AIBU to think a foetus is alive before birth?

[Mmmchocolatebuttons]

I had a discussion with someone, who believes that a foetus is not alive, until the point they are born. They also asserted that this was not an uncommon view. I have a hard time believing this so I'm putting it to the AIBU poll.

To be clear, I'm pro choice, but I do believe that, for example, a 30 week foetus is factually, scientifically considered to be alive.

Surely, even if you're pro-choice all the way up until birth, you accept that the foetus is alive?

YABU = A foetus is not alive, until birth.
YANBU = A foetus is alive in the womb.

I think it’s one of those million dollar questions - when does life begin!

I mean I think most sensible people can agree a foetus isn’t a human life at, say, 2 weeks. And is one at 38 weeks.

But where in between those two life begins is difficult to pin point! And then why is it different if the foetus will have disabilities?

Thats why, in my view, we have to leave a large amount of choice up to the woman - we’ve currently drawn one line after which she no longer gets a choice in this country, but it’s somewhat arbitrary.

The point when the foetus could potentially survive outside of its mother’s body is the best estimate we can come up with, I guess.

i would say once the cells begin to grow then its alive, but yes from a science view im guessing theres more too it

Yes its alive but until its born its not seperate being with rights. And you cant prioritise thd rights of the unborn over the woman carrying them.

As early as possible, as late as necessary. Unpalatable or not it needs to be this way I also dont agree with laws restricting termination on grounds of disability or not of the fetus.

Both mine were very much alive in the womb. Ouch.

Of course it’s alive! My friend lost a baby at 6 months because it “died in utero”. It couldn’t have died if it wasn’t alive. Could she have continued to carry that dead foetus and then give birth to it at 9 months and it would magically spring into life? No, it’s a stupid idea.

Your friend is muddling two separate things: the foetus is alive but it doesn’t have legal personhood until it’s been born.

It’s quite an old-fashioned idea to think a foetus isn’t alive until it’s born. Centuries ago, people used to think that, and think that the foetus was some kind of ‘blob’ and only became alive when it took its first breath after delivery - that the breath was life going into it.

This.
There is nothing that special about being "alive". We end lives every day without worrying much about it. An ant or a green leaf attached to a plant is "alive". The ant can live on its own, but the leaf or the foetus up to a certain level of gestation can’t.

The bacteria inside your stomach are alive. So what? Aliveness is neither here nor there, it’s a concept that has zero to do with the ethics of abortion.

A two-day embryo is alive but not capable of independent life. A woman who is pregnant with a 37 week baby has no choice but to give birth to that baby. I think it is abhorrent that she can chose to kill it just before she does so.

Decriminalisation in which country, and how many weeks?

Alive isn't a big deal. A cabbage is alive. So's algae.

It's when it becomes an individual person that matters.

Yes, definitely alive BTW.

Uk - up until birth.

That's kind of why I'm so confused at the repeated insistence that a foetus is "not alive".
It is alive, but that's not really anything to do with the abortion debate.

There was no indication that they meant not having the legal rights of a person.

Yes it is alive.
It is in effect a parasite that requires its host in order to survive, but it is alive.

So if someone stabbed a woman in the stomach and killed a full term baby, there should be no consequence for killing the baby only for stabbing the mother?

You can only commit the legal definition of "murder" if a baby has been born. I'm pro choice but not pro aborting a baby at nearly full term. I don't know where the line should be drawn. What's wrong with the existing law?

It's not shoehorning if it's directly analogous. Let me guess, you don't agree but are unable to express why?

Maybe define "life" first.

But babies can't survive independently either. They rely on someone to feed them, keep them warm, looks after them etc.

Just to follow on from the murder point, a baby can inherit from a father if the mother was pregnant at the time the father died. En ventre sa mere. Thus indicating it is a life of some sort.

A reduction in entropy?

Can that be applied to anything else ?

Not so easy is it ?

There are laws around 'child destruction ' but you have to able to prove the fetus epuld have been born alive (,thats not guaranteed for any unborn even a 'healthy' fetus) AND that the person committing the crime was trying to kill the fetus..

Rightly this is a high legal bar and needs to be due to women having legal right to abortion. As awful as it may seem we cannot guve thd unborn fetus rights over and above the woman carrying it

This trade off in law where you cannot he charged with murdering the unborn actuslly protects women as well. Its really tricky area of law hence the decriminalisation of abortion currently.

Like what?

But you can only get an abortion up to 24 weeks still. Are you saying that a woman ending her own pregnancy at 39 weeks would be acting legally? I didn't think that was the case.