When does "life" begin

gullivers travails said:

My father told me "Life begins at that moment the parents 'lay-out' some money on behalf of the one to be born."

Afterall, parents aren't going to spend money on some dead entity, are they?

Click to expand...

Does this mean that life never begins for those "primative" people who never "lay-out" any money?

dottedmint said:

Does this mean that life never begins for those "primative" people who never "lay-out" any money?

Click to expand...

They must, if they are to be parents, "lay out" resources, no matter how poor or primitive they are.
Perhaps that is the meaning of this statement.
When one voluntarily "lays out" resources for the benefit of one's offspring, that is when one is a parent. That is when one's offspring is *alive*, in the sense that we all understand and agree upon.
Prior to that, there is much dissent over whether an entity which doesn't eat nor breathe and can't survive outside the body of a human host is actually "alive' or not.
There's no consensus on the issue, nor is there ever likely to be one.

1069 They must, if they are to be parents, "lay out" resources, no matter how poor or primitive they are.
Perhaps that is the meaning of this statement.
When one voluntarily "lays out" resources for the benefit of one's offspring, that is when one is a parent. That is when one's offspring is *alive*, in the sense that we all understand and agree upon.

Click to expand...

And that is (I'm sorry) a load of CR@P.

A teenage mother gives birth to a baby in her bathroom, then takes that baby and "dumps" it in the trash leaving it to cry until it is dead.

That 'mother' layed out ZERO money or resources and yet that baby was ALIVE.

Just because she didn't want that baby or provide that baby with anything does not mean that baby was not alive.

Prior to that, there is much dissent over whether an entity which doesn't eat nor breathe and can't survive outside the body of a human host is actually "alive' or not.
There's no consensus on the issue, nor is there ever likely to be one.

Click to expand...

1. There is a baby that gestated for only 21 weeks that has survived "outside of a human host".

2. A fetus may not "eat" or "breathe" like you or I do but it does consume energy just like any other living organism does.

A fetus has all the characteristics of a living organism.

A fetus is genetically human.

A fetus is genetically different than the mother.

These are facts.

Hear, hear!

If eating and breathng air are the guidelines, than are fish alive?

And if living outside the host is the standard, well, that's changing all the time. I fully expect them to "gestate" a baby from conception to "birth" outside the womb someday. Someday sooner than we may think.

It's ironic to me that the so-called "prochoice" arguement on this subject defies science. Science is showing more and more that the "blob of cells" can survive outside the womb earlier and earlier. But they still insist on their right to "chose", right up to the point of labor.

Seems to me that most of them buy into the global warmng craze, using "science", that can't be proven, as their source. But they ignore proven science, such as smaller and smaller premies surviving.

If you want to call it what it is, killing an unborn child, we can have an intellectually honest conversation. As a mother, you may have a right to kill it. My mother always claimed the right to kill me. :2razz: Convince me. Maybe they deserve it. I ain't necessarily against killing, but I need convincing. But it's not a choice for everyone involved.

1069 said:

Prior to that, there is much dissent over whether an entity which doesn't eat nor breathe and can't survive outside the body of a human host is actually "alive' or not.
There's no consensus on the issue, nor is there ever likely to be one.

Click to expand...

The human fetus doesn't eat or breath? Are you kidding? Not only do they eat and breath they piss too. Have you watched "Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader? " :2wave:

dottedmint said:

Thanks for your concern. :rofl

But as I said before I think you are the one who could use a break.

Click to expand...

Other than my misquote (thats what I get for trying to type in the quote after erasing it), you have pointed out nothing that helps your argument. You have simply played the semantics game and very poorly at that. When you decide to trade intellectual honesty in for your arrogance, then we may continue.

All of my points stand until such a time as you make a legitimate effort at disproving them.

dottedmint said:

The fetus is an immature organism.

The mother is a mature organism.

You are actually stunned by that????


An immature organism is a different "kind" of organism when compared to a mature organism....

Click to expand...

