Anti-Choice has never and will never address this point about "life"

[rpgamerd00d]

An adult human being can be lying in a hospital bed.
They can have measurable brainwaves.
They can have a strong heartbeat.
They can be breathing.
And a doctor can pronounce them DEAD.

In other words, LIFE SIGNS (heartbeat, brainwaves, breathing, etc.) do not mean a person is "Alive".

In every single arguement the anti-choice people use, they use Life Signs (heartbeat, brainwaves, etc) to claim that the fetus is "alive". But the FACT is that if that fetus is removed from the mother right then and there, it CANNOT LIVE. A fetus can ONLY be considered alive, MEDICALLY SPEAKING, if it can SURVIVE OUTSIDE THE WOMB. If it has not developed enough to survive, then IT IS NOT ALIVE.

No anti-choice person can POSSIBLY refute this point.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. Good point

I'd like to show these folks a photo of a zygote and asked them what it is. How many would know at first glance what it was? That could be a visual to your excellent argument.

[Arkansas Granny]

35. Even if they could tell you what it was, it's doubtful that they could

tell you whether it was human, pig, fish, chicken or anything else at that stage.

[uppityperson]

2. Where did you get this information from?

Every time I've seen someone pronounced dead there has been no heartbeat, no breathing, no brainwaves. Do you mean a person can be taken off life support and let die? I don't understand what you mean here since this is not right.

[rpgamerd00d]

Yes, I am talking about being on lifesupport.

[uppityperson]

4. They don't pronounce them dead, they remove them to let them die

pronouncing them dead means no heartbeat, no breathing, no brain activity (though they do not always measure for brain activity, rather go with no heartbeat/breathing).

[rpgamerd00d]

8. OK Ms. Technically Correct Person! :) hehehe You get my point.

:D

[uppityperson]

12. doctor can let a born human die, why not let an unborn one die, sort of

if a person's body, which cannot survive on its own, can be let die (remove from mechanical life support), the same can apply to a fetus, which cannot survive on its own, can be let die (remove from uterus life support). Interesting thought, way of looking at it. Call me Ms.Virgo/uppityperson.

Edited to add, this is what some have found frustrating, that the embryo/fetus is more important before birth than after.

[sandnsea]

19. Didn't used to be that way

They used to have to be able to pronounce them clinically dead in order to be able to remove them from life support. Important detail, likely changed because it interfered with the right-to-lifers bullshit.

[Der Blaue Engel]

22. That's how they justify removing organs for transplant

You can't take them from a living human being (unless they've got extras), thus a doctor pronounces the person brain dead, and the harvest can begin. They may be on life support, but they are not alive. Heart and lung function are merely being simulated by the machines.

Brain death is defined as a complete and irreversible cessation of brain activity.... Traditionally, death has been defined as the cessation of all body functions, including respiration and heartbeat. Since it became possible to revive some people after a period without respiration, heartbeat, or other visible signs of life, as well as to maintain respiration and blood flow artificially using life support treatments, an alternative definition for death was needed. In recent decades, the concept of "brain death" has emerged. By brain-death criteria, a person can be pronounced clinically dead even if the heart continues to beat due to life support measures.

More at Answers.com

Not trying to out-uppity you, I just like researching things for my own curiosity. :D

[uppityperson]

51. I'm in agreement with you, not OP regarding signs of death

"brain dead" means no brain activity. heart just goes on like the energizer bunny until it is deprived of oxygen or blood and dies. respiratory activity is per technology, respirator machine. So, you don't really have breathing (only by machine) or brain activity. Can't pronounce braindead until no brain activity. It is all interesting and no one has taken this topic to the "what is life" way yet.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

3. I did not know that

I thought brain dead was no brain activity.

Personally I have always used that in my mind to determine when life begins.... brain activity. Not that I have any idea when it happens. But it seems consistent to me to have it the same on one end of the life as the other.

