The intellectual pebble in the shoe

You're now chatting with a random stranger. Say hi!

You: What is your opinion on abortion?

Stranger: urrm, i duno, i think they should b legal

Stranger: how about u?

You: why?

Stranger: i personally think it is better for the woman, if it comes to it, then she should have the right to have on

Stranger: e

You: do you not care at all for the rights of the child?

Stranger: as a person, and a biologist, i dont think it has rights untill it is born

You: why not?

Stranger: cos it doesnt know its alive, its not living, its part of the mother

You: if its part of the mother, does that mean the mother has 4 arms?

Stranger: well in a sence ye, but thats a pretty week argument

You: do you not know that the fetus has its own blood type?

You: and its own DNA

You: the fetus is a separate organism that is merely using her body for sustenance.

Stranger: so its a paracite?

Stranger: so if i had a tick removed, is that wrong

You: no, because a parasite is, by definition, of another species

You: but lets say it is a parasite

You: if you see a tick on the ground and step on it, is that immoral?

Stranger: i supose, but if i didnt choose to step on it, maybe i just didnt see it there

Stranger: if the mother didnt mean to get pregnant

Stranger: that puts her in a bad postion, she may not b ready for a bady

You: what country do you live in?

Stranger: the UK

You: do you get TLC on the tv?

Stranger: TLC?

You: The Learning Channel, I believe.

Stranger: no, i dont have sky

Stranger: im afraid

You: well, here we have a show called I Didn't Know I Was Pregnant.

You: many times, women get pregnant and never find out until birth

Stranger: honestly? so they dont know they are missing a period every month, or that there being sick most mornings, or that they have doubled in size

You: if she;s not ready for a kid, can she kill the born baby?

Stranger: not

Stranger: no*

You: some women still experience spotty bleeding that can be mistaken for a light period

Stranger: becaurse that is a human being, its actually been born

You: ahhh

You: so the issue is not whether she's ready

You: not whether she can care for the baby

You: but whether the fetus is a human being

Stranger: it is agaisnt the law to kill a human being! if she is not ready, then it can be given up for adoption

You: if the fetus is not a human being, she can have as many abortions as she wants, for any reason.

Stranger: well i never said i think they should give them out for any reason

You: why not?

Stranger: cos it should not be used as contraseption

Stranger: it should b a last option

You: if the fetus isn't human, she should be allowed to get pregnant so she can eat the fetuses

Stranger: for those unable to care for a child

Stranger: eat the fetus, what is wrong with you!?!?!

You: why would that be immoral?

You: it may be gross, but not immoral if the fetus isn't human.

Stranger: i supose

You: we eat non-humans all the time.

You: but the fetus IS a human being, and i can back this up scientifically.

Stranger: well befine a human being

Stranger: define*

You: a human being is any member of the species homo sapiens sapiens

You: specifically, any organism said specied

You: ^species

You: human beings, like all species, are defined by our DNA

Stranger: well, the definition af a species is a population with simular phisiology, morphology and behaivior, that can breed together to produce fertile ofspring

You: can you breed with a toddler?

Stranger: it can not be defined by its DNA cos all dna is different

You: or with a post-menopausal woman?

You: that definition is a valid one if you look at an organism's entire lifestyle.

You: ^lifespan

Stranger: lifecycle u mean

Stranger: and i dont know, i think we have both drifted off the point here haha

You: no, the core issue, as you yourself have admitted, is whether the fetus is a human being.

Stranger: well yes

Stranger: and i personally feel that it should b legal to a certain degree, very stricktly controlled, but legalk

You: why should it be strictly controlled?

You: In your view, it is no more bad than a mole-removal surgery

You: or a liposuction

Stranger: as i have said, so it is not relyed on as a method of contriception, but as a last option for those unable to car for a child

You: but if the fetus is a part of the woman's body, who are you to control or limit abortions?

Stranger: and i dont think u could compare it to mole removal surgery

You: why not?

You: you said its part of her body.

You: but, as i am trying to demonstrate, it is not.

You: the fetus is a separate organism.

Stranger: it isnt!

