| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"quibbler" |
| Date: |
02 May 2004 06:36:40 PM |
| Object: |
Is a fetus innocent life? |
One often here's from the anti-abort crowd that a fetus, embryo, etc is
"innocent" life.
Even if one were to grant that a fetus has reached a meaningful level of
sentience (which is doubtful during most of pregnancy), one wonders upon
what basis is can be determined that a fetus is "innocent". Here are a
few standards upon which one might evaluate the claim of fetal
innocence. (Other people may wish to include additional categories).
(Judeo) Christian Standard:
According to Paul in Romans 3 "all have sinned and fall short of the
glory of God". Despite numerous apologetics which try to explain that
Paul does not really mean what he says, the doctrine of original sin has
been adopted by many of the thousands of variant sects of xianity on
the basis of this and other statements in the new and old testament. By
this standard we all bear some sin, usually presumed to be inherited
through Adam's fall, which would imply that a fetus or even a zygote
carries the stain of sin (and death) with it. Furthermore, even if one
does not accept the doctrine of original sin, many Xians believe that
one must accept jesus during one's life in order to be saved from
damnation. It is quite clear that a fetus cannot accept or profess
faith in jesus due to its own cognitive inability, which suggests that
it better be guilty of something, for how could a just god punish it
otherwise? Finally, irrespective of these other standards, it could be
argued, for example, that the fetus may be guilty of offenses including
stealing food from the mother, not keeping the sabbath, not honoring or
obeying its parents, sexually violating its own mother (uncovering her
nakedness) and, in the extreme, causing serious injury or death to the
mother. BTW, I'm not suggesting that I believe any of this theological
piffle, but it should cast doubt on the idea that a fetus can be easily
judged innocent, by Judeo Xian religious standards.
Legal Standard:
By the standards of a variety of modern legal systems the fetus could be
judged guilty of one or more crimes. It could be judged guilty of
trespassing within the body of the mother as well as physically
assaulting her at numerous times through the pregnancy. it is not clear
that the fetus has the intention of committing harm to the mother, but
not all laws or legal systems require that intentional harm be shown.
Additionally, some things like stealing, as mentioned above could be
alleged, especially if the mother is unwilling to bear the fetus in the
first place. The fetus could likewise be said to violate the mother's
right to privacy, her civil rights, including the fourth amendment
"right of the people to be secure in their persons". Unwilling,
uncompensated pregnancy could even be seen as tantamount to slavery.
Ethical Standard:
According to a number of ethical standards the fetus could be seen to be
physically imposing its will upon the mother by force. The fetus
attempts to assert its own rights above and beyond those of the mother.
A fetus has no regard for the utility or the consequences of pregnancy
and the impact that it has upon the mother as well as the society. The
fetus does not appear to follow principles such as the Golden Rule or
the Categorical Imperative. It recognizes no duty, nor does it have
concern about the happiness or survival of others. If it has an opinion
at all, it appears to believe that others owe it food and other forms of
free support.
Therefore, on none of these accounts can we state unequivocally that the
fetus is an "innocent" life. However, I'd be happy to entertain (and be
entertained by) any serious arguments for why a fetus should be
considered innocent despite the above statements. This is not to say
that I think that "innocence" is a particularly relevant standard to
apply to a fetus or an embryo or a zygote. But if anyone wants to
discuss the relevance of fetal innocence then I encourage them to do so.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
| User: "david" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
13 May 2004 01:12:05 PM |
|
|
(Paul Anderson) wrote in message news:<40a11fa4.257158781@news.la.sbcglobal.net>...
On 11 May 2004 09:25:57 -0700, (david) wrote:
(Paul Anderson) wrote in message news:<409fb4af.164231604@news.la.sbcglobal.net>...
On 10 May 2004 06:36:09 -0700, (david) wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message news:<q5dp909lbf6bq6qr96g9m3oj6d6h1p2nfb@4ax.com>...
Piggyback..........
The original poster needs to stop equivocating between "human life"
and "a human being".
It would be nice if you stopped dodging questions and cutting posts.
Why do you feel the need to do this??
Question - Are the unborn a type of organism?
No.
Really? Any evidence to back that up?
Williams' Obst... (can't spell) -- medical textbook.
What?? Is that evidence?? The name of a medical textbook - with no
quote - no page number - please.
This is why the pro-choice movement will continue to lose ground -
they have no evidence to back up their assertions.
...www.teenwire.com....
That someone refers to something as an organism does not make it an
organism.
Why'd you cut the post? It shows that even the most pro-choice
organization admits the scientific reality that the unborn are
organisms - it shows how much of an island you are on.
....
What difference (between the unborn and born) is there that matters?
The fetus is a part of the single human organism that is a pregnant
woman.
LOL! Any evidence or just another one sentence assertion.
No need to waste more on those who refuse to study the subject.
So you have no evidence. Alright. But you should at least admit
that. I've studied the subject and provide a long list of evidence -
you've provided the name of a book without a quote or page #.
A baby is a single human organism, maintaining life by the use of it's
own organs, not a part of another organism.
....
You've yet to prove or even explain how birth - a simple change in
location changes the unborn (which according to you isn't an organism)
into an organism - please provide some evidence - please
*SIGH* Birth is not a simple change in location. Get an education.
What is it then? You again provide no evidence. It is a simple 8
inch journey down the birth canal. How does that 8-inch journey
change what the entity is??
Your ignorance of reality is apparent.....
You are the one who does not seem to understand the transformation
that occurs at birth.
