LOL! Love it! Could we include inebriated or stoned to the list of his definition? People in those conditions are generally not aware of whats going on either!
But what they DO have is a functioning cerebral cortex, and central nervous system function. An adult without either is considered dead.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
LOL! Love it! Could we include inebriated or stoned to the list of his definition? People in those conditions are generally not aware of whats going on either!
Go for it. It's still a strawman argument. It ignores the point and nitpicks at the details.
Also, I'm always aware in those conditions. Only once did I black out. Too many Smirnoff Ice
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
But what they DO have is a functioning cerebral cortex, and central nervous system function. An adult without either is considered dead.
Ummm...well actually, persons without a properly "functioning cerebral cortex and/or central nervous system" aren't always dead. Perhaps you have heard of persons in various degrees of a vegetative state. These persons cannot live without assistance either...should we abort them?
Reference Terri Shiavo and others like her to understand how a damaged brain doesn't always mean death unless of course it was forced upon them!
Makes much more sense, to live in the present tense.
A truly liberal person is conservative when necessary.
Ummm...well actually, persons without a properly "functioning cerebral cortex and/or central nervous system" aren't always dead. Perhaps you have heard of persons in various degrees of a vegetative state. These persons cannot live without assistance either...should we abort them?
Reference Terri Shiavo and others like her to understand how a damaged brain doesn't always mean death unless of course it was forced upon them!
It's not DEATH that was forced upon them, it was LIFE. Without the assistance of a bunch of machinery, they would die. As it is, you can't kill them .... you can only unplug them and allow nature to take it's course. Perfectly legal.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
It's not DEATH that was forced upon them, it was LIFE. Without the assistance of a bunch of machinery, they would die. As it is, you can't kill them .... you can only unplug them and allow nature to take it's course. Perfectly legal.
When you have surgery you are assisted by "a bunch of machinery" or else you would die to. Is this forcing life on patients as well? By your definition it certainly is. So next time you have to be treated for an illness of that magnatude I am sure you will opt out of having them use "a bunch of machinery" so as not to "force life" upon you. Let
"nature take its course! Perfectly legal."
Makes much more sense, to live in the present tense.
A truly liberal person is conservative when necessary.
Ummm...well actually, persons without a properly "functioning cerebral cortex and/or central nervous system" aren't always dead. Perhaps you have heard of persons in various degrees of a vegetative state. These persons cannot live without assistance either...should we abort them?
Reference Terri Shiavo and others like her to understand how a damaged brain doesn't always mean death unless of course it was forced upon them!
"Life" was forced on Terri Shiavo, not death. It was forced on her by a bunch of fundies who should have minded their own business.
EDIT: Somehow my browser caused my reply to be delayed. Strange.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
When you have surgery you are assisted by "a bunch of machinery" or else you would die to. Is this forcing life on patients as well? By your definition it certainly is. So next time you have to be treated for an illness of that magnatude I am sure you will opt out of having them use "a bunch of machinery" so as not to "force life" upon you. Let
"nature take its course! Perfectly legal."
That was my CHOICE. Seeing as I do have a functioning cerebral cortex, I can make the choice whether or not to allow anyone to perform surgery on me. There is no force involved, I sign the consent form.
I can assure you that when my cerebral cortex no longer functions, I will die. I had two attorneys help me to write my health care power of attorney to make absolutely certain that happens. That is one bullet-proof legal document, I will not under any circumstances be forced to live as a vegetable.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
Talk about nitpicking at details....."it's just a clump of cells".
That's what it is.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Ummm...well actually, persons without a properly "functioning cerebral cortex and/or central nervous system" aren't always dead. Perhaps you have heard of persons in various degrees of a vegetative state. These persons cannot live without assistance either...should we abort them?
Reference Terri Shiavo and others like her to understand how a damaged brain doesn't always mean death unless of course it was forced upon them!
Brain death = death
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Here is some information on that "clump of cells".
By week three the embryo implants to its "life support".
By week four the embryo it has taken form and is functioning to produces hormones which work in conjunction with its "life support" system.
By week five an embryo requires nourishment as it is a living creature.
