Anonymous #4 1d

Why would a baby be sad about being born. That’s fucking stupid lmao

-12

Anonymous #5 1d

*abort

-2

Anonymous #5 1d

Same. I love my life and couldn’t imagine a world where I never got to experience being alive.

-8

Anonymous #1 1d

You guys really are the devil 😭

-16

Anonymous OP 1d

we got abortions coming to a CVS near you cry about it

21

Anonymous #5 1d

My conservative parents didn’t abort me which is unfortunate bc they would have been doing me a favor

9

Anonymous OP 1d

Why would a fetus be sad about being aborted. That’s fucking stupid lmao

18

Anonymous #5 1d

I had liberal parents who didn’t abort me, and I’m glad she has the choice to decide what to do with her body

13

Anonymous OP 1d

Your question poked a hole in your own logic…

16

Anonymous OP 1d

I hope you know #1 is being dramatic…

12

Anonymous #12 1d

Many animals can’t form thoughts like that does that mean it’s okay to kill them?

-7

Anonymous OP 1d

Guaranteed you have already killed animals that haven’t formed unique thoughts lol

18

Anonymous OP 1d

Just pointing out a flaw in your argument 🤷‍♂️ and we actually kill animals all the time. Do you eat meat?

10

Anonymous #7 1d

Acting like we live in yemen

4

Anonymous OP 1d

Wait do you think they are being serious?

14

Anonymous OP 1d

False. We actually know animals have emotions and know how to tell when an animal is feeling that emotion. Horses, for example, will pin their ears and their tails get more active when they are annoyed or agitated. They will lower their head, lick their lips, chew, and sigh when relaxed. A fetus cannot do any of that.

11

Anonymous #10 1d

OP is slow in the head

18

Anonymous themind._.ofhueyfreeman25 18h

Is it okay to kill human beings whose brains are still developing or that can’t feel? When do you think the brain is finished developing?

-3

Anonymous themind._.ofhueyfreeman25 18h

Neither can a baby with anencephaly

-3

Anonymous #12 18h

I think humans are more important than animals personally, would you agree?

-4

Anonymous #6 18h

Why would they have been doing you a favor? Are you doing alright?

0

Anonymous #9 18h

Do you think parents should always have the choice to decide what to do with their children’s bodies though?

-1

Anonymous #4 18h

It’s not normal to want to die you know. As someone who has experienced suicidality I really hope you don’t truly feel this way and if you do you deserve to get help and be happy.

-1

Anonymous #17 18h

1.By developed I mean the brain isn’t fully formed. Humans cannot live without a brain 2.humans who are born have their own bodily autonomy, a person who has nerve damage, for example, has their own bodily autonomy and doesn’t directly rely on the energy or nutrients of another person. The cut off for abortion is around 24 weeks partially because of brain development

7

Anonymous #17 18h

1. How do you feel about the death penalty? 2. Do animals have the capacity to feel?

10

Anonymous #17 18h

25

1

Anonymous #17 18h

No not rlly. Humans ARE animals. I don’t think humans are more important than any species. Especially because I’d choose my animals over certain ppl or a stranger for example

4

Anonymous #17 18h

Ok cool? The baby was born and has its own bodily autonomy. It doesn’t directly rely on someone else’s body. They have the capacity to breathe on their own, digest food on their own, etc.

3

Anonymous #17 18h

Also…fetuses with anencephaly don’t survive 😭 it usually results in miscarriage and if kept till full term they are born dead or if they’re born alive they die in less than a few hours. If ur fetus is diagnosed with anencephaly u should get an abortion

9

Anonymous #17 18h

Humans are animals though. It’s just a matter of if you prioritize your own species over others, which idk if you would actually do in every possible scenario

9

Anonymous themind._.ofhueyfreeman25 18h

All babies rely on someone else’s body for survival. They can’t feed themselves or move by themselves. And unborn babies at 20 weeks have the capacity to do all those things you mentioned as well outside the womb, not to mention every unborn baby has the capacity to metabolize nutrients and oxygen on its own. Also I don’t see why your bodily autonomy should depend on your location, or even if you can survive on your own. Millions of people have health conditions where they can’t do so.

-5

Anonymous #17 18h

*Fetus, babies are defined as humans recently born

5

Anonymous #9 18h

1. I oppose it 2. I don’t think the capacity to feel is what determines morality. A human under anesthesia won’t feel anything if you kill them, still wrong to do so. And many animals don’t have centralized nervous systems and thus probably don’t have the capacity to feel anyway

-5

Anonymous #17 18h

You can’t say whether or not a CNS determines whether or not an organism can feel. I can’t tell if you’re rage baiting or sincerely this ignorant

1

Anonymous themind._.ofhueyfreeman25 18h

Should you kill a baby with anencephaly after birth?

