Abortion

cosmic_cs_sl said:

You said that someone can be morally justified if they alone believe they are morally justified. In that statement, there is no reference to a group. Please defend the statement:



Which is the crux of this statement:

Click to expand...

Sure. My defense is "IN HER OWN MIND"

Selix_sl said:

Sure. My defense is "IN HER OWN MIND"

Click to expand...

I stand corrected. I've been using "moral justification" without knowing the whole meaning. I thought moral justification only involves the perspective of external judgments on an individual's actions. Rather, someone can be morally justified if their moral code allows it.

Although I misused the word, my problem with your statement is that it doesn't contribute to the discussion of whetherabortionis right or wrong. How is one person's morals (especially one that is based on false premises like a fetus is a cancer) persuasive in this discussion? Aren't we here to pass moral judgment and reasoning onabortion? I'm not sure why you made that statement and what it has to do with persuading anyone that someone is right to abort.

As was already pointed out, the morals of a bad person or a person doing a bad thing are meaningless when it comes to the morals of the situation as a whole. Bad things should not be done to others, that's why we have laws to protect us from bad things. So if one person or many people, even a majority of people, believe that a bad thing is justified, that doesn't make it morally right. What it means is that the majority is wrong and is doing bad things to the innocent. One example was given by Selix above this comparing it to being gay, if someone believes that being gay is wrong then sure, maybe those are their morals, but it certainly doesn't make it right. Even if a majority of people believe that it's wrong to be gay does not justify the majority doing bad things to innocent people (as happened in California a few years ago with Proposition 8).

In my view this same logic applies toabortion: Bad things should not be done to innocent people. That's why we have laws and that's why we need laws, to protect the innocent from bad things.

Right now it's possible and even legal in many states to have anabortiondone even when the baby would be able to survive without its mother in any way. That's wrong. To combat this there needs to be more restrictions. I live in New York and California which are theabortioncapitals of the country, we have restriction laws of I believe 18 weeks and 24 weeks respectively. I feel that 18 weeks is reasonable as I don't know of anyone surviving after being born that premature. 24 weeks is simply too late though, there are clearly documented cases of people being born before 24 weeks gestation and surviving perfectly fine.

Late term abortions are clearly wrong and that's what we need to focus on. If the baby can survive without anything further from its mother then it is wrong to terminate its chance at life. It's as simple as that. Perhaps there would be some cases where the mother develops some sort of extreme health problem or extremely high risk and for that I don't see why there cannot be exceptions but such an exception should not be allowed to be abused.

Most of the avid pro-choice people (I'm not necessarily pro-life or pro-choice), will give statistics and talk about how late term abortions are so rare, they hardly ever happen. Don't listen to that. It's the same crazy talking point that the pro-life people have where they don't want to allow abortions at any time for any reason. I repeat, do not listen to that and do not fall into their trap.

The fact is that there have been a million plus abortions performed each year since Roe vs. Wade. Even if only a very small percentage of those abortions were late term abortions that amount of people is comparable to Homicides. It isn't a small amount of people who have been killed in late term abortions. Don't let anyone talk you into believing otherwise.


If anyone wants to argue for late term abortions, feel free. If anyone wants to realistically look at the reality of the situation and see the great loss that we have suffered due to the great amount of late term abortions then I'll happy to discuss that as well.

cosmic_cs_sl said:

I stand corrected. I've been using "moral justification" without knowing the whole meaning. I thought moral justification only involves the perspective of external judgments on an individual's actions. Rather, someone can be morally justified if their moral code allows it.

Although I misused the word, my problem with your statement is that it doesn't contribute to the discussion of whetherabortionis right or wrong. How is one person's morals (especially one that is based on false premises like a fetus is a cancer) persuasive in this discussion? Aren't we here to pass moral judgment and reasoning onabortion? I'm not sure why you made that statement and what it has to do with persuading anyone that someone is right to abort.

Click to expand...

Though Charles already answered eloquently enough I will add this. We do not have a consensus moral, reasoned, scientific, or otherwise on abortions prior to 18-20 weeks. We do not agree even in majority if abortions at that stage are taking the life of a full human being. We don't even agree if the zygote that has potential to become a human life should be given the full protections of a full human being.

