Abortion

[palerider]

"Dead" embryos that can and are routinely shown to be "alive" when thawed? Not logical. Death is permanent.

In your limited understanding, I suppose to you death is permanant. Clearly, however, it is not. The fact that you lack the basic knowledge required to understand the fact that death is not necessarily permanant does not alter the fact. You know, some day those bodies and heads might actually be able to be brought back. The fact that we can not presently revive the dead on a large scale does not alter the fact that it may very well be possible.

If a person were to be tried for killing an embryo by the act of immersing it in liquid nitrogen, would most certainly be vindicated if that "living" embryo (thawed), were presented to the court.

Of course. But not all frozen embryos can be revived. Those have been well and truely killed beyond hope of revival. Also, there is the question of whether or not anyone has the right to put a living human being in "suspended animation" as it were with nothing more than the sincere hope that it can be revived.

You are not likely to get any of the fertility clinic doctors who routinely do the freezing procedure to agree to testify in court that the embryos stored in liquid nitrogen are "dead".

If they are under oath, there is nothing else they can truthfully say. I don't believe their state could accurately be called suspended animation as cryonic suspension is not the same thing as suspended animation, so dead is the only accurate term. Of course, if you feel I am wrong, feel free to provide some credible evidence to the contrary.

And, their expert testimony is likely to carry more weight than your opinion that they are dead.

Their testimony will be that when any living thing is cryogenically frozen, it is not alive. This is something that I know a bit about. In fact, courts have found and held that based upon the facts, frozen embryo's are not alive. Now, if you had frozen one and charges were brought against you and you could revive it, I doubt that murder charges could be levied against you though perhaps some other charge might. If, as is often the case, ice crystals had formed witin the embryo during the freezing process, it could not be revived and the criminal homicide charge would stick.

The difference is that the "act" of putting a grown human being into liquid nitrogen results in that person's death. The damage is in the freezing process (the cells are broken by the expansion of water turning to ice), not that revival efforts fail. You would be convicted of murder for the act of putting me in liquid nitrogen.

That happens often with embryo's as well. Not all survive the freezing process. When personhood is established for the unborn, (and scientifically it is inevetable) if you freeze an embryo and can not revive it, you might well be charged. IVF could still be a viable means of having a child, but only one embryo could be created at a time. The cost would go up but for those who could not afford it, there is always adoption.

If we get obama care, the point is moot as IVF will fade away in this country because a socialist medical program simply could not afford it. That is why foriegners come here for IVF treatments.

In an embryo, for some reason (I cannot remember why), the cells do not break when frozen and the cells are viable when thawed. No harm, no foul.

Sorry but many do not survive the freezing process. It is far from foolproof. By some estimates as few as 60% survive and data are still coming in with regrd to the number who survive but are free from chromosomal damage or any of the infinite possible complications that could arise with freezing and thawing. Here is a link to a pretty straight forward report on the subject from a credible soucre.

http://www.ivf.net/ivf/index.php?page=out&id=335&print=yes

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Of course they are. Modern liberalism and communism go hand in hand. Look at what your liberal president has done with regard to taking control of companies. Government assuming control of the means of production is first order communism

Obie hasn't taken any companies and made them government owned. He has demanded some public control over a FEW companies that are living on public funds--hardly communism. When I borrow money from the bank for a car they retain the title till I pay the debt, that's Capitalism.

I note that you ignored my request for a logical explanation of how you determine who deserves to live and who it's okay to kill. Babies are sacred to you as long as they are human, but animals have only utilitarian value. For me, that calls into question your whole ethical facade since it's based on a homocentric viewpoint.

 

[Dante the Marxist]

Of course you did. That is because you are, at your core, a liar. You can't rationally defend your own postion, and you can't effectively argue against mine, so you alter mine so far from reality that even you can make a response of sorts.

When you can either rationally defend your own position, or make a coherent rebuttal against what I actually wrote, let me know. Till then, you have lost as miserably as any pro choicer I have ever spoken to. In fact, you have lost more miserably than any pro choicer I have ever spoken to.

Why would I need to argue if you have no evidence whatsoever?

 

[Dante the Marxist]

My argument was that unborns are human beings at any stage of development. The references I provided are more than credible and they substantiate my claim. In the real world, that constitutes evidence. You have revealed yourself to be a liar of the worst sort so at this point, nothing you say can be taken with even a mild level of seriousness.

What references? You cant make claims like you are making now unless you show me evidence of your argument. Otherwise, nobody will take you seriously. I will continue to ask for evidence until you show it to me.


But then, why should I be taking you seriously if you have a mental disorder?

 

[palerider]

Obie hasn't taken any companies and made them government owned. He has demanded some public control over a FEW companies that are living on public funds--hardly communism. When I borrow money from the bank for a car they retain the title till I pay the debt, that's Capitalism.

"Some" public control. Hell, that is just were hitler started. Do a bit of research and perhaps you will be surprised at the similarities.

I note that you ignored my request for a logical explanation of how you determine who deserves to live and who it's okay to kill. {/quote]

We have already been through this. I respect the constitution. I don't see any protection of animal's rights to live so this is entirely a legal/human rights matter for me.

Babies are sacred to you as long as they are human, but animals have only utilitarian value.

