Pro choicers, science defines a LIVING THING by the following critera:?

Question

1 Nutrition – plants use light energy to make their food; animals eat plants or other animals for food. 2 Respiration – living things take in oxygen and use it to produce energy animals take in oxygen by breathing. 3 Excretion – living things give out materials they don’t need, e.g. in sweat or urine. 4 Reproduction – all living things can produce young like themselves. 5 Growth – living things get bigger as they grow older. 6 Sensation – living things can react to changes around them, like sounds, light, and so on. 7 Movement – most animals can move easily; plants can also move, e.g.they can grow towards light. 8 Transport – living things must move things in a liquid inside a cell or inside the organism 9 Secretion – some organisms release specialized substances such as oils,hormones, beeswax, enzymes 10 Metabolism – the sum of all energy processes to keep the organism alive 11 Regulation – the ability to maintain an internalinternal balance despite changes in the external environment

Given this information, how is an unborn child NOT life?

Kawaii--aside from reproduction, which living things can not do until they're mature enough (but the potential is there), name one.......

don c- what does adoption have to do with the definition of a living thing? You're not alive until you're adopted?

Josh-LOL! Were you absent in high school biology? Nutrition is provided by the mother. Yes, they NEED nutrition! A fetus does not respirate in the womb. Oxygen is comes in the blood supply delivered to the fetus by the host. Yes—a fetus NEEDS oxygen—doesn’t matter how they get it. CPR is ‘respiration’ too. Babies also ‘practice’ beathing in the womb—I say my kids do it on ultra sound several times! A fetus does not eliminate waste? What is amniotic fluid? BABY URINE—and babies can poop prior to birth too—it’s called meconium. A fetus cannot reproduce—but has the potential to do so when mature……They do not perform regulation.—They do, yet an immature system…………you’re arguments are insane!

ervin parker--glad you know so much about a baby not being 'aware'. Amazing that my son turned toward andwas kicking at the needle during my amnio when it invaded his space. Babies have also been known to grab a hold of them.....accident right?

To those of you who accuse me of "butting in" and not minding my own business--I am asking a Q on the definition of life....your emotions are getting the better of you...I think thou dost protest too much..........hit a nerve?

eddie-do you mean facts like, adult stem cells show more promise than embryonic stem cells?

Answer 1

RIGHT ON!!!

Answer 2

"It's just a bundle of cells" is not a full-blown justification for abortion, but is a necessary maneuver toward the pro-choice aim. The pro-choice cannot proceed with their program that would leave abortion a matter of personal choice while the fetus is defined as human being. Spiking the pro-life guns by disparaging the pro-life definition is a tactical dodge in response to a tactical dodge. ("It's just a bundle of cells" is usually said with a badly-concealed derisive snort.) Similarly the often-heard pro-life claim that "every human life begins at conception, and every human life must be preserved" is only a part of a program, that, oddly, calls for capital punishment of abortionists. (I suspect that the Final Pro-Life Program will amount to "We will decide when you will be born, and when you will die. Follow orders.") I do not expect a lot of calm, reflective discussion around this matter. The emotional charge drives out reason, and leaves no room for compromise. People DIE over this one, and I'm not talkin' about cell bundles, embryos, fetuses or unborn children. I can hardly bear to look.

Answer 3

I realize that we are looking at abortion in the wrong way. People argue that the fetus is not alive so it's ok to get rid of it. However, it is still murder, because we are taking away the potentially of the fetus to have a chance at life.

That fetus will never even a chance to breath on it's own and have the chance to live and it's sad that people don't focus on that aspect. All they think is that "it's a bunch of cells" so just get rid of it.

The argument that abortion is good, because it eliminates the need to take care of this future human being clearly shows how corrupted our society is.

In the American society then all we care about is "Me." Who cares if my neighbor next door is starving to death. He must be lazy so therefore why should I help him?

Abortion is murder, because we are taking away a life. Perhaps during the time of the abortion, it is not considered life as we know it, but we are taking away the chance at life. When a child is murdered then we cry, because that child lost it's chance to have a life, but we can't cry when a fetus's loses his or her chance to have a life as well?

We grieve when a women has a miscarriage. Why? Because that fetus lost it's chance at life.

Abortion is murder.

Answer 4

It IS alive and IS human. Genetics teaches us that. And some liberals accuse others ofr "ignoring science," so I'm sure they wouldn't want to ignore THIS science.