By week seven the heart is beating as a living creature.
By week eight is moving about freely by using its limbs.
All of this occurring in the first trimester.
In very very oversimplified terms. Yes.
The "life support" system is the uteran wall. And that is what is called "impregnation". A woman is not "pregnant" until the blastulat "impregnates" the uteran wall. By week 7 and 8 it is an Embryo, prior to that it is a blastulat/blastocyst which is no more than a few cells.
"By week eight is moving about freely by using its limbs"
What is "it"? "It" does not have a consciousness or even a primitive brain structure, there is no complexity to the system, it's limbs move arbitrarily, not by command of a homuncular control unit.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
The "life support" system is the uteran wall. And that is what is called "impregnation". A woman is not "pregnant" until the blastulat "impregnates" the uteran wall. By week 7 and 8 it is an Embryo, prior to that it is a blastulat/blastocyst which is no more than a few cells.
"By week eight is moving about freely by using its limbs"
What is "it"? "It" does not have a consciousness or even a primitive brain structure, there is no complexity to the system, it's limbs move arbitrarily, not by command of a homuncular control unit.
Well actually, between day 17 and 20 after conception, the neural plate is present and functioning. This is the precursor to the brain and CNS.
By day 23 the neural grove or brain structure is present. Two days later the CNS is initiated by way of the neural tube. Neurons are being generated at the rate of about 250,000 per minute by this point.
Quite a lot of activity for not having any functional "primitive brain".
Makes much more sense, to live in the present tense.
A truly liberal person is conservative when necessary.
Here ya go JEANIE (sorry for the typo, I'm sure someone as advanced as you NEVER does that so I can imagine why it was such a source of irritation to your supreme intellect) this is the quote in which you referred to a father who makes the choice not to have a child as someone who doesn't love them. In contradiction to a woman who makes the choice not to have a child and aborts.
At some point I know I'd wanna know who my Daddy was and why he didn't love me is not the same as You stated "daddy didn't love me"
But if you are unable to make the distinction I really can't help you.
There's nothing wrong with my medical terminology or spelling thanks. But perhaps you have become so insular down there in Stepford that you are unaware that there are British and American spellings of words. Hard to imagine I know! :rolleyes:
Now are you planning to keep slinging off at me because we don't agree or do you have better things to do today? I know I do.
I do not expect you to hold my views on abortion or whether or not a woman should be jailed for having one. Nor do I expect you to share my views on many things. It would be nice if you could afford me the same courtesy. The way I see it we both have a choice here, we can discuss this like adults or we leave it alone and agree to disagree.
Well actually, between day 17 and 20 after conception, the neural plate is present and functioning. This is the precursor to the brain and CNS.
By day 23 the neural grove or brain structure is present. Two days later the CNS is initiated by way of the neural tube. Neurons are being generated at the rate of about 250,000 per minute by this point.
Quite a lot of activity for not having any functional "primitive brain".
Not to the extent that the embryo has awareness.
That rate seems a bit high to me. So, perhaps you can tell me at what point the orbital-frontal cortex is present?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Yea, there is a brain growth spurt of about 25 trillion neurons approx. 25% in the third trimester. Therefor:
"At birth, the human brain contains around 100 billion neurons - we can infer from this information that new neurons are being generated at the rate of about 250,000 per minute during the nine months of gestation. (Cowan, 1979)."
Is incorrect.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
That rate seems a bit high to me. So, perhaps you can tell me at what point the orbital-frontal cortex is present?
The rate is not high. It was documented as far back as the late 70's.
During the third week of embryonic development three vesicles develop at the 'head end' of the neural tube, which will develop into the forebrain , midbrain and hindbrain. Or various depths of the brain structure. Cerebral hemispheres differentiate in the fifth week. The five rudimentary lobes within these structures form by teh end of the sixth week. First the frontal lobes form, then the parietal and concurrently, the temporal and occipital lobes. By the end of the eigth week all organ structures are established and continue to be refined until birth.
Makes much more sense, to live in the present tense.
A truly liberal person is conservative when necessary.
Ahnimus neurogenesis is highest in the first trimester which is the cause for so much research on embryonic stem cells.
