If it was alive and then isn’t, it is dead. That’s what dead means. A fetus that died in the womb is still dead, and died, and there is no other way to define what unborn is than to describe it as a previously living entity; thus dead.
Chemo is taken with the purpose of killing cancer cells without removing them. People talk about parts of tumors with living cells as alive, and part of tumors that have dead cells (whether through strangling their own blood supply, or chemo, or whatever) as dead.
The language of “when life begins” is using a specific and unusual definition of “life”, that I think has more to do with the concept of a soul than with any of the more common definitions of “life”.
That’s insane to me. The fetus has entirely different DNA than the host organism, thus is a separate life. That’s just biology, any other argument and you’re getting into weird psudo-science territory trying to measure souls and consciousness.
I mean, if that’s how the broader medical community wants to frame it, that’s fine. I know a lot of the discourse around this subject is really rooted in abortion, and whether abortion is okay or not, and so people gotta do what they gotta do to justify their position.
But it’s still alive and can still die regardless of anyone’s opinions, a bacteria can be alive and then dead. The grey area is when that life becomes ethically problematic to end.
I’m fine with saying its a living human while still arguing that killing it is justified as self defense for the person carrying. Cracks me up with pro lifers say killing instead of murder for that reason, and I usually tell them I’m glad they use that term
I don’t think “it can’t continue living on its own” is a good measure of whether or not something is alive or a separate organism. Even after birth a baby human can’t “continue living on its own” without being provided for. A parasitic creature can’t “continue living on its own” without a host. A severely injured person can’t “continue living on its own” without life support. Pretty easy argument for even a stupid forced-birther to deconstruct.
Do you think women are conceiving intern minerals in their womb? What is this question xD
I’m going to assume you’re having a laugh, because by every metric a fetus is alive. If those cells are multiplying, consuming various stuff to continue multiplying; the fetus is alive. If the fetus, removed from its source of food, dies; it must be alive. If you removed me from all sources of food, I too would die.
If you have a compelling argument, I’d love to hear it though.
Your hand is a functioning attachment of your body, having the same DNA as every other part of your body. A fetus is a separate organism with its own DNA.
Not separate, but it is a living thing. If you starved your hand off by constricting the blood flow, I don’t think anyone would question you when you say your hand is dead.
Actually isn’t that literally called dying off in English?
A hand is also further along than a random cell. I don’t see the distinction as significant, if we’re already handwaving the details to the “future technology”
Parasite: an organism living in, on, or with another organism in order to obtain nutrients, grow, or multiply often in a state that directly or indirectly harms the host.
Children, pets, several co-workers, and all of my exes fit this definition.
If my mom had aborted me I wouldn’t give a shit because I’d be dead.
Ummm actually unborn and dead are two different things ☝️🤓
Not to the dead or unborn it isn’t.
You cannot possibly know that.
Not with that attitude I can’t!
If it was alive and then isn’t, it is dead. That’s what dead means. A fetus that died in the womb is still dead, and died, and there is no other way to define what unborn is than to describe it as a previously living entity; thus dead.
Do people talk about tumors as “alive” and “dead” before and after it’s been removed.
The problem is defining when human life begins. It’s generally accepted that before 12 weeks, it’s not alive. After that it gets more gray.
Chemo is taken with the purpose of killing cancer cells without removing them. People talk about parts of tumors with living cells as alive, and part of tumors that have dead cells (whether through strangling their own blood supply, or chemo, or whatever) as dead.
The language of “when life begins” is using a specific and unusual definition of “life”, that I think has more to do with the concept of a soul than with any of the more common definitions of “life”.
That’s insane to me. The fetus has entirely different DNA than the host organism, thus is a separate life. That’s just biology, any other argument and you’re getting into weird psudo-science territory trying to measure souls and consciousness.
I mean, if that’s how the broader medical community wants to frame it, that’s fine. I know a lot of the discourse around this subject is really rooted in abortion, and whether abortion is okay or not, and so people gotta do what they gotta do to justify their position.
But it’s still alive and can still die regardless of anyone’s opinions, a bacteria can be alive and then dead. The grey area is when that life becomes ethically problematic to end.
I’m fine with saying its a living human while still arguing that killing it is justified as self defense for the person carrying. Cracks me up with pro lifers say killing instead of murder for that reason, and I usually tell them I’m glad they use that term
100%. Most “pro-lifers” would be okay with kicking someone out of your house even if it means they would die. Not to mention your own body.
A fetus is only a potential person, but it’s still a living organism. After it’s aborted, it’s dead.
A fetus is a living person
Living yes, person no.
It’s not yet a separate living organism, though. It can’t continue living on its own.
I don’t think “it can’t continue living on its own” is a good measure of whether or not something is alive or a separate organism. Even after birth a baby human can’t “continue living on its own” without being provided for. A parasitic creature can’t “continue living on its own” without a host. A severely injured person can’t “continue living on its own” without life support. Pretty easy argument for even a stupid forced-birther to deconstruct.
This is why I don’t have house plants.
I just saw a post about abandoned greenhouses yesterday that says we don’t matter as long as water can get in 😊
And water is very very good at finding a way in.
Well most certainly not into my plant pots
Let that roof decay and it will!
I’m sure my plants will be long dead at that point, but I appreciate the optimism :)
This does not actually refute the claim that the fetus would be dead. I’m not actually sure if you’re contesting anything.
Can it be dead if it was never living?
Do you think women are conceiving intern minerals in their womb? What is this question xD I’m going to assume you’re having a laugh, because by every metric a fetus is alive. If those cells are multiplying, consuming various stuff to continue multiplying; the fetus is alive. If the fetus, removed from its source of food, dies; it must be alive. If you removed me from all sources of food, I too would die.
If you have a compelling argument, I’d love to hear it though.
My hand also consumes nutrients to live. Is it a separate living being from me?
Your hand is a functioning attachment of your body, having the same DNA as every other part of your body. A fetus is a separate organism with its own DNA.
Not separate, but it is a living thing. If you starved your hand off by constricting the blood flow, I don’t think anyone would question you when you say your hand is dead.
Actually isn’t that literally called dying off in English?
True, but only due to current technology. With an artificial womb it would eventually develop into a person, unlike, say, an organ.
I mean, with cloning technology any cells could develop into a person. Doesn’t mean we should count my hand as a separate living thing.
A fetus is considerably further along than just a random cell. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to make a distinction there.
It is unreasonable, because the difference between a single cell and a fetus is a laughable 9 weeks.
So is a sperm or an egg. Definitely not just random cells, but also definitely not people
A hand is also further along than a random cell. I don’t see the distinction as significant, if we’re already handwaving the details to the “future technology”
A fetus is a parasite.
By that logic, all children no matter their age are parasites.
Parasite: an organism living in, on, or with another organism in order to obtain nutrients, grow, or multiply often in a state that directly or indirectly harms the host.
Children, pets, several co-workers, and all of my exes fit this definition.
common denominator detected in that list
Yeah I can get on board with that sentiment