Mother and Fetus: Separate Individuals

[PoliticalChic]

I saw this thread....

"Liberals now calling fetus an "organ of her own body"


So, is the implication that if the fetus isn't part of the female's body....then there is no justification for abortion?


Then this should be read:

There are a number of clear biological facts, and all sorts of legal precedents, that easily refute the claim that the embryo or fetus is simply part of the mother's body.

1. An individual's body parts all share the same genetic code. If the unborn child were actually a part of the mother's body, the unborn's cells would have the same genetic code as the cells of the mother. This is not the case. Every cell of the unborn's body is genetically distinct from every cell in the mother's body.

2. In many cases, the blood type of the unborn child is different than the blood type of the mother. Since one body cannot function with two different blood types, this is clearly not the mother's blood.

3. In half of all pregnancies, the unborn child is a male, meaning that even the sex of the child is different from the mother.



4. As Randy Alcorn states in his book Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, "A Chinese zygote implanted in a Swedish woman will always be Chinese, not Swedish, because his identity is based on his genetic code, not on that of the body in which he resides."1

5. It is possible for a fetus to die while the mother lives, and it is possible for the mother to die while the fetus lives. This could not be true if the mother and child were simply one person.

6. When the embryo implants in the lining of the uterus, it emits chemical substances which weaken the woman's immune system within the uterus so that this tiny "foreign" body is not rejected by the woman's body. Were this tiny embryo simply "part of the woman's body" there would be no need to locally disable the woman's immunities.




7. It is illegal to execute a pregnant woman on death row because the fetus living inside her is a distinct human being who cannot be executed for the crimes of the mother (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Article 6.5).

8. When Scott Peterson killed his pregnant wife, Laci, he was convicted on two counts of murder.

9. Sir Albert Liley (the "Father of Fetology") made this observation in a 1970 speech entitled, "The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?"
Physiologically, we must accept that the conceptus is, in a very large measure, in charge of the pregnancy.... Biologically, at no stage can we subscribe to the view that the fetus is a mere appendage of the mother.2





10. The late Christopher Hitchens, a prominent public intellectual, atheist, and abortion advocate wrote the following in his book, God is Not Great:
As a materialist, I think it has been demonstrated that an embryo is a separate body and entity, and not merely (as some really did used to argue) a growth on or in the female body. There used to be feminists who would say that it was more like an appendix or even—this was seriously maintained—a tumor. That nonsense seems to have stopped… Embryology confirms morality. The words “unborn child,” even when used in a politicized manner, describe a material reality.3

Hitchens had other reasons for supporting legal abortion, but he recognized the absurdity of claiming that unborn children are simply part of the mother's body.
No matter how you spin it, women don't have four arms and four legs when they're pregnant. Those extra appendages belong to the tiny human being(s) living inside of them. At no point in pregnancy is the developing embryo or fetus simply a part of the mother's body.





Footnotes
1. Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments (Multnomah Publishers, 2000) 57.
2. Sir William Albert Liley,“The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?” cited by Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, 58.
3. Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (Hachette Book Group. Kindle Edition, 2009), 378-379.
The Case Against Abortion: Part of the Mother?s Body?



In truth....almost ever abortion that has been done in this country is for a matter of convenience.

 

[Noomi]

If the fetus was separate from the mother, sever the umbilical cord and see what happens.

 

[PoliticalChic]

If the fetus was separate from the mother, sever the umbilical cord and see what happens.

I'd never suggest nor consider doing that to an innocent baby....

....in your case, guillotining you would make only an aesthetic difference.

 

[Sallow]

If the fetus was separate from the mother, sever the umbilical cord and see what happens.

I'd never suggest nor consider doing that to an innocent baby....

....in your case, guillotining you would make only an aesthetic difference.

Another fine example of a "compassionate conservative".

 

[syrenn]

If the fetus was separate from the mother, sever the umbilical cord and see what happens.

you mean its feeding tube and life support system host? Though i do agree... if they are separate beings, then do separate it from its mothers umbilical so that it may be separate if the mother no longer wishes to be carry it.


If it was part of the mother it would not be half of something else now would it?

