AIBU to think a foetus is alive before birth?

the scientific answer, the moral answer and the legal answer to when life begins are all and should all be different answers

This exactly! It's not helpful to muddle them together and insist it doesn't matter if it's unhelpful to mix up a lay person use of a word with the other applications.

Laws in the US and Ireland for example show the absolute dangers of seeing a foetus as a legal person who is alive in their own right particularly with ectopic and missed miscarriages- women have literally died because of it.

Life can begin at conception, a foetus is alive all through pregnancy but it absolutely should not be seen as a distinct legal person until birth where the baby can breathe and exist on their own - rather than relying on the symbiotic relationship between mother and foetus

the scientific answer, the moral answer and the legal answer to when life begins are all and should all be different answers

Schrödinger's feotus?

I'm not asking for a millisecond, even a day would be good. If we're going to say that it life definitely begins somewhere you should be able to define it and count from there.

I don't agree with your assertion that all scientists agree life begins an conception because we still don't know when that actually occurs. No one can date a pregnancy to conception for instance but you said scientists agree so I'm asking when science agrees that takes place?

Yes exactly

It doesn't matter precisely which millisecond it occurs in. We know it's alive at the zygote stage and all stages of gestation beyond that.

What do you mean?

Ok?? So you just answered the question, the baby is alive 🤦‍♀️

rocks are not alive but are generally not described as dead because dead implies was alive and now is not.

Things are either living, non-living or dead. Things that are non-living have never been alive such as a car or a plastic toy.

I know but when is that? How has science proven when exactly that occurs in each pregnancy in order to define life that way?

Of course there does, which is what has already pointed on here about the definition of alive when it comes to may persons use and from a scientific/medical /legal perspective and application. Again, my kidney is human and it's alive, so what? What's the actual point of what you're saying?

There doesn't need to be a useful application. The questions were (1) is it alive (2) is it human. The answers to both of those are plainly yes.

When sperm cell and an egg cell fuse to create a new, single-celled organism called a zygote.

I haven't mentioned abortion, I've asked what the useful application of this definition is.

When does science tell us conception is if it says this?

Pretty sure scientific agreement is life begins at conception?

Maybe wrt IVF? Pro-life lobby tries to attack IVF because it creates embryos that will never be implanted.

But it’s kind of just mimicking nature, as reproduction itself is kind of a numbers game.

Yes but they aren't like the mother's kidney cells either. They are an unique living organism that is formed of 100% human cells just like the rest of us.

It sounds as if you want to alter the definition of human not to ensure accuracy but because you are worried about the morality of abortion if you call it a human.

It's entirely justifiable to say that although it's an early human, that its survival is only at the consent of the one supporting it's life, and that as such, it doesn't have any right to life until it can sustain it independently.

But this isn't a debate about ethics of abortion. It was about a specific claim that was made that a fetus isn't a living organism, and as an offshoot from that on here, the claim that it's not human.

Yes and even with implantation it's if,if,if that they will go onto be a live baby not a given. Just because that scientifically means I think we should class them as what they are rather than what they could potentially be doesn't mean anyone isn't within their right to consider their own pregnancy a human and a baby from day dot, but I can't see how it's helpful or useful to say something like "most humans never make it to birth", again where is the useful application of that belief?

Anyone who claims a foetus isn't alive is deluding themselves, trying to delude others, or woefully uninformed.

And of course it's a 'person', too. Why would it not be? Why would moving from inside the womb to outside impart instant personhood? Legally, I suppose people and governments can say whatever they want on the matter, but morally, they are absolutely a person before birth. Some of them are just less convenient persons, unfortunately.

You're right, a lot fail at that stage, but more of them successfully implant with a natural conception. The odds are lower than I said (which was based on implantation of blastocysts and no miscarriage), but they aren't terrible. Most humans never make it to birth granted, and most of those losses will never even be known.

I'm saying they're human cells for example or a human blastocyst or whatever stage they're at is different some the oversimplified just calling them "a human", because then how do you not confuse them with humans who do require human rights? Why don't their deaths count? Of you're going to say because they're not quite the same as other humans, that's exactly what I'm saying. Likewise the whole argument of whether things are alive or not isn't helpful unless you've got useful framework of how you intend to apply that definition.

No of course we shouldn't. You're back to confusing human life with human rights. You're saying they aren't human because they might not survive. Clearly they are.

I think you're mistaken there, that's about the rate of fertiliser eggs that become a blastocyst, which still needs to implant and then if,.if, if, potentially could become a live baby not will.