No it is not. They are of the same species and genus. They are not different "kinds" of organisms when considering parasitic nature. Your intellectual dishonesty shows. It would behoove you to pick your battles a little better as this is one you cannot win and even if you did, by some chance, would destroy the rest of your argument.

jallman said:

No it is not. They are of the same species and genus.

Click to expand...

Absolutely they are humans!

It would behoove you to pick your battles a little better as this is one you cannot win and even if you did, by some chance, would destroy the rest of your argument.

Click to expand...

I can't believe you jump all over this type of $hit but let slidecomments about vaginas from other worlds and what not! :rofl

talloulou said:

The human fetus doesn't eat or breath? Are you kidding? Not only do they eat and breath they piss too. Have you watched "Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader? " :2wave:

Click to expand...

That's news to me!

I am aware that a fetus aborbs nutrients from the mother - no chewing or swallowing - no teeth! And, the fetus' lungs are not operational - maybe, air (if any) is received from the mother.

talloulou said:

I can't believe you jump all over this type of $hit but let slidecomments about vaginas from other worlds and what not! :rofl

Click to expand...

Note the comment about picking battles. Why would I choose to war with those who help my position? When grannie becomes a hindrance to pro-choice like doughgirl is a hindrance to pro-life, I might decide to do something about it. However, I don't see grannie in that position...in fact, she is nothing but a help.

gullivers travails said:

That's news to me!

I am aware that a fetus aborbs nutrients from the mother - no chewing or swallowing - no teeth! And, the fetus' lungs are not operational - maybe, air (if any) is received from the mother.

Click to expand...

You can "feed" a person intravenously. Did you know that? You can nourish and keep a human alive whether or not they can swallow or chew. As long as they are somehow nourished then they have been "fed." I assure you the fetus is nourished and fed and even excretes waste.

Now as far as breathing someone asked before if fish breath. And the answer is yes they do. They are able to take oxygen from the water. Likewise the fetus with immature lungs residing in the womb takes oxygen from the mothers blood.

If the fetus was cut off from the nourishment "food" or cut off from the oxygen in the mother's blood it would die. Since it requires and obtains oxygen and food I do not understand how anyone could possibly claim that it doesn't eat or breath. Just as you would suffer if you could not breath or eat the fetus likewise is capable of starving and becoming oxygen deprived.

jallman said:

No it is not. They are of the same species and genus. They are not different "kinds" of organisms when considering parasitic nature. Your intellectual dishonesty shows. It would behoove you to pick your battles a little better as this is one you cannot win and even if you did, by some chance, would destroy the rest of your argument.

Click to expand...

I am being completely honest.

The definition said two different "kinds".

NOT species.

NOT genus.

NOT anything you seem to be suggesting.

A tadpole is a VERY DIFFERENT "kind" of organism when compared to an adult frog.

A moth is a VERY DIFFERENT "kind" of organism when compared to a catapillar.

An embryo is a VERY DIFFERENT "kind" of organism when compared to an adult human.

Each of these are cases of VERY DIFFERENT "kinds" of organism that are the same species.

jallman said:

All of my points stand until such a time as you make a legitimate effort at disproving them.

Click to expand...

I'm not so sure about that....

Just because you boldly make that claim doesn't make it true...

=======================================================

Biological immunities are not "shelter". They are biological immunities to disease. Shelter does not provide this.

Click to expand...

"Shelter" provides protection.... This would include protection from disease....

Therefor "immunity" is nothing more than a type of "shelter".

All living things need more than food and shelter.

Click to expand...

Such as????

For any living thing to live it ONLY needs food and shelter.

The point was that you didn't have one to start with. Definitions change with technology. It's a fact of life.

Click to expand...

The examples that you gave were not because of technology changed. They were examples of where we were WRONG in what we thought.

And we adjusted out definitions appropriately.

Click to expand...

This is because we were WRONG.

The Earth was never flat...

The Sun was never the center of the Universe...

A fertilized egg is not bipedal. You just screwed yourself with your own need to be obtuse. I was willing to offer you that an egg is "human" but not anymore since bipedal is one of your requirements per your own definitions. So, lets take human off the table now. Since an egg is not bipedal, it is not human. That was your call, not mine.

