USSC, Partial Birth Abortion

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]Sloth wrote:
pookie wrote:

There’s is no debate on this. The human embryo is an organism (life). Are you challenging this? [/quote]

Like I said, it depends on how you define life, and more precisely, human life.

An embryo is incapable of self-sustaining. It depends entirely on its host, the mother, for all functions normally associated to life.

Yes, it is composed of human cells and yes it is the potential for an entirely new life given that it’s sustained for another 40 weeks.

Stop being stupid. No one is saying that an embryo is a squid or an insect.

It doesn’t take a day’s thought to refute your bad reasoning.

An embryo has a lot more in common with your liver or even with a parasite than it does with a full fledged human being.

Yes it is. Every cell of your body contains your full DNA.

Remember Dolly the cloned sheep? It was cloned from a cell taken from a mammary of it’s “mother.”

Every cell of your liver contains all the information required to produce an exact copy of you, given the adequate technology.

What do you define as a unique and individual organism? An embryo is dead if you remove it from it’s host. How “individual” is that?

Another example: People who are clinically brain dead can be maintained “alive” for years using medical technology. Are they “unique” and “individual?” Are the various machines required to keep them alive part of them? They are still definitely human… are they still alive according to your definition?

No, of course not.

Again, whether your want to see it or not (and it looks like you’re not here to discuss anything, but to preach your already made up mind) the embryo has a lot more in common with the liver than with a complete human being. All the cells are similar, it requires oxygenation and nourishment from the body in which it is located, etc.

Of course, a liver and an embryo have differing purposes, I’m not saying you’ll be giving birth to your liver in 9 months.

Of course it can. A fertilized ovum is not a complete human being. It is the potential for one.

An ovum floating in sperm is also potentially a human being. Is an ovum floating in sperm, before fertilization, a human being?

What if the ovum is in the woman and the sperm in the man. Potential is still there. Are there 3 unique and individual persons in the room?

Once you start equalling potential with the fully realized human being, why stop at fertilization of the egg? Potential is always present; you picking fertilization as the point where you call the organism “a fully individual and unique person” is just as arbitrary as those who pick the baby coming out the birth canal. Except for the fact that the baby is able to breathe, circulate his blood and digest his food by himself.

82

[quote]pookie wrote:
Sloth wrote:
pookie wrote:

There’s is no debate on this. The human embryo is an organism (life). Are you challenging this?

Like I said, it depends on how you define life, and more precisely, human life.

An embryo is incapable of self-sustaining. It depends entirely on its host, the mother, for all functions normally associated to life.

Yes, it is composed of human cells and yes it is the potential for an entirely new life given that it’s sustained for another 40 weeks.

Next, we ask what species this life is. That should be common sense, but feel free to look up what species the HUMAN (hint)embryo is, if you must.

Stop being stupid. No one is saying that an embryo is a squid or an insect.

Ah pookie, that’s just bad. You probably rushed this reply and didn’t put much thought into your question. I’m not being sarcastic. I honestly don’t think you would’ve asked this had you the chance to think it through a bit.

It doesn’t take a day’s thought to refute your bad reasoning.

An embryo has a lot more in common with your liver or even with a parasite than it does with a full fledged human being.

Pookie, my liver is obviously not carrying it’s own full and unique set of DNA.

Yes it is. Every cell of your body contains your full DNA.

Remember Dolly the cloned sheep? It was cloned from a cell taken from a mammary of it’s “mother.”

Every cell of your liver contains all the information required to produce an exact copy of you, given the adequate technology.

Further, science does not define my liver as a unique and individual organism.

What do you define as a unique and individual organism? An embryo is dead if you remove it from it’s host. How “individual” is that?

Another example: People who are clinically brain dead can be maintained “alive” for years using medical technology. Are they “unique” and “individual?” Are the various machines required to keep them alive part of them? They are still definitely human… are they still alive according to your definition?

And, my liver will never be part of the established chain of human development.

No, of course not.