You: why isn't it?

Stranger: its relys on the mother

Stranger: its not a seprate organism

Stranger: right up intill birth

You: a tapeworm relies on its host. is a tapeworm not an organism?

Stranger: there for it is the mothers responsability

Stranger: ooo touché haha

Stranger: that was a good argument

Stranger: hmmm

Stranger: that wasnt sarcasm btw

Stranger: it sounded like it

You: we rely on the bacteria in our colon to aid digestion

Stranger: thats different

You: a clownfish relies on the anemone it inhabits.

Stranger: thats a mutualistic sinbiotic relationship

You: A fungus relies on the tree it grows on.

You: oftentimes harming the tree.

Stranger: but the fungas was not the trees choice

You: no, it was not.

Stranger: and its not the trees responability

You: the fungus is still a separate organism

Stranger: u can nto campre these as these animals do not have consions thought

Stranger: there all just chemical reactions

You: thought is also a series of chemical reactions in the brain.

Stranger: but thoughts can be reshionolised

You: what?

Stranger: spelling fail

Stranger: sorry

You: lol

You: its ok

Stranger: rationalised

You: what do you mean by that?

Stranger: that right, ull have to bear with me, i am dyslexic

Stranger: haha

You: whose bright idea was it to make the word dyslexic so hard to spell?

Stranger: i dont know but is sooooo annoying haha

You: would you acknowledge that the fungus is not part of the tree?

Stranger: yes, a fungus is a separate

You: what about a tapeworm? is a tapeworm part of its host?

Stranger: yes

Stranger: however the host did not choose to have the tape worm, and its not the hosts responsability

You: a tapeworm IS part of its host??

Stranger: if a person has a tape worm, it is removed cos it is bad for the hosts health

Stranger: in some cases, a bady can be bad for its host

Stranger: be it health, or otherwise

You: i know htat

You: im asking if the tapeworm is another organism.

Stranger: well yes, it is

You: so you know that an organism can rely upon another organism.

Stranger: yes

Stranger: but it is not the same, a tapeworm relys on a host as that is the niche it has evolved into, its how it suvives

Stranger: a bady is a product of breeding

Stranger: so therefore is the mothers responsability

Stranger: so its her choice, untill it becomes a huma being in the eys of the law

Stranger: ie, when it is born

You: if the law said that the fetus was a human being, would you support it?

Stranger: it depends upon the evidance supplyed to suport the claim

You: so your view is not entirely based upon the law.

You: do you acknowledge that the fetus is a separate organism?

Stranger: it is, however its dependant on the mother

You: yes, it is.

You: i entirely acknowledge that.

You: my next question is "is it human"?

You: ^?"

Stranger: i personally believe, that untill in it born, it is not human

You: then what is it?

Stranger: a fetus, embyo, zygote

You: what kind of embryo?

You: it has to belong to a species.

You: if not homo sapiens, is it a Quercus bicolor (swamp white oak)?

You: is it Pristella maxillaris, the x-ray fish?

You: what about felis catus, the common house cat?

Stranger: well throw all the latin around that u like, copy and pating of the internet isnt a sign of intelligence

You: im just asking, what species does it belong to if not hte human one

Stranger: bottom line, opinion is opinion

You: we can argue about whether it has rights

You: that's opinion.

You: but fact is fact and it can be scientifically proven that the embryo is human.

Stranger: how?

You: the law of biogenesis states that living things reproduce after their own kind only

You: cats have cats

You: oaks have oaks

You: mushrooms have mushrooms

You: bacteria have bacteria

You: humans have _____

Stranger: yes, they have cats, as in they give birth to a car

You: what?

Stranger: that saying is not scientific and doesnt prove anything

Stranger: it has nothing to do with what it us up untill it is born

You: that sounds like it would hurt, giving birth to a car.

Stranger: there is a species of wasp that lays its egg in a species of ant

You: yes there is.

Stranger: the ant gives birth to the wasp lavie

Stranger: are they ants

Stranger: ?

You: i should ask you that question.

You: reproduction happens at fertilization and not birth

You: if it happened at birth, the larva would be ants.

