"My Body, My Choice": The Worst Abortion Talking Points

[SassyIrishLass]

Wanting something doesn't make it ethical. I'm sure plenty of people want numerous unethical things, however initiating force is always wrong, therefore regardless of whether an individual wants to carry a child to term or not, terminating the child would be the active position, while being born is a passive one. This means that the initiation of force is on the side of the mother, therefore putting the burden of proof on her.

Because she must then prove her action to be ethical, this means she must prove that the child does not own itself, that her rights override those of the child, or that the child has initiated force in some way. The first two are special pleading, while the third is impossible.

BINGO.

Can we all go home now?

May as well the loons keep repeating the same tired shit over and over again

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yep, the preborn is not your body, not for you to control.

Fuck if it isn't. My body, including its contents, is mine and mine alone. It's not yours, not society's. A nation that claims otherwise has lost respect for the most fundamental of human rights.

No, you own yourself and you alone. No human being is property, not even your own offspring. And the fact that you actually think that another human being is your property is horrific, and brings to mind the same mentality as slaveowners.

Your delusion will lead you into a world of hurt. The aftermath of your idiocy will make Prohibition look like a walk in the park. You can't have the kind of power over people that you want.

Tell it to the people who want to ban Big Gulps and dictate how much water to flush with. You're not going to impress anyone with your "reasonableness" over how not killing unborn babies is "fascism".

 

[playtime]

Wanting something doesn't make it ethical. I'm sure plenty of people want numerous unethical things, however initiating force is always wrong, therefore regardless of whether an individual wants to carry a child to term or not, terminating the child would be the active position, while being born is a passive one. This means that the initiation of force is on the side of the mother, therefore putting the burden of proof on her.

Because she must then prove her action to be ethical, this means she must prove that the child does not own itself, that her rights override those of the child, or that the child has initiated force in some way. The first two are special pleading, while the third is impossible.

BINGO.

Can we all go home now?

y'all are welcome to go back 'home' anytime....

ba-byeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.........................

 

[Pumpkin Row]

I don't consider myself to hold any sort of label you decide to fling at me. The best that can be claimed is "Pro-Self-Ownership". As in, every agent owns themselves, and their rights do not override the rights of another, each and every right being those we can demonstrate without initiating force against another. Abortion is an initiation of force, as is collecting someone's property against their will. People are, therefor, free to decide whether or not they would like to take care of someone who isn't murdered. I think we call voluntarily taking care of a non-murdered child "Adoption". This must be a foreign concept to you, since you apparently prefer murder.

Or, since my last two arguments went over your head, TL;DR, your argument here is nonsensical appeals to emotion.

<pffffft> such drivel. don't talk about forcing anything until you acknowledge that you want to force women into bondage. will you at least go out & buy some handcuffs or leg chains to make sure all those preggers are anchored to their birthing rooms?

Oh really? Go ahead and quote any single one of my posts which state that I want anything of the kind. I'll patiently wait for you to come back empty-handed, since I don't advocate that the Government do anything whatsoever to anyone.

My argument is, was, and always has been, that the act is completely unethical. If the best you can come up with is that strawman, then you must be acknowledging that it is, indeed, completely unethical.

poor poor you. do you want to force females to carry full term & give birth once they become pregnant regardless of what THEY want?

that's a simple yes or no. i'll wait for YOUR answer... go ahead.

Wanting something doesn't make it ethical. I'm sure plenty of people want numerous unethical things, however initiating force is always wrong, therefor regardless of whether an individual wants to carry a child to term or not, terminating the child would be the active position, while being born is a passive one. This means that the initiation of force is on the side of the mother, therefor putting the burden of proof on her.

Because she must then prove her action to be ethical, this means she must prove that the child does not own itself, that her rights override those of the child, or that the child has initiated force in some way. The first two are special pleading, while the third is impossible.

The act is therefor unethical.

What you're doing is trying to construct a strawman, because regardless of what I do or do not want, this does not change Ethics. You're, of course, attempting to change the subject because I've already proven that your position is unethical.

you seem to think ethics are written in stone. if a mother steals food to feed her starving post born child, is that unethical?

next.

