I'm not sure where the sarcasm is stemming from. You keep protesting to everyone that you only ignore points to speed up the this thread but when you ignore one of the only posts that touches on what you've been crying to everyone else then I have every reason to call you out on it.
Pride, perhaps? We are all guilty of it. And also a need to make myself laugh. Because abortion isn't funny. I like providing myself comic relief in the form of sarcastic scolding. At any rate, I apologize that it had to be on your behalf. I suppose I was so used to GhostAnime bantering about there being "no such thing as inherent rights" that I assumed no one would offer a valid analysis of my proposal.
The reasons are before your eyes. The foetus does not fit into many of the list's categories. There are certain types of plants which do not show any sort of tropism so applying stimulus response or autonomous response to them is debatable. Viruses do not fit into many of the categories in this list yet they are generally categorised as living organisms. The validity of this list however is a different debate. I'm going by with it at this instance.
Although I agree that the validity of this list is not something we ought to be debating, I must point this out: If you must insist on using the list as a foundation for an argument, and concede that it is a fallible and shaky list at best, then be aware that your argument will consequently be fallible and shaky as well. Castles built on pillars of sand have a tendency to collapse.
I'm going by this list because I have no other better test for 'life' up my sleeve and it seems generally accepted by the people in this debate. My hand passes the same categories the foetus does in this test for life. By this standard I'm claiming that my hand is just about as alive as the foetus is and I'm awaiting a rebuttal to this claim.
Well, there's where I'm different. I know you don't have a better test for life. And I don't recognize the current list in question as a valid foundation for indication of life. Some non-living things fit the specifications of the list, and some living things do not fit the specifications of the list. It can go either way. According to this list, your hand is like a fetus. But let's look at this from another scientific perspective.
Organism --> Organ system --> Organ --> Tissue --> Cell
This list holds true for mammals. Each contains all of the following. According to it, a hand would likely fall under the category "organ", perhaps even an "organ system". It's compotents are skin, muscle, bones, and blood. Respectively, parts of the integumentary, muscular, skeletal, and vascular systems of the body. A fetus, on the other hand, could be classified as an "organism" during the later stages of pregnancy. It's organs and organ systems are already functioning. From THIS perspective, a hand and a fetus differ. So these determinations of life, these
lists, can be distorted to support even the most outlandish ideas. Herein lies the paradox of the "life" debate, a paradox I have long been trying to point out.
Keep reading.
It's the best indicator because it shows that the foetus is developing a true individuality, a hard evidence, unlike DNA, which shows that it is truly seperate from the mother.
http://www.epigee.org/fetal.html
Important point:
When I say brain development I mean when the brain starts to function. This link shows that by the late second trimester the brain has developed enough for the foetus to assume a semblence of sentience. Sucking its thumb shows a craving for mother's milk. And thumb-sucking is only one of the varied movements the foetus shows during this period. Viability is well and good, but this is where I draw my line: the period when a foetus stops becoming mere 'human' and ascends into 'personhood'.
It would appear that our ideas about where the "line" is are similar. The reason I suggest viability is because, at that point, it is perfectly capable of living on its own, and of development into a functional person.
