Actually, medically and legally, cessation of brain activity is seen as the definitive sign of death. Even if the heart and lungs of a person are being kept going by artificial means.
I totally agree. Science has advanced so much that we can create artificial hearts and lungs, but the brain is one thing that science has been unable to create which, in my opinion, must be the most valuable piece of the anatomy.
I don't really care if people get abortions or not. I just clicked yes for the logic.
Then is resuscitation bringing a dead person back to life? Death is defined as more than the ceasing of a heartbeat.
nobody said this site had to be light-hearted. it's about voicing an opinion, and seeing if people agree.
You can disagree with it though. It's also thought that a heart beat doesn't make you alive, brain activity does.
Yea I agree with you and the post because, well, you can't disagree with it. Whether you are pro-abortion or not is a different issue, however.
right. i kept my identity private because it is a touchy subject... and interestingly, I AM pro-choice. I think it's the right for a mother to choose. But it doesn't change the fact that I still think it's taking a life.
And besides that, hardly any one pro choice thinks it's ok to have an abortion just because the fetus isn't alive or that a fetus isn't alive.
I'm pro-life, but I'm not sure how I feel about the logic behind this post. Assuming this post is medically accurate, just because the end of life is signified by the ceasing of a heart beat, does not necessarily mean the beginning of life is signified by the start of a heart beat. Seems to be a non sequitur. There are better arguments...
I agree - the first conclusion doesn't logically follow.
I don't remember anything from when I was <1 years old. I don't think I would have minded if I got aborted.
I'm not trying to argue that abortion is wrong, but this logic is flawed. If a mother kills a 6 month old because she's a baby and won't mind, that's still murder.
Only if the brain has formed (It's brain-alive too, because both brain and heart must be dead to constitute death) and heartbeat is controlled by the baby's foetus's cerebellum.
In Islam, abortion is allowed the first few weeks before the baby's heart starts beating. Then I guess after that it's HARAAAAAM.
Omg I read haram in my mom's voice. "Rowanne, don't start eating until everyone's seated, that's HARAM!"
Not sure how this is positive, given the mostly liberal leanings of amiriters.
A fetus' heart starts beating before most women even know they are pregnant. And also, it has no brain at that point, which is, medically speaking, required to be alive.
By that logic, it makes sense. But when you think what the baby is a 5 weeks (when the fetus' heart develops) You really only have a big mess of cells, which hardly resembles a human being :(
I most definitely read "adoring" instead of "aborting" and got really confused.
I don't think it's a life until they can live outside of the womb without support. Usually around 6+ months they can. If the mother is the one keeping the child alive then it should be up to the mother if she wants to keep it or not. If it's alive and has a heart beat well lets just pull it out now...see how long it lasts.
"So, aborting a baby whose heart has begun to beat is taking a life, amirite?"
It's technically alive even before there's a heartbeat. That doesn't mean that abortion is murder. I don't feel particularly concerned about protecting a clump of cells that has no thoughts or feelings yet.
I absolutly loooove this post! :-)
not voting either way but I suggest that people should keep the sight light hearted.