I'm sorry but life begins when a baby takes it first breath not when a math formula says it does. I am neither prolife nor prochoice, it is just logic to me and in my view to nature too.
Remember, logic is never a guarantee of truth. It's only a way of moving to the correct conclusion from the premises, even if the premises are contrary to fact.
All creatures with wings are butterflies.
The bat is a creature with wings.
Therefore, the bat is a butterfly.
The logic is sound. There is no doubt about the conclusion. It just happens to be factually incorrect, though entirely logical.
Saying that a baby isn't "alive" until it has taken its first breath is simply an arbitrary distinction. One
could say, though, that a baby that isn't respiring is not alive. But a baby pre-birth
is respiring from the moment of conception--the means just changes as developmentally appropriate. As the individual develops, its means of respiration changes from the simple diffusion needed by a single or small multicelled organism to the organ-based respiration of placental gas exchange to the organ-based respiration of pulmonary gas exchange. A living developing baby doesn't take its first breath until it is developmentally appropriate for it to do so. And, were it not alive and developing, it could never reach the developmental stage where respiration via breathing is necessary. It is, though, without doubt, a respiring individual. To state that only respiration involving the use of
lungs makes the baby alive is, as stated above, simply an arbitrary distinction.
The origin of the "not alive until breathing" criterion is most likely the "not human until breathing because that's when the soul enters the body" argument. And the origin of this is probably the story of God breathing into Adam and Adam becoming a 'living soul'. Notice, though, God didn't breathe life into Eve. Her life was derived from Adam's. So does that mean that women have no soul?
Some would say (and I have heard them say it), well, it's when they start breathing that the spirit enters into them. If that's so, then they can't use God's breathing into Adam as the justification for the concept of breathing in air as the vehicle of soul delivery. God may have breathed into Adam, but he doesn't do it for anyone else. There is no such doctrine taught in the Bible.
For that matter, all air-breathing animals are described in Genesis as having 'the breath of life', but they are described as being qualitatively different than Adam and Eve. The animals having the 'breath of life' doesn't constitute their getting a soul and being human because of it. The word translated as 'living soul' isn't referring to the concept of an immortal spirit anyway. It's better translated as 'living being'.
Besides, as far as what the Bible teaches about the unborn, it is about as far as one can get from an idea of the unborn child not being human: "Lord, you knew me before I ever was; before I put on flesh, you knew me." The unborn John was said to have leapt in Elizabeth's womb for joy at hearing Mary's salutation. This doesn't support the unbreathing non-souled fetus hypothesis.
But maybe that happened after 'quickening', after the soul entered the fetus. "quickening" is another idea used to excuse abortions, as though before this point the fetus was inert and soulless, after which it was obviously active and living. This is merely a matter of phenomenology. Though there may be a point before which a woman can feel the fetus move, there is not a point before which the fetus isn't actively developing according to its own time table. Weird, though not surprising, that people should use some point where something about the fetus becomes obvious to them as the point before which they can feel comfortable in deciding to off it. If obviousness is the criterion, then the obviousness of the missed menstruation should be enough. And, also not surprisingly, it is enough for those who were anxiously hoping for conception. That point marks for them them beginning of their child.
You are so good at explaining, and this post is proof. Thank you.
"Saying that a baby isn't "alive" until it has taken its first breath is simply an arbitrary distinction"
Yes, but it is the one that nature intended. I agree science can keep anything alive these days but should we? I happen to believe that natural selection has a reason and there there is a threshold beyond which tampering is counterproductive. I am not saying we shouldn't save premies but there is a boundry that is most truly counterproductive.
You are not going to convince me of your view and frankly I could care less if I convince you of my view.
I never cease to be amazed by prolifers and prochoicers alike. We can throw in religious zealots too. They can never seem to comprehend that their positions are emotionally based. Emotionally based beliefs cannot be successfully argued, but they keep trying.