3 ms·

>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.

>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?

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?