Are babies alive? (Fetus')

Jabatheblob1 · Before February 2015

Would it be fair to compare it to an egg? If i have a person who just had sex, has sperm and is about to be fertile. Is that just fermented egg alive? It is made out of alive cells and will eventually produce an alive being. Even the egg un-fermented. Is that an alive thing? It has the potential to become a human.

XxAtillaxX · Before February 2015

If you're confused about it now, I have bad news for when you begin learning about microbiology.

Jabatheblob1 · Before February 2015

Who is confused haha

Kangxp · Before February 2015

Jabatheblob1 wrote:

Who is confused haha

Me! ^_^

Fdoou · Before February 2015

jaba refuses to see anything outside the crushing grip of morals

Jabatheblob1 · Before February 2015

I'm not even talking about "morals".... I was talking about scientific evidence which proves that even if something consists of living cells it does not classify it as "alive"

Different55 · Before February 2015

If something is made up of living cells all working together then why is that thing not alive?
Where do you draw the line between life and death, and why is that answer more correct than anyone else's answer?

Last edited by Different55 (Oct 27 2014 10:40:30 am)

Jabatheblob1 · Before February 2015

Because if you come up with a rule that fits one scenario which classifies something as living then it has to work with everything. Or else it just becomes a disproved theory. You can't say babies in the womb are more alive than my Stomach. Both take blood abe made up of cells. Both taken out will die. (Unless viable of course) so my point is that you can't make up rules that only sometimes work

Different55 · Before February 2015

That's what exceptions are for.

Jabatheblob1 · Before February 2015

to expect the rule will work always?... That's why there is cell theory and the medical reasoning behind why fetus' are not alive until atleast 24 weeks old(medically)

Fdoou · Before February 2015

who cares if they are alive though
it's not important

Creature · Before February 2015

Fdoou wrote:

who cares if they are alive though
it's not important

It's one of the millions of curiousitys.

Different55 · Before February 2015

Jabatheblob1 wrote:

to expect the rule will work always?...

no?...
So that we can better define rules.

Jabatheblob1 wrote:

That's why there is cell theory and the medical reasoning behind why fetus' are not alive until atleast 24 weeks old(medically)

Different55 wrote:

Where are you getting this from because I'm looking all over this cell theory stuff and nothing like that is here.

Last edited by Different55 (Oct 27 2014 4:17:11 pm)

Jabatheblob1 · Before February 2015

Mdeically: Babies are viable at 24 weeks. Viable meaning able to live on their own. Live. That's when they are human. Medically. I really don't need to provide proof for that one because if you had looked it up it would of been easy to find.
Bilogically: Cell Theory.
Google: "Cell Theory", tells you where cells came from. Tells you what they are and how they came about.
Google: Functions of life: You can find this Everything a living organism needs to have.

Different55 · Before February 2015

What I was talking about specifically was how you were assigning things to cell theory which don't exist as far as I could tell. The functions of life thing was a nice read, but why is that the correct answer?

I mostly skimmed over that functions of life page, but as far as I can tell, a fetus can do all of that.

Jabatheblob1 · Before February 2015

They can react to their surroundings when they can't even feel?
They can be taken out of the womb and survive on their own?
They can produce their own food?
They have the reproductive organs all intact and just need to go through puberty?
Their metabolic balances are all good to go?
And the reason this is most commonly used but not pushed in schools is because it defies religion and people's beliefs. Otherwise this is what the vast variety of scientists and people use.

Different55 · Before February 2015

Jabatheblob1 wrote:

They can react to their surroundings when they can't even feel?
They can be taken out of the womb and survive on their own?
They have the reproductive organs all intact and just need to go through puberty?

None of this is on the list. You keep doing stuff like this. First with cell theory and now with whatever this is. Half the stuff you talk about isn't even mentioned on any of the things you cite as your source.

They can produce their own food?

No, but that's an optional item on the list. Fetuses take the other option, "heterotrophic nutrition--where a living thing must ingest (take in) its food." Full-grown humans can't produce their own food, either.

Their metabolic balances are all good to go?

Assuming metabolism is the thing described on that web page you posted, yes.

And the reason this is most commonly used but not pushed in schools is because it defies religion and people's beliefs. Otherwise this is what the vast variety of scientists and people use.

What religion does anything here contradict? Religion doesn't really come into this until the morality side of things.

