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.
Consider getting yourself a tradescantia. Or several varieties.
They look nice when given bright sun, clone very easily by just taking a cutting and putting it in water, and if you neglect them, they die from the root to the tip so you have tons of time to cut the tip off for a clone when you realize you fucked up. Like seriously months.
You can also sell them for decent amounts because people don’t realize how neglect-proof they really are!
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.
Your hand is a functioning attachment of your body, having the same DNA as every other part of your body. A fetus is a separate organism with its own DNA.
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.
I don’t really think we are. A corpse is also just dead tissue after all. I don’t think there’s a significant difference in semantics here.
At the end of the day I don’t think we should be debating the meaning of the words, just what we think they represent.
The main difference (to me) is when it’s a separate living being. I would definitely call a just-conceived foetus “alive”, but it’s not an individual yet, and I would have no issue with aborting it.
Also I do want to make clear I’m very pro-abortion. I’m just autistic and get triggered by “misinformation” (this isn’t misinformation but again my autistic ass can’t think of the proper term).
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”
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!
I’m sure my plants will be long dead at that point, but I appreciate the optimism :)
Consider getting yourself a tradescantia. Or several varieties.
They look nice when given bright sun, clone very easily by just taking a cutting and putting it in water, and if you neglect them, they die from the root to the tip so you have tons of time to cut the tip off for a clone when you realize you fucked up. Like seriously months.
You can also sell them for decent amounts because people don’t realize how neglect-proof they really are!
Thanks for the suggestion! I’ll definitely be looking out for this plant next time I’m shopping for them.
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?
Your hand is a functioning attachment of your body, having the same DNA as every other part of your body. A fetus is a separate organism with its own DNA.
Not always correct. It’s possible to have a living organism with different DNA in different body parts (chimerism). Also, gut bacteria.
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.
I don’t really think we are. A corpse is also just dead tissue after all. I don’t think there’s a significant difference in semantics here.
At the end of the day I don’t think we should be debating the meaning of the words, just what we think they represent.
The main difference (to me) is when it’s a separate living being. I would definitely call a just-conceived foetus “alive”, but it’s not an individual yet, and I would have no issue with aborting it.
Also I do want to make clear I’m very pro-abortion. I’m just autistic and get triggered by “misinformation” (this isn’t misinformation but again my autistic ass can’t think of the proper term).
deleted by creator
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”