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.

The problem with the existing law is that women are being accused of self-administering abortion after having miscarriages.

Actually that's not quite true. There is the offence of child destruction which would apply if the stabbing was done with the intention of killing the fetus.

"any person who, with intent to destroy the life of a child capable of being born alive, by any wilful act causes a child to die before it has an existence independent of its mother, shall be guilty of felony, to wit, of child destruction, and shall be liable on conviction thereof on indictment to penal servitude for life"

Note that it only applies pre birth, over 28 weeks gestation, and given that it refers to the child dying before birth, clearly enter the law it was alive before this, because you can't kill something that's not alive.

Of course it’s alive. It’s a living human being (assuming we’re talking about human reproduction).

People just like to pretend it’s not, as that makes killing it easier on their minds.

Of course they're alive, their environment enables them to continue to live granted but so does ours. I'm no less alive now because my body couldn't survive in a hostile environment, same for foetuses.

Why are there any laws over child destruction if carried out by someone else? If the baby has no rights at that point then why is it a crime?

What right does the baby have over the woman carrying it at term? The mother’s health is prioritised until the baby is born. If the mother has the right to be induced give birth to a full term baby, why should she have the right to kill it just before she does so?

Crystal formation ?

A tree doesn’t have a heartbeat. Is that not alive?

Nor does a bacterium. And that is most definitely alive. Even if we don't know what life is 😀

Defining life becomes more serious when you are poking around the universe looking for it.

Now human life is another matter. When does that begin ?

Your friend is probably mixing up “alive” and “conscious”. It is not an uncommon view that a foetus is not conscious.

This ^

People need to sanitise it so it legitimises the process. As if the few inches of travel down the birth canal magically transform it from an amorphous blob into a cute baby. A cesarean section involves even less travel, so perhaps those life forms remain forever a hybrid baby blob. Interesting philosophical question. I have two such life forms and I can attest to them being sentient and conscious.

It is alive. It has a beating heart and a brain that gives awareness. Your friend is wrong and dare I say it ignorant

You really can't tell the difference between a crime being committed against a pregnant woman, and her having the choice taken from her, and a woman making a choice herself?

Of course it is.

Also given how medical care has improved (in some hospitals) it may be potluck whether the baby is capable of being born alive. Some hospital ICUs may be better than others.

Unless there's any evidence to the country the law also states that if the gestation is 28 weeks or more, the presumption is the child is capable of being born alive.

Thats a different question issue though. Misdiagnosis of the cause of the foetus's death. Is the solution to just decriminlise abortions beyond the current cut off point?

I can't imagine how awful that must be for someone who just experienced a miscarriage incidentally.

It's a difficult one, but in light of what you said about the discussion was around the decriminalising of termination right up to the point of being born, I would say that the test for me, is whether a foetus would be viable outside of the womb. Clearly, in the early days, it wouldn't be - but I know someone whose much wanted baby was born at 23 weeks and 3 days gestation and is now a mostly healthy and happy 6 year old. Some specific mild learning difficulties due to a bleed on the brain at a few days old, but you wouldn't know it to talk them or watch them playing etc. It will not prevent them from leading a normal life, getting a job, getting married, having children etc.

The law you quote is about 100 years old. So Im not sure that would have been the case in those days. Interesting to look at the the thinking behind that cut off point.

The medical question isn't 'alive' but 'viable'. A fortus born at 30 weeks would live unless there was some medical issue preve tstillborn. That foetus would be viable, and if born alive at 30 weeks would be registered as a live birth.

Legally speaking, a baby is considered 'alive' when delivered, if not stilborn.

The moral question is 'human life' vs 'something else'.

I think the traditional approach is well balanced- a foetus was not considered alive until the quickening started- if you got rid of it past that point it was illegal and would probably be treated as infanticide ( not generally considered very serious, but it could have a jail tariff. It was impossible to hang women who were confirmed pregnant, because you couldn't know if you were taking one life or two.

So the crime should be removal of choice, not the destruction of a child then?

It is only a miscarriage up to 24 weeks, after that it is a still birth.

No. I tried to edit it and I couldn’t.

Omg grow up and stop derailing the thread now.

How ridiculous.

If that were the case practically all crimes would be removal of choice.