Last edited by Different55 (Oct 28 2014 4:04:34 pm)

Jabatheblob1 · Before February 2015

They can react to their surroundings when they can't even feel? :
If talking about a plant then yeah it's not going to react to it's environment. If it's based off of eukaryotic cells (Animal) then it will have to live and react to the environment. Has to have sensitivity. Sensitivity is to survive and react to the environment to find the best suiting state.
They can be taken out of the womb and survive on their own? :

Different55 wrote:

No, but that's an optional item on the list. Fetuses take the other option, "heterotrophic nutrition--where a living thing must ingest (take in) its food." Full-grown humans can't produce their own food, either.

That isn't Ingesting their own food. That's taking it's nutrients from another thing. Being force fed. This isn't an option or a method of eating this is something that is being done from a host. The host being the mother.

Different55 wrote:

Jabatheblob1 wrote:
Their metabolic balances are all good to go?
Assuming metabolism is the thing described on that web page you posted, yes.

If you tell me that a baby without lungs can survive on it's own then i will recant every single thing i've said.

Different55 wrote:

What religion does anything here contradict? Religion doesn't really come into this until the morality side of things.

Basically saying the babies aren't alive contradicts the majority of peoples views and beliefs. Asking people if abortion is murder is one example. If the baby isn't alive it wouldn't be. They would say that a baby is alive. Because that's what they believe. Because that's their religion.

Different55 · Before February 2015

Fetuses can die therefore they are alive.
I win.
[/thread]
Seriously, though, all of those criteria that you say fetuses don't match are also shared by people in comas, on life support, and probably more situations I can't think of at the moment, but nobody would suggest that coma'd people are not alive, or that comas are semipermanent death.

Jabatheblob1 wrote:

Different55 wrote:
Jabatheblob1 wrote:
Their metabolic balances are all good to go?
Assuming metabolism is the thing described on that web page you posted, yes.

If you tell me that a baby without lungs can survive on it's own then i will recant every single thing i've said.

I don't feel like wasting my time making a series of images to bring emphasis to a word so:

METABOLISM--the total of all the life functions required to sustain life (to stay alive)
METABOLISM--the total of all the life functions
METABOLISM--the total of all
METABOLISM--total
It's saying that metabolism is the total of everything above it on the list, and fetuses match the criteria on the list to the letter.

Jabatheblob1 · Before February 2015

And there is controversy on people in a coma are not alive! That's why people go ape sheeeet on people who pull the plug because it's murder. Even though they are a vegetable and not alive.

Read what's in the parenthesis of Metabolism.

Different55 · Before February 2015

Jabatheblob1 wrote:

And there is controversy on people in a coma are not alive! That's why people go ape sheeeet on people who pull the plug because it's murder. Even though they are a vegetable and not alive.

Really? Because extensive (2 minutes of) google searching failed to turn up even a single debate/argument on the subject. I couldn't even find somebody claiming that coma'd people are ded.

Read what's in the parenthesis of Metabolism.

They have everything they need to stay alive as long as they stay in an environment habitable by them.

Jabatheblob1 · Before February 2015

Being connected to a machine regardless of being a baby or an 80 year old man isn't alive. If the baby can't live on it's own and is taken out it will die. And after two minutes? I won't bother to even respond to your research if you've looked for two minutes that's just silly.

If you take a two week year old baby out of the womb. Will it survive? Answer is NO because it was never alive. It couldn't possibly be. This is the case up until week 24 when it can actually live on it's own.

XxAtillaxX · Before February 2015

I'm afraid the term alive isn't defined as to whether something can survive in a hostile environment.

Life is only possible because of receiving resources externally.
You survive by your environment, as does a fetus in a womb.

I can see, in your position, that it would be comforting to think that you're not ending an actual life. But sorry darling, that's what it is.

Jabatheblob1 · Before February 2015

medically and biologically you're incorrect.... but if that's what you believe who am i to try to persuade your views.

Noctis · Before February 2015

There is no set answer to this question. Many people believe that the baby is alive at conception. Others believe it is when the heart beats for the first time (about 6 weeks after conception). Still others believe that the baby is not alive until quickening (16-20 weeks after conception), and some don't believe the baby is alive until it is full-term (37 weeks after conception) or even born. This is a matter that, at this point, is debatable and a personal belief, rather than a scientific certainty. All the questions in your platform are matters that are up for debate and boil down to personal feelings.

Official Everybody Edits Forums

#51 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#52 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#53 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#54 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#55 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#56 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#57 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#58 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#59 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#60 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#61 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#62 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#63 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#64 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#65 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#66 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#67 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#68 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#69 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#70 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#71 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#72 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#73 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#74 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#75 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

Board footer