Click to expand...

1. Don't forget that the defintion included the scientific name (Homo sapien).

2. When it says "bipedal" it is refering to the typical or "normal" human.

If you honestly think this definition somehow proved me wrong.... PaaLease.....

A baby that is born with only ONE leg is no less human than a baby born with TWO legs.


[I removed the misquote]

You didn't say a developing clam. You said a parasitic clam.

Click to expand...

Same thing.

An adult clam sits on the bottom of the river wiggling it's body to stimulate the fish to "bite". When it does the clam spews the tiny immature clams into the mouth of the fish. These tiny clams clamp onto the gills of this fish where it MUST stay until it is mature.

It is not dependent on a singular fish for its survival...just a fish. My point stands.

Click to expand...

Ah.... No it does NOT.

When an egg is fertilized it is dependent on whatever woman it is attached to.

JUST LIKE THIS CLAM.

This fertilized egg can be implanted into ANY woman. (basically)

And just like the parasitic clam if the embryo is removed before it is fully developed it will die.

[I removed the discussion about conjoined twins. It could be an entire discussion on it's own.]

The fertilized egg is part of the woman until it is viable on its own. If it can't live detached from that singular womb, then it is part of it. My point remains untouched.

Click to expand...

But as I said before...

Unlike the twins the fetus will naturally seperate from the mother.

The twins won't no matter how long they grow.

Well thank you for being trite and trifling. The egg, attached to the womb, grows from that womb. Better now?

Click to expand...

Not really. I would say that is poor way to word it.

The fetus does NOT "grow from that womb".

It grows IN that womb.

The way that you word it seems to suggest that somehow the womb becomes the fetus.

BTW..... "The egg, attached to the womb....."

So is it "attached" or is it "part"????

And? That changes nothing about the fertilized egg needing that singular womb for survival.

Click to expand...

Right.... Just like that clam needing that singular fish to survive.

Then prior to that point of development, it is part of that womb. My point stands.

Click to expand...

Didn't you just say it was "attached"?

No it doesn't. The fetus serves a biological function which is symbiotic for the species. The fetus is the progeny of the "host". It is not parasitic at all.

Click to expand...

But definition #2 only said

Quote:
: an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism

One organism living in, with, or on another organism.

A fetus IS an organism. The mother is another organism.

No, it doesn't. It serves an adequate return due to it being an offspring. Parasites are not offspring of their hosts.

Click to expand...

Not the same thing.

The mother (the host) does NOT get a return from the fetus.

The species (Homo sapien) gets a return but the host itself doesn't really get a return.

By the time that the host might get any type of return the fetus is no longer in the mother....meaning that it no longer is parasitic.

Definition #3 said

Quote:
: something that resembles a biological parasite in dependence on something else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return

Your need to split hairs has just robbed you of more ground in this discussion. You are confessing, by this definition, that either the mother or the fetus is not human since the parasitic relationship has to exist between two or more kinds of organisms. Fine...the fetus is a parasite. Therefore, it has no protection and further (by the second part of your own definition) is usually injurious to the woman (host). She has a right to protect herself. Abortion issue settled. Thank you.

Click to expand...

"Two or more kinds"....

Alright.....

1. Mature organism...
2. Immature organism...

There ya go. Two kinds of organisms.

By law a person is typically ONLY allowed to kill another human IF their life is in danger....not just being harmed.

IF a person comes up and punches me in the gut I cannot kill that person even though they were causing injuries to me.

Abortion issue NOT settled.

Nice try though....

You are wrong here. A tapeworm moves through infect feces, and sometimes blood or tissue, depending on the type of worm.

Click to expand...

Try again.

What is passed through the feces is NOT the adult tapeworm.

That STAYS in the intestines.

You obviously didn't bother reading the very article that you linked to.

Quote:
Eggs laid by the adult pass out in the faeces of the definitive host and are eaten by the intermediate host.

