Abortion

[apple0154]

Doesn't matter what something may or may not have in common with something else.

Ahhh, that’s precisely the problem when having a discussion with anti-abortionists. Human beings classify/designate things by comparing them to other things. A rational, logical way so others understand, so people can make the connection. Anti-abortionists change words and meanings when discussing abortion. Saying every conception is a human being is like saying every kid in Grade One is a doctor. Every human being started out as a conception and every doctor started out in Grade One. That doesn’t mean every conception is a human being nor every kid in Grade One is a doctor. It takes time to develop. Some conceptions will become human beings and some first graders will become doctors but no one knows.

I made NO claim. I stated a biological fact. One you haven't refuted yet, and you can't refute without defying logic or abandoning language entirely. From point of conception, it is an organism, it is alive, it is human, and it is in the state of being.

Organisms have to be self-contained, for lack of a better term. They have to be able to carry on the processes of life and those cells can not do that. They require the use of the woman’s organs, blood, etc. Her basic bodily functions.

WTF? Are you smoking crack today or something? Fetuses aren't going to blow up and kill anyone. You attempted to make the bizarre analogy that we don't know if there is a cake or loaf of bread in the oven, but comparing to the fetus, we do know what ingredients were mixed, therefore, we do know there is a "cake in the oven." Your first analogy didn't work, and your modified analogy sounds insane.

Fine, you say we know the ingredients. How many genes are contained in those cells? Genes, the things that tell cells not only to grow or not grow but what part to grow into. An arm? A heart? Genes, fairly important things. How many are in those cells? Can anyone, from a scientist to a mystic, tell us those cells will develop into a human being? If so, there would be a lot fewer miscarriages not to mention severe birth defects. The truth is we have no idea what’s in those cells other than it’s human material. Like looking at a cake through the oven window. Can you tell a pineapple upside down cake if it’s cooked in a metal pan just by looking at the top of it? Can you tell if it’s even a cake and not some poisonous concoction laced with arsenic or a loaf of bread in a cake pan? And then there’s the fact 50% of conceptions self-abort and the other fact we know some human beings are born missing parts, including a brain. And then there’s the fact some genes may or may not express themselves depending on the signals sent from the mother to the “markers” that rest on some genes.

This is a replay of the “we know” nonsense that happened with DNA when children were taken away from their biological mother. “We know”. They knew nothing! Just like the souls. Just like quickening. Just like claiming the Pope infallible so he could dictate women produce young men for war. Well, this time it’s not working. Women and most other sensible people have discounted it out of hand. The cry of “wolf” now falls on deaf ears.

We can't remove it without killing it, this has already been explained as well. The argument isn't whether you have this obligation, the laws are clearly protective of the right to have an abortion, I haven't argued this is not the case. The argument is, whether you should have this obligation, in fairness to the living organism known as the fetus. If women did absolutely nothing to cause pregnancy, I would totally agree with your point here, but that is not the case. Pregnancy is the result of an action taken, and there should be a consequence, and people should be obligated as a result.

Nonsense. Nobody, man or woman, should have to answer to anyone regarding how they treat their own body. It’s their body. Talk about freedom and liberty. What could be more fundamental than the right to one’s body? What could be more fundamental than the right of a woman to reproduce or not reproduce? For someone cranked up on individual rights you would deny the most fundamental ones.

One cell didn't reproduce. Two cells, the sperm and egg, fused together in conception, and began to function as an organism. I didn't define this process, I didn't create this distinction, it's not my opinion, it's a biological fact. I've also made no argument "comparing" organisms with each other. I've not said the fetus is more important or equally important as any other human organism, just that it IS an organism.

We don’t know. Nature makes mistakes. Big mistakes. The two cells could fuse and be missing parts. While we don’t know for sure we do know half of them spontaneously abort. Common sense tells us something is/was wrong. And some continue growing and end up producing something that doesn’t have a brain. There is no way that product can function as a complete unit because it isn’t a complete unit. The only reason it grew was due to the woman’s body and once disconnected from the woman’s body it dies like any piece of human material removed from a woman’s body; from organs to a simple piece of skin.