Please explain this transformantion - you simply state their is so
transformation but don't even explain it yet provide any evidence.
Then an acorn is equivalent to an oak tree?
An acorn isn't an oak tree but it is still an oak- in the early stages
of development.
Nope. "An oak" is "an oak tree" (m-w.com: oak: 1 a : any of a genus
(Quercus) of trees or shrubs of the beech family that produce acorns)
An acorn is not a tree.
A sapling isn't a tree either - it's a sapling - your word games are
weak - that definition isn't completely scientifically accurate and
you know it. Try to find a scientific definition.
...
Is an oak sapling equivalent to an oak tree?
An oak sapling *IS* an oak tree. (m-w.com: sapling: 1 : a young tree;
specifically : one not over four inches in diameter at breast height.)
So when a little one inch sapling with a leaf is an oak tree - ok -
you live in your own world man.
Words mean things. I am not the one who is trying to change the
meaning of the words we use to describe reality.
If you have to get all your "evidence" - unscientific as it is from MW
- it shows how weak your case is -
Said by the idiot who tries to use a web page to refute scientific
textbooks! BWHAHAHAHAHAHA
Scientific textbooks from you? Quote and page number, edition and
year please? I provide numerous quotes from scientific textbooks in
previous posts that you chose to ignore. My information from Planned
Parenthoods web page was to show that even pro-choicers admit the
reality that the unborn is an organism.
My guess is that you are someone who has been personally involved in
an abortion experience. I'm not trying to criticize your experience
or judge you - I'm trying to get to find out the truth about the
unborn. From this post it seems that you really haven't done very
much research regarding this topic - I hope you research the topic -
and look for the truth.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
13 May 2004 02:47:36 PM |
|
|
On 13 May 2004 11:12:05 -0700, (david) wrote:
elcoyote@netzero.net (Paul Anderson) wrote....
Williams' Obst... (can't spell) -- medical textbook.
What?? Is that evidence?? The name of a medical textbook - with no
quote - no page number - please.
Why should I bother? It has been posted before and remains totally
ignored by Pro-Lifers. Google it -- you are not worth that much of my
time.
.....
You've yet to prove or even explain how birth - a simple change in
location changes the unborn (which according to you isn't an organism)
into an organism - please provide some evidence - please
*SIGH* Birth is not a simple change in location. Get an education.
What is it then? You again provide no evidence. It is a simple 8
inch journey down the birth canal. How does that 8-inch journey
change what the entity is??
The 8 inch journey is not what changes the fetus into an entity.
A human heart is a four-chambered organic pump. This four chambered
heart does not start functioning until birth. Blood flows reverse
directions, the lungs expand. The list of changes can and has filled
a book. Such has been posted previously in talk.abortion and is
completely ignored by Pro-Lifers. Why should I wasted my time
Googling it and reposting it -- look it up yourself.
Your ignorance of reality is apparent.....
You are the one who does not seem to understand the transformation
that occurs at birth.
Please explain this transformantion - you simply state their is so
transformation but don't even explain it yet provide any evidence.
Pay me for my time (in advance, since you are totally untrustworthy)
and I will explain it. Otherwise -- look it up yourself.
.....
My guess is that you are someone who has been personally involved in
an abortion experience.
An impossibility.
I'm not trying to criticize your experience
or judge you - I'm trying to get to find out the truth about the
unborn. From this post it seems that you really haven't done very
much research regarding this topic - I hope you research the topic -
and look for the truth.
I have posted many times that I would gladly support a total ban on
abortion, given justification. Such justification cannot consist of
lies, distortions of fact or history, and cannot ignore the human
rights of the woman.
.
|
|
|
| User: "david" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
14 May 2004 12:41:39 PM |
|
|
(Paul Anderson) wrote in message news:<40a3cd88.432768358@news.la.sbcglobal.net>...
On 13 May 2004 11:12:05 -0700, (david) wrote:
(Paul Anderson) wrote....
Williams' Obst... (can't spell) -- medical textbook.
What?? Is that evidence?? The name of a medical textbook - with no
quote - no page number - please.
Why should I bother? It has been posted before and remains totally
ignored by Pro-Lifers. Google it -- you are not worth that much of my
time.
Oh, come on. You give my Williams Obstetrics- as "evidence" and
expect me to do a google search with that to find some quote I doubt
exists. I'm not up for wild goose chases - don't expect me to find
your evidence for you. What kind of debater presents a book name
without a quote, page #, edition, or year and expects the other
debater to find the quote, page#, edition, and year and then refute
the quote. If that is your evidence - then you should be aware that
you have nothing solid -
....
You've yet to prove or even explain how birth - a simple change in
location changes the unborn (which according to you isn't an organism)
into an organism - please provide some evidence - please
*SIGH* Birth is not a simple change in location. Get an education.
What is it then? You again provide no evidence. It is a simple 8
inch journey down the birth canal. How does that 8-inch journey
change what the entity is??
The 8 inch journey is not what changes the fetus into an entity.
Evidence please. I'm looking for more than one sentence assertions.
A human heart is a four-chambered organic pump. This four chambered
heart does not start functioning until birth. Blood flows reverse
directions, the lungs expand. The list of changes can and has filled
a book. Such has been posted previously in talk.abortion and is
completely ignored by Pro-Lifers. Why should I wasted my time
Googling it and reposting it -- look it up yourself.
