It wasn't meant as an insult. It was just that it felt like you were posing ideas just for the sake of argument. And that felt like deliberate denseness. I don't think you're stupid, but I find it frustrating to discuss with someone who says we don't know when someone is dead.
This whole idea that there is any confusion about life and death ... there isn't. New life starts when fertilisation begins. Death would happen to those not on life support. (That they might be aided by life support and then recover doesn't change that - if they weren't on life support, they would be dead.)
Yes I'm stupid, stupid me. Call me stupid again. Go on. You can call me a c*nt too if you like.
I wouldn't, I don't think you are, and anyhow I wouldn't use that word. I reserve that for people who try to con honest workmen out of money, that sort of thing.
There is no guarantee a developing child will ever be alive, as between 50 and 70 percent of all first trimester pregnancies are miscarried
I think the figure is about 33%. And when there is a miscarriage, they say 'the baby died' or 'the baby didn't survive'. They don't say 'the baby was dead anyhow and now it is just deader'. (That's what I mean about stupid ... your arguments unravel and end up in statements that are just plain ... ok. Just daft, let's say.)
You have no idea, and cannot promise me anything. You seem very sure of yourself.
: ) Ok. Like zillions of women, I have felt new life growing inside me. Also like zillions, I have seen the body of my father, which clearly wasn't alive, and no amount of me arguing otherwise would have changed that. When you feel a tiny flutter against your stomach around 16 weeks and know that the baby is now big enough for you to feel his or her movement, you are absolutely, yes, certain and sure as anything, that a living creature is inside you. And you know that creature was moving before, but you couldn't feel it because he or she was as yet too small. And if you think I am 'projecting' when I say that when you see your father dead, you, erm, will be very sure that he is dead then ... ok. You think that. I'm not projecting. I'm just telling you how it is. You won't be in any doubt.
I only used that rather personal example to point out that the distinction between alive and dead is really a pretty simple one. And yes, of that distinction, I am very sure. As are, I'm also sure, zillions of other people. This isn't some personal opinion of mine. This is observed fact. Just because I am only talking about my observation of it, doesn't mean it isn't true. I don't need to read research to know my baby is alive when she kicks my tummy. You don't need research to tell you that if you jump off a building, you might not survive, and whatever happens, it will bloody hurt. We don't need research to tell us everything ...
since you can't exclude the possibility that the unborn baby is actually alive at the time of abortion
This is of course what I was trying to say ... : )
Since you can't be certain the unborn baby isn't alive, you should proceed as if it is. And therefore not kill it.
I haven't been pregnant, but that doesn't mean that I should be silenced?
No, and I didn't say that. I said that as you haven't been pregnant, you haven't felt a child inside you, so you can't say 'it isn't alive' with as much conviction as those who have felt a live child inside them and know full well it is alive. The guys aren't actually claiming that unborn children aren't alive with anything like your conviction. Look: what is so difficult about this point? If you have climbed Everest, and I haven't, then you are much more of an expert on it than I am. I can say 'oh, the research tells me it isn't very cold up there' as much as I like, but if you were there, and you felt the cold, your voicing of your experience is more true than my conjecture based on research. Basically, you know, and I don't.