Once was a time, no one thought we'd ever recognize black people as humans. No one thought we'd ever give women the same right to vote as men. No one ever thought we'd be talking about the rights of homosexuals to marry. The fact that we currently don't consistently protect the unborn's constitutional rights, doesn't mean this is always how it will be in America. But you're right, we can't "wait for it to happen" because it never will. We have to actively work for this, and fight for these rights.

Here we go, again, with that nonsense. Ever hear the expression, “If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it’s probably a duck”? Black people walked and talked like any other human being. Women walked and talked like any other human being. Only idiots or greedy (slavery) or controlling (dominant males) would argue against blacks and women not being people or not deserving of equal rights. Unfortunately, there are still controlling, dominant males who want to push women back just like they consistently offer women lower pay.

I witnessed the latter first hand when my wife was Director General (Town Manager), years ago. The Mayor and Councillors tried to “pull a fast one” and the resulting court case resulted in costing the town a handsome price. They messed with the wrong gal. I was a gentleman though as I thanked two of the Councillors who kept an eye on us as I helped my wife clean out her office/files. And yes, it felt good! I can’t think of anything that pisses me off more than seeing prejudice and I can’t think of anything I enjoy more than seeing perpetrators practicing such getting what they deserve. Man, it feels good! Really good! Maybe that’s why I have such a dislike towards anti-abortionists. Just a different form of prejudice against women.

Nothing in the history of our known universe, has EVER been able to carry on the process of life indefinitely. You are applying an ignorant and absurd contextual understanding of "must carry on the process of life" and it has been pointed out to you repeatedly. Once the baby organism without a brain ceases to live, it is no longer a living organism. We find not one single solitary word in the science book, about organisms requiring a brain or any other specific part. We find no criteria for an organism having to maintain immortality, which is your interpretation of what constitutes an organism, something that never dies.

It never could carry on the processes of life. That’s the point. The woman carried on the processes for it. That’s why it ceased functioning once separated from the woman. Is this really that difficult for you to understand?

Again, no argument has been made about equivalency of organisms, or current law of the land. Something reproducing cells and carrying on the process of life, is a living organism, because it can't be anything else. It's reality, and I believe in reality.

Oh, please, Dix. Who ya kiddin’? The mantra is “a conception is an organism and the organism is a human being.” The reality is as long as the fetus requires the woman’s body (organs, blood, basic metabolism) to survive, as long as the fetus has not developed to the point it can carry on the processes of life, it doesn’t fulfill the definition of an organism because an organism I supposed to be able to carry on the processes of life. How can it be considered a complete unit when the parts necessary for it to carry on the processes of life have not developed? Again, where are you having difficulty with this? If the parts necessary to carry on the processes of life have not developed, have not come into existence, then it can’t carry on the processes of life. I can’t see the difficulty you’re having understanding such a basic concept.

Huh? Is that "Skinhead Rules" or something? I never heard of this. I have heard this one: IF THE SHOE FITS...!

….the clump of cells should wear it?

 

[apple0154]

No one is suggesting a theocracy just life, liberty and, the pursuit of happiness, all three things are denied aborted children embc

Unwanted, growing up in poverty. Who could possibly want to stop a process that would deny a child's right to that?

 

[The Dude]

They will take the vote from blacks before they make abortion illegal.

 

[patriot66]

Unwanted, growing up in poverty. Who could possibly want to stop a process that would deny a child's right to that?

Then don't get pregnant! see, now wasn't that easy?

 

[The Dude]

Don't hold your breath on going backwards on abortion. Pagan!

 

[apple0154]

Then don't get pregnant! see, now wasn't that easy?

Easy? I suppose for those who lack the normal sex drive.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Ahhh, that’s precisely the problem when having a discussion with anti-abortionists. Human beings classify/designate things by comparing them to other things. A rational, logical way so others understand, so people can make the connection. Anti-abortionists change words and meanings when discussing abortion. Saying every conception is a human being is like saying every kid in Grade One is a doctor. Every human being started out as a conception and every doctor started out in Grade One. That doesn’t mean every conception is a human being nor every kid in Grade One is a doctor. It takes time to develop. Some conceptions will become human beings and some first graders will become doctors but no one knows.