(For the purposes of this discussion "full human being" is defined as "newborn - status:alive")

But there are points at where the scientific, moral, reasoned and other arguments do to coalesce and when can form a consensus. (We can go into more detail on what the consensus but essential it is what we have now in rove vs. wade give or take a bit)

That leaves the question "When is it "right" or "wrong" to take the life of a zygote -> fetus -> late termabortion-> etc., quite open. Personally I feel that a collection of cells without even the ability to have consciousnesses isn't a full human being but others feel that a zygote which has the potential to reach consciousnesses is a full human being. I think there is merit to both arguments, however, I feel that both arguments are very nearly pointless as any significant concern about human life has numerous options to lower theabortionrate without passing any laws related toabortion. And since we as a country don't do that I feel that we as a country aren't serious about this issue.

Selix_sl said:

...That leaves the question "When is it "right" or "wrong" to take the life of a zygote -> fetus -> late termabortion-> etc., quite open. Personally I feel that a collection of cells without even the ability to have consciousnesses isn't a full human being but others feel that a zygote which has the potential to reach consciousnesses is a full human being. I think there is merit to both arguments, however, I feel thatboth arguments are very nearly pointless as any significant concern about human life has numerous options to lower theabortionrate without passing any laws related toabortion. And since we as a country don't do that I feel that we as a country aren't serious about this issue.

Click to expand...

Precisely. Factors that lowerabortionrates are interesting: Education - general and sexed, better social security network, a more secular society, better health care - thank you Obama, access to contraceptions - especially teens, etc etc.

Here are some interesting comments:
http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/201...bortion-rates/

How about ideas from the Netherlands?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7971545

Maybe the devil did them all.

Selix_sl said:

Though Charles already answered eloquently enough I will add this. We do not have a consensus moral, reasoned, scientific, or otherwise on abortions prior to 18-20 weeks. We do not agree even in majority if abortions at that stage are taking the life of a full human being. We don't even agree if the zygote that has potential to become a human life should be given the full protections of a full human being.

(For the purposes of this discussion "full human being" is defined as "newborn - status:alive")

But there are points at where the scientific, moral, reasoned and other arguments do to coalesce and when can form a consensus. (We can go into more detail on what the consensus but essential it is what we have now in rove vs. wade give or take a bit)

That leaves the question "When is it "right" or "wrong" to take the life of a zygote -> fetus -> late termabortion-> etc., quite open. Personally I feel that a collection of cells without even the ability to have consciousnesses isn't a full human being but others feel that a zygote which has the potential to reach consciousnesses is a full human being. I think there is merit to both arguments, however, I feel that both arguments are very nearly pointless as any significant concern about human life has numerous options to lower theabortionrate without passing any laws related toabortion. And since we as a country don't do that I feel that we as a country aren't serious about this issue.

Click to expand...

I don't think there will ever be a consensus on when life begins for a zygote. All of the benchmarks for life during fetal development are mostly subjective (but using objective markers like forming a brain, or having developed nerves, or fingers, etc.). For example, I assume there is more of a consensus for prohibitingabortionafter 18-20 weeks because the fetus will basically look like a mini-baby at that point, even though it may not be conscious of itself or even have any capacity to suffer from pain. You can probably argue that a 20+ week fetus is no more significant than a farm animal. In reality, a fetus contributes nothing to society, and if we were to view it based on a societal impact perspective, whether it's dead or alive doesn't make a difference.

The reason I'm stuck on the idea that life begins with the zygote is that it's the clearest point at which you could say a new process has been put into motion. There is no definite point at which the zygote becomes a baby (or even when a baby becomes an adult). Sure, you can use societal conventions and definitions to put people into categories, but life is a continuum, and to me, it still makes a lot of sense that the continuum started with the zygote, which began the process for a new being. If we were to define life as an event after the formation of the zygote, we will never agree because there is no point at which we can say, "hey, that's life." It's all subjective.

I want to try a bad analogy again. Say someone is an operator of a large wave pool. There are two buttons: one to create 1 wave 10% of the time, and one guaranteed to stop the wave. There is also a statistical chance that a wave will spontaneously stop some time during its formation. Hopefully you can see where I'm going with this. There is no point where you can define a wave as being formed, because a wave is a continuum of events, starting with the decision of the operator. Once a wave has formed, if the operator stops it before it spontaneously stops, a reasonable person would say he was responsible for stopping the wave. If the wave spontaneous stops, then no one was responsible.

