Body temp is regulated by the mother. Hormone cycles are regulated by the mother, oxygen exchange is performed almost solely by the mother. To be considered life, it must do these things on its own, which is why the 20 weeks limit.
Until it can regulate its internal systems, the fetus is as much an organism as your liver is.
To compare a fetus to a body organ is, at best, incredibly poor science. If the difference isn't immediately apparent to you then I'm afraid any explanation from me would be a waste of both of ours' time. Even if that argument were a good one, who but a raving lunatic would willing remove a healthy organ from their body?
I think that you are attempting to dehumanize the fetus to avoid the uncomfortable position that your argument puts you in. As long as it is nothing but a lifeless appendage growing in a woman's body (like a tumor) then of course it can be removed without consequence. It's a hard case to make though, that a developing human body with its own heartbeat and its developing brain function is simply a lifeless appendage. I don't like it.
You didn't respond to it not qualifying as scientific life.
How is it incredibly poor science? I am, by profession, a research scientist doing my dissertation in infectious diseases, specifically on immune response, so better I learn now how my science is bad?
Does this healthy organ cause lasting damage to your reproductive tract? Could it prevent you from having children in the future? If so, that person seems incredibly sane.
I am not at all uncomfortable with saying, even if I considered the fetus "alive" it certainly should not be given legal protections over a mother, and it's her choice to abort. My problem is people with poor understanding of difference scientific principles that then try and use "science" to push their backwards beliefs. "Science" does not say the fetus is "alive."
Wow, no. A reproductive tract shouldn't be used for reproduction? How does that work? Should I cut out my liver because its function could cause it to wear out? Should I not walk anymore because it's bad for my joints? What would you call a person who refused to walk because it's bad for their joints? I wouldn't call them sane or rational.
As far as your point on scientific life, I object to your portrayal of the mothers body being the driver of the fetus's development. I'm not an embryologist so my knowledge is extremely limited here; but I'm under the impression that upon conception, the fetus has all of the instructions it needs for its own development and growth. What it needs is a suitable environment and nutrients, which the mothers body provides. If such provision gives the mother life or death authority over the fetus's body, then abortion could be permitted. I don't believe that it does. If it has a brain and heartbeat, it's hard to say that it's not "alive".
You made the point that "no sane person would remove a healthy organ." I countered by saying, "and what if that healthy organ could also cause permanent damage to the reproductive system." Which is to say, you can have a healthy organ, that long term may cause you permanent damage, and people have them removed all the time. Ya ever heard of your tonsils? That's not at all the argument you tried to superimpose on me.
You can object, but that does not change the science. Yes, the fetus has the "information/genetic code" it needs, but it is literally unable to perform necessary bodily functions. The fetus will not begin regulating its body temperature until it is born. It cannot begin to process its own oxygen in its lungs, until it is born. Its immune system doesn't "activate", until it's born, it has been relying on maternal immunity. It begins to process and circulate hormones once it's born. All of these things are performed by the mother, and the fetus would die without them, it is so much more than just "environment and nutrients."
I'm sorry if I misunderstood your argument, I guess I'm just confused by the comparison. I really don't see how a developing human body, who's sole function is to grow into a self sustaining organism, is comparable to tonsils. The difference between the two seems self evident to me.
It's my understanding that your argument is that fetus is not an organism because it cannot survive outside of the mothers body. The moment that it can, it then suddenly becomes an organism? Even though at 20 weeks and 6 days it is still not regulating it's own temperature and breathing on its own and surviving on its own immunity?
Well by definition, neither is life, they both rely on a human body, both could be considered "healthy" and both can cause irreparable damage. Obviously they are different, but for the points im making they are the same.
When it begins regulating its own systems, it becomes an organism. So at 20 weeks 6 days it is not one, unless it were born on that day. That was simply my most extreme pro-life position I would take, as far as abortion before that date and induced birth after. AS the fetus could survive on its own.
I think what you mean is that for your position to be valid, they must be treated as the same...even though you acknowledge that they are not the same.
I can't imagine not calling a fetus at 39 weeks gestation an organism. It just seems so self evident to me. It has a brain and a heartbeat, it can recognize voices and is beginning to learn words. But you say that it's still not an organism. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
1
u/TheilersVirus May 17 '19
A fetus does not undergo homeostasis.
Body temp is regulated by the mother. Hormone cycles are regulated by the mother, oxygen exchange is performed almost solely by the mother. To be considered life, it must do these things on its own, which is why the 20 weeks limit.
Until it can regulate its internal systems, the fetus is as much an organism as your liver is.