Since you don't have the slightest idea of what you are talking about, as you don't know me, I hope you don't mind if I point out your logical fallacy there.

For me, that calls into question your whole ethical facade since it's based on a homocentric viewpoint.

Funny. You questioning my ethics.

 

[palerider]

What references?

Are you illiterate in addition to being delusional? What references?

LANGMAN’S MEDICAL EMBRYOLOGY

New England Journal of Medicine

The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology

EMBRYOLOGY & TERATOLOGY


Clearly, you are over your head here. I was under the impression that you were able to handle the discussion even though you couldn't rationally defend your position. Clearly, I was mistaken.

You cant make claims like you are making now unless you show me evidence of your argument. Otherwise, nobody will take you seriously. I will continue to ask for evidence until you show it to me.

Sorry that the references have names composed of words that are difficult for you. Dr. Seuss just doesn't write any credible medical texts. If I could find Thing One and Thing Two explaining basic biology, I would gladly bring them here as that is clearly your educational comfort level, but alas, no luck.

Sorry I mistook you for someone capable of adult conversation. Denial of the obvious is a pre school tactic and if that is the best you can do, I am genuinely sorry for you.

Get back to me when you mature a bit.

 

[palerider]

Why would I need to argue if you have no evidence whatsoever?

Denial of the obvious only makes you look more stupid than you already did. How embarassing for the pro choicers here to have someone like you representing them.

 

[Zylstra]

The first is real and may be proven.

Really? You can prove what is 'desirable'?

Besides, you said it has no bearing on the matter

The second can no more be proven or corroborated than any other part of the ether. The conscious mind is nothing more than a product of maturation and your right to live is not based on your level of maturity.

Demonstrate the first.

The latter is dishonest. Braindeath (the cessation of the mind) is recognized as the end of a person's self.

Not true. While the right to live outweighs any other right that another may invoke, that right does not trump the right to defend one's life. I may justly kill another human being if that other represents an imminent threat to my own life. Of course, if I do it, I damned better be able to prove self defense in a court of law.

You mistake the right to live with a non existent right to be kept alive. There is no constitutional demand that extraordinary measures be taken on your behalf if you are so sick or injured that no reasonable hope for your recovery exists.

So rights come from the constitution?

Funny how you fail to address the rest of the post

 

[Zylstra]

Better do just a bit of research there. Conservativism requires, by defnition less government involvement.

Wrong


S: (adj) conservative (having social or political views favoring conservatism)
S: conservatism, conservativism (a political or theological orientation advocating the preservation of the best in society and opposing radical changes)

In other words, reactionism and preservation of the status quo


The Tories were conservatives

as were the lynch mobs

as was Hitler

as are the anti-gay marriage crowd

 

[Zylstra]

If allowing a thing to die is nowhere near the same as killing it, PR must have no objection to dumpster babies

 

[Zylstra]

Of course they are. Modern liberalism and communism go hand in hand. Look at what your liberal president has done with regard to taking control of companies. Government assuming control of the means of production is first order communism

Communism is counter the most fundamental liberal principles

but we know better than to expect honesty from you

 

[Zylstra]

Just because a thing is genetically human doesn't mean it is a person.

A child born with no head or a braindead man possesses no mind and is, therefore, no different from a rock aside from being squishy.

 

[Dante the Marxist]

Are you illiterate in addition to being delusional? What references?

LANGMAN’S MEDICAL EMBRYOLOGY

New England Journal of Medicine

The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology

EMBRYOLOGY & TERATOLOGY


Clearly, you are over your head here. I was under the impression that you were able to handle the discussion even though you couldn't rationally defend your position. Clearly, I was mistaken.



Sorry that the references have names composed of words that are difficult for you. Dr. Seuss just doesn't write any credible medical texts. If I could find Thing One and Thing Two explaining basic biology, I would gladly bring them here as that is clearly your educational comfort level, but alas, no luck.

Sorry I mistook you for someone capable of adult conversation. Denial of the obvious is a pre school tactic and if that is the best you can do, I am genuinely sorry for you.

Get back to me when you mature a bit.

Do those textbooks have hard evidence in them? If not, I invite you to quietly leave.

 

[dahermit]

In your limited understanding, I suppose to you death is permanant. Clearly, however, it is not. The fact that you lack the basic knowledge required to understand the fact that death is not necessarily permanant does not alter the fact.

Please educate me. Show me how clearly death is not permanent.

 

[dahermit]

Sorry but many do not survive the freezing process. It is far from foolproof. By some estimates as few as 60% survive and data are still coming in with regrd to the number who survive but are free from chromosomal damage or any of the infinite possible complications that could arise with freezing and thawing. Here is a link to a pretty straight forward report on the subject from a credible soucre.

http://www.ivf.net/ivf/index.php?page=out&id=335&print=yes

In conclusion, many embryos that would otherwise be discarded soon after fertilisation, retain full viability after freezing, but some embryos don't survive and others have their developmental potential reduced. Otherwise there is no sound evidence that embryo freezing is hazardous.

Is it not odd that one person reads something and conclude that it is virtually murder to freeze an embryo in that there "infinite" possible complications, and then when someone else reads the same thing, "...there is no sound evidence that embryo freezing is hazardous..."? Why do I get the impression that you wish to exaggerate the risks?