Are babies alive? (Fetus')

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?

Fdoou · Before February 2015

^ some fools are still pro-life, and think that this matters.

Jabatheblob1 · Before February 2015

Itsmeandersonlol wrote:

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?

i mean you can read the whole 6 pages and read why biology thinks that babies are not alive until viable.
Viable for a fetus is 24 weeks.
When the lungs fully mature and you can live on your own.

Noctis · Before February 2015

Jabatheblob1 wrote:

Itsmeandersonlol wrote:
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?
i mean you can read the whole 6 pages and read why biology thinks that babies are not alive until viable.
Viable for a fetus is 24 weeks.
When the lungs fully mature and you can live on your own.

Fetus don't require oxygen to live. They only think and use their minds at first.

Last edited by Noctis (Nov 2 2014 10:51:07 pm)

Jabatheblob1 · Before February 2015

Fetus'... Absolutely.... Need..... Oxygen... The fetus gets blood(Carries oxygen) to the fetus to make sure the growth of all of it's organs and limbs and such are in order. AND. THEY(The fetus') Don't use their minds.. They don't do anything. They don't know how to feel. How to move. How to breathe. How to do Anything. At a certain point where viable yes they are able to do a few things. Those accomplishments are small but they are something. BUT. As i already stated I think the babies should be considered alive when viable despite previous statements made by biological and medical research.

GKAbyss · Before February 2015

"i mean you can read the whole 6 pages and read why biology thinks that babies are not alive until viable.
Viable for a fetus is 24 weeks.
When the lungs fully mature and you can live on your own."

Does it explicitly apply the biological definition of life to fetuses? If not, then I'm going to argue that I have no confidence in that definition being applied to medical decisions. The same biological definition would mean that people who are infertile are already dead and that whenever they come to the emergency room they would be ignored. Another reason for my lack of confidence in the definition's application is the fact that law-wise, killing all of the cells(killing) a person who is infertile would not be murder.

If you think I am just ignoring what the biology and medical communities are saying, you are incorrect. You have given no reason that that biological definition can be applied to life or death status of an individual. I am not saying that the biology and medical communities are wrong, I am saying that you are wrong in applying a biological definition of life to life or death status of an individual. I have pointed out clear issues with doing that in order to argue that there might be a problem with the application. If you have any portion of the textbook that can contextually link this to life or death status of an individual, then you should tell us. Otherwise, based off of my textbook, everything points to biotic vs abiotic status.

If you are seriously saying that, you are ignoring everything else and coming up with your own definition, which I believe is "With regard to human fetuses, a fetus is not alive until it is able to survive outside of the mother's womb." What is your argument for using this definition? If the definition is off, then please correct it.
edit@ d55 I added more in the case that you may want to revise that last portion of your post.

Last edited by GKAbyss (Nov 3 2014 8:23:06 am)

Different55 · Before February 2015

Jabatheblob1 wrote:

Fetus'... Absolutely.... Need..... Oxygen... The fetus gets blood(Carries oxygen) to the fetus to make sure the growth of all of it's organs and limbs and such are in order. AND. THEY(The fetus') Don't use their minds.. They don't do anything. They don't know how to feel. How to move. How to breathe. How to do Anything.

This. All of it. Except the last bit but I'm trying to be agreeable in this post for the sake of the children.

Oxygen, as well as other resources, are supplied by the mother up until birth, but the fetus still needs them. And fetuses don't do a lot of thinking, but brain waves are able to be picked up as early as week 6. Regular, sustained brainwaves don't show up until week 25, and things like dreaming come in even later.

EDIT: Also, everything that GKAbyss said

Last edited by Different55 (Nov 3 2014 8:15:52 am)

blizzard · Before February 2015

*this is relevant* How much do you respect the declaration of independence, jaba?

Different55 · Before February 2015

If you're about to play the "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" card, it's important to note that it doesn't work if:
You don't believe a fetus is alive for some reason. (JaWapa is this one)
You don't live in the US for some reason.
You enjoy recreational homicide for some reason.
A combination of the above for some reason.

