(Continued from first post as there is a 10,000 character restriction per post.)
5. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
6. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism) and chemotaxis.
7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms. Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.
Life scientists have applied their criteria to a new unique human conception as follows:
1. Yes, the conception does reflect homeostasis, the conception does regulate its internal environment.
2. Yes, the conception is an organization, composed of one and, soon thereafter, more of the same entity cells.
3. Yes, the conception does reflect metabolic activity from the onset, exhibiting catabolism and anabolism as it changes.
4. Yes, the conception does grow, beginning the cellular division process from the moment conception completes.
5. Yes, the conception does adapt (see six below), though if conception takes place in the womb, the womb is already so hospitable that most of the adaptation is merely changes in chemical properties of its immediately developed shell or "skin".
6. Yes, the conception responds to external stimuli, immediately in many ways, such as thickening its skin as soon as possible to prevent additional external sperm from penetrating it and to begin providing a place of attachment to the uterus.
7. Yes, the conception meets the criterion of growth by virtue of its immediate commencing of the cellular division process, and though, no, it can't reproduce like a teenaged-reached human can, it's not expected to, just like a five year-old isn't expected to and is still a living human being.
Thus a conception, according to respected life science, meets all of the criteria for being alive.
Now, we couple DNA science's individual human conclusion with life science's life conclusion and we realize that a conception is an individual human life, or, in reality thereby, an individual human being.
Some then ask the question about the conception, which is scientifically determined to be an individual human being: is the newly conceived unique individual human being a person?
Well, the foundational definition of "person" is a human being. Everyone knows this to be true.
Thus there seems to be no scientific or definitive propriety doubt at all that a conception is a person, a unique individual human being.
By respecting science and definitive propriety, we rationally with common sense in this modern day world leave behind our superstitions, religious bias, pre-conceived ideological coping mechanisms ... and embrace science and the scientific method and definitive propriety in working with the relevant terms as the rationally agreed upon objective determiner of the personhood of the newly conceived unique individual human being.
Or ... do we?
Not everyone does.
And not everyone does for many of the aforementioned reasons.
And the issue is, obviously, a critical issue in U.S. politics, indeed in world politics as far as the application of the right to life is recognized.
So ... let's discuss the matter.
I have decided to take the position of definitive propriety and respected DNA and life science and, as my time allows and I deem necessary, elaborate and defend it, and yes, the psychology of we posters and our reasons for supporting and rejecting this obvious reality is fair game.
So I will begin by saying that I psychologically accept the scientific method as the determiner that a unique individual human being begins to live at the moment of conception because it respects both sentient observed reality and intuitively obvious reality, it describes and presents processes and conclusions that jibe with other known material facts of matter and energy, and thus respects the axioms of physics and chemistry ... and thus comes the closest to if not actually does present the truth in the matter ... and the truth is important to me, because facing the truth, no matter how hard it is, expands my awareness and makes me all the more likely to live a truly fulfilled life.
Thus I believe, understandably, that the right to life does rightly apply to a human being from the moment of conception.
So ... what say ye?
