Legal Death, Legal Life, Personhood and Abortion

Like I said, you made a claim of numerous large holes, and were not able to show one existed, even while concentrating on only one. All you showed was your opinion, unsubstantiated by any other source of information.That is not backing it up.And not because I say so, but because the logic of the argument says so.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

slowly now ...you said there were "numerous holes" in the argument, and then attacked one point.your attack was not backed by evidence or anything other than your opinion.your attack was refuted by evidence.you have not even mentioned any other "holes" in the argument, thus leaving one with a logical conclusion that they are unimportant.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

sadly that says more than I think you intended. I have had several disagreements with Rhain, but have never been able to fault his logic, and I would like to see explained how you could be "more than logical" in any way shape or form ...enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

the womb does not belong to the fetus.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

you mean to go back to all the points your raised that had nothing to do with the essay? the one full of misconceptions? that one?the one answered by
http://EvC Forum: Legal Death, Legal Life, Personhood and Abortionthat one?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

sosome bum moves into your house, eats your food, sleeps in your bed, watches tv all day and well into the night.it's okay: and, once again ... is an oxymoronic statement.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

What I am getting at, is that there is a point at which medical science - as good as it is - is just not capable of guaranteeing the survival of a premature infant, because the fetus is just not developed enough to be a human being, to be blunt about it. That point seems to be around 23 to 24 weeks, even for a healthy fetus.But the flip side of that is that after a healthy fetus has reached the 24th week we should be able to bring it to complete livelyhood if we do need to remove the fetus from the mother for medical reasons.Consider that the fetus is not doing all the growing work itself, it is washed in a bath of enzymes and catalysts and environmental chemicals that all affect the growth, especially at key stages, and that more than 99% of what a fetus is has come from the mother -- the father has contributed 1/2 of one cell: all the rest has come from the mother (each cell has to grow before it can divide, and there are no other resources) -- and any disruption of those key stages can have deleterious implications. Mom could just be a bad enironment, especially for that one fetus (there are instances of genetic incompatability that are bad for both).The ethical questions come in to play when it is known that the fetus is not a normally healthy fetus, and this puts the parents in the same ethical position that people have with a relative on life support: they have to balance their beliefs with the need to continue life support for cellular matter that may not be capable of becoming cognizant no matter how much support is provided, the quality of life issues.Different people will make different choices, and not allowing them to exercise their ethical standard means that one is imposed on them.These have already been hammered out for people of all ages (from preemie to octogenarian) who are on life support, with a program that says it is the appropriate surrogates that get to decide.Congrats on a succesful launch btw.enjoy

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

I don't use the legal death act to describe personhood.
I don't use the legal death act to describe personhood.
I don't use the legal death act to describe personhood.
I don't use the legal death act to describe personhood.
I don't use the legal death act to describe personhood.
I don't use the legal death act to describe personhood.
I don't use the legal death act to describe personhood.
I don't use the legal death act to describe personhood.
I don't use the legal death act to describe personhood.
I don't use the legal death act to describe personhood.
I don't use the legal death act to describe personhood.See if you get it this time.This is the biggest failure in your comments: they do not address the issues, but some warped version of them. This is logically invalid: it is like arguing that the sky is not blue because the grass is green.I use the legal death act to describe the minimum level of existence that can be considered to be a human life.The issue of personhood comes in after that minimum level of existence has been established.Just as the issue of personhood comes into play for people on life support that do not meet the legal requirements for death, but for whom "the lights are on but nobody's home"Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

the bum is a logical extension of your saying that the fetus owns the womb.and for the 18upteenth time:A person put on life support is not dead and a dead person is not put on life support (not knowingly anyway).Let me repeat that a few times to see if you can get it:A person put on life support is not dead and a dead person is not put on life support. A person put on life support is not dead and a dead person is not put on life support. A person put on life support is not dead and a dead person is not put on life support. A person put on life support is not dead and a dead person is not put on life support. A person put on life support is not dead and a dead person is not put on life support.A person put on life support is not dead and a dead person is not put on life support. A person put on life support is not dead and a dead person is not put on life support. A person put on life support is not dead and a dead person is not put on life support. A person put on life support is not dead and a dead person is not put on life support.A person put on life support is not dead and a dead person is not put on life support. A person put on life support is not dead and a dead person is not put on life support. A person put on life support is not dead and a dead person is not put on life support. A person put on life support is not dead and a dead person is not put on life support....You do seem to have problems with the basic concepts here.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

I think you can generalize about the frame within which the debate is valid.As in it is obvious that defining life as {conception} ignores the fact that at least 2/3rds don't make it to week 12 naturally, and thus it is as invalid logically as setting life to start at 10 (self sufficiency).And it is equally obvious that any late term abortion that is done for the mother's health could just as easily be a premature C-section with a possibility of bringing the fetus to term if it is viable.Why does anyone generalize?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

what I understand is that people on life support are not dead.you cannot keep conflating life support with the {legal death\legal life} issue.the grass is green because the sky is blue.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

and that fact makes your position untenable. you may as well say that you are the same as being already dead.you are just a walking dead person that we may as well bury now while you can help with the process.the future is not the now, the now is not the future. life is now.

Presumably you are asking in relation to the legal definition of death.If they are declared brain dead, presumably this is by the doctors, and presumably this means all of the brain (including the brain stem), then by the legal definition they are dead.And when that happens they are unplugged from whatever life support machines they had been plugged into.There is cell material that is still living, some organs and the like, so it is possible to remove these for transplant to other patients that need them, but the {human} element is dead.While it is physically possible to keep the cell material and organs alive and functioning for a considerable amount of time, there is no need ... because the human is dead.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

or people generalize because they want to cover elements that pertain to more than just the individual.

Now connect the dots ...Would you want organs removed before the person was dead?Would you want organs removed once the organ cells were dead?As I said before this definition enables organ transplants but does not regulate them. The legal death act specifically says that it does not regulate transplants. There are other statutes that cover that eh?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}