APP - Proof That God Exists

I suppose I could ask, why is your skin cell not considered an organism, whereas an amoeba is? They're both cells. But a skin cell doesn't have independent reproduction capabilities, and thus does not evolve for the sake of itself, and thus does not serve itself. It is a cell that, over time, has been reduced to simply being created and used, not for itself, not for for another organism, but to a mass of other cells that are all similarly simple tools of the whole. At one point evolutionary history, the ancestors of your cells were indeed independent organisms. They probably started out as a moss, or some other mat of cells tightly bundled together, becoming more and more interdependent until they lost individuality and even an independent genetic code - and then they were one organism, instead of many. If an amoeba has a trait that doesn't contribute to it's own survival, that trait will die out. In contrast, a trait that leads to the death of an individual skin cell may very well survive if it leads to greater survivability of the whole. You see similar patterns in social insects, where reproduction is centralized at the colony level, since everything but the queen is sterile (the queen essentially being the ovaries of the organism).

A suborganism, such as a skin cell, an ant, or a liver, only really wants to survive because doing so furthers the needs of the organism. The organism itself only really wants to survive because doing so serves the purpose of propagating the genes (or, at least, this is the tendency; an organism may very well have no desire to survive, however, in the long run there will tend to be less of such creatures). A bee sustains itself and survives because the hive needs workers for honey, but it will gladly kill itself stinging an intruder in order to defend the hive. And a mother will provide sustenance for the fetus at the cost of her own livelihood, and will even protect a child at the cost of her own life. Why? The genes make a rational calculation, and they have more to gain from the creation of a new organism with 50% of their genetic content than they do from the remaining childbearing years and life expectancy of an organism with 100%.

Also, you are completely wrong on one point. The fetus does has all of the capabilities necessary to carry on the processes of life. The fact that it has strict environmental requirements - the womb of a mother - at best would make it parasitic (which would really be a rather silly way to describe something necessary to sustain the species, but whatever). If there were a creature that somehow evolved to convince another creature to utterly sustain it in some way, without even having to contribute anything, utterly bypassing any defense mechanisms, that would simply be a successful evolutionary strategy. It wouldn't mean it was no longer an organism - it would mean that it's a smart organism. Let's imagine, for the hell of it, that the parasitic species somehow convinced host species to develop a special organ inside it's body for the parasite to be comfortable in, where the host provided the parasite with nutrition, oxygen, and waste disposal. Let's also imagine the the host species started trading the sperm and eggs of the parasite between each other, so that the parasite would literally have all of its needs taken care of. Eventually, I suppose, the parasite would lost the ability to leave the host organism, since there would be no need. It would simply sit inside of the host organism its entire life, having all its needs taken care of - certainly an even more extreme example than the fetus, which at least leaves the host at some point. Would the parasite then somehow be part of the host? I'd honestly say it's more the other way around - the host would be more like an organ of the parasite. Of course, this is an evolutionary absurdity, but that's not really the point.

Of course, the fetus only gets a sweet deal because the genes want the fetus. Since the organism ultimately serves the genes, even to its own detriment, it is designed to pop out the fetus. The subunits of the organism, such as the womb, the digestive system, the ventilation system, and the waste disposal system, similarly fall in line, reworking themselves so that they support it's life functions as well as the mothers. You can't compare to an internal organ like a liver. Sure, they both require an environment that their host provides. But there is reciprocity in your relationship with your liver - the liver pulls its own weight, and gets the sustenance it needs in order to sustain the organism. In contrast, a fetus doesn't do anything to sustain the host organism, it simply takes. I think the confusion here is caused by the fact that you think that, because the organism takes care of the fetus, the fetus is somehow subservient to the organism. It is true that we take care of things we own. However, we also take care of things that own us, and to a much greater degree. And that would be a better description of the parent-child relationship in most of nature.

With humans, of course it's somewhat different, because we're not totally driven by instinct, so we're more inclined to think of our own happiness that to obey instinctual commands our genes give us. We also have social obligations (like avoiding overpopulation) that don't concern most species. However, the relationship of a fetus to a mother could still not be considered like that of a organism to one of its suborganisms.
 
