That is conflating life (the ability is eat, shit, reproduce, and the potential to late become sentient) with actual sentient life, which is not correct.
Also, no one is planning to ban antibiotics because bacteria is considered life so we can't do anything to save the host by killing it.
“Can the fetus survive without the host body?”
That’s a medical question that will slowly move toward not aborting ever. And it solves the medical issues as well. “This fetus is killing the host” always allows for removal, because we can either keep them alive, or it can’t survive.
Then the folks who want more babies to reach term can focus on improving medical technology instead of getting involved with the mess that is people’s love lives.
It's a question of ignorance and nothing else.
A zygote is not a life, period.
Do you also think neurons, muscle cells, etc are also not alive?
The abortion debate is not about whether or not the thing that gets removed during abortion is life--I doubt you can find any competent biologist who would say it is not--but rather whether that particular cell or group of cells should be treated different than other cells or groups of cells in your body.
E.g., why should abortion be any different from removing tonsils or from circumcision, both of which also involve the removal and death of living cells from the body?
There is a difference between something being 'alive' (although I think the examples you give are dubious), and being a 'life'.
That does not mean that it is necessary a tool for genocide; conversely almost anything can be a tool for genocide depending on how it is used.
My comment was about people misusing the terms life and alive. The correct way to argue that abortion should be legal is not to redefine life and/or alive so that some living cells or collections of living cells do not qualify rather than trying to redefine common terms used by biologists.
The correct way is to argue that we only only protect some cells or collections of cells and not others and then to argue that fetal cells belong in the not protected group. The question then comes down to deciding what it is that makes some groups of living cells protected but not others. Probably the best argument would be something along the lines that before that collection of cells has grown and developed to the point that it has a brain that can think and feel it is not really different from a tumor or other collection of cells that we don't protect.
Most conservatives are willing to compromise on early abortion. Many places around the world agree that abortions in the first trimester should be possible under some circumstances.
We are not willing to agree to abortion free for all where you can just kill a fully formed baby at nine months like you can in Walz's Minnesota.
See? Ignorant, and I say that not as an insult but as an absolute statement of fact.
No woman 9 months pregnant can just go get an abortion at 9 months. The only reason that is allowed is for cases where it is medically necessary, that's it. Even in those cases, the doctor would do everything possible to save both lives wherever possible.
This is the inverse of laws like in Texas where women are dying due to not being able to abort a baby that isn't even viable at 5 months or so. Take some time to read up on these things, PLEASE.
We really have people voting because they think women can just voluntarily terminate a pregnancy a few days before they are due to give birth? What in the hell has happened to the average ability to think critically in this country?
Not voluntarily, only due to medical necessity. As I said.
> It seems to me you like to substitute what you want to be true for reality. That's the opposite of critical thinking.
The irony here.
Not trying to continue a political flamewar as per dang, but correcting blatant misinformation like the above should be everyone's social responsibility.
You probably meant "human life".
> You probably meant "human life".
No, I said and meant and exactly what I meant to say.
Interesting. What makes a bacteria "a life" and zygote not "a life"?
Because the bacteria on Mars would plausibly exist on it's own. On a different planet.
A newborn by literal definition can exist on its own. It has been born.
A newborn can breath, metabolize foods, and does not depend on being connected to another life giving organism.
The more appropriate work you're looking for is "care". You need to care for a newborn for it to survive.
You can provide care specifically for a newborn. You cannot specifically provide care for a fetus, you are providing care for the mother.
I know all of this is falling on deaf ears though.
Does any reasonable person believe that zygote at that stage is truly equivalent to a human life?
Next up no one should be masturbating because each sperm is potentially the next Mozart or Einstein.
Compromises must be made!
Also, why is bacteria life on mars but a clump of cells is not life on earth? ;p
There's no winning this. That's why it's actually smart to let the states decide this - that way Trump has no say in it.