A fetus is not alive? Waaah?

[manifold]

I'm not going to name names but I recently saw another poster make one the most dumbfounding statements I've ever seen posted on a messageboard. And it inspired this thread. The comment in question was that abortion doesn't kill a fetus because a fetus isn't alive. Yes, you heard that correct. I repeat, abortion doesn't kill a fetus because a fetus isn't alive.

So then I wonder, am I missing something? Because honestly, I can't imagine how anyone without seriously diminished intellectual capacity could actually believe that a normal, healthy fetus isn't alive. For the record, I am pro-choice. But I am certainly not capable of the mental gymnastics required to fool myself into believing that abortion isn't killing a fetus. That's simply absurd.

What do you make of this?

 

[jillian]

I think the issue is less "is the fetus alive" (because, of course it's alive). but we terminate life all the time for various reasons. so the real issue is ... is this the type of life that people should make their own moral judgments about terminating?

but i am wondering why you seem to be obsessing about reproductive choice right now.

 

[manifold]

I think the issue is less "is the fetus alive" (because, of course it's alive). but we terminate life all the time for various reasons. so the real issue is ... is this the type of life that people should make their own moral judgments about terminating?

but i am wondering why you seem to be obsessing about reproductive choice right now.

Ok. so we agree, the statement in question was absurd.

And I'm not obsessed with reproductive choice at all. As always, I'm obsessed with exposing abject stupidity and/or hypocrisy. I can't control where it will surface or with what frequency.

 

[Ravi]

I think the issue is less "is the fetus alive" (because, of course it's alive). but we terminate life all the time for various reasons. so the real issue is ... is this the type of life that people should make their own moral judgments about terminating?

but i am wondering why you seem to be obsessing about reproductive choice right now.

A fetus is not alive in the same sense as a living, breathing person...it is alive in the same sense as a sperm, or a finger, or a toe...though it does have greater potential to become a living, breathing human than the other three do...as of now, anyway.

 

[jillian]

I think the issue is less "is the fetus alive" (because, of course it's alive). but we terminate life all the time for various reasons. so the real issue is ... is this the type of life that people should make their own moral judgments about terminating?

but i am wondering why you seem to be obsessing about reproductive choice right now.

A fetus is not alive in the same sense as a living, breathing person...it is alive in the same sense as a sperm, or a finger, or a toe...though it does have greater potential to become a living, breathing human than the other three do...as of now, anyway.

I agree....

Does Mani disagree with that conclusion?

 

[jillian]

I think the issue is less "is the fetus alive" (because, of course it's alive). but we terminate life all the time for various reasons. so the real issue is ... is this the type of life that people should make their own moral judgments about terminating?

but i am wondering why you seem to be obsessing about reproductive choice right now.

Ok. so we agree, the statement in question was absurd.

And I'm not obsessed with reproductive choice at all. As always, I'm obsessed with exposing abject stupidity and/or hypocrisy. I can't control where it will surface or with what frequency.

Well, not having seen the comment you're referring to, I'm afraid I can't address the context.

 

[manifold]

I think the issue is less "is the fetus alive" (because, of course it's alive). but we terminate life all the time for various reasons. so the real issue is ... is this the type of life that people should make their own moral judgments about terminating?

but i am wondering why you seem to be obsessing about reproductive choice right now.

A fetus is not alive in the same sense as a living, breathing person...it is alive in the same sense as a sperm, or a finger, or a toe...though it does have greater potential to become a living, breathing human than the other three do...as of now, anyway.

I agree....

Does Mani disagree with that conclusion?

I do not.

And that is also not consistent with the dumbfounding statement in question either...is it?

 

[Ravi]

Can you quote this statement, manipoo?

 

[manifold]

Can you quote this statement, manipoo?

I've elected not to make it personal, out of respect for the individual who posted it. So you'll just have to take my word for it (or not) that it was as I stated in the OP.

 

[manifold]

I think the issue is less "is the fetus alive" (because, of course it's alive). but we terminate life all the time for various reasons. so the real issue is ... is this the type of life that people should make their own moral judgments about terminating?

but i am wondering why you seem to be obsessing about reproductive choice right now.

Ok. so we agree, the statement in question was absurd.

And I'm not obsessed with reproductive choice at all. As always, I'm obsessed with exposing abject stupidity and/or hypocrisy. I can't control where it will surface or with what frequency.

Well, not having seen the comment you're referring to, I'm afraid I can't address the context.

Fine. Here is the exact quote.

...he uses the word kill to describe abortion and I feel that is not the proper term as you can't kill something that isn't alive.

 

[xsited1]

I think the issue is less "is the fetus alive" (because, of course it's alive). but we terminate life all the time for various reasons. so the real issue is ... is this the type of life that people should make their own moral judgments about terminating?

but i am wondering why you seem to be obsessing about reproductive choice right now.

A fetus is not alive in the same sense as a living, breathing person...it is alive in the same sense as a sperm, or a finger, or a toe...though it does have greater potential to become a living, breathing human than the other three do...as of now, anyway.

Uh, no. A baby's heart starts beating at 5 weeks. I believe the one day medical science will progress to the point where the fetus can be removed at 5 weeks and put in an incubator of some sort.

 

[Ravi]

Ok. so we agree, the statement in question was absurd.

And I'm not obsessed with reproductive choice at all. As always, I'm obsessed with exposing abject stupidity and/or hypocrisy. I can't control where it will surface or with what frequency.

Well, not having seen the comment you're referring to, I'm afraid I can't address the context.

Fine. Here is the exact quote.

...he uses the word kill to describe abortion and I feel that is not the proper term as you can't kill something that isn't alive.

Where's the inconsistency?

 

[Ravi]

I think the issue is less "is the fetus alive" (because, of course it's alive). but we terminate life all the time for various reasons. so the real issue is ... is this the type of life that people should make their own moral judgments about terminating?

but i am wondering why you seem to be obsessing about reproductive choice right now.

A fetus is not alive in the same sense as a living, breathing person...it is alive in the same sense as a sperm, or a finger, or a toe...though it does have greater potential to become a living, breathing human than the other three do...as of now, anyway.

Uh, no. A baby's heart starts beating at 5 weeks. I believe the one day medical science will progress to the point where the fetus can be removed at 5 weeks and put in an incubator of some sort.

Does that mean you believe that before 5 weeks it isn't alive?

 

[xsited1]

A fetus is not alive in the same sense as a living, breathing person...it is alive in the same sense as a sperm, or a finger, or a toe...though it does have greater potential to become a living, breathing human than the other three do...as of now, anyway.

Uh, no. A baby's heart starts beating at 5 weeks. I believe the one day medical science will progress to the point where the fetus can be removed at 5 weeks and put in an incubator of some sort.

Does that mean you believe that before 5 weeks it isn't alive?

Uh, no. Read more here:

Fetal development: What happens during the first trimester? - MayoClinic.com

 

[manifold]

Well, not having seen the comment you're referring to, I'm afraid I can't address the context.

Fine. Here is the exact quote.

...he uses the word kill to describe abortion and I feel that is not the proper term as you can't kill something that isn't alive.

Where's the inconsistency?

Between the exact quote and my paraphrasing of same comment in the OP, there isn't one. Thanks for noticing.

 

[Agnapostate]

The pointless contention of whether a fetus constitutes "human life" is entirely pointless; a far more pertinent insight would arguably be whether a fetus is a person.

 

[Shogun]

or, better yet, A DISTINCT GENETIC INDIVIDUAL...

 

[Ravi]

A fetus is not alive in the same sense as a living, breathing person...it is alive in the same sense as a sperm, or a finger, or a toe...though it does have greater potential to become a living, breathing human than the other three do...as of now, anyway.

I agree....

Does Mani disagree with that conclusion?

I do not.

And that is also not consistent with the dumbfounding statement in question either...is it?

This is what I was asking you about.

 

[Ravi]

The pointless contention of whether a fetus constitutes "human life" is entirely pointless; a far more pertinent insight would arguably be whether a fetus is a person.

Good point.

 

[Agnapostate]

or, better yet, A DISTINCT GENETIC INDIVIDUAL...

On what grounds is such a categorization pertinent?