Foca

[BFDD]

Because even with the machines a brain-dead individual is not able to perform all the functions of life. There's the difference.

Still not seeing the difference. Remove the machines and the brain dead person dies. Remove the mother and the fetus dies. It obviously is having trouble functioning without the mother just the same as the brain dead person cannot function without machines.

Maybe we have differing ideas about the functions of life? To me it appears as though a fetus without a brain has the same functions as an adult who is brain dead.

 

[SuperBowser]

I understand that. But I'm using a different definition of abortion, the one that is relavent to what we are talking about.

Sorry if I was confusing.

Well the definition you're using is false... but ok.

You are basically saying ''Ignoring all natural forms of abortion, abortion only occurs under unnatural circumstances.'' Aside from the word natural being really debatable (RDK has already stated this), it's not really relevant to this topic.

Uhh, I'll leave the rest of your posts with RDK . I think there's quite a lot he can say....

 

[Oracle]

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm simply using abortion to describe only the use of medication or other means by a person to prevent the birth of a fetus. I acknowledge that by definition, abortion occurs naturally, but I'm not arguing about that.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Still not seeing the difference. Remove the machines and the brain dead person dies. Remove the mother and the fetus dies. It obviously is having trouble functioning without the mother just the same as the brain dead person cannot function without machines.

Maybe we have differing ideas about the functions of life? To me it appears as though a fetus without a brain has the same functions as an adult who is brain dead.

It's not about dying, and no that's really not true.


I was assuming basic biological knowledge when I made that post (I believe that qualifies as common knowledge).

A cell-based structure, use of energy, use of nutrition, production of waste materials from both, response to simulation, self-regulation, reproduction, ability to pass traits to off-string, and a hereditary history.

Source


So, the fact that they can't survive on their own is irrelevant, quite a few parasitic/symbiotic organisms cannot survive without what they have a relationship with, it's the ability to perform these functions of life that counts.

A fetus can (after a certain point in development, I'm not sure of the exact biological cut-off), a brain-dead person on a machine cannot.

 

[BFDD]

(after a certain point in development, I'm not sure of the exact biological cut-off)

This really is the key point. After a certain point it does differ, but until that point it is not any different than a brain dead adult.

The original quote I was arguing against:

Really, this is a useless aside because whether the fetus is alive is irrelevant. It's accepted that it's living because it would be impossible for it to develop if it wasn't alive.

I asked why not draw the line somewhere else. You now admit that to a certain point in development a fetus does not fit the biological definition of a living human.

I don't know much of anything about embryology so I can't argue to much depth. But I have made my point that there many places to draw the line. Using the biological definition of life may be a better place to draw the line than the medical definition. I suspect both definition are probably around the same time, but again I'm not really qualified to comment.

 

[adumbrodeus]

This really is the key point. After a certain point it does differ, but until that point it is not any different than a brain dead adult.

The original quote I was arguing against:


I asked why not draw the line somewhere else. You now admit that to a certain point in development a fetus does not fit the biological definition of a living human.

I don't know much of anything about embryology so I can't argue to much depth. But I have made my point that there many places to draw the line. Using the biological definition of life may be a better place to draw the line than the medical definition. I suspect both definition are probably around the same time, but again I'm not really qualified to comment.

Ok, I see what you're getting at, the "impossible to develop" was a general idea of "at some point", not "throughout the process", though I do not deny the possibility, I have no specific background in embryology either.


The medical definition is the same btw (probably because of the fields being so close), though since medicine is a practical field it uses other criteria to describe people as dead because in almost all cases individuals with the conditions described can no longer perform the functions of life.