Pro-Life or Pro-Choice?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by November Adam
But, by what basis is this definition made? Why does intellect, or ability to live independently have to occur to be "human"?

Because humans are not parasitic creatures, therefore an embryo is not a human. A fetus is a gray area since during later stages of its development it is often feasible for it to live independently of its host (which is why I am opposed to third-trimester abortions).

As Blackice has brought up regarding socialogical dependence, why could this not extend to biological dependence?

A "parasite" is an organism that has a biological dependency on a host, not a "sociological dependency" on a "host." This is why Blackice's counterargument was flawed; sociological dependence in humans is not parasitism.

Why does the stage in a species' development dictate whether it is to me considered a member of that species?

For the reason that up until a given stage of an embryo's development, it is not an independent life form, but is instead an integrated part of its host; it is no more human than the placenta or amniotic sac. Only when it is capable of (biologically) independent life is it no longer merely the part of a larger organism, but its own organism.

Again, I ask on what basis is this stance justified? It sounds as if it is not based on sound reasoning. For the reason I stated regarding life cycles.

Because an embryo is no more a human than the placenta or amniotic sac. Only when it is capable of independent life is it a new organism; prior to this crucial development, the fetus/embryo is merely another part of the host's body.

But there is a similarity, a tadpole is one stage of a frog's life cycle, as is an embryo, and fetus in ours, the difference is in as you stated, that the tadpole is not dependent on it's parents.

Exactly, the tadpole is not an integrated part of a host, but is instead an independent organism. An embryo is not an independent organism.

So humans are to be faulted for the fact that we have evolved in such a way that we are dependent on our mother in our early stages.

I suppose we can fault humans for being sociologically dependent after their births (unlike a tadpole, who never sees its parents), but humans are otherwise functionally equivalent to frogs; a fetus/newborn is analogous to the tadpole, an embryo is analogous to the tadpole's egg.

[blackice]

Because humans are not parasitic creatures

Yes we are from womb to grave...what planet you on anyways? We are all in someways sycophantic don't delude yourself you are human from fetus onward....

therefore an embryo is not a human

Back to the brickwall this is what 14 times you have said this? it is a human and will grow to tell you so...The rest of what you say is equally redundant...You claim it "depends" of others for survival so do you..do will kill you too? You are on life support do I pull the plug?

biological dependency

Speaking of "flawed" we all have a biological dependancy on others...you get lamer as you go...example "sociological dependence" that is but one part of what I have said...work it man you need to try harder than this

(a)"independent life form" Neither is a mentally challenged invalid but you keep ignoring that point it is obvious why...

Only when it is capable of independent life is it a new organism

refer to (a)

An embryo is not an independent organism

Neither is a newborn...with the exception it breaths...SOMETIMES on it's own...

it is no more human than the placenta or amniotic sac

moronic comes to mind...this is rediculous neither is my arm but it is a "human" arm etc...

[loinburger]

Originally posted by blackice
Yes we are from womb to grave...what planet you on anyways?

Blackice, since you still don't seem to understand what a parasite is...

From Dictionary.com:

Parasite:

Biology. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

As I have always used "parasite" in its biological definition, your sociological examples have always been and continue to be absolutely useless to this debate.

We are all in someways sycophantic don't delude yourself you are human from fetus onward....

Ah, excellent, you have finally admitted that embryos are not human. I'm glad that you've finally seen reason.

[November Adam]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by loinburger


Because humans are not parasitic creatures, therefore an embryo is not a human. A fetus is a gray area since during later stages of its development it is often feasible for it to live independently of its host (which is why I am opposed to third-trimester abortions).
[\QUOTE]

Obviously we are at the embryo stage. Your argument is trying to use your own definitions to support itself. How exactly can you say we are not parasitic?

For the reason that up until a given stage of an embryo's development, it is not an independent life form, but is instead an integrated part of its host; it is no more human than the placenta or amniotic sac. Only when it is capable of (biologically) independent life is it no longer merely the part of a larger organism, but its own organism.

Uhm, if the embryo is a parasite it has to be seprate from the host, a part of your own body can not be a parasite.

So which is it... seperate (parasite), or part of the whole?

Exactly, the tadpole is not an integrated part of a host, but is instead an independent organism. An embryo is not an independent organism.

But the embryo is an independent organism, it's source of heat, and energy is it's mother. The embryo does not exist for the mother, but the mother is necessary for the embryo. Unlike other parts of the mothers body.

I suppose we can fault humans for being sociologically dependent after their births (unlike a tadpole, who never sees its parents), but humans are otherwise functionally equivalent to frogs; a fetus/newborn is analogous to the tadpole, an embryo is analogous to the tadpole's egg.

I don't think you understood what I was getting at.

[blackice]

Blackice, since you still don't seem to understand what a parasite is...

heh ok I would say you have no idea what a human is...that seems to be more to the point...

your sociological examples have always been and continue to be absolutely useless to this debate.

Heh ya you do seem to think so yet if you expand your example to reality terms not comic book they apply...Again you ignore what I pointed out. YOU have grasped the sole point of sociological as that of dependant beyond the womb I disagree whole heartedly. Yet it is a sociological situation from start to finish isn't it?

Ah, excellent, you have finally admitted that embryos are not human

you awake?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by November Adam
Obviously we are at the embryo stage. Your argument is trying to use your own definitions to support itself. How exactly can you say we are not parasitic?

By the biological definition of parasitism, humans are not parasitic while embryos are.

Uhm, if the embryo is a parasite it has to be seprate from the host, a part of your own body can not be a parasite.

