3 ms·

>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 [hydatidif

by 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
>People in coma do have brain activity. People who don't aren't "less human", they are clinically dead. And fetuses have some level of brain activity as well. A fetus has some level of brain waves at 7 weeks. Does that mean you think a fetus is alive after that time period, but not alive before? Since you didn't reply to everything, I will ask again: Are people with severe mental disabilities less human than a regular person? >xD I don't know what this means. Like I said I don't know about that specific condition. >Because in the biological context this is true. However, your whole reasoning is based on reusing this in a completely different context To quote you: "Why would you want to use a completely different criteria for this one case?" >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. I don't think every part is human. Skin cells are not human. I agree that would be a ridiculous point to make. Good thing I am not making it
- trasz 4y ago
  >And fetuses have some level of brain activity as well. Not really, that's the point. >Are people with severe mental disabilities less human than a regular person? Severe mental disabilities such as completely missing brain? >To quote you: "Why would you want to use a completely different criteria for this one case?" Because otherwise you'll arrive at conclusion that a hydatidiform mole (look, I'm repeating this exact keyword for the fourth time here as a gentle suggestion for you to type it into Wikipedia) is a human.
  - _-david-_ 4y ago
    >Not really, that's the point. It is so long as you define a human as having a certain level of brain activity. >Severe mental disabilities such as completely missing brain? I mean severe autism or something like that. >Because otherwise you'll arrive at conclusion that a hydatidiform mole (look, I'm repeating this exact keyword for the fourth time here as a gentle suggestion for you to type it into Wikipedia) is a human. I looked into it a bit. First, it is quite dangerous for the woman so removing it would be acceptable in every state. I don't have an issue with this. Second, some of the situations there is no embryo tissue. I don't have a problem calling it dead in this case. Third, I am not sure about a partial one. I think it is a malformed human, but I am not really knowledgeable about this. Just because somebody has a chromosomal issue doesn't mean they are not human. Down syndrome people have chromosomal issues but are still humans. Just because there is a difference in viable doesn't change the humanness of the person. You may have justification to remove it from the uterus to protect the mother though.
    - trasz 4y ago
      >It is so long as you define a human as having a certain level of brain activity. But nobody does. It's the coordinated brain activity that matters. >I mean severe autism or something like that. Which is unrelated to what we're discussing. >Just because somebody has a chromosomal issue doesn't mean they are not human. So again, you're claiming that a mole is a baby, just a seriously unhealthy one?

by trasz 4y ago

_-david-_ 4y ago

>People in coma do have brain activity. People who don't aren't "less human", they are clinically dead. And fetuses have some level of brain activity as well. A fetus has some level of brain waves at 7 weeks. Does that mean you think a fetus is alive after that time period, but not alive before? Since you didn't reply to everything, I will ask again: Are people with severe mental disabilities less human than a regular person? >xD I don't know what this means. Like I said I don't know about that specific condition. >Because in the biological context this is true. However, your whole reasoning is based on reusing this in a completely different context To quote you: "Why would you want to use a completely different criteria for this one case?" >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. I don't think every part is human. Skin cells are not human. I agree that would be a ridiculous point to make. Good thing I am not making it

trasz 4y ago
>And fetuses have some level of brain activity as well. Not really, that's the point. >Are people with severe mental disabilities less human than a regular person? Severe mental disabilities such as completely missing brain? >To quote you: "Why would you want to use a completely different criteria for this one case?" Because otherwise you'll arrive at conclusion that a hydatidiform mole (look, I'm repeating this exact keyword for the fourth time here as a gentle suggestion for you to type it into Wikipedia) is a human.
- _-david-_ 4y ago
  >Not really, that's the point. It is so long as you define a human as having a certain level of brain activity. >Severe mental disabilities such as completely missing brain? I mean severe autism or something like that. >Because otherwise you'll arrive at conclusion that a hydatidiform mole (look, I'm repeating this exact keyword for the fourth time here as a gentle suggestion for you to type it into Wikipedia) is a human. I looked into it a bit. First, it is quite dangerous for the woman so removing it would be acceptable in every state. I don't have an issue with this. Second, some of the situations there is no embryo tissue. I don't have a problem calling it dead in this case. Third, I am not sure about a partial one. I think it is a malformed human, but I am not really knowledgeable about this. Just because somebody has a chromosomal issue doesn't mean they are not human. Down syndrome people have chromosomal issues but are still humans. Just because there is a difference in viable doesn't change the humanness of the person. You may have justification to remove it from the uterus to protect the mother though.
  - trasz 4y ago
    >It is so long as you define a human as having a certain level of brain activity. But nobody does. It's the coordinated brain activity that matters. >I mean severe autism or something like that. Which is unrelated to what we're discussing. >Just because somebody has a chromosomal issue doesn't mean they are not human. So again, you're claiming that a mole is a baby, just a seriously unhealthy one?