It NEVER has the criteria of parasite.
Bullshit. You don't know what the definition of a "parasite" is if you think that.
The womb is designed for babies to be developed, especially when the instigation of that process starts with an act, in which the woman VOLUNTARILY ENGAGES, 95% of the time.
Whether the womb is "designed" (it's not, but let's not quibble over this now) for gestation is irrelevant to the question "is the fetus a parasite?" As for your "statistics" (again, I use the term loosely since you pulled that number out of your ass) it doesn't matter if the "process" started with the woman voluntarily engaged in some behavior 100% of the time. That is
irrelevant to the definition of a parasite.
one could say its still a parasite after it leaves the womans body as its still requires someone to feed it...
Not really - at that point it doesn't live
in or
on the Mother's body, and so doesn't really meet the strict definition of a parasite. Don't split apart the definition and pick and choose what you want to keep to make your argument.
If not then at what point in gestation does the fetus have the ability to survive outside of the womb if given proper care?
That is, certainly, an interesting question, arguments about the fetus being a parasite notwithstanding. Certainly when in utero the fetus qualifies as a parasite. But it doesn't follow it ought to be treated as such automatically, especially in the later stages of pregnancy.
My general feeling is that the fetus (barring some illness, or other medical issue) is "viable" as soon as it able to maintain
homeostasis if it is provided the support that a newborn would typically be provided. Of course, in a sense that's really a criterion that's difficult, if not impossible, to judge and apply. That's why we need "bright lines" to delineate "fetus" from "baby". In a sense, the ultimate bright line is "birth" but advances in medical technology have made that line not all that useful for me.
With no special training in obstetrics, my personal take is that anything prior to four months is not viable since critical organs are not yet fully developed or able to operate at sufficient levels. I believe that the youngest premature babies to ever survive were born at about 21 weeks and still required extensive and extraordinary life-support measures; it is my understanding that anything less than 24 weeks is almost insufficient gestational time.
So I don't know that there is a hard cutoff - another bright line - that we could use, and the best we can probably hope for at this time is the "statistical" approach we currently have involving gestation time.
