Hypocrites!

[vergiss]

Does the main character get a leather catsuit? That'd be awesome.

IndiConservative - so, what, there'll be a magical, over difference a few months away when I turn 18? Will I be "allowed" to have sex then? Also, I doubt more kids are having sex than a few decades ago. Sure, it's more out in the open now, but can you prove your claim?

Also, I don't quite understand your reasons behind why teens should remain abstinent. Because they could get diseases? I hate to frighten you, but you could get a disease just walking down the street. You might pick up someone's flu germs or, far worse - inhale a carcinogenic chemical. To avoid a certain activity because of what is a very slim risk (provided you take proper precautions) is a tad Howard Hughes-ish.

Preventing access to birth control won't stop the majority of teenagers. At the risk of sounding self-loating - teenagers are stupid. A recent study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, shows that 60% of teens attending family planning clinics are already talking to their parents about their clinic visits and contraceptive use. However, the study shows that a law requiring that their parents be notified would lead many teens to stop using the clinics for prescription contraceptives. Instead, 18% would continue to have sex but would use no contraceptive method or would rely on rhythm or withdrawal, thus increasing their risk. Only 1% indicated that their only reaction to a law mandating parental involvement would be to stop having sex.

Talk about it backfiring.

 

[clearview]

Perfection does not exist on this earth populated by mortals. In temporal matters, there are those who have erred.
The mission of the Catholic Church is to instruct in the teachings of Christ. Regardless of what detractors may believe, it remains true to that mission. The road to heresy is jammed with the traffic of those who decided to figure out things for themselves.The Church is the final arbiter in matters of faith or morals. The Pope cannot err when he teaches a matter of faith or morals. Bathing and other secular situations do not fall within this realm.Matthew, in Chapter 16 writes:

When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"

They replied, "Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."

He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"

Simon Peter said in reply, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God."

Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.

And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Do you think that, when Christ spoke those words to Peter, He envisioned thousands of different churches calling themselves Christian springing up like daisys?

I have no idea what Christ envisioned, I guess we should blindly trust the writings of the Bible and those who teach it? I do believe Christ's message was and is, very simple and carries through and past any form of "religion"... be good to your yourself and your fellow man, and always try to do right by each other. We tend to rely too much on intellect, even when it comes to faith. We all, or at least most, have an inner voice guiding us to what is right, we just don't always listen.

My point was not that people should go uneducated about the teachings of Christ and figure it out only by themselves without guidance. But that guidance alone can be incomplete, misused and dishonest. Let me read the scriptures so I can ask my questions and learn even more. Knowledge and enlightenment sparks a thirst for more. Perhaps at the time it was thought people were too ignorant. If so, it was because their rights to know "higher" things were denied to them. If you weren't the right class, color, or gender, you were not allowed to learn more.

 

[Fu_chick]

Anyone else think it's just a bit hypocritical of these liberals that are for animal rights, ("Oh, oh, you can't hurt the defenseless little animals") to be for abortion of Human Babies?!?!
This has been stuck in my mind since I heard someone bad-mouthing Bill O'Reilly (who's ok in my book, don't love him, don't hate him), for being OK with the Pit Bull ban in several states. I said "Bill O'Reilly's ok, I don't agree with him on this issue, but I do on many others."
They replied with "any man who thinks it's OK to take away my "right" to choose (referring to abortion) will never be on my good list....Yet, she was there to voice her opinion against the "murder" of puppies.....So it's OK to kill unborn Human Babies, but not unborn puppies? I cannot follow this logic, someone please enlighten me!

Actually, for me it's about getting the gov out of my business. If I want to abort my fetus before it is able to survive on its own and therefore part of my body, no legislater has the right to tell me I can't. Likewise, if I am a responsible dog owner with a well trained, non-aggressive pit bull (which I am) nobody has the right to tell me that I must give my dog over to be destroyed.

As far as aborting puppys I have no problem with it. If my dog would have been carrying puppies when she went to get fixed I would have had the abort the pups.

I didn't know that Bill O'Reilly said that about BSL, but it gives me even more reason to believe that his head is firmly planted up his ass.