 

[PoliticalChic]

If the fetus was separate from the mother, sever the umbilical cord and see what happens.

I'd never suggest nor consider doing that to an innocent baby....

....in your case, guillotining you would make only an aesthetic difference.

Another fine example of a "compassionate conservative".

Off hand, I can't recall ever putting those two terms together with reference to myself....

...can you?

Or is this simply another vapid post by Sideshow-Sal?



I call 'em the way I see 'em...and I don't pull my punches.

For example....in your case, if you donated your brain to science, it'd set civilization back 50 years.

 

[Glensather]

You realize that this will do nothing to sway the pro-choice argument right? Just like pro-life, both are too entrenched to even consider the possibility of logic (if any) the other side has.

 

[Mr Natural]

It's not a seperate individual until it slides out the chute.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You realize that this will do nothing to sway the pro-choice argument right? Just like pro-life, both are too entrenched to even consider the possibility of logic (if any) the other side has.

So...you addressed the thread with the suggestion not to address the thread?



Stick to trading for guys like Clowe.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It's not a seperate individual until it slides out the chute.

Don't you want to uphold the party line???

Holder is in favor of forced sterilizations.

Peter Singer in favor of killing newborns up to a year old.

Obama is in favor of infanticide.



You may be in danger of losing your Liberal card!

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

There is an acid test that determines the accuracy of the "two individuals" claim.

Separate the "individuals" and see what happens. The results are irrefutable. Continuing false claims on either side of the discussion after results are confirmed proves those denying the results to be lying scum and propagandists for some point of view.

Next.

 

[PoliticalChic]

There is an acid test that determines the accuracy of the "two individuals" claim.

Separate the "individuals" and see what happens. The results are irrefutable. Continuing false claims on either side of the discussion after results are confirmed proves those denying the results to be lying scum and propagandists for some point of view.

Next.

Whatever led you to believe yourself to have the ability to determine what the 'acid test' might be.

The OP provided several 'tests,' every one of which is irrefutable.

But...as you've dropped by to provide a worthless post, how about taking the opportunity to beg forgiveness.....

Earlier you claimed that I had complained to some administrators about you...and you were spanked.
I have never done any such thing.
Instead of admitting such and apologizing, you merely slunk away, as any cur would.


Admit your error.

 

[Mad Scientist]

If the fetus was separate from the mother, sever the umbilical cord and see what happens.

I'd never suggest nor consider doing that to an innocent baby....

....in your case, guillotining you would make only an aesthetic difference.

Yeah what's up with that Noomi? You been lookin' more and more like David Bowie's daughter.

 

[PoliticalChic]

If the fetus was separate from the mother, sever the umbilical cord and see what happens.

I'd never suggest nor consider doing that to an innocent baby....

....in your case, guillotining you would make only an aesthetic difference.

Yeah what's up with that Noomi? You been lookin' more and more like David Bowie's daughter.

What's the old saying about winding up with the face one deserves.....

"Nature gives you the face you have at twenty; life shapes the face you have at thirty; but at fifty, you get the face you deserve."

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I saw this thread....

"Liberals now calling fetus an "organ of her own body"


So, is the implication that if the fetus isn't part of the female's body....then there is no justification for abortion?


Then this should be read:

There are a number of clear biological facts, and all sorts of legal precedents, that easily refute the claim that the embryo or fetus is simply part of the mother's body.

1. An individual's body parts all share the same genetic code. If the unborn child were actually a part of the mother's body, the unborn's cells would have the same genetic code as the cells of the mother. This is not the case. Every cell of the unborn's body is genetically distinct from every cell in the mother's body.

2. In many cases, the blood type of the unborn child is different than the blood type of the mother. Since one body cannot function with two different blood types, this is clearly not the mother's blood.

3. In half of all pregnancies, the unborn child is a male, meaning that even the sex of the child is different from the mother.



4. As Randy Alcorn states in his book Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, "A Chinese zygote implanted in a Swedish woman will always be Chinese, not Swedish, because his identity is based on his genetic code, not on that of the body in which he resides."1

5. It is possible for a fetus to die while the mother lives, and it is possible for the mother to die while the fetus lives. This could not be true if the mother and child were simply one person.