And how does that make the unborn into a human being? Evidence
please. How does a full-functioning 4 -chamber heart make the unborn
into a human being. You are merely stating a small difference between
the born and unborn but never saying why this difference matters. Or
providing evidence to why this difference shows that the unborn aren't
human beings.
What book? Please give title, year, author, etc. of a book that only
talks about the differences between the born and unborn immediately
before birth.
Why can't you explain it to me? You should be able to explain why
these difference matter and not have to ask me to look them up.
Your ignorance of reality is apparent.....
You are the one who does not seem to understand the transformation
that occurs at birth.
Please explain this transformantion - you simply state their is so
transformation but don't even explain it yet provide any evidence.
Pay me for my time (in advance, since you are totally untrustworthy)
and I will explain it. Otherwise -- look it up yourself.
Again no evidence - asking me to find evidence for you.
....
My guess is that you are someone who has been personally involved in
an abortion experience.
An impossibility.
I'm not trying to criticize your experience
or judge you - I'm trying to get to find out the truth about the
unborn. From this post it seems that you really haven't done very
much research regarding this topic - I hope you research the topic -
and look for the truth.
I have posted many times that I would gladly support a total ban on
abortion, given justification. Such justification cannot consist of
lies, distortions of fact or history, and cannot ignore the human
rights of the woman.
The justification is that the unborn are innocent human beings. You
have yet to prove otherwise and haven't provided a single scrap of
evidence to show otherwise.
1. Intentionally killling innocent human beings should be illegal.
2. Abortion intentionally kills an innocent human being.
conclusion
3. Abortion should be illegal.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "LP" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
11 May 2004 05:54:30 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 10 May 2004 17:14:19 GMT, (Paul Anderson)
wrote:
On 10 May 2004 06:36:09 -0700, (david) wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message news:<q5dp909lbf6bq6qr96g9m3oj6d6h1p2nfb@4ax.com>...
Piggyback..........
The original poster needs to stop equivocating between "human life"
and "a human being".
It would be nice if you stopped dodging questions and cutting posts.
Why do you feel the need to do this??
Question - Are the unborn a type of organism?
No.
Are the the unborn a iving organism?
No.
If the unborn are a living organism - what type of
organism/genus and species are they?
Nonsense question, the unborn are not living organisms.
I doubt these is a single scientists in the world that would agree
with you on this.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
11 May 2004 08:24:21 AM |
|
|
On 11 May 2004 05:54:30 -0500, LP <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com>
wrote:
elcoyote@netzero.net (Paul Anderson) wrote:
gringo98@aol.com (david) wrote:
......
Question - Are the unborn a type of organism?
No.
Are the the unborn a iving organism?
No.
If the unborn are a living organism - what type of
organism/genus and species are they?
Nonsense question, the unborn are not living organisms.
I doubt these is a single scientists in the world that would agree
with you on this.
You are obviously wrong. Scientists have published textbooks that
state that the pregnant woman is a single organism. The definition of
an organism precludes the unborn from being organisms.
That you cannot understand reality does not change reality.
.
|
|
|
| User: "LP" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
11 May 2004 02:53:05 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 11 May 2004 13:24:21 GMT, (Paul Anderson)
wrote:
On 11 May 2004 05:54:30 -0500, LP <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com>
wrote:
(Paul Anderson) wrote:
gringo98@aol.com (david) wrote:
.....
Question - Are the unborn a type of organism?
No.
Are the the unborn a iving organism?
No.
If the unborn are a living organism - what type of
organism/genus and species are they?
Nonsense question, the unborn are not living organisms.
I doubt these is a single scientists in the world that would agree
with you on this.
You are obviously wrong. Scientists have published textbooks that
state that the pregnant woman is a single organism. The definition of
an organism precludes the unborn from being organisms.
That you cannot understand reality does not change reality.
You cannot show me one scientists that states that the unborn are not
a living organism.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
11 May 2004 05:08:54 PM |
|
|
On 11 May 2004 14:53:05 -0500, LP <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 11 May 2004 13:24:21 GMT, (Paul Anderson)
wrote:
On 11 May 2004 05:54:30 -0500, LP <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com>
wrote:
(Paul Anderson) wrote:
gringo98@aol.com (david) wrote:
.....
Question - Are the unborn a type of organism?
No.
Are the the unborn a iving organism?
No.
If the unborn are a living organism - what type of
organism/genus and species are they?
Nonsense question, the unborn are not living organisms.
I doubt these is a single scientists in the world that would agree
with you on this.
You are obviously wrong. Scientists have published textbooks that
state that the pregnant woman is a single organism. The definition of
an organism precludes the unborn from being organisms.
That you cannot understand reality does not change reality.
You cannot show me one scientists that states that the unborn are not
a living organism.
Me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "LP" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
11 May 2004 06:42:27 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 11 May 2004 22:08:54 GMT, (Paul Anderson)
wrote:
On 11 May 2004 14:53:05 -0500, LP <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 11 May 2004 13:24:21 GMT, (Paul Anderson)
wrote:
On 11 May 2004 05:54:30 -0500, LP <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com>
wrote:
(Paul Anderson) wrote:
gringo98@aol.com (david) wrote:
.....
Question - Are the unborn a type of organism?
No.
Are the the unborn a iving organism?
No.
If the unborn are a living organism - what type of
organism/genus and species are they?
Nonsense question, the unborn are not living organisms.
I doubt these is a single scientists in the world that would agree
with you on this.
You are obviously wrong. Scientists have published textbooks that
state that the pregnant woman is a single organism. The definition of
an organism precludes the unborn from being organisms.
