Have you always been alive?

Lexi · #**101** (**permalink**) 02-27-2008, 05:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaleRider

Living organisms maintain a high state of order. They they are able to maintain this order because they consume energy. A chemical reaction
is over when it reaches its equilibrium, but a living orgism will
never reach the equilibrium of its metabolic reactions until it dies.

DNA alone is not alive. DNA is an acid. The result of a chemical reaction. Acids and bases are required for life, but are not alive themselves. The cell is the smallest unit that can be alive.

And the next thing this nutcase will be telling you is that a cancer tumor is alive and you will be a murderer if you have it taken out of your body.. Same thing Pale, after all it is alive.. Your mumbo jumbo just doesn't float with everyone, when are you going realize that??

Lexi · #**102** (**permalink**) 02-27-2008, 05:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaleRider

So you lose another point. Frustrating isn't it? All you have to do to prove me wrong is provide some credible science saying that unborns are part of their mother's bodies.

Of course, no such science exists.

No your the frustrated one Pale, you just can't seem to get it right can you? Any child I ever have will be part of my body to me and if you don't agree with that then so be it. Until you have a child yourself you will never know how it feels will you?

Lexi · #**103** (**permalink**) 02-27-2008, 05:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Themaniacster

A fetus is not part of it's mother's body, someone's leg is part of their body, someone's ear is part of their body, however, a baby is just inside someone's body.

And you've already had a baby so you know this for sure, right??

Lexi · #**104** (**permalink**) 02-27-2008, 05:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaleRider

Are you trying to say that during her pregnancy a woman might have two blood types if the child has a different type than its mother? Are you saying that mom is male and female if she happens to be carrying a son? The child's DNA establishes beyond any doubt that it is not part of her body. Deny all you like, but the facts are what they are.

The fact is that the child is a separate individual. Dependent but separate. Fell free to provide some creidible science that states that the child is part of its mother's body if you like. I would be very interested in seeing it.

I'd feel sorry for any child you ever had, they would be nothing to you but a book of "scientific facts". They wouldn't be a part of you and all you would see when you looked at them would be some "credible scientific" mumbo jumbo. Poor kid, hope you never have any.

wyse wyfe · #**105** (**permalink**) 02-27-2008, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaleRider

That is simply not true. Take a leech, or a tick, or a flea, or a mosquito for example. They certainly attatch themselves to us but never become part of us. You are either separate from a thing or part of it. There is no third state.

Leeches, ticks, fleas, mosquitoes, can all detach from their hosts and find another. That is not true of a fetus, it dies upon detachment from the host.
It depends upon that attachment, and that attachment only. IF you are "either separate from a thing or part, a fetus MUST be part of the host.

Quote:

And the child has a separate existence. Dependence does not mean that it is part of its mother. As a perfect example, a mother can have a disease while the child does not. It is separate. The mother might die and the child be delivered alive. This is because it is separate. And the child might die and the mother might live. They are separate. Dependence does not constitute being part of.

If the mother dies and the child is delivered, it is now separate. Before it is detached, it is NOT separate.

Quote:

Actually, that isn't exactly how it works. Upon completion of fertilization, the child begins communicating chemically with its mother so that her body prepares for pregnancy. The child doesn't fool its mother into believing it is a part of her body, the child triggers a pregnancy response in her.

It is that pregnancy response which causes the woman's body to recognize the zef as a part of her.

Quote:

This argument reinforces the argument that the child is not part of its mother. If it were part of her, this chemical communication would not be necessary. Because the mother's body behaves as if the child is part of her does not mean that the child is, in reality. part of her.

It is nice that you brought some research here to prove your point, but if you are trying to prove that the child is part of it's mother's body, you will need to provide research that says that rather than research that clearly points out that they are separate individuals who have a very specific sort of relationship.

IAC, the host's body recognizes the zef as a part of her body. If the zef were, indeed, separate, it could easily be removed from her body and transferred to another host, but since that cannot be done once the zef implants, it is for all practical purposes, a part of her.

naturemomma · #**106** (**permalink**) 02-27-2008, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaleRider

The child is not part of its mother's body. Any second year lab student could do a DNA test and positively identify the child as a separate individual.

