A question for the anti-choice crowd.

[Boss]

Except viability has nothing to do with fending for one's self, and providing one's own needs. It specifically defines the ability of a fetus' biological functions to operate without the host organism - respiration, digestion, circulation, etc. And you know this. However, this conflicts with your contention that it is synonymous with an actual infant, so you want to pretend that viability is referring to something that it is not.

You can't tell me exactly when a given fetus is able to meet your criteria and you can't guarantee any absolute result. Just because a fetus has passed your arbitrary threshold doesn't guarantee the can meet your criteria.... in fact, may fetuses don't. Some fetuses are born, become infants and have to be put on life support in order to make it. So there simply isn't a magical line in the sand where a fetus becomes "viable" and it is totally dependent upon the conditions and about a million different variables that cannot be predicted or assumed.

 

[Czernobog]

Except viability has nothing to do with fending for one's self, and providing one's own needs. It specifically defines the ability of a fetus' biological functions to operate without the host organism - respiration, digestion, circulation, etc. And you know this. However, this conflicts with your contention that it is synonymous with an actual infant, so you want to pretend that viability is referring to something that it is not.

You can't tell me exactly when a given fetus is able to meet your criteria and you can't guarantee any absolute result. Just because a fetus has passed your arbitrary threshold doesn't guarantee the can meet your criteria.... in fact, may fetuses don't. Some fetuses are born, become infants and have to be put on life support in order to make it. So there simply isn't a magical line in the sand where a fetus becomes "viable" and it is totally dependent upon the conditions and about a million different variables that cannot be predicted or assumed.

It is not my threshold. It is the threshold of medical professionals. Tell us again, how it is liberals who ignore science, and medicine?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Boss]

Does an infant, illness notwithstanding, circulate blood on its own? Does it breathe? Does its digestive system function?

Some do and some don't. These are not criteria to determine if they are human beings. How would YOU like it if we declared some arbitrary expectation of function to determine if YOU are a "viable human being" or not? What if we stated that if you don't develop blond hair and blue eyes by age 4, you're not a viable human being?

 

[Divine Wind]

Nonsense... Show me one example of a newly-born infant who is capable of sustaining it's life without assistance from another human. A newborn is completely dependent on it's mother (or someone) for months or years to come.....

Hence, the difference.

 

[Boss]

Tell us again, how it is liberals who ignore science, and medicine?

It is liberals who ignore science and medicine. They deny that a fetus or embryo is even a human being. They want to apply caveats and artificial abstract concepts to the human being to make it less than human. They want to deny the most basic human rights to the most precious and innocent human life of all... and simply, for the sake of vanity and convenience.

 

[chikenwing]

Well, okay... let's look at the medical definition:

Capable of living; denoting a fetus sufficiently developed to live outside the uterus.
A newborn infant is totally unable to live independently on it's own. As a matter of fact, there are 26-year-olds who are unable to live independently on their own. Likewise, there are normal healthy infants dying every day of SIDS because they couldn't live independently outside the womb. So "viability" even by the medical definition, is subjective.

Only to non-scientific political agendas. The fact remains that a fetus, is completely dependent upon it's mother up to a certain stage whereupon it can survive independent of that mother albeit still with the need of outside assistance. The definition is clear: Capable of living; denoting a fetus sufficiently developed to live outside the uterus.

Nonsense... Show me one example of a newly-born infant who is capable of sustaining it's life without assistance from another human. A newborn is completely dependent on it's mother (or someone) for months or years to come.

You are applying an unreasonable expectation to a developing human being. We could simply wait until the infant is born and give them an SAT exam... if they fail, we can deem they aren't viable human beings. But you see, this would be an unreasonable expectation. In time, the organism will be able to pass SAT exams... in time, the fetus will be able to carry on functions of it's vital organs. It's all a matter of time to develop.

Does an infant, illness notwithstanding, circulate blood on its own? Does it breathe? Does its digestive system function?

Then it is, in fact, medically surviving on its own. It is viable. You just want viability to mean something other than what it means.

Tell us, again, how it is liberals who ignore science, and medicine?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Viability has no relevance, same with the can't afford excuse.living growing human life is ended,anything else is denying ones own exsistsnce.

 

[Czernobog]

Well, okay... let's look at the medical definition:

Capable of living; denoting a fetus sufficiently developed to live outside the uterus.
A newborn infant is totally unable to live independently on it's own. As a matter of fact, there are 26-year-olds who are unable to live independently on their own. Likewise, there are normal healthy infants dying every day of SIDS because they couldn't live independently outside the womb. So "viability" even by the medical definition, is subjective.

