Abortion...what should be the line?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
In a certain sense, you're right. The definition of a term is a matter of linguistics and essentially reflects how it is used.

Then again, most biologists do use "human" or "human being" in precisely the way I said:

http://web.mit.edu/king-lab/www/research/protein%20definitions-H.html (scroll down to find "Homo sapiens" )

You can find ...[text shortened]... uman beings do not have rights and so need to try and redefine what the term means.

You're doing the redefining; no society has ever accepted the concept that a zygote/embyro is a human being. And not just legally; the absence of funeral rites for miscarriages would be one simple example.

Originally posted by no1marauder
That's quite simply false as shown by the article. The prior definition became inadequate when technology was introduced which could keep someone breathing or a heart beating by artificial means for an indefinite period. You are putting the cart before the horse; the new definition had ramifications (though it need not have been codified into law and ind ...[text shortened]... biological reality.

Your "dead cow" point was shown to be moronic and remains so.

As always, a point is moronic simply because your royal highness decrees it (infallibly?)

The "dead cow" point shows precisely why your logic is flawed about using a specification of human death to define what a human being is. I can't help it if you're too wrapped up in your own ego to notice it.

Keeping someone breathing or a heart beating by artificial means for an indefinite period has social and legal ramifications -- which is precisely why a new "MEDICAL" (what's with you and caps?) definition was needed. Your own article makes it very clear -- why do you think the author wrote about transplantation? Medicine is a practical science. If all doctors needed was a biological definition of death applicable to humans, the old one was just fine. It's precisely because of it's social and legal ramifications in the practice of medicine that it needed to be changed.

You're the one putting the cart before the horse. You keep pretending that doctors are some ivory-tower intellectuals who come up with purely scientific "facts" that were then reflected in changed laws. Nothing could be further from the truth. Doctors work in a social, interpersonal and legal environment -- it is precisely that which distinguishes their discipline from the pure biologist's. Social and legal concerns are a doctor's concerns. A brain-dead person is not dead in the same biological way a squashed insect is. The equivalence is a socio-legal equivalence; not a biological one.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You're doing the redefining; no society has ever accepted the concept that a zygote/embyro is a human being. And not just legally; the absence of funeral rites for miscarriages would be one simple example.

I notice you left out "fetus" from your list.

In the days before the development of embryology, many cultures simply didn't know that embryos were alive till "quickening", so naturally there was no need for funeral rites. You are being disingenous in using that as evidence for your case.

EDIT: And, btw, there are funeral rites for miscarriages:

(Catholic) http://www.rcab.org/OfficeForWorship/PastoralNotes/Deceased_stillborn_miscarried_infants.html

(Hindu) http://www.sacred-texts.com/tantra/maha/maha10.htm

Together, that covers about one-third of the earth's population. Try again?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
As always, a point is moronic simply because your royal highness decrees it (infallibly?)

The "dead cow" point shows precisely why your logic is flawed about using a specification of human death to define what a human being is. I can't help it if you're too wrapped up in your own ego to notice it.

Keeping someone breathing or a heart beating by ect is. The equivalence is a socio-legal equivalence; not a biological one.

You're a tiresome fraud. As the article shows, the definition of human death is a description of biological reality. Please try to actually respond to this part:

What happens when a human, dog, squid, bee, or tulip dies? In each case, the organism breaks down in a fundamental way. Particular systems may break down before others, and the events from the first major system failure to eventual putrefaction clearly involve a process. But somewhere in the continuum that includes both dying and disintegration, the organism as a whole ceases to function. Charles Culver and Bernard Gert have helpfully defined death as "the permanent cessation of functioning of the organism as a whole." The phrase "organism as a whole" does not mean literally the entire organism (since loss of a limb or spleen, say, is compatible with life); it refers to the integrated functioning of most or all of the important subsystems (organ subsystems, in the case of all but the most primitive animals). This, roughly, is the core meaning of "death" as seen from a biological perspective.

Both of the currently recognized standards of death are arguably compatible with this organismic concept. Under the cardiopulmonary standard, death occurs when a patient's heart and lungs have permanently ceased to function -- that is to say, when they no longer support each other or other organ systems. Under the whole-brain standard, a patient is dead when her brainstem no longer orchestrates her vital functions. In either case, the appeal is to the role of a particular organ or system in the functioning of the organism as a whole.

The definition is a recognization of how human beings die i.e. how that organism ceases to function. This isn't terribly species specific - some other species die in the same way and the fact that others species die in the same way is not sufficient to make that a human being. But dying just like a human being does is a necessary condition to being a human being. If you dispute this, please give SOME reason why.

