This is not a SFW instance. NSFW communities will be tagged, and efforts will be made to keep SFW communities clean, but proceed at your own comfort level.
If it was alive and then isn’t, it is dead. That’s what dead means. A fetus that died in the womb is still dead, and died, and there is no other way to define what unborn is than to describe it as a previously living entity; thus dead.
Chemo is taken with the purpose of killing cancer cells without removing them. People talk about parts of tumors with living cells as alive, and part of tumors that have dead cells (whether through strangling their own blood supply, or chemo, or whatever) as dead.
The language of “when life begins” is using a specific and unusual definition of “life”, that I think has more to do with the concept of a soul than with any of the more common definitions of “life”.
That’s insane to me. The fetus has entirely different DNA than the host organism, thus is a separate life. That’s just biology, any other argument and you’re getting into weird psudo-science territory trying to measure souls and consciousness.
I mean, if that’s how the broader medical community wants to frame it, that’s fine. I know a lot of the discourse around this subject is really rooted in abortion, and whether abortion is okay or not, and so people gotta do what they gotta do to justify their position.
But it’s still alive and can still die regardless of anyone’s opinions, a bacteria can be alive and then dead. The grey area is when that life becomes ethically problematic to end.
I’m fine with saying its a living human while still arguing that killing it is justified as self defense for the person carrying. Cracks me up with pro lifers say killing instead of murder for that reason, and I usually tell them I’m glad they use that term
If it was alive and then isn’t, it is dead. That’s what dead means. A fetus that died in the womb is still dead, and died, and there is no other way to define what unborn is than to describe it as a previously living entity; thus dead.
Do people talk about tumors as “alive” and “dead” before and after it’s been removed.
The problem is defining when human life begins. It’s generally accepted that before 12 weeks, it’s not alive. After that it gets more gray.
Chemo is taken with the purpose of killing cancer cells without removing them. People talk about parts of tumors with living cells as alive, and part of tumors that have dead cells (whether through strangling their own blood supply, or chemo, or whatever) as dead.
The language of “when life begins” is using a specific and unusual definition of “life”, that I think has more to do with the concept of a soul than with any of the more common definitions of “life”.
That’s insane to me. The fetus has entirely different DNA than the host organism, thus is a separate life. That’s just biology, any other argument and you’re getting into weird psudo-science territory trying to measure souls and consciousness.
I mean, if that’s how the broader medical community wants to frame it, that’s fine. I know a lot of the discourse around this subject is really rooted in abortion, and whether abortion is okay or not, and so people gotta do what they gotta do to justify their position.
But it’s still alive and can still die regardless of anyone’s opinions, a bacteria can be alive and then dead. The grey area is when that life becomes ethically problematic to end.
I’m fine with saying its a living human while still arguing that killing it is justified as self defense for the person carrying. Cracks me up with pro lifers say killing instead of murder for that reason, and I usually tell them I’m glad they use that term
100%. Most “pro-lifers” would be okay with kicking someone out of your house even if it means they would die. Not to mention your own body.