Again, you probably do realize the immense gulf between a human embryo and my liver, but you were probably rushed. Giving you the benefit of doubt on this one.

Again, whether your want to see it or not (and it looks like you’re not here to discuss anything, but to preach your already made up mind) the embryo has a lot more in common with the liver than with a complete human being. All the cells are similar, it requires oxygenation and nourishment from the body in which it is located, etc.

Of course, a liver and an embryo have differing purposes, I’m not saying you’ll be giving birth to your liver in 9 months.

There is an established chain of development throughout an individual human’s development. Being a liver is not one of those phases. However, an embryo is. An embryo through infancy, preteen, adolescence, adult, and geriatric. It is a linked chain. You break one of those links, you’ve taken a human life. It’s not something that can be argued around.

Of course it can. A fertilized ovum is not a complete human being. It is the potential for one.

An ovum floating in sperm is also potentially a human being. Is an ovum floating in sperm, before fertilization, a human being?

What if the ovum is in the woman and the sperm in the man. Potential is still there. Are there 3 unique and individual persons in the room?

Once you start equalling potential with the fully realized human being, why stop at fertilization of the egg? Potential is always present; you picking fertilization as the point where you call the organism “a fully individual and unique person” is just as arbitrary as those who pick the baby coming out the birth canal. Except for the fact that the baby is able to breathe, circulate his blood and digest his food by himself.
[/quote]

Interesting discussion regarding human potential. My opinion has always been that when the the egg is fertilized, human life has begun. Here’s why. Without outside human interference (the killing of the growing/developing human), the fertilized egg will keep growing and developing until it is born.

It takes a decision by the mother to end the cycle of developing and growing. Period. This is why I think that the liver comparison is poor. The liver will develop into a part of the human, and while the liver is a living organism, it’s not and never will be a human life.

Potential for human life does not IMHO equal life. Which is why I piss off some members of my very catholic family with a strong position for birth control.

My opinion is that we need to have a complete ban on abortions of convenience yet have an allowance for the LIFE of the mother, not the health, but the life. This should be the only allowable scenario, IMHO of course :-]

83

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

Interesting discussion regarding human potential. My opinion has always been that when the the egg is fertilized, human life has begun. Here’s why. Without outside human interference (the killing of the growing/developing human), the fertilized egg will keep growing and developing until it is born.
[/quote]

Most fertilized eggs do NOT develop into human beings.

Fact.

The decision of the mother to clothe and feed herself and to stay alive, a necessitiy for the embryos survival, are also decisions.

You are not quesioning interference per se, since that is a given, but the motifs of the interferer.

Why not pass a law that allows abortions for rich, white, well-connected women and makes it illegal for anyone else?

It has the same effect but is way more honest.

84

[quote]pookie wrote:
Sloth wrote:
pookie wrote:

There’s is no debate on this. The human embryo is an organism (life). Are you challenging this?

Like I said, it depends on how you define life, and more precisely, human life.

An embryo is incapable of self-sustaining. It depends entirely on its host, the mother, for all functions normally associated to life.

Yes, it is composed of human cells and yes it is the potential for an entirely new life given that it’s sustained for another 40 weeks.

Next, we ask what species this life is. That should be common sense, but feel free to look up what species the HUMAN (hint)embryo is, if you must.

Stop being stupid. No one is saying that an embryo is a squid or an insect.

Ah pookie, that’s just bad. You probably rushed this reply and didn’t put much thought into your question. I’m not being sarcastic. I honestly don’t think you would’ve asked this had you the chance to think it through a bit.

It doesn’t take a day’s thought to refute your bad reasoning.

An embryo has a lot more in common with your liver or even with a parasite than it does with a full fledged human being.

Pookie, my liver is obviously not carrying it’s own full and unique set of DNA.

Yes it is. Every cell of your body contains your full DNA.

Remember Dolly the cloned sheep? It was cloned from a cell taken from a mammary of it’s “mother.”

Every cell of your liver contains all the information required to produce an exact copy of you, given the adequate technology.

