Seems to me that being able to survive on your own outside of the womb is an awfully large grey area to consider someone "alive" or not. How about someone who is born with quadriplegia? They could never survive on their own, they are incapable of moving to be able to feed themselves. How about someone with severe mental ******ation? They are incapable of survival left to their own devices too. I guess they aren't alive either. If you kill a 46 year old quadriplegic, that isn't murder, it's abortion, because that person couldn't survive on his or her own?
How about a baby inside the womb, who is developed enough so that they could survive? IE, what's the difference between a baby born after 7 months and a baby still in the womb 7 months, developmentally? Location? A baby inside the womb is not a baby, but move that same baby a foot to the right, so that it's outside of the womb, suddenly it's a baby, and alive? It's the exact same baby, with the exact same development, with the only difference being a foot's worth of space.
Fuck, even a normal healthy baby lacks the skills to survive, it is entirely, 100% completely dependent on help to survive. Babies need someone to feed them or they starve to death.
So, a baby getting it's nutrients via an umbilical cord is not alive because it can't survive it's own, but a baby getting it's nutrients via breast milk or formula is alive, even though it can't survive on it's own either?
Using the ability to survive outside of the womb as your measuring stick is patently ridiculous.
Todd said:
Thats kind of like the vegetarian that eats fish.
There is no such thing as a vegetarian who eats fish. Anyone who claims to be a vegetarian but eats fish is a hypocrite. Fish meat is meat, just like poultry, pork and beef. Eat fish, you eat meat, therefore you are not a vegetarian.
