Rational Abortion Support

[Genesis315]

Tlaloc:

Very good Genesis. I keep waiting for someone to actually think of this aspect.

Yes by my definition the siamese twins at least in the womb are considered a single entity. However since as before the definition is implictly limited to determining such fetal development it provides no real issue for later in life when such a perception might be a problem.

It’s connected to the mother, depends on her ability to breathe, eat, excrete, etc. In other words it does not carry out all the processes that we consider part of life. After a certain point it develops enough that if removed from the mother it can

do all these things on its own. At that point it is a separate organism, before that point it is not.
*

I’m not sure if you got my point, but if you did maybe you can clarify. The point I was trying to make is the dependent brother is not independently “viable” without the other brother. He seems, according to your definiton, that he would not be an organism himself, but simply a growth on the independent brother. I don’t see the difference between this and the (single) fetus in the womb which would not be viable if detached from the mother. In both situations, one “entity” is dependent on the other entity for biological functions and tissue is shared.

I guess here are my questions: is the dependent brother a human being according to your definition? Could the independent brother have him (it?) cut off?

Could you just elaborate on the difference between the dependent brother and the fetus? I can’t see it according to the definition i quoted.

 

[Lisa_N]

Tlaloc:

So you believe. According to my definition of human there is.

What is your definition? You seem to define humanity by such activities as excretion and digestion, something that most animals do with gusto.It’s hardly limited to or defining of a human being. If you ever lived on a dairy farm I assure you that there are animals much better at both activities than humans.

Lisa N

 

[Lisa_N]

Tlaloc:

Are you kidding? I could kiss you!

You just gave two long posts absolutely brimming with support of my position. Your contention of the fetus being a separate human being from conception is nicely dealt with as you rattle off factoid after factoid of how long it takes a fetus to develop into an organism!

Organism refers to an individual form of life and could be a fungus. Surely you do not think an unborn child is less than a fungus? It is individual and it is alive. The unborn child is an organism from the first moment.

Lisa N

 

[OhioBob]

Lisa N:

Organism refers to an individual form of life and could be a fungus. Surely you do not think an unborn child is less than a fungus? It is individual and it is alive. The unborn child is an organism from the first moment.

Lisa N

An unborn child is certainly not less than a fungus. I’m not so sure about Tlaloc though…

 

[Tlaloc]

Genesis315:

I’m not sure if you got my point, but if you did maybe you can clarify.

Sure as before the definition I’m using is purely for the purpose of determining the validity of abortion, not for application to any other stage in life.

However if you want to talk about fetal conjoined twins and want to posit that a surgery can separate them but one will die I wouldn’t call that murder again as long as it’s early enough in the fetal development.

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

Tlaloc, why is it so important for you to convince yourself and other that an unborn child is not human?

 

[Tlaloc]

Lisa N:

What is your definition? You seem to define humanity by such activities as excretion and digestion, something that most animals do with gusto.It’s hardly limited to or defining of a human being. If you ever lived on a dairy farm I assure you that there are animals much better at both activities than humans.

My definition was that human beings are complete organisms specifically homo sapiens sapiens. The excreting and digesting part comes in when we consider the difference between an organism and a tissue. Tissues are alive, they are made of living cells, but they are not a complete organism.

From such a definition a fetus in its early stages is not a human being by virtue of not being an organism.

However I also acknowledge that this definition is useful only in determining when a fetus becomes a human being. It is not intended to be applied to any other issue (like the case of a badly injured adult).

If you like we can modify it to say a human being must have been at one point a complete organism. A fetus still fails the test while a critically injured adult does not.

 

[Tlaloc]

Lisa N:

Organism refers to an individual form of life and could be a fungus.

But a fetus is not an individual life form. It is part of the mother until sufficiently developed.

Surely you do not think an unborn child is less than a fungus?

I don’t see that the question has any bearing. I haven’t ranked all life forms according to some criteria in my head so as to tell you which is my “fav.”

It is individual and it is alive. The unborn child is an organism from the first moment.

I have to disagree, as OhioBob’s posts amply demonstrate the fetus has to go through many weeks of development before we can consider it an organism unto itself.

 

[Tlaloc]

OhioBob:

An unborn child is certainly not less than a fungus. I’m not so sure about Tlaloc though…

Grumpy that you bolstered my case so efficiently?

 

[Tlaloc]

Lisa4Catholics:

Tlaloc, why is it so important for you to convince yourself and other that an unborn child is not human?

How do you mean? This is a topic of much interest. I’ve noticed many here have taken a ridiculously extreme viewpoint of the matter and so I’ve endeavored to help you out.

Here’s a clue, on any matter in which a huge number of people are split on an issue, if you believe that everyone who disagrees with you is a serial-killer-slave-master-nazi then you’re being a fanatic. No issue that divides so many people is ever so black and white.

You can of course continue to fool yourself to the contrary but it means you undercut any chance you have of approaching the issue in a successful way.

If I shout at you that you’re a backwards-redneck-uneducated-wannabe-petty-tyrant your response is certainly not going to be to listen to me. Your mind will snap shut because I would have shown myself to be belligerent and unyielding. The same exact thing happens when you go on tirades about how evil anyone who believes in abortion is. You lose the war just to placate your sense of indignation.

I’m trying to help you be just a tad more effective in discussing this issue.

 

[Genesis315]

Tlaloc:

Sure as before the definition I’m using is purely for the purpose of determining the validity of abortion, not for application to any other stage in life.

Hmmm…I’m not sure if its reasonable that you have a different definition of a human being depending the circumstances.

