Well, you've read my position. My difference with you is, in my eyes, minor and semantic. I do consider a foetus to be "actually alive"- after all, we consider sea sponges and bacteria to be alive- but agree that foetal rights should not trump maternal rights, for the reasons that you outline.
I've had cause recently to think about the way that I use words, and the ways in which other people's uses differ from mine. It is important to me to be consistent, and declaring foetuses to be non-alive would require me, to my way of thinking, to also consider plants and bacteria to be non-alive, which does not make sense to me.
On the other hand, it seeems that some people reject the idea of foetal life not so much out of a desire for logical consistency, but out of a desire for expressive symbolic clarity- the degree to which they feel the foetus is undeserving of consideration rivalling its mothers'. I maintain that I can agree with the principle without sharing all the terminology.
no subject
I've had cause recently to think about the way that I use words, and the ways in which other people's uses differ from mine. It is important to me to be consistent, and declaring foetuses to be non-alive would require me, to my way of thinking, to also consider plants and bacteria to be non-alive, which does not make sense to me.
On the other hand, it seeems that some people reject the idea of foetal life not so much out of a desire for logical consistency, but out of a desire for expressive symbolic clarity- the degree to which they feel the foetus is undeserving of consideration rivalling its mothers'. I maintain that I can agree with the principle without sharing all the terminology.