KissingCommies said:
I suppose I could ask, why is your skin cell not considered an organism, whereas an amoeba is? They're both cells. But a skin cell doesn't have independent reproduction capabilities, and thus does not evolve for the sake of itself, and thus does not serve itself. It is a cell that, over time, has been reduced to simply being created and used, not for itself, not for for another organism, but to a mass of other cells that are all similarly simple tools of the whole. At one point evolutionary history, the ancestors of your cells were indeed independent organisms. They probably started out as a moss, or some other mat of cells tightly bundled together, becoming more and more interdependent until they lost individuality and even an independent genetic code - and then they were one organism, instead of many. If an amoeba has a trait that doesn't contribute to it's own survival, that trait will die out. In contrast, a trait that leads to the death of an individual skin cell may very well survive if it leads to greater survivability of the whole. You see similar patterns in social insects, where reproduction is centralized at the colony level, since everything but the queen is sterile (the queen essentially being the ovaries of the organism).

A suborganism, such as a skin cell, an ant, or a liver, only really wants to survive because doing so furthers the needs of the organism. The organism itself only really wants to survive because doing so serves the purpose of propagating the genes (or, at least, this is the tendency; an organism may very well have no desire to survive, however, in the long run there will tend to be less of such creatures). A bee sustains itself and survives because the hive needs workers for honey, but it will gladly kill itself stinging an intruder in order to defend the hive. And a mother will provide sustenance for the fetus at the cost of her own livelihood, and will even protect a child at the cost of her own life. Why? The genes make a rational calculation, and they have more to gain from the creation of a new organism with 50% of their genetic content than they do from the remaining childbearing years and life expectancy of an organism with 100%.

Also, you are completely wrong on one point. The fetus does has all of the capabilities necessary to carry on the processes of life. The fact that it has strict environmental requirements - the womb of a mother - at best would make it parasitic (which would really be a rather silly way to describe something necessary to sustain the species, but whatever). If there were a creature that somehow evolved to convince another creature to utterly sustain it in some way, without even having to contribute anything, utterly bypassing any defense mechanisms, that would simply be a successful evolutionary strategy. It wouldn't mean it was no longer an organism - it would mean that it's a smart organism. Let's imagine, for the hell of it, that the parasitic species somehow convinced host species to develop a special organ inside it's body for the parasite to be comfortable in, where the host provided the parasite with nutrition, oxygen, and waste disposal. Let's also imagine the the host species started trading the sperm and eggs of the parasite between each other, so that the parasite would literally have all of its needs taken care of. Eventually, I suppose, the parasite would lost the ability to leave the host organism, since there would be no need. It would simply sit inside of the host organism its entire life, having all its needs taken care of - certainly an even more extreme example than the fetus, which at least leaves the host at some point. Would the parasite then somehow be part of the host? I'd honestly say it's more the other way around - the host would be more like an organ of the parasite. Of course, this is an evolutionary absurdity, but that's not really the point.

Of course, the fetus only gets a sweet deal because the genes want the fetus. Since the organism ultimately serves the genes, even to its own detriment, it is designed to pop out the fetus. The subunits of the organism, such as the womb, the digestive system, the ventilation system, and the waste disposal system, similarly fall in line, reworking themselves so that they support it's life functions as well as the mothers. You can't compare to an internal organ like a liver. Sure, they both require an environment that their host provides. But there is reciprocity in your relationship with your liver - the liver pulls its own weight, and gets the sustenance it needs in order to sustain the organism. In contrast, a fetus doesn't do anything to sustain the host organism, it simply takes. I think the confusion here is caused by the fact that you think that, because the organism takes care of the fetus, the fetus is somehow subservient to the organism. It is true that we take care of things we own. However, we also take care of things that own us, and to a much greater degree. And that would be a better description of the parent-child relationship in most of nature.

With humans, of course it's somewhat different, because we're not totally driven by instinct, so we're more inclined to think of our own happiness that to obey instinctual commands our genes give us. We also have social obligations (like avoiding overpopulation) that don't concern most species. However, the relationship of a fetus to a mother could still not be considered like that of a organism to one of its suborganisms.
Click to expand...