You: also, im pretty sure that it lays it in an ant corpse

You: the larva eat their way out; they aren't born.

Stranger: haha, u might b right there actually

Stranger: well i just shot myself in the foot.........

Stranger: darrn

You: the larva's species is determined by its dna, which is determined by its parentage.

You: there was a story a few years ago about a zebra embryo that was implanted into a horse

You: it was born a zebra, of course.

You: the horse was not the zebra's parent, merely a surrogate.

Stranger: mhmm

Stranger: well i duno, i have a feeling this convo would go on like fire and ice

You: the actual reproduction occured when the zebra sperm fused with the zebra egg

You: thats not true

You: im merely seeking to agree on the biological facts.

You: this is not even into the realm of morality yet.

You: unless, that is, you already hold that it is immoral to kill human beings.

Stranger: well yes, i think its is immoral to kill a human being, however this then comes back to what or shouldi say when, a fetus becomes classed as a human

You: do you think it's immoral to kill someone in a coma?

Stranger: arrr, good argumant

Stranger: yes, cos he is human, iraspective of if he is consious

You: so, we are back to when reproduction occurs.

Stranger: looks like it ye haha

You: it cannot be birth, as is shown by surrogate mothers

You: reproduction is defined as the production of offspring.

You: in asexual reproduction, this is done typically by mitosis.

You: or, for multicellular organisms, sprouting or division.

Stranger: i know all this, basically, the issue is when does it become human

Stranger: and my personal belief is that it becomes human once the cord is cut to phrase it badly

You: organisms cannot change species during their lifetime.

You: if you posit that the embryo is not human, i would ask you what about the cutting of the cord changes the baby's DNA/

You: also, what about lotus births?

Stranger: lotus births?

Stranger: please explain

You: lotus births are where the parents decide not to cut the cord and instead allow it to dry up and detach naturally.

Stranger: right

You: the placenta is kept in a bowl.

Stranger: well still, at some point it becomes detached

Stranger: so is the time of birth classed as when it leaves the body, or when the cord is cut?

You: well, in america it used to be legal to kill the baby when his head was still in the birth canal.

You: we banned that, though.

Stranger: right

You: merely being attached to another organism does not change your species.

You: And it does not make you part of that organism.

Stranger: i agree

You: good.

You: see, we're getting somewhere!

Stranger: but as i keep saying, i believe that although it is not part of thr organism, it is still dependant, and thefore the mothers responsability

Stranger: surly a life of ill treatment due to bad care on the mothers behalf, is worst than never consiously knowing u exsisted

You: it may be the mother's responsibility, but it is still a member of the human species.

Stranger: therefore, some would argue, not actually ever exsisting

You: so, you are judging human value, not on being human, but on being self-aware.

You: you distinguish between human homo sapiens, and self-aware "persons"

Stranger: i am judging it PARTLY on quality of exsistance yes

You: quality of existence or on whether you are consciously aware of your existence?

Stranger: well u have to be consious to judge a quality of exsistance

You: how can you tell how someone's life will be in the future?

You: some of the greatest people in history were born to less than ideal circumstances.

You: some of the worst serial killers were born to happy families.

Stranger: good point

You: steve jobs was adopted.

Stranger: but how about genetic diseases

Stranger: we know they will have a less than full life, is it right to knowingly let a child be born into a life of suffering

You: anyone who's been around those with impairments will tell you that they are the happiest people they had met/

You: if an infant is born paralyzed, would you support killing her?

Stranger: know, because it has already been born, thus it would b murder

You: because self-awareness doesn't come when the cord is cut. it comes 12-18 months after birth

You: princeton bioethicist peter singer said “Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons”

You: he concluded “the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee.”

Stranger: i disagree that it is of less value

You: why?

Stranger: however i would not claim it is of more value

You: why?

You: why not?

You: would you seriously hold a baby to be on par with a pig?

Stranger: well u say it as if a pig is not worthy of respect as it it not human.......

You: you say it as if a baby is not worthy of respect because it is not smart enough.

