Thread: Are We Incrementally Losing Our Freedom?

Originally Posted by MistressNomad

A heartbeat does not make something A life. It makes it alive. But not a life. I had an enormous cyst once, and it had no heart, but it did have an independent blood flow network. Is that a life? By your definition, probably. It had an independent structure of sustenance. So was killing it murder?

No. Because it was no sentient, it could not survive outside my body, and didn't meet any of the long list of qualifiers for a life.

Really? your cyst had an "independent blood flow network"? Isn't that just another way of saying circulatory system? How can there be a circulatory system, especially an independent one, without a pump?

And what is an "independent structure of sustenance"? It had it's own internal organs? An independent structure of sustenance could be a mouth. A mouth is a structure used by the body for sustenance. Are you saying your cyst had a mouth? Some cysts, such as dermoid cysts, may contain teeth and hair, but certainly not structured for the function of sustenance.

This cyst of yours was certainly not designed to be independent away from it's host. A baby is.

It's kind of a long answer, but basically, a mass connected to a living organism typically does not have any blood vessels at all, unless it is a very advanced cystadenoma, or cancerous. Fortunately for me it was not cancer. And no, such a structure can't sustain itself without a pump. Interestingly, my cyst also had a bifurcation, which aids in division of labor in keeping it alive, and other such structures - just like a heart has. It did have organs of sorts, actually. Even individual cells have organs.

But neither can the heart of a zygote or fetus sustain itself because it doesn't have the other systems in place which make it self-sustaining, such a developed automated neuronal system (also why they don't feel pain, think, etc), or ability to process nutrients or protein.

Even a parasite has better self-sustaining capability than a fetus or zygote.

Also, what about fetuses and zygotes not yet that developed? A fetus doesn't have a functioning heart at all until over a month into gestation. A large minority (somewhere around 30% - an exact number is hard to find) of abortions take place at or before that point.

So are those abortions ok?

Around fifty percent of all human pregnancies end in spontaneous abortions, with no interaction whatsoever. In most cases, the mother doesn't even know it's happened. Her cycle just occurs a bit later than usual or is especially heavy.

This is why womens' reproductive health should include no one outside the small circle of herself and her physician. Her mate has an advisory role, at best, for obvious reasons.

Originally Posted by MistressNomad

It's kind of a long answer, but basically, a mass connected to a living organism typically does not have any blood vessels at all, unless it is a very advanced cystadenoma, or cancerous. Fortunately for me it was not cancer. And no, such a structure can't sustain itself without a pump. Interestingly, my cyst also had a bifurcation, which aids in division of labor in keeping it alive, and other such structures - just like a heart has. It did have organs of sorts, actually. Even individual cells have organs.

But neither can the heart of a zygote or fetus sustain itself because it doesn't have the other systems in place which make it self-sustaining, such a developed automated neuronal system (also why they don't feel pain, think, etc), or ability to process nutrients or protein.

Even a parasite has better self-sustaining capability than a fetus or zygote.

Also, what about fetuses and zygotes not yet that developed? A fetus doesn't have a functioning heart at all until over a month into gestation. A large minority (somewhere around 30% - an exact number is hard to find) of abortions take place at or before that point.

So are those abortions ok?

Individual cells do not have organs, they have "organelles." Similar in function to organs, but cells are still dependent on their "host" for survival.

I think you meant "autonomic nervous system." The central nervous system is one of the first structures to develop in the embryo. Babies do feel pain, they just can't localize it, yet.

No ability to process nutrients or protein?? Guess that depends on what you mean by "process." They are processing tons of nutrients and protein from the mother. Why do you think that pregnant mothers need to consume more calories during pregnancy? You know that little bump that gets bigger and bigger?

A fetus is technically a "parasite." A label that may remain attached to it long after birth and well into it's second decade, and beyond. The difference is that most "parasites", the pathological ones we usually think of, will never develop into sentient beings. Most fetuses will.

Now do you still want to compare your cyst removal to the abortion of a fetus?

Yes, I do. What we call "organs" are not a definition of what they do for an organism, but rather a definition of how they do it. "Organs" are simply the type of structures found in a particular kind of life - animals. Other living things have systems that are there for the same reason, which is to perform processes required for cohesive survival. We call them something slightly different because those system are different depending on the type of life, but their purpose is the same.

So what you're saying is that a cellular neural reaction which connects to nothing is the same as an actual nervous system? Pain is a perception. All that's happening in the case of a fetus at the developmental stage when most abortions happen is that there is a localized, non-communicative reaction.

These things are already processed into useable material by the time they get to the fetus. The fetus, starting with the biofuel in an unprocessed formation, cannot process it to sustain its own life.

It isn't a matter of what they might become. It's a matter of what they are, which is alive, but not a life. That is the line, and that's why we don't perform abortions except in medical emergencies once that line is crossed - which is a good 15+ weeks before birth.

Originally Posted by MistressNomad

It's kind of a long answer, but basically, a mass connected to a living organism typically does not have any blood vessels at all, unless it is a very advanced cystadenoma, or cancerous. Fortunately for me it was not cancer. And no, such a structure can't sustain itself without a pump.

Then your reasoning against Jasongreat was flawed.

Why? Nor can a fetus. That's a pretty easy connection.

Originally Posted by MistressNomad

Yes, I do. What we call "organs" are not a definition of what they do for an organism, but rather a definition of how they do it. "Organs" are simply the type of structures found in a particular kind of life - animals. Other living things have systems that are there for the same reason, which is to perform processes required for cohesive survival. We call them something slightly different because those system are different depending on the type of life, but their purpose is the same.



So what you're saying is that a cellular neural reaction which connects to nothing is the same as an actual nervous system? Pain is a perception. All that's happening in the case of a fetus at the developmental stage when most abortions happen is that there is a localized, non-communicative reaction.

These things are already processed into useable material by the time they get to the fetus. The fetus, starting with the biofuel in an unprocessed formation, cannot process it to sustain its own life.

It isn't a matter of what they might become. It's a matter of what they are, which is alive, but not a life. That is the line, and that's why we don't perform abortions except in medical emergencies once that line is crossed - which is a good 15+ weeks before birth.

You display a breadth of knowledge, but with a lot of gaps. I really didn't want to go so far off topic as to turn this into a biology lesson. I'll step back now, and should the discussion continue, I'll just sit back and enjoy.

Well, biology is a complicated subject. To even suggest I could sum it all up in that space is ridiculous.

Besides that, you don't seem to be exactly gap-free yourself. And again, you seem to be dodging questions.

The problem in the abortion debate is that everybody makes their own definition when does a fertilized egg become a person with rights.
As far as I understand the US citizenship is determined at birth, not before, and clearly the US government has little legitimate interaction with non citizens.

Since this discussion is already well in the philosophical area we can consider any made up cases that bear nothing to reality. So what determines that a parent has any responsibility at all towards his/her children? I mean responsibility beyond their own choices? It is either due to the society or it is from supernatural, God-given origin (something like say the responsibility to breathe)?