• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Women are not ‘community property,’ a Georgia judge rules

You argued it but failed to explain why implantation before sufficient development occurs should be used to determine whether or not it's a distinct biological organism.

If you're arguing that the fetus/tapeworm has structural integration with the host, yes they do.

My position is that the fetus is not biologically part of the mother’s organism, but is part of her structurally. I'm still confused by this statement that you made earlier:
👇

Why would structural attachment determine whether or not something has a life (both philosophically and biologically)? Using your logic under the violinist thought experiment, the violinist and the person he attached to would have to be considered one person, living a single life, the moment the attachment is performed. However, this clearly makes no sense as both the violinist and the person remain distinct individuals with their own lives even though one depends entirely on the other for survival. The same principle applies to conjoined twins: their physical attachment do not turn them into one life. Physical attachment is not a merger of lives into one.

Furthermore, you also cannot argue that certain body parts belong to the violinist while others belong to the person he is attached to, because if they shared one life, there would be no meaningful distinction/ownership between their bodies.
If a human embryo is truly distinct from the woman's body, it is able to develop apart from her body. It should be possible for it to be developed without using any woman's body to grow it.

To date, when they tried to grow murine (mouse) embryos that way, they found that the embryos wouldn't grow without the artificial scaffolding being coated with a sufficiently think coating of endometrial cells, so they took some of a mature female mouse's endometrial cells and grew them to make such a coat.

Then, the embryos implanted into the coated scaffolding and the researchers provided them with oxygenated supernutrient nutrient, and the embryos grew almost to viability and then died. When they were examined, it was found that the murine fetuses into which they grew were all hopelessly deformed.

So the notion that mammalian embryos are truly full members of their biological species seems false to me. No matter how much help they are given, they can't grow by themselves - we feed them, give them oxygen, keep them in a homeostatic environment, keep them from all viruses and infections, offer them a means of dumping their waste safely, etc. They can't do it. In fact, the bodies of the mature females of the species grow the embryos into fetuses and the fetuses into born neonates who are members of their species. Get over it.
 
Back
Top Bottom