What makes you think he said that?
I sure don't see where he said that, so why are you putting words in his mouth? Is it because you are too stupid to comprehend the English language or too dishonest to actually discuss the subject matter?
Go read it again...
I seriously wonder if either Christine Quinn or/and Chris Cumo ever wonder themselves: "Hell, that could have been me?"
Probably never.
Although infanticide is a pillar of Democrat/Liberal belief these days, not a single Democrat voter is rushing to support this insane view from Democrat Quinn.
Once again we find that Democrat voters are unable to explain or defend the doctrines that they vote for.
The unborn is NOT a part of the woman's body any more than if she were transfusing blood to a complete stranger.
So if it's not a part of her body, why do you have a problem with her expelling it? "Fly, be free, little fetus!"
As a practical matter, you can't give a fetus more rights than the woman it is inside... but that's really what you nutters advocate for.
Stop tap-dancing.
Is it part of her body, or is the unborn a separate and unique human being?
From the perspective of society, it is part of her body. There's no other way to parse it that doesn't violate fundamental human liberty.
Please, don't be stupid.
The question is one of biology.
Here's your lesson:
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.
- 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.
- 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.
- In half of all pregnancies, the unborn child is a male, meaning that even the sex of the child is different from the mother.
- 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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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).
- When Scott Peterson killed his pregnant wife, Laci, he was convicted on two counts of murder.
- 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
- 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.
11. 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
- Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments (Multnomah Publishers, 2000) p. 57.
- 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.
- Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (Hachette Book Group. Kindle Edition, 2009), 378-379.
Part of the Mother’s Body?
Is there any argument for the "right" of a woman to authorize the killing of her unborn baby that would not apply to her authorizing the similar slaughter of a year old that she was breastfeeding?
Don't make that mistake again.