6. When the embryo implants in the lining of the uterus, it emits chemical substances which weaken the woman's immune system within the uterus so that this tiny "foreign" body is not rejected by the woman's body. Were this tiny embryo simply "part of the woman's body" there would be no need to locally disable the woman's immunities.




7. It is illegal to execute a pregnant woman on death row because the fetus living inside her is a distinct human being who cannot be executed for the crimes of the mother (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Article 6.5).

8. When Scott Peterson killed his pregnant wife, Laci, he was convicted on two counts of murder.

9. Sir Albert Liley (the "Father of Fetology") made this observation in a 1970 speech entitled, "The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?"
Physiologically, we must accept that the conceptus is, in a very large measure, in charge of the pregnancy.... Biologically, at no stage can we subscribe to the view that the fetus is a mere appendage of the mother.2





10. The late Christopher Hitchens, a prominent public intellectual, atheist, and abortion advocate wrote the following in his book, God is Not Great:
As a materialist, I think it has been demonstrated that an embryo is a separate body and entity, and not merely (as some really did used to argue) a growth on or in the female body. There used to be feminists who would say that it was more like an appendix or even—this was seriously maintained—a tumor. That nonsense seems to have stopped… Embryology confirms morality. The words “unborn child,” even when used in a politicized manner, describe a material reality.3

Hitchens had other reasons for supporting legal abortion, but he recognized the absurdity of claiming that unborn children are simply part of the mother's body.
No matter how you spin it, women don't have four arms and four legs when they're pregnant. Those extra appendages belong to the tiny human being(s) living inside of them. At no point in pregnancy is the developing embryo or fetus simply a part of the mother's body.





Footnotes
1. Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments (Multnomah Publishers, 2000) 57.
2. Sir William Albert Liley,“The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?” cited by Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, 58.
3. Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (Hachette Book Group. Kindle Edition, 2009), 378-379.
The Case Against Abortion: Part of the Mother?s Body?



In truth....almost ever abortion that has been done in this country is for a matter of convenience.

Yet another rightist ignorant of the difference between civil and criminal law.

For example:

It is illegal to execute a pregnant woman on death row…

Has nothing to do with the fact it is not illegal for a woman to terminate her pregnancy.

To execute a pregnant woman or not is a matter of criminal law, where the state considers guilt and punishment in the context of procedural due process, as opposed to substantive due process and the right to privacy with regard to abortion. Civil law concerns itself not with guilt or punishment from without but the relationship between the state and citizen from within the zone of privacy that is off limits to the state.

In truth....almost ever abortion that has been done in this country is for a matter of convenience.

Not true.

And one is not required to justify the exercising of a fundamental right, such as privacy, as some sort of ‘prerequisite’ to the exercising of that right.

The premise of the OP is a fallacy, and consequently fails.

 

[Noomi]

If the fetus was separate from the mother, sever the umbilical cord and see what happens.

you mean its feeding tube and life support system host? Though i do agree... if they are separate beings, then do separate it from its mothers umbilical so that it may be separate if the mother no longer wishes to be carry it.


If it was part of the mother it would not be half of something else now would it?

Yep, remove the life support and that physical attachment the lifers deny and see what happens to that fetus. It dies. So it can not be called separate, can it, when it relies on an attachment to survive.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I saw this thread....

"Liberals now calling fetus an "organ of her own body"


So, is the implication that if the fetus isn't part of the female's body....then there is no justification for abortion?


Then this should be read:

There are a number of clear biological facts, and all sorts of legal precedents, that easily refute the claim that the embryo or fetus is simply part of the mother's body.

1. An individual's body parts all share the same genetic code. If the unborn child were actually a part of the mother's body, the unborn's cells would have the same genetic code as the cells of the mother. This is not the case. Every cell of the unborn's body is genetically distinct from every cell in the mother's body.

2. In many cases, the blood type of the unborn child is different than the blood type of the mother. Since one body cannot function with two different blood types, this is clearly not the mother's blood.

3. In half of all pregnancies, the unborn child is a male, meaning that even the sex of the child is different from the mother.