Stranger: i would respect an animals life as i would respect that of a child

Stranger: as would i respect a childs as i do an animal

Stranger: i never claimed that a child was not worthy of respect

You: are you a vegetarian?

Stranger: no, but i see where u are going here haha

You: would u eat a baby?

Stranger: yup, i though u would say that

Stranger: and no, i wouldnt

Stranger: eating a pig is evalution, eating a child is canablism

You: it is clearly an absurd position to say you are valuable by your level of self-awareness.

You: and it contradicts your earlier defense of the coma patient.

You: if you had been killed as a newborn, that would mean "never consiously knowing u exsisted"

Stranger: well yes, if u where killed as a new born, or a coma pationt, either way its murber as u are by law a human being

Stranger: i am not saying they would not b wrong

You: and many women never know they were pregnant until birth, so infanticide would prevent "a life of ill treatment due to bad care on the mothers behalf"

You: im not asking what the law thinks. im asking what YOU think.

Stranger: i have already told u what i think

Stranger: i personally believe, untill a fetus is born, it is not human, and therefore not worth of the same rights as a human, meaning its the mothers call

You: you think it is wrong to kill infants and coma patients despite their lack of self-awareness, which you use to justify abortion.

Stranger: and so far as i can see, the law suports this veiw for now

You: if its not human, what is it?

Stranger: see u keep asking this, u are using is as a fall back argument cos u know i can only say its human

You: organisms cannot belong to no species.

You: if its not a human, it has to be something.

You: it has human DNA and came from human parents

You: and will follow the developmental trajectory of the human species.

You: you, for instance, were a fetus however many years ago, and that fetus was you.

You: you were also an infant however many years ago

You: and a toddler.

Stranger: yes, yes i was, its is development

You: development happens from fertilization until death.

Stranger: the issue here is where does it become a human, not if it develops like a human

You: an organism cannot change species during its lifetime.

Stranger: u have said this

You: a dog does not hit its 5th birthday and become a tree.

Stranger: i now

You: so I ask you to diagnose the *species* of this organism with human DNA and human parents, and the most you can do it come up with its stage of development.

You: there are also dog fetuses and plant embryos

Stranger: i have an idea

You: that would be like me asking what species you are and you answering "im an adult"

You: what is it?

Stranger: that adds a new dimention to this argument

Stranger: would it hav mattered if you had been aborted? cos if u had u wouldnt hav ever exsisted, however as u wernt, all u do is waste ur time on internet chat rooms arguing with someone who before this convo started, didnt giv a toss. would it have been more efficiant and less resourful resource wise if u had just been aborted.......

Your conversational partner has disconnected.

or save this log or send us feedback.

Wow.

You're now chatting with a random stranger. Say hi!

You: What is your opinion on abortion?

Stranger: wtf

Stranger: uhm

Stranger: its okay but not cuz youre to stupid to wear a condom or other forms of protection

You: Why?

Stranger: that kid is not gonna have a good life when his mum is a teenager

Stranger: so in certain situations

You: What if the she never knows she's pregnant until she gives birth? Can she kill the baby then?

Stranger: no cuz then it would be considered morally wrong and illegal and thats bad for the mum

Stranger: AND

Stranger: she would know

You: Have you ever seen that show "I Didn't Know I Was Pregnant!"?

Stranger: no

Stranger: i dont believe these situations actually happen

Stranger: you cant not know your pregnant till you give birth

You: There was enough to make a show of.

You: They rationalize it away.

You: Missed periods because of stress.

You: Et cetera,

Stranger: right

Stranger: but there's got to ring a bell when your belly is swelling up

Stranger: while its definetely not fat

You: They typically give birth prematurely.

Stranger: if the baby is in such an early stage that it wasnt even visible the girl was pregnant, it wont survive anyway or have a maturehandicap

Stranger: and the whole killing thing isnt the deal

Stranger: i mean

Stranger: its just BAM dead

Stranger: the point is that people are attached to someone

Stranger: and they are in pain

Stranger: so if thats not the case, and the mum wants to kill the baby and other people arent atached to it and everyone can just live on after that

Stranger: theres no problem with killing the baby

You: what do u mean?