 

[Fantasea]

Originally Posted by Fantasea
At eleven weeks, the baby's organ systems are complete and functioning; he or she breathes (fluid), swallows, digests, sleeps, dreams, wakes, tastes, hears, feels pain. From this point on, the baby grows only in size.

And the baby will still recieve nutrients from the mother by suckling at her breast.

All of these processes are present in a child in the womb by the eleventh week.


The Seven Life Processes of Life

Movement -- The ability to move all or part of the organism.
Reproduction -- The ability to produce more of its kind.
Sensitivity -- The ability of an organism to respond.
Nutrition -- The ability to take in food or raw materials to support other life processes.
Excretion -- The removal of waste materials which the cells have made and may be poisonous.
Respiration -- The ability to take in oxygen & give out carbon dioxide to make energy.
Growth -- The increase in size & complexity of an organism.

Is anything above incorrect? If not, how can one deny that a separate, distinct, human life is present in in the womb well before the end of the first trimester?

Not necessarily, breathing does not constitute respiration, the breathing at week 11 is sporadic, the alveoli required for respiration do not form until week 24, developed enough to perform gas exchange by week 25, so it is still reliant on the mother for its respiration and excretion needs until that point. So it is still not independant. It can theoretically survive outside the womb at this point, as I mentioned, 15% viability apparently at week 23, perhaps week 23 should be the cut off point.

You seem to have answered the second question, but not the first.

Why not start with that?

Your answer to the second is fuzzy to say the least. You substitute the word 'breathing' for the word 'respiration'.

According to Merriam-Webster's they appear to be interchangable. One of the definitions is:

breathe
(verb) ...RESPIRE ; broadly : to take in oxygen and give out carbon dioxide through natural processes...

Since this matches the life process #6 above, where is the dichotomy?

The fact that the child requires nourishment and processes that nourishment into energy, growth, and waste materials is proof that life human life exists, not only late in the pregnancy, but at least as early as the processing commences. The manner in which the nourishment and oxygen is supplied to the child, in no way, effects this proof of life. Cut off either and the child dies. That is further proof that the child had formerly been alive.

While the child may require further growth before it is able to withstand the rigors of life outside the womb, there has never been announced a 'tipping point', as it were, on one side of which life does not exist, and on the other side life does exist. You rest your argument, solely, on the indefinite word, 'viability'. However, if a child is delivered by cesarian section at the edge of viability, did its life commence at the moment the incision was made in the mother's belly? Did it commence at the point the baby's head was exposed to air? Or, had it commenced at an earlier time?

The answer is obvious. All of the processes of life were present long before that child was delivered. Its life did not occur, de novo, at its pre-mature birth, which, in reality, occurred at an arbitrary point in the pregnancy.

Take a look at this discussion which dates to 1997: http://www.pregnantpause.org/develop/when.htm

 

[IndiConservative]

Does the main character get a leather catsuit? That'd be awesome.

IndiConservative - so, what, there'll be a magical, over difference a few months away when I turn 18? Will I be "allowed" to have sex then? Also, I doubt more kids are having sex than a few decades ago. Sure, it's more out in the open now, but can you prove your claim?

Also, I don't quite understand your reasons behind why teens should remain abstinent. Because they could get diseases? I hate to frighten you, but you could get a disease just walking down the street. You might pick up someone's flu germs or, far worse - inhale a carcinogenic chemical. To avoid a certain activity because of what is a very slim risk (provided you take proper precautions) is a tad Howard Hughes-ish.

Preventing access to birth control won't stop the majority of teenagers. At the risk of sounding self-loating - teenagers are stupid. A recent study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, shows that 60% of teens attending family planning clinics are already talking to their parents about their clinic visits and contraceptive use. However, the study shows that a law requiring that their parents be notified would lead many teens to stop using the clinics for prescription contraceptives. Instead, 18% would continue to have sex but would use no contraceptive method or would rely on rhythm or withdrawal, thus increasing their risk. Only 1% indicated that their only reaction to a law mandating parental involvement would be to stop having sex.

Talk about it backfiring.

The fact remains your still under your mothers guardianship. Personally i think legal adult age should be 21. Your body and mind hasn't fully and completely matured till around that time. You are allowed to have sex whenever you want but you shouldn't. Kids in the 50's played with toys you call childish now up in there mind teens. They were treated as kids. Not saying that there were cases that they would have sex. At that time they were held responsible for those actions. "In the early 1950's, 46% of teenage girls reported being sexually active by age 19, a number that increased to 76% in 1995" http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=r...inter/article6.html&ei=YPH2Qu_-HpGIsgHYmtCJDg

Well you can avoid getting AID's most of the time by not having sex.
That disease has no cure and is not just the flu ,but if you got the flu and had AID's at the same time. It could kill you.

So because parents are complete morons and allow there Children
to have sex I should just throw out my principals for a good society?
Its funny I hear all the time "It's my body It's my choice" But the fact is
that they want the freedom until something goes wrong (pregnancy,disease)
and then the government comes to the rescue. So it goes back to
all the freedom and none of the responsibility.

 

[Plain old me]

You seem to have answered the second question, but not the first.

Why not start with that?

Your answer to the second is fuzzy to say the least. You substitute the word 'breathing' for the word 'respiration'.

According to Merriam-Webster's they appear to be interchangable. One of the definitions is:

breathe
(verb) ...RESPIRE ; broadly : to take in oxygen and give out carbon dioxide through natural processes...

Since this matches the life process #6 above, where is the dichotomy?

The fact that the child requires nourishment and processes that nourishment into energy, growth, and waste materials is proof that life human life exists, not only late in the pregnancy, but at least as early as the processing commences. The manner in which the nourishment and oxygen is supplied to the child, in no way, effects this proof of life. Cut off either and the child dies. That is further proof that the child had formerly been alive.

While the child may require further growth before it is able to withstand the rigors of life outside the womb, there has never been announced a 'tipping point', as it were, on one side of which life does not exist, and on the other side life does exist. You rest your argument, solely, on the indefinite word, 'viability'. However, if a child is delivered by cesarian section at the edge of viability, did its life commence at the moment the incision was made in the mother's belly? Did it commence at the point the baby's head was exposed to air? Or, had it commenced at an earlier time?

The answer is obvious. All of the processes of life were present long before that child was delivered. Its life did not occur, de novo, at its pre-mature birth, which, in reality, occurred at an arbitrary point in the pregnancy.

Take a look at this discussion which dates to 1997: http://www.pregnantpause.org/develop/when.htm

Sorry, yes, the life processes were correct. But the fact still remains that until the fetus can breathe for itself then it cannot carry out respiration for itself, the central ingrediant, oxygen, cannot be obtained and the main waste product, carbon dioxide, cannot be removed from its body except via the mother. I would say this does affect the proof of life, it cannot do these things for itself, so I wouldn't term it as alive.

As to your point about the idea of a 'tipping point'. I agree, its is unclear to say the least and I do not have an answer for when, specifically, life enters the fetus. All I can give is my opinion, which I already have, that up until the point it can survive outside the mother then it is not independant and the mother should have the option of abortion.

 

[Fantasea]

Sorry, yes, the life processes were correct. But the fact still remains that until the fetus can breathe for itself then it cannot carry out respiration for itself, the central ingrediant, oxygen, cannot be obtained and the main waste product, carbon dioxide, cannot be removed from its body except via the mother. I would say this does affect the proof of life, it cannot do these things for itself, so I wouldn't term it as alive.

Respectfully, your argument collapses as a result of the very point upon which you base it; that respiration and elimination can only occur through the umbilical cord.

While this is true, it is true, not only in the early weeks, but right up to the moment of birth.

It is the ability to perform the life processes which is the determinant of the presence of life. Retaining the 'original' delivery system for nutrients, etc. is not an imperative.

Proof of this is the ability of doctors to remove an embryo from one woman and transplant it in another. The embryo continues to grow normally and a baby is eventually born. Could this be possible if the embryo was not alive to begin with?

As to your point about the idea of a 'tipping point'. I agree, its is unclear to say the least and I do not have an answer for when, specifically, life enters the fetus. All I can give is my opinion, which I already have, that up until the point it can survive outside the mother then it is not independant and the mother should have the option of abortion.

Set aside, for the moment, the question of abortion and concentrate on the question of life.

You have said that you believe that the fetus is alive at one point. Then you follow by saying that prior to that point, life does not exist and that you have reached this conclusion solely on the basis of your opinion, which you are perfectly free to form, but which remains, nevertheless, opinion.

Why is it that you are unwilling to accept the statements of eminently qualified experts in the applicable fields who agree that human life begins at conception?




As an aside...........

The sentiments expressed in a few sentences from the end of the article I commended to you earlier seem especially significant:

"An acquaintance of mine who is a doctor once commented that when his grandfather went to medical school in the early 1900s, he was taught that life begins at conception. When his father went to medical school in the 1920s he was taught that life begins at conception. When he himself went to medical school in the 1950s, he was taught that life begins at conception. Now his daughter is going to medical school, and she is being taught that no one knows when life begins.

How have we become more ignorant, when medical science has advanced so far in almost every other way imaginable? Did new medical discoveries somehow bring the old conclusions into doubt? Hardly. Ultrasound, intrauterine photography, genetic engineering ... all have confirmed and reconfirmed what was discovered in the 1800s. What's changed is that the medical establishment has changed its "knowledge" to conform to the prevailing political winds."

 

[Plain old me]

But respiration cannot only occur through the umbilical chord up to the moment of birth, once the fetus has adequate lungs, it can obtain its own oxygen and carry out respiration for itself. Then I would say it is independant, alive, and should not be aborted.

Proof of this is the ability of doctors to remove an embryo from one woman and transplant it in another. The embryo continues to grow normally and a baby is eventually born. Could this be possible if the embryo was not alive to begin with?

Yes, I would say so. Whether its with one women or another, the fact remains the fetus cannot do these things for itself.

As the question of life, yes, it is true, it is based on opinion. But surely the question of when life begins is opinion? Some believe it is at conception, as that is when a distinct genetic fingerprint is 'created', or when they believe whatever they believe in creates a child. Others believe it to be when the fetus is viable, as that is when the fetus is capable of maintaining itself, and is not a part of its mother. I would say that science cannot swing it either away, as the science is open to opinion. Some believe the genetic code qualifies life, others seven processes we have discussed. I feel this can be applied to the article you referred me to as well, the beginnings of life is, and possibly always will be, based on opinion, until someone can undeniably say what, exactly, life is.

 

[Fantasea]

But respiration cannot only occur through the umbilical chord up to the moment of birth, once the fetus has adequate lungs, it can obtain its own oxygen and carry out respiration for itself. Then I would say it is independant, alive, and should not be aborted.



Yes, I would say so. Whether its with one women or another, the fact remains the fetus cannot do these things for itself.

As the question of life, yes, it is true, it is based on opinion. But surely the question of when life begins is opinion? Some believe it is at conception, as that is when a distinct genetic fingerprint is 'created', or when they believe whatever they believe in creates a child. Others believe it to be when the fetus is viable, as that is when the fetus is capable of maintaining itself, and is not a part of its mother. I would say that science cannot swing it either away, as the science is open to opinion. Some believe the genetic code qualifies life, others seven processes we have discussed. I feel this can be applied to the article you referred me to as well, the beginnings of life is, and possibly always will be, based on opinion, until someone can undeniably say what, exactly, life is.

The question is not what life is, but when life begins.

This is the final paragraph of a document which is my final attempt to gently persuade you that there is something stronger on this subject than your opinion.

"Thanks to science, arguments that dehumanize the human embryo now belong to a withering and overturned paradigm of the past. Those who choose to cling to that paradigm may find their place in history alongside the U.S. Supreme Court justices who, in the 1857 Dred Scott case, ruled that African-American slaves were not persons but personal property."

Entire document: http://www.cbhd.org/resources/cloning/cheshire_2002-11-14_print.htm

 

[Plain old me]

Sorry...I was probably clearer in my own head then I was on screen...

...I meant that when life begins is opinion, as it depends on what we qualify life as, which also predominately belongs in the realms of opinion.

I'm afraid I disagree with that quote, as I feel that a fetus is worlds apart to the issue of African-Americans and slavery.

 

[Fantasea]

Sorry...I was probably clearer in my own head then I was on screen...

...I meant that when life begins is opinion, as it depends on what we qualify life as, which also predominately belongs in the realms of opinion.

Am I to understand that even in the face of the findings of the Human Genome Project, you still cling to opinion as the determinant of when human life begins? (I assume that you read the entire document.)

I'm afraid I disagree with that quote, as I feel that a fetus is worlds apart to the issue of African-Americans and slavery.

The intent of the final paragraph is to point out that reversal of important US Supreme Court decisions is not unheard of. In fact sitting Courts have reversed the decisions of earlier courts some two hundred times.

The illustration intended was that Roe v. Wade may well go the way of the 1857 Dred Scott decision in which the court ruled that negroes were not persons entitled to the protections of law, but merely items of personal property, much the same as farm animals.

That was the law of that day; not of this day.

Roe v. Wade today -- but for how much longer?

 

[Plain old me]

I do cling to that belief...a unique DNA doth not maketh the life IMHO. Some may believe that it does, others, myself included, do not. That is opinion. I do not see unique DNA as incontrovertible proof of life.

For how much longer? Until fetal personhood can be incontravertably established.

 

[Fantasea]

I do cling to that belief...a unique DNA doth not maketh the life IMHO. Some may believe that it does, others, myself included, do not. That is opinion. I do not see unique DNA as incontrovertible proof of life.

For how much longer? Until fetal personhood can be incontravertably established.

It's nothing but a political football.

In the US, fetal personhood was summarily abolished with the stroke of a pen in 1973. It will be returned the same way.

 

[Alex]

At eleven weeks, the baby's organ systems are complete and functioning; he or she breathes (fluid), swallows, digests, sleeps, dreams, wakes, tastes, hears, feels pain. From this point on, the baby grows only in size.

And the baby will still recieve nutrients from the mother by suckling at her breast.

Who's fluid is that fetus breathing? The woman's. Without it, the fetus ceases to exist. The fetus is 100% completely dependant on the woman. When it is born, it no longer 100% completely requires the mother to survive.

 

[blogger31]

Who's fluid is that fetus breathing? The woman's. Without it, the fetus ceases to exist. The fetus is 100% completely dependant on the woman. When it is born, it no longer 100% completely requires the mother to survive.

Well according to this sites glossary the fluid is actually produced by the fetus, so it appears your 100% argument is null.

Amniotic fluid—Fluid inside the membrane that forms a sac around the embryo and later the fetus. The fetus and the placenta produce the amniotic fluid. This buoyant fluid helps the fetus grow uniformly, helps the bones and muscles develop, and allows the baby to move within the uterus. Babies breathe this fluid in and out of their lungs in the womb helping the lungs to grow as well. It also keeps the amnion (membrane) from sticking to the fetus.

http://www.babyzone.com/features/glossary/default.asp?termid=27

Also it says the placenta is involved in the fluid, and it appears that the placenta is not 100% the mother's either.

The placenta is composed of two parts, one of which, the chorion, is genetically and biologically part of the fetus, the other part of the mother.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placenta

So now we can conclude that the fetus is not 100% dependent on the mother, the fetus actually creates much of it's enviornment to survive.

 

[Alex]

Am I to understand that even in the face of the findings of the Human Genome Project, you still cling to opinion as the determinant of when human life begins? (I assume that you read the entire document.)The intent of the final paragraph is to point out that reversal of important US Supreme Court decisions is not unheard of. In fact sitting Courts have reversed the decisions of earlier courts some two hundred times.

The illustration intended was that Roe v. Wade may well go the way of the 1857 Dred Scott decision in which the court ruled that negroes were not persons entitled to the protections of law, but merely items of personal property, much the same as farm animals.

That was the law of that day; not of this day.

Roe v. Wade today -- but for how much longer?

The Supreme Court very rarely overturns its own decisions and there has not been 200 such instances. When you say that Dred Scott was "overturned", it is not accurate. More amendments were passed that contradicted the Dred Scott decision (the 14th Amendment). The actual Dred Scott ruling was not overturned, its just that later amendments were used to differ from it.

 

[Alex]

Well according to this sites glossary the fluid is actually produced by the fetus, so it appears your 100% argument is null.

Amniotic fluid—Fluid inside the membrane that forms a sac around the embryo and later the fetus. The fetus and the placenta produce the amniotic fluid. This buoyant fluid helps the fetus grow uniformly, helps the bones and muscles develop, and allows the baby to move within the uterus. Babies breathe this fluid in and out of their lungs in the womb helping the lungs to grow as well. It also keeps the amnion (membrane) from sticking to the fetus.

http://www.babyzone.com/features/glossary/default.asp?termid=27

Also it says the placenta is involved in the fluid, and it appears that the placenta is not 100% the mother's either.

The placenta is composed of two parts, one of which, the chorion, is genetically and biologically part of the fetus, the other part of the mother.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placenta

So now we can conclude that the fetus is not 100% dependent on the mother, the fetus actually creates much of it's enviornment to survive.

The fetus does require the mother to survive. Without her it cannot get the oxygen or nutrients it requires to exist.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus

The circulatory system of a human fetus works differently from that of born humans, mainly because the lungs are not in use: the fetus obtains oxygen and nutrients from the mother through the placenta and the umbilical cord.

 

[blogger31]

The fetus does require the mother to survive. Without her it cannot get the oxygen or nutrients it requires to exist.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus

Let's get back on point shall we. You claimed the fluid belonged to the mother, I have shown evidence that you are incorrect. With that you claim that the fetus is 100% dependent on the mother. It appears that the fetus is not 100% dependent on the mother the fetus actually depends on itself to create a good amount of it's own enviornment. I am not disputing the fetus is dependent on the mother. I am disputing your claims from your previous post, stay on subject.

 

[Fantasea]

The Supreme Court very rarely overturns its own decisions and there has not been 200 such instances. When you say that Dred Scott was "overturned", it is not accurate. More amendments were passed that contradicted the Dred Scott decision (the 14th Amendment). The actual Dred Scott ruling was not overturned, its just that later amendments were used to differ from it.

Construe it any way you wish. However, whether one flies from New York to Miami, or from Chicago to Miami, one still arrives in the same city in Florida.

 

[Fantasea]

Who's fluid is that fetus breathing? The woman's. Without it, the fetus ceases to exist. The fetus is 100% completely dependant on the woman. When it is born, it no longer 100% completely requires the mother to survive.

How does the source of nourishment effect the question?

 

[vergiss]

Let's get back on point shall we. You claimed the fluid belonged to the mother, I have shown evidence that you are incorrect. With that you claim that the fetus is 100% dependent on the mother. It appears that the fetus is not 100% dependent on the mother the fetus actually depends on itself to create a good amount of it's own enviornment. I am not disputing the fetus is dependent on the mother. I am disputing your claims from your previous post, stay on subject.

The fluid doesn't totally belong to the mother, but that doesn't mean it's not totally dependent, either. If you shoved a foetus and its placenta outside of the womb and left it there, do you honestly think it'd survive?

If it's survival depends on the mother, then it's 100 percent dependent. You and I rely on other things to survive, but if we were deprived of oxygen, we'd die. Do you argue that we're not 100 percent dependent on the air?

 

[blogger31]

The fluid doesn't totally belong to the mother, but that doesn't mean it's not totally dependent, either. If you shoved a foetus and its placenta outside of the womb and left it there, do you honestly think it'd survive?

If it's survival depends on the mother, then it's 100 percent dependent. You and I rely on other things to survive, but if we were deprived of oxygen, we'd die. Do you argue that we're not 100 percent dependent on the air?

Then we are 100% dependent on food, we are 100% dependent on fluids, and on and on. By those standards we are 100% dependent on everything. Understand the scenario, if the fetus does not have the fluid or the placenta it will die. So there are parts of it's environment that the fetus creates for itself, and it is not dependent upon the mother for. The point being that the mother does not provide "all" that the fetus requires to remain alive in the womb.

 

[vergiss]

Then we are 100% dependent on food, we are 100% dependent on fluids, and on and on. By those standards we are 100% dependent on everything. Understand the scenario, if the fetus does not have the fluid or the placenta it will die. So there are parts of it's environment that the fetus creates for itself, and it is not dependent upon the mother for. The point being that the mother does not provide "all" that the fetus requires to remain alive in the womb.

In which case, if it's 100% dependent on the placenta, it's also 100% dependent on the mother.

 

[Fantasea]

In which case, if it's 100% dependent on the placenta, it's also 100% dependent on the mother.

Does this render it lifeless?

 

[vergiss]

...when did I ever mention life, or lack thereof?