Dear Editor:
James Brescoll states that an
”
organism
”
gains life after it is born because it is not solely dependent
on the mother for life and is able to
”
breathe on its own.
”
Dear Editor:
James Brescoll states that an “organism” gains life after it is born because it is not solely dependent on the mother for life and is able to “breathe on its own.”
This definition of life is wrong on many levels, one of which is when the unborn is alive. One needs only to see an ultrasound to determine that an unborn baby is, in fact, alive.
Furthermore, independence (leading to life) is not gained after being born, but quite the opposite – the newborn is completely dependent upon its parents if it is to live.
Using this definition of life one could also state that any individual who is dependent upon another for continuation of life is in fact, not alive at all.
An embryo at conception is alive using any definition of life in microbiology. DNA, which is complete at conception, determines the species – hence life begins at conception.
Dennis Taylor gives the standard liberal view of allowing women to be able to “control their own bodies'” which is liberal-speak for the ability to have an abortion is so desired.
Dennis, who speaks for the unborn? What about their bodies? The correct statement should be “control their own bodies to be able to kill the unborn.”
Steve Sepka, Gilroy
Submitted Thursday, July 15 to ed****@****ic.com