It's like listening to Shrek explain science! Aside from the fact that most of what you believe regarding skin cell evolution, is totally baseless and comes from an equally baseless and unproven theory of abiogenesis, I am somewhat confused by your statement: Also, you are completely wrong on one point. The fetus does has all of the capabilities necessary to carry on the processes of life. The fact that it has strict environmental requirements - the womb of a mother - at best would make it parasitic (which would really be a rather silly way to describe something necessary to sustain the species, but whatever).

I have never said the fetus DOESN'T has (sic) all of the capabilities necessary to carry on the process of life, that is precisely what it is doing and how it became a fetus. Virtually ALL living organisms have strict environmental requirements of some kind, it doesn't make them NOT organisms. A fetus would be a "parasite" if it was foreign to the host, but in this case, the host helped to produce it, so it's not parasitic. It does depend on the environment of the womb, but a fucking two year old depends on the same host for virtually everything, so dependence also doesn't make something NOT an organism. If it did, you and apple wouldn't be organisms!
 
Dixie said:
Rana, you are right there on the heels of Watermark dumbness. I can see how you think he is amazing, dumb people are generally attracted to other dumb people. But apple? Really? Rana, I may have to re-evaluate your intelligence level, if you think apple is posting over my comprehension level by stubbornly denying when an organism exists. I don't actually believe you have read his outrageous arguments. He's like an 8-year old trying to explain geothermal physics, and not even knowing how to spell 'geothermal!'
Click to expand...

I have said IF something has to be able to carry on the processes of life in order to qualify as an organism then a fetus does not qualify. A fetus does not and can not carry on the processes of life. It is physically attached to a human being and depends on the organs and bodily functions of that human being because its organs and bodily functions are incapable of carrying on the processes of life. If you are unable to understand that I doubt your intelligence level is even measurable.
 
Dixie said:
But you claimed he was above my comprehension level, so I figured maybe you could explain things to me better... For instance, how is it that science and biology teaches us precisely what makes an organism, and when one exists, yet a living and growing fetus is NOT an organism?
Click to expand...

Because it can't carry on the processes of life. It can't even remove waste from it's body. The woman's kidneys have to do that. It can not breathe. The woman's lungs have to do that. It can't supply the necessary hormones such as insulin. The woman's pancreas has to do that. And on and on it goes.

As I said people can classify anything any way they want, however, IF the ability to carry on the processes of life is required for something to be classified as an organism then a fetus does not qualify. What is it about that statement you're having difficulty understanding? Be specific. Explain why you think a fetus is an organism.

I'll help you get started. If a specific organism has to remove waste from it's system in order to carry on the processes of life and it can't and never could do so is it an organism? If a specific organism has to have functioning lungs to breath in order to carry on the processes of life and it doesn't and never has up to this point is it an organism? Furthermore, considering the possibility of unknown genetic damage and, therefore, not even knowing if it will ever be able to carry on the processes of life do you still consider it an organism? If so, how do you square that with the obligation an organism must be able to carry on the processes of life when it's obvious it can't carry on the processes of life?

Please, shed some light on your way of thinking because it isn't logical.
 
KissingCommies said:
Also, you are completely wrong on one point. The fetus does has all of the capabilities necessary to carry on the processes of life. The fact that it has strict environmental requirements - the womb of a mother -…
Click to expand...

In that case it should be able to be removed and placed in another suitable environment. If we’re able to remove organs and place them in other human beings then it’s logical to conclude an independent organism can be relocated. To claim strict environmental requirements means the fetus has to remain in one specific human being when there are over 6 billion human beings but deny it is part of that specific human being stretches credulity.

…- at best would make it parasitic….
Click to expand...

Parasite: “an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.”

A fetus definitely displays those qualities.

….(which would really be a rather silly way to describe something necessary to sustain the species, but whatever).
Click to expand...

Again, we run into what I’ll dub the anti-abortionist, time distortion paradigm. While the fetus may, at some future time, become a self-sustaining unit such as what usually happens at birth some folks attribute future qualities to things in the present. Just as sperm and egg are living cells and necessary to sustain the species they are not organisms.

Stated another way the egg produced by a specific woman is definitely unique. It is a living cell and necessary for the continuation of the species but it’s not considered an organism. (The same can be said of sperm.) The components that make up the egg (and sperm), the DNA, combine and continue to grow and become part of the fetus just as the components of the fetus continue to grow to become part of the human being at birth.

