Czernobog
Gold Member
- Sep 29, 2014
- 6,184
- 495
- Thread starter
- #361
No, but apparently you did, if you think that an infant relies on any external process for its heart to beat, or its brain to function.That is simply not true. Either you are being intentionally dishonest, or you lack a fundamental understanding of how pregnancy works. None of those functions work independent of the host. Separate a non-viable fetus from its host, and all of those functions cease operating. That is because they are all dependent on the host to function.None of which functions independently of the host. Sorry, none of those makes it an independent organism. At best it is a symbiotic organism, relying on its host for survival.
All of it functions independently from the host. It IS an independent organism, else you wouldn't need to kill it.
That also is demonstrably not true. Unlike a non-viable fetus, an infant's circulatory system, nervous system, and all other biological function operate with no assistance. You are engaging in a dishonest false analogy between a fetus' necessity for a host to regulate its biological functions, and an infant's need for basic needs to be provided needs.And it's going to rely on it's "host" for the next 18 years... maybe 26 if Obamacare mandates remain. Children's reliance on parents don't change what they are.
Well, I am sorry but you're just fucking wrong. All the organism's functions are independent of the host. At that stage of development, the fetus depends on the host because of environment. The newborn infant will also depend on the host, that doesn't make it part of the host and not it's own independent self.
Did you fail biology or something?