Further, science does not define my liver as a unique and individual organism.

What do you define as a unique and individual organism? An embryo is dead if you remove it from it’s host. How “individual” is that?

Another example: People who are clinically brain dead can be maintained “alive” for years using medical technology. Are they “unique” and “individual?” Are the various machines required to keep them alive part of them? They are still definitely human… are they still alive according to your definition?

And, my liver will never be part of the established chain of human development.

No, of course not.

Again, you probably do realize the immense gulf between a human embryo and my liver, but you were probably rushed. Giving you the benefit of doubt on this one.

Again, whether your want to see it or not (and it looks like you’re not here to discuss anything, but to preach your already made up mind) the embryo has a lot more in common with the liver than with a complete human being. All the cells are similar, it requires oxygenation and nourishment from the body in which it is located, etc.

Of course, a liver and an embryo have differing purposes, I’m not saying you’ll be giving birth to your liver in 9 months.

There is an established chain of development throughout an individual human’s development. Being a liver is not one of those phases. However, an embryo is. An embryo through infancy, preteen, adolescence, adult, and geriatric. It is a linked chain. You break one of those links, you’ve taken a human life. It’s not something that can be argued around.

Of course it can. A fertilized ovum is not a complete human being. It is the potential for one.

An ovum floating in sperm is also potentially a human being. Is an ovum floating in sperm, before fertilization, a human being?

What if the ovum is in the woman and the sperm in the man. Potential is still there. Are there 3 unique and individual persons in the room?

Once you start equalling potential with the fully realized human being, why stop at fertilization of the egg? Potential is always present; you picking fertilization as the point where you call the organism “a fully individual and unique person” is just as arbitrary as those who pick the baby coming out the birth canal. Except for the fact that the baby is able to breathe, circulate his blood and digest his food by himself.
[/quote]

Ummm…A liver? Come on. I have read some well reason arguments by you before for a liver s an organ with in an organism. It does not contain its own unique DNA. Your argument proved Sloth’s point.

That clump of cells isn’t a potential human. It is a human. Anything can be a potential human being if you agree that matter cannot be destroyed, but only change forms. A baby is no less Dependant on a host then an embryo. Ever seen a new born cook himself up a half dozen egg whites get himself dressed, or hold down a job? They can’t even turn over with out help. Hell, they can’t even burp on their own. It is you playing on the semantics. Sloth’s reasoning is spot on. Yours, not so much. A clump of cells containing fully qualified, unique, independent, human DNA, likened to a parasite? I am pretty sure it is not hard to refute that.

85

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Interesting discussion regarding human potential. My opinion has always been that when the the egg is fertilized, human life has begun.[/quote]

Life has continued. It’s all alive. The parents are alive, the sperm is alive (well, the spermatozoids in the ejaculate at any rate), the ovum is a living cell). Life simply continues.

Most of the time, about 60%, it will not. Those embryos, as human and with just as much potential as any other, will be evacuated naturally by the body for a myriad various reasons.

Why can Nature make the decision, apparently arbitrarily, and a human being cannot?

Not true. Along with those 60% of embryos, where the mother in most cases never even realizes that she was pregrant for a few hours or days, you also have miscarriages which aren’t caused voluntarily.

Well, I’m not saying a liver will become a human being. I wish everyone would stop pushing the analogy in ways it was not intended.

Maybe I can explain it better this way:

Criteria - Liver - Embryo - Adult Human
Brain…no…no…yes
Heart…no…no…yes
Lungs…no…no…yes
Person…no…no…yes
Feelings…no…no…yes
Nervous
system…no…no…yes
Cell types…liver…ESC*…220 types
Depends on
host for
survival…yes…yes…no

*ESC = Embryonic Stem Cells.

(Sorry for the table, it’s hard to align proportional fonts.)

Now, looking at the various criteria - and we could add many others - with which of “liver” or “adult human” does the embryo share most common traits?

Ok, we agree on those points.

