Michigan State Rep. Lisa Brown Banned from Speaking After Opposing Abortion Law - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Lankist;36348660]What do you mean why? A body that is physiologically incapable is not the same as a body that is practically incapable. That's like asking why apples and oranges are different.[/QUOTE] Well I say it isn't. You can't just say something and not back it up. There isn't a difference between the two because there is no functional difference. The why doesn't matter as far as the end result goes.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36348677]You do realize that human cells are capable of this thing called apoptosis. When the larger organism is suffering and dying, or is otherwise incapable of sustaining itself, its cells literally self-destruct. As in, even the individual cells could not survive outside of the mother on a basic, genetic level (presuming they are not cancerous.)[/QUOTE] So the cells aren't alive then?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36348661]He's saying that its not alive, I'm not talking about consciousness. It is obviously alive. Consciousness is something that we can't really measure so it isn't like you or anyone can really determine in another organism.[/QUOTE] I can tell you for a fact a cell isn't a life, it's a form of life but it's not a life. There's a difference here. Well conciousness is definitely an even finer line here, just calling a 4 week old clump of cells life, and capable of self support is factually wrong. [editline]15th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;36348685]So the cells aren't alive then?[/QUOTE] They're alive but they're not A life.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36348660]What do you mean why? A body that is physiologically incapable is not the same as a body that is practically incapable. That's like asking why apples and oranges are different.[/QUOTE] Why? Because the practically incapable one can be fixed? What about if we can make life support for embryos? Would they be considered alive, then?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36348678]Well I say it isn't.[/QUOTE] Well that's good for fucking you. I'll call up the Nobel committee right away. [editline]15th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=MountainWatcher;36348691]Why? Because the practically incapable one can be fixed? What about if we can make life support for embryos? Would they be considered alive, then?[/QUOTE] There's a reason it's called "life [I]support[/I]" and not "life". It means it's [I]supporting[/I] the living functions of a being, not [I]running them completely.[/I] See, this is the fucking problem. You people are trying to dictate medicine without understanding the most basic components of the female and embryonic physiology.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;36348686]I can tell you for a fact a cell isn't a life, it's a form of life but it's not a life. There's a difference here. Well conciousness is definitely an even finer line here, just calling a 4 week old clump of cells life, and capable of self support is factually wrong.[/QUOTE] This thread isn't about 4 week old clumps of cells, this thread is about 20 week fetus' which are arguably conscious.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36348685]So the cells aren't alive then?[/QUOTE] They do not meet the biological criteria of life (unless they are cancerous.) On a basic genetic level they [I]cannot survive[/I] until the point at which they can be born and function independently. The most important, overruling criteria of all life is [I]independence[/I], and embryos are anything [I]but[/I] independent.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36348713]This thread isn't about 4 week old clumps of cells, this thread is about 20 week fetus' which are arguably conscious.[/QUOTE] Then it's still 20 weeks of cells clumped together STILL fitting the description of incapable of self support.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36348693]Well that's good for fucking you. I'll call up the Nobel committee right away. [editline]15th June 2012[/editline] There's a reason it's called "life [I]support[/I]" and not "life". It means it's [I]supporting[/I] the living functions of a being, not [I]running them completely.[/I][/QUOTE] I don't see why the degree at which they run eachother matters. What about the person-life support system. Could I consider it a living entity with the life support an artificial organ? I don't even see why it matters what the definition of life is.

[QUOTE=MountainWatcher;36348729]I don't see why the degree at which they run eachother matters. What about the person-life support system.[/QUOTE] I just fucking explained what the biological criteria of life are. Go back and read them if you don't understand. In the most simplest terms: [I]If it cannot persist on its own on a physiological level, it is not alive.[/I] If you would like the more scientific explanation, read the posts you're responding to.

[url]http://infohost.nmt.edu/~klathrop/7characterisitcs_of_life.htm[/url] [url]http://www.essortment.com/six-characteristics-life-47733.html[/url] According to both these sources, cells are living organisms.

[QUOTE=Capitulazyguy;36348166]FTFY.[/QUOTE] Let me just mention that if all abortion everywhere was outlawed, it wouldn't stop it from happening. It would just be driven underground, where the loss of life and the chance for disease is far greater.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36348750][url]http://infohost.nmt.edu/~klathrop/7characterisitcs_of_life.htm[/url] [url]http://www.essortment.com/six-characteristics-life-47733.html[/url] According to both these sources, cells are living organisms.[/QUOTE] Yes and fetal cells die if they are removed from the mother before they are ready. You're trying to say that dead cells are alive? [I]If the developing organism is removed from its host, it dies.[/I] It literally [I]cannot[/I] survive outside of the mother. If it is "alive" in any sense, it is alive in the sense that it is a part of the mother, not as in it being its own organism.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;36348725]Then it's still 20 weeks of cells clumped together STILL fitting the description of incapable of self support.[/QUOTE] Did you not read the arguably conscious part?

[QUOTE=Capitulazyguy;36348509]Listen I'm going to level with you I'm PUI but honestly this is the most fun I've had on Facepunch in possibly ever but I'm out of beer and it's twenty past three and if I don't sleep soon I'm going to go all existential so I'm gone. But you were great, really wonderful I hope you've all had fun too and if not well find something else to do no-one's making you argue seriously you're all fucking lovely I love you - and by the way: not eating for a day and then drinking own brand lager is the most fun you can have for under a fiver. gOOD NIGHT nEW yORK [IMG]http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m58me5a2Gw1rnbso2.gif[/IMG][/QUOTE] what an excellent way to conclude your argument say that you were drunk and then post some gif well done

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36348761]Did you not read the arguably conscious part?[/QUOTE] "arguably" means "scientifically unsupported."

