Superman's quote 'bout JW's (page 3)

Yerusalyim

WHich opinion is that, that a baby is a seperate life, the proof is called DNA Xander dude.

Xander

I thought we had already established (in several other threads) that having an identifiable DNA strand alone is not sufficient proof of human life.

No, a seperate DNA strand establishes that the baby is not part of the woman's body, but rather seperate. The fact that scientifically the baby meets the definition of life establishes that the child is a seperate human life.

Xander

It DOES NOT IN ANY WAY meet the 'scientific' definition of life. Let me share with you the criteria:

1. Shows evidence of growth and replication;
2. Shows evidence of purposeful energy transfer;
3. Responds to stimuli;
4. Acts in such a way as to ensure self-preservation;
5. Is significantly different from the surrounding environment. (from MIT - different sources change the last item some)

Remember, if a type of something (remember, we are talking about an entire group here, not just one example) fails in any one of these elements, it means it is not scientifically considered 'alive'.

SO, with that in mind:

1) Can unborn fetuses grow? (YES) reproduce? (NO) Oops - already it doesn't meet the scientific definition of life. Well, let's keep going..

2) Do they ingest resources for their own use? (YES)

3) Respond to stimuli? (SOMETIMES - only later on in the cycle of development)

4) Acts in a way to ensure self-preservation? (NO)

5) Significantly different from surrounding environment? (This is your 'DNA' test - so I'll give you a YES here)

So, of the 5 'yesses' needed to identify them as a SEPERATE LIVING ORGANISM....an unborn fetus gets 2.

funkyderek

No, a seperate DNA strand establishes that the baby is not part of the woman's body, but rather seperate. The fact that scientifically the baby meets the definition of life establishes that the child is a seperate human life.

So having unique human DNA gives an organism full human rights? Or is more required?

outnfree

So, Xander, you say this has been 'done to death here", but you're still doing it.... So I felt compelled to respond:

1. Shows evidence of growth and replication;
2. Shows evidence of purposeful energy transfer;
3. Responds to stimuli;
4. Acts in such a way as to ensure self-preservation;
5. Is significantly different from the surrounding environment. (from MIT - different sources change the last item some)

) Can unborn fetuses grow? (YES) reproduce? (NO) Oops - already it doesn't meet the scientific definition of life. Well, let's keep going..

1) Can newborn babies grow? (YES) reproduce? (NO) Can 8 year old children grow? (YES) reproduce? (NO) Surely you wouldn't say that newborns or 8 year olds were not alive?

And, BTW -- Is the fetus actually "replicating" via cell division as it forms its various organs in response to its DNA?

2) Do they ingest resources for their own use? (YES)

3) Respond to stimuli? (SOMETIMES - only later on in the cycle of development)

4) Acts in a way to ensure self-preservation? (NO)

The fetus' development is programmed for its preservation to come from the mom which shelters it from harm (if the mom isn't a diseased alcoholic smoker with syphilis(sp?)

5) Significantly different from surrounding environment? (This is your 'DNA' test - so I'll give you a YES here)

Thank you.

So, of the 5 'yesses' needed to identify them as a SEPERATE LIVING ORGANISM....an unborn fetus gets 2.

I count 3 "yesses", 1 "sometimes", and 2 "no need to's" because nature has a different plan for the age of reproduction and the way the fetus remains viable. (There are actually six criteria here.)

And I actually think stem cell research should not be overlooked, but why can't placentas just be collected? They've just been discarded in the past, no?

out

LucidSky

I'm having deja vu from a previously excellent thread on this topic...

Yerusalyim, you said

He wants stem cells harvested from aborted babies to use for research. So, he's cool with 37 million deaths so he can walk. I call that SELFISH.

Not saying abortion is wrong or right. But why is using the stem cells from aborted babies, murder/selfish? What of parents who allow their deceased child's organs to be donated to another child?

Crazy151drinker

The term 'alive' is generaly given to a biological organism that is fully devolped and capable of survival. A 6,10,12,16, etc...etc.... fetus is unable to do so.

16 cells in a circle is not ALIVE in any way, shape, or form.

But this is irrevelant. I am a MAN, and it is none of my business.

Hmmm maybe if we started sterilizing 80% of the male population we wouldnt have an abortion problem.....any anti-abortion volunteers???

LucidSky

As far as the definition of life goes, I thought everything from a bacterium to a human was considered "alive," from my high school biology. Viruses were somewhat questionable. Being alive does not alone constitute a human being though, especially given that a single cell is not a human being -- yet.

Xander

1) Can newborn babies grow? (YES) reproduce? (NO) Can 8 year old children grow? (YES) reproduce? (NO) Surely you wouldn't say that newborns or 8 year olds were not alive? And, BTW -- Is the fetus actually "replicating" via cell division as it forms its various organs in response to its DNA?

Your point makes me realize I should not have broken up the above item into 2 items - I don't think that was the author's original intent, and I believe you found the reason.

Can the item in question grow AND reproduce?

To which the answer for an unborn fetus is NO - it cannot grow and reproduce as an organism seperate from the mother, whereas an 8 year old child CAN 'grow and reproduce'.

The fetus' development is programmed for its preservation to come from the mom which shelters it from harm

Not the criteria.

The criteria is: can the item in question act in such a way as would be described as 'self preservation' - and the key again is - ON ITS OWN. This is specifically different than 'respond to stimuli' but related. 'Respond to stimuli' is aimed at - will an organism react to something that potentially endangers it. 'Act in a way to ensure self-preservation' requires PROACTIVE behavior. Without any outside stimuli, will the organism behave in a way so as to prepare for its survival?

The answer, obviously, is still no.

Superman's quote 'bout JW's

Share this