-3

Anonymous #17 18h

The chances of it surviving are less than 0.02%

8

Anonymous #17 18h

Abortion ≠ killing a baby after birth, silly. No one said anything about doing that

8

Anonymous #17 18h

I think ur purposely ignoring what I’m saying gang. Babies flood not DIRECTLY rely on someone else’s body after being born. They can digest food on their own, breathe on their own etc. the majority of aborts happen prior to 20weeks, with abortions happening after done for medical reasons. When abortions happen a fetus cannot do any of that because it barely has any organs. No brain, stomach, lungs, and the heart isn’t developed enough to function on its own. Bodily autonomy of the mother trumps-

5

Anonymous #17 18h

The bodily autonomy of the fetus in almost every situation

8

Anonymous #9 18h

Especially if there’s a chance of harming the mother

7

Anonymous #17 18h

It’s usually born dead. U can’t kill something that’s already dead. Do u think that baby shouldn’t have been aborted earlier in utero?

7

Anonymous #8 18h

Babies are not defined as that. Baby in American English includes unborn human fetus. https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/baby

-4

Anonymous themind._.ofhueyfreeman25 18h

The whole reason a baby with anencephaly dies is they cannot sustain these life functions on their own.

-2

Anonymous #12 18h

It’s both killing a human being, and if you think that a baby being unable to survive on its own means you get to kill it that applies to babies with anencephaly who cannot do so, as well as any babies really

-3

Anonymous #17 18h

Uh yea? It should’ve been aborted earlier in utero dude. Unless ur telling me ur ok with making a family suffer going through a birth and hold out hope for something that won’t happen

6

Anonymous #17 18h

Exactly it’s not really ever been alive in most cases why tf should the family be put through the trauma of birth if the fetus is already dead

6

Anonymous themind._.ofhueyfreeman25 18h

Why do you think that? Do you have a source at that point they’re only aborted for “medical reasons”? And given the appropriate conditions you could keep an unborn baby alive outside of its mother. Organ and brain development begin very early on. I’d also say a breastfeeding baby that cannot digest anything else is directly dependent on its mother’s body.

-2

Anonymous #17 18h

Anencephaly is such a weak argument against abortion. It’s going to die. It’ll either be in the uterus early in development, late development, or die a few hours after birth dude😭 if anything anencephaly is a better pro choice argument

8

Anonymous #17 18h

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/baby

10

Anonymous #17 18h

https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/abortions-later-in-pregnancy-in-a-post-dobbs-era/

6

Anonymous #17 18h

Ok well a baby that’s already been born doesn’t necessarily rely on its biological mother to physically stay alive, it can be cared for by anyone else (without needing to live in their internal organs, mind you). Also, in the unlikely scenario a baby is born alive with anencephaly, it will die eventually anyway

12

Anonymous #12 17h

So it’s ok to intentionally kill it? Because the question is whether it’s ok to kill it intentionally. Not whether it’ll die. Also, a breastfeeding baby does still depend on its mother’s internal organs. If only the biological mother can take care of it, would that justify infanticide?

-3

Anonymous themind._.ofhueyfreeman25 17h

I think it’s wrong to intentionally kill someone even if they die anyway, yes.

-2

Anonymous #17 17h

So ur against assisted euthanasia? Yk death isn’t always a bad thing…right?

5

Anonymous #17 17h

I also hope ur against the death penalty

9

Anonymous themind._.ofhueyfreeman25 17h

I am

-1

Anonymous themind._.ofhueyfreeman25 17h

I am against killing People intentionally yes, I do think death is always a bad thing. But someone consenting to it is different than a baby which has no choice. I don’t think killing someone who is going to die without their consent is ok

-1

Anonymous #17 17h

At least ur consistent. It’s incredibly inhumane against the fetus and family to force a person to carry out a pregnancy when the fetus has anencephaly

6

Anonymous themind._.ofhueyfreeman25 17h

Is it inhumane to outlaw infanticide as well that makes it illegal to kill a child with anencephaly?

-3

Anonymous #17 17h

Death isn’t always a bad thing. For example,a person who owns an animal with cancer that’s causing said animal to be in pain isn’t a bad thing. Pulling the plug on a person who’s brain dead isn’t a bad thing. Pulling the plug on someone who the doctors say only have a limited time left isn’t a bad thing. Death is a solution to CERTAIN forms of pain and suffering

6

Anonymous #17 17h

Again, the child shouldn’t have gotten to that point. It should’ve been aborted earlier in utero. They also are born dead dude…u can’t kill someone born dead

8

Anonymous themind._.ofhueyfreeman25 17h

1. the brain isn’t fully formed until 25. it certainly isn’t fully formed in newborns. And many people have disabilities or brain damage where whole parts of the brain are missing. Just as an example patient HM who had his hippocampus removed and could not form new memories. 2. according to you bodily autonomy is determined by if you aren’t directly dependent on someone else and you have example of being able to breathe and digest food on your own. But many born people cannot even do that.

-1

Anonymous themind._.ofhueyfreeman25 17h

And euthanizing said animal**

8

Anonymous themind._.ofhueyfreeman25 17h

2. and many ppl need either extensive medical intervention, keeping them attached to machines to keep them alive, or organ transplants from other people. I think it’s wrong to kill someone who has received an organ transplant. Also, in multiple states, abortion is allowed past 24 weeks, and that then contradicts you saying it depends on birth.

