Uh-oh

[Dark Jaguar]

Oh come now, saying "everything is arbitrary"is just standard teen angst comments about the world...man! You didn't even give a reason behind WHY things before taking their first breath aren't alive, but after they are. You just said your argument again. Stating your point of view again is not actually debating. This time, you must explain WHY you think something isn't alive until it's taken it's first breath. Explain that. Also, make sure to explain to me why it is alive after it's taken it's first breath.

Here's what you COULD have said. You COULD have said "It's all a matter of dependancy." You could have said what others have said before. Here's the argument some people at this phase have used:

"Well, it's because it's totally dependant on the main host to live. It's like a parasite really. Would you like someone telling you you couldn't kill a bot fly in your arm? It's the same thing really. When it's born it no longer depends on being linked to the human host to live."

Now then, I'll act as if you did use that argument and counter it. First off, the main problem in this argument is that they claim the infant stage of development is dependance free of the "host", as opposed to the fetal stage. One should be fully aware that just because it's left the womb doesn't mean it's no longer dependant on the host for, um, pretty much EVERYTHING. In every important way the infant stage is still very much comparable to a parasite, in the same ways it was compaired to a parasite in the womb. Thus, it again falls to the arbitrary "well, it's directly connected" or "it isn't breathing yet" to determine when life begins.

Here's my main request. Provide for me a reason why you think it's wrong to kill a born baby, as opposed to an unborn fetus. What's so wrong with killing it after it's born?