That you cannot understand reality does not change reality.
You cannot show me one scientists that states that the unborn are not
a living organism.
Me.
You must be a self taught scientists like Kent Hovind.
If you have a degree, it most certainly isn't in biology or any
related science.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
12 May 2004 10:57:26 AM |
|
|
LP <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 May 2004 22:08:54 GMT, (Paul Anderson)
wrote:
On 11 May 2004 14:53:05 -0500, LP <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 11 May 2004 13:24:21 GMT, (Paul Anderson)
wrote:
On 11 May 2004 05:54:30 -0500, LP <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com>
wrote:
(Paul Anderson) wrote:
gringo98@aol.com (david) wrote:
.....
Question - Are the unborn a type of organism?
No.
Are the the unborn a iving organism?
No.
If the unborn are a living organism - what type of
organism/genus and species are they?
Nonsense question, the unborn are not living organisms.
I doubt these is a single scientists in the world that would agree
with you on this.
You are obviously wrong. Scientists have published textbooks that
state that the pregnant woman is a single organism. The definition of
an organism precludes the unborn from being organisms.
That you cannot understand reality does not change reality.
You cannot show me one scientists that states that the unborn are not
a living organism.
Me.
You must be a self taught scientists like Kent Hovind.
If you have a degree, it most certainly isn't in biology or any
related science.
Ah. Humor. You feel free to speak for all scientists and then
you limit "scientists" to those who agree with you?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "LP" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
12 May 2004 04:03:19 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 12 May 2004 15:57:26 GMT, (Ray
Fischer) wrote:
LP <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 May 2004 22:08:54 GMT, (Paul Anderson)
wrote:
On 11 May 2004 14:53:05 -0500, LP <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 11 May 2004 13:24:21 GMT, (Paul Anderson)
wrote:
On 11 May 2004 05:54:30 -0500, LP <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com>
wrote:
(Paul Anderson) wrote:
gringo98@aol.com (david) wrote:
.....
Question - Are the unborn a type of organism?
No.
Are the the unborn a iving organism?
No.
If the unborn are a living organism - what type of
organism/genus and species are they?
Nonsense question, the unborn are not living organisms.
I doubt these is a single scientists in the world that would agree
with you on this.
You are obviously wrong. Scientists have published textbooks that
state that the pregnant woman is a single organism. The definition of
an organism precludes the unborn from being organisms.
That you cannot understand reality does not change reality.
You cannot show me one scientists that states that the unborn are not
a living organism.
Me.
You must be a self taught scientists like Kent Hovind.
If you have a degree, it most certainly isn't in biology or any
related science.
Ah. Humor. You feel free to speak for all scientists and then
you limit "scientists" to those who agree with you?
No, I am doubting this person is a scientists.
If I can be shown a single example of a person that I can verify to be
a scientist that states that an unborn baby is not a living organism,
then I will admit I was wrong.
Surely you do not support such an idiotic claim?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
12 May 2004 10:43:47 PM |
|
|
In article <vo35a05h3s7s4qfpis5gdk7om5608ni019@4ax.com>,
LP <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
If I can be shown a single example of a person that I can verify to be
a scientist that states that an unborn baby is not a living organism,
then I will admit I was wrong.
Surely you do not support such an idiotic claim?
While I am not a scientist, it is my view that something like an arm or
a fetus, is not a separate living organism until both separate and
living. Until that time, it is merely a part of the person from whom it
is to be separated.
While an argument might be made that one should consider a fetus as a
separate organism from the point at which it could survive if separated,
I disagree with this view.
.
|
|
|
| User: "LP" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
13 May 2004 05:28:22 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 12 May 2004 21:43:47 -0600, Virgil
<ITSnetNOTcom/virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote:
In article <vo35a05h3s7s4qfpis5gdk7om5608ni019@4ax.com>,
LP <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
If I can be shown a single example of a person that I can verify to be
a scientist that states that an unborn baby is not a living organism,
then I will admit I was wrong.
Surely you do not support such an idiotic claim?
While I am not a scientist, it is my view that something like an arm or
a fetus, is not a separate living organism until both separate and
living. Until that time, it is merely a part of the person from whom it
is to be separated.
While an argument might be made that one should consider a fetus as a
separate organism from the point at which it could survive if separated,
I disagree with this view.
So then, by your view, a parasite is not a living organism?
parasite n.
Biology. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a
different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its
host.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=parasite
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
14 May 2004 01:29:05 AM |
|
|
LP <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 12 May 2004 21:43:47 -0600, Virgil
<ITSnetNOTcom/virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote:
In article <vo35a05h3s7s4qfpis5gdk7om5608ni019@4ax.com>,
LP <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
If I can be shown a single example of a person that I can verify to be
a scientist that states that an unborn baby is not a living organism,
then I will admit I was wrong.
Surely you do not support such an idiotic claim?
While I am not a scientist, it is my view that something like an arm or
a fetus, is not a separate living organism until both separate and
living. Until that time, it is merely a part of the person from whom it
is to be separated.
While an argument might be made that one should consider a fetus as a
separate organism from the point at which it could survive if separated,
I disagree with this view.
So then, by your view, a parasite is not a living organism?
You really are an idiot.
parasite n.
Biology. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a
different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its
host.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=parasite
Since it is not part of another parasite it is, in fact, an individual
parasite.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bucephalis" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
14 May 2004 01:58:28 AM |
|
|
I'm not sure where you got your information about the status of a fetus
as an independent organism. To keep the arguments valid on both sides,
I think you must first agree on what constitutes an independent
organism. A fetus is genetically separate and different from it's
mother. In that respect, it is a unique individual organism, complete to
itself, ideally suited to exist in the maternal environment. For its
entire existence in the uterus, it depends totally on the mother for
its sustenance and respiratory needs (in the physiological sense, not
meaning breathing). However, very early on, sometimes as early as 25
weeks gestation, it is capable of living outside the mother, as a
separate organism. How does this affect the definition of it's status
if it happens to stay in the uterus the full 40 weeks, understanding
that it /could/ live independently earlier?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
14 May 2004 11:35:11 AM |
|
|
Bucephalis <xsglynn@earthlink.net> wrote:
I'm not sure where you got your information about the status of a fetus
as an independent organism. To keep the arguments valid on both sides,
I think you must first agree on what constitutes an independent
organism.
Mother here - fetus over there.
A fetus is genetically separate and different from it's
mother.
"genetically separate" is meaningless. And your description would
include her unfertilized eggs.
In that respect, it is a unique individual organism,
Except that it is not an individual.
complete to
itself,
That's an outright lie.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "LP" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
14 May 2004 06:22:17 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 May 2004 06:58:28 GMT, Bucephalis <xsglynn@earthlink.net>
wrote:
I'm not sure where you got your information about the status of a fetus
as an independent organism.
He made it up, just like most of his other claims.
To keep the arguments valid on both sides,
I think you must first agree on what constitutes an independent
organism. A fetus is genetically separate and different from it's
mother. In that respect, it is a unique individual organism, complete to
itself, ideally suited to exist in the maternal environment. For its
entire existence in the uterus, it depends totally on the mother for
its sustenance and respiratory needs (in the physiological sense, not
meaning breathing). However, very early on, sometimes as early as 25
weeks gestation, it is capable of living outside the mother, as a
separate organism. How does this affect the definition of it's status
if it happens to stay in the uterus the full 40 weeks, understanding
that it /could/ live independently earlier?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
14 May 2004 12:55:25 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 May 2004 06:58:28 GMT, Bucephalis <xsglynn@earthlink.net>
wrote:
I'm not sure where you got your information about the status of a fetus
as an independent organism. To keep the arguments valid on both sides,
I think you must first agree on what constitutes an independent
organism.
Whenever I am in doubt as to the meaning of a word, I check the
dictionaries. Using Merriam-Webster, from 1913 (print) and 2004
(on-line):
==================================================
http://machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/WEBSTER.sh?WORD=organism
Organism (Page: 1011)
....
2. (Biol.) An organized being; a living body, either vegetable or
animal, compozed of different organs or parts with functions which are
separate, but mutually dependent, and essential to the life of the
individual. &hand; Some of the lower forms of life are so simple in
structure as to be without organs, but are still called organisms,
since they have different parts analogous in functions to the organs
of higher plants and animals.
http://www.m-w.com
Main Entry: organism
....
2 : an individual constituted to carry on the activities of life by
means of organs separate in function but mutually dependent : a living
being
===================================================
Some might say that the pregnant woman can live without her fetus,
thus the fetus is a separate organism. This is invalid since the
pregnant woman can live without her left hand; but no one woulld claim
that her hand is a separate organism. The food that my hand uses
comes from my digestive system, not my hand's. The oxygen that my
hand uses is extracted from the air by my lungs, not by my hand's
lungs. A parasite, does digest it's own food and breathes through
it's own respiratory system.
A fetus is genetically separate and different from it's mother.
Assumes the conclusion. If you consider the fetus to be a part of
the woman then this is never a true statement. Fetal DNA can be
detected in the woman for decades after she has given birth. DNA is
shared by twins and thus "genetically separate" is not a defining part
of being a separate organism. Discounting pregnant women, there are
individuals who are genetically different in different parts of their
bodies; thus, again, genetically different is not a defining part of
being a separate organism. The fact that a woman bearing her clone
would have the exact same genetics as her fetus is probably why some
people are dead set against cloning.
In that respect, it is a unique individual organism, complete to
itself,
Again assuming the conclusion, that the fetus is an organism. As
shown above, "genetically separate" is a red-herring -- it is not a
part of the definition of an organism, it does not define an organism,
an organism can have multiple lines of genes, multiple organisms can
share the same genes.
ideally suited to exist in the maternal environment. For its
entire existence in the uterus, it depends totally on the mother for
its sustenance and respiratory needs (in the physiological sense, not
meaning breathing).
Just as for it's entire existence at the end of my arm, my hand is
depends totally upon me for it's sustenance and respiratory needs.
As seen from the definitions, above, an organism is not dependent upon
the organs of another organism.
However, very early on, sometimes as early as 25
weeks gestation, it is capable of living outside the mother, as a
separate organism. How does this affect the definition of it's status
if it happens to stay in the uterus the full 40 weeks, understanding
that it /could/ live independently earlier?
"COULD" is not "IS"
At the very best all you can claim is that the fetus *might be*
capable of indpendent life. Until it is born it does not "carry on
the activities of life by means of organs separate in function but
mutually dependent" and it is not an organism. Once it has survived
a live birth then it does "carry on the activities of life by means of
organs separate in function but mutually dependent" and it is an
organism.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
12 May 2004 09:10:24 PM |
|
|
LP <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
LP <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
You cannot show me one scientists that states that the unborn are not
a living organism.
Me.
You must be a self taught scientists like Kent Hovind.