My argument has been thatabortion(a conscious decision by the mother) at anytime after a zygote has formed is stopping the life of a new being. How is the wave analogy different thanabortionand stopping life?

cosmic_cs_sl said:

I want to try a bad analogy again. Say someone is an operator of a large wave pool. There are two buttons: one to create 1 wave 10% of the time, and one guaranteed to stop the wave. There is also a statistical chance that a wave will spontaneously stop some time during its formation. Hopefully you can see where I'm going with this. There is no point where you can define a wave as being formed, because a wave is a continuum of events, starting with the decision of the operator. Once a wave has formed, if the operator stops it before it spontaneously stops, a reasonable person would say he was responsible for stopping the wave. If the wave spontaneous stops, then no one was responsible.

My argument has been thatabortion(a conscious decision by the mother) at anytime after a zygote has formed is stopping the life of a new being. How is the wave analogy different thanabortionand stopping life?

Click to expand...

Well the first problem with your analogy is the definition of "wave" itself. The definition of wave does not include the wave before it was ever formed whereas the definition of life includes the sperm and the egg as well as the cells which created the sperm and the egg (and so on).

Further your wave requires continues help from the machines operating it for it to continue to exist. If the machines ever stop then the wave will also cease to exist. A zygote -> fetus will eventually reach a point where it can live on its own outside the mother.

Third at every stage of the waves existence it is equal in total value. Now some will argue that a zygote is equivalent to a newborn and deserves all the same rights and privileges as a newborn but that argument certainly isn't commonly accepted.

Also ducks, sunny, swim, free and all that.

Edit: Your picture of a very late term fetus is one the general consensus agrees should not be aborted accept for some very extremely rare cases. You should use a more accurate picture of the part of the debate we are on like..

cosmic_cs_sl said:

I don't think there will ever be a consensus on when life begins for a zygote. All of the benchmarks for life during fetal development are mostly subjective (but using objective markers like forming a brain, or having developed nerves, or fingers, etc.). For example,I assume there is more of a consensus for prohibitingabortionafter 18-20 weeks because the fetus will basically look like a mini-baby at that point,even though it may not be conscious of itself or even have any capacity to suffer from pain. You can probably argue that a 20+ week fetus is no more significant than a farm animal. In reality, a fetus contributes nothing to society, and if we were to view it based on a societal impact perspective, whether it's dead or alive doesn't make a difference.

The reason I'm stuck on the idea that life begins with the zygote is that it's the clearest point at which you could say a new process has been put into motion. There is no definite point at which the zygote becomes a baby (or even when a baby becomes an adult). Sure, you can use societal conventions and definitions to put people into categories, but life is a continuum, and to me, it still makes a lot of sense that the continuum started with the zygote, which began the process for a new being. If we were to define life as an event after the formation of the zygote, we will never agree because there is no point at which we can say, "hey, that's life."It's all subjective.

I want to try abad analogyagain. Say someone is an operator of a large wave pool. There are two buttons: one to create 1 wave 10% of the time, and one guaranteed to stop the wave. There is also a statistical chance that a wave will spontaneously stop some time during its formation. Hopefully you can see where I'm going with this. There is no point where you can define a wave as being formed, because a wave is a continuum of events, starting with the decision of the operator. Once a wave has formed, if the operator stops it before it spontaneously stops, a reasonable person would say he was responsible for stopping the wave. If the wave spontaneous stops, then no one was responsible.

My argument has been thatabortion(a conscious decision by the mother) at anytime after a zygote has formed is stopping the life of a new being. How is the wave analogy different thanabortionand stopping life?

Click to expand...

1) We can sustain life of a fetus ex utero after 18-19 weeks. We do not know for certain if nociceptors have their full function at 12-13 weeks, nor do we know if the sensory inputs of nociceptors are mitigated, gated off, useful or meaningful in that pain modulation is unknown at this stage of development.

2) Not subjective - Complex!

3) Terminating a wave is nothing like terminating an individuals life. Your setting is nothing like the one of the individuals life's - The latter has infinite number of possible points of failure, qualities and outcomes and risks for those involved. I've also stated previously: Medically inducedabortionis far, far from the only consciousabortion. Does ignorance absolve one of liability f.inst.?

