Abortion

[Don Corleone]

^^^^ WOW ^^^^

Well, thank you for your honesty. We're coming from 2 very different places, but I respect your right to your views. Just out of curiousity... isn't everything that's not capable of photosynthesis a parasite? What's the difference between a tapeworm eating an intenstine and a wolf eating a deer, or the deer eating leaves for that matter?

[Reverend Joe]

The difference is that the wolf has its own digestive system, and can consume outside food without it having to be processed by the deer, or without having to use the deer's digestive system for nourishment. The same goes for the deer eating the leaves, though admittedly the deer is closer to being a parasite, because the nutrients it is eating are almost digested in the leaf already. Still, the point is that the wolf does not have to attach itself to the deer's belly and siphon off its digested food.

The abortion at age two, by the way, was supposed to be a morbid joke (and a hook-line-and-sinker comment) but I can see that it won't strike too many people as funny. Anyway, once the baby is capable of gaining nourishment without it having to be processed, it becomes a living being.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

The difference is that the wolf has its own digestive system, and can consume outside food without it having to be processed by the deer, or without having to use the deer's digestive system for nourishment

So baby birds are not alive then? Also isnt most human baby food processed by humans?

[Ser Clegane]

Anyway, once the baby is capable of gaining nourishment without it having to be processed, it becomes a living being.

By that definition (which seems to be your own, personal definition) any person who is - even temporarily - on a feeding tube or other life support would not be a living being.

Interesting approach...

[Don Corleone]

Aaah, but the deer did process the food for the wolf. The deer ate leaves and transformed the vegetative matter into advanced proteins. The wolf cannot do anything with the plant proteins or the carbohydrates in the leaf. The wolf relies on the deer to process the food. I'm not trying to split hairs here, it seems to me that you see a fundamental difference between parasites & other creatures and I'm afraid I'm not getting it. In my mind, parasite is a relative term, as it's most basic defintion "that which feeds off of other living things" applies to anything that's alive that doesn't possess the capability for photosynthesis. Nothing else makes its own food.

[Reverend Joe]

So baby birds are not alive then? Also isnt most human baby food processed by humans?

I forgot about that- you are right; a baby bird is not technically alive, because its food has to be digested by the mother first. And baby food is processed by a machine, not a living system; besides, the baby is not eating food that is pouring directly into it from a digestive system; it performs some basic digestion of its own. However, babies are very close to being parasites.

Go ahead and say it- I'm a sick bastard. But I am using cold hard facts and as little emotion as possible.

[Ser Clegane]

Go ahead and say it- I'm a sick bastard. But I am using cold hard facts and as little emotion as possible.

Actually you are only making up your own definition of life. I wouldn't go as far as calling that "cold hard facts".

[Reverend Joe]

Aaah, but the deer did process the food for the wolf. The deer ate leaves and transformed the vegetative matter into advanced proteins. The wolf cannot do anything with the plant proteins or the carbohydrates in the leaf. The wolf relies on the deer to process the food.

The main difference is that the vegetable matter has been digested fully and transformed into materials that are being used by the deer. If the wolf was a parasite, it would never give the deer a chance to use this material to grow. The same applies to the placenta; the baby is not eating part of the mother; it is using preprocessed material that was never used by the mother.

[Reverend Joe]

Actually you are only making up your own definition of life.

Well, aren't we all? I just was trying to say that I am trying to base my theory off of biological facts, just as you are (I hope).

[Don Corleone]

I don't think you're a sick bastard, I just think you've taken your own road in this thought process. Commendable, even if I disagree with where it has taken you. I do think you're relying on hyperbole a bit too much, but hey, if that's how you want to score your points...

Kukri-khan hit the nail on the head earlier in this thread, and whether you're aware of it or not, you've proved his point. Nobody is advocating murdering any entity they consider a human being. We're all debating what it means to be a human being and vice versa. You're just arguing that a 270 day old fetus isn't a human being because the mother is still supplying nutrients directly. That's a unique perspective, but an interesting one I'm mulling over.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

So now its the ability to process and digest your own food that determines whether anything is alive or not. And of course only accordding to your definition of what prepartion is.
Never heard this one before.

[Ser Clegane]

Well, aren't we all?

Well - there are some definition that seem to be accepted by a broader range of people, like the following one:

In biology, a lifeform has traditionally been considered to be a member of a population whose members can exhibit all the following phenomena at least once during their existence:

1. Growth
2. Metabolism, consuming, transforming and storing energy/mass; growing by absorbing and reorganizing mass; excreting waste
3. Motion, either moving itself, or having internal motion
4. Reproduction, the ability to create entities that are similar to, yet seperate from, itself
5. Response to stimuli - the ability to measure properties of its surrounding environment, and act upon certain conditions.

In some points similar to your definition, but I took the liberty to emphasize the phrase that makes all the difference.

[Reverend Joe]

It's not mine- it's what I learned about parasites in biology. Parasites perform no real digestion of their own; they actually need digestive materials in their "food" to live.

[Don Corleone]

The main difference is that the vegetable matter has been digested fully and transformed into materials that are being used by the deer. If the wolf was a parasite, it would never give the deer a chance to use this material to grow. The same applies to the placenta; the baby is not eating part of the mother; it is using preprocessed material that was never used by the mother.