I had a miscarrage a few years ago, I was 7 weeks pregnant. I rushed to the Dr., I was in pain all night, couldn't do anything. We knew it was coming, so I stayed home with a bootle of hydrocodone and tried to find a way to except my horrible loss. The next morning I went to the Dr. and handed him all that was left, the gestational sack. Everything else was ... well I don't know where it was.... just gone. But it didn't get up and run around the room and say "hey mom."....

And tell me, if that baby was not a part of me and completely seperate of me, why in the hell was the pain so fuckin' painful? If it was so seperate, why didn't it just fly right out?

Now, bear with me pale, I am exposing myself here and speaking to you on a human level - not scientific one.... can ya handle it????

I wanted that baby. With everything I am. After this happened eveytime I saw a playground, heard a baby crying, saw a baby, picked up my girls from certain friends who's parents had babies - I would lose it. I went into a full blown depression for months. I imagine that any person who chooses abortion has the same response. I am sure they are depressed and possibly feel remorse. Someone posted a thread about the girl who killed herself, people feel, they just get stuck with no way out and no one to help them and they have to make a choice. How is someone going to feed a baby if she can't feed herself? Those are real concerns, and until those concerns are addressed, abotions will occur, legal or not.

I think you are one of those people who just wants to change the law, and then walk away. You'll wash your hands of the entire issue. "Ahh, well my work is done here", the only sad part is you don't even do any work for the "Life" you say want to protect, much less the life already on the planet. Your a weak ass. Your just full of shit and not to be taken seriously any longer. You don't care about life - just controlling it.

Rooster · #**107** (**permalink**) 02-27-2008, 10:17 AM

"Living organisms maintain a high state of order. They they are able to maintain this order because they consume energy. A chemical reaction
is over when it reaches its equilibrium, but a living orgism will
never reach the equilibrium of its metabolic reactions until it dies."

Gregor Mendel, an early researcher, stated that:

For centuries people accepted the "spontaneous generation" of life from inanimate matter. When this long standing myth was finally dispelled in the mid 1800's, it became clear that all life must arise from pre-existing life.

PaleRider · #**108** (**permalink**) 02-27-2008, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rooster

For centuries people accepted the "spontaneous generation" of life from inanimate matter. When this long standing myth was finally dispelled in the mid 1800's, it became clear that all life must arise from pre-existing life.

That doesn't speak to the question of when an individual's life began. You can trace your existence as an individual back to a point in time. Any further back, and you no longer exist as the individual that you have been since your conception.

George O Well · #**109** (**permalink**) 02-27-2008, 10:50 AM

Quote:

I asked for some sort of credible science to support their claim that they weren't alive or that there was some third state that we can exist in that is neither alive nor dead

>>>I 'spect that's about the same as asking for credible science on the existence of God.

PaleRider · #**110** (**permalink**) 02-27-2008, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wyse wyfe

It depends upon that attachment, and that attachment only. IF you are "either separate from a thing or part, a fetus MUST be part of the host.

Any argument that the unborn is a part of its mother is an argument that during pregnancy, a woman is both male and female, has two separate blood types, two sets of organs, etc., etc. Further, since it is possible to fertilize an egg, thus forming a zygote outside of the body, making it possible, for example, to implant a white child into a black woman, a suggestion that the child is part of the woman is a suggestion that the black woman, in this case, is also bi racial.

"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, 1996), 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, 1998), 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, 1998), 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, 1968), 43.

We know beyond a doubt that the child is not part of the woman's body. Feel free to provide some credible science that states that the child is part of her body if you want to prove your point, otherwise, bow to the overwhelming evidence of science that states quite clearly that the child is an individual.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wyse wyfe

IAC, the host's body recognizes the zef as a part of her body. If the zef were, indeed, separate, it could easily be removed from her body and transferred to another host, but since that cannot be done once the zef implants, it is for all practical purposes, a part of her.

Again, feel free to provide some credible science that states that the unborn is part of its mother's body. You will find that no such science exists because no scientist would suggest that a woman could have two blood types, two sexes, etc. Being attatched to a thing or inside of a thing does not make one part of that thing, even if you are dependent upon it for your very life.