Ireland legalizes the killing of the unborn

[Charles]

Dance! Dance, little puppet!



And the best part is, that little nagging feeling in the back of your mind trying to figure out what you missed.

And now you go for a personal attack. I could not ask for anything better to prove that you want to avoid discussing the substance.

[Mountain Man]

And now you go for a personal attack. I could not ask for anything better to prove that you want to avoid discussing the substance.

Wrong again, Chuck. Not giving the answer you wanted to your attempted "gotcha" question is not the same as avoiding the discussion.

But do keep dancing.

[Starlight]

Regardless of any debate, you are still not going to find a source that declares every single cell in the human body is an organism in and of itself.

I've ALREADY quoted you one, you knucklehead, multiple times at this point.

Biology for Dummies:
"the cell is the smallest part of the organism that retains characteristics of the entire organism. For example, a cell can take in fuel, convert it to energy, and eliminate wastes, just like the organism as a whole can... Therefore, cells not only make up living things; they are living things."

Individual cells are organisms. Combined together they make up other organisms.

[Mountain Man]

I've ALREADY quoted you one, you knucklehead, multiple times at this point.

Biology for Dummies:
"the cell is the smallest part of the organism that retains characteristics of the entire organism. For example, a cell can take in fuel, convert it to energy, and eliminate wastes, just like the organism as a whole can... Therefore, cells not only make up living things; they are living things."

Individual cells are organisms. Combined together they make up other organisms.

At least you found a source for which you're the target market. Unfortunately, the biggest problem with the "for Dummies" series is that the explanations tend to be overly simplified to the point of being misleading if not incorrect. This makes the information easier for a simpleton like you to digest, but it also leads to misunderstanding of the topics in question. It's like telling young children in math class that nothing can be less than zero simply because their thinking is not advanced enough to comprehend the concept of negative numbers. So in this case, you're a bit like a 4th grader stamping his foot and telling me with authority that zero is the smallest value in mathematics. As someone once said, it's a curious statement about our society that there is a successful series of books that openly calls its readers stupid.

Anyway, I've quoted this previously, but it apparently needs to be repeated.

While cells extracted from a multicellular organism like a plant or a person may be able to be cultured in vitro for a time, they cannot survive independently - they require the intervention of humans (or very well-trained monkeys) to obtain nutrients and oxygen, and process/remove waste. A unicellular organism like a bacterium, for example, can handle these functions on its own - it can either synthesize or find a source for its own nutrients, and can reproduce on its own to create more organisms.

The key difference is being self-sustaining. An organism needs to be able to feed itself, take care of its waste, reproduce a full version of itself, respond to stimuli, etc. (see the "properties of life" link above). A single cell from a multicellular organism cannot do all that without assistance (kind of like a virus, actually), while a true unicellular organism can.

----------

This answer is saying that certain cells are alive and not organisms. The criteria specified in this answer are "stable" and "alive"; those cells meet the second criteria but not the first. Based on your comment, you appear to be assuming all cells have the same capabilities - but they do not.

https://biology.stackexchange.com/qu...ells-organisms

We're just going in circles now, so it's time I stepped off the merry-go-round.

[Tassman]

Things like "rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity" are extreme cases.

Certainly, but "carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental and physical health of the mother" allows for the possibility of much less extreme interpretation, given the vagueness of the language.

[Tassman]

No, you are all of you as a whole. Your body and mind. You can't exist without either one. As a materialist, you should actually value the material body more than the ephemeral mind, which as you say is just a pattern in the brain. Software.

There is no functioning brain or brain pattern before approx week 21 at the earliest, i.e. near the end of the second trimester.

If your brain generates your mind, then it is what is really "you" and if your body generates your brain when you are a fetus, then that is still you. YOU are not just Tassman at this moment in time. You are Tassman who exists as a being in time and space. You occupy space and time. The life time you occupy is from the time you were conceived until you die. Break that chain at any point and you are ended at that spot. You as a fetus was just as much you as you are today, or will be laying on your deathbed.

No, the brain pattern IS the human person. When it goes you go and before it comes on, there IS no you.

[rogue06]

Certainly, but "carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental and physical health of the mother" allows for the possibility of much less extreme interpretation, given the vagueness of the language.

This was well before that was used as a loophole to allow abortion on demand. Hindsight is almost always 20/20.

[Roy]

So in this case, you're a bit like a 4th grader stamping his foot and telling me with authority that ...

... skin cells don't grow, metabolise or respond to stimuli.

[Tassman]

This was well before that was used as a loophole to allow abortion on demand. Hindsight is almost always 20/20.

Nevertheless, the virtual prohibition of abortion by the Evangelicals today is a relatively recent phenomenon. "In the late 1960s and early 1970s, evangelical Christians widely believed the Bible says life begins at birth and supported looser abortion policies"...as the 1971 SBC Resolution indicates.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonat...b_2072716.html

[Mountain Man]

... skin cells don't grow, metabolise or respond to stimuli.

Right, they can't self-sustain like an organism. Separate them from the host organism, and those functions will cease. A skin cell left on its own, even in an otherwise hospitable environment, will inevitably die.

Funny how you can get it without actually getting it.

[Roy]

Separate them from the host organism, and those functions will cease. A skin cell left on its own, even in an otherwise hospitable environment, will inevitably die.

... as will a fertilised human ovum.

[Mountain Man]

... as will a fertilised human ovum.

Nope. Placed in an otherwise hospitable environment, an ovum will thrive. It depends on the mother only in the sense that you and I depend on oxygen to survive.

Please don't tell me you're reaching for the "humans will die in a vacuum, so they don't qualify as organisms" canard. That seems to be a favorite of scientifically illiterate pro-abortionists.

[Roy]

Separate them from the host organism, and those functions will cease. A skin cell left on its own, even in an otherwise hospitable environment, will inevitably die.

... as will a fertilised human ovum.

Nope. Placed in an otherwise hospitable environment, an ovum will thrive.

Problem solved then. No need for abortion. Just extract the unwanted fertilised egg, stick it in a hospitable environment and let it fend for itself self-sustain.

It depends on the mother only in the sense that you and I depend on oxygen to survive.

So fertilised human ova can survive without the mother in the same sense that we can survive without oxygen - i.e. not at all. And MM thinks this is a coherent argument for why ova do not need to be retained by the host organism????

[Mountain Man]

So fertilised human ova can survive without the mother in the same sense that we can survive without oxygen - i.e. not at all. And MM thinks this is a coherent argument for why ova do not need to be retained by the host organism????

Yes, it is a coherent argument, because the ovum is a completely separate organism from the host. Unlike skin cells, it does not depend on the host to carry out basic functions.

[rogue06]

Nevertheless, the virtual prohibition of abortion by the Evangelicals today is a relatively recent phenomenon. "In the late 1960s and early 1970s, evangelical Christians widely believed the Bible says life begins at birth and supported looser abortion policies"...as the 1971 SBC Resolution indicates.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonat...b_2072716.html

has already repeatedly disabused you of this nonsense. There is still a great deal of support for permitting it for legitimately extreme circumstances in spite of many souring on the notion after being hoodwinked by the emotional/mental damage aspect that turned out to be code words for abortion on demand.

And even you should realize that if the SBC resolution "supported looser abortion policies" then that means prior to that they didn't support it which blows an ocean liner-size hole through this fantasy that it is only in the past few decades that they support tightening the restrictions.