4 ms·

It is not

by campl3r 4y ago

It is not

_-david-_ 4y ago
Want to provide an explanation?
- trasz 4y ago
  LMGTFY: https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/the-moment-a-baby-s-brain-starts-to-function-and-other-scientific-answers-on-abortion-1.3506968 https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/the-moment-a-baby-s-brain... “co-ordinated brain activity required for consciousness does not occur until 24-25 weeks of pregnancy.”
  - _-david-_ 4y ago
    I never said coordinated brain activity but brain waves. You also only addressed (though incorrectly) one of my points. What about the heart beats? Is that also after 20 weeks? I'll give you a hint, it is well before 20 weeks. Regardless, there is distinct DNA from the mother and as such it is distinct from the mother. It is growing and has human DNA. It is as simple as that.
    - trasz 4y ago
      Who cares about heartbeat? It's not cardiovascular system that makes us humans; it's our minds. When we declare someone clinically dead we measure their brain activity, not heartbeat. Why would you want to use a completely different criteria for this one case? >there is distinct DNA There is a distinct DNA in a hydatidiform mole; it's growing and has human DNA. Does that make it a baby? See, this argument of yours depends on one's lack of understanding of biology. It makes sense to a high schooler, but is immediately absurd to eg a nurse.
      - _-david-_ 4y ago
        >Who cares about heartbeat? It's not cardiovascular system that makes us humans; it's our minds. Are people in a comma not human? Are people with severe mental disabilities less human than a regular person? >When we declare someone clinically dead we measure their brain activity, not heartbeat. Why would you want to use a completely different criteria for this one case? We have the term brain dead for a reason. It is distinct from the body being dead. Do you believe people who are brain dead but "wake up" actually come back to life? It is also different since we know, barring a medical issue (or an abortion) the baby will continue to grow and have a regular brain. >There is a distinct DNA in a hydatidiform mole; it's growing and has human DNA. Does that make it a baby? I don't know about this specific condition, so if it is strictly a genetic condition than I think it is a human. I would say that humans are humans even if they have a fatal genetic condition. I don't think the medical situation of a person determines if somebody is a human. >See, this argument of yours depends on one's lack of understanding of biology. It makes sense to a high schooler, but is immediately absurd to eg a nurse. If that is the case then why do so many reputable biological text books and biologists state life begins at conception? Here are two lists: https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes.html https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes.htm... https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.ht...
        trasz 4y ago
        >Are people in a comma not human? People in coma do have brain activity. People who don't aren't "less human", they are clinically dead. >so if it [hydatidiform mole] is strictly a genetic condition than I think it is a human. xD >If that is the case then why do so many reputable biological text books and biologists state life begins at conception? Because in the biological context this is true. However, your whole reasoning is based on reusing this in a completely different context, wrongly assuming that every bit of homo sapiens, regardless of its state, is a person. That's why its absurdity would be obvious to a nurse: it's obvious to anyone who knows about both contexts and thus can tell the difference between them.
        _-david-_ 4y ago

It is not

_-david-_ 4y ago

Want to provide an explanation?

trasz 4y ago
LMGTFY: https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/the-moment-a-baby-s-brain-starts-to-function-and-other-scientific-answers-on-abortion-1.3506968 https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/the-moment-a-baby-s-brain... “co-ordinated brain activity required for consciousness does not occur until 24-25 weeks of pregnancy.”
- _-david-_ 4y ago
  I never said coordinated brain activity but brain waves. You also only addressed (though incorrectly) one of my points. What about the heart beats? Is that also after 20 weeks? I'll give you a hint, it is well before 20 weeks. Regardless, there is distinct DNA from the mother and as such it is distinct from the mother. It is growing and has human DNA. It is as simple as that.
  - trasz 4y ago
    Who cares about heartbeat? It's not cardiovascular system that makes us humans; it's our minds. When we declare someone clinically dead we measure their brain activity, not heartbeat. Why would you want to use a completely different criteria for this one case? >there is distinct DNA There is a distinct DNA in a hydatidiform mole; it's growing and has human DNA. Does that make it a baby? See, this argument of yours depends on one's lack of understanding of biology. It makes sense to a high schooler, but is immediately absurd to eg a nurse.
    - _-david-_ 4y ago
      >Who cares about heartbeat? It's not cardiovascular system that makes us humans; it's our minds. Are people in a comma not human? Are people with severe mental disabilities less human than a regular person? >When we declare someone clinically dead we measure their brain activity, not heartbeat. Why would you want to use a completely different criteria for this one case? We have the term brain dead for a reason. It is distinct from the body being dead. Do you believe people who are brain dead but "wake up" actually come back to life? It is also different since we know, barring a medical issue (or an abortion) the baby will continue to grow and have a regular brain. >There is a distinct DNA in a hydatidiform mole; it's growing and has human DNA. Does that make it a baby? I don't know about this specific condition, so if it is strictly a genetic condition than I think it is a human. I would say that humans are humans even if they have a fatal genetic condition. I don't think the medical situation of a person determines if somebody is a human. >See, this argument of yours depends on one's lack of understanding of biology. It makes sense to a high schooler, but is immediately absurd to eg a nurse. If that is the case then why do so many reputable biological text books and biologists state life begins at conception? Here are two lists: https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes.html https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes.htm... https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.ht...
      - trasz 4y ago
        >Are people in a comma not human? People in coma do have brain activity. People who don't aren't "less human", they are clinically dead. >so if it [hydatidiform mole] is strictly a genetic condition than I think it is a human. xD >If that is the case then why do so many reputable biological text books and biologists state life begins at conception? Because in the biological context this is true. However, your whole reasoning is based on reusing this in a completely different context, wrongly assuming that every bit of homo sapiens, regardless of its state, is a person. That's why its absurdity would be obvious to a nurse: it's obvious to anyone who knows about both contexts and thus can tell the difference between them.
        _-david-_ 4y ago