4) Pictures of the mater uterus, cells, receptors, genetics - pater equivalents, life decisions etc up to the sustained implanted zygote would be more relevant than a manipulative picture of a fetus with phenotypically recognizable traits. Here is one:

Selix_sl said:

Well the first problem with your analogy is the definition of "wave" itself. The definition of wave does not include the wave before it was ever formed whereas the definition of life includes the sperm and the egg as well as the cells which created the sperm and the egg (and so on).

Further your wave requires continues help from the machines operating it for it to continue to exist. If the machines ever stop then the wave will also cease to exist. A zygote -> fetus will eventually reach a point where it can live on its own outside the mother.

Third at every stage of the waves existence it is equal in total value. Now some will argue that a zygote is equivalent to a newborn and deserves all the same rights and privileges as a newborn but that argument certainly isn't commonly accepted.

Also ducks, sunny, swim, free and all that.

Edit: Your picture of a very late term fetus is one the general consensus agrees should not be aborted accept for some very extremely rare cases. You should use a more accurate picture of the part of the debate we are on like..

Click to expand...

This pic is 13 weeks dude. The very BEGINNING ofmonth three. Still first trimester. Assuming you waited the first month until she was definitely late, then maybe a couple weeks after that of "oh shit I think I'm pregnant", test positive, maybe a couple more weeks to get your appointment, and....

Look I'm 100% pro choice politically. But I can't deny what's going on here. This isn't "very late term" and there's no denying what this picture is and it lies in stark contrast to yours.



Here, click through the weeks and decide at what point you are comfortable saying its nothing like a developing human being.

http://www.babycenter.com/fetal-deve...mages-13-weeks

Here's another link about month three going into second trimester with actual photos instead of that artist rendering.

http://www.wpclinic.org/parenting/fe...ond-trimester/

The brain is fully developed and the fetus can suck, swallow, and make irregular breathing sounds. Fetus can feel pain (New England Journal of Medicine). Fetal skin is almost transparent. Muscles tissue is lengthening and bones are becoming harder. Liver and organs produce appropriate fluids. Eyebrows and eyelashes appear and the fetus makes active movements including kicks and even somersaults.

Click to expand...

Soooo, how do you justify that? I'm assuming you are ok with month three abortions? Is this still just a "mass of cells"? Is early second trimester off limits? Where in the first do the waters start to muddy?

Not being antagonistic or self righteous. I'm staunchly atheist. But how to you rationalize this? This isn't just about some detached philosophical debate, this is what is actually getting terminated. You're cool with that?

This one is apparently weekTEN.....

44yr old gravid female with previous 6 children, was diagnosed with carcinoma in situ of cervix (early stage cancer of womb). so total removal of uterus( woomb) considered with fetus in situ, for long life of the female.
soabortionwas inevitable for future health of the lady.

Click to expand...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/7489676...n/photostream/

Selix_sl said:

Edit: Your picture of a very late term fetus is one the general consensus agrees should not be aborted accept for some very extremely rare cases. You should use a more accurate picture of the part of the debate we are on like..

Click to expand...

Sorry, I forgot to say that the fetus picture is 20 weeks.

Well the first problem with your analogy is the definition of "wave" itself. The definition of wave does not include the wave before it was ever formed whereas the definition of life includes the sperm and the egg as well as the cells which created the sperm and the egg (and so on).

Click to expand...

Immediately after an earthquake, you would say a wave was formed, but it'd be difficult to see it. A wave pool works similarly to how a tsunami is formed by an earthquake. Also, the sperm, egg, man, and woman are just the foundations for creating a process for new life - they aren't part of the "new" life itself. In the wave pool example, there would be no wave if the pool, water, operator, and structure weren't there.

Further your wave requires continues help from the machines operating it for it to continue to exist. If the machines ever stop then the wave will also cease to exist. A zygote -> fetus will eventually reach a point where it can live on its own outside the mother.

Click to expand...

A wave in a wave pool is simply created by a wall that pushes water. After the wall pushes water, there doesn't need to be any external process to keep the wave from forming.

Third at every stage of the waves existence it is equal in total value. Now some will argue that a zygote is equivalent to a newborn and deserves all the same rights and privileges as a newborn but that argument certainly isn't commonly accepted.

Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean by every stage is equal in total value. I'm pretty sure a "wave" includes everything from the bulge in the water to the crash on the shore. If you define "total value" as the wave's height from the water surface, it increases and then crashes over time.

