Now that is not what you originally argued at all. First you argued the lack of concent invalidated any right to exist in such a state. I pointed out there was no ability to give consent, and the Embryo is in it's position as part of the natural process of birth. You then shifted this to the zygote "being free to leave the boddy"
The zygote/blastocyst is free to leave the body, and we know this because many do leave it with the first menstruation after their development.
Ahh, so we are back to ignoring the entire context of the discussion to make you bizarre arguments less bizarre: Sorry, again, arguing the hypothetical effects of granting the fetus rights is not, in any way, advocating for those rights.
Secondly, we clearly have an expectation that a fetus will one day be capable of mental choice. So according to your argument above, it should be granted such rights. Obviously I disagree with this, but hopefully it will highlight the need to actually think through your arguments, as opposed to just saying what ever comes to your mind
Either you are capable of mental choice now or you have been capable of it in the past, so that there is existing objective evidence that you may have it again. The idea that one has to respect the potential for future mental choice on the part of anyone or anything that has never demonstrated it is ridiculous to me. The issue is not what it may become, but what it now is or what it has been that provides evidence for what it may be. It is on that basis that I don't even think a zygote even deserves to be considered a future blastocyst, let alone a future born person.
Again, you're trying to attribute rational to a natural biological process
Because you apparently don't understand what equivocation is: Rape is someone forcing you into sexual intercourse. A pregnancy is a natural consequence of the sexual act. You can try to influence the process, but you and no one else actually has control over it
If pregnancy were a natural consequence of the sexual act, every act of heterosexual PIV intercourse would naturally result in pregnancy. The fact that it does not occur in all cases leads thoughtful people to find out what actually causes pregnancy. Pregnancy is when a blastocyst successfully implants into the bodily tissue of a woman. But all women's immune systems naturally attempt to reject pregnancy - there is no known case, in fact, of a female mammal whose immune system T-cells and blood complement do not attempt to reject a blastocyst's implantation.
So if I say that a rapist forces a rape victim to have sexual intercourse, I see no reason why I cannot say that a blastocyst forces a woman to be pregnant. Both use physical force. Some rapists use chemical force to prevent women from fighting back, and all blastocysts use chemical force to make placentas use chemically force to prevent women's immune systems from fighting back. It still makes perfect sense to me to compare the two. The only thing that renders the implanting blastocyst innocent is the same only thing that renders the man engaged in PIV sexual intercourse innocent - the woman's consent.
Yes, if you totally ignore that parasites are what engage in parasitic behavior in biology .... So yes, your attempt to confuse terms on very loose similarities is the entire basis behind equivocation
You do not understand that all sorts of scientists have talked about this issue of parasitic behavior by individuals of species that are not considered parasites as a species.
A general perspective on parasitism by a leading authority:
Parasitism (An Introduction to Parasitology) – Klaus Rohde
An example of intraspecific biological parasitism: Pietsch, T. W. 2005. Dimorphism, parasitism, and sex revisited: Modes of reproduction among deep-sea ceratioid anglerfishes (Teleostei: Lophiiformes). Ichthyological Research, 52(3): 207-236. (1.7 mb .pdf file)
A medical definition of parasitic fetus, a specialized term referring to a particular case of intraspecific biological parasitism that is thought by one theoretical school to be a function of asymmetric conjoined twin relationship:
http://www.medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/parasitic+fetus parasitic fetus "in asymmetrical conjoined twins, an incomplete minor fetus attached to a larger, more completely developed twin."
References to the fetus-as-parasite model widespread in the late 19th and 20th centuries, in relation to nutrition:
1)
Nurture Before Birth » American Scientist "in the first half of the 20th century many American obstetricians believed that the fetus was a 'perfect parasite,' extracting whatever nutrients it needed regardless of maternal diet . . ." [note: this model had to change to one of an 'imperfect parasite']
2) D J Naismith, The foetus as a parasite, in Nutrition of the foetus and the newly born (paper given at a conference and later included in the conference publication),
http://www.journals.cambridge.org/d...85a.pdf&code=e452c78fd1110bb3ff41ae708a1ef5e1
Examples of writings in biology which refer to the fetus and/or placenta controlled by the fetus as parasitic:
Implantation and Development of the Placenta "Throughout gestation, the mammalian embryo is a parasite"
http://www.rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/204/1154/83.abstract Faulk, WP, and Galbraith, GMP, Trophoblast Transferrin and the Transferrin Receptors in the Host-Parasite Relationship of Human Pregnancy, In Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 26, Mar 1979: 204, 1154: 83-97.
Lowry, PJ, The Placenta is Simply a Neuroendocrine Parasite, In Journal of Neuroendocrinology, Volume 20, issue 6 (June 2008), p. 700-704. ISSN: 0953-8194 DOI: 10.1111/jne.2008.20.issue-6