-2

Anonymous themind._.ofhueyfreeman25 17h

Also your original argument was that they can’t feel emotions.

-2

Anonymous #17 17h

The brain is fully formed just not finished developing lmao 😭 people who have disabilities or experienced some form of damage ARE ALREADY BORN. People who are born that cannot digest or breathe again are born and do not directly rely on the organs or body of another person as their body can and do carry out those biological processes by themselves lmao

7

Anonymous #17 17h

Ur the one who brought it off topic dude 😭

6

Anonymous themind._.ofhueyfreeman25 17h

Killing an animal isnt the same as killing a person. I think pulling the plug on a person with brain death isn’t the same as actively administering a lethal injection to them. Plus, even then, if you have eh a coma patient or someone with multiple organ failure, usually it depends on their consent and advance directives they have. I think it would be deeply immoral to kill eg a coma patient if we knew they were going to recover as well.

-1

Anonymous #17 17h

Organ transplants are done with organs from dead ppl😬 weak argument. A medical machine isn’t the same as directly relying on someone’s entire body 😭 these are such weak arguments.

5

Anonymous #17 17h

Source on states that allow elective abortions past 24 weeks??

6

Anonymous themind._.ofhueyfreeman25 17h

And if it isn’t then infanticide should be legalized so they can be killed? The parents might not have known it had anencephaly.

-2

Anonymous themind._.ofhueyfreeman25 17h

No they aren’t. And your argument was they can’t feel emotions breathe and digest food on their own. Which many born people can’t.

-2

Anonymous themind._.ofhueyfreeman25 17h

Michigan https://hopeclinic.com/ann-arbor/late-term-abortion-ann-arbor-mi/

0

Anonymous #17 17h

They most definitely knew. It’s able to be diagnosed early in development. And again..they’re born dead. If they hooked it up to life support and the doctor tells them it’s only going to live until noon and they decide to pull the plug it isn’t infanticide…

6

Anonymous themind._.ofhueyfreeman25 17h

No? Your original comment and response to OP was quote “Well… when fetuses are aborted they can’t feel emotions because their brain isn’t finished developing”

0

Anonymous themind._.ofhueyfreeman25 17h

So they literally say a reason is just that they couldn’t get an abortion earlier, not just that it’s for medical reasons.

-1

Anonymous #8 17h

Where does that definition say it only includes babies that are born? It just says “an extremely young child”. Merriam websters definition of child literally includes “an unborn or recently born person” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/child

-2

Anonymous #17 17h

No, it isn’t okay to kill intentionally because, key word here, it’s already been BORN. Also, a baby doesn’t need to breastfeed from its biological mother to survive. Another woman can do it (ever heard of a wet nurse?) or it could just be bottle-fed. And no, because another person easily could take care of it if it’s already been, again, BORN

7

Anonymous #17 17h

And u brought up anencephaly…changing the conversation. Also ur source doesn’t say anything about abortions past 24 weeks being elective. This is a source from a clinic that does late term abortions

4

Anonymous #9 17h

Hold on a minute then how are you determining unborn babies can’t feel? The person I was responding to said they can’t feel because they don’t have a fully developed brain. So you disagree with them?

-2

Anonymous #17 17h

Dude, you keep rambling about infanticide when literally no one is arguing for killing babies that have already been born

5

Anonymous themind._.ofhueyfreeman25 17h

I’m not talking about pulling the plug. I’m talking about actively killing a human being by administering a lethal injection. Many people never receive prenatal care and tests. I believe that’s the case in 7.3% of pregnant women in the US. And they are not born dead. Approx. 20% of babies with anencephaly are stillbirths. Many survive for weeks.

-2

Anonymous #12 17h

If your argument is actively killing a baby with anencephaly is ok because it won’t survive I’m just asking why that same logic doesn’t apply after birth as well

-1

Anonymous themind._.ofhueyfreeman25 17h

I brought it up because they don’t have fully formed brains and can’t feel emotions. It’s a clinic that does late stage abortions past 24 weeks for women facing “complex personal circumstances” which is explicitly a different condition than a medical one in their listed examples.

-2

Anonymous themind._.ofhueyfreeman25 17h

So does it matter if the brain is fully formed or if they’re born or if they cannot digest or breathe on their own or if they rely on someone else physiologically?

-1

Anonymous #17 17h

All of that ties into the bodily autonomy of another person. So…what do I’ll think my answer will be Brodie

3

Anonymous #17 17h

For the millionth fucking time. A baby with anencephaly isn’t born yet and still lives inside its mother. Why would you want to lit her through the trauma of stillbirth or just giving birth to a baby that won’t survive past its first day? The logic doesn’t apply to a baby that’s already been born because like I said, it’s been BORN. It’s like talking to a brick wall jfc

6

Anonymous #17 17h

“Complex person circumstances” ≠ done because they wanted to. That would include medical reasonings

8

Anonymous #17 17h

Also this argument means nothing because they don’t give a nonviable newborn a “lethal injection.” They just pull the plug

3

Anonymous #17 17h

They don’t do that…

4

Anonymous #6 17h

Why? Are you all right? I’ve personally experienced suicidality before. Please believe me when I say it gets better. The world is better with you in it and you deserve to be happy. Are you a college student? Many colleges have free resources. Also DM me if you want to talk.

