Well, my lack or proper articulation has created a slight uphill battle. But your arrogance isn't benefitting you very well. I would suggest dropping it if you actually do hope to win this.
"You still haven't explained how you went from talking about fetuses to babies."
The baby is a separate organism from the mother. The fetus/embryo is a separate organism from the mother.
"Right, so you haven't explained how the immune reaction ISN'T the mother's, since it's the mother's blood that nurturing the fetus's cells."
I never said it wasn't, I said it was used by the embryo/fetus.
"Oh, and the embryo does have full abilities to maintain life? If we took it out of the mother it would do completely fine on its own from that point on? No, huh? Didn't think so. The fetus needs the mother to survive as much as the clone needs the machines.
Tell me how the embryo has anymore potential to reproduce than the clone? Neither are in any condition to be getting it on, by themselves at least. It's simple enough to extract sex cells from from the clone and mix them around in a petridish."
I'm rather tired of redundantly explaining how the brain works. What we can do with machines is not enough to keep a person alive without a brain. They would die. In fact they would probably go into a diabetic shock in die. If not by some other method. That was what I meant by the statement.
Look up potential and you'll understand why. If the clone never had a brain, as you describe it. Than the clone never had the potential to reproduce. I will grant you that I was in fact false in my assumption that the clone would not have a metabolism, or be able to react. It would in fact have a metabolism as the cells would be generating the metabolism, even if its digestion would not be breaking down the glucose. Although it having solely being granted glucose would be a dangerous endeavor, as their would be no insulin to moniter the blood-glucose level. I'm really just bantering on in terms of science, solely because this has become to redudant to really care. I repeat my argument, than you repeat yours, than I repeat mine. And so on into ad infinitum.
"Show me the science and logic that shows that bacteria cells have brains and that that individual cells have awareness (albeit in a lesser form than our own ) that is more than reflex reactions. There's no evidence for it, so you can't use it to prove your theories!
You seem to be ignoring a lot of your own creed by filling your ramblings with philosophical nuggets of fun."
Read a biology book. That may help you understand some of what you speak of. Instead of making mistakes like the "independence" of the autonomic nervous system. I couldn't even help but notice that the one person who had the creditials to argue it against me, didn't even respond to my statement back to them. I also have one last question for since when did awareness matter? And since when did it ever exist?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by FS
On the subject, does anyone know if a person who's braindead (say, after an accident), but kept alive by artificial means, still has rights? And do doctors have to go through legal procedures before turning off the machinery?
|
You weren't assine so I'll try to not appear like a dick. When someone constitutes braindead they still have portions of their brain function. They merely do not have enough of the brain functioning. The heart still beats, which does require the brain for it to increase, as is evident when someone begins flat lining. And the autonomic nervous system is usually still active. Problem is a brain dead person has lost a lot of their ability to use things that are voluntary. Among this is breathing, as breathing is only involuntary when the amount of carbon dioxide in the blood is too high. As such the person is still alive.