3 questions for the "pro-choice"

[nVJoe]

1. If you claim that a woman has a right to do with her body what ever she wants, how can a baby in her womb be a part of her if it has completely independent DNA?

2. If the unborn is just a fetus or a mass of tissue, at what point does that fetus become a baby? And since we do not know exactly when life begins, don't you think we should give the baby the benefit of the doubt? After all you would not bury a person whom you didn't know if they were alive or dead, would you?

3. If a fetus isn't a person until it is out of the womb and can live on its own then what is it? Is a person on life support a person since it cannot live on its own?

[methimpikehoses]

Good questions.

[Namrok]

Originally Posted by nVJoe

1. If you claim that a woman has a right to do with her body what ever she wants, how can a baby in her womb be a part of her if it has completely independent DNA?

I really don't see DNA as being important, or at least not the end all be all. If it were just about DNA would that give identical twins rights over one anothers body? What about chimeras? Not the mythical beast, but people who were actually twins in the womb, but then one fetus engulfed the other, resulting in a single person with two sets of DNA.

2. If the unborn is just a fetus or a mass of tissue, at what point does that fetus become a baby? And since we do not know exactly when life begins, don't you think we should give the baby the benefit of the doubt? After all you would not bury a person whom you didn't know if they were alive or dead, would you?

Here is the thing. You have a timeline. Day 0 is when the sperm & egg meet. I simply cannot fathom a way in which at this point in time, the zygote could be considered a human being, so far as rights go. I simply cannot. Unless you want to drag the soul into this, you can't either. Period. End of discussion. Clearly, at 9 months, it is a person. And as a former coworker used to say, "It's a process, not an event." Who can say when the clump of cells becomes a "person"? But being unable to say when it is a person, is not the same as being unable to say when it isn't a person. Personally, I lean towards banning all but first trimester abortions, because from what I've read, that is where the majority of the grey area is, and like you said, err on the side of caution. However, in the first trimester, where over 90% of abortions take place, it really is just a lump of cells, with no nervous system, organs, etc. And like I said, unless you drag the soul into this, you haven't got a leg to stand on. And I don't believe in the soul, so we'll have to agree to disagree on that.

3. If a fetus isn't a person until it is out of the womb and can live on its own then what is it? Is a person on life support a person since it cannot live on its own?

I don't buy into the premise, so I see no point in answering the question.

[nVJoe]

Originally Posted by Namrok

I really don't see DNA as being important, or at least not the end all be all. If it were just about DNA would that give identical twins rights over one anothers body? What about chimeras? Not the mythical beast, but people who were actually twins in the womb, but then one fetus engulfed the other, resulting in a single person with two sets of DNA.

You missed the point of the question. Since the DNA is separate, that by default makes the baby NOT part of the woman's body.

Humans are not chimeras.

Here is the thing. You have a timeline. Day 0 is when the sperm & egg meet. I simply cannot fathom a way in which at this point in time, the zygote could be considered a human being, so far as rights go. I simply cannot. Unless you want to drag the soul into this, you can't either. Period. End of discussion. Clearly, at 9 months, it is a person. And as a former coworker used to say, "It's a process, not an event." Who can say when the clump of cells becomes a "person"? But being unable to say when it is a person, is not the same as being unable to say when it isn't a person. Personally, I lean towards banning all but first trimester abortions, because from what I've read, that is where the majority of the grey area is, and like you said, err on the side of caution. However, in the first trimester, where over 90% of abortions take place, it really is just a lump of cells, with no nervous system, organs, etc. And like I said, unless you drag the soul into this, you haven't got a leg to stand on. And I don't believe in the soul, so we'll have to agree to disagree on that.

In other words, you are not sure. Thank you for helping me make my point.

It isn't a matter of agreeing to disagree. It is a matter that you are willing to kill the baby based on your not knowing. That cheapens life in a major way.

I don't buy into the premise, so I see no point in answering the question.

What do you mean you don't buy into the premise? It is easy. At what point does the baby in the womb become a human and worthy of life? Since most in the pro-choice position will say that the baby cannot live on its own, then by that logic a person on life support is not a human, because it cannot live on its own. You can expand this to other people with problems that prevent them from living on their own. They have to not be humans also.

[J-Mag]

Originally Posted by nVJoe

1. If you claim that a woman has a right to do with her body what ever she wants, how can a baby in her womb be a part of her if it has completely independent DNA?

Mitochondria are in every single cell of our body and they have their own DNA. Does that mean mitochondria aren't part of our bodies?

Originally Posted by nVJoe

If a fetus isn't a person until it is out of the womb and can live on its own then what is it? Is a person on life support a person since it cannot live on its own?

How is the word that defines something relevant to the morality or practicality of it?

[Ancient]

Originally Posted by nVJoe

1. If you claim that a woman has a right to do with her body what ever she wants, how can a baby in her womb be a part of her if it has completely independent DNA?

Seeing as a fetus is attached to the mother's womb via an umbilical cord and has no chance whatsoever of ever developing into a baby without that attachment, it would very clearly seem that a baby is part of the mother.

2. If the unborn is just a fetus or a mass of tissue, at what point does that fetus become a baby? And since we do not know exactly when life begins, don't you think we should give the baby the benefit of the doubt? After all you would not bury a person whom you didn't know if they were alive or dead, would you?

When a woman has a miscarriage is it a baby or just a fetus?

3. If a fetus isn't a person until it is out of the womb and can live on its own then what is it? Is a person on life support a person since it cannot live on its own?

It's a symbiant. It could also be considered a non-predatory parasite.

[nVJoe]

Originally Posted by J-Mag

Mitochondria are in every single cell of our body and they have their own DNA. Does that mean mitochondria aren't part of our bodies?