[quote]My opinion is that we need to have a complete ban on abortions of convenience yet have an allowance for the LIFE of the mother, not the health, but the life. This should be the only allowable scenario, IMHO of course :-]
[/quote]

I can understand that position. The only problem I see with it is who determines what “convenience” is?

86

[quote]pat36 wrote:
Ummm…A liver? Come on. I have read some well reason arguments by you before for a liver s an organ with in an organism. It does not contain its own unique DNA.[/quote]

So? Identical twins share the same DNA and yet are still two individuals.

We could clone a perfect copy of you from the DNA in your liver and get a new individual.

Whether the DNA is identical or different is entirely irrelevant.

That’s why I’m asking people to define the terms they’re using. It appears that when people say words like “human”, “being”, “person”, “individual”, etc. They’re not all using the same definitions.

I think a human embryo is human. I don’t think it’s a person. It’s not “a being” either. A blueprint and a pile of bricks is not a house.

It’s host could die immediately at birth and the baby could be cared for by others and live on. The embryo dies with it’s host. The baby is dependent on others, but not in the same way an embryo is.

It is not semantics. A baby has all the organs and systems an adults has. An embryo doesn’t.

A baby can feel, pain, heat, cold, hunger, etc. An embryo can’t.

A baby can survive the death of his mother by being cared for by others. An embryo can’t.

There are a whole slew of differences between the embryo and the resulting baby 40 weeks later. “Reasoning” them to be one and the same is emotionally satisfying, but not intellectually honest.

Because you agree with his opinion. I find his reasoning completely off track. We’re calling small clumps of cells “persons” and “unique individuals” and confusing a whole bunch of concepts.

Furthermore, we’re also declaring ourselves more apt to make a decision concerning an abortion than the person most involved in it. Personally, I’d never want an abortion. Banning it outright would have zero impact on me; but I don’t think I have the right to make the same decision for everyone else.

Well, refute it then.

87

You bring up cloning to try to make your case. You are comparing manipulating liver cells in a lab, using advanced science, with the natural development of the human embryo?

This is getting silly. The Human Embryo is a individual organism from it’s parents. That is not my opinion, it is science. The human embryo is of the human species, fact.

88

[quote]Sloth wrote:
You bring up cloning to try to make your case. You are comparing manipulating liver cells in a lab, using advanced science, with the natural development of the human embryo?[/quote]

I brought up cloning to refute someone who was arguing that my liver analogy was bad because it had identical DNA to its host. I showed that a clone, while having identical DNA, can be a separate individual.

I’m not comparing cloning techniques with the natural process; I’m simply showing that DNA, unique or not, has nothing to do with the debate.

By the way, to clone Dolly, they still used the natural process. They put in the DNA in a fertilized ovum who had its genetic material removed. The natural process took over and did the rest. Except for it’s unnaturally short life, the Dolly clone was quite the normal sheep.

No one is saying otherwise. It’s your other arguments that are invalid, those that aren’t based on “facts” but on personal belief and opinions.

89

[quote]pookie wrote:

No one is saying otherwise. It’s your other arguments that are invalid, those that aren’t based on “facts” but on personal belief and opinions.
[/quote]

Could you name those parts? My whole argument has revolved around:

  1. The embryo is a unique and individual organism separate of the parents. It is a separate and individual living thing.

2)Again, it is not simply an organ (liver), or organic matter (manure), of an organism. It is an organism itself.

  1. The species of this organism is human.

  2. The human embryo is only one link in the chain of development in an individual human’s life cycle.

  3. To break one of those links is to destroy an individual human life (see above; organism and species)

Which part is opinion?

90

[quote]pookie wrote:
pat36 wrote:
Ummm…A liver? Come on. I have read some well reason arguments by you before for a liver s an organ with in an organism. It does not contain its own unique DNA.
[/quote]

So? Identical twins share the same DNA and yet are still two individuals.

We could clone a perfect copy of you from the DNA in your liver and get a new individual.