A zygote -> fetus will eventually reach a point where it can live on its own outside the mother.

Click to expand...

But if you take it out of the uterus, it'd actually require MORE effort / resources / aid to survive. The decision to take it out is in ITSELF a point of moral judgment. It is all comfortable and well-supported inside the uterus, then you decide to take it out? I'm having trouble understanding the point of this definition. Once we have test tube babies, then we'll change the law to say that life starts at conception? So you'd define "life" simply in relation to our technological advances?

cosmic_cs_sl said:

I don't think there will ever be a consensus on when life begins for a zygote. All of the benchmarks for life during fetal development are mostly subjective (but using objective markers like forming a brain, or having developed nerves, or fingers, etc.).

Click to expand...

There is absolutely nothing subjective about the benchmarks for life at this level. (the greater context of life is up for debate..)
Having a cerebral cortex is not a qualifier for being alive.

The definition of life is paraphrased" "complex system that:self regulates,grows, adapts, responds to stimuli, metabolizes, is composed of smaller living systems, and/or reproduces. " note that not all are required. The debate is for things like virus, rna, electricity, etc. or hell, the earth itself, aka macro-organism.

No one in their right mind will tell you ANY cell of any kind, is not alive. (unless its outright dead, of course)


At what point is that zygote a new organism? Well, in the early stages its obviously wholly dependent on the mother. Is an egg part of the mother organism or a unique organism in and of itself? hrm. not sure on that one.
But genetically speaking, a fertilized zygote has its own genetics, so new organism, that is parasitic.
No one is questioning that. And this is not subjective at all. That is not the question.

Famm_sl said:

Here's another link about month three going into second trimester with actual photos instead of that artist rendering.

http://www.wpclinic.org/parenting/fe...ond-trimester/



Soooo, how do you justify that? I'm assuming you are ok with month three abortions? Is this still just a "mass of cells"? Is early second trimester off limits? Where in the first do the waters start to muddy?

Not being antagonistic or self righteous. I'm staunchly atheist. But how to you rationalize this? This isn't just about some detached philosophical debate, this is what is actually getting terminated. You're cool with that?

Click to expand...

I think that sites wording is questionable. The brain is most certainly not fully formed in the 2nd tri. Especially not at the beginning of it.

Using that sites own citation. Cortex begins at 8 weeks, has a full compliment of neurons by 20 weeks.
Pain receptors on skin, etc start at 7th week, fully formed by 20th.
20-24th week for the brain to actually connect to the nerves.
20-24weeks for brain activity.
by 30 weeks patterns are visible.

I think you will find most all agree, by the 3rd tri, or 24 weeks, that baby is a baby whole and true.
Where EXACTLY in the 2nd tri, 12-24 weeks is certainly up for debate.

I'm personally ok saying lets be safe, and say only really extreme cases for 3rd. aka mother saftey. for second, also extreme. mothers safety, cases of rape, or other, I can't think of.
But first is your body, your choice, no matter what.

Caliane_sl said:

I think that sites wording is questionable. The brain is most certainly not fully formed in the 2nd tri. Especially not at the beginning of it.

Using that sites own citation. Cortex begins at 8 weeks, has a full compliment of neurons by 20 weeks.
Pain receptors on skin, etc start at 7th week, fully formed by 20th.
20-24th week for the brain to actually connect to the nerves.
20-24weeks for brain activity.
by 30 weeks patterns are visible.

I think you will find most all agree, by the 3rd tri, or 24 weeks, that baby is a baby whole and true.
Where EXACTLY in the 2nd tri, 12-24 weeks is certainly up for debate.

I'm personally ok saying lets be safe, and say only really extreme cases for 3rd. aka mother saftey. for second, also extreme. mothers safety, cases of rape, or other, I can't think of.
But first is your body, your choice, no matter what.

Click to expand...

This is accurate for me also and should answer the questions you posed to me, Famm. Cosmic I think your analogy was bad and deabating it is rather pointless when we don't need to use analogies at all. I admit that I guessed the age of your picture wrong but that in itself does not change my position. Nor do I see why it should. (You will note that I agree with Caliane's description in my quote.)

Caliane if you could I would like you to expand on this remark

Having a cerebral cortex is not a qualifier for being alive.