That there are practical ramifications to any fact is hardly a surprise to any of us who don't dwell in LucifersHammer's Land. But it is putting the cart before the horse to claim that the ramifications are the cause of the recognization of the fact. You are continuing to make this simple error (among many others).

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I notice you left out "fetus" from your list.

In the days before the development of embryology, many cultures simply didn't know that embryos were alive till "quickening", so naturally there was no need for funeral rites. You are being disingenous in using that as evidence for your case.

EDIT: And, btw, there are funeral rites for miscarriages: ...[text shortened]... /maha10.htm

Together, that covers about one-third of the earth's population. Try again?

Predictably, your links don't work. We both know that the vast majority of Catholics who have miscarriages don't have funeral rites and never did(I've never heard of such a ceremony in my diocese). I'll bet that most of the ones that have ever been held in the United States have been done since Roe v. Wade and are politically motivated. I'll wager that the same is true for Hindus. So your "one third" claim is so misleading as to be a deliberate falsehood.

EDIT: Link #1 nowhere claims that funeral rites for miscarriages are routinely performed by Catholic clergy. A "Order for Blessing of Parents after Miscarriage (Book of Blessings IX p. 86" isn't a funeral.

I can't find anything in Link #2 that seems to refer to a miscarriage. Could you give a specific quote?

Originally posted by no1marauder
You're a tiresome fraud. As the article shows, the definition of human death is a description of biological reality. Please try to actually respond to this part:

What happens when a human, dog, squid, bee, or tulip dies? In each case, the organism breaks down in a fundamental way. Particular systems may break down before others, and the events from th zation of the fact. You are continuing to make this simple error (among many others).

Here's what you said on page 10:

The Uniform Definition of Death Act defines a dead human being as: ""An individual who has sustained either (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem is dead."

In logical terms:

D: Dead individual
H: Human being
A: irreversible cessation of circulatory & respiratory function
B: irreversible cessation of all the functions of the brain

(1) If (D and H) then (A or B) (from your version of UDDA)
(2) (A or B) is false (since a zygote does not have circulatory or respiratory functions)
(3) Therefore, (D and H) is false.
(4) D is true. (a dead zygote is dead)
(5) Therefore, H is false. (i.e. a zygote is not a human being)

You know what the funny thing is? This entire line of argumentation (and, therefore, our "debate" till this point) is based on your (deliberate?*) misrepresentation of what the UDDA actually says.

Here's what the UDDA actually says:

An individual who has sustained either (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem, is dead. A determination of death must be made in accordance with accepted medical standards.[1]

The UDDA doesn't define what a "dead human being" is. In fact, it doesn't "define" anything at all. Here's what the UDDA actually says in logical terms:

(1'😉 If (A or B) then D

Even if you want to assume (from context) that the UDDA is talking exclusively of human beings, we have:

(1''😉 If (H and (A or B)) then D

It's a relatively simple matter to see that nothing can be inferred about the humanity of the zygote from the UDDA.

As an aside, if the UDDA did actually define what a "dead human being" was (as you falsely claimed), then (1) would be:

(1a) If and only if (D and H) then (A or B)

i.e. the manner of death would be both a necessary and sufficient condition for being a dead human being. So my dead-cows rebuttal would still stand.

---
* Considering you're a lawyer, I do not see how it can be anything but deliberate.
[1] http://www.law.upenn.edu/bll/ulc/fnact99/1980s/udda80.htm

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Here's what you said on page 10:

The Uniform Definition of Death Act defines a dead human being as: ""An individual who has sustained either (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem is dead."

In logical terms:
...[text shortened]... deliberate.
[1] http://www.law.upenn.edu/bll/ulc/fnact99/1980s/udda80.htm

WTF???????? I quoted the same language as you did; how I am "misrepresenting" anything??? Are you really that freaking stupid? And The Uniform Definition of Death Act doesn't "define anything at all" according to you?

You've really slipped off the deep end here.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Predictably, your links don't work. We both know that the vast majority of Catholics who have miscarriages don't have funeral rites and never did(I've never heard of such a ceremony in my diocese). I'll bet that most of the ones that have ever been held in the United States have been done since Roe v. Wade and are politically motivated. I'll wager that t ...[text shortened]... ing in Link #2 that seems to refer to a miscarriage. Could you give a specific quote?

Link #1 nowhere claims that funeral rites for miscarriages are routinely performed by Catholic clergy. A "Order for Blessing of Parents after Miscarriage (Book of Blessings IX p. 86" isn't a funeral.

Try out your own advice once in a while -- learn to read:

3. How should parishes and hospital ministers respond when parents of stillborns or infants who died without baptism request funeral rites?

