http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/huston/060803 What do you think? I would agree that from a biological point of view that a human foetus (important) is simply a parasite and basically a collection of cells. The author of the article and opponent to this view makes a very emotive argument but it is fundamentally (because he is a fundamentalist?) flawed. The original article (by Krouse) relates only to the foetus. The opponent almost always talks about a born child/baby. Most likely it is intentional as people who don't pay attention might make the mistake of getting caught up in his emotive language while missing the point that he himself has "missed the point" and is not comparing apples to apples or foetuses to foetuses. This is the essence of the Krouse ('Foetus = Parasite') argument: "Life begins when the baby is passed through the birth canal and exits the womb. At this point, the baby is no longer physically connected to the mother and no longer freeloading its nutrients and oxygen from mommy." And then the reply from his fervent opponent: If "freeloading" is to be a criterion to exclude the status of "life" then perhaps we might "abort" everyone on welfare and anyone who is not wholly subsisting by his own efforts? Perhaps the aged and infirm should be eliminated in an "abortion." Last time I checked, the definition of parasite was not "being on welfare". A parasite is a biological phenomenon and not an economic or social entity and to make it such would be to take it out of context. Just curious as to what other members think.