0

Anonymous #17 17h

Infants with anencephaly are irrelevant to the conversation and are a shit argument because they very rarely survive past utero and never make it past the newborn stage😭 if anything again, they’re a better argument for abortion because they shouldn’t be forced to be born just to die.

7

Anonymous #14 17h

Abortions for life or health of the mother are always legally permitted

-1

Anonymous #12 17h

So if only the biological mother can take care of it in the moment, that justifies infanticide? With wet nursing it’s still dependent on someone else physiologically, which I thought was the argument? Many people don’t have access to baby formula and didn’t have alternatives for most of human history.

-2

Anonymous #17 17h

You really trust a bunch of politicians who know nothing about medical science to write laws about that though? Do you really trust them to not try to prosecute a doctor for trying to protect their patient’s life simply because they don’t believe that it was actually lifesaving care?

5

Anonymous #17 17h

Dude. It’s like you’re intentionally missing the point. Abortion ≠ infanticide. Even when the biological mother can’t or doesn’t want to care for the baby the hospital won’t just let the baby die. It’ll likely go to adoption/foster services and be cared for by other people. Also, we’re talking about now here in the present. Both of those options being absent wouldn’t happen unless it’s in some very extreme circumstances

2

Anonymous #12 16h

Both of them are killing a human being. Do you think that a biological parent is obligated to take care of their child until they can find a safe alternative caretaker?

-2

Anonymous #12 16h

And yes it might be in some very extreme circumstances. My argument is that it’s immoral to kill a baby even in those extreme circumstances, including before baby formula was invented and you were an average person who couldn’t find or afford a wetnurse. Right now as an alternative to abortion you can do an early delivery, at minimum past viability. Do you think that past viability an abortion is also immoral because there’s an alternative and someone else can take care of the baby?

-1

Anonymous #17 16h

Oh don’t worry im good, i was being a bit hyperbolic when i typed that comment 😭 My relationship with my parents is rocky to say the least, so that’s where my comments’ sentiment originated. But im at a lot better place in life rn, and thats all mostly in the past at this point. To tell you the truth im feeling probably the best I’ve ever felt in life ngl

2

Anonymous #17 16h

I wouldn’t personally support abortion past viability but doctors won’t actually perform an abortion past viability unless it’s a life-or-death medical emergency for the mother, and that’s why they should still be legally permissible

1

Anonymous #12 16h

Exactly and anyone who tells you it’s being treated like that normally is playing you

8

Anonymous #17 16h

And good thing we write laws based on our current circumstances and not because of what might have happened a few times in the past!

4

Anonymous #17 16h

In what states is it always allowed? Because it’s not allowed in some. So….

12

Anonymous #17 16h

I have a feeling you don’t actually know what you’re talking about. With anything.

11

Anonymous #9 16h

In which states is it not allowed?

-1

Anonymous #12 16h

a doctor hasn’t even been prosecuted for providing an abortion for any reason yet, and we have laws to regulate a ton of things from medical malpractice to euthanasia, which many here seem to support, so why is that ok when they don’t know anything about medical science? Sgould we have no regulations on medical science at all?

-2

Anonymous #17 16h

You’re so fucking stupid, it’s one way or the other. Are you deadass using the archaic “with child” in everyday conversation?

9

Anonymous #8 16h

Not to mention, the definition of baby is not using the archaic definition of child.

5

Anonymous #8 16h

So then why reference merriam Webster if you think their definitions are archaic?

-3

Anonymous #8 16h

It’s not using the definition of born either? It never specified the child had to be born. It only said it was a young child, which is why I referenced the definition of child according to merriam Webster. Besides referring to someone’s unborn baby is not archaic

-3

Anonymous #17 16h

Because they include archaic definitions…christ how did you get into college

5

Anonymous #8 16h

But then why cite them???

-2

Anonymous #17 16h

How are you in college?

6

Anonymous #8 16h

Like you can’t cite a source, and then claim that their definitions are archaic and don’t count when someone uses that exact same source later. If merriam Webster definitions are archaic then don’t use them to support your point

-3

Anonymous #9 15h

I don’t understand how you can cite a source and then claim the source is unreliable. Don’t cite unreliable sources. Is that position not acceptable in college?

-2

Anonymous #17 15h

Webster is reliable BECAUSE it lists ALL definitions, INCLUDING archaic ones. Just…give it up dawg

7

Anonymous #8 15h

Then what do you think the appropriate definition of child is?

-3

Anonymous #17 15h

You can’t figure out how to argue a point.

