Abortion

[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]

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).

[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.

[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.

[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.