Speaking as somebody with a pregnant wife, trust me, she's able to grow in addition to the baby itself. Crap, I think she saw that.... no baby, you're not starting to show yet.... *ducks*

I'm afraid you're going to have to distill this parasite theory for me a little more. I'm simply not getting it. No organism on the planet that lacks photosynthesis feeds itself independently. In fact, even plants require nutrients they get out of the soil from the byproducts of bacteria biodegrading other lifeforms. Your point about life forms that can produce their own food independently is lost on me, because I cannot think of a single example.

[Don Corleone]

Well - there are some definition that seem to be accepted by a broader range of people, like the following one:



In some points similar to your definition, but I took the liberty to emphasize the phrase that makes all the difference.

Actually, not to be too big a pain in the ass, Ser C, but aren't we going backwards now? According to #4, pre-pubescant boys & girls aren't techicially an independent life form.

[Ser Clegane]

Actually, not to be too big a pain in the ass, Ser C, but aren't we going backwards now? According to #4, pre-pubescant boys & girls aren't techicially an independent life form.

No we aren't going backwards - see the statement I put in bold.

It clearly points out that an individual entity does not have to meet all these criteria at any time to be considered a lifeform.

Although I have to admit that little kids tend to behave sufficiently outlandish that one could sometimes doubt whether they are members of the "human population"

[Don Corleone]

Good point. But no fair fooling me by hiding that statement by putting it in bold.

[Reverend Joe]

I'm afraid you're going to have to distill this parasite theory for me a little more. I'm simply not getting it. No organism on the planet that lacks photosynthesis feeds itself independently. In fact, even plants require nutrients they get out of the soil from the byproducts of bacteria biodegrading other lifeforms. Your point about life forms that can produce their own food independently is lost on me, because I cannot think of a single example.

What I am saying is that parasites need digestive materials as well as the basic nutrients. The food needs to be broken down into individual components (i.e. no larger molecules, just the basic sugars, protiens, etc.) If it is still in a complex form when it is consumed, that is not parasitic consumption. It is material that is used in other operations that are essential to life, and it has been used to construct and operate cells.

Part of the problem is that the definition itself is a little hazy. It is never cut-and-dry; this is just my take on it.

Sir Cleagane- that was not the exact definition I was taught in Biology.

[drone]

Drone- I don't understand your point...

My point is that the right and the left have their own opinions about the status and awareness of an unborn child. Neither side truly knows. Capital punishment is state retribution against someone who has knowingly committed a violent crime (although, here you could also argue that "no one truly knows" the guilt or innocence, since there are mistakes made). What has an unborn child done to deserve death, if you think, like the "Rightists", that the unborn is alive?

Using the "Leftist" terminology here to be the opposite of the "Rightist", the "Leftist" believes in pro-choice and opposes the death penalty. From the "Rightists" point of view, this means the "Leftists" support the murder of innocent infants while opposing the state-sponsored murder of violent criminals. The justification behind the two types of "murder" make the difference for the "Rightists". And you wonder why there is such animosity between the two sides?

Some groups are against both abortion and capital punishment, and these groups tend to be on the right nowadays, so the "Rightist" label might not be appropriate.

[Reverend Joe]

Drone- I'll get back to you later; right now I am too brain-fried to respond.

I need to listen to some Floyd, clear my head...

[Ser Clegane]

Sir Cleagane- that was not the exact definition I was taught in Biology.

I'm pretty sure your teacher/professor - even if he did not say it explicitly - was referring to the entire pouplation of entities.
Otherwise it would be a pretty silly definition as - apart from the group Don already mentioned - the definition would also exclude e.g., sterile people
(hey - I do not have any kids yet. For all I know I could be as much alive as a rock )

[Don Corleone]

Hey! This is a family oriented chat-board. Keep your rock & your reproductive prowess out of it, big guy.

[drone]

Drone- I'll get back to you later; right now I am too brain-fried to respond.

I need to listen to some Floyd, clear my head...

No problem, looks like about 4 different threads intertwined here. It took me a while to get that post worded the way I wanted it.

Us, us, us, us.... and them, them, them, them...

[Reverend Joe]

I have to take a break- I'm starting to become convinced that murder is justifiable regardless of age, because we are all parasites.

I'll be back in an hour or so.

[Ser Clegane]

Hey! This is a family oriented chat-board. Keep your rock & your reproductive prowess out of it, big guy.

*hopes that "rock" didn't have any obscene connotations that he wasn't aware of*

At least you seem to already fulfill all criteria and passed the test of being alive, Don ... unless you are inert to stimuli from your surrounding environment that is...

[Don Corleone]

I will say, I'm quite happy it hasn't degraded into the usual poo-flinging we tend to engage in when it comes to this topic & the other 4 members of the unholy pentatauch of frequently started threads: (gun control, gay marriage, the UN & George W Bush).

[Don Corleone]

*hopes that "rock" didn't have any obscene connotations that he wasn't aware of*

At least you seem to already fulfill all criteria and passed the test of being alive, Don ... unless you are inert to stimuli from your surrounding environment that is...

Based on the way human reproduction works, I think it's safe to say that one is a 2-for-1 deal, at least for human males.

[Ser Clegane]

I'll be back in an hour or so.

I ... uhm ... hope you won't do anything silly during that hour (considering the insight you just seem to have gained)

[drone]

I have to take a break- I'm starting to become convinced that murder is justifiable regardless of age, because we are all parasites.

I'll be back in an hour or so.

I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area, and you multiply, and multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet, you are a plague, and we are the cure.

Something like this?

[Reverend Joe]

Just out of curiosity... does anyone know what you are supposed to do when... well, never mind.