I've got to get to bed though...I'm exhausted. We will have to continue this discussion later this weekend.
No, I think that's wrong.
It looks like you are reading this now and from some archaic sources.
See. I knew that 250,000 n/m was wrong because I've studied prenatal development. Not the brain in-depth, but enough to know that number was wrong.
I really doubt stem-cell research has anything to do with brain development any more than it has to do with lizards regrowing limbs.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
who cares how developed the embryo is? as the pregnant woman the decision is mine. any decision i make will be for my well being. i am alive and kicking and most importantly protected by my rights. you can not force your will upon someone else and especially not to their detriment. an embryo is not a someone. it has the potential to ebcome one. and a fair amount of the time, due to nature's grand plan, self abort anyway. do not come in and tell me what i can and can not do with my body.
i sleep fine and my conscience is clear on this issue.
what a shame we don't all live in the eastern paradise of the aksobhaya buddha.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
You can ultimately abort the embryo yourself. I think the issue is medical ethics.
You can't volunteer to have electrodes put into your brain, or to get a lobotomy. Ethics boards block it. My view of reality and the "sanctity" of life is complex. I support first trimester abortions and I would probably have one myself as soon as possible. I wouldn't allow it to develop. But if it did, I would give birth to it. That is what I think I would do. Yet, life isn't that simple. Given the circumstances I might abort later, I can only guess I wouldn't. That said, it's a difficult topic. A lot of things you can't do to yourself, they are illegal in most western countries; prostitution, drugs, self-mutilation, suicide. It's nothing new that people want to control what you do. If you are like most people, you probably get up every morning to go to work. You live a middle-class or impoverished life and spend most of your time just surviving in the modern world. We are rat in a maze.
Maybe the path to freedom is the abolishment of law. Otherwise this debate is pretty much inevitable.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
You can ultimately abort the embryo yourself. I think the issue is medical ethics.
You can't volunteer to have electrodes put into your brain, or to get a lobotomy. Ethics boards block it. My view of reality and the "sanctity" of life is complex. I support first trimester abortions and I would probably have one myself as soon as possible. I wouldn't allow it to develop. But if it did, I would give birth to it. That is what I think I would do. Yet, life isn't that simple. Given the circumstances I might abort later, I can only guess I wouldn't. That said, it's a difficult topic. A lot of things you can't do to yourself, they are illegal in most western countries; prostitution, drugs, self-mutilation, suicide. It's nothing new that people want to control what you do. If you are like most people, you probably get up every morning to go to work. You live a middle-class or impoverished life and spend most of your time just surviving in the modern world. We are rat in a maze.
Maybe the path to freedom is the abolishment of law. Otherwise this debate is pretty much inevitable.
suicide's illegal??
you can come up with all the scenarios and hypotheticals you like but until you are in that situation you have no idea how you'll really react. but one can only know oneself. and sometimes even that's not so tangible.
i don't think the path to freedom is the abolishment of law. Mankind is far too egocentric for that to work.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
An intolerance for suicide began to take hold in the second and third centuries and gained increasing momentum under the influence of Christianity. Whereas in the classical period suicide was criticized only if it was irrational or without cause, Christianity saw this act as a direct defiance of or interference with God’s will; thus, suicide resulted in the denial of a Christian burial and tended to bring great shame upon family members. St. Augustine declared that “life and its sufferings are divinely ordained by God and must be borne accordingly.” In the thirteenth century, the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas epitomized the intolerance for suicide. According to him, suicide violated the biblical commandment against killing and was ultimately the most dangerous of sins because it precluded an opportunity for repentance.
A number of Criminal Code provisions impinge upon the issues of euthanasia and cessation of treatment.
Section 14 of the Code provides that:
No person is entitled to consent to have death inflicted on him, and such consent does not affect the criminal responsibility of any person by whom death may be inflicted on the person by whom consent is given.
you can come up with all the scenarios and hypotheticals you like but until you are in that situation you have no idea how you'll really react. but one can only know oneself. and sometimes even that's not so tangible.
i don't think the path to freedom is the abolishment of law. Mankind is far too egocentric for that to work.