Only to non-scientific political agendas. The fact remains that a fetus, is completely dependent upon it's mother up to a certain stage whereupon it can survive independent of that mother albeit still with the need of outside assistance. The definition is clear: Capable of living; denoting a fetus sufficiently developed to live outside the uterus.

Nonsense... Show me one example of a newly-born infant who is capable of sustaining it's life without assistance from another human. A newborn is completely dependent on it's mother (or someone) for months or years to come.

You are applying an unreasonable expectation to a developing human being. We could simply wait until the infant is born and give them an SAT exam... if they fail, we can deem they aren't viable human beings. But you see, this would be an unreasonable expectation. In time, the organism will be able to pass SAT exams... in time, the fetus will be able to carry on functions of it's vital organs. It's all a matter of time to develop.

Does an infant, illness notwithstanding, circulate blood on its own? Does it breathe? Does its digestive system function?

Then it is, in fact, medically surviving on its own. It is viable. You just want viability to mean something other than what it means.

Tell us, again, how it is liberals who ignore science, and medicine?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Viability has no relevance, same with the can't afford excuse.living growing human life is ended,anything else is denying ones own exsistsnce.

Okay. You're entitled your opinion. So when are you going to start withholding your support for candidates who do not publicly profess their agreement with you position, including imposing punishments on women who seek abortions.

So far, only one of you internet warriors claims that he is taking his views into the "real world" by writing his own name into the ballot.

What about you? When are you going to insist the candidates you support espouse your position?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Czernobog]

Does an infant, illness notwithstanding, circulate blood on its own? Does it breathe? Does its digestive system function?

Some do and some don't. These are not criteria to determine if they are human beings. How would YOU like it if we declared some arbitrary expectation of function to determine if YOU are a "viable human being" or not? What if we stated that if you don't develop blond hair and blue eyes by age 4, you're not a viable human being?

Not even remotely the same thing. Why do you hate science?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Czernobog]

Tell us again, how it is liberals who ignore science, and medicine?

It is liberals who ignore science and medicine. They deny that a fetus or embryo is even a human being. They want to apply caveats and artificial abstract concepts to the human being to make it less than human. They want to deny the most basic human rights to the most precious and innocent human life of all... and simply, for the sake of vanity and convenience.

Yet, when it comes to viability, you completely ignore the science. Why do you hate science?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[chikenwing]

Tell us again, how it is liberals who ignore science, and medicine?

It is liberals who ignore science and medicine. They deny that a fetus or embryo is even a human being. They want to apply caveats and artificial abstract concepts to the human being to make it less than human. They want to deny the most basic human rights to the most precious and innocent human life of all... and simply, for the sake of vanity and convenience.

Yet, when it comes to viability, you completely ignore the science. Why do you hate science?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Now your just grasping you should stop.

 

[Chuz Life]

Tell us again, how it is liberals who ignore science, and medicine?

It is liberals who ignore science and medicine. They deny that a fetus or embryo is even a human being. They want to apply caveats and artificial abstract concepts to the human being to make it less than human. They want to deny the most basic human rights to the most precious and innocent human life of all... and simply, for the sake of vanity and convenience.

Yet, when it comes to viability, you completely ignore the science. Why do you hate science?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Our fetal homicide laws make it a crime of murder to kill a prenatal child in a criminal act. The laws says absolutely nothing about viability.

Proof positive that the whole viability aspect is a red herring.

 

[Czernobog]

Tell us again, how it is liberals who ignore science, and medicine?

It is liberals who ignore science and medicine. They deny that a fetus or embryo is even a human being. They want to apply caveats and artificial abstract concepts to the human being to make it less than human. They want to deny the most basic human rights to the most precious and innocent human life of all... and simply, for the sake of vanity and convenience.

Yet, when it comes to viability, you completely ignore the science. Why do you hate science?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Our fetal homicide laws make it a crime of murder to kill a prenatal child in a criminal act. The laws says absolutely nothing about viability.

Proof positive that the whole viability aspect is a red herring.

Except except every one of those laws specifically exclude abortion, and specifically restrict their definitions to be only applicable during the course of a violent crime, making the fetal homicide laws the red herring.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Boss]

Does an infant, illness notwithstanding, circulate blood on its own? Does it breathe? Does its digestive system function?

Some do and some don't. These are not criteria to determine if they are human beings. How would YOU like it if we declared some arbitrary expectation of function to determine if YOU are a "viable human being" or not? What if we stated that if you don't develop blond hair and blue eyes by age 4, you're not a viable human being?

Not even remotely the same thing. Why do you hate science?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

It's EXACTLY the same thing. It is me applying my criteria for your viability as a legitimate person. I love Science... you obviously don't care about Science.... you want to exterminate human beings for vanity and convenience and exploit science to justify your act. I've exposed that and now you are full of insipid little retorts like the devoid-of-argument little twerp you are.

