| theprof00 said: 1Apologies, I was assuming that since you said that within your response to me, and was kind of vague that you were talking about me. Sorry. 2 A living organism requires homeostasis, a fetus or embryo is not capable of that. "Life begins" is possibly simply an easier way of saying the process of creating life has begun. All organic life is defined by this element of homeostasis, and embryo's/fetus's are incapable. (as an aside to our "egg" discussion earlier, it is also against church rules to donate eggs, also birthcontrol via egg-regulation, and egg extraction.) 3I think we are arguing semantics at this point. Thank you for acknowledging the terminology of "personhood" though. 4Hmmm, perhaps, but this guy above isn't pro-life is he? He's anti-abortion. So there are 3 sides here, anti abortion, pro-life, and pro-choice, right? |
1. Yeah, sorry. I just mean in general that the conversation is always so unproductive, but philosophically the conversation about when life becomes a person is profound and very interesting. It just doesn't get to happen often because everyone is trying to make political points, and they are afraid of being forced to accept things intellectually that may undermine their previously staked out political position.
2. That's kind of a blanket statement because certainly once it is viable, the fetus is capable of homeostasis. Even prior to becoming viable, it has a kind of homeostasis within its environment. It just isn't capable of surviving independently yet. But I wouldn't say it is any less an organism than a person in an iron lung ceases to be an organism.
4. I'd say all anti-abortionists would fall under the pro-life umberlla, but not all pro-lifers are anti-abortionists. The dividing line is elective abortions.