I don't follow you into the "if it can't survive outside the mother it is not alive" thinking, however. I've had two babies and they were alive and their own people earlier than birth. Also, with that theory, if they can't breathe when they are born, then they are dead.

Complex issue, isn't it?

[rpgamerd00d]

5. Its not "no brain activity". Its general lack of activity of life

There are still some, minor, measurable brainwaves.
Every time the brain processes external stimulus, for example, causes a brainwave.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

11. So a brain dead

line is not flat, then?

I thought it was like ____________________________________________

[rpgamerd00d]

14. That is braindead. This is also braindead :

______________________^_________________________________^_^____________________________________^_______________________^_^_^_________

[uppityperson]

16. so is this....

[rpgamerd00d]

17. ROTFLMAO! :)

[SoCalDem]

6. Viability is the key word..and it's rarely used...n/t

[unblock]

7. i disagree, it is "alive", but it is not an individual

the point they have a tougher time with is the fact that it's a parasite.

if the pregnant woman wants the baby, all is well. but if the pregant woman doesn't, then the fetus is a parasite that is sucking nutrients and energy from the mother, putting her career, health, and even life at risk. in no other instance do the banana republicans come to the defense of any such parasite. in fact, if you even deign to take welfare, they call you a parasite and basically suggest you should be shot and/or deported.

this is why they insist on implying every pregant woman who would consider an abortion a slut who voluntarily chose to become pregnant. they need there to be a contract between pregnant woman and fetus in order to give the fetus any right to its parasitic activities. in cases such as rape, no such contract can possibly exist, so they keep insisting that the woman is a slut.

it's really sick.

[rucky]

9. If I were anti-choice (which I am not), I'd say...

The person with the liquified brain stem has NO chance of survival. All the zygote needs is a few more weeks in the womb.

[noonwitch]

10. It's about controlling women

There are some very good, sincere people who believe that abortion is wrong. They truly believe that life begins at conception. These people are used by the political powerbrokers who use good people's most sacred beliefs to achieve dubious political goals.

What gets me are all the mushy middle on this issue, who think that abortion can be outlawed with exceptions in the case of rape, incest or the health of the mother. How can those exceptions be legislated and enforced? It's an all or nothing thing.

Who decides what is or isn't rape or incest? A jury of the rapist's peers? By the time that happens, the pregnancy will have come to term. A doctor? What about "date rape"?

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

13. If I refuse to be a host organism to a bouncing blob of genetic mutation..

It is my business, not the government or any politician's definition of when they think life begins.

It's my body, my property, my privacy...end of story.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

15. I think you have a career in front of you writing Hallmark cards..

"Congratulations on your bouncing blog of genetic mutation!"

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

20. I think it's more in line with The Daily Show

;)

[Ravenseye]

41. Bingo

It's about privacy and a woman's right to keep hers to herself without Uncle Sam standing over her shoulder.

[TheWraith]

18. Yes, they can. It's easy.

The fact that one living thing depends upon another doesn't make the first any less a living thing. A vine growing out of soil deposited in the crotch of a tree isn't less alive, it's just symbiotic in nature.

Sorry, but it's the facts. The issue about viable versus non-viable isn't a winner, I'm afraid.

[rpgamerd00d]

21. That is defeated easily.

I can transplant the vine and it will live.
You can't transplant the fetus.

[TheWraith]

23. That's not an effective counter-argument.

It would be possible to transplant the fetus, given a suitable knowledge of what's involved. The fact that it's simpler to transplant a vine doesn't make it impossible to do the same thing with a human. On an earlier scale, that's exactly what surrogacy and egg donation are. The fact that we can't do it now doesn't mean we won't be able to in the future.

[rpgamerd00d]

24. The day medical science CAN ACTUALLY transplant an unwanted fetus

I will become ANTI-CHOICE.

Until then, I am PRO-CHOICE.

Nuff said.

[TheWraith]

26. Good for you, but that has nothing to do with the original issue,

Which was rhetoric, and the "unanswerable point."