For your sake, we can stop here. You are obviously ill-equipped to handle this discussion and I feel to continue would be to embarrass you and that is not my intention. Perhaps looking through these forums a bit and doing some reading would help you...gather some information, collect your thoughts, and devise an approach that relies on your strengths. Then come back and we can continue.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your concern.

But as I said before I think you are the one who could use a break.

=================================================

dottedmint said:

I am being completely honest.

The definition said two different "kinds".

NOT species.

NOT genus.

NOT anything you seem to be suggesting.

A tadpole is a VERY DIFFERENT "kind" of organism when compared to an adult frog.

Click to expand...

No it's not. It is the larval form of the same kind of genus and species.

A moth is a VERY DIFFERENT "kind" of organism when compared to a catapillar.

Click to expand...

No it's not. It is the larval form of the same kind of genus and species.

An embryo is a VERY DIFFERENT "kind" of organism when compared to an adult human.

Click to expand...

No it's not. It is the same genus and species, just a different stage of development.

Each of these are cases of VERY DIFFERENT "kinds" of organism that are the same species.

Click to expand...

No they aren't. They are just different stages of the same kind. You are not being intellectually honest. You are making things up as you go along.

dottedmint said:

I'm not so sure about that....

Just because you boldly make that claim doesn't make it true...

Click to expand...

No, the fact that it's true makes it true.

"Shelter" provides protection.... This would include protection from disease....

Therefor "immunity" is nothing more than a type of "shelter".

Click to expand...

Is that "type" the same as your tadpole and frog being two different "kinds" of organisms? :rofl

Such as????

For any living thing to live it ONLY needs food and shelter.

Click to expand...

Oxygen comes to mind very quickly. Surely you gave this some thought?

The examples that you gave were not because of technology changed. They were examples of where we were WRONG in what we thought.

Click to expand...

Lets see here....

This is because we were WRONG.

The Earth was never flat...

Click to expand...

We were wrong because we didn't know any better because we did not have map drawing technology nor the technology to sail to the "edge".

The Sun was never the center of the Universe...

Click to expand...

Right. And we didn't understand this until we developed the technology to actually look at the stars, the mathematics to measure their movements, so on and so forth. Surely you gave this some thought before you started a disagreement...

1. Don't forget that the defintion included the scientific name (Homo sapien).

2. When it says "bipedal" it is refering to the typical or "normal" human.

Click to expand...

So an embryo isn't your typical or normal human? Then my point stands, and by your own admission.

I'm done because this is just tedious. Give this some thought before you come back to the table. You are only going to lose ground if you keep on this directive of playing semantics. The argument cannot be won through semantics...the rest of us figured that out months ago. :yawn:

jallman said:

No it's not. It is the same genus and species, just a different stage of development.

Click to expand...

It's amazing how much we can agree and yet still disagree. I guess it all boils down to feeling. We're looking at the same thing, and we're both clear about what it is, yet we feel differently about what that should mean.

No they aren't. They are just different stages of the same kind. You are not being intellectually honest. You are making things up as you go along.

Click to expand...

See.... Your problem is that there are several ways "kind" can be defined.

I know you hate the semantics game but it doesn't change the definitions.

IF you have two cars side by side.

One is a brand new ford and the other is an old rusted broken down ford.

They are both fords

But.... Here is where semantics come in to play.

A brand new car is a different kind of car when compared to an old broken down car.

Since I know you love definitions:

Kind:
: a group united by common traits or interests : CATEGORY b : a specific or recognized variety <what kind of car do you drive> c : a doubtful or barely admissible member of a category <a kind of gray>

Click to expand...

IF someone asked "what kind of car do you drive" you could answer "an old rusted broken down car".

IF you are invited to a fancy dinner and you ask what "kind" of cloths should you wear the answer could be "something dressy".

IF you are asked to help demolish a room and you ask what "kind" of cloths you should wear the answer could be "something old".

The definition I posted said "two kinds of organisms".

When I said an embryo and an adult were two "kinds" of organisms I was being completely honest.

One is an undeveloped organism...

One is a sexually mature organism....

Within an individual species of animals there are all sorts of different "kinds of organisms".