One major argument anti-abortionists put forward is they say nothing major happens at birth but that is not correct. While the DNA of the fetus and the baby may remain the same all the organs “come on line” resulting in the baby taking care of the processes of life as organisms are obliged to do.

Change in direction of blood flow. Veins atrophying. Going from a liquid environment to a gaseous one. Such major changes would cause serious damage or death if it happened to an organism.

If one insists a fetus is simply an organism requiring strict environmental conditions and is not part of a specific human being when only one human being out of 6 billion can offer that particular environment is it logical to conclude we’re dealing with the same organism that, upon birth, can thrive in the same environment as 6 billion other organisms?

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

KissingCommies said:
I suppose I could ask, why is your skin cell not considered an organism, whereas an amoeba is? They're both cells. But a skin cell doesn't have independent reproduction capabilities, and thus does not evolve for the sake of itself, and thus does not serve itself. It is a cell that, over time, has been reduced to simply being created and used, not for itself, not for for another organism, but to a mass of other cells that are all similarly simple tools of the whole. At one point evolutionary history, the ancestors of your cells were indeed independent organisms. They probably started out as a moss, or some other mat of cells tightly bundled together, becoming more and more interdependent until they lost individuality and even an independent genetic code - and then they were one organism, instead of many. If an amoeba has a trait that doesn't contribute to it's own survival, that trait will die out. In contrast, a trait that leads to the death of an individual skin cell may very well survive if it leads to greater survivability of the whole. You see similar patterns in social insects, where reproduction is centralized at the colony level, since everything but the queen is sterile (the queen essentially being the ovaries of the organism).

A suborganism, such as a skin cell, an ant, or a liver, only really wants to survive because doing so furthers the needs of the organism. The organism itself only really wants to survive because doing so serves the purpose of propagating the genes (or, at least, this is the tendency; an organism may very well have no desire to survive, however, in the long run there will tend to be less of such creatures). A bee sustains itself and survives because the hive needs workers for honey, but it will gladly kill itself stinging an intruder in order to defend the hive. And a mother will provide sustenance for the fetus at the cost of her own livelihood, and will even protect a child at the cost of her own life. Why? The genes make a rational calculation, and they have more to gain from the creation of a new organism with 50% of their genetic content than they do from the remaining childbearing years and life expectancy of an organism with 100%.

Also, you are completely wrong on one point. The fetus does has all of the capabilities necessary to carry on the processes of life. The fact that it has strict environmental requirements - the womb of a mother - at best would make it parasitic (which would really be a rather silly way to describe something necessary to sustain the species, but whatever). If there were a creature that somehow evolved to convince another creature to utterly sustain it in some way, without even having to contribute anything, utterly bypassing any defense mechanisms, that would simply be a successful evolutionary strategy. It wouldn't mean it was no longer an organism - it would mean that it's a smart organism. Let's imagine, for the hell of it, that the parasitic species somehow convinced host species to develop a special organ inside it's body for the parasite to be comfortable in, where the host provided the parasite with nutrition, oxygen, and waste disposal. Let's also imagine the the host species started trading the sperm and eggs of the parasite between each other, so that the parasite would literally have all of its needs taken care of. Eventually, I suppose, the parasite would lost the ability to leave the host organism, since there would be no need. It would simply sit inside of the host organism its entire life, having all its needs taken care of - certainly an even more extreme example than the fetus, which at least leaves the host at some point. Would the parasite then somehow be part of the host? I'd honestly say it's more the other way around - the host would be more like an organ of the parasite. Of course, this is an evolutionary absurdity, but that's not really the point.

Of course, the fetus only gets a sweet deal because the genes want the fetus. Since the organism ultimately serves the genes, even to its own detriment, it is designed to pop out the fetus. The subunits of the organism, such as the womb, the digestive system, the ventilation system, and the waste disposal system, similarly fall in line, reworking themselves so that they support it's life functions as well as the mothers. You can't compare to an internal organ like a liver. Sure, they both require an environment that their host provides. But there is reciprocity in your relationship with your liver - the liver pulls its own weight, and gets the sustenance it needs in order to sustain the organism. In contrast, a fetus doesn't do anything to sustain the host organism, it simply takes. I think the confusion here is caused by the fact that you think that, because the organism takes care of the fetus, the fetus is somehow subservient to the organism. It is true that we take care of things we own. However, we also take care of things that own us, and to a much greater degree. And that would be a better description of the parent-child relationship in most of nature.

