tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3045788944130546331.post8869307528467024041..comments2019-01-14T12:15:10.068-05:00Comments on Crossfusion: Why I Would Argue for the Earliest Definition of LifeJohn Partridgehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02271702233484025459noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3045788944130546331.post-60989946768169885992013-11-05T14:28:39.440-05:002013-11-05T14:28:39.440-05:00Randy, using the definition of a parasite is fraug...Randy, using the definition of a parasite is fraught with problems of its own and does not address the fundamental problem of determining whether or not the fetus/infant is "human". If an infant is a parasite, it is one not only before viability, but many YEARS afterward. A two year old still contributes nothing to the health or life of its parent/hosts but is just as dependent upon them. If "parasites" are not human by virtue of their dependency, then a great many hospital patients are no longer "human." There is no argument that a fetus/infant is "dependent", the question is whether or not dependence can cause the loss of humanity. In no other case does dependence cause us to believe, or even consider, that what is human is no longer human. How do we decide that this particular class of dependent humans is NOT human when all other dependent humans are?John Partridgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02271702233484025459noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3045788944130546331.post-16248821577009512442013-11-05T13:41:40.367-05:002013-11-05T13:41:40.367-05:00The viability difference to me is the difference b...The viability difference to me is the difference between a human being and what also meets the definition of a parasitic organism. Until the fetus can be viable outside of the host mother it could be perceived as just that. And to some the removal of said fetus is no more than the removal of just that a parasite. Once the fetus becomes viable then I feel that it is a human and as such needs to be respected and protected, but before that stage of survivability it has no such needs or rights. But this entire argument will lead me down a path of the discussion on the right of man to use medical technology to alter/thwart natural progression of life.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09752564085576687024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3045788944130546331.post-76602495422945420382013-11-05T12:50:08.916-05:002013-11-05T12:50:08.916-05:00The 'right' to abort a baby is the holy gr...The 'right' to abort a baby is the holy grail of the Left. It must be preserved at any cost. Appeals to logic, science and morality will not work with this crowd.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3045788944130546331.post-73848375124964586902013-11-05T11:36:50.536-05:002013-11-05T11:36:50.536-05:00Randy, I deliberately used the word "infant&q...Randy, I deliberately used the word "infant" and not "fetus" in most of my writing because the "lines" seem artificial to me for the reasons that I outlined. I understand that many of us still want to use viability as a measure of some kind, but *why*? Logically, what changes to make this creature a "thing" one moment, and the next a "human"? I used to think so, but the more I thought about it, it didn't make any logical sense. Either it is human, or it isn't. I cannot find any rational explanation for what suddenly might imbue an inanimate, or even animate, "thing" with humanity. What magically happens at "viability" that makes this thing a person? According the arguments that I already laid out... not a darn thing. <br /><br />Anonymous, you are exactly right. Drawing lines is hard and often they are drawn with no particular logic. Thanks for contributing your experience.John Partridgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02271702233484025459noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3045788944130546331.post-53996060821749448942013-11-05T10:23:42.563-05:002013-11-05T10:23:42.563-05:00Just throwing this out there...my son was born at ...Just throwing this out there...my son was born at 28 weeks and not only survives but thrives as a six year old today. We were told six years ago that "fetuses" born after 24 weeks of gestation many times could survive, sustain and grow to live a normal life. Therefore, a "fetus" at 24 weeks of gestation would be viable to survive outside the womb and that would make a "fetus" at 24 weeks viable as a human. <br /><br />Not wanting to argue, just showing how gray the lines are. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3045788944130546331.post-91069993812958582082013-11-05T02:50:04.709-05:002013-11-05T02:50:04.709-05:00John, I have read many of your blogs and posts but...John, I have read many of your blogs and posts but never responded to them. I m responding because you asked. I have no argument with anything you stated but the use of the word infant implies after birth and by that definition I whole agree. However, until the infant is born it is a fetus and as such not a human being especially if it is not viable to survive outside the womb. This is just my opinion I seriously feel that what delineates this issue has to be viability.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09752564085576687024noreply@blogger.com