So your point is that babies in the womb are nothing more than mitochondria? Mitochondria are at their final stage of growth, the fetus is not. It has the great potential to be a human that can contribute to society.

How is the word that defines something relevant to the morality or practicality of it?

The word is used to de-humanize the baby in the womb. It makes the trowing away of life easier. Even beyond that, this is a question to those who are
pro-choice that say that it is not a human and cannot live on its own, there fore it is not deserving of life.

Originally Posted by Ancient

Seeing as a fetus is attached to the mother's womb via an umbilical cord and has no chance whatsoever of ever developing into a baby without that attachment, it would very clearly seem that a baby is part of the mother.

The mother can live with out the baby but the opposite is not true. The baby is not part of the mother. The mother does not need the baby to live as if it were a lung or kidney.

When a woman has a miscarriage is it a baby or just a fetus?

I call it a baby and my friend who had one called her baby a baby.

It's a symbiant. It could also be considered a non-predatory parasite.

Ancient's answer also helps to further answer J-mags question about it being a word. Ancient just de-valued the baby to the term of a "non-predatory parasite". This is how abortion is accepted in our society. The cheapening of life is a terrible trend.

So any pregnancy is a non-predatory parasite?

How can anyone look at Ancient's comparison and not see how it cheapens life. My ex-wife never considered my son a parasite.

# Biology An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

[J-Mag]

Originally Posted by nVJoe

So your point is that babies in the womb are nothing more than mitochondria? Mitochondria are at their final stage of growth, the fetus is not. It has the great potential to be a human that can contribute to society.

No, my point is that DNA is irrelevant to being part of a human body. Oddly enough, we actually have far more bacterial DNA in our body than human DNA.

Originally Posted by nVJoe

The word is used to de-humanize the baby in the womb. It makes the trowing away of life easier.

Good point.

Originally Posted by nVJoe

Even beyond that, this is a question to those who are
pro-choice that say that it is not a human and cannot live on its own, there fore it is not deserving of life.

You are generalizing again. No sane pro-choice individual says this because babies can't live on their own either...

[nVJoe]

Originally Posted by J-Mag

No, my point is that DNA is irrelevant to being part of a human body. Oddly enough, we actually have far more bacterial DNA in our body than human DNA.

That is a new one to me.

The point of the first question is to show that the baby in he womb is not part of her and she does not have the right to do with it what ever she wants.

Good point.

I know.

You are generalizing again. No sane pro-choice individual says this because babies can't live on their own either...

No, this argument is used all the time. It has been used time and time again on this forum. It is a terrible argument for pro-choice to use.

I am generalizing again? I am not the one who compared a baby in the womb to a mitochondria or a parasite.

[Ancient]

Originally Posted by nVJoe

The mother can live with out the baby but the opposite is not true. The baby is not part of the mother. The mother does not need the baby to live as if it were a lung or kidney.

But the fetus needs the mother and is attached to the mother. Therefore it's life is dependent upon the mother and part of that mother, not to mention it shares half of her DNA.

I call it a baby and my friend who had one called her baby a baby.

You and your friend are both wrong then. Either that or you are guilty of doing the exact same thing, in an opposite direction, of which you accuse me of below.

Ancient's answer also helps to further answer J-mags question about it being a word. Ancient just de-valued the baby to the term of a "non-predatory parasite". This is how abortion is accepted in our society. The cheapening of life is a terrible trend.

So any pregnancy is a non-predatory parasite?

How can anyone look at Ancient's comparison and not see how it cheapens life. My ex-wife never considered my son a parasite.

So you don't like it when words are used to "cheapen" things, but when words can be improperly applied and used as an emotional bludgeon in an attempt to bolster your argument it's OK? Pffft.

You asked what a fetus was if it wasn't a person until it exits the womb. I provided a clinical answer, one that is very succinct and devoid of the unbridled emotion you and others in here so furiously wield when it comes to the subject of abortion.

[bugmeplz]

The question of whether or not a fetus is a human being is a scientific question, and actually I am not sure what, or if, the answer is on that. As I recall the field of biology has yet to produce an agreed-upon definition of life.

the question of whether or not a fetus is a human _person_ is a philisophical question and isnt all that interesting to me.

[nVJoe]

Originally Posted by Ancient

But the fetus needs the mother and is attached to the mother. Therefore it's life is dependent upon the mother and part of that mother, not to mention it shares half of her DNA.

That is fine. What that shows is the responsibility that the mother has to nurture the new life in her. How ever it still does not avoid the fact that the baby is an actual part of her.

Sharing DNA is not the same has being the same DNA. The baby shares DNA with the father also.

You and your friend are both wrong then. Either that or you are guilty of doing the exact same thing, in an opposite direction, of which you accuse me of below.

No, we have always called it a baby and so did almost every one before the debate of abortion came to a head.

No body says they miscarried a fetus or a lump of tissue. They say they either just had a miscarriage or they lost their baby.

So you don't like it when words are used to "cheapen" things, but when words can be improperly applied and used as an emotional bludgeon in an attempt to bolster your argument it's OK? Pffft.

This is a emotional reaction to my strong disagreement to your comparison of human life in the womb to a parasite. You can try to turn the tables but I am not the one who is devaluing human life in order to have the "right" at some point to destroy it.

You asked what a fetus was if it wasn't a person until it exits the womb. I provided a clinical answer, one that is very succinct and devoid of the unbridled emotion you and others in here so furiously wield when it comes to the subject of abortion.

Yes and I pointed out your definition shows how our society has come to the point that the unborn are non-predatory parasites. That is your position and I am not going to change that. You put your self in that position by your words, not me.

BTW I am not mad at all. I am just being very direct.... as usual.