True. I suppose it depends on how you define the embryo, then; if it is an integrated part its mother then it is not human, while if it is considered a separate organism it is parasitic and is therefore not human.

So which is it... seperate (parasite), or part of the whole?

I'm inclined to say "part of the whole," in which case the embryo is not a parasite but is also not a separate human entity. Previously I was working from the assumption that the embryo was considered a separate organism, and from this assumption the embryo would be considered a parasite.

But the embryo is an independent organism, it's source of heat, and energy is it's mother. The embryo does not exist for the mother, but the mother is necessary for the embryo. Unlike other parts of the mothers body.

In which case the embryo is a parasite, not a human.

I don't think you understood what I was getting at.

What you were getting at begged the question. You said:

So humans are to be faulted for the fact that we have evolved in such a way that we are dependent on our mother in our early stages.

Which assumes that embryos are human.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by blackice
heh ok I would say you have no idea what a human is...that seems to be more to the point...

A parasite is: "An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host."

This matches the description of an embryo. It does not match the description of a newborn, an invalid, or any of the multitude of useless misguided sociological examples you have brought up.

Unless you are implying that a human fits this description, then what the hell do you mean by "you have no idea what a human is"?

you awake?

You said:

We are all in someways sycophantic don't delude yourself you are human from fetus onward....

Therefore, embryos (which come before the fetal stage) would not be human. QED

[blackice]

A parasite is: "An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host."

If you can not equate this to a living human I can not help you.

This matches the description of an embryo. It does not match the description of a newborn, an invalid, or any of the multitude of useless misguided sociological examples you have brought up.

No explain in your twisted logic how a newborn invalid contributes to the survival of it's host...while it grows and is sheltered and fed by it's host. The point is as you drag it through stupidity a fetus is a "human" fetus and to kill a human regardless of age or what stage of developement it is at because they are unwanted is murder in the first degree,,,,or genocide take your pick...

[blackice]

par·a·site Pronunciation Key (pr-st)
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.

One who habitually takes advantage of the generosity of others without making any useful return.
One who lives off and flatters the rich; a sycophant.
A professional dinner guest, especially in ancient Greece.

Seems you omitted the social aspects of your search...why made for a good second of self indulgence "sycophantari" I would also argue that in fact a child, fetus contributes a lot to the host'(s), mentally and socially etc. It becomes clear as I said eons ago your arguement is thin................Parasite? Time to rehash your thoughs?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by November Adam
As I'm sure you are well aware a biological organism has a life cylce. The human lifecycle starts as an embryo. Regardless of being "alive", or able to live independently, this is how it starts for the species known as homo sapien.

Blood cells, brain cells, and stem cells are NOT human, rather parts of a human. An embryo is a human that at it's state in it's life cycle consists of 1, then 2, then 4, then 8...... cells.

Biologically a zygote (fertilised egg) is the same as any other body cell. By saying that a zygote is a human you will have to accept that any body cell is a human, which, of course, is absurd.

So saying a zygote is a human is absurd.

[Urban Ranger]

loin,

Are you having fun yet? Mr blackice seems to not... comprehend.

[Urban Ranger]

Re: Argument: Hopefully a Damning one

Originally posted by DarkCloud
The fact that they *could* be born and that they actually do already exist as formed creatures- soon to become human beings- Makes them human.

Existing as formed creatures do not count since Western societies do not accord the same rights to creatures as they to humans.

Originally posted by DarkCloud
Logically, they will be born, and be humans if the natural process is carried out to its end.

Not really, because spontaneous abortions are quite common.

Originally posted by DarkCloud
To kill a child before he becomes an adult and can reason is murder
To kill a baby before he becomes a child and can think is murder
Thus, to kill the unborn before they can breathe is murder.

Unfortunately for you, [3] does not logically follow [1] and [2]. As a matter of fact, [1] and [2] have very little to do with [3]

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
loin,

Are you having fun yet? Mr blackice seems to not... comprehend.

I had such high hopes for him...

[loinburger]

Originally posted by blackice
No explain in your twisted logic how a newborn invalid contributes to the survival of it's host...

A newborn doesn't have a host.

while it grows and is sheltered and fed by it's host.

Is it not sheltered and fed inside another organism, therefore it does not meet the biological definition of a parasite. You do understand the difference between biology and sociology, don't you?

The point is as you drag it through stupidity a fetus is a "human" fetus and to kill a human regardless of age or what stage of developement it is at because they are unwanted is murder in the first degree,,,,or genocide take your pick...

I notice that you've said nothing about an embryo being a human... does this mean that you concede the point? Hooray.

Seems you omitted the social aspects of your search...

I said the biological definition, which you would know if you bothered to read my posts. The biological structure of an organism determines its species, while the sociological aspects of an organism do not by any stretch of the imagination determine its species. Therefore the biological definition is relevant, while the sociological definition is useless. Therefore your argument is flawed and a waste of my time.

Parasite? Time to rehash your thoughs?

The biological definition is the only relevant definition here! Biology determines species, sociology does not! Why can't you understand that?

[Gibsie]

Originally posted by November Adam


Ah but on the other hand, more people die of natural deaths, than being killed, yet people should protest the murders still.

True, but people still mourn the deaths of people who die through means other than murder. I've never seen someone who is pro-life bemoan an embryo that fails to implant itself into the womb of its mother... do you consider such a failure as much a tragedy as when a child dies?

Basically what I'm getting at is that an embryo IS a member of the homo sapien species. We have decided that humans when in it's embryotic stage are to have no legal protections.

Anyone who claims a feotus is otherwise is burying their head in the sand. If they can't deal with the notion that humans are being aborted, then they should surely be pro-life too.