A fetus IS living based on the definition of the word 'living' and the words within

For convenience' sake, let's restate the definition of 'life.'According to Dictionary.com, life is defined as: the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally. [1] According to this definition, to be 'alive,' an organism (object) must display these three characteristics: Growth through metabolism Reproduction Endogenous adaptation Now that we have a simplified definition, free of 'complicated' words like 'manifested' so as to eliminate the need to take up space defining them, we can follow a basic process of determining whether or not a fetus is to be considered alive.Growth Through MetabolismRather than defining metabolism, which the Pro has already kindly done for us, I shall explain it a little more in depth. Metabolism is a process by which an organism intakes a substance, obtains energy from it, and the excretes the chemical product. It is also used to intake chemical 'building blocks' out of which to acrete mass, the process of growth. Now, does a fetus match this characteristic? Does a fetus metabolize through growth? I would concludepossibly. I say only possibly because it lives off of a constant supply of nutrients from a 'host,' its mother. Deprive it of this connection to the mother and it instantly ceases metabolism; a non-stable system.ReproductionThe definition in use does not specify the parameters of 'reproduction,' but following the in-definition link to the definition of reproduction reveals only reproduction as a conduit for creating new offspring, not the multiplication of cells. As the Pro has stated, obviously a fetus cannot sexually reproduce. But does merely having DNA qualify it to pass this requirement? Stating that one day it will be able to reproduce is a straw man, a seemingly good argument that does not have as much relevance as it superficially appears to. By the argument that because it will one day reach sexual maturity, it is capable of reproduction, an acorn is capable of producing acorns because in 100 years or so, it can have grown into an oak tree, or an egg can lay eggs because one day it may grow into a chicken. The question of current status as alive is not dependent upon conditions in the future. I'll return to cell reproduction; it is not at question as to whether or not a fetus' cells are alive. If they constitute a nascent organism (which is what a fetus is), they obviously are living. However, a dead object can still possess living cells. Were I to shoot myself in the head right now, even though I would most likely be dead, essentially all cells in my body (and some outside) would still be living. That wouldn't make me alive. From this, I conclude that, at very best, a fetus might someday fulfill the requirement of reproduction, but as it currently is, cannot keep itself alive without connection to another organism, let alone furnish another life.Endogenous (self-generated) AdaptationThis seems to me to be the most obvious of the three; a fetus is totally dependent upon its parent, dependent in a biological sense, not just a state of defenselessness, as in an infant or elderly person; a fetus cannot adapt to anything, as a fetus, and must rely upon adaptations from the mother. Claiming that a fetus adapts because when it is born, it must adapt is self-defeating, because the point at which it starts breathing for itself and displaying other examples of autonomy is the point at which it is no longer connected to its parent, no longer considered a fetus. Adaptations it makes, as a fetus, are not self-generated. The fetus' body does not detect environmental changes and adapt to them. As I've said, this task is carried out by the mother. The conclusion, since a fetus must rely on its mother to react to its environment, is that it does not fulfill the qualification of adaptation through self-generated processes.The Question of AutonomyThe way I see it, all of the issues of the definition of life and its conformity by a fetus are largely dependent upon the issue of autonomy. Debatably, all three issues are nullified by one thing: a fetus is not an autonomous organism. It is a 'budding off' of its mother, an object attached to her and growing off of her. Because a fetus does nothing for itself, it cannot possibly meet the characteristics of an autonomous life form. Because it has no ability to function individually, it fails to fulfill the requirements of life as stated by the definition. [2]The Grey AreaNow, you, the reader, have undoubtedly noticed that both Pro's points and my own are largely based on predisposed interpretation of conflicting and 'iffy' information. That is because it really is a very difficult conclusion to make, it being so subject to interpretation of this ambiguity. This is the very reason it is still an issue. I do not believe we shall reach a clearly-defined consensus on the matter. I naturally think my position the stronger, just as Pro likely thinks his the stronger. The point of the debate is not, therefore, to declare in our argument which one of us has won, and which one of us is to be voted for, but to determine that through debate. I do not urge the voters to vote for me. I urge them to read the debate, and decide for themselves to whom to award their votes.Sources http://dictionary.reference.com...... Life: The Science of Biology, Fifth Edition