5th October 2005, 8:37 PM
A Black Falcon Wrote:That is just not true. A fetus needs more than a child. A child needs just to be fed... I know there is more to it than that, but that's the core of it... while a fetus requires much more elaborate means to keep it alive outside the mother (and this does not always work, especially before a few months before the due date).
The amount of required care is completely irrelevant. A child still requires care from parents to survive, and does so for years. It is not an independent organism, cannot be independent, for it will die left on its own. Humans birth at an earlier stage of development than most animals. What makes a newborn infant human when it wasn't three days earlier inside the womb? What has changed? The ONLY reason it leaves the womb is because size does not permit it. That's it. A three-month old infant is nothing at all more than a fetus that is too large to fit in a womb. You're wording the whole thing incorrectly. An infant doesn't 'finally gain the ability to exist outside the womb'. It loses the ability to exist INSIDE the womb. We know this to be a fact since most animals are not bound by this roadblock and stay within the womb for a more complete period of physical development, and human babies would too if human wombs were large enough to enable it. So then why do we consider this completely helpless lifeform a human and independent organism now, but not when inside the womb?
It's just semantic bullshit used to justify murder in the name of "right to choose".
YOU CANNOT HIDE FOREVER
WE STAND AT THE DOOR
WE STAND AT THE DOOR