Whether the DNA is identical or different is entirely irrelevant.
[/quote]
They share most not all genetic traits. Everybody’s genetic finger print is different for everyone else’s.

You can take a different pile of bricks and build the same house. The same cannot be said for this “clump of cells”. If your host shot you out as a clump of cells, you would never have the chance to exist again. That ship sails once.

That only means the embryo is more fragile, but no less human. It has all the genetic make up of a human being and genetically speaking it will never be more than it is. It will have just developed according to this information.

An embryo has all the make up of all the above listed systems. It just needs time and fuel to develop them. I don’t see where it’s lack of development can be held against it.

What are trying to make yourself feel better? Nobody has argued that an embryo is the same as a full grown human. Hell, I am way different then my 5 year old. We don’t have to go to the embryonic level to find differences between people and their various stages of development.

The fact that I agree is irrelevant. His logic is on the mark. You many conclusions from a variety of premises that do not necessarily follow into the conclusions you are attempting to draw. For instance, for you fully developed organs, thinking, feeling, and existing independently of a host are all requirements to be a human being. So logically any person lacking one or more of the features is not human. I can think of several adult instances where a person is lacking one or more of said features, yet one one still consider them humans.
Sloth’s argument is pointed. An embryo has all the make up of a human being, destroying the embryo would destroy all the unique characteristics that make a person a person, therefore the embryo must be human. Obviously, I am over simplifying, but purely from a logical stand point, his reasoning is better academically speaking. I consider what you are doing more of the “arguing” persuasion.

That pretty much sums it up.

[/quote]

91

[quote]pookie wrote:

This is getting silly. The Human Embryo is a individual organism from it’s parents. That is not my opinion, it is science. The human embryo is of the human species, fact.

No one is saying otherwise. It’s your other arguments that are invalid, those that aren’t based on “facts” but on personal belief and opinions.
[/quote]

I missed addressing this with my last response. No one is disputing that the embryo is an individual human life? You’ve just admitted that no one is debating that the human embryo is an individual LIVING ORGANISM.

Or, that the species of this organism is HUMAN. How did you miss this admission? If no one disputes that the embryo is an individual human life, how the hell can anyone justify killing it?

Are you going to turn around and try to argue it’s not an individual human life? After admitting that the human embryo is an individual organism? And that it is human?

The basic underlying and unavoidable facts are these… The human embryo is an organism.

A living thing. That thing is not an organ such as the liver. It is not a different species from me or you. It is not a snail, dog, cat, or even a Lemur. It is human. How do you admit this, yet turn around and try to argue the opposite?

92

I’ll add to Pat’s refutation of the Parasite charge.

A FETUS IS NOT A PARASITE

by Dr. Thomas L. Johnson

1.a) A parasite is defined as an organism of one species living in or on an
organism of another species (a heterospecific relationship) and deriving its
nourishment from the host (is metabolically dependent on the host). (See Cheng,
T.C., General Parasitology, p. 7, 1973.)

b) A human embryo or fetus is an organism of one species (Homo sapiens) living in the uterine cavity of an organism of the same species (Homo sapiens) and deriving its nourishment from the mother (is metabolically dependent on the mother). This homospecific relationship is an obligatory dependent relationship, but not a parasitic relationship.

2.a) A parasite is an invading organism – coming to parasitize the host from an outside source.

b) A human embryo or fetus is formed from a fertilized egg – the egg coming from an inside source, being formed in the ovary of the mother from where it moves into the oviduct where it may be fertilized to form the zygote – the first cell of the new human being.

3.a) A parasite is generally harmful to some degree to the host that is harboring the parasite.

b) A human embryo or fetus developing in the uterine cavity does not usually
cause harm to the mother, although it may if proper nutrition and care is not
maintained by the mother.

4.a) A parasite makes direct contact with the host’s tissues, often holding on by either mouth parts, hooks or suckers to the tissues involved (intestinal lining, lungs, connective tissue, etc.).

b) A human embryo or fetus makes direct contact with the uterine lining of the
mother for only a short period of time. It soon becomes isolated inside its own
amniotic sac, and from that point on makes indirect contact with the mother only by way of the umbilical cord and placenta.

