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

I always find that if a definition can be simplified, that is preferable to using a longer, more unwieldy definition.Growth Through MetabolismYou may be getting too caught up in only your side of the debate. Now, just because you are at the position of requirement to prove that a fetus is, by the definition above, living, does not mean I must prove an absolute. All I have to do is prove that a fetus is not absolutely required to be living according to the definition. If I wanted to settle for 'possibly,' I would be completely entitled to shoot only for 'possibly.' Now, I will give you that the cells of the fetus do metabolize the nutrients that are pumped into it from its mother, but it does not obtain those nutrients autonomously. Autonomy may not be included in the definition, but I think, in more time, we could agree that it's implied. As I have said, the metabolism of nutrients by a fetus is not self-generated, it is totally dependent. The mother is the one ingesting and digesting the nutrients, then pumping them into the fetus. This is distinctly different from our own dependence on nutrients. We are capable of obtaining our own, ingesting our own, digesting our own, and then metabolizing them. A fetus obviously does only one of these, and the nutrients are already broken down for it at that point.Reproduction"The fetus is not yet sexually mature enough to reproduce...growth and coming of sexual maturity shows adeptness as well." [1]You seem to have dismissed/ignored completely my address of this. Repeating your previous, refuted argument does not do you any good. As I have said, determining the fetus is alive because it may at one point in its lifespan reach sexual maturity is a straw man. I don't think it's necessary for me to quote the analogy you ignored. I am not saying that if something does not reproduce, it is not living. I am saying that if it is not currently able to independently reach a point at which it can reproduce, whether sexually or asexually, if at the current point of examination it cannot, then it does not fulfill one of the qualifications of the definition, ergo it does not fulfill the definition.Endogenous AdaptationPerhaps the Pro should reread the definition of 'living' that he gave at the beginning of the debate. I will quote only the excerpt relevant to this segment:...and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally. [2]This illustrates that endogenous changes, changes originating internally, are explicitly the ones at issue. That a fetus can be made to adapt by its mother does not meet this qualification, as, according to the definition that the Pro has chosen, in order to meet the qualification of the definition, a fetus must adapt endogenously. The definition does give a specific character of this adaptation.I reject your 'cool video,' as your objective is to prove on your own merit that a fetus is living according to the definition you gave. Your objective is not to allow an external source to do your arguing for you.ConclusionI conclude that since the Pro has not been able to defend his case after an initial refutation, and because my argument has not been refuted, I have successfully established that according to the definition, a fetus is not alive, as it does not satisfactorily fulfill the three characteristics laid out by the definition. Pro has been unsuccessful in proving with certainty any of the three points, and at best has raised the question that it is possible that a fetus could satisfy one of them, that it grows through the metabolism of nutrients.Thank you, THE_OPINIONATOR, for this debate. I am slightly disappointed by the outcome, but nonetheless enjoyed it. If you wish to continue it, or initiate a rematch, I am amenable. That much said, I bid farewell to my opponent and to the readers, and I thank you for your consideration. Have a nice day.Sources Pro, Round 3 http://dictionary.reference.com...