Stranger: that for the baby himself it doesnt matter

Stranger: he lives or not

Stranger: if not, he wont know

You: the same is true after birth

Stranger: yeah thats what im saying

You: So is infanticide okay?

Stranger: no not necisarily

You: y not?

Stranger: if other people are in pain cuz of the killing it isnt

You: What if they aren't?

Stranger: if the baby himself isnt in pain either

Stranger: then im okay with it

You: What if there are ppl attached to the baby before birth?

Stranger: and this is in every form of murder

Stranger: then they will be in pain so then its not okay

You: Is murder of a hermit okay?

Stranger: evry murder is okay as long as these conditions are followed

You: so murder is ok if the victim has no loved ones?

Stranger: and the victim has no mental and/or fysical pain before hes killed

You: So I can just walk up to a hermit or a homeless man and shoot him between the eyes? He'd never feel a thing.

Stranger: well yeah but you also have to watch out that you dont traumatise people

Stranger: cuz thats also mental pain

You: Abortion causes me mental pain.

Stranger: ok

Stranger: then as long as you know about it an abortion is not okay

Stranger: if you dont know however it is

You: What if I shot a man with a family between the eyes? Is that okay?

Stranger: think for yourself

Stranger: the main rule is: no-one has pain

You: Okay, what if I then took his place so his family never found out?

Stranger: would anyone be in pain?

You: No.

Stranger: well then

You: If I shot you and replaced you with a robot, would that be okay? It's a very convincing robot.

Stranger: if no-one would be in pain,, yes

You: What if I hate it when people eat chocolate? Would chocolate then be immoral?

Stranger: uhm

You: The consumption of chocolate causes me emotional pain.

Stranger: then yeah actually

You: Chocolate is immoral?

Stranger: but only as long as you are in pain cuz of it

You: Wow.

You have disconnected.

or save this log or send us feedback.

Stubborn.

You're now chatting with a random stranger. Say hi!

You: What is your opinion on abortion?

Stranger: Hello

Stranger: Well, I am pro-choice. However I do not think it should be used as a contraception method. It should be there for use in an emergency.

You: Why don't you think it should be used as birth control?

Stranger: I don't think it is good for a woman to have too many, there are other easier methods of birth control.

You: Why isn't it good for a woman to have too many?

Stranger: Because it is not good for the body.

You: So you don't think it's a good idea, but is it bad?

Stranger: Sorry? That does not make sense

You: I mean I think smoking is not a good idea.

You: But I wouldn't call it bad.

Stranger: But smoking is bad, it can cause so many health problems and is the biggest cause of lung cancer. I would say smoking is very bad.

You: Okay, is it immoral?

Stranger: Smoking? No

You: Abortion?

Stranger: No

You: Is there any point later in pregnancy where it becomes immoral?

Stranger: Well, I personally don't know the exact time frames but I would say once you are past the medical limit for abortion then it could be viewed as immoral, however if it is a recommended abortion on medical grounds then i would say no. It is not black and white.

You: Currently in America, abortions are legal until birth for any reason.

You: In fact, only recently did we ban partial-birth and live-birth abortions.

Stranger: Ok

You: Would you consider it to be okay to give birth to a baby breach up to the neck and then suck his brains out?

Stranger: What do you mean by suck his brains out?

You: Put scissors into the base of the neck and insert a suction machine to empty the skull.

Stranger: No I would not think that is ok unless it was absolutely necessary

You: Why not?

Stranger: Well if you are talking about a baby without any other health issues/complications and the mother is in good health etc I think there would have been other abortion options available before that point. It seems like a very last minute option so I think it should only be used in an emergency

You: Why do you see it as unacceptable?

Stranger: Because like I said if the baby was healthy etc and the mother was in no danger there would have been other abortion options avaiable up until that point and i dont know why they would ever need to carry the baby until that point to abort

You: If instead of delivering the baby part way they kept him inside and did the same thing would you oppose that?

Stranger: I don't know how they would be able to do that without hurting the mother

You: The mother?

Stranger: The mother of the baby

You: So you acknowledge the existence of an offspring?

