Anonymous #1 1d

Well technically it’s genderless, I just wanted to make a Diogenes joke.

8

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 1d

No, it’s a female. I can see the chromosomes

6

Anonymous #1 1d

I see triploidy. Unfortunately the fetus’ sex is dead. I’m so sorry

12

Anonymous #3 22h

Not exactly. I just think a grouping of cells that can’t think or feel shouldn’t take precedence over the life, health, and happiness of an adult human.

9

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 22h

We’re all groupings of cells. If I’m placed under anesthesia and can’t think or feel does that mean I can be killed by an adult human whose life takes precedence?

1

Anonymous #3 22h

The fetal cells, like the ones pictured. Have never thought or felt before, that’s the difference.

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 22h

So it’s not about whether you can think or feel but whether you did so before? If that’s the case does that mean a corpse deserves the same human rights as someone under anesthesia?

1

Anonymous #3 22h

Do I need to explain to you how a corpse and a sedated person are different?

1

Anonymous #3 21h

Do I also need to explain to you how handling a fetus and handling a corpse is different?

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 21h

You said it’s about whether you were able to think or feel before. You should be consistent in your views. If you think that what matters is if someone was able to think or feel before then a corpse, which cannot think or feel currently but used to, and someone under anesthesia, who cannot think or feel right now but used to, are the same. Or is it not about whether you used to be able to feel?

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 21h

Well a fetus is alive and has to be killed and a corpse is already dead. There’s one difference, though I suppose that wouldn’t matter.

1

Anonymous #3 21h

You shifted the goalposts. The conversation started by comparing fetal cells to an adult human. And now you want to compare fetal cells to corpses. I don’t have time to get into the details right now, I have a prior engagement in a few minutes. So I’d like to politely ask that we put this conversation on hold.

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 21h

I’m just asking for clarification on your worldview and why a human being in an early stage of development is lesser than an adult

1

Anonymous #3 13h

Alright I’m back. In my worldview, the mother takes precedent in importance at any stage prior to birth.

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 13h

Why not after birth

1

Anonymous #3 13h

After birth, the health of both the mother and the baby are equally important as they are both living people.

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 13h

So do you not think that a human being is alive before birth

1

Anonymous #3 13h

Scientifically or philosophically?

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 13h

Whether it’s alive or not is a scientific question is it not? I don’t understand what you mean

1

Anonymous #3 13h

Scientifically: the cells are alive, but that doesn’t constitute a human life. Prior to birth, the fetus isn’t a distinct organism, as it cannot regulate its own biological functions.

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 13h

What do you think is the first stage of life of a distinct organism?

1

Anonymous #3 13h

Birth.

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 13h

Weird I can’t find where it says that

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 13h

Wow everyone is lying today this is really sad. We should sue for spreading medical misinformation

1

Anonymous #3 13h

“Genetically unique” is doing the work of atlas there. That just saying it has different genes, nothing about it being alive at the zygote stage.

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 13h

It says it’s the first stage of development of an organism

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 13h

Even textbooks are in on it

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 13h

I guess unless the beginning of human development means it isn’t a human, though idk what else it’s developing

1

Anonymous #3 13h

Read that again lmfao. “The first stage in the DEVELOPMENT OF an organism.” It’s not an organism yet.

5

Anonymous #3 13h

Exactly, it isn’t a human yet. I don’t see why you’re confused.

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 13h

First stage in the development of a genetically unique organism. So it’s the first stage of development of a genetically unique organism.

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 13h

So human development doesn’t involve human development?

1

Anonymous #3 13h

If I write a line of code for a game I’m developing, I’m not gonna say that it’s a game yet. Do I need to explain to you what developing means?

1

Anonymous #3 13h

Do you hold an acorn in your hand and claim you can lift a tree? Because this is what you sound like right now.

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 13h

When is a human fully developed then? Because you definitely aren’t fully developed at birth. Are you saying that an organism at an early stage of development isn’t an organism yet?

