
Originally Posted by
Endus
The same way we use that same metric to determine the end of life, yes. If a patient is brain dead, they're dead, even if the body's systems are being kept "alive" by machine intervention, and those machines can be turned off without it being considered "killing"; the person that used to be that body is already dead, and the condition of the corpse doesn't change that.
Any argument that a zygote or fetus is a "baby" from conception is fundamentally and irrevocably religious in nature. It has absolutely no secular basis or justification whatsoever. Your personal identification on this point is completely irrelevant, since it either means you're lying to us about it or you don't even understand how completely irrational and baseless your principles on this point actually are.
Not the standard.
Also, irrelevant, because even if we were talking about a live human infant, already born and without question a human being, if the only way it could survive was to be put inside a woman's uterus, that woman would still have categorical right to refuse, even if that infant would die without her allowing it. This isn't debated, anywhere, under any circumstances, except the circumstance of aborting a pregnancy. Because the core issues here have absolutely nothing to do with the fetus or whether it's a human being; anti-abortion positions are irrevocably an attack on women's basic human rights. Nothing more. Fetal personhood is a smokescreen used so you don't have to come right out and say how much you think women are just walking incubators who exist to serve men/society, rather than full people in their own right.
Getting an abortion is owning up to those consequences, and taking action to amend them, which is the opposite of laziness. You're just expressing hatred.