5.a) When a parasite invades host tissue, the host tissue will sometimes respond by forming a capsule (of connective tissue) to surround the parasite and cut it off from other surrounding tissue (examples would be Paragonimus westermani, lung fluke, or Oncocerca volvulus, a nematode worm causing cutaneous filariasis in the human).

b) When the human embryo or fetus attaches to and invades the lining tissue of the mother’s uterus, the lining tissue responds by surrounding the human embryo and does not cut it off from the mother, but rather establishes a means of close contact (the placenta) between the mother and the new human being.

6.a) When a parasite invades a host, the host will usually respond by forming
antibodies in response to the somatic antigens (molecules comprising the body
of the parasite) or metabolic antigens (molecules secreted or excreted by the
parasite) of the parasite. Parasitism usually involves an immunological response on the part of the host. (See Cheng, T.C., General Parasitology, p. 8.)

b) New evidence, presented by Beer and Billingham in their article, “The Embryo as a Transplant” (Scientific American, April, 1974), indicates that the mother does react to the presence of the embryo by producing humoral antibodies, but they suggest that the trophoblast – the jacket of cells surrounding the embryo – blocks the action of these antibodies and therefore the embryo or fetus is not rejected. This reaction is unique to the embryo-mother relationship.

7.a) A parasite is generally detrimental to the reproductive capacity of the invaded host. The host may be weakened, diseased or killed by the parasite, thus reducing or eliminating the host’s capacity to reproduce.

b) A human embryo or fetus is absolutely essential to the reproductive capacity of the involved mother (and species). The mother is usually not weakened, diseased or killed by the presence of the embryo or fetus, but rather is fully tolerant of this offspring which must begin his or her life in this intimate and highly specialized relationship with the mother.

8.a) A parasite is an organism that, once it invades the definitive host, will usually remain with host for life (as long as it or the host survives).

b) A human embryo or fetus has a temporary association with the mother,
remaining only a number of months in the uterus.

A parasite is an organism that associates with the host in a negative, unhealthy and nonessential (nonessential to the host) manner which will often damage the host and detrimentally affect the procreative capacity of the host (and species).

A human embryo or fetus is a human being that associates with the mother in a positive,healthful essential manner necessary for the procreation of the species.

[This data was compiled by Thomas L. Johnson, Professor of Biology, Mary
Washington College, Fredericksburg, VA. Professor Johnson teaches Chordate Embryology and Parasitology

93

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Good, glad to see this legal form of murder stay in the past. Now, if only abortion was made illegal in it’s entirety.

[/quote]

This part.

94

[quote]pookie wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Good, glad to see this legal form of murder stay in the past. Now, if only abortion was made illegal in it’s entirety.

This part.
[/quote]

What is murder pookie? Is it the intended taking of an innocent human life. Can we agree to that? If so, then I stand by my statement. See my other arguments as to why an individual human life has been taken when the human embryo is destroyed.

  1. Science tells us the human embryo is an individual organism (living).

  2. Science tells that us that organism is human (species).

  3. Destroying a human embryo, therefore, destroys that human life.

95

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
By the way, in reading through the various arguments here, this thread is a perfect demonstration why the issue of abortion should be a political question left to the back-and-forth of state legislatures, and not the province of nine lawyers on a bench in Washington D.C.[/quote]

Very true my friend. Even worse that it’s really only Justice Kennedy…

96

[quote]Sloth wrote:
This is getting silly. The Human Embryo is a individual organism from it’s parents. That is not my opinion, it is science. The human embryo is of the human species, fact.

No one is saying otherwise. It’s your other arguments that are invalid, those that aren’t based on “facts” but on personal belief and opinions.

I missed addressing this with my last response. No one is disputing that the embryo is an individual human life? You’ve just admitted that no one is debating that the human embryo is an individual LIVING ORGANISM.[/quote]

You’re playing with words here.