Yes, it's completely unethical, as she and her child are not entitled to the fruits of someone else's labor, she is depriving that person of their property. The initiation of force is on the part of the mother, due to depriving someone else of their property, which is an extension of their self-ownership, this makes her position the active one, putting the burden of proof on her.

She must therefor prove that her position is ethical. She, of course, cannot. This is because, as stated above, she is not entitled to someone else's property.

This makes it unethical.

Ethics are, in fact, completely objective. What you're thinking of are morals, which are subjective dependent on the individual.

 

[buttercup]

but why not? once born they need essentials to umm... you know.... STAY alive.

Which begs the question:

Are they children when they are born? They seem to require the same sustenance as when they were in the womb. They are just as dependent on the mother outside of the womb as they were inside.

Yet you argue they are not children while they are forming in the womb.

Curiouser and curiouser...

actually, no.... by definition, they are parasitic until the cord is cut. do you view post born children as parasites if they are on state aid like you think of their welfare queen mamas? who keeps cutting programs like WIC & CHIP?

I know you have to try to dehumanize the preborn in order to justify your vile pro-death position, but we're not going to let you get away with that. Here's a preborn at 8 weeks. I don't see a "parasitic clump of cells", do you? It's only a few "cells" immediately after conception, which obviously is not when most surgical abortions occur. And even THEN, in the earliest stages, those "cells" are a brand new, genetically unique human being.

I can tell by reading your posts that you also completely failed basic biology, so I figured photos would work better for you than text.

And watch this video, this is at a time when most abortions occur:

 

[Cecilie1200]

Are you still yapping at me? Good grief. I'll engage with you when you demonstrate how you are able to take control of my reproductive system.

That's the only issue I care about. I know that's hard for you to comprehend but I can't help you with that.

Still with the arguments of a five year old. "You can't make me".

Ha, I'm not interested in your life story. Can you lock horns or not? So far, I've seen zero from you that resembles intelligent material for debate. This is my basis for debate. If you can't do anything with it then head to the back of the bus, and quit your bellyaching about nothing;
I did. It is a "that is this and that is that" video, that never breaks the code for the beginning of life. Anyone can tell you, even an embryologist that life begins at a certain time, but at the end of the day, science still tells us that really, there is no consensus. Only in the unknwn of God, can that power do that. I can post many more articles of "SCIENTISTS" telling us the same thing, that there is no consensus. And they are exactly right. All science can do is present theories. And it's up to us to filter the best possible one's.

Your video is based on theory, and quite likely a paid for Republican talking points video. The beginning of life is a state of mind that neither God, nor the science has given us concrete evidence of. That said, logic, through the best science, will always be our best clues. As my article points out, if the cells from the egg and sperm are alive, and they do not unite, then you just aborted "life", if we were to go by Right wing logic, that life begins at conception. The life was already there, with the living cells before conception, therefore, women abort all the time living cells. And so, science nor God, has given us the definitive answers to the "beginning of life " question. The explanation cannot be any more clearer than that.

If you want to assert that ovum and sperm is just like a newly conceived life than you're not even worth debating with. That's not even close to "intelligent material for debate"--that's moronic.

It's not me asserting it, it's the radical religious Right. You are running from this debate, because there is nothing you can debate. See how easy it is to kick your ass.

What is your justification for killing a unique human life in the womb?

And yet again: citizens are not required to ‘justify’ the exercising of a fundamental right as a ‘prerequisite’ to indeed do so.

The state has no authority to dictate to a woman whether she may have a child or not – it’s her body and her choice, a choice guaranteed by the Constitution.

Unless you think all laws are objective absolute truths, never to be questioned, your constant focus on current laws is illogical and a waste of time. For once, stop hiding behind the law and start arguing from the standpoint of ethics and truth.

He's not even talking about laws here. He's hiding behind the alternate reality he lives in, where abortion is mentioned in the Constitution, on a par with freedom of speech.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Your pathetic excuse for an argument was that because individuals are against the murder of these children, they should be obligated to pay to take care of them. This is in response to the argument that as self-owning agents, they have ownership if their life as well.

By this "logic", you must believe that being against the murder of a self-owning agent, they become entitled to a portion of the advocator's property.