10

Anonymous #8 15h

Because merriam Webster also never says a child has to be born so I don’t see why that was even referenced. And again, people use baby to refer to unborn babies all the time, that’s not archaic at all.

-3

Anonymous #9 15h

My point is unborn babies are babies and children and no definition says they aren’t, and most people use that term to describe the unborn as well even if they are pro choice. My evidence for that includes the source someone else cited explicitly saying so, which then is arbitrarily decided doesn’t apply because the example they used is considered an outdated phrase, and an example of someone from 2026 using baby to refer to an unborn human being.

-1

Anonymous #17 15h

Debatable

6

Anonymous #9 15h

Also the fact that the original person claimed that merriam Webster definition says that a baby is born which it never does.

-3

Anonymous #14 15h

Okay then explain what part is wrong

-2

Anonymous #17 15h

A fetus isn’t a child it’s a clump of cells that have the possibility to be a child

14

Anonymous #14 15h

Literally every human being, born or unborn, is a clump of cells, so that doesn’t mean anything. It’s a human being in an early stage of development.

-3

Anonymous #8 15h

Also people say they’re pregnant with a child all the time. It’s not outdated at all.

-1

Anonymous #17 15h

Prove it’s alive then I personally don’t believe a fetus is alive until much later in the process so prove me wrong

10

Anonymous #17 15h

Go back to basic science

10

Anonymous #9 15h

What’s the first stage of life of an organism

-1

Anonymous #14 15h

Okay. From Brittanica: https://www.britannica.com/science/life-cycle

-1

Anonymous #14 15h

From an embryology textbook: https://repository.stikesrspadgs.ac.id/55/1/Embryology%20at%20a%20Glance-122hlm.pdf

0

Anonymous #17 15h

Ethics is not science, it's philosophy.

6

Anonymous #10 15h

Embryology isn’t ethics

-1

Anonymous #17 15h

Correct. Abortion is an ethical debate with subjectivity, not an objective science. Embryology is not the study of morality

6

Anonymous #10 15h

Okay well the person I am responding to asked me to prove the fetus is alive so idk what that has to do with ethics? If you agree the fetus is alive can you tell them that?

0

Anonymous #14 15h

From a textbook on human development: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1040&context=pdxopen

-1

Anonymous #17 15h

Life of organisms ≠ definition of life in mammals

8

Anonymous #9 15h

Humans are mammals, all mammals life cycles begin with conception. I’m not sure what you’re saying

-2

Anonymous #17 15h

Which is why you should go back to basic sciences.

7

Anonymous #9 15h

I guess what do you think is the first stage of life of a mammal then?

-1

Anonymous #17 15h

Conception ≠ life

6

Anonymous #9 15h

Are you saying mammals life cycles don’t begin with conception?

-2

Anonymous #17 15h

First breath.

6

Anonymous #9 15h

So what is the first stage of life of a mammal?

-1

Anonymous #9 15h

Okay can I see which scientific field says life begins with first breath?

-2

Anonymous #17 15h

This is where science defines life as an organism capable of maintaining individual homeostasis. Fetuses before birth cannot.

6

Anonymous #17 15h

Clamping and cutting of the umbilical cord starts a chain reaction of inflation of the lungs, or, first breath.

6

Anonymous #9 15h

Could i see a source on this that says maintaining homeostasis begins with first breath

-2

Anonymous #9 15h

So before clamping the umbilical cord it’s ok to kill a baby?

-2

Anonymous #17 15h

Yep

8

Anonymous #17 15h

Hooper, S. B., Te Pas, A. B., Lang, J., van Vonderen, J. J., Roehr, C. C., Kluckow, M., Gill, A. W., Wallace, E. M., & Polglase, G. R. (2015). Cardiovascular transition at birth: a physiological sequence. Pediatric Research, 77(5), 608–614.

7

Anonymous #17 15h

Armistead, B., Johnson, E., VanderKamp, R., Kula-Eversole, E., Kadam, L., Drewlo, S., & Kohan-Ghadr, H. R. (2020). Placental regulation of energy homeostasis during human pregnancy. Endocrinology, 161(7), bqaa076.

6

Anonymous #17 15h

It’s not a baby until after birth.

5

Anonymous #9 15h

Where does this say homeostasis begins with first breath?

-1

Anonymous #17 15h

Can you read? Clamping of the umbilical cord starts the chain reaction of shunting off access to its host and forcing the lungs to inflate (first breath).

8

Anonymous #9 15h

Were umbilical cords were never clamped and cut before like 1,000 years ago, why would that ever be the thing that starts the reaction

-2

Anonymous #9 15h

So where does it say that is when homeostasis begins?

-1

Anonymous #9 15h

Are you referring to this?

-1

Anonymous #13 15h

Because science? It’s literally how that works….

0

Anonymous #17 15h

Oops, first mistake: you assumed "alive" is a settled, neutral fact. Biology's definition of life is a convention scientists chose, and you can't prove a definition using the science built on it. That's circular. And "alive" was never the real question. Skin cells are alive. Sperm is alive. What matters is whether anyone is there to experience anything, and experience can't be measured from outside. That's philosophy, not embryology. Your textbook can't do your ethics for you.

