How would you respond to this?

[ProVobis]

Personally having hosted trillions of bacteria, of a veritable plethora of genera, I can confidently attest to the fact that, on an individual basis, they are neither the superior to, or the equal of human life. Depending upon their level of frequency or infrequency, as well as their pervasiveness within the host, they do at times exert a seeming undue influence upon the surrounding human organism. However, I shall refrain from analogizing their existence, however crucial it may be, with that of superior multi-celled organisms. On this basis, I declare that the premise as alluded to in the OP does not stand the light of scrutiny.

Keep in mind, however, a certain number of these living cells must be properly nurtured for a human to sustain itself; otherwise our existence is in jeopardy.

 

[po18guy]

Keep in mind, however, a certain number of these living cells must be properly nurtured for a human to sustain itself; otherwise our existence is in jeopardy.

Of course! They are the only culture that some people have.

 

[PJM]

=archangel04;7184194]Someone replied this to me,
The difference between a single celled organism and a bacteria between a fetus being a living thing is BACTERIA AND SINGLE CELL ORGANISMS CAN SUSTAIN LIFE ON THEIR OWN. A FETUS CAN NOT. Therefore, not a living thing. The whole point of life is that you can sustain your self without something sustaining it for you.

&
You really need to learn to read. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A SINGLE CELLED ORGANISM AND A FETUS IS THAT A SINGLE CELLED ORGANISM CAN SUSTAIN LIFE ON IT’S OWN A FETUS CAN NOT. Big difference there that no one seems to realize. That goes for… people on life support as well. If you can not sustain life on your own such as the siimple task as breathing you are no longer alive. Yes, I as well believe in euthanasia.

***REALLY?

Eariler today I received an e-mail entitled: “The Cross within our bodies” wriiten by a physican.

He spoke about the structure of a particular cell whose task it is to keep cells connected togeater. This cell is called “Laminin” look it up in www. wikipedia.org… it’s shaped like a CROSS!*

"The “glue” [cells… “Laminin”] that holds us together… ALL of us… Is in the shape of the cross. Immediately Colossians 1:15-17 comes to mind.

'He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created; things in heaven and on earth, visible And invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or Authorities; All things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him All things HOLD TOGETHER"

Friend Nothing without exception, is able to maintain it’s existence without God!

 

[Cat]

Personally having hosted trillions of bacteria, of a veritable plethora of genera, I can confidently attest to the fact that, on an individual basis, they are neither the superior to, or the equal of human life. Depending upon their level of frequency or infrequency, as well as their pervasiveness within the host, they do at times exert a seeming undue influence upon the surrounding human organism. However, I shall refrain from analogizing their existence, however crucial it may be, with that of superior multi-celled organisms. On this basis, I declare that the premise as alluded to in the OP does not stand the light of scrutiny.

Just be careful not to wax too superior over our humble microscopic buddies. They’re actually pretty strong little guys and can bring down a healthy person pretty fast.

The third leading cause of death in the U.S. is infection.

Even though I have worked in microbiology for so many years, I am still amazed at how helpless we are to cure some infections.

One of the bacteria that is currently wreaking destruction is Acinetobacter sp. This little creature is just a tiny pink dot on a microscope, but it can bring down a healthy person and kill them. Heaven help the immunosuppressed person who contracts an Acinetobacter infection.

Same for meningococcus. Strong, healthy college kids end up losing arms, legs, and life itself withing a few days when they are invaded by this little gram negative diplococci.

And of course, MRSA. Little children in the prime of their childhood die when they become super-infected by this bug. It starts out looking like an innocent spider bite.

So show some respect! As General Tom Thumb used to say, “I am a mite, but I am mighty.”

 

[po18guy]

Just be careful not to wax too superior over our humble microscopic buddies. They’re actually pretty strong little guys and can bring down a healthy person pretty fast.

I forgot to include the picture of my tongue in my cheek. Possessing also a failed immune system, I am acutely aware of the dangers of infection. I am also aware of the sustaining grace of God which has kept me both infection and virus free for over two years.

 

[Binary]

I wouldn’t respond to it at all.

 

[GloriousOrder]

It astonishes me that anyone can look at the wondrous synergies of this world and conclude that some beings are capable of living “by their own capacity”, and other beings are not capable. Does it not enter into their minds that all living beings require other living beings for existence? I may be able to ‘feed myself’ and ‘sustain my own life’, but I could not do so without the trees (from which I breathe) and the pigs (which I eat). Those same organisms required yet other things (sunlight, fodder, &c.) to reproduce.

We cannot go by nitpicking definitions. The great cycles of life which God established, in His infinite goodness and perfection, shall continue until He brings an end to them. This fact being recognised, it remains to ask: “will that living ‘thing’ become a human being?” Since the normative function of a human infant is to grow into an adult human, it is obvious that this living being, whatever you call it, is ontologically human. Its function, proper object, and goal all align to one point: human realisation. Nine months is far too short a time span to say whether a creature deserves life, (especially when, at the end of that nine month period, it will definitely be human).

Never forget Potential! Read your Scholastics!

 

[Erich]

The United States Supreme Court stated in Roe v. Wade that viability “is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks.”

I know of some parents who, by their actions, must think that viability occurs much later… like after the child has graduated from medical (or law) school and is “out on his/her own”

 

[ConstantineTG]

The United States Supreme Court stated in Roe v. Wade that viability “is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks.”

I know of some parents who, by their actions, must think that viability occurs much later… like after the child has graduated from medical (or law) school and is “out on his/her own”

LOL
I know of some cases of some who are in their 30s and are still not viable

 

[po18guy]

LOL
I know of some cases of some who are in their 30s and are still not viable

“Usually” and “may” are very definitive, ‘bright line’ words, huh? Nothing like employing such sharp guidance when considering human life. It was only a matter of further argument before they gave up and threw it wide open.