Rep Massie posts gun photo

#627
#627
kiddiedoc said:
You really are a moron.

Maybe you should ask a geneticist, a court using it as concrete evidence, or a paternity testing company.
Click to expand...
I find it hysterically telling that you refuse to answer a "simple" question.
We all know why..........(at least most of us do)
Until you answer the question, whatever you have to say pretty much amounts to zilch.
 
#629
#629
luthervol said:
I find it hysterically telling that you refuse to answer a "simple" question.
We all know why..........(at least most of us do)
Until you answer the question, whatever you have to say pretty much amounts to zilch.
Click to expand...
LOL -- most of "us?" Quick show of hands.

And yes, I just answered your question with objective measures above. No opinions.

You never answered how we can determine when someone is dead.
 
Last edited:
#630
#630
kiddiedoc said:
LOL -- most of "us?" Quick show of hands.

And yes, I just answered your question with objective measures above. No opinions.

You never answered how we can determine when someone is dead.
Click to expand...
No you didn't answer my question. I did see you answered no.
Again - it's obvious why. (at least to most of us) Scratch that since you already answered no.
If unique DNA is a sign of life (which it isn't) then it would stand to reason that DNA that is not unique is a sign of death.

But unlike you, I have no problem answering a question.
Definitions of death: brain death and what matters in a person
Our concepts and practices relating to death will inevitably be influenced by our values and social practices. Our definitions of what constitutes death affect not only what we consider to count as death, but also questions of grieving, medical treatment, estate planning, organ donation, and a myriad of other legal and ethical issues.
The UDDA simply states: ’An individual who has sustained either (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem, is dead.
But people could meet this criteria while still being "maintained" on life support.

If your "unique DNA constitutes a sperate human" position were valid (which it is not), then an organ donor would continue to be a separate human living inside of another human.
Now your turn..............
I'll ask one more time. Do YOU believe a test tube embryo is human? Again - disregard since you already answered no.
 
Last edited:
#631
#631
kiddiedoc said:
Does it have a full complement of uniquely human DNA, brain activity, heartbeat, and/or respond to stimuli? Then, yes.

Do you believe that a premie in an isolette requiring a heat source, IV nutrition, and a ventilator is a live human?
Click to expand...
Finally saw your answer.
So your answer is no, because a test tube embryo would have none of those things in the early stages.
So you believe an embryo transitions from being not human to human over a period of time?

And yes, I believe a premie requiring life support (if at least 6 months since conception) would be a live human.
 
#632
#632
luthervol said:
Finally saw your answer.
So your answer is no, because a test tube embryo would have none of those things in the early stages.
So you believe an embryo transitions from being not human to human over a period of time?
Click to expand...

Glad you caught up.

No, "human" is defined by the genetic composition which is easily tested.

"Live" is determined by vital functions, which are measurable. As soon as those are found (brain activity, heartbeat, response to stimuli), the determination of life can be made. When they are absent, we determine death. Happens every day in every hospital in the world.

Therefore: a baby in a womb clearly meets criteria for a) human, and b) alive. Now, if you want to pose an argument that one should have the right to take the life of another human, or that one human is somehow superior to or more valuable than another human, that's a different discussion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol423
#634
#634
kiddiedoc said:
Glad you caught up.

No, "human" is defined by the genetic composition which is easily tested.

"Live" is determined by vital functions, which are measurable. As soon as those are found (brain activity, heartbeat, response to stimuli), the determination of life can be made. When they are absent, we determine death. Happens every day in every hospital in the world.

Therefore: a baby in a womb clearly meets criteria for a) human, and b) alive. Now, if you want to pose an argument that one should have the right to take the life of another human, or that one human is somehow superior to or more valuable than another human, that's a different discussion.
Click to expand...
We do not know at what time a soul enters a body which is the true concern from a religious standpoint. So my position has been to err on the side of caution and assume conception.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kiddiedoc
#635
#635
kiddiedoc said:
Glad you caught up.

No, "human" is defined by the genetic composition which is easily tested.

"Live" is determined by vital functions, which are measurable. As soon as those are found (brain activity, heartbeat, response to stimuli), the determination of life can be made. When they are absent, we determine death. Happens every day in every hospital in the world.

Therefore: a baby in a womb clearly meets criteria for a) human, and b) alive. Now, if you want to pose an argument that one should have the right to take the life of another human, or that one human is somehow superior to or more valuable than another human, that's a different discussion.
Click to expand...
I'm still not getting your answer.
Is an embryo in a test tube human?
If you're answering yes, do you value that human as equally superior as an 8 year old kid?
And if so, do you believe that the doctor (and the parents) who created 7 embryos and selected the most viable to implant, created 7 humans, murdered 6, and saved one? ,

Is an embryo in the womb that has yet to develop brain activity, a heartbeat, or a response to stimuli dead by your definition or just not yet alive?
 
#636
#636
OrangeTsar said:
We do not know at what time a soul enters a body which is the true concern from a religious standpoint. So my position has been to err on the side of caution and assume conception.
Click to expand...
If a 3 month old fetus has a soul and is aborted, does the fetus soul go to heaven or hell?
 
#637
#637
luthervol said:
I'm still not getting your answer.
Is an embryo in a test tube human?
If you're answering yes, do you value that human as equally superior as an 8 year old kid?
And if so, do you believe that the doctor (and the parents) who created 7 embryos and selected the most viable to implant, created 7 humans, murdered 6, and saved one? ,

Is an embryo in the womb that has yet to develop brain activity, a heartbeat, or a response to stimuli dead by your definition or just not yet alive?
Click to expand...
It is absolutely "human," as are the remains when a dead body is discovered in the woods. I've never heard anyone argue that a human embryo is not "human." That is flat out absurd.