Odd as it may seem, we have found that this is a request not always understood or honored by priests and other pastoral ministers. As a general principle, the Church encourages funeral rites for unbaptized infants and stillborn babies.

...

7. Is the celebration of Mass for these deceased children appropriate?

The Church offers the celebration of a Funeral Mass for baptized children but also for children who have died before baptism. In the case of unbaptized children certain ritual elements celebrating baptism, e.g. sprinkling with holy water, the use of the pall and incense are omitted. Special prayers are found in the ritual.

Where the Funeral Liturgy in the presence of the body is not possible, a Funeral Mass for deceased children is appropriate after burial.

I can't find anything in Link #2 that seems to refer to a miscarriage. Could you give a specific quote?

Try the "Find (on this page)" feature in Explorer's "Edit" menu.

The relevant portion was:

If there is a miscarriage, or if the child dies immediately on birth, or if a child is born or dies, then the period of uncleanliness is to be reckoned according to the custom of the family.

The point is more clearly elucidated here:
http://www.hknet.org.nz/death-hindu-funerals.html

Panditjee explained about the ten day shraddha ceremony and also explained what should be done when death of a relative occurs in a far away place, when to begin shraddha? It is from the day the news is received. When the news is received but if the body is not found, then make a doll from Kusha grass, and taking the name of the deceased, burn it and place the ashes in water. When a pregnant woman dies, the unborn infant under 7 months, must be taken out and buried and then the woman is cremated. Infants upto 27 months are buried and 28 months and above are cremated. Pre-mature, still-born, miscarriage babies are not cremated but are buried.

A miscarriage is treated in the same way as the death of a child under about 2 1/2 years.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]Link #1 nowhere claims that funeral rites for miscarriages are routinely performed by Catholic clergy. A "Order for Blessing of Parents after Miscarriage (Book of Blessings IX p. 86" isn't a funeral.

Try out your own advice once in a while -- learn to read:

[quote]3. How should parishes and hospital ministers respond when parents of still miscarriage is treated in the same way as the death of a child under about 2 1/2 years.[/b]

LH: As a general principle, the Church encourages funeral rites for unbaptized infants and stillborn babies.


The article differentiates between those categories and miscarriages. You're being deliberately misleading (again).

EDIT: How many funerals for miscarriages have you attended, LH?

Originally posted by no1marauder
WTF???????? I quoted the same language as you did; how I am "misrepresenting" anything??? Are you really that freaking stupid? And The Uniform Definition of Death Act doesn't "define anything at all" according to you?

You've really slipped off the deep end here.

Actually, it's the Uniform Determination of Death Act. And, if you read my post carefully, you'll see how the misrepresentation has been done -- it cannot be any clearer.

Hint: I'm simply using the words of the UDDA alone. You've added the term "defines a 'dead human being' as" -- which is not in the text of the UDDA. In fact, (as my post shows), the UDDA provides the converse condition to the one you've been arguing.

Originally posted by no1marauder
LH: As a general principle, the Church encourages funeral rites for unbaptized infants and stillborn babies.


The article differentiates between those categories and miscarriages. You're being deliberately misleading (again).

EDIT: How many funerals for miscarriages have you attended, LH?

The article differentiates between those categories and miscarriages.

Really? Where?

You're being deliberately misleading (again).

LOL! The irony of it ...

How many funerals for miscarriages have you attended, LH?

None of your business.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Actually, it's the Uniform Determination of Death Act. And, if you read my post carefully, you'll see how the misrepresentation has been done -- it cannot be any clearer.

Hint: I'm simply using the words of the UDDA alone. You've added the term "defines a 'dead human being' as" -- which is not in the text of the UDDA. In fact, (as my post shows), the UDDA provides the converse condition to the one you've been arguing.

So what? I put the text of the Act in quotes and described what it does i.e. defines what a dead human being is. How is that misleading, liar?

no1: The Uniform Definition of Death Act defines a dead human being as: ""An individual who has sustained either (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem is dead."

Where's the quotes, jerkwad?

Originally posted by no1marauder
So what? I put the text of the Act in quotes and described what it does i.e. defines what a dead human being is. How is that misleading, liar?

Because that simply isn't what it does.

"Liar".

EDIT: Why don't you go back to the post (timestamp 10:59) and show us all precisely where I'm "lying"?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Because that simply [b]isn't what it does.

"Liar".[/b]

Are you out of your mind? Seriously.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Because that simply [b]isn't what it does.

"Liar".

EDIT: Why don't you go back to the post (timestamp 10:59) and show us all precisely where I'm "lying"?[/b]

By saying I "misrepresented" anything. That is a lie.