 

[Czernobog]

Does an infant, illness notwithstanding, circulate blood on its own? Does it breathe? Does its digestive system function?

Some do and some don't. These are not criteria to determine if they are human beings. How would YOU like it if we declared some arbitrary expectation of function to determine if YOU are a "viable human being" or not? What if we stated that if you don't develop blond hair and blue eyes by age 4, you're not a viable human being?

Not even remotely the same thing. Why do you hate science?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

It's EXACTLY the same thing. It is me applying my criteria for your viability as a legitimate person. I love Science... you obviously don't care about Science.... you want to exterminate human beings for vanity and convenience and exploit science to justify your act. I've exposed that and now you are full of insipid little retorts like the devoid-of-argument little twerp you are.

And, we're down to name-calling. You are dismissed.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Boss]

Yet, when it comes to viability, you completely ignore the science.

Because there is no scientific formula for viability. It's totally subjective and abstract. The forum is totally open for you to make your case... so far, all you've presented is the medical definition of "viable" which is also subjective and abstract.

You're the one denying Science... and even worse, you are using Science incorrectly to further the argument you've failed to make. Viability has nothing to do with what Science says something is. The human fetus or embryo is a human in the state of being... a human being. Viability has nothing to do with that. It is your subjective criteria you're trying to put on Science in order to make your argument and you're failing to pull that off.

 

[Boss]

And, we're down to name-calling.

I guess you shouldn't have asked "why do you hate science?"

You see, that's going to prompt some name-calling from me every time. Sorry... just is.

 

[Czernobog]

Yet, when it comes to viability, you completely ignore the science.

Because there is no scientific formula for viability. It's totally subjective and abstract. The forum is totally open for you to make your case... so far, all you've presented is the medical definition of "viable" which is also subjective and abstract.

You're the one denying Science... and even worse, you are using Science incorrectly to further the argument you've failed to make. Viability has nothing to do with what Science says something is. The human fetus or embryo is a human in the state of being... a human being. Viability has nothing to do with that. It is your subjective criteria you're trying to put on Science in order to make your argument and you're failing to pull that off.

Actually it it you who is trying to mix science with by your limited understanding of philosophy. There is a scientific, medical definition of what a "being" is, and it is not that metaphysical crap "the state of being'.

But, hey. You go ahead, and misuse science all you like. It is not my responsibility to correct your beliefs.

I just find it offensive that you cannot extend to me the same courtesy.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Czernobog]

And, we're down to name-calling.

I guess you shouldn't have asked "why do you hate science?"

You see, that's going to prompt some name-calling from me every time. Sorry... just is.

I understand. When you run out of reason, you resort to name calling. You are dismissed.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Boss]

Yet, when it comes to viability, you completely ignore the science.

Because there is no scientific formula for viability. It's totally subjective and abstract. The forum is totally open for you to make your case... so far, all you've presented is the medical definition of "viable" which is also subjective and abstract.

You're the one denying Science... and even worse, you are using Science incorrectly to further the argument you've failed to make. Viability has nothing to do with what Science says something is. The human fetus or embryo is a human in the state of being... a human being. Viability has nothing to do with that. It is your subjective criteria you're trying to put on Science in order to make your argument and you're failing to pull that off.

Actually it it you who is trying to mix science with by your limited understanding of philosophy. There is a scientific, medical definition of what a "being" is, and it is not that metaphysical crap "the state of being'.

But, hey. You go ahead, and misuse science all you like. It is not my responsibility to correct your beliefs.

I just find it offensive that you cannot extend to me the same courtesy.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

LMAO... there is nothing "metaphysical" about physical state of being. Material things either exist in a physical state of being or they don't exist physically. I profess, I do not know what the medical definition of a "being" would be if it differs from the physical science definition... if you want to present that, I welcome it.

There is nothing wrong with MY beliefs that you need to correct. You are the one who is contradicting Science and trying to exploit it to do your bidding. I am the one exposing that and it is becoming frustrating for you.

Science does not determine when something is a human being on the basis of it's "viability" or it's "personhood" .....these are YOUR criteria and they are subjective abstracts.

 

[Boss]

I understand. When you run out of reason, you resort to name calling. You are dismissed.

I haven't run out of reason, I am still schooling your ass up one side of the thread and down the other with sound reason and Science. Any "name-calling" is the result of your smart-ass remarks to me in this process. I just don't take shit off people... never have, never will. Avoid smarting off at me, asking why I hate Science while you're fucking Science in the ass and we won't have that problem.