8

Anonymous #9 15h

You said it’s not a baby until first breath, multiple babies don’t get their umbilical cords clamped until minutes after birth. You could also just never clamp the umbilical cord which would kill it

-1

Anonymous #17 15h

The placenta regulates fetal gas exchange and energy balance in utero (Armistead et al., 2020). It is not until birth and umbilical cord clamping that the infant undergoes the cardiopulmonary reconfiguration required to sustain independent homeostasis (Hooper et al., 2015), which is a foundational hallmark of an autonomous living system (Cannon, 1929; Koshland, 2002).

10

Anonymous #9 15h

Yeah dude caveman scientists were handing out clamps and scalpels, and if they hadn’t been doing so no baby would have ever taken a breath

-2

Anonymous #17 15h

I’m a fucking neonatal nurse, btw.

8

Anonymous #13 15h

I didn't realize everyone 1000 years ago walked around still physically attached to their mothers 💀

6

Anonymous #10 15h

Are y’all really that dumb? Clamping and cutting is a staple of birth. The cutting of the cord is what fully makes the transition.

2

Anonymous #13 15h

That was 100,000 years ago, not 1,000

8

Anonymous #10 15h

Sorry, that was for #13

8

Anonymous #9 15h

The placenta is an organ that is created by the fetus.

-3

Anonymous #17 15h

Goalpost shift detected.

13

Anonymous #9 15h

How? How is it a goalpost shift to say that if an organ created by the fetus regulates its metabolism and homeostasis, it’s regulating its metabolism and homeostasis?

-2

Anonymous #17 15h

The placenta, created due to the formation of the fetus BY THE HOST, is regulating everything for the fetus. Jesus. This baited me so bad.

10

Anonymous #9 15h

Born Humans homeostasis is also dependent on their gut microbiome

-2

Anonymous #17 15h

Yeah, this is rage bait.

9

Anonymous #9 15h

It is not created by the host. It is created by the fetus. It is made by the fetus and the mother and is made out of fetal and maternal cells, and also helps regulate the mothers homeostasis and metabolism

-2

Anonymous #9 15h

Idk what to tell you

-2

Anonymous #10 15h

Okay. What is the first stage of life of an organism according to you? Do you think there’s a difference between a whole organism and individual cells that are part of that organism?

-3

Anonymous #10 14h

1k, 100k, doesn’t matter. Babies breathed for eons before clamping and cutting was ever a thing so obviously that’s not what makes them breathe

3

Anonymous #9 14h

So no human birth ever occurred before this so necessary staple was a thing?

-2

Anonymous #13 14h

You mean cutting the umbilical cord? How do you think births happened? They left it attached?

5

Anonymous #9 14h

That shit was probably smashed with a rock or chewed through, however there was no clamping involved

-2

Anonymous #13 14h

Still cut, which is part of the process to begin the breathing.

8

Anonymous #9 14h

I was being sarcastic you dunce

0

Anonymous #9 14h

Oh

1

Anonymous #17 12h

There's no clean "first stage." Development is a continuum, and where you mark the start is a choice. And "whole vs. part" isn't as solid as you think. Cut a planarian into pieces and each piece regrows a whole worm. Michael Levin's lab changed their bioelectric signals and got two-headed worms that keep regrowing two heads, with zero DNA changes. His team even turned frog skin cells into new living creatures. What counts as "an organism" depends on what the cells do together.

2

Anonymous #17 12h

An early human embryo can split into identical twins up to about two weeks after fertilization. So at conception, was that one person or two? It also runs the other way: two separate embryos can fuse into one person, called a chimera. Two "organisms" become one. If a zygote were already a fixed individual, neither could happen. The boundary of "one human" gets settled later, not at conception.

9

Anonymous #9 12h

To be totally clear I’m making a joke about how ridiculous this post is

1

Anonymous #17 12h

Child ≠ zygote

3

Anonymous #10 12h

What else do you call a human being in an early stage of development?

0

Anonymous #17 12h

A child? Sure. But what they do with a fetus I’m the womb is between the mother and her doctor.

6

Anonymous #9 12h

What species is a fetus in the womb?

-1

Anonymous #17 12h

Species doesn’t matter. A fetus is not an individual being.

1

Anonymous #9 11h

What is the first stage of life of an individual organism?

0

Anonymous #17 11h

Back to this again? I’m not gonna school you a second time

7

Anonymous #9 11h

The first stage of life of mammals is still conception. I’m not sure why you think mammals are unique and why conception is the first stage of life for other classes and not mammals but they aren’t the exception. The first stage of life for all organisms is conception.

-1

Anonymous #17 11h

Lmao go to any biology lab on planet earth and try to pull this bullshit

4

Anonymous #9 11h

None of your sources said that the fetus is not alive or an organism. One source said the placenta regulated metabolism for the fetus *and* the mother, which is true. The placenta regulating your metabolism does not mean you aren’t an individual organism. And the placenta is a shared organ created by the mother and the fetus.

-1

Anonymous #8 11h

Okay

0

Anonymous #17 11h

Sweet! Let’s give all eukaryotes human rights

1

Anonymous #8 11h

But they’re not human organisms. All human beings should have rights, no?

0

Anonymous themind._.ofhueyfreeman25 11h

It’s explicitly listed as separate from medical reasons and includes anything like financial difficulties.

1

Anonymous themind._.ofhueyfreeman25 11h

I think it’s wrong to intentionally kill someone with anencephaly.

-1

Anonymous themind._.ofhueyfreeman25 11h

I guess i didn’t realize that would be very controversial to think it’s wrong to kill someone just because they can’t feel.

0

Anonymous themind._.ofhueyfreeman25 11h

No it doesn’t, they’re all separate arguments. If it’s purely bodily autonomy it shouldn’t matter if their brains are fully developed or not. Any child physiologically dependent on another human beings becomes morally worthless. I oppose being legally able to kill breastfeeding infants just because they are dependent on another human physiologically. I don’t think you have a right to do whatever you want to someone just because they’re physiologically dependent on you.

-2

Anonymous #17 11h

That’s why I’m not arguing morality. Idc if u think it’s moral or not. Bodily autonomy is the MAIN issue when it comes to abortion. U virtue signal morality so much that ur ok with a person continuing a pregnancy even if they know it’s just gonna lead to a death. No one is arguing to kill breast feeding infants especially because an infant can survive without breastfeeding(cough cough because it isn’t necessarily needed when there are other forms of feeding a baby).

1

Anonymous #6 11h

You don’t wish that. There’s so much to live for brother. Please contact 988 if you feel this way

1

Anonymous #17 11h

Ur like those ppl who think it’s wrong to euthanize an animal when there’s some medical issue because “it wants to fight” or “because killing animals is wrong” while ignoring any welfare issues with keeping said animal alive…

1

Anonymous themind._.ofhueyfreeman25 11h

I think there’s a massive difference between euthanizing an animal and actively killing an innocent human being without their consent by giving it a lethal injection.

-1

Anonymous themind._.ofhueyfreeman25 11h

I don’t think simply administering palliative care is the same as active euthanasia either, which you might be conflating

0

Anonymous #17 11h

Hey idk if yk this but when u get an abortion I don’t have to specify why ur getting said abortion. It’s not crazy to assume(because it happens) that those women need those abortions for medical reasons. And I didn’t see anywhere where it claimed that those weren’t for medical reasons

1

Anonymous #17 11h

It’s a good thing they aren’t killing infants via lethal injection 😭 like where tf do yall hear this bullshit

1

Anonymous themind._.ofhueyfreeman25 11h

It’s relevant if you’re claiming it’s only done for medical issues when the group also explicitly lists medical issues as separate from that. And there is no evidence it’s only done for medical reasons. Just because an abortion can happen for medical reasons doesn’t mean they always are. It’s also not crazy to assume they’re not happening because of medical reasons.

0

Anonymous #17 11h

So ur just ok with forcing people to give birth and get attached to a child they’ll never be able to bring home?

1

Anonymous themind._.ofhueyfreeman25 11h

Active euthanasia often involves lethal injection. It’s not a secret

1

Anonymous #17 11h

It’s a good thing I never argued abortions are only done for medical reasons. I did say that abortions done after the cut off are done for medical reasons. Again “complex personal reasons” would be medical reasons. No where does that source say “done for complex personal reasons and medical reasons”

1

Anonymous themind._.ofhueyfreeman25 11h

This guy isn’t worth arguing with. He doesn’t actually know what he’s talking about.

5

Anonymous #17 11h

Where does this say they’re killing babies via lethal injection? The US doesn’t offer assisted euthanasia either btw…so again I ask where are u getting these crack pot theories?😭

1

Anonymous themind._.ofhueyfreeman25 11h

Do you not think people are already attached to their children before they’re born?

1

Anonymous #17 11h

I’m sorry that doesn’t answer my question. Ur ok with forcing women to give bird to dead babies?

1

Anonymous #9 11h

I can tell. He thinks babies are being killed via lethal injection 😭

1

Anonymous themind._.ofhueyfreeman25 11h

Birth**

1

Anonymous themind._.ofhueyfreeman25 11h

Because that’s how active euthanasia works and why I’m opposed to it. You asked me earlier if I would be opposed to it. I’m saying euthanasia is wrong and you shouldn’t euthanize babies who can’t consent to dying using these methods. Rocuronium is administered intravenously

1

Anonymous #17 11h

Forcing organisms that’s suffering to stay alive in a lot of cases is worse than euthanasia but ok?

1

Anonymous themind._.ofhueyfreeman25 11h

No, if a miscarriage has occurred all states permit for abortion. Does that mean you agree they are babies though?