To say "no" is inconsistency, and to say "yes" means you must therefor be willing to support anyone and everyone that you believe should not be murdered.

TL;DR, your argument doesn't even remotely logically follow.

but why not? once born they need essentials to umm... you know.... STAY alive.

but you don't wanna go the extra mile for all them thar innocents you want to force into personhood.

do you not care? nope you apparently don't, cause talking the talk is easier & walking the walk is just bullshit.

y'all aren't really 'pro life' you are only pro birth.

Eh, and you are only pro life when the woman acknowledges the life growing in her womb is in fact human.

nope. i am pro choice. & it's not what i think or believe that matters when it comes to another female. but nice try.

Nice dodge. If what you think or believe doesn't matter, according to you, then why are you in this thread opining about abortion?

because my believes are not being forced onto anyone thru legislation unlike what the OP & the pro birthers want.

Funny, do I look like a member of congress to you? I can't force anything on anyone.

Would be interesting if I could, but that's not a power I have nor want.

Furthermore, when you say "it's her choice and her choice alone" you are trying to force that assertion on others. You make this choice out to be one monolithic thing that only a woman can make without any outside input.

Essentially you're saying:

"My beliefs are superior to yours, you must submit to my logic"

 

[playtime]

<pffffft> such drivel. don't talk about forcing anything until you acknowledge that you want to force women into bondage. will you at least go out & buy some handcuffs or leg chains to make sure all those preggers are anchored to their birthing rooms?

Oh really? Go ahead and quote any single one of my posts which state that I want anything of the kind. I'll patiently wait for you to come back empty-handed, since I don't advocate that the Government do anything whatsoever to anyone.

My argument is, was, and always has been, that the act is completely unethical. If the best you can come up with is that strawman, then you must be acknowledging that it is, indeed, completely unethical.

poor poor you. do you want to force females to carry full term & give birth once they become pregnant regardless of what THEY want?

that's a simple yes or no. i'll wait for YOUR answer... go ahead.

Wanting something doesn't make it ethical. I'm sure plenty of people want numerous unethical things, however initiating force is always wrong, therefor regardless of whether an individual wants to carry a child to term or not, terminating the child would be the active position, while being born is a passive one. This means that the initiation of force is on the side of the mother, therefor putting the burden of proof on her.

Because she must then prove her action to be ethical, this means she must prove that the child does not own itself, that her rights override those of the child, or that the child has initiated force in some way. The first two are special pleading, while the third is impossible.

The act is therefor unethical.

What you're doing is trying to construct a strawman, because regardless of what I do or do not want, this does not change Ethics. You're, of course, attempting to change the subject because I've already proven that your position is unethical.

you seem to think ethics are written in stone. if a mother steals food to feed her starving post born child, is that unethical?

next.

Yes, it's completely unethical, as she and her child are not entitled to the fruits of someone else's labor, she is depriving that person of their property. The initiation of force is on the part of the mother, due to depriving someone else of their property, which is an extension of their self-ownership, this makes her position the active one, putting the burden of proof on her.

She must therefor prove that her position is ethical. She, of course, cannot. This is because, as stated above, she is not entitled to someone else's property.

This makes it unethical.

Ethics are, in fact, completely objective. What you're thinking of are morals, which are subjective dependent on the individual.

her uterus& its contents = her ownership of said property. why do you feel entitled to lock up her property?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Oh really? Go ahead and quote any single one of my posts which state that I want anything of the kind. I'll patiently wait for you to come back empty-handed, since I don't advocate that the Government do anything whatsoever to anyone.

My argument is, was, and always has been, that the act is completely unethical. If the best you can come up with is that strawman, then you must be acknowledging that it is, indeed, completely unethical.

poor poor you. do you want to force females to carry full term & give birth once they become pregnant regardless of what THEY want?

that's a simple yes or no. i'll wait for YOUR answer... go ahead.

Wanting something doesn't make it ethical. I'm sure plenty of people want numerous unethical things, however initiating force is always wrong, therefor regardless of whether an individual wants to carry a child to term or not, terminating the child would be the active position, while being born is a passive one. This means that the initiation of force is on the side of the mother, therefor putting the burden of proof on her.

