Quote:
Originally Posted by T_Ereponemos
I was saying that you clearly showed you were pro life, never did I say you were biased toward fact rather than misrepresentation and lies. Though denying the attachment of the fetus to the mother's body may prove me wrong.
|
Being inside of or attatched to does not make you part of.
Quote:
Originally Posted by T_Ereponemos
I was physically attached but after I was birthed and disconnected I was no longer a fetus, I was a named individual who didn't require a placenta or a special environment. Though I was human I wasn't completely my own person. in turn those rights did not apply to me.
|
Being inside of or attatched to does not make you part of.
Fetus, infant, toddler, embryo, adolescent, blastocyst, old geezer, zygote. All are words we use to describe a human being in various stages of thier life. You are no less human as an infant than you are as an adult and no more human as an adult than you were as a zygote. Human being is the kind of creature you are, not the degree to which you manifest your potential.
And you went from requiring one special environment to requiring another special environment. The parameters for the environment that supports your life are as narrow on the outside as they were on the inside. Arguably more narrow on the outside because technically, it would have been possible for you to have survived environments before you were born that would have killed your mother.
As to being an individual, you have always been one. Being dependent does not make you any less human and it does not make you any less "your own person" whatever meaning you attatch to that term. You have been exactly what you are from the time you were concieved. You have not become more human and as such, have not become more deserving of your basic human rights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by T_Ereponemos
So if a baby kills a mother during birth, does it go to court?
|
I have never said that a woman whose life is in danger due to a pregnancy does not have the right to defend her self by terminating the pregnancy. Suggesting that "sometimes" women die during pregnancy is not, however, a valid reason to kill a child. 1 in 12,000 is the chance of having life threatening problems during a pregnancy. Walk through a bad neighborhood, kill some seedy looking character and tell the judge that he represented at least a 1 in 12,000 chance of being a threat to your life. Let me know how that works out for you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by T_Ereponemos
You failed to prove that it wasn't. I would go with the fact that the fetus is attached to the umbilical cord, the umbilical cord is attached to the placenta, and the placenta is attached to the body of the pregnant woman. Therefore it is part of her body and in turn allows her to decide it's fate.
|
You are asking me to prove a negative? I am afraid that I can't do that but I can prove that the child is an individual (individual being a distinct and indivisible entity) which would preclude it being part of its mother.
"Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human being is thereby formed"Ronan R. O'Rahilly, Fabiola Muller, HUMAN EMBRYOLOGY & TERATOLOGY , (New York: Wiley-Liss), 5-55.
"[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm ... unites with a female gamete or oocyte ... to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual."The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed. Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company), 2-18.
"In this text, we begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual. ... Fertilization takes place in the oviduct ... resulting in the formation of a zygote containing a single diploid nucleus. Embryonic development is considered to begin at this point... This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development."Essentials of Human Embryology William J. Larsen, (New York: Churchill Livingstone), 1-17.
"It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitues the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new
individual."
Human Embryology, 3rd ed. Bradley M. Patten, (New York: McGraw Hill), 43.
If you need further evidence that the child is not part of its mother's body and are willing to do more intensive study first so as to be able to understand what is being said, you might check these studies out as well.
Munn, D.H. et al., Prevention of allogeneic fetal rejection by tryptophan catabolism,
Science 281(5380):1122–1124, 1998.
Kudo, Y. and Boyd, C.A., Human placental indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase: cellular localization and characterization of an enzyme preventing fetal rejection,
Biochim. Biophys. Acta. 1500(1):119–124, 2000.
Suzuki, S. et al., Expression of indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase and tryptophan 2,3-dioxygenase in early concepti,
Biochem. J. 355(2):425–429, 2001.
Now once again, I invite you to provide some credible science to corroborate your, so far, unsubstantiated opinion. The fact that you believe what you believe does not make it true, it only shows that you don't have a very good grasp of developmental biology and are the sort of person who is willing to hold an irrationally strong opinion on a subject when you obviously know very little about the subject.
(continued)