One of these things is not like the others

[sangha]

So you can quote a law that defines brain function for the purpose of defining when human life begins, right?

I'll wait.

And yet again, mac tries to conflate the words "human life" with "a person". Human life gets no protection under the law; only "people" do.

That's why I can have my appendix removed (my appendix is alive and human - ie human life) without any penalty under the law.

 

[sangha]

Soooo, define the "functioning brain" that fits your law for "brain life".

And now mac has to resort to making up new phrases, in this case "brain life" which cannot be found anywhere in the law.

And mac dishonestly asks about what the law says, while ignoring that the law defines "person" as a human that has been born. His arguments hypocritically ignores inconvenient facts while making up new ones to support the anti-choice doctrine of limiting peoples' freedom.

 

[David D.]

And yet again, mac tries to conflate the words "human life" with "a person". Human life gets no protection under the law; only "people" do.

That's why I can have my appendix removed (my appendix is alive and human - ie human life) without any penalty under the law.

No use in muddling over words, ect.

I think the main argument is that anti-abortionists consider a 'person' to be a 'person' during all stages following conception.

In other words, I am me now, I was a kid, I was a baby, I was an embryo, and I was a zygote. They're all stages of 'me'.

 

[sangha]

No use in muddling over words, ect.

I think the main argument is that anti-abortionists consider a 'person' to be a 'person' during all stages following conception.

In other words, I am me now, I was a kid, I was a baby, I was an embryo, and I was a zygote. They're all stages of 'me'.

In essence, that's it. They do consider all stages to be a "person", but at the same time, they know that the law does not. That's why they have use sophistic conflations of the language in order to make their case.

 

[mac]

And now mac has to resort to making up new phrases, in this case "brain life" which cannot be found anywhere in the law.

And you dishonestly equate that to me....That is major's concept, not mine. Try to keep up. you're letting your witch hunt blind you.

And mac dishonestly asks about what the law says, while ignoring that the law defines "person" as a human that has been born. His arguments hypocritically ignores inconvenient facts while making up new ones to support the anti-choice doctrine of limiting peoples' freedom.

calling me dishonest as many times as you can is not going to hide your dishonesty.

 

[MKULTRABOY]

And mac dishonestly asks about what the law says, while ignoring that the law defines "person" as a human that has been born. His arguments hypocritically ignores inconvenient facts while making up new ones to support the anti-choice doctrine of limiting peoples' freedom.

calling me dishonest as many times as you can is not going to hide your dishonesty.

this is retarded..... :|

 

[sangha]

And you dishonestly equate that to me....That is major's concept, not mine. Try to keep up. you're letting your witch hunt blind you.



calling me dishonest as many times as you can is not going to hide your dishonesty.

You are now left with nothing but ad homs. Your position is so weak you have to deny that you made a new term (ie "brain life") even though you said it right here

Soooo, define the "functioning brain" that fits your law for "brain life".

 

[mac]

You are now left with nothing but ad homs. Your position is so weak you have to deny that you made a new term (ie "brain life") even though you said it right here

No, for far longer than you've been posting here, major has been promoting his "brain life" concept yet has never defined at what level a brain must function at in order to qulify as "brain alive" which, in his mind is the opposite of brain death. You don't understand what's going on here. "Brain life" is his concept, not mine. You are confused.

 

[sangha]

No, for far longer than you've been posting here, major has been promoting his "brain life" concept yet has never defined at what level a brain must function at in order to qulify as "brain alive" which, in his mind is the opposite of brain death. You don't understand what's going on here. "Brain life" is his concept, not mine. You are confused.

The only mention of brain life that I see in this thread is in your post.

And I did a search and majora$$hole hasn't used the term "brain life" in the last month even though he has posted in abortion threads during that time. It looks like your attempt to pass the blame for inventing that term has been proven to be a lie

 

[mac]

The only mention of brain life that I see in this thread is in your post.