Stranger: Well if there is a baby then there is a mother

You: So you think it is okay to kill babies?

Stranger: I have never mentioned killing babies, abortion is a completely different issue. The baby is not alive until it is born

You: Stranger: I don't know how they would be able to do that without hurting the mother
You: The mother?
Stranger: The mother of the baby

Stranger: yes?

Stranger: I dont understand what you are trying to say

You: You said that there is a baby inside her.

You: Abortion kills him or her.

Stranger: Not if it hasn't been born yet, it just stops the possibility of a baby

You: So she's not a mother?

Stranger: Not if the baby isn't born

You: Would you support an abortion at 8 months?

Stranger: I would need to know the full facts of the case, nothing is black and white

You: Would you support an abortion at 39 weeks?

Stranger: Again, I would need to know the full facts of the case

You: 41 weeks?

Stranger: Again, full facts would need to be known

You: What about infanticide?

Stranger: What do you mean?

You: Killing the baby after birth.

Stranger: No I do not support that

You: Why not?

Stranger: Because that baby has been born and is a life

You: The baby is a life before birth too; it's the same person.

Stranger: No its not, before birth it is the possibility of a person, only once it has taken a breath is the baby alive

You: The baby doesn't breath until a minute or so after birth.

You: That's why they need to slap it on the back.

Stranger: Thats when the baby is alive,

You: So after birth the baby isn't alive yet?

Stranger: The baby is alive once it has been born and taken a breath

You: What if she's born early and has to be put on a respirator?

Stranger: The respirator does the function it is supposed to and allows the baby to breathe

You: Do you know what the definition of life it?

You: ^is

Stranger: As far as I am aware life has never been officially defined by anyone. However it would be generally accepted as something that produces its own energy either through respiration/photosynthesis/chemosynthesis etc

You: The 7 characteristics of life are heredity, homeostasis, reproduction, metabolism, cellular organisation, growth/development, and response to stimuli.

You: That's out of my biology textbook.

Stranger: What is the name of your textbook? Also, characteristics aren't always a definition. I have blue eyes thats a characteristic but you couldn't use it to define a person.

You: It's just called "Biology".

You: But you can look it up online.

You: No organisms produce their own energy. Even plants take it from the sun.

Stranger: Photosynthesis, they use the suns energy to produce their own energy

You: The law of conservation of energy states that energy cannot be produced.

Stranger: No, all energy is in balance and you cannot produce any new energy from nothing, however by converting one form of energy to another you are producing a different kind of energy that was not there before therefore producing energy.

You: Well, if you're talking about metabolism, we do that before birth. The umbilical cord brings us oxygen and sugars that we break down in cellular respiration.

Stranger: Yes and it is still attached to the mother, therefore the "baby" is not doing that itself.

You: The food comes from the mother but the cellular respiration happens in the fetal cells.

Stranger: Yes but the baby cannot do that without the mother being there, the baby cannot sustain itself

You: Cannot do what?

Stranger: Cannot do anything, if the mother is not there to provide the oxygen, to provide the food the baby cannot exist, it is not a life as it cannot live by itself, it is part of the mother, in fact you could see similarities between a baby and a tumour or a growth

You: If we removed the baby we could give him or her the nutrients mechanically.

Stranger: But that baby is still not living on its own is it? It is being artificially reared, in nature that would not happen.

You: In nature a premature baby wouldn't survive.

Stranger: No it wouldn't

You: Are premature babies not alive?

Stranger: If it has been born and is breathing then yes

You: But it cannot survive on its own.

Stranger: It might not survive for long but once that baby has taken a breath it is alive

You: They can't breath on their own. That's what the respirator is for.

Stranger: If the baby has not taken a breath it is stillborn

You: So a baby is stillborn until a minute after birth?

You: You: The baby doesn't breath until a minute or so after birth.
You: That's why they need to slap it on the back.
Stranger: Thats when the baby is alive,

Stranger: No, stillborn is when a baby does not take a breath for a period of time, there is no respitory function. They don't just say "oh well a minutes up, thats it"

You: The thing is this: the mother and baby are two organisms in a temporary symbiotic relationship in which the mother supplies nutrients to the baby.