Last edited by Different55 (Nov 3 2014 2:07:07 pm)

blizzard · Before February 2015

Different55 wrote:

If you're about to play the "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" card, it's important to note that it doesn't work if:
You don't believe a fetus is alive for some reason. (JaWapa is this one)
You don't live in the US for some reason.
You enjoy recreational homicide for some reason.
A combination of the above for some reason.

How come the past few days, you have posted stuff very similar to what I was gonna post? Gg though, I understand your reasoning.

However, there is one thing you didn't say in the above comment. Everyone is always like "women's rights!!!!" or "woman's right to choose!!". I personally am for the idea of women being equal to men, but I also believe babies deserve rights. A bunch of the pro-choice users have said, the baby might be "too much" or "added stress". The simple answer is this: Don't get in bed in the first place. If a baby would be just an inconvenience, simply resist the "before" process. Ofc, some of you will say "what about rape?" I despise rape and believe anyone who rapes deserves jail for life, but I don't find the fact that the woman should use this as an excuse to abord a living human being. If she just can't bare to live with it, send it to an orphanage where someone will actually love the child. I know this is slightly off topic, but wanted to post this anyway. However, this is just my entitled opinion and would expect the common courtesy of at least restraining from hating on it, such as I have to those who are pro-choice. Thank you.

Jabatheblob1 · Before February 2015

You guys do understand that eventually everyone will agree that fetus' are not alive... And fetus' don't have rights. Because they aren't human. Why is abortion legal? Because thousands of very smart people have come together and agreed that until viable a fetus is not living. Which is why. You can get an abortion without it being illegal.

Why this will never change: No one can speak up for them. Yeah those people that throw bricks at the clinics are pretty brutal but no fetus is out there telling their story. Peoples views will change just like every other historical event. Why was everyone pro war except the teenagers and younger generation in the Vietnam war? Because each generation thinks differently. When taught and grown up telling kids that fetus' are not alive then it obviously will stick that they are not alive.

If you guys have a problem with what i am saying then go yell at the biological community rather than me. You guys keep repeating the same things and it's just tedious.

@Gka: This isn't my definition. Reason why viruses are not alive is because they can not sustain and reproduce on their own. They use a host cell. That's where i got this from.

@Different: So what if something needs oxygen. Doesn't mean it's alive... Going back to my previous statement where a leg can be usable after it's been detatched from the body. I can even ice a leg and still able to reatch it. REASON: Ice slows down the process when a cell needs to get oxygen. Making the cells live longer. If that oxygen is provided another way that leg will still be usable and "alive" alive not literately meaning alive but used in the sense of a battery.

@Blizzard: It was written quite a while ago. Many things have changed bud.

Bimps · Before February 2015

i am a fetus. i am alive. so yes.

Different55 · Before February 2015

Jabatheblob1 wrote:

You guys do understand that eventually everyone will agree that fetus' are not alive... And fetus' don't have rights. Because they aren't human. Why is abortion legal? Because thousands of very smart people have come together and agreed that until viable a fetus is not living. Which is why. You can get an abortion without it being illegal.

plsgo

Why this will never change: No one can speak up for them. Yeah those people that throw bricks at the clinics are pretty brutal but no fetus is out there telling their story.

What I'm hearing here is that it's okay to do whatever you want to a group if they can't speak out or fight back. Seems legit.

If you guys have a problem with what i am saying then go yell at the biological community rather than me. You guys keep repeating the same things and it's just tedious.

Like we're the only ones repeating ourselves lolololol. This entire topic is just a bunch of n0obs restating their opinions at eachother in slightly different ways.

@Gka: This isn't my definition. Reason why viruses are not alive is because they can not sustain and reproduce on their own. They use a host cell. That's where i got this from.

That's one reason. The other (better, IMO) reason is that they can't die. If you remove a virus from a body, and throw it in the dirt, it becomes inactive. A thousand years later, you pick it up, slap it on a cell, and it goes about its business replicating itself using that cell. It's not a living thing; it's a chemical machine.

@Different: So what if something needs oxygen. Doesn't mean it's alive... Going back to my previous statement where a leg can be usable after it's been detatched from the body. I can even ice a leg and still able to reatch it. REASON: Ice slows down the process when a cell needs to get oxygen. Making the cells live longer. If that oxygen is provided another way that leg will still be usable and "alive" alive not literately meaning alive but used in the sense of a battery.

plsgo. I mean seriously. I was agreeing with you back there. I can't even tell what point you're trying to make here.

Jabatheblob1 · Before February 2015

"plsgo" Isn't an argument..... It's an attempt to be condescending but at what part did i say was irrational? The part where the government doesn't give two rats arses if abortion is legal or not?... Why would they waste the time and energy to make those select few happy when in a few years everyone will not care at all...

Different55 wrote:

What I'm hearing here is that it's okay to do whatever you want to a group if they can't speak out or fight back. Seems legit.

If it's legal go for it.... if you wanna intensely stare at a group of people legally go for it....

Different55 wrote:

Like we're the only ones repeating ourselves lolololol. This entire topic is just a bunch of n0obs restating their opinions at eachother in slightly different ways.

Then say something different and stop complaining...

Different55 wrote:

That's one reason. The other (better, IMO) reason is that they can't die. If you remove a virus from a body, and throw it in the dirt, it becomes inactive. A thousand years later, you pick it up, slap it on a cell, and it goes about its business replicating itself using that cell. It's not a living thing; it's a chemical machine.

please elaborate i didn't understand

XxAtillaxX · Before February 2015

Oh, Jaba. You're embarrassing yourself with the "biology professors agree with me, it isn't my definition" rubbish.
That's obviously a lie and I've pointed that out with citations from actual biology resources.

You're making this crap up because you don't want to feel bad about abortion.

Jabatheblob1 wrote:

Why is abortion legal? Because thousands of very smart people have come together and agreed that until viable a fetus is not living. Which is why. You can get an abortion without it being illegal.

It doesn't take a very smart person to have empathy and respect for humans and their basic human rights.
Abortion is legal mostly due to human rights activism, not due to a fetus being alive.
You're obviously not educated in this area of politics, either.

GKAbyss · Before February 2015

Jabatheblob1

A
I think you are wrong that that definition is for life vs death.
I keep telling you I DO NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE DEFINITION I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH HOW YOU CONTINUE TO IMPROPERLY USE IT.
I think you are wrong that that definition is for life vs death.
Why?
It does not make sense.
Nothing would be alive because no individual can evolve.
This should by far be enough to show that this is not meant to be applied to individuals. This renders the ENTIRE definition inapplicable to life vs death status of an individual.

Instead of being applicable to life vs death status of an individual, I believe this is for determining whether a group is biotic or abiotic.
My textbook does not mention human vs dead human or tree stump vs iguana.
My textbook does mention cat vs car.
This strongly convinces me that it is not talking about life or death status of an individual.
You say that your textbook tells you that it applies to that. If you do indeed see that, then show us, maybe provide a quote with the wording? Otherwise I've evidence and you do not. In fact, that video Atilla posted, that you approved, compares biotic vs abiotic.

B
Next I will argue that even if that were a definition of life vs death status of an individual. I have no confidence in it being more successfully applied to decisions of law and medicine than any other definition.
If you wish to apply this to law:
Murdering someone is the killing of a living human.
Infertile people are not alive.
Therefore killing someone who is infertile is not murder. We can go around and kill as many infertile people as we want to, there is no problem with that.
This would leave many people vulnerable to excessive abuse. They are conscious and can feel pain, even though they are not alive. We cannot just let them be killed in that way.
We can also use children for slave labor, they are basically machines, being not alive.
Then again, no one is alive, because no individual can evolve.
Therefore we can kill everyone we want and steal their stuff and there will be no legal repercussions.

Now for issues in applying it to medical decisions.
First of all there is that evolution issue which makes medical practices useless.
Again, infertile people would be not alive and therefore any medical procedure on them rendered useless.

C (conclusion)
Based on these issues with applying the definition to medical and legal decisions, and the technical problems of applying it, I propose we find another definition, eg the medical definition.
I've heard no complaints or issues with the medical definition other than you refusing to use it.
If you do not have any argument for not using it, I propose that we all establish it as the definition of life/death of an individual in this topic/discussion until new developments or contrary evidences or arguments are found.

Last edited by GKAbyss (Nov 3 2014 8:26:33 pm)

Jabatheblob1 · Before February 2015

i already told you that i find the reproduction part of the funtions of LIFE is a bit shotty. Meaning i don't like that part. BUT. AGAIN. THIS. ISN'T. MY. DEFINITION. This is the functions of LIFE. Not the funcitons of ABIOTIC. THAT'S NOT WHAT IT SAYS IS IT???? It's the functions of LIFE. LIFE. LIFE. LIFE. NOT ABIOTIC VS BIOTIC. IT SAYS. LIFEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE. FUNCTIONS. OF. LIFE.

Is that clear enough?....

And your textbook could be outdated and regardless textbooks aren't always the most reliable since it's only one point of view. IF looking at reliable resources the internet is the best place to find evidence.

GKAbyss · Before February 2015

I'm not saying it is your definition.
I'm saying it is a good definition.
I am saying you are wrong.
This definition is not for life vs death status of an individual.
You are saying that this is for life vs death status of an individual.
Biologists are not saying this is for life vs death status of an individual.
Biologists are saying this is for biotic vs abiotic status of a group.
Biotic is life. This is the same. Abiotic is nonliving. This does not mean alive vs dead. This is biologically alive vs biologically not alive.
I have a brand new textbook for this semester in which I am taking the class.
It is not old.
I also believe my textbook for a semester ago said the same thing.
If you tell me that the textbooks are wrong then your argument has failed because you are using the textbook as your argument.

However, if you really believe the textbooks are all wrong then alright lets find a definition online.

Also you cannot throw a definition here and say part of it is excusable because it doesn't make sense.
You say it does not make sense for reproduction to be on there?
I say it does not make sense for being made of cells to be on there. I'll go find some new form of life that fits the new definition. Now maybe there'll be a new law like you cannot harm any microwaves or something.

here are some definitions I found that we can look at from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

"Life is a characteristic distinguishing physical entities having signaling and self-sustaining processes from those that do not,[1][2] either because such functions have ceased (death), or because they lack such functions and are classified as inanimate.[3][4][5] Biology is a science concerned with the study of life.

The smallest contiguous unit of life is called an organism. Organisms are composed of one, or more, cells, undergo metabolism, maintain homeostasis, can grow, respond to stimuli, reproduce and, through evolution, adapt to their environment in successive generations.[1] A diverse array of living organisms can be found in the biosphere of Earth, and the properties common to these organisms—plants, animals, fungi, protists, archaea, and bacteria—are a carbon- and water-based cellular form with complex organization and heritable genetic information."
under biology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#Biology

"Since there is no unequivocal definition of life, the current understanding is descriptive. Life is considered a characteristic of something that exhibits all or most of the following traits:[36][39][40]

Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells — the basic units of life.
Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.,[36]
Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
Adaptation: The ability to change over time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity, diet, and external factors.
Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism), and chemotaxis.
Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms.[41][42] or "with an error rate below the sustainability threshold."[42]
These complex processes, called physiological functions, have underlying physical and chemical bases, as well as signaling and control mechanisms that are essential to maintaining life."
I will look for a few more definitions.

Last edited by GKAbyss (Nov 3 2014 8:47:47 pm)

Jabatheblob1 · Before February 2015

I'm done repeating myself. You can reread my posts but unless someone posts something different i'm done posting.

GKAbyss · Before February 2015

I'm not finished reading through the definitions, but as a note:
Just because a word is the same in two contexts does not mean the definition from one context can be carried over to the other.

I could use the chemical definition of organic and say that because all foods are organic (have molecules containing carbon and oxygen), they should all be labeled as such (not grown with harmful chemicals or whatever).

""Life is a characteristic distinguishing physical entities having signaling and self-sustaining processes from those that do not,[1][2] either because such functions have ceased (death), or because they lack such functions and are classified as inanimate."
Based on this, the definition considers life vs dead and abiotic.
This suggests it is applicable to individuals.

"Organisms are composed of one, or more, cells, undergo metabolism, maintain homeostasis, can grow, respond to stimuli,"
All of these are consistent with the definition being applied to life vs death of an individual.

"reproduce"
As I mentioned a few posts ago, I believe that this is not consistent and not well applicable.
However, though it does not mention it in this passage, in the biology passage it mentions "Life is considered a characteristic of something that exhibits all or most of the following traits" this suggests reproduction is consistent with applying the definition to individuals.

The last portion of this first set of passages is "through evolution, adapt to their environment in successive generations." This would suggest to me that this applies to groups, though it may be used in a way wherein a member of a group that performs this is considered to undergo evolution, which you have mentioned earlier I believe.
Going to the next set of passages.

"Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells — the basic units of life.
Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.,[36]
Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter."
These are all consistent with application to an individual.

"Adaptation: The ability to change over time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity, diet, and external factors."
I do not fully understand what it means by this, but I will assume it fits as did the parallel above.

"Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism), and chemotaxis.
Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms.[41][42] or "with an error rate below the sustainability threshold.""
Response to stimuli is applicable to an individual, and reproduction is with "Life is considered a characteristic of something that exhibits all or most of the following traits".
You may argue that you believe reproduction does not fit here, and that "Life is considered a characteristic of something that exhibits all or most of the following traits" cannot be used to remove other factors.
I will post my list from before in assessing whether a fetus fits these.

With reproduction removed:
Homeostasis:
I did not have something

Organization:
It is composed of cells

Metabolism:
" http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/un … 8.x.html#m
It mentions the fact that a mother provide glucose to the fetus, which I assume is used to produce ATP."

Growth:
"A fetus grows and develops throughout pregnancy I am pretty sure"

Adaption:
I'd argue that because a fetus that dies takes away from the gene pool, it contributes to evolution.

Response to stimuli:
"Based on reading the abstract of this paper it appears that fetuses can respond to stimuli, though I may be reading it incorrectly.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2192322"

Reproduction:
X

Out of these the one that is not met is homeostasis, which I will search further for. Unless adaption is actually not met, in which case there would be at least one that is not met.
With reproduction:
Homeostasis:
I did not have something

Organization:
It is composed of cells

Metabolism:
" http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/un … 8.x.html#m
It mentions the fact that a mother provide glucose to the fetus, which I assume is used to produce ATP."

Growth:
"A fetus grows and develops throughout pregnancy I am pretty sure"

Adaption:
I'd argue that because a fetus that dies takes away from the gene pool, it contributes to evolution.

Response to stimuli:
"Based on reading the abstract of this paper it appears that fetuses can respond to stimuli, though I may be reading it incorrectly.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2192322"

Reproduction:
A fetus cannot reproduce, as far as I know.

Out of these, at least one is not met, at least two if I am incorrect about adaption. Three if fetuses do not undergo homeostasis.

Last edited by GKAbyss (Nov 3 2014 9:28:46 pm)

Jabatheblob1 · Before February 2015

Then go for it. If you wanna use that definition then go for it.

GKAbyss · Before February 2015

I cannot use that definition because it is out of context. However, based on the wikipedia definitions, I would say that you are correct in the biological definition of life being applicable to life vs death status of an individual.

Jabatheblob1 · Before February 2015

I'm not taking anything out of context. I'm using the functions of life. The things that every living thing needs to be considered alive. Nothing is out of context there.

GKAbyss · Before February 2015

I have already corrected myself.

Jabatheblob1 · Before February 2015

i'm so confused lol

Official Everybody Edits Forums

#151 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#152 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#153 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#154 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#155 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#156 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#157 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#158 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#159 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#160 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#161 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#162 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#163 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#164 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#165 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#166 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#167 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#168 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#169 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#170 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#171 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#172 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#173 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#174 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#175 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

Board footer