If you have a degree, it most certainly isn't in biology or any
related science.
Ah. Humor. You feel free to speak for all scientists and then
you limit "scientists" to those who agree with you?
No, I am doubting this person is a scientists.
Shrug. If you knew what an Appeal to Authority fallacy was then you'd
know why it doesn't matter whether he's a scientist.
If I can be shown a single example of a person that I can verify to be
a scientist that states that an unborn baby is not a living organism,
then I will admit I was wrong.
Do you routinely believe what people tell you to believe?
Surely you do not support such an idiotic claim?
organism: an individual constituted to carry on the activities of
life by means of organs separate in function but mutually dependent
By that definition a fetus is not an organism. Of course, you don't
like to think for yourself and so that proof isn't going to mean
anything to you.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "LP" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
13 May 2004 05:25:21 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 13 May 2004 02:10:24 GMT, (Ray
Fischer) wrote:
LP <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
LP <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
You cannot show me one scientists that states that the unborn are not
a living organism.
Me.
You must be a self taught scientists like Kent Hovind.
If you have a degree, it most certainly isn't in biology or any
related science.
Ah. Humor. You feel free to speak for all scientists and then
you limit "scientists" to those who agree with you?
No, I am doubting this person is a scientists.
Shrug. If you knew what an Appeal to Authority fallacy was then you'd
know why it doesn't matter whether he's a scientist.
If I can be shown a single example of a person that I can verify to be
a scientist that states that an unborn baby is not a living organism,
then I will admit I was wrong.
Do you routinely believe what people tell you to believe?
Actually I should have worded that more clearly. What I meant is that
I would admit that I am wrong about my statement that no scientist
would claim that the unborn are not a living organism. I would never
admit to the ridiculous idea that unborn babies are not living
organisms. That is to just plain idiotic.
Surely you do not support such an idiotic claim?
organism: an individual constituted to carry on the activities of
life by means of organs separate in function but mutually dependent
By that definition a fetus is not an organism. Of course, you don't
like to think for yourself and so that proof isn't going to mean
anything to you.
Organism:
An individual form of life, such as a plant, animal, bacterium,
protist, or fungus; at any stage in their life
See, I can make up my own definition too.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
14 May 2004 01:28:06 AM |
|
|
LP <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 May 2004 02:10:24 GMT, (Ray
Fischer) wrote:
LP <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
LP <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
You cannot show me one scientists that states that the unborn are not
a living organism.
Me.
You must be a self taught scientists like Kent Hovind.
If you have a degree, it most certainly isn't in biology or any
related science.
Ah. Humor. You feel free to speak for all scientists and then
you limit "scientists" to those who agree with you?
No, I am doubting this person is a scientists.
Shrug. If you knew what an Appeal to Authority fallacy was then you'd
know why it doesn't matter whether he's a scientist.
If I can be shown a single example of a person that I can verify to be
a scientist that states that an unborn baby is not a living organism,
then I will admit I was wrong.
Do you routinely believe what people tell you to believe?
Actually I should have worded that more clearly. What I meant is that
I would admit that I am wrong about my statement that no scientist
would claim that the unborn are not a living organism.
Better start since you've now got two such people.
I would never
admit to the ridiculous idea that unborn babies are not living
organisms.
That's because you're a narrow-minded idiot who'd rather believe your
superstitious idiocy than accept the truth.
Surely you do not support such an idiotic claim?
organism: an individual constituted to carry on the activities of
life by means of organs separate in function but mutually dependent
By that definition a fetus is not an organism. Of course, you don't
like to think for yourself and so that proof isn't going to mean
anything to you.
Organism:
An individual form of life, such as a plant, animal, bacterium,
protist, or fungus; at any stage in their life
Since a fetus IS NOT AN INDIVIDUAL FORM OF LIFE, then it is not an
organism.
See, I can make up my own definition too.
I cited the Mirriam Webster dictionary. Good to see you admit to
lying, though. Anything in order to cling to your religion.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "LP" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
14 May 2004 06:28:10 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 May 2004 06:28:06 GMT, (Ray
Fischer) wrote:
LP <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 May 2004 02:10:24 GMT, (Ray
Fischer) wrote:
LP <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
LP <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
You cannot show me one scientists that states that the unborn are not
a living organism.
Me.
You must be a self taught scientists like Kent Hovind.
If you have a degree, it most certainly isn't in biology or any
related science.
Ah. Humor. You feel free to speak for all scientists and then
you limit "scientists" to those who agree with you?
No, I am doubting this person is a scientists.
Shrug. If you knew what an Appeal to Authority fallacy was then you'd
know why it doesn't matter whether he's a scientist.
If I can be shown a single example of a person that I can verify to be
a scientist that states that an unborn baby is not a living organism,
then I will admit I was wrong.
Do you routinely believe what people tell you to believe?
Actually I should have worded that more clearly. What I meant is that
I would admit that I am wrong about my statement that no scientist
would claim that the unborn are not a living organism.
Better start since you've now got two such people.
I would never
admit to the ridiculous idea that unborn babies are not living
organisms.
That's because you're a narrow-minded idiot who'd rather believe your
superstitious idiocy than accept the truth.
Surely you do not support such an idiotic claim?
organism: an individual constituted to carry on the activities of
life by means of organs separate in function but mutually dependent
By that definition a fetus is not an organism. Of course, you don't
like to think for yourself and so that proof isn't going to mean
anything to you.