With humans, of course it's somewhat different, because we're not totally driven by instinct, so we're more inclined to think of our own happiness that to obey instinctual commands our genes give us. We also have social obligations (like avoiding overpopulation) that don't concern most species. However, the relationship of a fetus to a mother could still not be considered like that of a organism to one of its suborganisms.
Click to expand...
 
Apple... hate to inform you, but a "FETUS" is already an organism, and has been an organism for a while. In fact, the organism has already undergone many changes. Before it was a "FETUS" it was a "ZYGOTE" and an "EMBRYO" ...So by the time it got to be a FETUS, there could be no question it has already carried on the process of life to that point. You are arguing something so pathetically stupid and ignorant of science, you should feel embarrassed. I'll bet your liberal buddies here are wishing you would just shut up about this, because you are making them look really bad as they try to lend you support.
 
Dixie said:
It's like listening to Shrek explain science! Aside from the fact that most of what you believe regarding skin cell evolution, is totally baseless and comes from an equally baseless and unproven theory of abiogenesis, I am somewhat confused by your statement: Also, you are completely wrong on one point. The fetus does has all of the capabilities necessary to carry on the processes of life. The fact that it has strict environmental requirements - the womb of a mother - at best would make it parasitic (which would really be a rather silly way to describe something necessary to sustain the species, but whatever).

I have never said the fetus DOESN'T has (sic) all of the capabilities necessary to carry on the process of life, that is precisely what it is doing and how it became a fetus. Virtually ALL living organisms have strict environmental requirements of some kind, it doesn't make them NOT organisms. A fetus would be a "parasite" if it was foreign to the host, but in this case, the host helped to produce it, so it's not parasitic. It does depend on the environment of the womb, but a fucking two year old depends on the same host for virtually everything, so dependence also doesn't make something NOT an organism. If it did, you and apple wouldn't be organisms!
Click to expand...

Eh, Dix, I think KissingCommies is agreeing with you, not contesting you. :palm:
 
Dixie said:
Apple... hate to inform you, but a "FETUS" is already an organism, and has been an organism for a while. In fact, the organism has already undergone many changes. Before it was a "FETUS" it was a "ZYGOTE" and an "EMBRYO" ...So by the time it got to be a FETUS, there could be no question it has already carried on the process of life to that point. You are arguing something so pathetically stupid and ignorant of science, you should feel embarrassed. I'll bet your liberal buddies here are wishing you would just shut up about this, because you are making them look really bad as they try to lend you support.
Click to expand...

Was the embryo connected to the woman? Do you know that 50% of zygotes/fertilized cells spontaneously abort?

Once the embryo is attached to the woman it is the woman who is carrying on the processes of life for the embryo. If you disagree, great. Then you have no problem with women having them removed.

If you still have a problem comprehending the difference between a fetus and a baby go buy a goldfish and take it out of the water. We'll start there, OK. :)

(I'm going back to bed for a while.)
 
apple0154 said:
Was the embryo connected to the woman? Do you know that 50% of zygotes/fertilized cells spontaneously abort?

Once the embryo is attached to the woman it is the woman who is carrying on the processes of life for the embryo. If you disagree, great. Then you have no problem with women having them removed.

If you still have a problem comprehending the difference between a fetus and a baby go buy a goldfish and take it out of the water. We'll start there, OK. :)

(I'm going back to bed for a while.)
Click to expand...

Repeating yourself is never going to make you correct.

A goldfish out of water, is still a goldfish, it doesn't suddenly become something else. When it finally dies, it doesn't mean it never lived or wasn't a real goldfish.

Once the embryo is attached to the woman it is the woman who is carrying on the processes of life for the embryo. If you disagree, great.
Click to expand...

I disagree, AND science disagrees. The woman does nothing to carry on the process of an embryo becoming a zygote and then a fetus. Those functions take place within the organism itself, the woman only provides the environment. They CAN actually take the embryo out and it will still become a zygote and fetus, if they put it in another suitable environment. They do this quite often, actually.