My definition was that human beings are complete organisms specifically homo sapiens sapiens. The excreting and digesting part comes in when we consider the difference between an organism and a tissue. Tissues are alive, they are made of living cells, but they are not a complete organism.

So according to this, the adult dependent siamese twin brother is not a human being because according to you he is not a complete organism. What about a man with an artifical heart. He cannot stay alive without a machine. Is he no longer human becuase he is missing a vital organ?

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

Tlaloc,one I do not think your evil.Your ideology is evil,just because you do not want to look at the fact that a certain segmant of the population has been targeted for extermination,you try to say I am not looking at the situation correctly.It is a nazi world view that perpetuates this culture of death.Kill you child if your poor,kill your child if it isn’t a convienient time,put the mills in minority neighborhood that are low income keeping with Margerate Sangers euginics and ethnic cleansing.No child should die because of a “choice” of another.

 

[Tlaloc]

Genesis315:

Hmmm…I’m not sure if its reasonable that you have a different definition of a human being depending the circumstances.

As i told lisa we use selective definitions all the time, but for Lisa N I gave a modified form that you may find more comfortable.

So according to this, the adult dependent siamese twin brother is not a human being because according to you he is not a complete organism. What about a man with an artifical heart. He cannot stay alive without a machine. Is he no longer human becuase he is missing a vital organ?

Again the definition relates to when a fetus goes from tissue to organism, it says nothing about an organism being able to revert to tissue. Here’s how I modified it to make that explicit for Lisa N above:
“If you like we can modify it to say a human being must have been at one point a complete organism. A fetus still fails the test while a critically injured adult does not.”

 

[Genesis315]

Tlaloc:

As i told lisa we use selective definitions all the time, but for Lisa N I gave a modified form that you may find more comfortable.

Again the definition relates to when a fetus goes from tissue to organism, it says nothing about an organism being able to revert to tissue. Here’s how I modified it to make that explicit for Lisa N above:
“If you like we can modify it to say a human being must have been at one point a complete organism. A fetus still fails the test while a critically injured adult does not.”

Well, then, the siamese twin would never have at one point been a complete organism, right?

 

[Tlaloc]

Lisa4Catholics:

Tlaloc,one I do not think your evil.Your ideology is evil,just because you do not want to look at the fact that a certain segmant of the population has been targeted for extermination,you try to say I am not looking at the situation correctly.It is a nazi world view that perpetuates this culture of death.Kill you child if your poor,kill your child if it isn’t a convienient time,put the mills in minority neighborhood that are low income keeping with Margerate Sangers euginics and ethnic cleansing.No child should die because of a “choice” of another.

Reread what you said Lisa and ask yourself if it’s an effective way to make a point to someone who is pro-choice. Do you think using the phrase “Your ideology is evil” or the inevitable Nazi reference actually helps you? It doesn’t.

At some point you have to decide whether you want to actually seek a resolution or just keep shouting about things.

It’s up to you to decide.

Are you going to learn to communicate effectively, and possibly help resolve the issue, or continue wallowing in rhetoric and never get anywhere?

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

Tlaloc:

As i told lisa we use selective definitions all the time, but for Lisa N I gave a modified form that you may find more comfortable.

Again the definition relates to when a fetus goes from tissue to organism, it says nothing about an organism being able to revert to tissue. Here’s how I modified it to make that explicit for Lisa N above:
“If you like we can modify it to say a human being must have been at one point a complete organism. A fetus still fails the test while a critically injured adult does not.”

Now Tlaloc you are being dishonest,you are in favor of Terri Schiavo being starved to death,in effect do you really believe its okay to kill anyone as long as its legal?

 

[Tlaloc]

Genesis315:

Well, then, the siamese twin would never have at one point been a complete organism, right?

Actually the siamese twins together would be one complete organism

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

Tlaloc:

Reread what you said Lisa and ask yourself if it’s an effective way to make a point to someone who is pro-choice. Do you think using the phrase “Your ideology is evil” or the inevitable Nazi reference actually helps you? It doesn’t.

At some point you have to decide whether you want to actually seek a resolution or just keep shouting about things.

It’s up to you to decide.

Are you going to learn to communicate effectively, and possibly help resolve the issue, or continue wallowing in rhetoric and never get anywhere?

Why would I be dishonest about what it is,lies and making abortion sound benign is only perpetuating the lie that was started by planned parenthood.You do not cover up truth and expect truth to come out with fluffy talk:nope:

 

[Genesis315]

Tlaloc:

As i told lisa we use selective definitions all the time, but for Lisa N I gave a modified form that you may find more comfortable.

Again the definition relates to when a fetus goes from tissue to organism, it says nothing about an organism being able to revert to tissue. Here’s how I modified it to make that explicit for Lisa N above:
“If you like we can modify it to say a human being must have been at one point a complete organism. A fetus still fails the test while a critically injured adult does not.”

But we don’t use selective definitions for something as specific as homo sapiens sapiens. That phrase can only mean one thing, no matter what the circumstances. Unlike "how we use “run” like “run a race” or “run a computer program,” homo sapiens sapiens can only be used one way.

 

[BlindSheep]

Tlaloc:

It’s connected to the mother, depends on her ability to breathe, eat, excrete, etc. In other words it does not carry out all the processes that we consider part of life. After a certain point it develops enough that if removed from the mother it can do all these things on its own. At that point it is a separate organism, before that point it is not.

Are you saying that requiring assistance with breathing, eating, or eliminating wastes means the living thing in question is not an individual organism? If so, why wouldn’t this apply to an adult on dialysis, or recieving IV nutrition?