Because she must then prove her action to be ethical, this means she must prove that the child does not own itself, that her rights override those of the child, or that the child has initiated force in some way. The first two are special pleading, while the third is impossible.

The act is therefor unethical.

What you're doing is trying to construct a strawman, because regardless of what I do or do not want, this does not change Ethics. You're, of course, attempting to change the subject because I've already proven that your position is unethical.

you seem to think ethics are written in stone. if a mother steals food to feed her starving post born child, is that unethical?

next.

Yes, it's completely unethical, as she and her child are not entitled to the fruits of someone else's labor, she is depriving that person of their property. The initiation of force is on the part of the mother, due to depriving someone else of their property, which is an extension of their self-ownership, this makes her position the active one, putting the burden of proof on her.

She must therefor prove that her position is ethical. She, of course, cannot. This is because, as stated above, she is not entitled to someone else's property.

This makes it unethical.

Ethics are, in fact, completely objective. What you're thinking of are morals, which are subjective dependent on the individual.

her uterus& its contents = her ownership of said property. why do you feel entitled to lock up her property?

Quod Erat Demonstandum.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It wasn't posted to you. I already know that you literally don't care about anything but yourself.

Again with the same politics used by the left for their social engineering agenda. Anyone who opposes it is accused of not caring about whatever problem they're addressing. If you oppose government health care, you want poor people to go without. If you oppose "free" college, you hate education. If you opposed an abortion ban, you must be a selfish jerk who loves abortion.

How does it feel to be a statist liberal?

In case you haven't noticed, YOU are the one who is currently on the same side as the people who use those arguments you cited. Might want to take a good look around at your allies before trying to declare your position as "conservatism" based merely on the fact that you dribbled it out.

 

[SAYIT]

Here's my review of this thread - NotYourBody Challenged folks in this thread to outline your plans for assuming control of my uterus and the contents inside.
So far....no takers. So much Winning!

You and your anti-life comrades have been challenged to justify the murder of babes-in-wombs.
So far … no takers … and we all know why.

I don't have to respond to your arguments because you haven't demonstrated you have the ability to enforce them. It's a waste of time until you are willing to detail your plans.

Of course you don't have to respond but this is a public message forum and this thread is about the inability of anti-lifers to make valid arguments in support of your beliefs and the best you can muster is "you are a poopy-head, so there." It seems to me that is exactly the kind of "maturity" that would lead one to believe slaughtering and flushing babies is a fine idea.

BTW, Indiana now requires you to bury or cremate the remains. It seems individual states are challenging RvW incrementally. You better get your abortion(s) while you can still murder legally.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Oh really? Go ahead and quote any single one of my posts which state that I want anything of the kind. I'll patiently wait for you to come back empty-handed, since I don't advocate that the Government do anything whatsoever to anyone.

My argument is, was, and always has been, that the act is completely unethical. If the best you can come up with is that strawman, then you must be acknowledging that it is, indeed, completely unethical.

poor poor you. do you want to force females to carry full term & give birth once they become pregnant regardless of what THEY want?

that's a simple yes or no. i'll wait for YOUR answer... go ahead.

Wanting something doesn't make it ethical. I'm sure plenty of people want numerous unethical things, however initiating force is always wrong, therefor regardless of whether an individual wants to carry a child to term or not, terminating the child would be the active position, while being born is a passive one. This means that the initiation of force is on the side of the mother, therefor putting the burden of proof on her.

Because she must then prove her action to be ethical, this means she must prove that the child does not own itself, that her rights override those of the child, or that the child has initiated force in some way. The first two are special pleading, while the third is impossible.

The act is therefor unethical.

What you're doing is trying to construct a strawman, because regardless of what I do or do not want, this does not change Ethics. You're, of course, attempting to change the subject because I've already proven that your position is unethical.

you seem to think ethics are written in stone. if a mother steals food to feed her starving post born child, is that unethical?

next.

Yes, it's completely unethical, as she and her child are not entitled to the fruits of someone else's labor, she is depriving that person of their property. The initiation of force is on the part of the mother, due to depriving someone else of their property, which is an extension of their self-ownership, this makes her position the active one, putting the burden of proof on her.