1

Anonymous #3 13h

There’s actually know consensus on that first point. You’d know that if you had researched the topic more. And no, there’s many qualities something has to have in order to be considered “alive” and fetuses, according to most definitions (because science is all about testing different hypotheses) do not. Similar to how viruses aren’t considered alive.

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 13h

No known consensus*

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 13h

An acorn is a living organism in an early stage of development that is the same species as sm oak tree. A tree is the adult stage of that species.

1

Anonymous #3 13h

…yeah, did I say otherwise?

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 13h

There’s no consensus on when humans are fully developed? Then why are you saying it isn’t a living organism if it isn’t fully developed? According to what definition is a fetus not alive? Show me any source saying a fetus is not alive:

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 13h

Right. So like an acorn, a zygote is a human being in an early stage of development, the same species as an adult human being.

1

Anonymous #3 13h

I’ll find a source, but first lemme ask you something. Have you ever been pregnant?

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 13h

No, my mom has. She miscarried. We mourn my dead sibling every day. Have you been pregnant before?

1

Anonymous #3 13h

Yeah, but I wouldn’t call an acorn a tree, the same way a caterpillar isn’t a butterfly. I feel like you’re fundamentally misunderstanding my points

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 13h

I’m not calling a zygote an adult. I’m saying it’s a human being.

1

Anonymous #3 13h

I’m sorry for your loss. I have not been pregnant before, and it’s for precisely that reason that I listen to people that have been. And the people that don’t want to keep their pregnancy shouldn’t have to.

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 13h

All the analogies are the same species and the same living organisms, just in different stages of development.

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 13h

Sorry for what? I thought you said it wasn’t a living organism.

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 13h

Also my mom’s generally against abortion so

1

Anonymous #3 13h

Your mother was intending to have a child that she didn’t have. I’m sorry for that.

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 13h

We had a child. You’re acting like she just failed to conceive.

1

Anonymous #3 13h

I mean I would assume your mother had a child.

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 13h

Yeah. She had three. One died. That’s not comparable to failing to create a child.

1

Anonymous #3 13h

I never said she failed wtf? I don’t know the specifics of the situation. At this point I feel like you’re trying to paint me in a bad light.

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 12h

She had a miscarriage. She conceived a living human being. It tragically died. That’s what a miscarriage is. I’m trying to explain what happened

1

Anonymous #3 12h

I know what a miscarriage is. I’m saying I don’t know why she had a miscarriage.

1

Anonymous #3 12h

I think you won, they had issues anytime they couldn’t respond with baby’s first talking points or lie to your face

2

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 12h

We don’t know either. Sometimes human beings just die randomly of natural causes. Most likely it had some chromosomal abnormality. That causes most miscarriages. But the point is it was a living human being that died.

1

Anonymous #3 12h

Again, I’m sorry for your loss. Though I still disagree on the topic of a fetus’ personhood.

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 12h

Oh I think you misunderstood me. I meant fail, as in being unable to conceive a child. It didn’t mean that you meant she “failed” at something. I was trying to say there’s a difference between being unable to conceive a child (I use failing as in it just didn’t work, not as in you were bad at it or anything) and having a child that then tragically dies.

1

Anonymous #3 12h

I never said she failed to conceive, that’s something you construed from my words.

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 12h

I’d just like to know why you think a fetus isn’t alive or why you don’t think the first stage of development in an organisms life is conception. I don’t understand where you’re getting that from. I mean I can understand arguing it isn’t a person or something but I’ve never heard someone say it isn’t a living organism, just one very early in development.

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 12h

Right, I know you didn’t say that. That was my wording, my point is having a miscarriage isn’t the same as intending to have a child but never having one.

1

Anonymous #3 12h

Okay, I’ll rephrase. She wanted to give birth to her child, but tragedy struck. And I’m sorry you all had to go through that. Is that better?

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 12h

Sorry if you thought I was accusing you of anything. I was trying to explain the difference between two scenarios. I think you misunderstood me using the wording of “failing to conceive” as me implying *you* said that my mom failed or something. I know you never said that, it’s just how I phrased it because it’s sometimes called that

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 12h

Right. So would you agree it was also her child before it was born? Because my point rn is just that human organisms are alive before birth.

1

Anonymous #3 12h

Okay, if I try to explain it, could you give me an honest chance?

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 12h

You can disagree with that and I’d really like to know why because I haven’t seen anyone say that a zygote isn’t a human organism in a very early stage of development so far:

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 12h

Yes, I want to understand

1

Anonymous #3 12h

Okay, so before we get into this I wanna specify something. We’re talking about the earliest stages of fetal development here, right? No “two days before birth” kind of timing here (I got into an argument about that the other day)

1

Anonymous #3 12h

It has human dna, I never denied that. But like, so do tumors. So I don’t think it’s the best argument for something being considered a human being.

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 12h

Yeah, but before you begin can I ask a clarifying question? If you think life begins at birth, why does it matter if it’s two days or nine months before?

1

Anonymous #3 12h

Because the one two days before birth, while technically still not being a baby yet, is exponentially closer to what’s considered “living” compared to the one 9 months before. To the point that the lines become blurry to modern science.

1

Anonymous enemyofmyenemy 12h

I may have misspoke a couple of times, but when have I outright lied?

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 12h

That’s true, but tumors aren’t a human being in an early stage of development. They are mutated cells that grow uncontrollably, a zygote has dna and its growth is regulated. A tumor if left alone just grows more and more cells. A zygote specializes and grows limbs, organs, a brain, other things. The point is, like all organisms, the zygote has complete dna that enables it to grow and develop in a regulated manner.

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 12h

What do you think makes birth so special that it takes the same being and I guess breathes life into it? I’m not clear on what you think it’s before either tbh.

1

Anonymous #3 12h

Regulated growth isn’t essential for all organisms. There exist organisms with growth that can definitely go crazy.

1

Anonymous #3 12h

Because it’s when the child gets disconnected from the mother and their life as a distinct individual begins.

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 12h

I think I misconstrued your point. Please disregard this comment.

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 12h

I mean vice versa the mother also gets disconnected from the baby. I don’t think being physiologically connected means they aren’t two separate organisms. The baby gets nutrients via the placenta, for example. But it metabolizes those by itself. In fact the whole reason the placenta exists is to keep the fetus and mother’s blood separate since otherwise their immune systems would attack each other since they have different cells and would register each other as foreign bodies.

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 12h

To add to the placenta, it’s considered a shared organ because the mother and baby are separate organisms that both contribute cells to its growth.

1

Anonymous #3 12h

The immune system responding to the fetus doesn’t prove that it’s a distinct organism. Viruses aren’t alive and the immune system is fighting them off daily.

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 12h

Feel free to elaborate if you like, also full disclosure I might not reply to you for a bit! I’m going home rn but I do appreciate you being willing to have this respectful conversation with me, I’ll definitely pick this up tomorrow at least!

1

Anonymous #3 12h

Full disclosure on my end. I never intended any of my messages to be hurtful or attacking in nature. I apologize if I got too riled up at any point.

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 9h

You are incorrect. A fetus is a distinct organism which has a different set of DNA from its parents. What’s crazy is you typed this out with such confidence thinking you are correct. A fetus does regulate its own biological functions.

1

Anonymous enemyofmyenemy 9h

This person won nothing and was incorrect the whole time.

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 55m

Viruses are definitely distinct entities from the organisms they infect though. Viruses aren’t considered alive because they’re not made of cells, don’t make their own proteins and can’t reproduce on their own at any point in their development, but a fetus is. We know a fetus is alive and a separate entity from its mother, so it’s a separate organism. It has its own immune system, its own cells that regulate its own growth, it makes its own proteins etc.

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 54m

It’s ok. You’re probably the nicest person I’ve ever argued with on YikYak. I also apologize if I was rude or mean at any points. You seem like a genuine person and I appreciate being able to have this discussion respectfully even if we might disagree.

1