This is another incorrect and inaccurate analogy. I've not changed meanings of words, that is what you keep trying to do. In fact, you've even gone so far as to defiantly proclaim that things are just called what they are because that's what people decided to call them, and we can just disregard definitions made by man. Saying every conception results in a living human organism in the state of being, is like saying every first grader is a human in the state of being. Other than time to develop, there is fundamentally no difference between the two. You've not shown any evidence to the contrary, you just keep typing voluminous idiocy over and over again, apparently hoping to cover your cat turds with massive amounts of kitty litter. It's not working.

Organisms have to be self-contained, for lack of a better term. They have to be able to carry on the processes of life and those cells can not do that. They require the use of the woman’s organs, blood, etc. Her basic bodily functions.

Again, you fucking moron, the fetus IS self-contained! The fetus IS carrying on the process of life! Those cells HAVE to be doing that, because they used to be just two cells, and now they are MORE! Yes, the living human organism IS dependent on another organism for future survival, but that will be the case until the fetus is somewhere near adolescence. This can't possibly be the criteria we establish for organisms, because it would mean that most children are not human beings.

Because an organism may "require" something from another living organism, doesn't change what it is. Sorry!

Fine, you say we know the ingredients. How many genes are contained in those cells? Genes, the things that tell cells not only to grow or not grow but what part to grow into. An arm? A heart? Genes, fairly important things. How many are in those cells? Can anyone, from a scientist to a mystic, tell us those cells will develop into a human being? If so, there would be a lot fewer miscarriages not to mention severe birth defects. The truth is we have no idea what’s in those cells other than it’s human material. Like looking at a cake through the oven window. Can you tell a pineapple upside down cake if it’s cooked in a metal pan just by looking at the top of it? Can you tell if it’s even a cake and not some poisonous concoction laced with arsenic or a loaf of bread in a cake pan? And then there’s the fact 50% of conceptions self-abort and the other fact we know some human beings are born missing parts, including a brain. And then there’s the fact some genes may or may not express themselves depending on the signals sent from the mother to the “markers” that rest on some genes.

In biology, an "organism" is an independent form of life, marked by its ability to carry on the process of life. There is no criteria regarding genes, just like there is no criteria requiring limbs or organs, or immortality.

You want to hear a proper analogy involving cake? You've gone to the store and bought the most expensive cake mix they had, making the conscious choice to pick out exactly the kind of cake you want to bake. You've gone home and prepared the ingredients according to direction, taken every step to measure and mix them and pour the batter into pans. You've set the oven according to the directions on the box, and placed the pans into the oven to bake. The substance in the pans begins to rise... suddenly, you proclaim this is NOT A CAKE! It's merely a "clump of dough" and we only call it "cake" because we're ignorant and have all these 'made up' definitions for things. Furthermore, you carry on endlessly about how we don't know if it's really a cake, and that it's entirely possible it's something else, maybe a pie or custard! You make the argument that this can't be a cake because it requires the oven to bake it and cakes are already baked. Then you bounce back to the argument that we don't know exactly everything in the ingredients, it may have things we don't know about, so it might not be a cake. You generate so much hot air, and stomp your little feet so hard, the cake in the oven begins to fall. You point to this and proclaim it is PROOF this isn't really a cake because it has fallen.

But the really absurd thing about this analogy, is how you want to use cake in any comparative way with living human organisms.

This is a replay of the “we know” nonsense that happened with DNA when children were taken away from their biological mother. “We know”. They knew nothing! Just like the souls. Just like quickening. Just like claiming the Pope infallible so he could dictate women produce young men for war. Well, this time it’s not working. Women and most other sensible people have discounted it out of hand. The cry of “wolf” now falls on deaf ears.

We know that matter doesn't produce matter. We know that if two fused cells are in the process of reproducing more cells, and functioning independently, a living organism does exist. There is no other way to define or classify what is happening. Every attempt you have made to "explain" this, has resulted in you opening the door into your face and refuting your own argument. Things can't die if they aren't alive first, this is just not possible. However, you have suspended rules of possibility, because things are just whatever men decided they meant, they don't really "mean" anything.