[QUOTE=Lankist;36348749]I just fucking explained what the biological criteria of life are. Go back and read them if you don't understand. In the most simplest terms: [I]If it cannot persist on its own on a physiological level, it is not alive.[/I] If you would like the more scientific explanation, read the posts you're responding to.[/QUOTE] So be it, damn it, but the man with life support system can persist on it's own, it only needs electricity and other components, the same way we need food. if you take away your heart from someone, they both die, they're dependent on something external, that doesn't mean they're both dead. And more importantly, why doesn't it even matter.

Also if abortion is wholesale murder than chopping an acorn in half is chopping a tree down.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36348759]Yes and fetal cells die if they are removed from the mother before they are ready. You're trying to say that dead cells are alive? [I]If the developing organism is removed from its host, it dies.[/I] It literally [I]cannot[/I] survive outside of the mother. If it is "alive" in any sense, it is alive in the sense that it is a part of the mother, not as in it being its own organism.[/QUOTE] A parasite cannot live without a host, a plant cannot sustain itself out of the soil, and a fish cannot sustain itself out of the water. Your point is null.

[QUOTE=MountainWatcher;36348781]So be it, damn it, but the man with life support system can persist on it's own, it only needs electricity and other components, the same way we need food. And more importantly, why doesn't it even matter.[/QUOTE] Because the lynchpin of the entire abortion "debate" is that we have a romanticized view of embryos and fetuses as being "alive," when they simply aren't alive on their own merits. [editline]15th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;36348788]A parasite cannot live without a host[/QUOTE] Yes it can. What the fuck? Parasites move from host to host. They can survive for years without infecting something else. They are not wholly dependent upon another organism for the most basic physiological functions. Parasites feed off of another organism. They are not physiologically dependent upon it. For the love of fuck take a Bio 101 course before you start spouting nonsense.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36348777]"arguably" means "scientifically unsupported."[/QUOTE] So then you need to have a consistent definition of what life is, which you obviously don't have. The only way to decide what life is, is to decide what death is. So what is death?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36348812]So then you need to have a consistent definition of what life is, which you obviously don't have.[/QUOTE] What do you mean "I don't have?" Life is something that can independently: -Metabolize -Reproduce -Die Viruses cannot reproduce independently. They are not alive. Viroids cannot reproduce or metabolize. They are not alive. A parasitic work can reproduce and metabolize independently. They are alive. [quote] The only way to decide what life is, is to decide what death is. So what is death?[/quote] Stop asking asinine philosophical questions. We're talking about the scientific criteria of life. Death is the cessation of life, scientifically.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36348823]What do you mean "I don't have?" Life is something that can independently: -Metabolize -Reproduce -Die Viruses cannot reproduce independently. They are not alive. Viroids cannot reproduce or metabolize. They are not alive. A parasitic work can reproduce and metabolize independently. They are alive.[/QUOTE] So then a fetus is alive at all stages.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36348788]A parasite cannot live without a host, a plant cannot sustain itself out of the soil, and a fish cannot sustain itself out of the water. Your point is null.[/QUOTE] You really are wrong about the parasites. Some plants live in different systems or survive reproduction without soil, some fish have found methods of forgoing water for extended periods of times. A fetus still can't do shit without it's mother.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36348840]So then a fetus is alive at all stages.[/QUOTE] [I]No it isn't[/I], because it physiologically [I]can't[/I] do any of those things independently of the host organism (mother.) The [I]MOTHER[/I] is alive, and the fetus is alive only in the sense that it is a part of the mother. On its own merits, it is [I]NOT[/I] alive. It is no more alive on its own than your toenail clippings.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36348840]So then a fetus is alive at all stages.[/QUOTE] It's alive the same way a wart is alive. It's made up of biologically living cells that haven't undergone cellular death. But pulling it from it's host will kill it and it CANNOT survive on it's own or reproduce. It literally needs forced feeding by a host.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;36348844]You really are wrong about the parasites. Some plants live in different systems or survive reproduction without soil, some fish have found methods of forgoing water for extended periods of times. A fetus still can't do shit without it's mother.[/QUOTE] The point went over both yours and Lankist's head. An organism needs to have materials on hand in order to survive. It cannot just "survive independently" because all organisms rely on their environment for various purposes.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36348860]The point went over both yours and Lankist's head.[/QUOTE] No, you were just the regular kind of wrong about something. Parasitic organisms are physiologically capable of metabolizing and reproducing outside of their host, and they frequently do. They are not wholly dependent upon their host to sustain the most basic functions, only their higher functions.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36348848][I]No it isn't[/I], because it physiologically [I]can't[/I] do any of those things independently of the host organism (mother.) The [I]MOTHER[/I] is alive, and the fetus is alive only in the sense that it is a part of the mother. On its own merits, it is [I]NOT[/I] alive.[/QUOTE] So an infant is not alive. An infant cannot survive without a caregiver and cannot reproduce.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36348793]Because the lynchpin of the entire abortion "debate" is that we have a romanticized view of embryos and fetuses as being "alive," when they simply aren't alive on their own merits. [/QUOTE] Alright, I see, but I don't get why it should be. Why should a self-sustaining biological system be protected merely because it's self-sustaining? I think this all discussion is missing the picture.