1

Anonymous #17 11h

That’s not true

1

Anonymous themind._.ofhueyfreeman25 11h

Actively killing then is wrong. I’m not saying we can’t administer palliative care. I’m just saying we can’t actively kill them.

0

Anonymous #9 11h

What part isn’t true

0

Anonymous #17 11h

Gang….they’re going to die after at most a few hours. They shouldn’t need palliative care because u can detect it 23-26 days after conception. It should be aborted before u enter the second trimester

1

Anonymous #17 11h

I never argued it wasn’t a baby or human so I don’t understand the purpose of that question

1

Anonymous #17 11h

Miscarriages are not included in life saving measures. Not all miscarriages are life threatening and don’t qualify in Arkansas and Oklahoma.

3

Anonymous themind._.ofhueyfreeman25 11h

Okay then. I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree then. Would your answer change if we were able to treat anencephaly and knew if they were born they would normally survive and live normal lives, even if in the moment they can’t feel, think and are dependent on the mother physiologically?

1

Anonymous #9 11h

?

1

Anonymous #17 11h

Would that change my views on abortion? No. Women and whoever else can get pregnant need abortions. Even if we were able to treat anencephaly, with the way the US healthcare system is people wouldn’t even be able to afford said treatment.

1

Anonymous themind._.ofhueyfreeman25 11h

I meant if you think it should be considered a baby even if it can’t think feel and is entirely dependent on the mother

-1

Anonymous themind._.ofhueyfreeman25 11h

So it would be ok to kill someone who is physiologically dependent on someone else and can’t think or feel even if we know that would change soon? Because I thought your original argument is abortion is acceptable because the unborn can’t think, feel, and are physiologically dependent on another person. Which is why I brought up anencephaly since I think it would be wrong to kill then even though they fulfill all those conditions after birth. even if we knew their condition would change?

1

Anonymous #17 11h

Again, I never argued it wasn’t a baby or human in any capacity…All babies aren’t dependent on their mother to carry out basic functions like breathe, digest food, regulate body temperature, etc. There are expectations to the rule, birth defects or premature births that cause babies to need assistance because they can’t breathe or eat(actively swallow food) but in those cases the baby isn’t dependent on the mother’s internal organs, blood, and endocrine system

1

Anonymous #17 11h

In Arkansas, a miscarriage is not covered and considered an abortion unless the fetus is considered dead and unborn. Therefore, unless it is a medical emergency for the mother, it is illegal

6

Anonymous #9 11h

But it’s not an abortion if it’s removing a dead unborn child it says it right there

0

Anonymous #17 11h

Correct. But not all miscarriages are determined dead and unborn. That’s literally why mothers leave Arkansas for medical attention because doctors won’t touch them until the mother is almost dead. You really don’t know anything.

4

Anonymous themind._.ofhueyfreeman25 11h

Is a breastfeeding baby not dependent on internal organs and the endocrine system of someone else? Is anyone who received an organ donation ever not dependent on that organ? I don’t think that justifies killing them. I don’t think you can do whatever you want to someone else even if they are physiologically dependent on you.

0

Anonymous #17 10h

If that person has been born or if it’s a fetus in the second trimester? No. No human is physiologically dependent on anyone. No one born is connected to their mother still via their umbilical cord. We live in reality. If a fetus is diagnosed with anencephaly it should be aborted. There’s a difference between being born just to suffer before dying and u being in utero with no brain or internal organs and ur mom taking two pills to terminate the pregnancy

1

Anonymous #17 10h

No it’s not. A breastfeeding baby can be transitioned to formula. The difference between abortion and organ transplants is also consent. Should a person be forced to donate their organs to a person who needs them?

1

Anonymous #9 10h

If the mother’s life is at risk then it’s within the legal exception whether the baby is dead or not.

0

Anonymous #17 10h

Incorrect

1

Anonymous themind._.ofhueyfreeman25 10h

No, but I think once you have donated an organ you can’t change your mind and kill someone else to get the organ back. What about if the mother doesn’t have access to formula?

0

Anonymous #9 10h

You earlier said that miscarriages weren’t covered because not all miscarriages are life threatening, implying they would be covered if they were. Hence why I brought up the explicit exception for a miscarriage. I don’t get what you’re saying.

-1

Anonymous #17 10h

Then she shouldn’t have children. If she can’t afford baby formula she probably can’t afford food to have a good enough diet to produce good breast milk. And I’m using ur logic, if u think a woman should have to allow another person to use her body without consent then I should be for ppl having to give any organs, blood, plasma, etc that others would need to survive.

1

Anonymous #17 10h

Because the fetus must be declared dead and unborn, as in no cardiac activity. Not all miscarriages have no fetal cardiac activity, which is why if is not actually legal since that’s an abortion, meaning not all states allow for mothers to have a legal abortion unless her life is threatened.

3

Anonymous #9 10h

Which is fucking insane if the mother is going to miscarriage why go through with the pregnancy or especially why punish the mother for that

6

Anonymous #14 10h

Exactly. Which is why three states are too restrictive and don’t have actual policies regarding safety of life

6