Do you know what it's like to commit suicide? I'm sure none of these lawmakers did. But that's not how the law works.
"yea, I killed her man... but you don't know what it's like!"
It's true, I agree with Darrow's ideal system, but not even you would agree with that. Your view of this is entirely situational. We are discussing here the law.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Comments
Go for it. It's still a strawman argument. It ignores the point and nitpicks at the details.
Also, I'm always aware in those conditions. Only once did I black out. Too many Smirnoff Ice
Ummm...well actually, persons without a properly "functioning cerebral cortex and/or central nervous system" aren't always dead. Perhaps you have heard of persons in various degrees of a vegetative state. These persons cannot live without assistance either...should we abort them?
Reference Terri Shiavo and others like her to understand how a damaged brain doesn't always mean death unless of course it was forced upon them!
A truly liberal person is conservative when necessary.
Pro-life by choice.
Talk about nitpicking at details....."it's just a clump of cells".
A truly liberal person is conservative when necessary.
Pro-life by choice.
When you have surgery you are assisted by "a bunch of machinery" or else you would die to. Is this forcing life on patients as well? By your definition it certainly is. So next time you have to be treated for an illness of that magnatude I am sure you will opt out of having them use "a bunch of machinery" so as not to "force life" upon you. Let
"nature take its course! Perfectly legal."
A truly liberal person is conservative when necessary.
Pro-life by choice.
"Life" was forced on Terri Shiavo, not death. It was forced on her by a bunch of fundies who should have minded their own business.
EDIT: Somehow my browser caused my reply to be delayed. Strange.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
I can assure you that when my cerebral cortex no longer functions, I will die. I had two attorneys help me to write my health care power of attorney to make absolutely certain that happens. That is one bullet-proof legal document, I will not under any circumstances be forced to live as a vegetable.
That's what it is.
Brain death = death
Here is some information on that "clump of cells".
By week three the embryo implants to its "life support".
By week four the embryo it has taken form and is functioning to produces hormones which work in conjunction with its "life support" system.
By week five an embryo requires nourishment as it is a living creature.
By week seven the heart is beating as a living creature.
By week eight is moving about freely by using its limbs.
All of this occurring in the first trimester.
A truly liberal person is conservative when necessary.
Pro-life by choice.
AND..oh gee..guess what...it has a functioning cerebral cortex in order to do this!
A truly liberal person is conservative when necessary.
Pro-life by choice.
In very very oversimplified terms. Yes.
The "life support" system is the uteran wall. And that is what is called "impregnation". A woman is not "pregnant" until the blastulat "impregnates" the uteran wall. By week 7 and 8 it is an Embryo, prior to that it is a blastulat/blastocyst which is no more than a few cells.
"By week eight is moving about freely by using its limbs"
What is "it"? "It" does not have a consciousness or even a primitive brain structure, there is no complexity to the system, it's limbs move arbitrarily, not by command of a homuncular control unit.
Actually, I am a vegetarian. So no.
A truly liberal person is conservative when necessary.
Pro-life by choice.
http://sps.k12.ar.us/massengale/images/fruit1.jpg
Well actually, between day 17 and 20 after conception, the neural plate is present and functioning. This is the precursor to the brain and CNS.
By day 23 the neural grove or brain structure is present. Two days later the CNS is initiated by way of the neural tube. Neurons are being generated at the rate of about 250,000 per minute by this point.
Quite a lot of activity for not having any functional "primitive brain".
A truly liberal person is conservative when necessary.
Pro-life by choice.
At some point I know I'd wanna know who my Daddy was and why he didn't love me is not the same as You stated "daddy didn't love me"
But if you are unable to make the distinction I really can't help you.
And as for this:
http://www.answers.com/topic/foetus-1
There's nothing wrong with my medical terminology or spelling thanks. But perhaps you have become so insular down there in Stepford that you are unaware that there are British and American spellings of words. Hard to imagine I know! :rolleyes:
Now are you planning to keep slinging off at me because we don't agree or do you have better things to do today? I know I do.
