Are babies alive? (Fetus')

Different55 · Before February 2015

They aren't some human-otherthing hybrid. They're human, just not fully grown. Of course they aren't their own species because they're one of us. Why is this even part of the discussion? This is absurd.

Last edited by Different55 (Oct 30 2014 11:23:30 am)

Jabatheblob1 · Before February 2015

Go talk to a biology major. Stop talking out of your butt if you don't know the first thing about biology. In biology. The study of life in order to be included in a species. You have to be able to reproduce. You can look up all the information you want on it. I could care less. That fact that you like to think that your word over the whole biology community is absurd. Unless you've actual done your research and looked up the actual discussion, please stop posting on here. You're just causing more useless spam.

GKAbyss · Before February 2015

By your argument, infertile people are not humans.

I am fairly sure that argument is for differentiating between separate species and determining whether a group of something is a species, eg mule isnt a species because they can't reproduce.

I think what we need is a medical definition of life that only considers a single individual, and not other individuals.
Also according to your argument, if a single member of a sexually reproducing species is that last surviving member, then it is not alive. I'd argue it certainly is not dead. If it isnt alive, then what is it? and for infertile people?

Though I again stress that I do not think this is for determining life. This is for determining species.
On wikipedia:

"A species is often defined as the largest group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species
According to this, a species is determined by the collection of organisms being able to breed rather than one specific organism. When learning the species thing, the general idea it gave me was that a species is a group of organisms that can breed and produce fertile offspring, and that one species cannot breed with another species while still producing fertile offspring. I'd argue that if an individual that has DNA that is closer to one member of a species than another member of that species is, then wouldn't the individual be a member of the species?
Also according to your argument, all of the ants that cannot reproduce are not alive, and are not ants, or at least members of that specific ant species:

from wikipedia:
"Most ant species have a system in which only the queen and breeding females have the ability to mate. Contrary to popular belief, some ant nests have multiple queens, while others may exist without queens. Workers with the ability to reproduce are called "gamergates" and colonies that lack queens are then called gamergate colonies; colonies with queens are said to be queen-right.[57] The winged male ants, called drones, emerge from pupae along with the breeding females (although some species, such as army ants, have wingless queens), and do nothing in life except eat and mate."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant#Develo … production

it doesn't say which ants cannot reproduce, but based on the fact that specific ones were mentioned for being able to reproduce, I think it is safe to assume that some ants cannot reproduce.

"Most ant species have a system in which only the queen and breeding females have the ability to mate"
Based on this, it sounds like, while the ants may have the ability to reproduce, they are unable to do so due to the system in place. This is sounds like a behavior that separates species from one another. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_isolation
Though these ants cannot reproduce with even one another, so they do not belong to a species.

"The study of life in order to be included in a species."

I still believe that that is referring to biotic vs abiotic not life vs death.

Last edited by GKAbyss (Oct 30 2014 5:41:17 pm)

Jabatheblob1 · Before February 2015

This isn't me who said this. This is the definition. I could care less if something is classified as a species or not and the reproduction argument in the functions of life is shotty. I don't think it is a good factor but again i didn't write either, the functions of life or the definition of a species.

GKAbyss · Before February 2015

Well I am pretty sure they are classified as members of their species (the ants and the people who are infertile). This shows that your argument is flawed, as it does not fit with what I believe is accepted in biology.

"and the reproduction argument in the functions of life is shotty. "
What do you mean by this

"This isn't me who said this."
I think you are applying something that is not meant for determing life or death status of a individual, to life or death status of a individual.

Again I do not think this applies to life or death status of an individual it applies to biotic vs abiotic, whether a group of somethings is a species, and for differentiating between multiple species.

I bet there is a medical definition of life vs death that people use for determining medical/health practices, and that it is different from the biological definition of life or the biological definition of species.

note: i made a few important mistakes in my wording, i believe i have fixed them now
some medical definitions of death:

http://euthanasia.procon.org/view.answe … nID=000197

Last edited by GKAbyss (Oct 30 2014 5:56:24 pm)

Jabatheblob1 · Before February 2015

Medically pronounced dead

GKAbyss · Before February 2015

According to the medical definition on that wikipedia page, fetuses are alive.

Last edited by GKAbyss (Oct 30 2014 6:01:43 pm)

Different55 · Before February 2015

Jabatheblob1 wrote:

Stop talking out of your butt if you don't know the first thing about biology.

You asked the question on a forum dedicated to a children's game based on putting blocks in a grid. If you wanted biology majors, you came to the wrong place.

Bimps · Before February 2015

USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST

Jabatheblob1 · Before February 2015

Different55 wrote:

Jabatheblob1 wrote:
Stop talking out of your butt if you don't know the first thing about biology.
You asked the question on a forum dedicated to a children's game based on putting blocks in a grid. If you wanted biology majors, you came to the wrong place.

You're just causing more trouble which is ironic since you're a moderator. Which is suppose to prevent chaos. Correct? And by now mostly everyone on this forum is 14-18. They played this when they were a child. And i know that you're older and not a child.

Different55 · Before February 2015

If you have a problem with my moderation, you can PM me or email me or start a thread about it or find some other way to contact me that is not in this thread.

Last edited by Different55 (Oct 30 2014 8:35:56 pm)

Jabatheblob1 · Before February 2015

Interesting... Regardless please just post something that's productive like gkabyss

Different55 · Before February 2015

>Implying that I'm the only one who hasn't been posting "productive" things in this thread.
You've been spewing plenty of crap yourself, like the post I'm currently replying to and the one you posted before it.

Whatever, nobody cares whether or not fetuses are a species and that's not what this topic started out as.
On the topic of the aliveness of fetuses, you never gave a straight answer for "Why aren't fetuses alive if they can die?" and "If they aren't alive then what are they?" Or if you did, it was buried in a pile of other, unrelated words.

Jabatheblob1 · Before February 2015

They can't die they aren't alive.
They are a fetus.

Already answered it.

GKAbyss · Before February 2015

Do you have an argument against my attempted points against you using those biological definitions of life(biotic vs abiotic) and species to determine whether a fetus is alive.

Also, is the medical definition not valid in this argument?

Last edited by GKAbyss (Oct 30 2014 10:07:50 pm)

Jabatheblob1 · Before February 2015

no you asked what the medical definition was. I just looked it up for you.

Different55 · Before February 2015

Jabatheblob1 wrote:

They can't die they aren't alive.
They are a fetus.
Already answered it.

1. If you're going to make a claim at least explain your reasoning. You complained about my posts not being "productive", but I can't argue with someone who merely states his position without giving his reasoning. I'd be better off debating with a wall.

2. For the second time, that's not what I/GKAbyss meant when we asked "what's a fetus?"

If they can't die then what's that thing they do when you take them out of a womb? And if it never died when you did that, why doesn't it resume doing whatever it is that fetuses do when replaced in the womb and hooked back up, like viruses do when placed in a body and attached to a cell? Because it's alive. They exhibit all the functions of life on that list you posted, and isn't that the minimum requirements for life according to you? So why are you still debating this?

Jabatheblob1 · Before February 2015

When you're born you are becoming alive.

Different55 · Before February 2015

Why then over any other point in time? Being shoved or otherwise removed from somebody's body doesn't magically life-ify the child.

Last edited by Different55 (Oct 30 2014 11:47:40 pm)

GKAbyss · Before February 2015

"This isn't me who said this. This is the definition. I could care less if something is classified as a species or not and the reproduction argument in the functions of life is shotty."

I REALLY think that if there are clear issues with using those definitions for the life and death status of individuals, then we should reassess whether they are made to be used in that context.

Well you have no basis, as far as I know, for saying fetuses become alive when they are born.
I also think I have provided arguments as to the context of definitions you have tried to apply to life vs death. (from what I can tell, you have not provided any arguments against mine, you only continue to say that they are the correct defintions. Based on my textbooks and experiences, the wording very much sounds like those defintions are not for a context of life vs death)

I have also proposed, and we have seen A VERY CLEARLY life vs death defintion, that you choose to COMPLETELY IGNORE without arguing it whatsoever.

If you are going to continue to do this I think I will make my own topic that uses the medical defintion. Since... you have your own topic that uses a biological definition of life, and a biological definition of species, and it clearly does not welcome any other definitions.

Last edited by GKAbyss (Oct 31 2014 2:40:43 pm)

Bimps · Before February 2015

cannot we all just jump around in worlds and chat about stupid crap like normal people?

Master1 · Before February 2015

Calicara wrote:

N1KF wrote:
Even if they are not alive, I think it is wrong preventing somebody from living. I think abortion should be treated the same way as murder.
What if the potential mother was living in a slum, cannot afford to support the child, and is already leeching away on government welfare? That child might live, but it for most of its life it will be hungry, miserable, and angry. Why put them through that torture? Abortion is probably the kindest thing you can do, even if it seems wrong.

If she knew she wouldn't be able to afford it, then she shouldn't have risked becoming pregnant in the first place.
-
The only time I would consider abortion being okay, is if someone was raped, and they were basically forced to become pregnant.

skullz17 · Before February 2015

Even if she shouldn't have taken the risk, what if she did? If she decides to take that risk, you're saying she deserves to have a child she can't afford to take care of?

XxAtillaxX · Before February 2015

It's always sad when someone who hasn't been educated on a topic tries to refute those who have.
If you can't admit that you're wrong when your arguments are rubbish, you're worth no more than your words.

I'd imagine if you had a biologist confute them, they'd still dismiss any education and walk away with their ignorance.

Noctis · Before February 2015

Answer: Fetus are alive. Born means to "start life as a physically separate being." You were always alive but you were physically attached to mommy. And why discuss this topic lol.

Official Everybody Edits Forums

#126 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#127 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#128 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#129 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#130 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#131 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#132 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#133 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#134 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#135 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#136 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#137 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#138 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#139 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#140 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#141 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#142 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#143 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#144 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#145 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#146 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#147 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#148 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#149 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#150 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

Board footer