Old...Young...Healthy....Sick....Passive....Agressive.... just to name a few.

So an embryo isn't your typical or normal human? Then my point stands, and by your own admission.

I'm done because this is just tedious. Give this some thought before you come back to the table. You are only going to lose ground if you keep on this directive of playing semantics. The argument cannot be won through semantics...the rest of us figured that out months ago.

Click to expand...

An embryo is just as "typical or normal" a human as a baby born without legs.

A baby that is born without legs is NOT bipedal but it is HUMAN. (Homo sapien)

An embryo that has not yet developed it's legs also is NOT bipedal but it is also HUMAN. (Homo sapien)

dottedmint said:

See.... Your problem is that there are several ways "kind" can be defined.


Within an individual species of animals there are all sorts of different "kinds of organisms".

Old...Young...Healthy....Sick....Passive....Agressive.... just to name a few.

Click to expand...

You cannot apply vernacular semantics to scientific jargon. It does not work and has been approached numerous times. I am not going to play the semantics game with you as I already know it goes nowhere. Try a different approach or accept that I am going to dismiss you every time you attempt the semantics approach.

It is not going to work.

jallman said:

You cannot apply vernacular semantics to scientific jargon. It does not work and has been approached numerous times. I am not going to play the semantics game with you as I already know it goes nowhere. Try a different approach or accept that I am going to dismiss you every time you attempt the semantics approach.

It is not going to work.

Click to expand...

IF you don't like my definitons fine. Quit. I don't really care.

Words have meanings. Many times they have multiple meanings.

IF you don't like that I say a mature organism is a different "kind" of organism when compared to an immature organism I'm sorry but it is ULTIMATELY accurate.

A tadpole swims in the water, has gills and a tail.

A frog hops on land, has lungs and legs.

Word games or not it is true.

I've put up with others in here using abstract standards for defining what is human or a person or an entity or living or whatever......

But those kinds of semantics you don't mind.....

dottedmint said:

IF you don't like my definitons fine. Quit. I don't really care.

Words have meanings. Many times they have multiple meanings.

IF you don't like that I say a mature organism is a different "kind" of organism when compared to an immature organism I'm sorry but it is ULTIMATELY accurate.

A tadpole swims in the water, has gills and a tail.

A frog hops on land, has lungs and legs.

Word games or not it is true.

I've put up with others in here using abstract standards for defining what is human or a person or an entity or living or whatever......

But those kinds of semantics you don't mind.....

Click to expand...

My what a tantrum.

Ultimately you are still promoting a falsehood because you are enforcing a congruency where there is only dichotomy in your contrived definitions.

On one hand, you want to use a technical or scientific definition of human. You disregard the philosophical and vernacular ideas of what is human in an effort to conveniently enforce a semantic totalitarianism. Then you turn around and display a definition of parasite which was dispelled on the basis of a single word. In response, you equivocate the definition of one of the words in the definition of parasite but you do so on a vernacular level and not the original technical/scientific basis that you originally began with.

It's not my fault that you are all over the place. It is not my fault that you cannot keep up with your own thoughts and that a linear progression of logic is not a potential you can realize. It is also not my job to cater to your semantic fits...only to dispel the dishonesty you promote through sheer emotional force and no logical foundation.

If you can overcome the short-comings I listed above, I think we can have an intellectually stimulating discussion. However, I do not find it in me to cater to another emotionally charged ranter. The choice, again, becomes yours and it is a simple choice at that:

Steer clear of the semantics game because this is what it always leads to or do not plan on discussing this issue with me. There are others who might indulge you temporarily. However, you will find that the majority of the regulars tire of the semantic approach almost as quickly as I do.

I agree with everything you said jallman. Except I think calling the unborn a parasite is rude. And saying they aren't humans is rude. And refusing to accept that many refer to them as babies is rude. In other words all the semantic problems boil down to the prochoice contingent trying to belittle and make less of the unborn human in utero. Even the mother is resorted to being called a "host." It's not as if there is a language barrior or a problem with understanding the multiple meanings of words it's just that a main goal of the prochoice movement is to completely dehumanize the ZEF while reducing it to nothing. It's more than semantics. It's a constant attempt to speak of the ZEF in a derogatory manner so the argument can be changed....