I do not expect you to hold my views on abortion or whether or not a woman should be jailed for having one. Nor do I expect you to share my views on many things. It would be nice if you could afford me the same courtesy. The way I see it we both have a choice here, we can discuss this like adults or we leave it alone and agree to disagree.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Not to the extent that the embryo has awareness.
That rate seems a bit high to me. So, perhaps you can tell me at what point the orbital-frontal cortex is present?
"At birth, the human brain contains around 100 billion neurons - we can infer from this information that new neurons are being generated at the rate of about 250,000 per minute during the nine months of gestation. (Cowan, 1979)."
Is incorrect.
The rate is not high. It was documented as far back as the late 70's.
During the third week of embryonic development three vesicles develop at the 'head end' of the neural tube, which will develop into the forebrain , midbrain and hindbrain. Or various depths of the brain structure. Cerebral hemispheres differentiate in the fifth week. The five rudimentary lobes within these structures form by teh end of the sixth week. First the frontal lobes form, then the parietal and concurrently, the temporal and occipital lobes. By the end of the eigth week all organ structures are established and continue to be refined until birth.
A truly liberal person is conservative when necessary.
Pro-life by choice.
I've got to get to bed though...I'm exhausted. We will have to continue this discussion later this weekend.
A truly liberal person is conservative when necessary.
Pro-life by choice.
No, I think that's wrong.
It looks like you are reading this now and from some archaic sources.
See. I knew that 250,000 n/m was wrong because I've studied prenatal development. Not the brain in-depth, but enough to know that number was wrong.
I really doubt stem-cell research has anything to do with brain development any more than it has to do with lizards regrowing limbs.
i sleep fine and my conscience is clear on this issue.
what a shame we don't all live in the eastern paradise of the aksobhaya buddha.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
You can ultimately abort the embryo yourself. I think the issue is medical ethics.
You can't volunteer to have electrodes put into your brain, or to get a lobotomy. Ethics boards block it. My view of reality and the "sanctity" of life is complex. I support first trimester abortions and I would probably have one myself as soon as possible. I wouldn't allow it to develop. But if it did, I would give birth to it. That is what I think I would do. Yet, life isn't that simple. Given the circumstances I might abort later, I can only guess I wouldn't. That said, it's a difficult topic. A lot of things you can't do to yourself, they are illegal in most western countries; prostitution, drugs, self-mutilation, suicide. It's nothing new that people want to control what you do. If you are like most people, you probably get up every morning to go to work. You live a middle-class or impoverished life and spend most of your time just surviving in the modern world. We are rat in a maze.
Maybe the path to freedom is the abolishment of law. Otherwise this debate is pretty much inevitable.
suicide's illegal??
you can come up with all the scenarios and hypotheticals you like but until you are in that situation you have no idea how you'll really react. but one can only know oneself. and sometimes even that's not so tangible.
i don't think the path to freedom is the abolishment of law. Mankind is far too egocentric for that to work.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
An intolerance for suicide began to take hold in the second and third centuries and gained increasing momentum under the influence of Christianity. Whereas in the classical period suicide was criticized only if it was irrational or without cause, Christianity saw this act as a direct defiance of or interference with God’s will; thus, suicide resulted in the denial of a Christian burial and tended to bring great shame upon family members. St. Augustine declared that “life and its sufferings are divinely ordained by God and must be borne accordingly.” In the thirteenth century, the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas epitomized the intolerance for suicide. According to him, suicide violated the biblical commandment against killing and was ultimately the most dangerous of sins because it precluded an opportunity for repentance.
A number of Criminal Code provisions impinge upon the issues of euthanasia and cessation of treatment.
Section 14 of the Code provides that:
No person is entitled to consent to have death inflicted on him, and such consent does not affect the criminal responsibility of any person by whom death may be inflicted on the person by whom consent is given.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/prbpubs/919-e.htm
Do you know what it's like to commit suicide? I'm sure none of these lawmakers did. But that's not how the law works.
"yea, I killed her man... but you don't know what it's like!"
It's true, I agree with Darrow's ideal system, but not even you would agree with that. Your view of this is entirely situational. We are discussing here the law.