Abortion

[Raven]

Originally Posted by The_voice_of_reason

A fetus wouldn't qualify as being alive under these criteria. It doesn't have an indipendent metabolism, it depends on the mother to produce energy. Sure it could, given the right conditions, develop into a being with a metabolism, but so could cells taken from my skin.

I'm sorry to say this in such a manner that is appears rude and is improperly blunt. But it is the only manner I can think of how to say it. You are wrong. The fetus gains the nutriants from the mother, this is true. But the criteria of metabolism doesn't dictate how a living being gains the nutriants. Merely in whether they utilize them in a method of metabolism. Living cells do such a thing. As they utilize cellular respiration to use the nutriants. And cellular respiration is nothing more than metabolism.

Originally Posted by AChimp

How do you justify talking about fetuses in one post and changing it to babies in another?

You're grasping at straws now that you've already proved me right by your own words, and are trying to squirm out of your position on technicalities.

Now under the burden of proof method, which I am forced to enact as this has become redundant, I am going to have to ask you, to prove that I proved you right. Now with that said the analogy was only flawed in that it is comparing a being that requires and utilizes the mother's blood to survive. Verses a being that has a closed circulatory system. And even this isn't a major flaw, as it was examining the dependance of independant beings not the body structure. Fact: The embryo is performing cellular actions independant of the mother. Thus the embryo is independant. Fact: The embryo must receive certain basic needs from the mother. Thus the embryo is reliant. As such the embryo is an independant being separate from the mother, but still reliant on the mother.