Nonsense. Nobody, man or woman, should have to answer to anyone regarding how they treat their own body. It’s their body. Talk about freedom and liberty. What could be more fundamental than the right to one’s body? What could be more fundamental than the right of a woman to reproduce or not reproduce? For someone cranked up on individual rights you would deny the most fundamental ones.

I'm not concerned with THEIR body. I am concerned with how they treat the body of the human organism inside them. I believe in property rights and privacy, and what you do inside your home is none of my business, but I can't condone you killing people inside your home. You understand why you don't have the freedom to do this, right? You understand it's not about me trying to control what you do in your home, if I seek to prohibit you from killing people in it.... you get that, right?

We don’t know. Nature makes mistakes. Big mistakes. The two cells could fuse and be missing parts. While we don’t know for sure we do know half of them spontaneously abort. Common sense tells us something is/was wrong. And some continue growing and end up producing something that doesn’t have a brain. There is no way that product can function as a complete unit because it isn’t a complete unit. The only reason it grew was due to the woman’s body and once disconnected from the woman’s body it dies like any piece of human material removed from a woman’s body; from organs to a simple piece of skin.

We DO know. YOU know! You proved it again here! You admit something is alive and growing and then dies, but you want to argue this means it wasn't alive. "Isn't a complete unit" is another admission that some part of a unit does exist and is functioning as incomplete. Reasons why it grew aside, you admit that something did grow, and when removed, it died. You've been given biological differences between organisms and "living human material." We know, and YOU know, that organisms are not like skin cells or livers. However, even though you know this is a living human organism in the state of being, you seek to apply artificial criteria and qualification standards which aren't biological at all. The organism doesn't meet your standard, therefore it is rendered defective. Again, Hitler would be very proud.

Here we go, again, with that nonsense. Ever hear the expression, “If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it’s probably a duck”? Black people walked and talked like any other human being. Women walked and talked like any other human being. Only idiots or greedy (slavery) or controlling (dominant males) would argue against blacks and women not being people or not deserving of equal rights. Unfortunately, there are still controlling, dominant males who want to push women back just like they consistently offer women lower pay.

If your cat gets pregnant and is going to have kitties... she is laying there in the floor one night, and you see her belly moving, the litter is squirming around in there, you feel it and see it. Are those independent organisms moving around, or is the cat doing that? Look at any picture of a fetus after the first trimester, and ask yourself the duck question.

 

[apple0154]

This is another incorrect and inaccurate analogy. I've not changed meanings of words, that is what you keep trying to do. In fact, you've even gone so far as to defiantly proclaim that things are just called what they are because that's what people decided to call them, and we can just disregard definitions made by man. Saying every conception results in a living human organism in the state of being, is like saying every first grader is a human in the state of being. Other than time to develop, there is fundamentally no difference between the two.

Have you ever made a pasta sauce? If so, try substituting tomato seeds for tomatoes and let me know if there is a fundamental difference.

Again, you fucking moron, the fetus IS self-contained! The fetus IS carrying on the process of life! Those cells HAVE to be doing that, because they used to be just two cells, and now they are MORE! Yes, the living human organism IS dependent on another organism for future survival, but that will be the case until the fetus is somewhere near adolescence. This can't possibly be the criteria we establish for organisms, because it would mean that most children are not human beings.

Considering the woman sends instructions to the fetus’ genes are you saying the average mother sends signals/instructions to their children while they’re in school? Playing outside? Are you talking biological WI-FI?

Because an organism may "require" something from another living organism, doesn't change what it is. Sorry!

Require “something”? Requiring the constant and continued use of another organism’s blood and organs and basic bodily functions because theirs have not developed is considered “something”? You keep talking about fetuses not being developed. That’s exactly what it’s all about. It has to be developed to the point it can carry on the processes of life and until then it does not fulfill the requirements of an organism unless you’re saying an organism doesn’t have to carry on the processes of life. So, which one is it, Dix? Does an organism have to have the ability to carry on the processes of life or does it not?

In biology, an "organism" is an independent form of life, marked by its ability to carry on the process of life. There is no criteria regarding genes, just like there is no criteria requiring limbs or organs, or immortality.

