Thread: Are lifers also against the morning after pill?

Originally Posted by Kit

It may be logical, but as it stands I fail to see where. Your definition highlights the scientific fact that the zygote is developing, and isn't yet what its genetic potential offers. As you say... a "fully grown adult human". So to classify it as a fully grown adult human when it is not yet a fully grown adult human doesn't seem logical to me. It isn't scientifically accurate. Human cells are never placed into the species classification of taxonomy.

They are if they're whole, separate organisms. The number of cells and the level of development don't define whether it's an organism or not.

I'm not sure how you can place a single cell with these particular gene expressions into the same category as a fully developed human being in a coma. One has a mind or has had a mind, the other does not and has never. I've already shown how it is not done, and is inaccurate to do so, scientifically speaking. It looks as if you're arguing a philosophical position regarding personhood, but disguising it as a scientific fact (when it is not). Scientifically, the zygote is not a human being. You may believe philosophically that it is, and I'd like to know why.

I think my position that zygotes are human organisms is biological and my position that all human organisms are persons with rights is philosophic.

Originally Posted by diamond lil

I am alive purely by my own efforts. I do not need to be attached to another person to stay alive.

Is a one month old infant alive purely by its own efforts?

Originally Posted by AbsoluteVoluntarist

No, there is not always someone, and what if the person didn't want the plug pulled?

There IS always someone. If not insurance company that is paying for it than the state. No one is kept alive when the recovery takes a miracle.

You're argument was based partly on the idea that if no one cared about the individual, you could kill it. Don't try to sneak out of this.

No sneaking and not the basis of my argument.

Zygotes don't totally lack homeostasis either!

Of course they do. Homeostasis is made possible by organs and zygotes do not have any.

How does the zygote not fit this definition?

Homeostasis.

Unfertilized eggs and sperm are not "contiguous living systems" but only part of them.

I did not claim they were, only that they too were life.

I might be. Siamese twins are. But even barring that, we are still dependent on outside forces and generally other human beings for life.

Not for homeostasis and that is what defines us a independent living entities.

I don't see why being physically attached to someone else makes all the difference.

That is your problem.

Of course it does. The inability to maintain our lives has nothing to do with the inability to maintain our lives. You also suggest a person on a respirator is n homeostasis but a fetus isn't? I see no difference.

What are you attempting to say?

Originally Posted by AbsoluteVoluntarist

Is a one month old infant alive purely by its own efforts?

Yes just as much as you are.

Originally Posted by AbsoluteVoluntarist

Is a one month old infant alive purely by its own efforts?

Usually, though sometimes they need the help of machines.

Originally Posted by prometeus

There IS always someone. If not insurance company that is paying for it than the state. No one is kept alive when the recovery takes a miracle.

You're saying there's always someone to pay for it? No, not always. The state doesn't count because the state takes other peoples' money; they may not be willing to voluntarily pay for it. And why bother, if it's not a life according to you?

Of course they do. Homeostasis is made possible by organs and zygotes do not have any.

That's not the definition I've seen. I means that the system is self-balancing. No system is completely self-balancing without any need for external resources. Nor is any system entirely chaotic; zygotes are self-regulating on a cellular level. So you are merely drawing an arbitrary line in the sand.

Originally Posted by diamond lil

Usually, though sometimes they need the help of machines.

So if you just abandon them in their crib they can survive and flourish?

Originally Posted by AbsoluteVoluntarist

So if you just abandon them in their crib they can survive and flourish?

Yes. They need to be provided with nourishment and ideally kept clean, but they don't need to use the organs of anyone else. They use their own.

Did you really not know that?