Mike. You finally made a statement with which everyone will agree–‘then I should be the one who shouldn’t bother discussing’. Nuff said.

”My friend is not interested in chemistry (except when he’s making moonshine). To repeat, his point is ‘if it ain’t breath’n, it ain’t livi’n’. Is that right or wrong?”

It depends on your definition of ‘breathing’, as he doesn\t seem to be a scientific person as you state, then breathing refers to ones respiratory system. Then no there are countless living organisms that do not breathe and are alive.

But the point is invalid, as life does not define humanity, it is a condition of humanity, as it is a condition of a racoon and of a bear and a horse.

Harry, if you sincerely believe that we should go by and legislate about abortion without a background in chemistry or even more importantly biology, then i should be the one who shouldn’t even bother discussing.

I did not contest the fact that a person in a coma is a human being, Au contraire, I agree with you that he is human, and thus the idea of ‘is he fit to survive naturally’ as a measure of humanity, or a reason to abort is invalid.

”It is a potential human being, but not a human being”
This is where we’ll have to agree to disagree. I believe that upon the formation of ones genetic code (right after the process of fertilization), then the human being is formed, but has not yet reached his potential which is nevertheless already innate. This idea is similar to Aristotles idea of potency and act, and I believe one can understand the concept i am proposing at a deeper level if he has a background in Aristotle’s philosophy (even a basic one).

”Ammonia is a compound of nitrogen and hydrogen, used in the home as a cleaning agent”

Sorry daphne, it was a slip on my part, I meant to write amoeba.

Re: burial, you may have missed my point as i may not have explained it well. Nevertheless it is a secondary point. My point that life does not define the human being still stands. apart from that the analogy of the raccoon is very poor, and the case of abortion does not follow at all, for the simple reason, that a dead raccoon will never start breathing again, whilst an apparently dead foetus, will magically start breathing if nature is allowed to take its course.

”A case of oil-paints, a set of brushes and a piece of canvas on a stretcher are not a painting. They have the potential for a painting, they are the raw materials of a painting, but they are quite patently not a painting”

Daphne, that is why we don’t consider a sperm and an egg (separately) to be a human being. Also the oil and canvas will never develop into anything unless the artist combines them. In the same way the sperm and egg will never form a foetus. BUT when the egg is fertilized, then it will develop into a human being if nature is allowed to take its course. Oils and a canvas have no innate potential, they are merely tools. A foetus has all the qualities which define a human already in his genome, and which will given the time develop 1 by 1.

@Andrea:
I found it more apt to answer my questions lest some people pretend to be naive and interpret them in their own way. I should have edited out the ‘rhetorical questions’ in my introduction.

You seem to have given up on arguing back, and left it up to Daphne (who thank God actually replies to what I wrote, unlike all the rest who just go on about grammar or something totally unrelated).

Mike. As Ronald Reagan aptly commented during a Presidential debate, ‘There you go again!. Big words, long sentences. My friend is not interested in chemistry (except when he’s making moonshine). To repeat, his point is ‘if it ain’t breath’n, it ain’t livi’n’. Is that right or wrong? Daphne admirably rebutted your weakening arguments, so I won’t need to comment. (Wouldn’t anyway–see previous statements).

Mike, sometimes you come across as person who is very ‘stuck on himself’. Probably, in another life, you’ll come back as a ‘post it’ note. Lighten up and settle down.

I put forward no argument, Mike. Just stated the way things are.

You answer ‘in rhetorical questions’, Mike?
Now that is actually provoking my ‘own goal humour’ but I shall wash my mouth out with (slippery) soap.

Dear Harry,

Being a world renowned philosopher (as you seem to think) I can answer your argument in two simple rhetorical questions.

1) Do amonia breathe? The simplistic answer is no, does this mean they are not living?

[Daphne – I think you need to go back to chemistry class. Ammonia is a compound of nitrogen and hydrogen, used in the home as a cleaning agent. In those primary school exercises where you class things as ‘dead’, ‘alive’ and ‘never alive’, it would fall into the third category. Ammonia definitely doesn’t breathe, but then it was never alive either.]

