Quote:By the definition you used, and likely those of the experts you provided, the fetus would still be alive when aborted. Did these experts use the common definition of death, or did they define their own terms? 

 

My point is that, if you're simply OK with aborting a living person, then my argument is irrelevant to you. If you're OK with aborting it because you don't believe it's a living entity, then I think you're argument is flawed.

 

I've had this argument several times on this forum already. It is circular and a huge waste of time because we disagree and neither of us are going to change our opinion. I do not believe that a fetus is living. I believe a fetus becomes a child and alive at birth. If you want to say that all of the medical literature I've studied is wrong, that is your prerogative.

 

I think you are misinterpreting the definition. I'm reading the definition as death being the stopping of heart, brain, and breathing of a being that once had a heart beat, had brain function, and breathed. A fetus does not breathe, therefor only 2 of those 3 things have been stopped. You can't stop something that never started.

 

 

Regardless, this is a waste of our time. You're not changing your opinion. I'm not changing my opinion or what I've learned in my profession that deals directly with diagnosing viable and non-viable pregnancies. If the next time I reported my preliminary reading to a doctor, I said "the baby is dead"... I would get my ear chewed off about how:

1. It isn't a baby.

2. It wasn't alive so it isn't "dead".

 

I'm not going to tell these doctors "well, JagsNGeorgia says your arguments is flawed". Instead, I'll take their word and the word of what I've learned.

 

 

I'll say again: you are entitled to your opinion. Rather that wasting either of our time, just agree to disagree.

---