Stranger: OR the baby is a parasite feeding off the mother?

You: If the baby is a parasite, it is a separate organism by definition.

You: Also, a parasitic relationship is a type of symbiosis.

Stranger: I was being funny, you can take all your points to try and justify your anti abortion view however it sitll does not work. A baby is not alive until it has been born and has taken its first breath

You: Does the baby grow?

You: Yes or no.

Stranger: Are we talking about after birth? Then yes it does

You: Does the fetus grow?

Stranger: The fetus does grow yes

You: Is the fetus composed of cells?

Stranger: Yes it certainlely is

You: Do those cells divide?

Stranger: Yes they do

You: Does the fetus direct his or her own development?

Stranger: It has limited control you could argue

You: I'm not debating the source of nutrients.

You: I'm asking whether or not the fetal DNA directs the production of proteins.

Stranger: Well, it is an issue!

Stranger: Yes it does, in addition to the mothers help

You: How does the mother help aside from supplying nutrients and a hospitable environment?

Stranger: I think those are pretty big issues! Try sticking a fertilised egg on a table and see what happens

You: After fertilization, there is no egg; the sperm and egg fuse into a zygote.

You: But try sticking a fish in outer space.

Stranger: Ok ok, use your terms, stick that on a table

Stranger: haha, you are getting desperate with your reasoning now. You said how does the mother help the baby aside from that, and i merely said that the baby would not be able to even begin to develop without that, we were not talking about fish in space

You: I'm not asking if the baby could develop without help. This is universal for all organisms. I'm asking whether the fetus's development is self-directed, not self-sustained.

You: Does the fetal DNA direct development?

Stranger: Ok, then Yes

You: Okay.

You: The mother supplies nutrients through the placenta and umbilical cord. Do the baby's cells then metabolize these nutrients (with the help of the oxygen supplied the same way) through cellular respiration?

Stranger: Hells yeah

You: Does the baby react to stimuli?

Stranger: it depends on the kind of stimuli

You: Does the baby react to any stimuli at all?

Stranger: it could do

You: So we have established that the baby grows through cellular division, correct?

Stranger: Yes

You: We have also established that the baby's cells take nutrients provided by the mother's bloodstream and metabolize them through cellular respiration, correct?

Stranger: Yes, with the help of the mother

You: The mother provides the nutrients, yes.

Stranger: yes

You: Have we also established that the baby is made of cells?

Stranger: Yes

You: Have we also established that the baby's growth and development is self-directed, but not self-sustained?

Stranger: Yes

You: And, finally, we have established that the baby can react to certain stimuli.

Stranger: Yes

You: Because the fetus's growth and development are self-directed, it is an organism and not part of the mother's body.

Stranger: Ok, so what about a tumour?

You: A tumor is not a separate organism.

Stranger: why?

You: Because it does not have its own DNA.

You: It is cells of a larger body.

Stranger: But it is made of cells, it grows, it can react to stimuli if it is nervous tissue?

You: These are all true.

You: Those are characteristics of life.

You: Ever cell in your body is alive.

You: To be a separate organism, its growth must be self-directed.

You: That is the difference between a tumor and a tapeworm, for instance.

Stranger: Ok, so do tumours self direct their growth?

You: No, they do not.

Stranger: Are you sure on that?

You: Unless you can provide evidence to the contrary.

You: Tumors are cells of a larger body that contain the DNA of other somatic cells, but the cellular division routine has gone awry.

You: This is why tumors develop chaotically.

Stranger: or is it organised chaos?

You: No.

Stranger: But how do these tumors actually grow?

You: By cellular division.

Stranger: but you said that has got "awry"

You: Yes.

You: The division is typically controlled and limited according to genetic instructions.

Stranger: So it is controlled?

You: But not in tumors.

You: No.

You: It is not even self-controlled.

Stranger: So its just a bit wacky? And just so happens to result in the growth of a tumour in a random point?

You: Sometimes it is triggered by a chemical imbalance of some sort.