4. As Randy Alcorn states in his book Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, "A Chinese zygote implanted in a Swedish woman will always be Chinese, not Swedish, because his identity is based on his genetic code, not on that of the body in which he resides."1

5. It is possible for a fetus to die while the mother lives, and it is possible for the mother to die while the fetus lives. This could not be true if the mother and child were simply one person.

6. When the embryo implants in the lining of the uterus, it emits chemical substances which weaken the woman's immune system within the uterus so that this tiny "foreign" body is not rejected by the woman's body. Were this tiny embryo simply "part of the woman's body" there would be no need to locally disable the woman's immunities.




7. It is illegal to execute a pregnant woman on death row because the fetus living inside her is a distinct human being who cannot be executed for the crimes of the mother (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Article 6.5).

8. When Scott Peterson killed his pregnant wife, Laci, he was convicted on two counts of murder.

9. Sir Albert Liley (the "Father of Fetology") made this observation in a 1970 speech entitled, "The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?"
Physiologically, we must accept that the conceptus is, in a very large measure, in charge of the pregnancy.... Biologically, at no stage can we subscribe to the view that the fetus is a mere appendage of the mother.2





10. The late Christopher Hitchens, a prominent public intellectual, atheist, and abortion advocate wrote the following in his book, God is Not Great:
As a materialist, I think it has been demonstrated that an embryo is a separate body and entity, and not merely (as some really did used to argue) a growth on or in the female body. There used to be feminists who would say that it was more like an appendix or even—this was seriously maintained—a tumor. That nonsense seems to have stopped… Embryology confirms morality. The words “unborn child,” even when used in a politicized manner, describe a material reality.3

Hitchens had other reasons for supporting legal abortion, but he recognized the absurdity of claiming that unborn children are simply part of the mother's body.
No matter how you spin it, women don't have four arms and four legs when they're pregnant. Those extra appendages belong to the tiny human being(s) living inside of them. At no point in pregnancy is the developing embryo or fetus simply a part of the mother's body.





Footnotes
1. Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments (Multnomah Publishers, 2000) 57.
2. Sir William Albert Liley,“The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?” cited by Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, 58.
3. Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (Hachette Book Group. Kindle Edition, 2009), 378-379.
The Case Against Abortion: Part of the Mother?s Body?



In truth....almost ever abortion that has been done in this country is for a matter of convenience.

Yet another rightist ignorant of the difference between civil and criminal law.

For example:

It is illegal to execute a pregnant woman on death row…

Has nothing to do with the fact it is not illegal for a woman to terminate her pregnancy.

To execute a pregnant woman or not is a matter of criminal law, where the state considers guilt and punishment in the context of procedural due process, as opposed to substantive due process and the right to privacy with regard to abortion. Civil law concerns itself not with guilt or punishment from without but the relationship between the state and citizen from within the zone of privacy that is off limits to the state.

In truth....almost ever abortion that has been done in this country is for a matter of convenience.

Not true.

And one is not required to justify the exercising of a fundamental right, such as privacy, as some sort of ‘prerequisite’ to the exercising of that right.

The premise of the OP is a fallacy, and consequently fails.

The only difference between Custer’s Last Stand and what I’m about to do to you is that Custer didn’t have to read the post afterwards.


"In truth....almost ever abortion that has been done in this country is for a matter of convenience."

Not true."


Au contraire. It is true, as I am about to prove, sucker:


1. The vast majority of abortion performed in the United States are carried out for reasons that can be broadly categorized as “matters of convenience.” In a study of 27 nations, reasons for abortion services were found to be the following:

a. “Worldwide, the most commonly reported reason women cite for having an abortion is to postpone or stop childbearing. The second most common reason—socioeconomic concerns—includes disruption of education or employment; lack of support from the father; desire to provide schooling for existing children; and poverty, unemployment or inability to afford additional children. In addition, relationship problems with a husband or partner and a woman's perception that she is too young constitute other important categories of reasons.” Reasons Why Women Have Induced Abortions: Evidence from 27 Countries


b. A 2004 study of American women yielded similar results: “The reasons most frequently cited were that having a child would interfere with a woman’s education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now (73%); and that she did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%). Nearly four in 10 women said they had completed their childbearing, and almost one-third were not ready to have a child. Fewer than 1% said their parents’ or partners’ desire for them to have an abortion was the most important reason. Younger women often reported that they were unprepared for the transition to motherhood, while older women regularly cited their responsibility to dependents.” http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf

c. We reject the view that inconvenience of a mother’s informed choice outweighs the unalienable right to life of the child she bears by virtue of that choice.