[rpgamerd00d]

27. And its still unanswerable except for "possible future tech".

[TheWraith]

31. No, it's not.

See my original reply. Hairsplitting arguments don't count for much in terms of rhetoric. The existence of a simple and understandable response to the original issue negates it as a rhetorical weapon, which I'm pretty sure was the OP's intention.

[rpgamerd00d]

32. My point is that you cannot compare a fetus to a symbiotic life form

because a symbiotic lifeform can transplant itself and still live.
Therefore, the comparison is incorrect (until some future advances in medical science come into being).

[TheWraith]

37. A vine can't walk over and find another tree.

A third party can transplant it, but it cannot transplant itself. Same for a fetus. And again, the fact that we can't do it now doesn't mean it can't be done.

Returning to the original point, hair-splitting aside, the argument becomes moot after the first rebuttal. How far into the realm of nuance and perspective can you really go with this sort of political meme?

[Ravenseye]

38. No it's current tech

Premies have survived at the 20 week mark, which during the second trimester is ripe in that region that your'e defending as not being able to surive 'transplant'. Well they do. Doesn't that sort of puncture your argument?

[rpgamerd00d]

44. That really isnt enough, medically, unless its routine to save them at

20 weeks. Having one survive is great. Having them all survive is medical science.

Once medical science comes and says "we can save all babies (99%+) at 20 weeks" then things change.

I still wouldn't automatically support a ban, because the next issue is "how much does keeping a 20 week old alive cost?"
Then, the next issue is "who is responsibile for the baby? Mother? The state? (orphanage?)"

Those have to be addressed before I could support any ban. And we do NOT have a system that supports orphans/babies given up for adoption.

[Ravenseye]

45. Nah I disagree

I don't care if medical science could save a baby at 1 week, that doesn't mean that

a) the government should have a right to force a woman to have a baby.
b) the government should be aware of a woman's medical condition.
c) the goverment should be able to prevent a woman from making her own medical decisions.

All i'm saying is that your line of thought is one that isn't going to win anyone over, and might even convince some people to change their minds and become anti-choice.

[rpgamerd00d]

46. I guess you are right.

[Ravenseye]

47. A tip of the cap to you

You've just proven you're a rational thinking individual, instead of one of our nutty conservative cousins. Not because you agreed with me, but simply by recognizing a point. Too many people just scream at each other and don't listen. I'm definatly guilty of that.

For that I give you a :toast:

[rpgamerd00d]

48. Hey, when I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

I mean, I think my point is valid, but as you said, its a red herring, and not really even the issue.

[stepnw1f]

40. And Your "Argument" Is?

Your argument is based on Science-Fiction.

[TheWraith]

42. No, my point is quite simple.

The original statement by the OP is easily countered in a simple and broadly understandable manner, rendering it useless as a rhetorical weapon. It was somebody else who started the hairsplitting over what is and is not currently possible--and calling the future "science fiction" doesn't change the fact that it will eventually be possible.

[Ravenseye]

43. I thought it was science fact

Premies are surviving as early as 20 weeks now. This whole 'parasite'/Definition of life argument is one that will not be won.

What if there was technology to grow a baby from a fertilized egg stage all the way up to a live breathing human? Should abortions be made illegal then?

What if you could keep a baby alive at 20 weeks, should second trimester abortions be made illegal?

Or is a womans body her own business regarless of your or my definitions, and the last person who should be telling her what she can or can't do is the government?

[stepnw1f]

49. LOL.... "Cannot Be Won" ...It Is Futile

Okay... tell ya what... next time there is an abortion, you can take the fetus like Santorum did, bring it home, and take care of it.

And yes: "womans body her own business regarless of your or my definitions"

PS - Your response made no sense.