Hold on a second. If an organ is necessary to carry on the processes of life then an organ is required. And a fetus can not carry on the processes of life. The woman in which it resides is carrying on the processes of life for it. Not only supplying nutrients and carrying away waste but actually involved in the growing of certain parts by sending signals to the markers on the genes.

As I’ve said before we’ve surpasses your grade six biology to which you keep referring. Have you checked out epigenetics or have you chosen to remain wilfully ignorant?

You want to hear a proper analogy involving cake? You've gone to the store and bought the most expensive cake mix they had, making the conscious choice to pick out exactly the kind of cake you want to bake. You've gone home and prepared the ingredients according to direction, taken every step to measure and mix them and pour the batter into pans. You've set the oven according to the directions on the box, and placed the pans into the oven to bake. The substance in the pans begins to rise... suddenly, you proclaim this is NOT A CAKE! It's merely a "clump of dough" and we only call it "cake" because we're ignorant and have all these 'made up' definitions for things. Furthermore, you carry on endlessly about how we don't know if it's really a cake, and that it's entirely possible it's something else, maybe a pie or custard! You make the argument that this can't be a cake because it requires the oven to bake it and cakes are already baked. Then you bounce back to the argument that we don't know exactly everything in the ingredients, it may have things we don't know about, so it might not be a cake. You generate so much hot air, and stomp your little feet so hard, the cake in the oven begins to fall. You point to this and proclaim it is PROOF this isn't really a cake because it has fallen.

But the really absurd thing about this analogy, is how you want to use cake in any comparative way with living human organisms.

I’m sure you feel better having got that off your chest. Rather than continue with cake analogies I’ll come back to what you wrote earlier, “In biology, an "organism" is an independent form of life, marked by its ability to carry on the process of life.” While that’s true and I’m glad you understand I don’t know why you’re unable to understand that a fetus can not carry on the process of life. The fetus is missing vital parts (organs) which are necessary to carry on the processes of life and until they are developed, until they come into existence and function, it’s the woman who is carrying on the processes of life. I don’t see how you’re having difficulty comprehending something so straight forward.

We know that matter doesn't produce matter. We know that if two fused cells are in the process of reproducing more cells, and functioning independently, a living organism does exist. There is no other way to define or classify what is happening. Every attempt you have made to "explain" this, has resulted in you opening the door into your face and refuting your own argument. Things can't die if they aren't alive first, this is just not possible. However, you have suspended rules of possibility, because things are just whatever men decided they meant, they don't really "mean" anything.

There are an infinite number of ways to define or classify what is happening but saying it’s an organism and, by extension, a human being is absurd. It can not carry on the processes of life. Parts haven’t developed, parts that are required to carry on the processes of life.

In the past you’ve naively compared the function of a pregnant woman to a mother feeding a baby and changing its diaper. I’ve never heard anything so childish. The pregnant woman is doing the work of the fetus’s liver and kidneys and lungs and other organs because those organs have not developed and each one, not to mention the combination of them, are vital for human beings to carry on the processes of life. Again, what are you having a problem with? It can’t be anymore straight forward.

I'm not concerned with THEIR body. I am concerned with how they treat the body of the human organism inside them. I believe in property rights and privacy, and what you do inside your home is none of my business, but I can't condone you killing people inside your home. You understand why you don't have the freedom to do this, right? You understand it's not about me trying to control what you do in your home, if I seek to prohibit you from killing people in it.... you get that, right?

So if someone breaks into your home and decides to live there you can’t do anything about it? Is that what you’re saying? If you come home from work one day and see some dude sitting in your living room watching TV and drinking your beer it’s OK?

Hmmm, maybe I read you wrong, Dix. You’re some cool dude, man.

We DO know. YOU know! You proved it again here! You admit something is alive and growing and then dies, but you want to argue this means it wasn't alive. "Isn't a complete unit" is another admission that some part of a unit does exist and is functioning as incomplete. Reasons why it grew aside, you admit that something did grow, and when removed, it died. You've been given biological differences between organisms and "living human material." We know, and YOU know, that organisms are not like skin cells or livers. However, even though you know this is a living human organism in the state of being, you seek to apply artificial criteria and qualification standards which aren't biological at all. The organism doesn't meet your standard, therefore it is rendered defective. Again, Hitler would be very proud.