Organism:
An individual form of life, such as a plant, animal, bacterium,
protist, or fungus; at any stage in their life
Since a fetus IS NOT AN INDIVIDUAL FORM OF LIFE, then it is not an
organism.
See, I can make up my own definition too.
I cited the Mirriam Webster dictionary. Good to see you admit to
lying, though. Anything in order to cling to your religion.
Glad you admitted your source. Now I can post the FIRST definition for
"organism" found in Merriam Webster, the one you dishonestly skipped
over. The one that defines a fetus as an organism
organism
1 : a complex structure of interdependent and subordinate elements
whose relations and properties are largely determined by their
function in the whole
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=organism
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
14 May 2004 11:33:15 AM |
|
|
LP <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2004 06:28:06 GMT, (Ray
Fischer) wrote:
LP <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 May 2004 02:10:24 GMT, (Ray
Fischer) wrote:
LP <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
LP <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
You cannot show me one scientists that states that the unborn are not
a living organism.
Me.
You must be a self taught scientists like Kent Hovind.
If you have a degree, it most certainly isn't in biology or any
related science.
Ah. Humor. You feel free to speak for all scientists and then
you limit "scientists" to those who agree with you?
No, I am doubting this person is a scientists.
Shrug. If you knew what an Appeal to Authority fallacy was then you'd
know why it doesn't matter whether he's a scientist.
If I can be shown a single example of a person that I can verify to be
a scientist that states that an unborn baby is not a living organism,
then I will admit I was wrong.
Do you routinely believe what people tell you to believe?
Actually I should have worded that more clearly. What I meant is that
I would admit that I am wrong about my statement that no scientist
would claim that the unborn are not a living organism.
Better start since you've now got two such people.
I would never
admit to the ridiculous idea that unborn babies are not living
organisms.
That's because you're a narrow-minded idiot who'd rather believe your
superstitious idiocy than accept the truth.
Surely you do not support such an idiotic claim?
organism: an individual constituted to carry on the activities of
life by means of organs separate in function but mutually dependent
By that definition a fetus is not an organism. Of course, you don't
like to think for yourself and so that proof isn't going to mean
anything to you.
Organism:
An individual form of life, such as a plant, animal, bacterium,
protist, or fungus; at any stage in their life
Since a fetus IS NOT AN INDIVIDUAL FORM OF LIFE, then it is not an
organism.
See, I can make up my own definition too.
I cited the Mirriam Webster dictionary. Good to see you admit to
lying, though. Anything in order to cling to your religion.
Glad you admitted your source. Now I can post the FIRST definition for
"organism" found in Merriam Webster, the one you dishonestly skipped
over. The one that defines a fetus as an organism
organism
1 : a complex structure of interdependent and subordinate elements
whose relations and properties are largely determined by their
function in the whole
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=organism
Ummm, that doesn't necessarily refer to biological organisms. And if
you do want to apply it to biological organisms it isn't going to help
you any because it is too broad to be useful.
Notice that a kidney meets that definition.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
14 May 2004 12:57:49 PM |
|
|
On 14 May 2004 06:28:10 -0500, LP <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2004 06:28:06 GMT, (Ray
Fischer) wrote:
.....
organism: an individual constituted to carry on the activities of
life by means of organs separate in function but mutually dependent
By that definition a fetus is not an organism. Of course, you don't
like to think for yourself and so that proof isn't going to mean
anything to you.
Organism:
An individual form of life, such as a plant, animal, bacterium,
protist, or fungus; at any stage in their life
Since a fetus IS NOT AN INDIVIDUAL FORM OF LIFE, then it is not an
organism.
See, I can make up my own definition too.
I cited the Mirriam Webster dictionary. Good to see you admit to
lying, though. Anything in order to cling to your religion.
Glad you admitted your source. Now I can post the FIRST definition for
"organism" found in Merriam Webster, the one you dishonestly skipped
over. The one that defines a fetus as an organism
organism
1 : a complex structure of interdependent and subordinate elements
whose relations and properties are largely determined by their
function in the whole
By that definition my hand is a separate organism.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
13 May 2004 06:01:00 AM |
|
|
On 13 May 2004 05:25:21 -0500, LP <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com>
wrote:
Actually I should have worded that more clearly. What I meant is that
I would admit that I am wrong about my statement that no scientist
would claim that the unborn are not a living organism. I would never
admit to the ridiculous idea that unborn babies are not living
organisms. That is to just plain idiotic.
That is because it is an idiotic strawman.
.
|
|
|
| User: "LP" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
13 May 2004 01:04:19 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 13 May 2004 11:01:00 GMT, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On 13 May 2004 05:25:21 -0500, LP <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com>
wrote:
Actually I should have worded that more clearly. What I meant is that
I would admit that I am wrong about my statement that no scientist
would claim that the unborn are not a living organism. I would never
admit to the ridiculous idea that unborn babies are not living
organisms. That is to just plain idiotic.
That is because it is an idiotic strawman.
It is not a strawman. Earlier in this thread, Paul Anderson claimed
that scientists say that unborn babies are not living organisms.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
12 May 2004 05:09:34 PM |
|
|
On 12 May 2004 16:03:19 -0500, LP <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 12 May 2004 15:57:26 GMT, (Ray
Fischer) wrote:
LP <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 May 2004 22:08:54 GMT, (Paul Anderson)
wrote:
....
You cannot show me one scientists that states that the unborn are not
a living organism.
Me.
You must be a self taught scientists like Kent Hovind.