[Ravenseye]

50. How so?

I'm not sure exactly what you're responding to. I'm responding to your post calling the technology to 'transplant' a fetus as science-fiction. I simply mentioned that technology exists which can help a premie at 20 weeks survive. That 20 weeks is well within the second trimester, and is still 'at risk' for an abortion. The simple fact is that abortions are performed in this country on fetuses which could be, with today's technology, brought to term outside the womb. The argument, and any argument surrounding a 'definition of life' are lose/lose scenarios for the pro-choice side. The definition of life is irrelevant. The issue is about a woman's right to privacy, and really everyone's right to their own medical privacy.

I have no desire to take the fetus home like Santorum did, and I'm not sure why you would say that in response to what I had to say. It's your response here that is somewhat confusing.

[Ravenseye]

25. Let me play devils advocate for a minute

Ok I'll concur that under certain situations, usually involving at least one form of life support an adult human can have all the things you describe, but I'm not sure that they're actually pronounced dead till they're unplugged from the machines, and the heart actually stops, they stop breathing, etc. I've never heard of a doctor calling a time of death while the heart was beating on it's own, they were breathing, etc.

Now pull the plug and *DDDIIIIIIINNNNNNNGGGGGGGG* dead, sure.

All that though, I'll accept your point that they're not really alive at that point.

What about fetuses that can be removed from the mother and placed on life support and survive? They're pulling younger and younger premies out now who are immediately placed on life support. Are they alive? Are they dead?

If my brain is active, i'm consious, but my heart won't beat without assistance. Am I alive? I can't eat by myself becuase my body can't swallow without help, but I can see, hear, think, etc. Am I alive? Etc. I think I am alive in those circumstances. I'm not a brain dead vegetable.

Now I'm not sure, but I"m pretty sure that fetuses after a certain point have pretty remarkable brain activity. We're not talking brain dead activity, we're talking full on brain activity, so doesn't that undermine your point?

I'm just playing devils advocate here. i'm pro-choice, but I'm not sure I follow your logic.

[rpgamerd00d]

28. You are being technical

The fetus isn't dead when the DECISION to have an abortion is made, either.

But the DECISION to terminate life support is IN EFFECT the doctor pronouncing them dead.
Its morally IDENTICAL.

[TheWraith]

29. The counter argument would be

That the life support patient is presumably terminal, whereas the pregnancy will survive. Just saying.

[rpgamerd00d]

30. "Will be" is not the same as " is".

Since you can't prove the fetus IS CURRENTLY alive, then you cannot treat it as alive.
Hell, you can say sperm inside the scrotum "will be" alive should the man have sex with a woman and if she gets pregnant!
That arguement doesn't hold.

[TheWraith]

33. Not will be. Is.

As established in message 18, the fetus is "alive" for rhetorical purposes. You're twisting the counter argument, which makes the whole thing fall apart.

[Ravenseye]

36. How am I being technical?

Not sure exactly how i'm being technical, but I agree...The fetus isn't dead when the decision to have an abortion is made. That though is you saying that the fetus is already alive in the womb. If the fetus isn't dead when the decision to have an abortion is made, doesn't that make them alive, and doesn't that counter your argument, that they're in fact not?

The decision to terminate life support is not 'in effect' anything.

Your standing that they are morally identical stems from the concept that the person on life support and brain dead isn't actually alive, doesn't really translate to the fetus in the womb, which has an active brain, and can either theoretically be transplanted or kept alive and grown on life support. The earliest premie to survive to my knowlege is around the 20 week mark, which is smack in the middle of the second trimester and some abortions are performed.

If a child is in the womb, and has brain wave patterns, and can be birthed from the woman at 20 weeks, and then nurtured and grown to full term on life support and eventually taken off life support to have a full life, is it then ok for the government to tell a woman what she can and can't do with her body?

I don't think so.

[gatorboy]

34. This issue is not about preserving life, it's about controlling women.

Cause let's face it. If men could have babies, there would be an abortion clinic in the back of every Wal-Mart and Chili's in America...

[TheWraith]

39. I think you exaggerate, but the issue isn't the point, the language is. NT