Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 1
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"From the moment of conception, the unborn are individual organisms."



False. More lies from the anti-choice extremists.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"From the moment of conception, the unborn are individual organisms."

False. More lies from the anti-choice extremists.

It's true that it has its own unique DNA, distinct and separate from the mother's DNA. And it is growing, developing its own brain and circulatory system.

However, until it is born, it is completely dependent on the mother for everything it needs in the form of nourishment, oxygen, and waste disposal. Some would even say it is dependent on the parents (or equivalent) for survival until the parents kick it out of the house almost two decades later, and sometimes longer. :)

Is anything I typed above false?

Is your complaint with the phrase, "individual organisms"?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Part of the definition of "organism" is the ability to reproduce. A fetus is not capable of this. FYI.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
<<
Part of the definition of "organism" is the ability to reproduce. A fetus is not capable of this. FYI.
>>

Neither are most 90 year olds... are you trying to say my parents are not living organisms?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
A good point. Also infertile adults. Children. Mules.

But if you look up the definition, that is what it says (among other things). A blastula is not capable of reproduction. It doesn't even have the needed equipment yet.

Another characteristic is the ability to maintain homeostasis (which I don't believe a blastula or fetus can do either).
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
Is your complaint with the phrase, "individual organisms"?



Identical twins or triplets are not individual organisms at the moment of conception. One cell cannot contain more than one human. Any definition of "human being" MUST include being able to quantify the number of humans being discussed, because human beings are by definition individual and distinct.

At the moment of conception, you cannot differentiate between single, twins, triplets, etc. This fact alone proves that the fertilized egg cannot be considered as a human being.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Identical twins or triplets are not individual organisms at the moment of conception. One cell cannot contain more than one human. Any definition of "human being" MUST include being able to quantify the number of humans being discussed, because human beings are by definition individual and distinct.

At the moment of conception, you cannot differentiate between single, twins, triplets, etc. This fact alone proves that the fertilized egg cannot be considered as a human being.


Also, with chimeras, you can end up with one human being from two conceptions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_(genetics)#Human_chimer...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
It's true that it has its own unique DNA, distinct and separate from the mother's DNA. And it is growing, developing its own brain and circulatory system.

However, until it is born, it is completely dependent on the mother for everything it needs in the form of nourishment, oxygen, and waste disposal. Some would even say it is dependent on the parents (or equivalent) for survival until the parents kick it out of the house almost two decades later, and sometimes longer. :)

Is anything I typed above false?



Aye, there's the crux. The fetus is not biologically or physically independent from its mother. That independence starts at birth.

Not biologically independent = not an individual organism.
Print the post Back To Top
Advertisement