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

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36348879]So an infant is not alive. An infant cannot survive without a caregiver and cannot reproduce.[/QUOTE] [I]Yes it can.[/I] It metabolizes its own food and it operates its own reproductive systems, wholly independent of the mother's. It is not physiologically dependent upon the mother, only practically dependent. A bottle of breast-milk will sustain that child just as much as milk straight from the breast. And its reproductive systems [I]ARE[/I] functional. Jesus Hernandez FUCK this is not rocket science, this is entry-level biology. What is so hard to understand about this for you?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36348860]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] No. It didn't. Because that's EXACTLY what I replied to. The idea of the environment being the supporting cause of things. But a fetus doesn't just rely on it's environment, it's wholly and entirely the only thing keeping it going. Not itself.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36348900][I]Yes it can.[/I] It metabolizes its own food and it operates its own reproductive systems, wholly independent of the mother's.[/QUOTE] No it doesn't. It relies on nearly everything that it did while in the womb, up to the mother's god damn immune system, except now it relies on everything from the outside of the body. It is wholly incapable of surviving without direct intervention from the mother.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36348879]So an infant is not alive. An infant cannot survive without a caregiver and cannot reproduce.[/QUOTE] Nope. Feral children have managed to survive childhood on their own. They have managed to scrounge enough to survive. They can mate once biologically ready.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36348911]No it doesn't. It relies on nearly everything that it did while in the womb, up to the mother's god damn immune system, except now it relies on everything from the outside of the body. It is wholly incapable of surviving without direct intervention from the mother.[/QUOTE] Jesus fuck yes it [I]does[/I]. It doesn't matter where its food comes from. It could come from a completely different woman. It could be drinking formula. It is physiologically capable of sustaining its own basic functions, even it it is dependent on a practical level.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36348911]No it doesn't. It relies on nearly everything that it did while in the womb, up to the mother's god damn immune system, except now it relies on everything from the outside of the body. It is wholly incapable of surviving without direct intervention from the mother.[/QUOTE] [B]No. [/B] It's the babies body now doing the work of metabolising the energy it receives through at more than just a cellular level, complicated organs are now handling the process.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;36348926]Nope. Feral children have managed to survive childhood on their own. They have managed to scrounge enough to survive. They can mate once biologically ready.[/QUOTE] No they haven't, not from infancy.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;36348926]Nope. Feral children have managed to survive childhood on their own. They have managed to scrounge enough to survive. They can mate once biologically ready.[/QUOTE] Do not confuse reproductive maturity for "capable of reproduction." A prepubescent organism still has a functional reproductive system, it simply isn't being used by the body until reproductive maturity. Its reproductive organs can be chemically triggered to mature at almost any age.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36348900][I]Yes it can.[/I] It metabolizes its own food and it operates its own reproductive systems, wholly independent of the mother's. Jesus Hernandez FUCK this is not rocket science, this is entry-level biology. What is so hard to understand about this for you?[/QUOTE] I think what he's trying to say is why you should draw the line of independence at being able to operate with nutrients when the body needs nutrients.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36348936]No they haven't, not from infancy.[/QUOTE] Oh yes they have. If that were the case, humanity would not exist.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36348927]Jesus fuck yes it [I]does[/I]. It doesn't matter where its food comes from. It could come from a completely different woman. It could be drinking formula. It is physiologically capable of sustaining its own basic functions, even it it is dependent on a practical level.[/QUOTE] I think you skipped your Biology classes Lankist. I'll come back when you actually do your studying. Leave an infant out in the wild and see how alive it is. Your definition of life is wholly inconsistent because there are so many fucking exceptions to the rule.

[QUOTE=MountainWatcher;36348950]I think what he's trying to say is why you should draw the line of independence at being able to operate with nutrients when the body needs nutrients.[/QUOTE] [I]Physiological[/I] independence, not practical independence.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;36347914]If you want to talk about the details of an abortion that's okay but it shouldn't even be on a national level because that's pretty confidential. I'm saying the debate surrounding even letting women abort their pregnancies outside of very extreme circumstances. It's their womb, their body. The government shouldn't be handling it. Should be between a woman and her doctor.[/QUOTE] Not saying you're wrong, but it's still worth debating to be absolutely certain as a society that it is fully the responsibility and choice of the mother and that the child has no right to live until a certain age, as well as what age that is. It's not really a cut-and-dry issue, these things need to be discussed.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36348959]Leave an infant out in the wild and see how alive it is. Your definition of life is wholly inconsistent because there are so many fucking exceptions to the rule.[/QUOTE] Jesus fuck for the last time, [I]physiologically[/I] independent. If a baby gets eaten by a wolf, it's not alive for a whole other fucking reason. That doesn't mean it isn't physiologically capable of sustaining its own functions.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36348936]No they haven't, not from infancy.[/QUOTE] Seriously...? Fuck. I guess that doesn't explain the survival of the species.

