines.

As I said, there is potential..but every sperm has potential also.

reply to post by SaturnFX

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Actually, a fetus is not a new born..its not born..its a fetus.

That's true. I made a mistake by saying that.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
it has no thoughts, no more life than a cadaver living by machines.
There is potential for life, but during the initial stages, it is simply a machine being kept "alive" by machines alone.

If it's alive then it's a living thing - and that living thing happens to be a growing human...

Originally posted by SaturnFX
No thinking, no person...same with the person being kept alive my machines.

That's different. If a person gets a serious injury and can only be kept alive by a machine, the person that is keeping them alive didn't choose that. When a person has sex without a condom they know what they are getting themselves into.

If a women knowingly has sex without a condom and impregnation results that is her fault and the life is already inside of her with a beating heart. She should have thought about her actions.

reply to post by madmac5150


I don't consider infowars a real source. Also if she said what is quoted I think the site took her words to the extreme and that's not really what she meant.

Originally posted by arpgme
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Actually, a fetus is not a new born..its not born..its a fetus.

That's true. I made a mistake by saying that.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
it has no thoughts, no more life than a cadaver living by machines.
There is potential for life, but during the initial stages, it is simply a machine being kept "alive" by machines alone.

If it's alive then it's a living thing - and that living thing happens to be a growing human...

Originally posted by SaturnFX
No thinking, no person...same with the person being kept alive my machines.

That's different. If a person gets a serious injury and can only be kept alive by a machine, the person that is keeping them alive didn't choose that. When a person has sex without a condom they know what they are getting themselves into.

If a women knowingly has sex without a condom and impregnation results that is her fault and the life is already inside of her with a beating heart. She should have thought about her actions.

I think we simply have disagreeing views here.
you see potential as a human, I see brainwaves as a human. I suspect that no matter how long we discuss this topic, neither will convince the other differently...simply different views of a subject.
So, it was a fun ride, but its just spinning tires at this point. Time to bow out and acknowledge the whole agree to disagree thing.