She must therefor prove that her position is ethical. She, of course, cannot. This is because, as stated above, she is not entitled to someone else's property.

This makes it unethical.

Ethics are, in fact, completely objective. What you're thinking of are morals, which are subjective dependent on the individual.

her uterus& its contents = her ownership of said property. why do you feel entitled to lock up her property?

I never advocated locking up anything. You failed to prove that a few posts ago, yet you're so thoroughly defeated that you went back to that anyway.

Once again, my argument is, was, and always has been that the act of "abortion" is unethical, not that anyone should initiate force against someone else. The birth process is a passive one, and in the absence of force, will be completed. This means that the active position is the termination of that child, putting the burden of proof on the one seeking to terminate it.

Secondly, the first section of your post is completely nonsensical. All humans are self-owning agents, they therefor own themselves, and have the same rights. Geographical location of a person or object does not put them under the ownership of someone else, and one agent cannot own another without the agent's expressed consent, when they are developed enough to do so. Because an unborn child is incapable of giving consent, implicit consent does not exist, and the child is a self-owning agent, the mother cannot own the child. It is therefor the child's decision regarding what is done with its own life. Saying the child does not own itself is, therefor, special pleading.

 

[playtime]

but why not? once born they need essentials to umm... you know.... STAY alive.

but you don't wanna go the extra mile for all them thar innocents you want to force into personhood.

do you not care? nope you apparently don't, cause talking the talk is easier & walking the walk is just bullshit.

y'all aren't really 'pro life' you are only pro birth.

Eh, and you are only pro life when the woman acknowledges the life growing in her womb is in fact human.

nope. i am pro choice. & it's not what i think or believe that matters when it comes to another female. but nice try.

Nice dodge. If what you think or believe doesn't matter, according to you, then why are you in this thread opining about abortion?

because my believes are not being forced onto anyone thru legislation unlike what the OP & the pro birthers want.

Funny, do I look like a member of congress to you? I can't force anything on anyone.

Would be interesting if I could, but that's not a power I have nor want.

Furthermore, when you say "it's her choice and her choice alone" you are trying to force that assertion on others. You make this choice out to be one monolithic thing that only a woman can make without any outside input.

Essentially you're saying:

"My beliefs are superior to yours, you must submit to my logic"

lol... what? she can have all the outside input she wants or have none at all. that's my belief. i am not superior nor inferior to anyone & neither is the one that needs to make her own decision. & you see - i have no problem whatsoever making sure people aren't hungry or homeless regardless of their age... & i have no problems with my taxes going to something that prevents it from happening in the first place. i not olny talk the talk but walk the walk. i am pro choice & pro life when that is what the mama wants.

not just pro birth & turn my back after they leave the delivery room unlike most extremists on this here thread.

 

[gipper]

what's foolish is throwing out a strawman like that. you are trying to compare a gestational non viable fetus to a post born person with a life history.

lol... silly you..............

How is a fetus 'non-viable?'

viable adjective
us /ˈvɑɪ·ə·bəl/
able to exist, perform as intended, or succeed:

VIABLE | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

A fetus IS 'able to exist'....It is performing 'as intended' and will succeed IF it is not killed in the process of developing into a a human being. Like many pro aborts you are attaching your own meaning to 'viable' to satisfy your political beliefs. In the mean time, a human life is snuffed out.

Oh look, a 'funnyface!' Looks like I win again!!

The old “non-viable argument “ is yet another bogus attempt by the baby murders to justify their beliefs. It is absurd on any level. Many living Americans can be considered non-viable. Those kept alive by machines, those mentally defective, those completely incapacitated. I guess they want these people killed too.

 

[playtime]

poor poor you. do you want to force females to carry full term & give birth once they become pregnant regardless of what THEY want?

that's a simple yes or no. i'll wait for YOUR answer... go ahead.

Wanting something doesn't make it ethical. I'm sure plenty of people want numerous unethical things, however initiating force is always wrong, therefor regardless of whether an individual wants to carry a child to term or not, terminating the child would be the active position, while being born is a passive one. This means that the initiation of force is on the side of the mother, therefor putting the burden of proof on her.

