How would you respond to this?

Someone replied this to me,
The difference between a single celled organism and a bacteria between a fetus being a living thing is BACTERIA AND SINGLE CELL ORGANISMS CAN SUSTAIN LIFE ON THEIR OWN. A FETUS CAN NOT. Therefore, not a living thing. The whole point of life is that you can sustain your self without something sustaining it for you.

You really need to learn to read. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A SINGLE CELLED ORGANISM AND A FETUS IS THAT A SINGLE CELLED ORGANISM CAN SUSTAIN LIFE ON IT’S OWN A FETUS CAN NOT. Big difference there that no one seems to realize. That goes for… people on life support as well. If you can not sustain life on your own such as the siimple task as breathing you are no longer alive. Yes, I as well believe in euthanasia.

An infant cannot sustain life on its own. If someone doesn’t feed him/her, they won’t be able to eat. So by this same logic, infants are not living things.

Given my above comment, ask them if they support infanticide as well.

The only difference is where the baby lives.


A fetus is a living person. Unfortunately, it is womb dependent. This does not remove it from the category of homosapiens. It is as much a living a person as a new born who is dependent on maternal care and feeding out side of the womb.
Since what is in the human maternal womb is not a virus, bacteria, animal or any other thing, but human complete with a soul, it is entitled to the care and dignity any human being is entitled to. Less is a sin against the Fifth Commandment.

There are adult humans on feeding tubes with IV’s going and intubated for breathing. They can not live on their own. They are not human. Right?

While strangling him, explain that bacteria don’t require oxygen to survive…

once the killing starts it is hard to stop.

I must have missed something. Fetuses grow. God bless.:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

Bacteria need a host. Oxygen in the air kills them. That argument is analogical nonsense. Can a newborn sustain life on his own? Can the an Alzheimer’s patient sustain life on her own? Heck, teenagers need a cell phone to sustain life on their own! Once you depart from conception defining the beginning of human life, you open a Pandora’s box of human arbitrariness.

This is what you get when you worship the Supreme Court rather than the Supreme Being.

Awesome quote!! (No sarcasm intended).

Awesome! :smiley: :thumbsup:

Awsome thank you all for your very intelligens arguments.

Yes I agree *“This is what you get when you worship the Supreme Court rather than the Supreme Being.” *

This point of view lacks any understanding of a soul. As Christians we read that God knew us before we were born. We believe at the moment of conception that God has a soul present with the baby being conceived. For those that have not received the Gift of Faith, they will not understand a Christian’s view. They are thus radically opposed. So, I highly doubt any one will bring understanding to someo one that needs Faith.

Technically, NOTHING can sustain life on its own. You gotta eat and drink to stay alive. You can’t be completely independent. Even autotrophic organisms-those that “make their own food”- need light for photosynthesis, or else they die. All life is dependent on something.

Pro-death proponents use the same rationalization that slavers used in the 19th Century: dehumanizing the victims of their actions.


The argument contains a self-contradiction:


The parenthetical I added must be assumed for the sentence to make sense, i.e. that a what a fetus can’t sustain on its own is life. To conclude from that that it is not a living thing contradicts the premise of one’s own argument that it cannot sustain life on its own. Do you follow?

Your opponent has already argued that a fetus has life. He is arguing that the life it has can’t be sustained on its own.

He then contradicts himself to say that because of this the fetus is not alive. If it is not alive then why would it need help sustaining life?


I was thinking along those lines. The only self-sufficient being is God.

Wow. So someone on a respirator, even if he could sit up and chat with your depraved correspondent on all manner of topics, would still be considered *Lebensunwertes Leben. *…No, worse than that, not even “life unworthy of life”, but somehow un-alive. Good luck reasoning with him.

I don’t normally post in the Traditional Section, but I hope I’m not censured for doing so in response to this question. I have worked in a clinical microbiology laboratory (MT, ASCP) for almost 30 years and consider bacteria and other “little guys” my close buddies.

Yes, there are bacteria that are obligate aerobes, which require oxygen to survive. The best example we see all the time in the lab is Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

There is a huge difference between bacteria and mammals (humans) in the method of reproduction. Bacteria reproduce through binary fission, which means just what the name says–they split and form more of themselves. Mammals reproduce sexually. I don’t need to go into details.

So IMO, an analogy between a living bacteria and a living human being is rather difficult to sustain, as they are from totally different “kingdoms” in the classification systems. Bacteria are part of “Monera” while humans are part of “Animalia,” at least in the old Linnean classification system. I know that there are newer classification systems based on DNA, but in these also, humans and bacteria are far apart. Yes, they have some similiarities their design, but they’re not the same. Therefore IMO, a analogy between Monera and Animalia based on their reproductive methods is an invalid analogy.

I don’t think that any credible scientist will question whether or not a human fetus at any stage of development, including the very youngest zygote, is “living.” Of course it’s living as long as it has not died in utero. It is not viable outside the mother’s womb, just as no mammal is viable outside the mother’s womb. But that does not negate its biology–it is living tissue.

The actual question is, “Is the fetus a human being?” A fetus possesses all the DNA of a human being, so for that reason, many scientists will answer, “Yes, a fetus is a human being based on DNA.”

But many people, including scientists, consider a fetus a “potential human being” because they define “human” as more than just a certain sequence of DNA. This is a dangerous conclusion, IMO. At what point in its development does the fetus become an “actual” human being? Tricky question for the “potential human” crowd to try to answer. Many would say, “When it becomes viable outside the womb.” But this answer is not valid, as many MANY humans are not viable outside of a womb without extraordinary medical intervention. Are these creatures then not actual human beings?

Again, I hope no one objects to my sharing the perspective of a working microbiologist who daily interacts with bacteria.

Yes. This is true for in vitro fertilization as well, something you personally are probably most familiar with. Thanks for your post.

I agree with Jack. By the OP’s presented logic nothing except God would of course be dependent on another Being for survival. We are all held together by God’s will. He could easily will us out of existence at any moment.

:thumbsup: No objections. Good post! Thank you.

Personally having hosted trillions of bacteria, of a veritable plethora of genera, I can confidently attest to the fact that, on an individual basis, they are neither the superior to, or the equal of human life. Depending upon their level of frequency or infrequency, as well as their pervasiveness within the host, they do at times exert a seeming undue influence upon the surrounding human organism. However, I shall refrain from analogizing their existence, however crucial it may be, with that of superior multi-celled organisms. On this basis, I declare that the premise as alluded to in the OP does not stand the light of scrutiny.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit