Are babies alive? (Fetus')

GKAbyss · Before February 2015

Revised:
With reproduction removed:
Homeostasis:
Page 2(447)
http://www.scielo.br/pdf/bjmbr/v41n6/7205.pdf
@ "The expression of AGT gene..."

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. If it lives long enough to reproduce 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

Unless adaption is actually not met, in which case there would be only one that is not met.
If adaption is correct then all of the non reproduction requirements have been met.

With reproduction:
Homeostasis:
Page 2(447)
http://www.scielo.br/pdf/bjmbr/v41n6/7205.pdf
@ "The expression of AGT gene..."

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. If it lives long enough to reproduce 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, one is not met in the case that fetuses cannot reproduce. Two if adaption is incorrect.
What I revised:
I found homeostasis:
Page 2(447)
http://www.scielo.br/pdf/bjmbr/v41n6/7205.pdf
@ "The expression of AGT gene..."
Possibly that is not applicable to the status of being homeostasis. Please correct me if so, in the mean time I will be looking further into it.

Also I now understand why you are confused. You can ignore my above two posts. I was confused when I made them.

Last edited by GKAbyss (Nov 3 2014 9:51:51 pm)

Jabatheblob1 · Before February 2015

responding to stimuli is different than what you think. In the functions of life it's talking about like something is coming your way and you need to move out of the way to survive. That's what that sorta means.

GKAbyss · Before February 2015

""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."

http://archpedi.jamanetwork.com/article … id=1177201
New thing (at least more explicit):
This fits the definition. It is six months in?. I am pretty sure that it fits the definition of response to stimuli.
Perhaps it is correlation without causality.
Though this was a peer reviewed journal so I am hesitant to assume that.
Article that is not as old:

http://www.earlyhumandevelopment.com/ar … 7/abstract
Though I do not see peer reviewed mentioned on the site.

Another quick thing
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1 … FhSX_nF-So

Last edited by GKAbyss (Nov 3 2014 10:15:30 pm)

Different55 · Before February 2015

Jabatheblob1 wrote:

"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...

plsgo is in response to the ridiculous that fetuses aren't human. They may not be "people" according to who you ask but they're human/homo sapiens/furless apes.

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....

plsgo

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...

Ornaw.

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

Viruses don't die on their own. They have to be physically destroyed by external means before they stop functioning. If they're taken out of an environment where they can operate, they become inactive until they return to that environment and wander near a cell. Viruses have been found on mummified bodies that are still perfectly functioning because they had not been damaged. They were still ready to infect people and create copies of themselves, because viruses never die. They're tiny little chemical machines that will keep chugging along forever doing what viruses do until something destroys them. Fortunately, most viruses are destroyed quickly by environmental factors once they leave a body. HIV can't last more than a few minutes, while things like smallpox can last years (I need a better source for this) (my better source says 3 weeks) before they're destroyed.

Last edited by Different55 (Nov 3 2014 10:25:01 pm)

GKAbyss · Before February 2015

Can't the proteins of a virus become denatured?

ok nvm
8 chars

Last edited by GKAbyss (Nov 3 2014 10:24:42 pm)

Different55 · Before February 2015

Yep, and then it is destroyed.

Jabatheblob1 · Before February 2015

Viruses aren't alive lol. That's it. You said it and i said it idk what you're arguing. You can find a 10 year old article on viruses it will tell you the same god damn thing.

Different55 · Before February 2015

I'm not arguing anything. I was *agreeing with you* and adding my own opinion onto what you said. This is the second time in the past 24 hours that you've thought that I was arguing with you when I was agreeing with you. Is it so hard to believe that I might agree with you sometimes?

Jabatheblob1 · Before February 2015

No i just am dyslexic sometimes. Sorry :/

Different55 · Before February 2015

It's fine. We all read things wrong sometimes.

theditor · Before February 2015

no crap that they are

Different55 · Before February 2015

theditor wrote:

no crap that they are

I couldn't agree more. I also feel as if no crap that they are.

Jabatheblob1 · Before February 2015

Everyone has their own opinions.

XxAtillaxX · Before February 2015

Jabatheblob1 wrote:

Everyone has their own opinions.

Some being more educated than others. Good luck with yours, though.

Jabatheblob1 · Before February 2015

Because "no crap they are" is a very logical and backed up answer. But good luck on your reasoning as well.

Different55 · Before February 2015

TIL theditor is the only person who's done any posting at all in here, his post is the only one that matters, and everyone who opposes jaba agrees with the semi-broken statement "no crap that they are".

Good job jaba, you have sealed the death of this topic. No intelligent discussion could possibly continue on from this point.

Bimps · Before February 2015

this is the worst thread ever

Official Everybody Edits Forums

#176 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#177 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#178 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#179 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#180 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#181 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#182 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#183 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#184 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#185 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#186 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#187 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#188 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#189 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#190 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#191 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#192 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

Board footer