Ahhh, the old Hitler reference.

Yes, something was growing. A human being? Nope. As for applying artificial criteria and qualifications I’m only applying the criteria and qualifications science, itself, has applied. It has to be able to carry on the processes of life and common sense tells us that’s not possible because it doesn’t have the necessary equipment (organs, instructions, etc) to do so. For the umteenth time where/why are you having difficulty? If certain organs are vital for an organism/human being to carry on the processes of life and those organs have not developed what is the logical conclusion? If those organs are necessary for something to function and be considered an independent entity and they are missing and a human being (the woman) is performing those functions what is the logical conclusion? This is not an exercise in major problem solving.

If your cat gets pregnant and is going to have kitties... she is laying there in the floor one night, and you see her belly moving, the litter is squirming around in there, you feel it and see it. Are those independent organisms moving around, or is the cat doing that? Look at any picture of a fetus after the first trimester, and ask yourself the duck question.

I guess you’re unfamiliar with the expression, “Don’t count your chickens before they’ve hatched.”

 

[patriot66]

Easy? I suppose for those who lack the normal sex drive.

It's about being in control of your sex drive, Mine is healthy as all get out, and i am married! Teenage sex drive, is in overdrive, they need more guidance on how to control it, not giving out birth control and throwing gas on the fire.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Continue to justify murder however you want, it is still the taking of life, baby killers.

So you are for the morning after pill and giving contraception to teenagers on the same scale as doling out junior driving licenses?

And you're for child care/day care services and welfare?

 

[Taichiliberal]

It's about being in control of your sex drive, Mine is healthy as all get out, and i am married! Teenage sex drive, is in overdrive, they need more guidance on how to control it, not giving out birth control and throwing gas on the fire.

newsflash, genius.....all this hoop-la for the past 30 some odd years is because this society can no longer hide the consequences of pre-marital sex among uneducated teens.

Contraception PREVENTS pregnancy, and severely stymies STD's.....not the other way around.

Got that bunky?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Have you ever made a pasta sauce? If so, try substituting tomato seeds for tomatoes and let me know if there is a fundamental difference.

A tomato is not a human being, bu a tomato seed is to a tomato, what sperm is to a human being. No one is advocating we save sperm cells, so what the fuck is your inane point? Ever try to make authentic pasta sauce with tomatoes and then try to convince people they weren't really tomatoes but clumps of cells? That would be a better analogy here for your argument.

Considering the woman sends instructions to the fetus’ genes are you saying the average mother sends signals/instructions to their children while they’re in school? Playing outside? Are you talking biological WI-FI?

The woman sends instructions to the fetus because that is the natural development process of the organism. Every human being has to undergo this process, there is no other way for the organism to advance to the next stage. But even with this point, you are establishing beyond even a moron's ability to doubt, that there IS another intelligent living organism in existence. If the mother sends instructions, something has to receive them and process the information. How can some non-organism or random clump of cells do this?

Require “something”? Requiring the constant and continued use of another organism’s blood and organs and basic bodily functions because theirs have not developed is considered “something”? You keep talking about fetuses not being developed. That’s exactly what it’s all about. It has to be developed to the point it can carry on the processes of life and until then it does not fulfill the requirements of an organism unless you’re saying an organism doesn’t have to carry on the processes of life. So, which one is it, Dix? Does an organism have to have the ability to carry on the processes of life or does it not?

They require this because these things are aspects to the development process of the organism, and no human that has ever existed, has acquired these aspects of development any other way. The fact there is waste to process, is yet another admission by you, that a living functioning independent organism exists. Clumps of cells don't produce waste.

It simply doesn't have to be developed to the point of anything, Apple. I've already corrected you on this numerous times. The fused cells have to 'carry on the process' of reproducing more cells, once that happens, it is forever an organism, it doesn't change what it was whenever it expires. No living organism in the history of mankind has lived forever and continued to 'carry on the process of life' indefinitely. You are applying a criteria which disqualifies every living thing we've ever known, from being considered a living organism... and you don't even bat a stupid eye.

