But, if you remove a fertilized egg from that "natural habitat," will it, generally speaking, survive?

And, if it won't survive, why can't a woman be called a fertilized egg's "life support system?"

For the same reason that we call the heart the heart and not the "central blood pump". The heart is the natural pump for blood and the womans body is where new humans gestate. It's a bit more involved than "life support system".

It certainly is. I'd like to see someone try to argue the "bundle of cells" position though because that stock answer really pisses me off. It's the same dehumanisation that the Nazi's used on the Jews, 'They're not human so what does it matter?' Using the 'cells, embryo, tissue, ZIF' way of describing a baby is done to take the focus away from the fact that what we are talking about here is human beings.

Well, in that case, I could just as well call a woman an "advanced life-support system" with regards to the unborn.

How's that sound?

But, then again, arguing about the meanings of words in our language is a waste of time...in my opinion.

Anyway, talk with ya later...

Or we could just call human beings "carbon based water sacs". But as I said before, it's a bit more involved.

The thing is, however, I apply the term "human being" to human germ cells too because they also fit my definition of "human being."

But, in my opinion, these are just words.

And, I'm much more interested in the nature of living things that exist in the Homo sapiens lineage than what some word-or combination of words-happen to mean in our language.

But, let me ask you, why would you call a fertilized egg a "baby"...if doing so wasn't for some desired effect on an audience?

I am quite happy to not use the word 'baby'. Foetus is just as good. But denying it's humanity is another matter.

Looks like a baby human being to me.

knot e lady,

Wait, you just said you agreed with letting nature run it's course. Now you are saying that's killing?

WTF?!?!?

There is a difference between giving someone medical treatment to save their life (e.g. heart surgery, dialysis, transfusions, etc.) and artificially prolonging a person's life beyond his own body's capacity to live.

If one were to deliberately refuse medical treatment to a victim of a car accident - that would, in my opinion, essentially be murder. However, attaching a heart pump and artifical lung to a 110 yr old person who just suffered a heart attack, whose other bodily functions have shut down and is brain dead is immoral. In this case you let nature take its course - it is a natural death.

And, why shouldn't a woman be considered as a fertilized egg's life support system?

The mother is definitely the child's natural life support system. This is differentiated from the artificial life support systems that can be used to prolong life beyond its natural span.