And I did a search and majora$$hole hasn't used the term "brain life" in the last month even though he has posted in abortion threads during that time. It looks like your attempt to pass the blame for inventing that term has been proven to be a lie

What else would you call the opposite of brain death? Good grief.

 

[Bodi]

What else would you call the opposite of brain death? Good grief.

sangha thinks that absense of something is proof...

...

 

[majora$$hole]

Soooo, define the "functioning brain" that fits your law for "brain life".

look at the definition the medical and law communities have, that is what i go with.

 

[majora$$hole]

So you can quote a law that defines brain function for the purpose of defining when human life begins, right?

I'll wait.

that is my point for brain function IS in the wording of the law for the exact opposite condition.

 

[majora$$hole]

And you dishonestly equate that to me....That is major's concept, not mine. Try to keep up. you're letting your witch hunt blind you.



calling me dishonest as many times as you can is not going to hide your dishonesty.

you are right mac it is my concept which is the ONLY logical conclusion for the law of when a human life begins IF you take into consideration the exact opposite condition of human life ending when the brain dies.

 

[majora$$hole]

You are now left with nothing but ad homs. Your position is so weak you have to deny that you made a new term (ie "brain life") even though you said it right here

sangha,
i coined the term "brain life" to support my position that the law for death is "brain death" so it's only logical to have the law for the EXACT opposite condition have the same criteria ie: "brain life" imo.

 

[majora$$hole]

No, for far longer than you've been posting here, major has been promoting his "brain life" concept yet has never defined at what level a brain must function at in order to qulify as "brain alive" which, in his mind is the opposite of brain death. You don't understand what's going on here. "Brain life" is his concept, not mine. You are confused.

WRONG i have MANY times defined that as soon as there is a brain to function is good enough for me or if there is a way to measure brain function inside the womb then i say the point at which it starts to show functioning is good enough for me. either way it is FAR closer to the wording in the law for the opposite condition making both laws support oneanother.

 

[majora$$hole]

What else would you call the opposite of brain death? Good grief.

now you are starting to get it mac!

 

[mac]

now you are starting to get it mac!

I understand what you think you are saying, I just don't agree with it.

 

[majora$$hole]

I understand what you think you are saying, I just don't agree with it.

and i don't agree with yours, so there.

 

[mac]

WRONG i have MANY times defined that as soon as there is a brain to function is good enough for me or if there is a way to measure brain function inside the womb then i say the point at which it starts to show functioning is good enough for me. either way it is FAR closer to the wording in the law for the opposite condition making both laws support oneanother.

And then you go on to say that it must not only be present, but functioning at a certain level....despite that that level can not adequately be measured in utero. So, if your original statement is true, then you oppose abortion after 10-12 weeks gestational age?

 

[mac]

and i don't agree with yours, so there.

Didn't see that coming....

 

[majora$$hole]

And then you go on to say that it must not only be present, but functioning at a certain level....despite that that level can not adequately be measured in utero. So, if your original statement is true, then you oppose abortion after 10-12 weeks gestational age?

i oppose abortion after the brain is present with VERY few exceptions But it should STILL be available for those who NEED it imo.

 

[majora$$hole]

Didn't see that coming....

same back at ya mac.

 

[sangha]

What else would you call the opposite of brain death? Good grief.

A "functioning brain" which is the term that has been used in this thread repeatedly

sangha,
i coined the term "brain life" to support my position that the law for death is "brain death" so it's only logical to have the law for the EXACT opposite condition have the same criteria ie: "brain life" imo.

You haven't used that term in this thread. You, and others, have been using the term "brain function" and "functioning brain"

 

[Bodi]

A "functioning brain" which is the term that has been used in this thread repeatedly



You haven't used that term in this thread. You, and others, have been using the term "brain function" and "functioning brain"

Obviously you are not reading well... he said he has been using that term since before you started posting here and that has nothing to do if the term has been used in this thread or not. Why do you even bother trying?