@guest_ I did not avoid the question asked. It is clearly marked at the beginning of my statement. Here it is again for you “no they shouldn’t be required to continue to sustain life”. You must have misinterpretated my points so let me reexplain them. A brain dead patient, that of which doctors state have little to no chance of returning consciousness, does not meet the criteria of life due to their lack of response to stimuli. This means that their nerves do not react to the changes done to them. This is why pupils fix and dilate and reflexes disappear. Now in a developing fetus, nerves are created and develop within the first month. The neural tube is completely formed by the end of the second month. This means it meets the criteria of life. Now, because it happened last time I will reiterate to ensure it is known. My answer to your questions is..

My answer to @guest_ is this: no they shouldn’t be required to continue to sustain life. 1) in most cases, there has been a either a DNR option presented to the patient or a discussion between the patient and the family that says what they would want. in cases that this hasn’t occurred, it is a very grey area. But if the person has discussed or opted to receive no additional care you must follow their desires because it is their choice (which is key in this debate here because the baby did not make the choice). 2) in most cases, doctors do not discuss pulling the plug unless there is no brain activity. With the lack of brain activity, they have no functions that the brain would control and one of those functions is the acclimation and response to stimuli. This response to stimuli is a part of the definition of life and thus they biologically do not meet the criteria to be considered alive.

A parasite is still a living thing so we agree that it is indeed a living thing. It is as you call it a “human” parasite so we agree that it is indeed a human. So it can be reasoned that it is indeed a human life and thus still falls under the statute that you cannot end a human life prematurely by the hands of man.

And the science behind life is definitely important because the basis of many pro-choice arguments is that the “fetus” is not a live person and can be treated as a “clump of cells” or a parasite. The truth behind the matter is that you are correct that the “clump of cells” is alive, and due to the fact that at conception, the cells have 26 chromosomes of the identical structure to the human genome meaning it is a human clump of cells and that by reason means it is a human life. And by the common law of humanity, it is wrong to end a human life. @guest_ wrote a nice essay on how the science is irrelevant but science is the only true structure that can not be altered by mere opinion. And thus, by using science, one can provide evidence to show that a “fetus” is indeed a human life from conception and thus the only debate is whether it is acceptable to end a human life by the hand of man.

They do not meet the criteria of life due to the fact that they cannot replicate on their own and require a different cell to do the replication.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elk_Bath

Great intellectual addition to the conversation. I will say that I do realize that the substitution of a variable does not make that number a real number so there may be an issue there. However, your great intellect out weighs my own and so I will drop the sword and shield of this fight and bow down to the great Bethorien for it is their intelligence that all others, including myself, envy for the entirety of ones life

False. When using mathematics, the substitution of a variable for a negative number allows it to be used as a positive number. Engineering Calculus I and II, Engineering Physics, and Advanced Math professor have taught me that four times over again.

And also the rule that is applyied isn’t sqrt(ab)=sqrt(a)*sqrt(b). The rule applied is -1*-1=1 and sqrt(a^2)=a.

Okay set x = -1
1=sqrt(1)
1=Sqrt(x*x)
1=Sqrt(x^2)
1=x
Sub back in -1
1=-1
There’s your proof.

It didn’t add a square. It has -1*-1 which is equal to (-1)^2. Then cancel the squares.

Beautifully done lol

Bleh. Bloody android master race arse hole

And also @willfree regulations and checks and balances do not stimulate the economy which is what every legistlature promises and thus why they never get passed. You can restrict people to charge less for things while also promising them that they while have a better economy.

Here’s a video I think explains it very well ... https://youtu.be/yTjnpJvZrwM

It’s expensiveness in the US for that reason. And the problem is that companies hold shareholders first no matter what situation you are in. so even with government subsidies, you have that and prices go up and then grandma can’t afford her medication because the medication is now the same price plus the government subsidies. Because it’s higher profits. The difference is, that the majority of people are also hurt in the second situations.

To all the people who say to invest in social areas instead, like healthcare and education. Really look into what happens when the government does that. It doesn’t make it any more affordable. It just encourages those institutions to raise their prices because they know it’s getting paid for by the government no matter what. It doesn’t really help anything and it hurts the middle class even more because they don’t get the government subsidies but do get the large bill. Not to sound like I’m saying you’re stupid or ignorant. I just want to encourage you to do research into what happens

I’ve never seen this one. So it is not old to me. Thus, to me, it was worth being posted.

Ahh okay. very good. I agree. Lol

I’ll be 100% honest I don’t know the best alternative. I’m not perfect and don’t know the answer. But I do know that just because there isn’t an alternstive doesn’t mean we just let it happen. I think the magazine is glorifying this girl who is obese. I wouldn’t ban overweight people from doing anything. But I wouldn’t publicize a piece of media that shows obesity in a positive light. Should they be able to become a model? Sure. For clothing plus sized clothing that’s fine. Should they be on the cover of a Magazine that is obviously trying to promote body acceptance for “non-convention” body types? No. Because that normalizes unhealthy behavior.

Am I saying shun all the fat people. Shun all the people who don’t look a certain way, absolutely not. That’s taking it to the other side of the extreme. Don’t shun it but don’t promote it either.

@Guest_ your ideology is what many consider the downfall of society as it is. Just because someone has the right to do something doesn’t mean they should promote the social acceptance of that thing. If you choose to be fat and obese that is In your right to do so. If you choose to have sex with HIV positive people that is within your right to do so. But to promote such activities SHOULD be frowned upon. People are influenced easily and look to outlets to tell them what should be accepted and what they should look like. Whether you aren’t trying to promote it or not, placing an obese person on the cover of a magazine is glorifying it and saying it is okay to be obese and unhealthy.