And a fertilized egg is not "just like some skin cells you wash off in the shower." Those skin cells do not grow to be complete humans like you and me; fertilized eggs do.

Many strict pro-choice types have acknowledged the "specialness" of embryos by claiming that ONLY embryonic stem cells can be used for research, not any other type.

A fertilized egg is unmistakably human. Genetics proves that.

Having said all that, though, the question of what to do about abortion is a totally different question. There are many contexts in which the interest in preserving human life is outweighed by some other consideration - as some would argue in abortion.

But saying it's not human or not life is just ridiculous.

Answer 5

Apparently you struck a nerve with the Pro Abortioners. They don't address your question, merely rant at you for questioning the scientific definintion of 'living'. Despite the idiotic rants of the aforementioned, fetuses do ALL those things--albeit some not well until well after birth. Plants are incapable of reproduction until they're matured--babies may not be able to regulate their own temps very well, but all other internal functions, heartbeat etc.......they can do that too.

Wow--I guess fetuses are living things.

Answer 6

Pro-choice
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-choice

Pro-choice vs Pro-life

Both "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are examples of political framing: they are terms which purposely try to define their philosophies in the best possible light, while by definition attempting to describe their opposition in the worst possible light ("Pro-choice" implies the alternative viewpoint is "anti-choice", while "pro-life" implies the alternative viewpoint is "pro-death" or "anti-life"). Similarly each side's use of the term "rights" ("reproductive rights", "right to life of the unborn") implies a validity in their stance, given that the presumption in language is that rights[13] are inherently a good thing and so implies an invalidity in the viewpoint of their opponents.

Pro-life and pro-choice individuals often use political framing to convey their perspective on the issues, and in some cases, to discredit opposing views. Pro-life advocates tend to use terms such as "mother", "unborn child", "unborn baby", "pre-born infant" or infanticide.[14] Pro-choice advocates tend to use terms such as "zygote", "embryo" or "fetus".

Religion and politics are intrusive, evasive, and have no place when a woman chooses what, how, when, or not to conceive; she alone and a higher power know what course should be taken for the safety of both woman and child. Quality of life is as important as producing life.

Answer 7

I guess these stupid liberals need to realize that the human is the most helpless animal in the world after birth (some become liberals and need help their entire lives) lasting for several years. Since we live in the technological times we do, I can probably say that a human has a basic survival instinct to find food. Today, it probably takes up to 5-6 years before a child can find food and prepare it themselves but who gets that food for them? So if a pro-choicer has a child that is, let's say 3 years old, should they still have a right to abort that life since that child can't survive without its "host"?

Answer 8

Just great when we have people calling a human being a parasite just because it is still in the womb. Years ago we totally changed an industry because DDT lead to the softening of egg shells in some of the great birds of the western US that were on the endangered list. Now to me it seems a bird in a shell is the same as a human in the womb so how can we impart so much effort for a bird but to save the future of our own species we say its just a parasite. We have our values so misplaced. You are so right in your question.

Answer 9

These are all true. But pro-choicer would defend some hypothetical "right" of people to murder, yet condemn anyone on death row. Killing in the name of anything is wrong, and that includes murderers or anything else. All human life is sacred, including life of those who may not agree with us. Women talk about what they do with "their body" but when you take inconsideration, the promiscuity, and lack of precaution by those who would get abortions, how can they use their body as defense when they don't even treat it like something sacred. Pro-choicers want choice so they have a back-up for the debaucherous lives they lead. Anyone who calls him or herself a pacifist, a feminist, or a humanist, should be disgusted by the very concept of abortion. They can piss and moan about their rights all day, but if they want to keep killing innocent lives, we can turn away and ignore them for the murderers they are.

Answer 10

it's not a matter of science it's a matter of rights. And as such there can be no gray area or special exemptions. If you support a woman's rights then you have to support them 100% of the time no exclusions. no crap about "this should not be used in lieu of birth control". If you support a fetus's rights then it has to be 100% of the time, no BS about "this fetus is does not deserve protection because, by no fault of it's own, it was concieved through rape or incest".
Fence sitters who take a stand that is less than 100% is just being political, has no real convictions and is just trying to make themselves feel good about their BS choices.

Answer 11

Darling, science defines parasite as "An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host." a fetus is then a parasite, like the AIDS virus.