How can a mother kill her offspring? She's not a mother she's a host.

How can we allow one human to kill another without just cause? It's not a human or for those more on the ball it's not a human being.

But it's a living member of the species homosapiens. No it's a clump of human tissue like my toenail.

You can't even get to the why? Why should women be allowed to kill their offspring at certain stages of development? You can't get to that question because you can't even get many to admit that killing their offspring is what they are doing.

jallman said:

My what a tantrum.

Ultimately you are still promoting a falsehood because you are enforcing a congruency where there is only dichotomy in your contrived definitions.

On one hand, you want to use a technical or scientific definition of human. You disregard the philosophical and vernacular ideas of what is human in an effort to conveniently enforce a semantic totalitarianism. Then you turn around and display a definition of parasite which was dispelled on the basis of a single word. In response, you equivocate the definition of one of the words in the definition of parasite but you do so on a vernacular level and not the original technical/scientific basis that you originally began with.

It's not my fault that you are all over the place. It is not my fault that you cannot keep up with your own thoughts and that a linear progression of logic is not a potential you can realize. It is also not my job to cater to your semantic fits...only to dispel the dishonesty you promote through sheer emotional force and no logical foundation.

If you can overcome the short-comings I listed above, I think we can have an intellectually stimulating discussion. However, I do not find it in me to cater to another emotionally charged ranter. The choice, again, becomes yours and it is a simple choice at that:

Steer clear of the semantics game because this is what it always leads to or do not plan on discussing this issue with me. There are others who might indulge you temporarily. However, you will find that the majority of the regulars tire of the semantic approach almost as quickly as I do.

Click to expand...

I got two words for ya.....

Photocorynus spiniceps

(a fish that is a parasite to its own species)

:rofl

No semantics involved.

You are wrong.

Have a nice day....

dottedmint said:

I got two words for ya.....

Photocorynus spiniceps

(a fish that is a parasite to its own species)

:rofl

No semantics involved.

You are wrong.

Have a nice day....

Click to expand...

So are we back on the scientific jargon until vernacular semantics becomes convenient again kick or are you being ingenuous?

It would appear to me that if it took you that long and you had to search out something so obscure to find that one little mote of hope in mounds of rhetoric and discourse that you might use to prove your non-point, then it is ultimately irrelevant especially when you use a contrived interpretation of what the text says. Further, you left me to find my own source (a bit lazy of you in addition to being obtuse) and it says nothing of parasitism.

Photocorynus spiniceps

However, being that I am gracious and enjoy being fully in control of this conversation, I will indulge this latest tantrum for a time. Other texts may refer to it as a sexual parasite. In this capacity, it becomes disingenuous and dishonest to remove the pairing of the words because a whole new definition is take on. You are still making a very poor attempt at playing the semantics game. It would appear to me that if this is not your strength as you have blatantly demonstrated, then you would find a new approach.

In effect, it is not a true parasite as it serves the purpose of sexual reproduction. That's why the word "sexual" is attached to "parasite". It is a euphemism for "symbiotic". The larger female eats and hunts and gestates and the much smaller male provides the continued existence of the species. It is a mutually beneficial relationship. You were duped by the word parasite and failed (whether through misunderstanding or outright dishonesty) to make the appropriate word pairing.

The point stands that the offspring of a species can never be considered a parasite in the context you so desperately want to promote.

Which now begs the question: Why are you so intent on calling the fetus a parasite? Seems a bit counterproductive to your cause besides just being dishonest...

dottedmint said:

I got two words for ya.....

Photocorynus spiniceps

(a fish that is a parasite to its own species)

:rofl

No semantics involved.

You are wrong.

Have a nice day....

Click to expand...

It's a "sexual parasite" and the male fuses it's body to the females. That's why it's considered a parasite.

If any offspring residing in a mother were parasites than almost all mammals would be classified as such and they're not! Why not? Hmmm?

Have a nice day yourself! :2wave: