Yes, but only one kind of thing is alive and a member of the human race.
And there are all kinds of things that are alive and not human which are given far more respect and protection than human fetuses, by the exact same people who want to treat fetuses like infected tonsils.
I just don't like when the argument is put so simply as whether or not a fetus is alive.
Why, precisely, given that that IS the actual point of contention here?
That is not a point of contention. I doubt even the most ardent pro-choice advocate would argue that a fetus is not alive (or at least part of a living being). Instead, I think the points of contention would be whether a fetus is a person, or whether it is a separate being from the mother.
I would guess that the fetus being a separate living being is the point you are saying is in contention.
What else is it if it isn’t a separate living being? There’s no magic going on here, it’s living, it’s human, it’s separate. There’s no magical benchmark of “oh, exactly 22 weeks since conception, it’s now a living separate being.” We all know what happens, well, most should and those who don’t are willfully blind. It meets every threshold of the scientific definition of life. It’s not it’s mother, it’s not a tumor, it’s not an extra bag of skin, it has its own unique DNA. It’s not a fly, it’s not a horse, it’s not a sock, it’s not anything that’s not a human.
Person is an abstract term. What constitutes a “person”? Why are we basing what is and isn’t life on these abstract terms when we’ve had a functioning scientific definition of human life, and life in general, a long ass time ago?
Some argue that until a certain point of development, a fetus is still a part of the mother. At least, that is the impression I have gotten from a number of people in these sorts of arguments.
As far as what is a person, it is important in a Constitutional sense. The Constitution grants various rights and protections to persons, so determining what constitutes a person can be a very important consideration.
I don't want to argue the pros or cons of abortion. I'm trying to limit myself to very specific details; in this case, the idea that the important question is whether a fetus is alive. That is just an over-simplification of the question IMO. I prefer it to be clearer, as I don't think the vast majority of people, regardless of their opinions about abortion, would say that a fetus is made up of anything but living tissue. As I said, the argument would be whether the fetus is separate from the mother, or whether the fetus constitutes a person, and at what time those things occur.
I'm trying to have the question put forth as clearly as possible, I'm not answering the question. Abortion arguments almost inevitably go nowhere.
Anyone who argues that a fetus is still part of his mother at ANY point is decades out-of-date scientifically, and should educate himself.
The Constitution doesn't actually have a damned thing to do with this, and never did. The REAL Constitution, that is, not the invented "living" Constitution that sprouts new "emanations" and "penumbras" every time you turn your back on it.
Why are you in a thread about abortion if you don't want to discuss the topic of abortion?
The question of whether or not a fetus is alive is not an over-simplification. It's the basic starting point that has to be established and acknowledged before you can discuss anything else. Abortion advocates always want to gloss past it so they don't ever have to state right out that they were wrong/lying on this subject since forever. Trying to "be clearer" without definitively answering that first question is nothing more than trying to AVOID that question and change the subject. I mean, look at you. You're trying to make it about this, that, and the other thing that allows you to slide right on by that fundamental question.
But okay, I can also answer all your other issues. A fetus is made up of living tissue, but that's a deflection, because "living tissue" is not the point. He is made up of living tissue, because he IS A LIVING ORGANISM, separate and distinct from all other living organisms, and all living organisms are made up - by definition - of living tissue. I am, you are, presumably even Cecile Richards is.
Not only is a fetus a living organism, distinct from the OTHER living organism which is his mother, he is a separate living organism from the moment of conception. There is no other point in time to which you can point with any level of scientific evidence and accuracy and say, "There. That is the moment when he became a separate organism, because XYZ."
"Personhood" is a bullshit, made-up concept which has no basis in scientific, medical fact. It is all about "feelz". There are hyper-emotional, hypo-intelligent dunderheads out there who will insist, with great passion, that their pets are "people". I can tell you that all three of my children were persons the whole time I carried them in my uterus, and with just as much conviction - although probably NOT the same level of desperation - as a woman heading into a Planned Parenthood will insist that her unborn offspring is NOT a person. Unless you have a scientific definition of "person", it all gets us exactly nowhere useful.
Abortion arguments almost inevitably go nowhere because, like you, people refuse to answer the question so we can move forward on the same, settled footing together.