Hold on a second. If an organ is necessary to carry on the processes of life then an organ is required. And a fetus can not carry on the processes of life. The woman in which it resides is carrying on the processes of life for it. Not only supplying nutrients and carrying away waste but actually involved in the growing of certain parts by sending signals to the markers on the genes.

I never said an organ was necessary to carry on the process of life. I never said an organism must have an organ. The mother is NOT carrying on the process of the fetus' life, whom she is sending signals to and disposing of it's waste. Clearly, another organism is carrying on the process of life, because it is processing information from the mother and discarding waste material. The mother is providing the necessary details of development, but this does not change what the organism is.

As I’ve said before we’ve surpasses your grade six biology to which you keep referring. Have you checked out epigenetics or have you chosen to remain wilfully ignorant?

You've not surpassed anyone with your arguments except yourself. Each time you have attempted to 'splain things, you've admitted that a unique living human organism does exist. I understand epigenetics, and what you apparently don't seem to understand is, it completely dismantles your argument that the fetus is not a unique living human organism. Instructions are sent from one organism to another, there would be no need for mom to send genetic instructions to herself. There is no logical or rational explanation for why the mother would need to send genetic information to anything (of hers) inside her body because all of her genetic markers should be known by the cells in her body already, it's how they came into existence. The fact that she sends instructions to the fetus only confirms the fetus is a unique living human organism in the state of being, and at the stage of development which requires this.

I’m sure you feel better having got that off your chest. Rather than continue with cake analogies I’ll come back to what you wrote earlier, “In biology, an "organism" is an independent form of life, marked by its ability to carry on the process of life.” While that’s true and I’m glad you understand I don’t know why you’re unable to understand that a fetus can not carry on the process of life. The fetus is missing vital parts (organs) which are necessary to carry on the processes of life and until they are developed, until they come into existence and function, it’s the woman who is carrying on the processes of life. I don’t see how you’re having difficulty comprehending something so straight forward.

And the fetus is actively in the process of developing vital organs. The woman is NOT carrying on the process of life for this organism, nor does she produce the organs it will eventually come to develop. She is performing the functions this organism has not developed enough to perform on its own yet, and guess what... for the next [so many] years, she will continue to do so as a Mom. Because an organism isn't capable of existing outside it's 'natural' state, doesn't mean it's not an organism. The fetus is 'carrying on the process' as such an organism is expected to do at this time, at this point of development. How are you having difficulty comprehending this? There is no prerequisite in "must be able to carry on the process" for a specified degree of development. An organism is not defined by such a prerequisite, and frankly, it's quite disturbing to think you'd attempt to apply such criteria. Once the two fused cells have carried on the process of producing a third, fourth, fifth cell... they have met the threshold of a living organism, and they will be a living organism until they expire. PERIOD!

There are an infinite number of ways to define or classify what is happening but saying it’s an organism and, by extension, a human being is absurd.

No. It is being totally honest about biology, logic and physics, and not pretending to believe something that you can't support, and continue to contradict your own stupid arguments when trying to explain to us. The only 'absurd' thing here is, that I continue to respond to your profound ignorance and long-winded examples of your persistent stubbornness on this particular topic. Your arguments were checkmated about two years ago, and you have just continued to repeat the same mindless nonsense since then. It doesn't matter how many times we repeat it, or how many times it is gone over, you continue to stubbornly refuse to accept some very elementary facts about biology. I don't know whether this is sad or pathetic, but it is most definitely absurd that I spend so much time responding to it.

It can not carry on the processes of life. Parts haven’t developed, parts that are required to carry on the processes of life.

No... parts that will eventually be required to carry on the process. The process is being carried on with the development of the organism, which already exists. No other criteria needed to be met for this to be a living human organism. The organism does not need these organs at this stage, that is outside the normal expectation of the organism at this time. The organism itself (not the mother) will "carry on the process" and grow these vital organs, which will prepare it for the next stage of development. The gestation process of this organism has already begun, it started at conception. Until you counter this argument with biological fact, I have nothing else to say. If your point is, it's an organism, but it doesn't meet some arbitrary criteria you've established, to be of any value, that's a disturbing view, but you are entitled to it. It's a living human organism.