I've never said I had a problem with them being removed, I have a problem with people like you who want to refuse to admit what they are. If we can be honest about them being living human organisms, THEN we can debate when it's appropriate to terminate them and when it's not. I'm fine with that debate, I have no problem making informed decisions with all the pertinent and relative facts on the table, it's when you try to lie and evade science, and pretend something isn't a fact, that I have a problem.
 
Dixie said:
Apple... hate to inform you, but a "FETUS" is already an organism, and has been an organism for a while. In fact, the organism has already undergone many changes. Before it was a "FETUS" it was a "ZYGOTE" and an "EMBRYO" ...So by the time it got to be a FETUS, there could be no question it has already carried on the process of life to that point. You are arguing something so pathetically stupid and ignorant of science, you should feel embarrassed. I'll bet your liberal buddies here are wishing you would just shut up about this, because you are making them look really bad as they try to lend you support.
Click to expand...

It wasn't carrying on the processes of life if it had to be attached to and depended upon the organs of a human being to perform vital bodily functions. It was an incomplete "unit", for lack of a better term. Also, while you're trying to implicate others it's not working. Rana put you in your place. Do you want others to do the same thing?

If it's found out a child in school who always received 100% on their homework did so because their parent did the homework would the child still receive the credit? Obviously you do not understand what the pregnant woman supplies to the zygote and embryo and fetus. The woman supplies everything and does everything until the fetus reaches a point where it can carry on the processes of life at which time a birth occurs.

If that isn't the case then simply remove the fetus. "Six billion human beings and only one specific human being can supply the necessary requirements for a specific fetus but that human being isn't carrying on the processes of life for the fetus." That belief is about as pathetically stupid as one can get regardless of who says otherwise.
 
Dixie said:
Repeating yourself is never going to make you correct.

A goldfish out of water, is still a goldfish, it doesn't suddenly become something else. When it finally dies, it doesn't mean it never lived or wasn't a real goldfish.
Click to expand...



I disagree, AND science disagrees. The woman does nothing to carry on the process of an embryo becoming a zygote and then a fetus. Those functions take place within the organism itself, the woman only provides the environment. They CAN actually take the embryo out and it will still become a zygote and fetus, if they put it in another suitable environment. They do this quite often, actually.

I've never said I had a problem with them being removed, I have a problem with people like you who want to refuse to admit what they are. If we can be honest about them being living human organisms, THEN we can debate when it's appropriate to terminate them and when it's not. I'm fine with that debate, I have no problem making informed decisions with all the pertinent and relative facts on the table, it's when you try to lie and evade science, and pretend something isn't a fact, that I have a problem.[/QUOTE]
 
Dixie said:
Repeating yourself is never going to make you correct.

A goldfish out of water, is still a goldfish, it doesn't suddenly become something else. When it finally dies, it doesn't mean it never lived or wasn't a real goldfish.
Click to expand...

It means an organism can not go from a liquid environment to a gaseous one and survive. If it did it wouldn't be the same organism assuming it was an organism in the first place.

I disagree, AND science disagrees. The woman does nothing to carry on the process of an embryo becoming a zygote and then a fetus. Those functions take place within the organism itself, the woman only provides the environment. They CAN actually take the embryo out and it will still become a zygote and fetus, if they put it in another suitable environment. They do this quite often, actually.
Click to expand...

Great. Then take them out. I keep hearing about all these people who desire children. Take the fetus out of a gal who doesn't want a child and place it in a gal who does. Looks like you solved the abortion problem. :good4u:

I've never said I had a problem with them being removed, I have a problem with people like you who want to refuse to admit what they are. If we can be honest about them being living human organisms, THEN we can debate when it's appropriate to terminate them and when it's not. I'm fine with that debate, I have no problem making informed decisions with all the pertinent and relative facts on the table, it's when you try to lie and evade science, and pretend something isn't a fact, that I have a problem.
Click to expand...

No one is trying to terminate anything. A woman requests to have something (fetus) removed from her body which is her right. If some folks want to say it's a human being, fine. I'm sure most women wouldn't care if it's transplanted, grown in a flower pot, whatever. Problems arise when people say it's a human being and then continue with trying to tell the woman she is not permitted to remove it because it is a human being.

