I don’t think “it can’t continue living on its own” is a good measure of whether or not something is alive or a separate organism. Even after birth a baby human can’t “continue living on its own” without being provided for. A parasitic creature can’t “continue living on its own” without a host. A severely injured person can’t “continue living on its own” without life support. Pretty easy argument for even a stupid forced-birther to deconstruct.
A hand is also further along than a random cell. I don’t see the distinction as significant, if we’re already handwaving the details to the “future technology”
Do you think women are conceiving intern minerals in their womb? What is this question xD
I’m going to assume you’re having a laugh, because by every metric a fetus is alive. If those cells are multiplying, consuming various stuff to continue multiplying; the fetus is alive. If the fetus, removed from its source of food, dies; it must be alive. If you removed me from all sources of food, I too would die.
If you have a compelling argument, I’d love to hear it though.
Not separate, but it is a living thing. If you starved your hand off by constricting the blood flow, I don’t think anyone would question you when you say your hand is dead.
Actually isn’t that literally called dying off in English?
I think we’re using 2 different meanings of “dead” here. There’s “dead” as in “dead tissue” and “dead” as in “corpse”. My point was that a fetus fits the first meaning of “dead”, but not the second. You can’t “kill” a fetus.
A fetus is only a potential person, but it’s still a living organism. After it’s aborted, it’s dead.
It’s not yet a separate living organism, though. It can’t continue living on its own.
I don’t think “it can’t continue living on its own” is a good measure of whether or not something is alive or a separate organism. Even after birth a baby human can’t “continue living on its own” without being provided for. A parasitic creature can’t “continue living on its own” without a host. A severely injured person can’t “continue living on its own” without life support. Pretty easy argument for even a stupid forced-birther to deconstruct.
This is why I don’t have house plants.
I just saw a post about abandoned greenhouses yesterday that says we don’t matter as long as water can get in 😊
And water is very very good at finding a way in.
Well most certainly not into my plant pots
Let that roof decay and it will!
True, but only due to current technology. With an artificial womb it would eventually develop into a person, unlike, say, an organ.
I mean, with cloning technology any cells could develop into a person. Doesn’t mean we should count my hand as a separate living thing.
A fetus is considerably further along than just a random cell. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to make a distinction there.
It is unreasonable, because the difference between a single cell and a fetus is a laughable 9 weeks.
So is a sperm or an egg. Definitely not just random cells, but also definitely not people
A hand is also further along than a random cell. I don’t see the distinction as significant, if we’re already handwaving the details to the “future technology”
This does not actually refute the claim that the fetus would be dead. I’m not actually sure if you’re contesting anything.
Can it be dead if it was never living?
Do you think women are conceiving intern minerals in their womb? What is this question xD I’m going to assume you’re having a laugh, because by every metric a fetus is alive. If those cells are multiplying, consuming various stuff to continue multiplying; the fetus is alive. If the fetus, removed from its source of food, dies; it must be alive. If you removed me from all sources of food, I too would die.
If you have a compelling argument, I’d love to hear it though.
My hand also consumes nutrients to live. Is it a separate living being from me?
Not separate, but it is a living thing. If you starved your hand off by constricting the blood flow, I don’t think anyone would question you when you say your hand is dead.
Actually isn’t that literally called dying off in English?
I think we’re using 2 different meanings of “dead” here. There’s “dead” as in “dead tissue” and “dead” as in “corpse”. My point was that a fetus fits the first meaning of “dead”, but not the second. You can’t “kill” a fetus.