On-demand abortion is antithetical to the ideas and ideals upon which America was built.


2. In just 12% of the cases were there concerns for the mother’s health; 1% for rape; and .5% incest.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf



How ya' like me now, booyyyyyyeeeeee???

 

[newpolitics]

Abortion has almost nothing to do with justification, so the entire OP is a red herring. It has to do with choice. The common mistake of anti-abortionists is to claim that there is such thing as pro-abortionists. This is false. Who's choice? The states (with the selfish and agenda-laiden Christian right whispering in its ear) or the pregnant woman. The options are to deny the women her own agency in the matter, having acquiesced to a state authority over her own body, or to grant the choice to the women, in which case people will argue the choice is the being taken away from the child. However, is it? Are infants known to be suicidal because life is just to tough? No. So really the consideration is for the later emotional life of the parent and the child. If brought up in inadequate conditions, its life may be full of mental suffering and possibly later suicide. The real question is, can an early term fetus feel pain, and will it miss something it never had? The answer to both questions is no. It is only because of Christian fundamentalism that this is even being discussed, so there is where the discussion should be had.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Abortion has almost nothing to do with justification, so the entire OP is a red herring. It has to do with choice. The common mistake of anti-abortionists is to claim that there is such thing as pro-abortionists. This is false. Who's choice? The states (with the selfish and agenda-laiden Christian right whispering in its ear) or the pregnant woman. The options are to deny the women her own agency in the matter, having acquiesced to a state authority over her own body, or to grant the choice to the women, in which case people will argue the choice is the being taken away from the child. However, is it? Are infants known to be suicidal because life is just to tough? No. So really the consideration is for the later emotional life of the parent and the child. If brought up in inadequate conditions, its life may be full of mental suffering and possibly later suicide. The real question is, can an early term fetus feel pain, and will it miss something it never had? The answer to both questions is no. It is only because of Christian fundamentalism that this is even being discussed, so there is where the discussion should be had.

"Abortion has almost nothing to do with justification, so the entire OP is a red herring. It has to do with choice."

So does homicide...and pretty much based on the same arguments you pose.

Done to make the killer have less in the way of mental suffering.....


BTW...did I mention that you are an idiot?


I've decided to give you the 'Tareq and Michaele Salahi Uninvited Appearance ' Award!
Now...back under your rock.

 

[newpolitics]

Abortion has almost nothing to do with justification, so the entire OP is a red herring. It has to do with choice. The common mistake of anti-abortionists is to claim that there is such thing as pro-abortionists. This is false. Who's choice? The states (with the selfish and agenda-laiden Christian right whispering in its ear) or the pregnant woman. The options are to deny the women her own agency in the matter, having acquiesced to a state authority over her own body, or to grant the choice to the women, in which case people will argue the choice is the being taken away from the child. However, is it? Are infants known to be suicidal because life is just to tough? No. So really the consideration is for the later emotional life of the parent and the child. If brought up in inadequate conditions, its life may be full of mental suffering and possibly later suicide. The real question is, can an early term fetus feel pain, and will it miss something it never had? The answer to both questions is no. It is only because of Christian fundamentalism that this is even being discussed, so there is where the discussion should be had.

"Abortion has almost nothing to do with justification, so the entire OP is a red herring. It has to do with choice."

So does homicide...and pretty much based on the same arguments you pose.

Done to make the killer have less in the way of mental suffering.....


BTW...did I mention that you are an idiot?


I've decided to give you the 'Tareq and Michaele Salahi Uninvited Appearance ' Award!
Now...back under your rock.

It's not my fault the OP is another piece of idiocy.