[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Zizu

But there is LIFE fairly soon after .. certainly not 9 months later


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Months later, not soon and even then, unless the baby is born 30+ weeks into the pregnancy, it's chances of survival are not great.

Until science discovers a way to consistently birth babies successfully from an earlier point then it's just pointless to say that life begins before birth.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Zizu

You make some fair points but why is the time it can survive ‘outside’ the womb the deciding factor ?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Because then it's a fully grown, fully fledged life. Fetuses can grow and survive outside of the womb at 22 weeks but even with medical assistance and good luck, there's still a low rate of survival. I don't think classifying a fetus before 30 weeks as a life is correct. To be uncouth, if you were to bake a cake but you pulled it out of the oven, it wouldn't a cake, it's a halfbaked bunch of ingredients.

I feel like the signifier for life for humans at least is the ability to exist outside the womb and not instantly die.

[Kazanne]

For me life begins at conception ,it's a living thing as it grows all the time and develops , when the brain and heart etc are all in place and they can the feel ,hear and move , and they are sentient ,then imo life definitely starts before birth, and in some cases has been proven to survive at a few months.

[Zizu]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

For me life begins at conception ,it's a living thing as it grows all the time and develops , when the brain and heart etc are all in place and they can the feel ,hear and move , and they are sentient ,then imo life definitely starts before birth, and in some cases has been proven to survive at a few months.

Exactly !

I mean the clue is in the word LIFE ...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Because then it's a fully grown, fully fledged life. Fetuses can grow and survive outside of the womb at 22 weeks but even with medical assistance and good luck, there's still a low rate of survival. I don't think classifying a fetus before 30 weeks as a life is correct. To be uncouth, if you were to bake a cake but you pulled it out of the oven, it wouldn't a cake, it's a halfbaked bunch of ingredients.



I feel like the signifier for life for humans at least is the ability to exist outside the womb and not instantly die.

I just have to wonder why you're so against the idea of a fetus being classed as alive? I mean by any definition it is alive; it's a distinct cellular entity with its own DNA separate to the mother/father, it consumes, the cells divide and grow. That's pretty much it for something being defined as "alive". The criteria for "being alive" isn't very high. Bacteria is alive. And a fetus is genetically human... Thus, it has to be human life. In some form. Whether or not its a PERSON is a totally separate question. I'd find it hard to define a fetus as a person until very late stage pregnancy, maybe even birth.

The question of course is why does it matter? Like I said you seem really against it being classed as life. Is that because you'd be less comfortable with abortion if you thought of it as human life? Or maybe because you think it would be used to bully women out of having an abortion when it would be the best choice for them?

I don't know if I'm unusual in considering it to be a human life l, but still nonetheless being quite comfortable with abortion.

I even understand the worry that it will be used to pressure or bully women. Undoubtedly, it is. I probably wouldn't be so blunt about it if I was discussing abortion with someone considering an abortion...I'd probably go with the white lie. I just don't see the point in refusing to explore the grittier side of the argument in a purely hypothetical discussion.

[Beso]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Effectively this is ' the police didn't murder her baby because until it's born it's not a person'

You don't have to be a BLM member to see that's 50 shades of wrong.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by parmnion

Yes there have been cases when pregnant women are killed that the unborn baby is also classed as being murdered, so yes it's a life.

[Nicky91]

same as with Lacy Peterson, whom was also pregnant at time of her murder

which also counted as a double murder if i remember correctly, murder of Lacy and unborn son Connor


so yes a unborn child is a life because his/her heart starts beating in the womb that too

[user104658]

You have to be verrrrrrrry careful when it comes to legal definitions though because you could accidentally end up making abortion illegal by precedent. Legal definitions are very different to scientific definitions or philosophical ponderings.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

The point is that the pro-life movement is less about being pro-life and more about controlling women's rights to choose. Pro-lifers stop caring after a baby is born, they don't care if the parents are ill equipped to be parents or if the baby is raised in homes and is discarded by the system.

If men were the ones who gave birth, the whole pro-life/pro-choice debate would look entirely different (IE, it would be non-existent).

It has no bearing on the discussion of when life begins, but it has bearing on the pro-life/choice discussion.

If pro lifers were all men I'd agree but they aren't, however I agree with you in principle if you are pro life you need to be pro child too and ensure all kids are well cared for once here.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I just have to wonder why you're so against the idea of a fetus being classed as alive? I mean by any definition it is alive; it's a distinct cellular entity with its own DNA separate to the mother/father, it consumes, the cells divide and grow. That's pretty much it for something being defined as "alive". The criteria for "being alive" isn't very high. Bacteria is alive. And a fetus is genetically human... Thus, it has to be human life. In some form. Whether or not its a PERSON is a totally separate question. I'd find it hard to define a fetus as a person until very late stage pregnancy, maybe even birth.

The question of course is why does it matter? Like I said you seem really against it being classed as life. Is that because you'd be less comfortable with abortion if you thought of it as human life? Or maybe because you think it would be used to bully women out of having an abortion when it would be the best choice for them?

I don't know if I'm unusual in considering it to be a human life l, but still nonetheless being quite comfortable with abortion.

I even understand the worry that it will be used to pressure or bully women. Undoubtedly, it is. I probably wouldn't be so blunt about it if I was discussing abortion with someone considering an abortion...I'd probably go with the white lie. I just don't see the point in refusing to explore the grittier side of the argument in a purely hypothetical discussion.

Abortion is abortion, I'm not uncomfortable with it, it is what it is and it's a necessary part of life for a lot of people and we shouldn't interfere or make it harder for people who have to go through with it.

I just think it muddies the issue to class a fetus that can't exist outside the womb as alive. Babies survive quite regularly at 30+ weeks but unless the fetus is lucky, it's not likely to survive at the earliest possible times of birth because the science isn't quite there to make it viable yet because more babies die than live when they are delivered that early. As I said to Zizu, when science and technology progresses to a point where younger fetuses can be viably delivered consistently, I'll shift my definition but as things stand, I don't consider a fetus below 30 weeks to be alive.

[Beso]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Abortion is abortion, I'm not uncomfortable with it, it is what it is and it's a necessary part of life for a lot of people and we shouldn't interfere or make it harder for people who have to go through with it.

I just think it muddies the issue to class a fetus that can't exist outside the womb as alive. Babies survive quite regularly at 30+ weeks but unless the fetus is lucky, it's not likely to survive at the earliest possible times of birth because the science isn't quite there to make it viable yet because more babies die than live when they are delivered that early. As I said to Zizu, when science and technology progresses to a point where younger fetuses can be viably delivered consistently, I'll shift my definition but as things stand, I don't consider a fetus below 30 weeks to be alive.

Do you consider it to be dead?

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Abortion is abortion, I'm not uncomfortable with it, it is what it is and it's a necessary part of life for a lot of people and we shouldn't interfere or make it harder for people who have to go through with it.

I just think it muddies the issue to class a fetus that can't exist outside the womb as alive. Babies survive quite regularly at 30+ weeks but unless the fetus is lucky, it's not likely to survive at the earliest possible times of birth because the science isn't quite there to make it viable yet because more babies die than live when they are delivered that early. As I said to Zizu, when science and technology progresses to a point where younger fetuses can be viably delivered consistently, I'll shift my definition but as things stand, I don't consider a fetus below 30 weeks to be alive.

Could you personally induce a pregnancy at 29 weeks and 6 days and sit back and watch that baby die knowing full well that with minimal intervention it would live?

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Could you personally induce a pregnancy at 29 weeks and 6 days and sit back and watch that baby die knowing full well that with minimal intervention it would live?

You're not understanding what I'm saying if you think that's a logical question to ask.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by parmnion

Do you consider it to be dead?

It's in development. A fetus isn't dead and it's not alive in the same way you could class a fully formed baby.

[Beso]

That's just stupid.

[Cherie]

If something is growing its alive..if you are growing tiny seedlings you would consider them alive even though they need light and water to survive

Babies start kicking between 16 and 20 weeks they are most certainly alive at that point

[smudgie]

As the proud great aunt of a fit and healthy dance champion that was born at 26 weeks I have no doubt that the foetus is a fully born baby that can survive outside the womb at an earlier stage in pregnancy than 30 weeks.
Her baby brother was born at 26 weeks about a year before her and only survived for 6 hours unfortunately.
I am definitely pro choice, but unless there is a danger to the mother I feel 24 weeks is far too late for termination.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Any mother who unfortunately lost a baby before birth very much feels it was alive, I'd imagine

My mum did

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Any mother who unfortunately lost a baby before birth very much feels it was alive, I'd imagine

My mum did

Yup, try telling my best friend's mum that "Lucy" was just a bundle of cells, but only if you're willing to spend the rest of your day looking for your head.

Using whether or not someone can live without medical intervention is an odd goalpost; medical intervention is basically a given nowadays, and plenty of older people wouldn't be around today if it wasn't for machines.

[DouglasS]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

It's in development. A fetus isn't dead and it's not alive in the same way you could class a fully formed baby.

And earlier you stating that a baby less than 30 weeks developed you do not consider a life..

This is just an uneducated view rather than even an opinion, in my opinion.

Here is a 28 week newborn baby as it’s just been born. It is very much alive...

Youtube video

Hopefully you will feel a bit more educated now

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

You're not understanding what I'm saying if you think that's a logical question to ask.

It's more logical than writing any child off as unviable under 30 weeks.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by smudgie

As the proud great aunt of a fit and healthy dance champion that was born at 26 weeks I have no doubt that the foetus is a fully born baby that can survive outside the womb at an earlier stage in pregnancy than 30 weeks.
Her baby brother was born at 26 weeks about a year before her and only survived for 6 hours unfortunately.
I am definitely pro choice, but unless there is a danger to the mother I feel 24 weeks is far too late for termination.

Agree with all that 24 weeks for anything other than medical reasons is too late in my book

[AnnieK]

The survival rates for premature babies are actually quite amazing

Chances of survival following preterm birth
Less than 22 weeks is close to zero chance of survival.
22 weeks is around 10%
24 weeks is around 60%
27 weeks is around 89%
31 weeks is around 95%
34 weeks is equivalent to a baby born at full term.

Granted some medical intervention will probably be required.....just as it is for anyone with medical conditions and they wouldn't be classed as not alive

I'm pro-choice but do believe the time limits need changing as medical advances happen. The thought that you can still abort a baby that has around a 60% survival rate is quite shocking.

My child was alive to me the moment I knew I was pregnant, by the time he was born I "knew" him and I would imagine most parents feel that way so maybe my opinion is biased but to say a child under 30 weeks is not alive is a tough one to get my head around.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by parmnion

That's just stupid.

Good argument.