As I've said before science can classify anything any way they want. A pregnant woman vomiting with her head in the toilet every morning having been instructed what to eat and not eat does not require anyone to tell her that she's not carrying on the processes of life for whatever is inside her. If science wants to say it's an organism and others want to say it's a human being, fine. Call it what you want but don't prohibit a woman from being able to have it removed. Their arbitrary designations (fetus, human being)is just an underhanded way to circumvent a woman's right and we've seen that down through history.

Souls entering male fetuses before female fetuses. The soul entering at quickening. Some religious figures saying abortion is a sin against God. And now we have the DNA/organism nonsense.

Enough is enough! It's all based on woman's sex/male control regardless of how one slices it. Nothing has changed. I'm sure the quickening argument certainly had it's proponents what with being able to actually "feel the soul entering" just like the people today who say "science says so." I came of age in the late 60s/early 70s and met two types of women. Ones who celebrated their sexuality and ones who had more hang-ups than a West Virginia clothes line. I married one of each type and I sure as hell don't want to leave a world to my grandchildren filled with the latter.

As for pertinent and relative facts and lying and evading science I know the pain and suffering and life destroying features of a world where abortion is prohibited. I know the twisted beliefs and the stunted emotional development of women who were indoctrinated under such a system as I grew up under that system, heard adult conversations, then finally was old enough to meet such women.

I grew up knowing foster children, unwanted children, as more than a few farmers opened their barns and fields to such children. Children, both boys and girls as young as 8 and 10, loved and nourished about as much as one would love and nourish a drifting farm hand.

I'm familiar with two classmates forced to bear a child. Sent away. Scorned. Lost their ability to continue their education. One committed suicide; an intelligent, beautiful blonde gal whom any man would worship as a wife.

So I don't give a damn what scientists say or the Pope says or anyone else lays claim to. I've seen enough of the anguish and torment from both a young girl's view and a resultant child's view. Damn me if you will but I will not sit by while people try to harm and torment others by casually talking about organisms and human beings when such words are nothing more than made up designations. If someome wants to believe a clump of cells are a human being, fine. Just don't try to force such craziness on those who are human beings. Thousands of years of lies from renowned as-wholes has come to an end in most advanced nations. The goal now is to continually remind the people of the pain and torment women were subjected to under such societies. Never again, regardless of who or what a fetus may or may not be.

Now go get drunk and fvck. :lol:
 
It wasn't carrying on the processes of life if it had to be attached to and depended upon the organs of a human being to perform vital bodily functions.
Click to expand...

No, you are wrong again. The fetus has been a living organism since conception, and has already carried on the process of life through the zygote and embryo stage. It does not have to be attached to the woman, in fact, it doesn't start out as an organism attached to anything, it attaches itself to the woman after it is alreadyan organism. The fact the organism depends on something else, doesn't mean it's not an organism. A child depends on its parent, is it NOT an organism? You depend on your government check, are you NOT an organism? There are BILLIONS of examples of organisms depending on other organisms, or depending on certain environments, it doesn't mean they aren't really organisms.
 
It means an organism can not go from a liquid environment to a gaseous one and survive. If it did it wouldn't be the same organism assuming it was an organism in the first place.
Click to expand...

Right, and if we tie a brick to your feet and dump you in the ocean, you will probably stop being a living organism. It still doesn't change the fact you were a living organism before you died.
 
I've seen enough of the anguish and torment from both a young girl's view and a resultant child's view.
Click to expand...

And I have seen (dealt with first-hand, actually) the gradual decline of a once-beautiful young woman, into depression, alcohol addiction, drug addiction, and finally death, as a result of the decision they made to kill their baby. They did it because they were scared, and everyone around them told them it was the easiest way out, but afterward, they couldn't live with themselves.
 
