Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It's alive, it doesn't have a life.Conception is beginning the path to life. Path to...path...to.
Path....then followed by the word 'to'.
-AC
Dude, stop. How are u gon' say that having a heartbeat doesn't mean you're a life. So a comatose person on full life-support isn't "a life". C'mon dawg.
Originally posted by DiamondBullets
Dude, stop. How are u gon' say that having a heartbeat doesn't mean you're a life. So a comatose person on full life-support isn't "a life". C'mon dawg.
You are using the wrong words and terms. There is a difference between being alive and having a life.
Every born human has a life. No foetus has a life, it's just alive. As for comotose people, they have zero quality of life, they're nothing more than vegetables if they can't survive without a machine. Which is why people often have the plug pulled, because whilst they are ALIVE, they have no life left.
Stop confusing the two.
-AC
Originally posted by DiamondBullets
alive/ a life = tomato/tomawto^ ie: only semantics--no practical difference
There is a factual difference though. It might not agree and/or coincide with your little theory that they are the same, but that's tough shit.
It's not just pronounciation, there's a factual difference. It's not Tomato/Tomato. It's Apple/Pear.
They are two different things that you are connecting together because they have similarities.
"Life begins at conception" is misuse of words. What do you think scientists mean when they say there's "life" on Mars? That there are cells and bacteria going around having parties and building malls? No. A cell is not a life, so therefore life cannot begin at conception can it?
No. End.
-AC
The dictionary defines "life" as...
"the aggregate powers of metabolism, reproduction, mobility, etc."
So technically, the lowest bacterium has a life as they are completely capable of those actions. Viruses on the other hand, are not.
If your definition of life is getting married, having kids, having a job, and paying a mortgage, then yes, ur right. Only born humans are capable of that.
Originally posted by DiamondBullets
Scientists simply mean that there are living oragnisms on Mars.
Precisely.
Originally posted by DiamondBullets
Life is anything that is alive--they are one in the same. U probly think that non-human animals, plants, fungi, bacteria and protista don't have a "life", right?I take it, you aint a Buddhist.
They don't have a "life". They are just alive.
Originally posted by DiamondBullets
The dictionary defines "life" as..."the aggregate powers of metabolism, reproduction, mobility, etc."
So technically, the lowest bacterium has a life as they are completely capable of those actions. Viruses on the other hand, are not.
Again, you are abusing words. That's ONE definition of "life" among many in the dictionary.
Many of which are "The time inbetween BIRTH and death" and variations of.
People use the word life to describe things that are alive and therefore it has earned a place in the dictionary. It doesn't refute the cold hard fact that there is a concrete difference between having a life and being alive.
A cell is not A LIFE, it is alive. There is a difference and that is a fact.
Originally posted by DiamondBullets
If your definition of life is getting married, having kids, having a job, and paying a mortgage, then yes, ur right. Only born humans are capable of that.
Makedde said life begins at conception and nobody can deny that, then said if there's a heartbeat, it's a life.
Either way she's proven herself wrong. Life begins at birth, not conception.
-AC
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The Pro-Choice argument is that the right of the woman to control what happens in and to her body is more stringent than the right to life of the potential child.
Notice your choice of words: "potential child". That implies that you think that the baby does not have a 'life' (geez, this thread preys on technicalities), therefore, getting rid of it is not the equivalent of killing a human being.
I agree with the above, I'm just saying that if the point of where life begins can be irrefutably proved, one side or the other will no longer have valid points.
Originally posted by crazylozer
Notice your choice of words: "potential child". That implies that you think that the baby does not have a 'life' (geez, this thread preys on technicalities), therefore, getting rid of it is not the equivalent of killing a human being.I agree with the above, I'm just saying that if the point of where life begins can be irrefutably proved, one side or the other will no longer have valid points.
Pro-choice doesn't necessarily hinge upon that. You could be pro-choice even if you knew it was a fully functioning human.
Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Pro-choice doesn't necessarily hinge upon that. You could be pro-choice even if you knew it was a fully functioning human.
"Pro-lifers" keep harping on this whole "is it alive" thing like it actually even matters. It's the only slightly valid point they have, yet it still makes no difference.
It's illegal in South Dakota now,
the govenor signed the bill.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11705496/from/RL.4/
(soon to head to the Supreme Court)
IT HAS BEGUN!!!
Mortal Kombat!!!
Originally posted by sithsaber408
It's illegal in South Dakota now,the govenor signed the bill.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11705496/from/RL.4/
(soon to head to the Supreme Court)[B] IT HAS BEGUN!!!
Mortal Kombat!!! [/B]
Was only a matter of time.
is it comprehensible.....
Yeah, what a bright, caring bunch those South Dakotan politicians are.
Now women can't have abortions even if they're raped. What a great world we're living in.
It's got to the point where pro-lifers want laws passed just so they can go "HAHA! WE WON!" rather than thinking if it will be good or bad, as this proves. So hyped up that they've gained a barbaric decision that they don't realise it IS infact a barbaric decision.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It's got to the point where pro-lifers want laws passed just so they can go "HAHA! WE WON!" rather than thinking if it will be good or bad, as this proves. So hyped up that they've gained a barbaric decision that they don't realise it IS infact a barbaric decision.-AC
Please understand that a lot of pro-lifers would be against this law. Not all of us want to force rape victims to give birth. I am against this new law, I think it's sick. I feel that every woman in Sth Dakota should leave.
I also heard that this law would give rapists rights to their child. They could file for custody, and have a say in the childs upbringing. This is what sickens me the most, rapists should have no rights, especially to children.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You are using the wrong words and terms. There is a difference between being alive and having a life.Every born human has a life. No foetus has a life, it's just alive. As for comotose people, they have zero quality of life, they're nothing more than vegetables if they can't survive without a machine. Which is why people often have the plug pulled, because whilst they are ALIVE, they have no life left.
-AC
I do believe I am beginning to understand what you mean, although I don't actually agree. 🙂