I guess he's asking why there should be a distinction between the two.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36348967]Jesus fuck for the last time, [I]physiologically[/I] independent. If a baby gets eaten by a wolf, it's not alive for a whole other fucking reason.[/QUOTE] Jesus Christ you're dense. Arguing with you is about as intellectually stimulating as bashing my head against a brick wall.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36348983]Jesus Christ you're dense. Arguing with you is about as intellectually stimulating as bashing my head against a brick wall.[/QUOTE] You're one to say that...

[QUOTE=MountainWatcher;36348982]I guess he's asking why there should be a distinction between the two.[/QUOTE] Again, why is there a distinction between apples and oranges? [editline]15th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;36348983]Jesus Christ you're dense. Arguing with you is about as intellectually stimulating as bashing my head against a brick wall.[/QUOTE] Excellent rhetoric there, chap. Can't tell the fucking difference between physiology and practicality, and I'm the dense one.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36348959]Leave an infant out in the wild and see how alive it is. Your definition of life is wholly inconsistent because there are so many fucking exceptions to the rule.[/QUOTE] If I were to vanish my housecat wouldn't be able to hunt for shit and would probably starve to death. Doesn't mean it isn't alive.

[QUOTE=MountainWatcher;36348982]I guess he's asking why there should be a distinction between the two.[/QUOTE] Because that's a MAJOR fucking difference. Being an organism that relies on the support system around it ENTIRELY and being an organism that can do the biological functions it needs to do to survive is a massive difference.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36348983]Jesus Christ you're dense. Arguing with you is about as intellectually stimulating as bashing my head against a brick wall.[/QUOTE] You are literally arguing against basic low-level biology. I learned this shit in the 7th grade.

[QUOTE=catbarf;36349011]If I were to vanish my housecat wouldn't be able to hunt for shit and would probably starve to death. Doesn't mean it isn't alive.[/QUOTE] It would figure it out eventually

[QUOTE=Lambeth;36349031]It would figure it out eventually[/QUOTE] Probably not before it starved, actually. Unless it learns how to work locks and doorknobs in a week's time. e.g. If I lock a cat in an empty room and leave it there forever, it will die. This is not because the cat was incapable of sustaining itself. It is because there was nothing for the cat to sustain itself with (i.e. no food). It's the difference between not having anything to eat and not having a mouth.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36349037]If I lock a cat in an empty room and leave it there forever, it will die. This is not because the cat was incapable of sustaining itself. It is because there was nothing for the cat to sustain itself with. Huge difference.[/QUOTE] I dunno, through domestication we've seriously messed with the natural order of things. I've seen domesticated animals that would be completely incapable of functioning in the wild and are dependent upon human caretakers. That wouldn't be an argument for them not being alive, though.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36348911]No it doesn't. It relies on nearly everything that it did while in the womb, up to the mother's god damn immune system, except now it relies on everything from the outside of the body. It is wholly incapable of surviving without direct intervention from the mother.[/QUOTE] So if a mother dies during childbirth, the child is automatically going to die? Oh, wait, the answer is [I]no[/I]. As opposed to fetuses, which are [I]directly attached[/I] to the mother. My memory is a bit hazy on this, but if I recall correctly, the parts a fetus would need for consciousness / a brain are definitely developing by 26 weeks, but [I]could[/I] start developing by as early as 20. [I]Could[/I]. In the US, a bit less than 1.5% of abortions happen after 20 weeks. How many of those do you think [I]aren't[/I] emergencies?

[QUOTE=Raidyr;36349023]You are literally arguing against basic low-level biology. I learned this shit in the 7th grade.[/QUOTE] I learned this shit in college.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36349099]I learned this shit in college.[/QUOTE] Get your money back.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36349037]Probably not before it starved, actually. Unless it learns how to work locks and doorknobs in a week's time. e.g. If I lock a cat in an empty room and leave it there forever, it will die. This is not because the cat was incapable of sustaining itself. It is because there was nothing for the cat to sustain itself with (i.e. no food). It's the difference between not having anything to eat and not having a mouth.[/QUOTE] Well I was assuming the doors would be all unlocked and open

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36349099]I learned this shit in college.[/QUOTE] Find a new college. [editline]15th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Last or First;36349091]So if a mother dies during childbirth, the child is automatically going to die? Oh, wait, the answer is [I]no[/I]. As opposed to fetuses, which are [I]directly attached[/I] to the mother. My memory is a bit hazy on this, but if I recall correctly, the parts a fetus would need for consciousness / a brain are definitely developing by 26 weeks, but [I]could[/I] start developing by as early as 20. [I]Could[/I]. In the US, a bit less than 1.5% of abortions happen after 20 weeks. How many of those do you think [I]aren't[/I] emergencies?[/QUOTE] Considering late-term abortions are illegal in most states outside of emergency circumstances, I'd say all of them.