Click to expand...

I am not saying I automatically disagree with the absolute assumption that the cerebral Cortex is not a qualifier for being alive but I would certaintily want to hear what those requirements are and how you came to them. I am assuming that since you are able to make such an outright denial of the cortex that you would have well formed reasoning and definitions on the issue.

Selix_sl said:

This is accurate for me also and should answer the questions you posed to me, Famm. Cosmic I think your analogy was bad and deabating it is rather pointless when we don't need to use analogies at all. I admit that I guessed the age of your picture wrong but that in itself does not change my position. Nor do I see why it should. (You will note that I agree with Caliane's description in my quote.)

Click to expand...

It doesn't really answer, but whatever. I think the line is far less blurry than it tends to get painted in terms of late first and early second trimester terminations. Once again, I'm pro choice fully but on a personal level I'm going with yes you are ending a form of human life in nearly every case. Murder is far too strong of a word though.

Also: LOL!

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/12/2...ption-mandate/

Selix_sl said:

Caliane if you could I would like you to expand on this remark
I am not saying I automatically disagree with the absolute assumption that the cerebral Cortex is not a qualifier for being alive but I would certaintily want to hear what those requirements are and how you came to them. I am assuming that since you are able to make such an outright denial of the cortex that you would have well formed reasoning and definitions on the issue.

Click to expand...

Plants do not have cerebral cortex's yet are alive. Having a brain has absolutely nothing to do with being alive or not. Like, you are not even on the same page here at all.
Cells, bacteria, fungi, etc.


Again, paraphrased, Life is defined as a complex system that:self regulates,grows, adapts, responds to stimuli, metabolizes, is composed of smaller living systems, and/or reproduces.
the exact definition of Life is up for debate. This definition for examples allows macro-organisms, or non organic.
Is the Earth alive? it self regulates as macro-organism. algae, plankton, etc regulate the planets atmosphere and temperature. It adapts as a whole. responds to stimuli. This is what adaptation is. clearly smaller systems interacting to create larger ones. reproduce? if we ever terraform.. the Earth macro-organism would be reproducing, and forming a new colony elsewhere, which would adapt and become its own macro-organism.
now obviously, many people would pitch a fit if you try suggesting the Earth is a single living entity.


cortex development was brought up as a point of reference as to self identity, awareness and thought. Anything prior to that, incapable of awareness. It has nothing to do with life.
Life began 4billion years ago or so. and has been a continuous process ever since. The sperm is alive, the egg is alive, the zygote is alive. And that has nothing to do with anything.
This is where the brain dead issue then was brought up. Points were the body was alive, but the brain was shut down, and not functioning.

Caliane_sl said:

Plants do not have cerebral cortex's yet are alive. Having a brain has absolutely nothing to do with being alive or not. Like, you are not even on the same page here at all.
Cells, bacteria, fungi, etc.


Again, paraphrased, Life is defined as a complex system that:self regulates,grows, adapts, responds to stimuli, metabolizes, is composed of smaller living systems, and/or reproduces.
the exact definition of Life is up for debate. This definition for examples allows macro-organisms, or non organic.
Is the Earth alive? it self regulates as macro-organism. algae, plankton, etc regulate the planets atmosphere and temperature. It adapts as a whole. responds to stimuli. This is what adaptation is. clearly smaller systems interacting to create larger ones. reproduce? if we ever terraform.. the Earth macro-organism would be reproducing, and forming a new colony elsewhere, which would adapt and become its own macro-organism.
now obviously, many people would pitch a fit if you try suggesting the Earth is a single living entity.


cortex development was brought up as a point of reference as to self identity, awareness and thought. Anything prior to that, incapable of awareness. It has nothing to do with life.
Life began 4billion years ago or so. and has been a continuous process ever since. The sperm is alive, the egg is alive, the zygote is alive. And that has nothing to do with anything.
This is where the brain dead issue then was brought up. Points were the body was alive, but the brain was shut down, and not functioning.

Click to expand...

I agree with all of this but when I was using alive I was doing so within the context ofabortionas alive without the context ofabortionis to broad to be useful. I have specified this before but not in every post. Alive within the context ofabortion(counciousness or awareness, etc.) I believe requires at minimum a cerebral cortex which only matters in the human world where morality plays a role.

Even animals practiceabortion.