Of course. So we agree. By your definition, anyone on one of these machines is not human. Also anyone fitted with an Artificial Lung when they become available.
this is for a short period of time and they simulate death by reducing the temperature of the body.so the patient is human but dead.
How can that be? Your definition says if the air does not enter the lungs, they are dead! I say the minute we hook these blood suckers up to those machines, they loose their rights as humans and their next of kin should be able to off them.
i did a little reading on the subject. i do not see the lungs getting seperated from the body or stop working 100%. it seems that the machine is used to increase the amount of oxygen that reaches the other part of the body. but lungs still work on lung transplant i checked and it seems that one of the lungs is always attached to the body and therfore functioning even at a reduced rate. there is a rare type of double implant that removes the lungs in block. i have not found a reading on those. i do not know if they are replaced one at a time or actually both are removed first and then replaced at the same time. it seems that the people on the machine that you are talking about have their lungs working. and are breathing. as far as the other diversions about what is right or wrong or inheritance and such, that is not the subject of what we are talking about. we are talking about the fetus being a live human being. and the necessity of breathing air as a qualifying factor for this determination. what you have posted in no shape talks about not breathing.
Lol. Ok man Ok. I'm sure that even though the machine eliminates the need for the heart to beat for prolonged periods of time, that is irrelevant. I would also dispute your findings on the usage of the lungs by this machine. I'm sure if we find out a way to replace both lungs with a machine, you will find some way to dispute that too. Like I said man, I'm with you. We should be able to abort girls till age 3 and boys till age 13. No need to argue.
Well, here is a couple of sites for you (WARNING VERY GRAPHIC SITES FOLLOW) here and here. Like I said, VERY GRAPHIC so only go if your mature, and all that other stuff. I'm actually surprised this thread hasn't been posted in by quite a few people. I am curious the religious argument as well, as I am not religious in any shape or form of the word.
My wife had a 3D ultrasound last week and is 5 months along. Seeing her face with the eyes and mouth opening and closing, my child kick and put her fingers in her mouth... I am horrified at the thought of someone sucking the child out to be thrown away at this far of a developed stage. I AM pro-choice though. To the point the child can't survive without being in the mother, though I can't understand it and am sickened by the thought of it.
5 months is entirely viable outside the womb. The more that gestate, the earlier they come. Octomom's litter arrived WAY early. I think looking at those 3D ultrasounds, and dealing with them until age two might make a person pro-life. Once they hit age three, its back to pro-choice fo sho.
blah blah. for now my argument is totally solid. there has to be two criteria. alive and human. just one alone means nothing. the scientific fact is that fetus is not a live human being. and that is that. i was eating dinner so i did not look but just because a medical procedure is bloody and gore it does not mean that it bad or should not be done. i would argue that removing the womans breast or the mans testicals to get rid of cancer is also ugly and gore. but it is a valid medical option anyway. there is no scientific reason to take away a women's right to abortion. the problem is the anti abortion people do not argue with honesty. and they jump from one point to another to hide the invalidity of their argument. i chalenge the christians to bring their argument and i will crush it like it desrve to be crushed.i made this challenge before and none took me up on that. read my comment above. most medical procedures are bloody. and scary looking. thank you
Yeah, because a developing fetus is in no way human at all... in spite of the genetic code... now you dun pissed off the Atheist. A fertilized embryo is human, as its genetic code has been assembled. Ergo, human. Doesn't matter what stage of development you destroy it, whether its 3 days or 33 years... it's still a human. Also, if someone lost their lungs and heart and were being kept alive on a heart and lung machine awaiting a double transplantation - by your definition they are not alive. In fact, a fetus is indeed a living organism, because the cells divide, and do their functions. On a biological and microbiological scale it is most certainly alive. You, and the rest like you, are just trying to justify destroying a fetus, so you sugarcoat it and make it sound as if its a parasite (which it is not since a parasite is an organism unrelated to the host). Stop being sissy about it. You want women to have the right to choose whether or not they can kill their developing meat-sack of a human. Fine by me, by the way. Just don't pussy out of calling it what it is.
so is my leg. and i have the right to cut it off. and it is not considered a human being. just a part of the mother's body.
Your refusal to accept basic fact shows your denial. If all you can do is compare a fetus with a leg, you fail. The fetus has the basics of life, has its own unique genetic coding, has the parts - all the parts, and is in fact a living organism. Your comparisons are wrong, invalid, and display a desperate attempt to avoid saying it is a human being. But hey, that's your own damn problem. My problem is why more people don't have abortions. The more the merrier.
lol emotional crap. fetus is not a complete human until it is born. a cancerous tumor has it's own genetic makeup. and it is living. and has all the parts that it is supposed to have.
Cancer tumor cant live on its own outside the "host"... ever. True for many meat sack fetus's several months short of ETA.