KissingCommies said:
I suppose I could ask, why is your skin cell not considered an organism, whereas an amoeba is? They're both cells. But a skin cell doesn't have independent reproduction capabilities, and thus does not evolve for the sake of itself, and thus does not serve itself. It is a cell that, over time, has been reduced to simply being created and used, not for itself, not for for another organism, but to a mass of other cells that are all similarly simple tools of the whole. At one point evolutionary history, the ancestors of your cells were indeed independent organisms. They probably started out as a moss, or some other mat of cells tightly bundled together, becoming more and more interdependent until they lost individuality and even an independent genetic code - and then they were one organism, instead of many. If an amoeba has a trait that doesn't contribute to it's own survival, that trait will die out. In contrast, a trait that leads to the death of an individual skin cell may very well survive if it leads to greater survivability of the whole. You see similar patterns in social insects, where reproduction is centralized at the colony level, since everything but the queen is sterile (the queen essentially being the ovaries of the organism).

A suborganism, such as a skin cell, an ant, or a liver, only really wants to survive because doing so furthers the needs of the organism. The organism itself only really wants to survive because doing so serves the purpose of propagating the genes (or, at least, this is the tendency; an organism may very well have no desire to survive, however, in the long run there will tend to be less of such creatures). A bee sustains itself and survives because the hive needs workers for honey, but it will gladly kill itself stinging an intruder in order to defend the hive. And a mother will provide sustenance for the fetus at the cost of her own livelihood, and will even protect a child at the cost of her own life. Why? The genes make a rational calculation, and they have more to gain from the creation of a new organism with 50% of their genetic content than they do from the remaining childbearing years and life expectancy of an organism with 100%.

Also, you are completely wrong on one point. The fetus does has all of the capabilities necessary to carry on the processes of life. The fact that it has strict environmental requirements - the womb of a mother - at best would make it parasitic (which would really be a rather silly way to describe something necessary to sustain the species, but whatever). If there were a creature that somehow evolved to convince another creature to utterly sustain it in some way, without even having to contribute anything, utterly bypassing any defense mechanisms, that would simply be a successful evolutionary strategy. It wouldn't mean it was no longer an organism - it would mean that it's a smart organism. Let's imagine, for the hell of it, that the parasitic species somehow convinced host species to develop a special organ inside it's body for the parasite to be comfortable in, where the host provided the parasite with nutrition, oxygen, and waste disposal. Let's also imagine the the host species started trading the sperm and eggs of the parasite between each other, so that the parasite would literally have all of its needs taken care of. Eventually, I suppose, the parasite would lost the ability to leave the host organism, since there would be no need. It would simply sit inside of the host organism its entire life, having all its needs taken care of - certainly an even more extreme example than the fetus, which at least leaves the host at some point. Would the parasite then somehow be part of the host? I'd honestly say it's more the other way around - the host would be more like an organ of the parasite. Of course, this is an evolutionary absurdity, but that's not really the point.

Of course, the fetus only gets a sweet deal because the genes want the fetus. Since the organism ultimately serves the genes, even to its own detriment, it is designed to pop out the fetus. The subunits of the organism, such as the womb, the digestive system, the ventilation system, and the waste disposal system, similarly fall in line, reworking themselves so that they support it's life functions as well as the mothers. You can't compare to an internal organ like a liver. Sure, they both require an environment that their host provides. But there is reciprocity in your relationship with your liver - the liver pulls its own weight, and gets the sustenance it needs in order to sustain the organism. In contrast, a fetus doesn't do anything to sustain the host organism, it simply takes. I think the confusion here is caused by the fact that you think that, because the organism takes care of the fetus, the fetus is somehow subservient to the organism. It is true that we take care of things we own. However, we also take care of things that own us, and to a much greater degree. And that would be a better description of the parent-child relationship in most of nature.

With humans, of course it's somewhat different, because we're not totally driven by instinct, so we're more inclined to think of our own happiness that to obey instinctual commands our genes give us. We also have social obligations (like avoiding overpopulation) that don't concern most species. However, the relationship of a fetus to a mother could still not be considered like that of a organism to one of its suborganisms.
Click to expand...


:good4u: :hand: :good4u:​
 
Dixie said:
Right, and if we tie a brick to your feet and dump you in the ocean, you will probably stop being a living organism. It still doesn't change the fact you were a living organism before you died.
Click to expand...

Right, it doesn't change the fact I was a living organism. By the fact I stopped living it more than likely proves I was a living organism. However, if I kept living I either wasn't an organism before or I went through a fundamental change.

Get it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top