I believe science has decided that the ability to maintain homeostasis is a requirement of life. A fetus has no shot in hell in surviving outside of the womb because it is physically incapable of maintaining homeostasis. As such, it fails to meet the requirements to be considered life. If you're curious, I don't believe brain dead people should be considered alive since they can't respond to stimuli, and they won't ever respond to stimuli.

"Oh, but the fetus has potential to be alive if it just stays in the womb long enough." Fair enough, it's a true that it will eventually become a living thing. But under that logic, ejaculation is a crime because sperm has the potential to become a human as well. A woman's period is a crime because it's the ejection of dead eggs. "Oh, but by themselves they won't become human, so the potential is different." Ignoring that spontaneous conception is entirely plausible, if improbable, a fetus won't become a human by itself either, it needs a host until it reaches viability, which takes at least 23-24 weeks to have a 30% chance at surviving. The vast majority of abortions take place well before this point, and the ones that occur after are usually done because of instances of rape or incest, or because the mother's life is at risk if they carry it through to term.

Furthermore, consider this thought experiment. Let's say you are a space explorer. You come across an alien civilization with vastly superior technology. They're curious about your race, so they give you a proposal: give up your life, and they will make a million humans out of your dna to live in their society. Are you in the right to deny the request? Now let's say you don't need to give up your life, instead you need to go through 9 months of discomfort, ending in bowel-shattering agony. Are you in the right to deny this request? I would argue, in both cases, you should be entitled to decide what happens in your life, regardless of the potential extra lives you may create by doing something against your will. The rights of an actual person outweigh the rights of an infinite number of potential people, solely because potential lives have no consciousness to afford value to them.

parasite
ˈparəsʌɪt/Submit
noun
1.
an organism which lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense.

https://www.google.co.nz/webhp?sourc...ine%20parasite

Just putting this out there.

Before some of you claim about the different types of parasitic relationships;

Commensalism

Commensalism is a type of relationship where one of the organisms benefits greatly from the symbiosis. The other is not helped but is not harmed or damaged from the relationship. In other words, this is a one-sided symbiotic relationship.

Parasitism 

In parasitism, one organism benefits from the relationship but at the expense of the other. The organism may live inside the other’s body or on its surface. In some of these parasitic relationships the host dies and in others, it is important that the host remain alive.

This is the category that the baby falls into while it's in the womb.

Mutualism 

Mutualism is a close relationship where both parties benefit. Both species will benefit from the relationship and many of these relationships are long-lasting.

http://examples.yourdictionary.com/e...symbiosis.html

So if we fall onto the TYPE of parasite relationship. Woud you take away someones right to DEFEND themselves from a parasite? Are you going to claim that they can't get rid of that tapeworm?

Abortion un ethical...
If the parent is unable to take care of the child, why can they leave it at an orphanage where they will be able to take care of it. While the foetus is in the womb the bond between it and the mother is greater than any emotion, as they exchange pheromones. When you abort the baby even though the mother chooses too aswell, it's almost like a part of her has gone, happiness. I am gonna say NO, abortion SHOULD be illegal.


Such stupid, much thread.

Oracle I'm challenging your point of view not because I disagree with your stance, because we both believe a fetus isn't life, but because I think your initial definition of life is in my opinion not strong and can be deconstructed quickly.

You said "if it can't live outside the womb without medical assistance, it isn't life". You went on to think "Okay well if a human is in a vegetative state, that's not really life either" in a way to support that definition. But what about someone who simply cannot breath on their own for the moment, so they are put on a ventilator? They can't survive outside the womb without medical assistance, but they're obviously functioning human beings with complex thoughts, feelings, etc. Let's go even more absurd- what about someone who has been shot. If they don't have surgery to stop the bleeding and remove the bullet, they die. Certainly that person isn't at that point able to maintain homeostasis, he or she will die without medical assistance, he or she is outside the womb, but they also could be walking, talking, thinking, feeling pain, etc. Unless you're arguing that someone who's been shot isn't living they just have the potential for life once the patient nurses off the doctor's work like a baby fetus acts off the womb.


My point is I think we need to do better on our definition than what's been previously stated by you. Hopefully I didn't misrepresent your post though.

You can't seriously believe that bullshit. A parasite is a foreign body. An embryo is a product of your own.

You don't need to define, re-define or seek additional meaning to reproduction and it's stages. That's a kid in that womb. Everyone knows how it got there. Killing it is convenient for some, but that doesn't make it right. Also, most complex organisms involve some stage where the offspring is vulnerable. Mammals developed this method to avoid the dangers that come with eggs in the open.

Not all conceptions are immaculate mate...


You don't need to define, re-define or seek additional meaning to reproduction and it's stages. That's an embryo in that womb. Everyone knows how it got there. Aborting it is convenient for some, but that doesn't make it wrong.

If you want to complain that someone else is unfairly reframing the situation, don't immediately do the same in the next sentence.

As has been argued before in this thread, an abortion is usually done before the fetus can think or feel, and the pheromone argument doesn't really have a leg to stand on, obviously a mother requesting an abortion isn't happy with having a child.

I found a couple of pie charts I found interesting

Too lazy to rethink my argument. I'll just c/p what I said on the Skype Alliance Chat.

Logically, I'd say abortion is fine. If we were to go with the human construct of human rights, who are you to take away the freedom of choice of a human being. She doesnt want to take care of her baby, let alone be burdened with months of pain, let her. How would you feel if you wanted go out on a Friday night instead of study for some huge test tomorrow but was told you can't under any circumstances, "This is something beautiful if you let it be, you just have to put in effort and time into it". I say that because, while yes it may be a huge choice for you, you should have full responsibility and right to do so. Noone can take that away from you. Same goes for murder. Honestly, the only thing that dictates that murder is bad is mankind. They're just constructs of our own human brain. We live in a dual world. A world of objective truths, a tree falls when you cut it yada yada, and a human constructed world, money has value, numbers have meaning, letters mean something, we have rights, that kind of shit. But when you get to the core of it, there really is nothing bad or good. It's just your interpretation of it. We all have varrying standards of morality. While yes, I think murder and abortion is disgusting to a degree, I dont think I have the human constructed right to deny a person to choose to kill someone or abort a baby or whatever. If you won't prevent person from killing a mosquito, I dont see why you should prevent a person from killing another person. "Person" loose term but I use it as human being just for the sake of argument.

You think that sperm is part of the womans reproductive system? Plus the baby is a totally new organsism. It stops being a product of your own body once it passes the embryo stage.
AND I was taught that a parasite doesn't absolutely have to be foreign to the body for it to be considred a parasite. (Mainly because anything can be a parasite on the condition it has a part in a parasitic relationship)

I don't see me saying that anywhere.


That line of thought doesn't work with the structure I used.
Oh wait, you are ImmortalPig. Moving on and not looking back.


It is a new organism, but parasites are foreign. The term does not apply to a product of your own body. (You could google it or something)
If you want my own opinion on why it isn't a parasite: Since it's a continuation of your own gene pool, which all life strives for, it's wrong to call it a parasite which generally means something negative. If you are looking for a beneficial term, that would be a mutual symbyotic relation, which is true when we look at pregnancies (not in the immediate sense, but your genes live on after you are dead, which is good for you from a biological standpoint).

Don't know where they teach that. What could possibly be a parasite originating from your own body?


Let's say you accidentally get your gf pregnant (for most of you, use your imagination). If your twitch reaction is to abort that baby, you need to re-think having sex in the first place. It's a real possibility you have to think about before, not after the mistake was made.