It still makes it a complete meat-sack with its own genetic code, and thus it is human. Instead of being all "Its not human! Cuz I don' wanna hear it lalalalala!" grow up and just say "Yes it is a human, and it must die if the mother does not want it." Seriously, you Pro-Abortionists are about as bad as the Anti-Womenist. I'm just flat out Pro-Death.
get over yourself. it is what it is. i just explained to you that fetus is not a human being until it is born. i explained to you why and i explained to you how. it is just a part of the mother's body until it is born. just look at other examples of reproduction some animals split in half. little by little. it is not two animal until it is completely split. your illogical way of looking at this simple issue is why we are having this dishonest conversation. stop using inflammatory language to explain away what is obvious to science in trying to prove your backward medieval point of view. do not try to explain away the women's right to her body by elevating the fetus to a level that it is not.
It appears I'll have to do my "Biology for Dummies" segment: Your 'beliefs' are just that. I reject them because from a biological point of view the act of reproduction is non-parasitical, in that it is what is supposed to happen, and additionally the only animal that reproduces by "budding" is a sponge, while flatworms can be cut in half vertically. That is not how human or mammalian or even reptilian and amphibian biology works. You can try to explain why and how, but you will constantly fail, because saying a chicken egg is a giraffe is about as accurate as you are being. Humans do not split in half. Humans do not use budding. Humans do not look like flatworms. You're the one being dishonest, to the people here and to yourself. Now lets take a look at sexual reproduction. The male must supply one half of the genetic code with sperm, whilst the female must supply the egg. This is how it works for every amniote, which you are, I am, that lizard you stepped on a few years ago was, and the bird that is flying and crapping on your car is. Sexual reproduction also works this way in invertebrates and arthropods. Your arguement of splitting is bunk. After the egg is fertilized, it begins to do the very thing that defines cellular life. It divides. From this very moment, when it begins cellular division it has begun life as is scientifically defined. It soon becomes a ball of cells, and yes, even that one cell, upon the moment of first division was alive. Otherwise bacteria are dead - and they're not. When a Prokaryote bacteria divides, consumes food, and is maintaining cellular homeostasis, it is considered by science to be alive, and this is the same for a Eukaryote cell with a nucleus as well. Now that I have established that this single cell is a living organism viable for replication, that means that the organism itself must be alive. Again, because the cell is now capable of cell division, it is a viable form of life, even when carried in the womb (which is designed to carry it - this debate would be a ton simpler if we were monotremes and laid actual eggs rather than using the system of 'live' birth, although the developing embryo in an egg of a chicken is still considered alive as it can indeed survive without a direct connection via umbilical cord with the mother) and is thus considered a living organism. Because the genetic code of said organism is Homo sapiens sapiens, it is thus a living human organism, thus it is indeed a developing human which is very much in the "living" category. As long as cell division, homeostasis, and growth is maintained within the womb, it is by the very definition of life, alive. To say otherwise is to lie. Furthermore, as it develops and rapidly grows larger it becomes more complex as the genetic code dictates to build a human. Ergo, it is quite easily said to be a human embryo, and then later a human fetus, and as long as the cells are dividing, as long as homeostasis is maintained, and as long as proper nutrition is provided it is alive. You're disputing the basics of biology if you dare to say it is not a living organism. This is the obvious science. This is the easy to understand science. This is the real science. There is no mystery of life, no greater cause, no gift of god, no religio-mumbo-jumbo. This is simple and easy to understand biology. If you reject biology, you are pretty much rejecting medicine as well, and all modern medical advancements that let us see and understand what exactly is going on. I am in no way defending either side of this arguement, as I have stated before that I am for choice, easily, however I am defending the basic truths of science and scientific fact. Otherwise, if this ridiculous rejection of what life is takes hold, everything could be technically listed as dead. You rely on food from farmers, and processing plants. Thus if you were cut off and put in a room with nothing to eat, you would starve and die. You rely on water from sinks or bottles. If you were cut off and put in a room with no water, you would die. You rely on technology on this planet, if it all vanished today or shut down, odds are you would starve, be unable to receive medical care, or die of thirst, and die. You are dependent on modern technology and conveniences to hedge your odds against death, and when removed, you will die sooner rather than later. Thus you are not alive. See what I did there? Everyone is dependent on something, everyone relies on our systems, everyone relies on our sun, our oceans, our farmers, our electricity, and our medical advancements. The fetus thus relies on the mother to sustain it until it reaches a level of independence in which that wet slippery helpless meatsack graduates to being a pooing and slobbering meatsack, then later a parent dependent meatsack until its kicked out, and later a meatsack just like you and me, dependent on our technology, and our systems. Biology is simple to get and understand when you try. Everything is a system you know, even down to the cellular level, and up to the global scale. If you deny one part of this system (something is dependent, therefore it is not alive) you are denying life of everything.
blah blah. life starts at birth. before that it is just a collection of living tissue. part of mother's body.part of the natural reproduction process.simple.