If you have a degree, it most certainly isn't in biology or any
related science.
Ah. Humor. You feel free to speak for all scientists and then
you limit "scientists" to those who agree with you?
No, I am doubting this person is a scientists.
The "True Scot" argument.
If I can be shown a single example of a person that I can verify to be
a scientist that states that an unborn baby is not a living organism,
then I will admit I was wrong.
Read Williams' Obstetrics. Surely the authors of the foremost
textbook on obstetrics would be a scientist by even your standards.
Surely you do not support such an idiotic claim?
.
|
|
|
| User: "LP" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
13 May 2004 05:40:18 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 12 May 2004 22:09:34 GMT, (Paul Anderson)
wrote:
On 12 May 2004 16:03:19 -0500, LP <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 12 May 2004 15:57:26 GMT, (Ray
Fischer) wrote:
LP <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 May 2004 22:08:54 GMT, (Paul Anderson)
wrote:
...
You cannot show me one scientists that states that the unborn are not
a living organism.
Me.
You must be a self taught scientists like Kent Hovind.
If you have a degree, it most certainly isn't in biology or any
related science.
Ah. Humor. You feel free to speak for all scientists and then
you limit "scientists" to those who agree with you?
No, I am doubting this person is a scientists.
The "True Scot" argument.
If I can be shown a single example of a person that I can verify to be
a scientist that states that an unborn baby is not a living organism,
then I will admit I was wrong.
Read Williams' Obstetrics. Surely the authors of the foremost
textbook on obstetrics would be a scientist by even your standards.
Surely you do not support such an idiotic claim?
I am not going to read an entire book just to find out again that this
person never says anything close to "a baby is not a living organism."
If this person makes such a statement in this book, tell me the page
number and I will stop by the library this week to verify it. I have
asked many people to show me where any scientists makes such a claim.
When I called their bluff, and read the article where the person
supposedly made the claim, I found that the person did not make
anything close to the statement they claimed was made.
If this person a respected, published obstetrician, I would be really
amazed if he ever make such a claim. I definitely want to read where
he said this. Please tell me the page number.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
13 May 2004 07:39:19 AM |
|
|
On 13 May 2004 05:40:18 -0500, LP <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 12 May 2004 22:09:34 GMT, (Paul Anderson)
wrote:
On 12 May 2004 16:03:19 -0500, LP <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 12 May 2004 15:57:26 GMT, (Ray
Fischer) wrote:
LP <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 May 2004 22:08:54 GMT, (Paul Anderson)
wrote:
...
You cannot show me one scientists that states that the unborn are not
a living organism.
Me.
You must be a self taught scientists like Kent Hovind.
If you have a degree, it most certainly isn't in biology or any
related science.
Ah. Humor. You feel free to speak for all scientists and then
you limit "scientists" to those who agree with you?
No, I am doubting this person is a scientists.
The "True Scot" argument.
If I can be shown a single example of a person that I can verify to be
a scientist that states that an unborn baby is not a living organism,
then I will admit I was wrong.
Read Williams' Obstetrics. Surely the authors of the foremost
textbook on obstetrics would be a scientist by even your standards.
Surely you do not support such an idiotic claim?
I am not going to read an entire book just to find out again that this
person never says anything close to "a baby is not a living organism."
If this person makes such a statement in this book, tell me the page
number and I will stop by the library this week to verify it. I have
asked many people to show me where any scientists makes such a claim.
When I called their bluff, and read the article where the person
supposedly made the claim, I found that the person did not make
anything close to the statement they claimed was made.
If this person a respected, published obstetrician, I would be really
amazed if he ever make such a claim. I definitely want to read where
he said this. Please tell me the page number.
I do not have that book. Prehaps you can ask MINXS for the page
number.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
11 May 2004 06:07:37 AM |
|
|
Piggyback...
On 11 May 2004 05:54:30 -0500, LP <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 10 May 2004 17:14:19 GMT, (Paul Anderson)
wrote:
On 10 May 2004 06:36:09 -0700, (david) wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message news:<q5dp909lbf6bq6qr96g9m3oj6d6h1p2nfb@4ax.com>...
Piggyback..........
The original poster needs to stop equivocating between "human life"
and "a human being".
It would be nice if you stopped dodging questions and cutting posts.
Why do you feel the need to do this??
It would be nice if you would stop lying by inventing non-existent
motives and attributing them to those who point out your equivocation.
Question - Are the unborn a type of organism?
No.
Are the the unborn a iving organism?
No.
If the unborn are a living organism - what type of
organism/genus and species are they?
Nonsense question, the unborn are not living organisms.
They are if you equivocate. The pretence is that all stages along the
spectrum between fertilisation and birth are "human being". When it is
a continuum, somewhere along which the human being emerges.
I doubt these is a single scientists in the world that would agree
with you on this.
Until you demonstrate that you understand the difference between an
acorn and an oak tree, you have nothing to say on the subject.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
08 May 2004 05:20:20 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 08 May 2004 01:39:43 GMT, "Mike Painter" <mdotpainter@att.net>
wrote:
No, it means that a few cells are no more human than a few bricks are a
building.
Exactly. Where's its brain? Its consciousness? All the things that go
to make it human?
He totally ignored explanations that it is something with the
potential to become human if it survives that far. And that there is
a continuous spectrum at one end of which it is human.
His list of quotes did not provide any of the informastion asked for.
All they did, was say "so-and-so says it's human" without saying why.
Apparently he fionds argument from authority convincing and lets
others do his thinking for him.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