First you said: “The Human Embryo is a individual organism from it’s parents.” Individual in the sense of “distinct” is how I understand it.

…to which I agree. An embryo is not a copy of either parent, it contains a mix of both parent’s DNA. Ie, it’s different from either parent.

And then you’re back with “that the embryo is an individual human life?” To which I reply, again, no, it is not an independent human life. It is the potential for one. Same argument we had 5 or 6 posts ago.

Embryo distinct from parents: Yes. Embryo equal to complete human: No.

97

[quote]pookie wrote:

You’re playing with words here.
[/quote]
how so?

I’m not sure I follow your objection. They’re both describing an organism that is unique from the parent organisms.

…ok. So, it’s an individual organism (life). If you don’t like that word, feel free to substitute ‘unique’ or ‘distinct.’ It’s a distinct organism (life). What species is that distinct organism (life)?

First, I’m not sure why you quote me as using the descriptive ‘individual,’ yet object as if I had used the word ‘independent.’ I said ‘individual,’ not independent. There is a difference.

And again, your use of ‘potential.’ A sperm and egg have potential to create an individual human life. They themselves are not a ‘distinct’ human life.

An embryo already human (species) life (distinct organism). It’s potential is to become a fetus, infant, pre-teen, adolescent, adult, elderly. Again, the stages of an individuals human life cycle and development.

Huh? I’m the one playing with words? Read what you’ve just wrote. You admit that the embryo is a distinct organism (life) from it’s parents. You admit that the species of that organism is human…

Second, your use of ‘potential.’ Sperm and egg have the potential for creating a human life. The embryo is the life created.

98

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I’ll add to Pat’s refutation of the Parasite charge.

A FETUS IS NOT A PARASITE[/quote]

Where was it said that an fetus is a parasite?

What was said (at least by me) was that an embryo (note embryo, not fetus) has more in common with a parasite than with a complete human being. Sharing many traits does not imply one being the other. An embryo is not a fetus either. And, finally, an embryo is not a liver - just to be clear - analogies are drawn to illustrate a point, not to imply perfect identity between the compared things.

If you want to refute points, refuse those actually made, not what you think was said, or would like to have been said.

For example, refute the “Liver-Embryo-Adult Human” table above. I notice everyone’s avoided commenting on it. Why?

99

[quote]pookie wrote:

For example, refute the “Liver-Embryo-Adult Human” table above. I notice everyone’s avoided commenting on it. Why?
[/quote]

Because my liver is not a stage in the human (species) life (distinct organism) cycle. I suppose you could bring up using a liver cell to clone an entire human, if you must. But that argument fails on it’s own merits. The liver line of argument is too silly to start a side line debate over.

Oh, and I simply added the parasite information because of the common charge that the human embryo/fetus is, or like, a parasite. Not even close.

100

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Sperm and egg have the potential for creating a human life. The embryo is the life created.[/quote]

There’s no “creation” of life. It’s a continuation of life. The sperm and ovum are living, before, during and after fertilization. Life started about 4 billion years ago and has continued on since.

Anyway, that’s besides the point.

My point, or rather my opinion on the matter is that an embryo is not a human being in the sense we usually attribute to those words when we use them.

Yes, it is definitely human, as it composed of human cells; but it is not a “being” in that it does not have any of the attributes we generally expect “a being” to have.

It’s not independent; it has no organs, no brain, no feelings, no thoughts, no personality.

It has the potential for all those things, but potential is not equal to realized potential. To believe that the “rights” of an embryo should trump those of the full-fledged human being who does have the organs, the brain, the feelings; who is a being and a person and “an individual” seems wrong to me.

It’s like forbidding you of drinking alcohol because it’s bad for your liver. I’m sure you’d object that your liver does not get a say in whether you can drink or not, and you’d be right.

The fact that your liver has no potential to be anything else does not change the base equation, at least in my view. The full-fledged, complete, independent and potential-realized human gets to make the choice. The embryo doesn’t.