Without any brain activity, heartbeat, or response to stimuli, we can not definitively say something is "alive." Once those measurable signs are detected, we can.

I am purposefully leaving out my religious views, as I already know where you stand there.

From a purely scientific angle, if we can confirm with genetic testing and measurable qualities that define life that a baby in a womb is both "human" and "alive," then it must be treated with the same moral and legal code that we all enjoy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#638
#638
luthervol said:
If a 3 month old fetus has a soul and is aborted, does the fetus soul go to heaven or hell?
Click to expand...
Really? That is easy. Every Christian denomination recognizes a concept often referred to as the age of accountability in which a human becomes aware of sin and his or her responsibility for moral choices. An unborn fetus clearly has no concept of right and wrong, good versus evil. And before you ask, it is not a particular number, like you can vote at 18. It varies by individuals. I would argue that some with certain mental illnesses live their entire lives without reaching it. I will trust God to judge correctly here, not man.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kiddiedoc
#639
#639
kiddiedoc said:
It is absolutely "human," as are the remains when a dead body is discovered in the woods. I've never heard anyone argue that a human embryo is not "human." That is flat out absurd.

Without any brain activity, heartbeat, or response to stimuli, we can not definitively say something is "alive." Once those measurable signs are detected, we can.

I am purposefully leaving out my religious views, as I already know where you stand there.

From a purely scientific angle, if we can confirm with genetic testing and measurable qualities that define life that a baby in a womb is both "human" and "alive," then it must be treated with the same moral and legal code that we all enjoy.
Click to expand...
Substitute person for human.
If an embryo without brain activity, heartbeat, or response to stimuli is not a living person, then you obviously believe that an embryo transitions into becoming a living person over time. I believe this is essentially what everyone believes.
The concept that the fetus goes from being 0% living person to 100% living person in a measurable instant is what most reject.
 
#640
#640
OrangeTsar said:
Really? That is easy. Every Christian denomination recognizes a concept often referred to as the age of accountability in which a human becomes aware of sin and his or her responsibility for moral choices. An unborn fetus clearly has no concept of right and wrong, good versus evil. And before you ask, it is not a particular number, like you can vote at 18. It varies by individuals. I would argue that some with certain mental illnesses live their entire lives without reaching it. I will trust God to judge correctly here, not man.
Click to expand...
So heaven then? In a way it almost seems like a blessing. A guaranteed eternity of unimaginable happiness and bliss in return for a few brief moments on Earth that comes with a significant risk of eternal damnation.
 
#641
#641
luthervol said:
So heaven then? In a way it almost seems like a blessing. A guaranteed eternity of unimaginable happiness and bliss in return for a few brief moments on Earth that comes with a significant risk of eternal damnation.
Click to expand...
It's better to die a hero than live long enough to see yourself become the villian.
 
#642
#642
luthervol said:
So heaven then? In a way it almost seems like a blessing. A guaranteed eternity of unimaginable happiness and bliss in return for a few brief moments on Earth that comes with a significant risk of eternal damnation.
Click to expand...
luthervol said:
So heaven then? In a way it almost seems like a blessing. A guaranteed eternity of unimaginable happiness and bliss in return for a few brief moments on Earth that comes with a significant risk of eternal damnation.
Click to expand...
38F042FD-AD25-4D51-9365-E608E32048B4.jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77 and kiddiedoc
#644
#644
luthervol said:
?????
Not seeing the relevance.
Click to expand...
Sounded to me like questioning the way God runs his universe. Perhaps I was mistaken. Free Will is not free will without the possibility of bad choices. Were you saying abortion is a blessing because it removes the possibility of eternal damnation for the child?
 
#645
#645
OrangeTsar said:
Sounded to me like questioning the way God runs his universe. Perhaps I was mistaken. Free Will is not free will without the possibility of bad choices. Were you saying abortion is a blessing because it removes the possibility of eternal damnation for the child?
Click to expand...
Yea.
I took your answer to be that since they had no free will, they would go to heaven.
Was that not your answer?
 
#646
#646
luthervol said:
Yea.
I took your answer to be that since they had no free will, they would go to heaven.
Was that not your answer?
Click to expand...
Souls not accountable for sin go straight to heaven. Free will is not a concept applying to the unborn.
 
#647
#647
Does free will even exist? Reformed/Calvinist doctrine says everything has been ordained and we're just a carnival ride on rails to the end of this mortal existence. So none of this matters, because we were programmed to say and do exactly what we're saying and doing
 
#648
#648
AshG said:
Does free will even exist? Reformed/Calvinist doctrine says everything has been ordained and we're just a carnival ride on rails to the end of this mortal existence. So none of this matters, because we were programmed to say and do exactly what we're saying and doing
Click to expand...

The use of the word timshel in Genesis lends me to believe that yes free will exists and we make our own destiny. I always leaned that way and when I read East of Eden and started reading other works about it I'm convinced.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AshG
#649
#649
luthervol said:
The concept that the fetus goes from being 0% living person to 100% living person in a measurable instant is what most reject.
Click to expand...
And, your concept that a fetus with human DNA and a beating heart and brain activity isn't a living person is what I reject.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top