Possibly the worst pro-choice column I've ever read

That's saying a lot but the column is here. It's by a sophomore at Michigan State University by the name of Shane Krouse. I have trouble believing that Krouse actually believes some of things he says. For example:

During the first trimester of the pregnancy, the fetus is merely a wad of cells.....

The point I am trying to make here is that a fetus is not a living human, and therefore, an abortion is not responsible for annihilating a human's life.....

Are pets not considered the property of a human? Humans provide pets with food, water and a habitat, just as a mother provides a fetus a habitat inside of the womb, along with food and oxygen....

And because mom houses the fetus — that not only required her X sex chromosome, but also gained half its chromosome pairs from her ovum — the fetus should be considered property of its mother.....

If anything, a fetus is merely a parasitical creature that uses the mother as its host......

Comparatively, a fetus is little more than a tapeworm. It is quite common for humans to annihilate parasites with medications or toxins, so why not allow for fetuses to suffer the same fate?....

Life begins when the baby is passed through the birth canal and exits the womb. At this point, the baby is no longer physically connected to the mother and no longer freeloading its nutrients and oxygen from mommy.

I always find it amazing when someone who is pro-choice asserts that the unborn aren't alive and then compare them to parasites which they recognize as being alive. Does Krouse actually believe the entity kicking the inside of a woman's womb at 5 months isn't alive? Does he actually believe a fetus at 6 months is "little more than a tapeworm?" Will Krouse feel the same way if and when he sees an ultrasound of his own child or feels his own child kick his hand from inside the womb? Will he see his infant child as a "pet" because he provides that child with "food, water and a habitat?"

Also note the use of the word "mom." If the unborn aren't alive then how can the women housing them be "moms?" Can one be the mother of something which isn't yet alive?

Besides showing complete ignorance regarding fetal development and what embryology says about when life begins (you can also check the side bar), Krouse also shows that he has no idea what the U.S. Supreme Court did in Roe v. Wade. He says, "Roe v. Wade concluded that human life does not begin until life can be sustained outside of the womb." Too bad the author of Roe v. Wade, Harry Blackmun, said in his decision that "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins."