<You didn't make an argument to be analyzed or refuted, you made a simple (and false) assertion.>
Ummm guy... assertions can be falsified. Although this one can't.
<A woman's child is not the woman, its a different organism than she is.>
No, it's not:
""In biology, an organism is any living system (such as animal, plant, fungus, or micro-organism). In at least some form, all organisms are capable of response to stimuli, reproduction, growth and development, and maintenance of homeostasis as a stable whole""
en.wikipedia.org
<That's true even before the child is born.>
That part 'may' be... but it is certainly NOT TRUE early in development.
< The only way the unborn child isn't separate is that its physically connected,>
Poppycock... a fertilzed egg is not separate in ANY way... look at the definition above. As you move towards birth (develope) the unborn child/fetus/embryo/etc/ becomes more and more separate as it starts it's own physiological functions (homeostasis, etc) as opposed to living like other cells in the mothers body, functioning as part of the mothers whole.
FURTHER, anyone reading about the psychology or mothers who have lost unborn children and even post partem depression realizes that even the mind of the mother isn't separate from the child... they report 'losing' part of themselves. Their conscious and unconcious mind has been nurturing (hopefully, but probably no exclusively) the unborn.
DAK |