But even if it were the case that life is equivalent to breathing,

2) Is life what makes a mammal a human? No, that is why apes are apes, even though they breathe and are alive. It is also why we do not eat dead people, both rather bury/cremate them accordingly: because they are still human beings (though not alive) when they die.

[Daphne – No, that is not why we don’t eat human beings when they are dead (have you ever tried eating a live mammal, incidentally?). Some cultures don’t even bury their dead. They expose them to the elements and then go back for their bones. And some cultures have no problem with eating human flesh, either.]
This is even present in your friend’s argument: a dead racoon is still a racoon.

[Daphne – This is getting very tiresome. No, it’s not. It’s the body of a racoon. The dead body of a human being is not a human being, but a body. That is why we speak of ‘mortal remains’ – because Elvis, so to speak, has left the building. Language might have confused you here. Maltese news reports would have it that a ‘persuna mejta instabet f’dar’, but in English that would be ‘a body was found in the house’- and not a dead person.]

In the period before the foetus has commenced ‘breathing’: as we understand it, through lungs, which does not happen in the womb for the full nine months or until he pops out – thus here you are suggesting an eight-month old baby is not a human being, or even alive.

Also in the case of a dead racoon, he doesn’t breathe because he is dead. In the case of a foetus, right after the process of fertilization he’s already been coded to develop lungs and start breathing (the genome), thus he is not only alive but has inwardly all the traits of a human being; including breathing (i.e: the respiratory system).

[Daphne – A case of oil-paints, a set of brushes and a piece of canvas on a stretcher are not a painting. They have the potential for a painting, they are the raw materials of a painting, but they are quite patently not a painting.]

Thank you for your input, John. However from my point of view, what you’ve mentioned is more a justification of the abortion, rather than an indication of when a foetus becomes a human being. Let me explain.

The argument you mentioned is very similar to that used when withdrawing life support treatment (or in cases of euthanasia) – as opposed to killing as a result of withdrawing treatment, letting someone die is letting nature take its course. However this argument sheds no light upon whether the foetus is a human being or not. If the argument of ‘if he is fit to survive naturally’ is used as a yard stick of whether that ‘thing’ is human or not, then it would follow logically that people on life support treatment or people in a coma etc.. are not human beings as they would not survive without the life support treatment.

[Daphne – Not quite, Mike, if you don’t mind me butting in. The person in a coma is quite patently a human being. He was born, lived a life, was registered with the state, possibly was married and had children, etc, etc. These are not the things that make a person human, but they are certainly evidence that he is a human being. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck…. On the other hand, the foetus in the womb, still more the fertilised egg, has not yet become a human being. It is a potential human being, but not a human being.]

Regarding surviving by artificial means, as you said, it is only a matter of time till technology develops a means of bypassing the womb altogether. Thus I don’t think one can use such an arbitrary means to define the moment at which the embryo/foetus becomes a human being.

Mike, you exhibit all the characteristics of a fundamentalist. Googling definitions won’t help.

As I mentioned previously, I do not involve myself in futile debates. However, I have a friend who does have an opinion. He lives in Georgia (the state not the country). I guess you would label him a ‘redneck’. You know, lives in a trailer, drives a pickup truck, with a rifle hung in his rear window. He never says that much, but the following is a direct quote. He says ‘If it ain’t breathing, it ain’t livin. When I shoot a coon (that’s a racoon, Mike, not a black), and it ain’t
breathin, it ain’t livin. Same with a littl’un. When the little bugger is breathin, he’s livin.’ Now Mike, being such a world renowned philosopher and debater, how would you refute such a view? However, Mike, I politely ask you to phrase your rebuttal in short, concise, intelligible and grammatically correct sentences. And please keep it short. You do have a tendency to meander in a long-winded manner. My friend would get bored if you resorted to your usual stuff.

Also, I think Andrea’s comment was not only funny, but pointed out a not well-thought-through slip up on your part. It’s called a ‘gotcha’ in Georgia.