You: That's why you need to eat healthy.

Stranger: Ahh, ok, so tumours do nothing themselves?

You: Nothing but grow chaotically.

You: Otherwise they just sit there.

Stranger: So they cant induce anything?

You: Like what?

Stranger: Like growth of blood vessels?

You: What do you mean?

Stranger: Well, they just sit there right?

Stranger: They cant do anything they just grow chaotically due to limited genetic instructions, thats what you said right?

You: No, they grow chaotically because they do not entirely follow their genetic instructions.

Stranger: So what drives them to grow?

You: They're still cells, and cells divide.

Stranger: So thats all it is? Cell division?

You: Without restriction, they don't stop.

You: I must admit, however, I am not an expert on tumors.

Stranger: I am just interested to know what control they have over their growth

You: Not really any.

You: I would encourage you to research this for yourself, if you're interested.

You: I know, however, that they are not organisms.
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=organism

Stranger: Ok, so you are only here for your anti-abortion agenda nothing else

You: I'm not here to talk about something I am as uninformed on as tumor growth.

Stranger: but you are an expert on pregnancy and birth?

You: Not at all, but I have a basic understanding of the definition of life.

You: It's the first thing you learn in biology.

Stranger: but your understanding is skewed in order to meet your agenda

You: Not at all. We can have a legitimate debate as to whether the baby is a valuable human being or possesses "personhood".

Stranger: Yes we can

You: But from a purely biological perspective, the baby is certainly alive.

Stranger: However, it is not classed as alive until it has been born

You: Legally, no it is not.

You: As far as I know.

You: I know for certain that, in the case of abortion, it is not a legal person.

Stranger: You could argue that the legal definition is wrong, however you could also argue that the definition of the basic characterstics of life are wrong. They were both decided on by people and therefore are not necessarily all encompassing.

You: If you are going to dispute the definition of life, take it up with scientists.

You: But, being the core of biology for hundreds of years, you'll need more than a political agenda to change it.

Stranger: But your whole argument here has been using the definition of life

You: So has yours. If you want to debate the rights the baby has, go ahead.

You: But it is alive.

Stranger: indeed, well stranger I think we shall just have to agree to differ.

You: Are you currently a student?

Stranger: No, are you?

You: Yes.

You: If you have access to a biologist, ask him or her.

You: You know that human beings reproduce sexually right?

Stranger: I actually have a background in biology myself so there is no need for the patronising lecture. I suggest that to succeed as a student (in whatever subject not necessarily biology) you should open your mind to debate a bit more. You are very one sided and that will limit your opportunity to learn.

You: Sexual reproduction is defined as the production of an offspring by the fusion of the genetic material of both parents. To say that the baby is part of the mother's body that splits off at birth suggests that you believe we reproduce asexually.

You: I am in no way trying to be patronizing.

You: I apologize if I came off that way.

You: I'm just clarifying that the baby is biologically alive. Whether he or she is philosophically valuable is still up for debate.

Stranger: Someone has to play devils advocate thats how things work. I wish you good luck in your studies stranger but i do suggest that you try to acknowledge the other side of debate occasionally.

Stranger: Good luck in the future

You: I acknowledge the other side.

You: I am pointing out that the biological life of the baby is not debated in scientific circles.

You: If you want to debate philosophical value, I will have that debate.

Stranger: I dont think you do. It is all very well debating but you must be prepared to acknowledge that you might not have all of the answers and sometimes things are not black and white. The biological life of a baby is not debated as it is known, a baby is considered alive after birth.

Stranger: I have to go now stranger, i do wish you well in your studies.

You: But the stubborn facts of science stand in favor of at least the biological life of the baby.

You: Goodbye.

You: And thank you.

Stranger: Perhaps, but its not how it is acknowledged currently. You may well be right but I and most other people do not consider a baby to be alive until after birth.

You: This has been an interesting dialogue.

Stranger: Goodbye stranger, it has officially been my most interesting omegle, thank you!

You: In strictly biological terms, the baby is alive.

Your conversational partner has disconnected.

or save this log or send us feedback.