Because she must then prove her action to be ethical, this means she must prove that the child does not own itself, that her rights override those of the child, or that the child has initiated force in some way. The first two are special pleading, while the third is impossible.

The act is therefor unethical.

What you're doing is trying to construct a strawman, because regardless of what I do or do not want, this does not change Ethics. You're, of course, attempting to change the subject because I've already proven that your position is unethical.

you seem to think ethics are written in stone. if a mother steals food to feed her starving post born child, is that unethical?

next.

Yes, it's completely unethical, as she and her child are not entitled to the fruits of someone else's labor, she is depriving that person of their property. The initiation of force is on the part of the mother, due to depriving someone else of their property, which is an extension of their self-ownership, this makes her position the active one, putting the burden of proof on her.

She must therefor prove that her position is ethical. She, of course, cannot. This is because, as stated above, she is not entitled to someone else's property.

This makes it unethical.

Ethics are, in fact, completely objective. What you're thinking of are morals, which are subjective dependent on the individual.

her uterus& its contents = her ownership of said property. why do you feel entitled to lock up her property?

I never advocated locking up anything. You failed to prove that a few posts ago, yet you're so thoroughly defeated that you went back to that anyway.

Once again, my argument is, was, and always has been that the act of "abortion" is unethical, not that anyone should initiate force against someone else. The birth process is a passive one, and in the absence of force, will be completed. This means that the active position is the termination of that child, putting the burden of proof on the one seeking to terminate it.

Secondly, the first section of your post is completely nonsensical. All humans are self-owning agents, they therefor own themselves, and have the same rights. Geographical location of a person or object does not put them under the ownership of someone else, and one agent cannot own another without the agent's expressed consent, when they are developed enough to do so. Because an unborn child is incapable of giving consent, implicit consent does not exist, and the child is a self-owning agent, the mother cannot own the child. It is therefor the child's decision regarding what is done with its own life. Saying the child does not own itself is, therefor, special pleading.

except it's not a child until it can own it's life force independently or with medical help & still thrive.

next.

 

[TemplarKormac]

lol... what? she can have all the outside input she wants or have none at all.

That's not what you're saying.

Who is it referring to the unborn child as "her property"?

YOU.

By using that particular phrase, you are suggesting that no outside input is allowed.

 

[playtime]

what's foolish is throwing out a strawman like that. you are trying to compare a gestational non viable fetus to a post born person with a life history.

lol... silly you..............

How is a fetus 'non-viable?'

viable adjective
us /ˈvɑɪ·ə·bəl/
able to exist, perform as intended, or succeed:

VIABLE | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

A fetus IS 'able to exist'....It is performing 'as intended' and will succeed IF it is not killed in the process of developing into a a human being. Like many pro aborts you are attaching your own meaning to 'viable' to satisfy your political beliefs. In the mean time, a human life is snuffed out.

Oh look, a 'funnyface!' Looks like I win again!!

The old “non-viable argument “ is yet another bogus attempt by the baby murders to justify their beliefs. It is absurd on any level. Many living Americans can be considered non-viable. Those kept alive by machines, those mentally defective, those completely incapacitated. I guess they want these people killed too.

what bullshit.

 

[gipper]

what's foolish is throwing out a strawman like that. you are trying to compare a gestational non viable fetus to a post born person with a life history.

lol... silly you..............

How is a fetus 'non-viable?'

viable adjective
us /ˈvɑɪ·ə·bəl/
able to exist, perform as intended, or succeed:

VIABLE | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

A fetus IS 'able to exist'....It is performing 'as intended' and will succeed IF it is not killed in the process of developing into a a human being. Like many pro aborts you are attaching your own meaning to 'viable' to satisfy your political beliefs. In the mean time, a human life is snuffed out.

Oh look, a 'funnyface!' Looks like I win again!!

The old “non-viable argument “ is yet another bogus attempt by the baby murders to justify their beliefs. It is absurd on any level. Many living Americans can be considered non-viable. Those kept alive by machines, those mentally defective, those completely incapacitated. I guess they want these people killed too.

what bullshit.

Why?

 

[buttercup]

actually, no.... by definition, they are parasitic until the cord is cut. do you view post born children as parasites if they are on state aid like you think of their welfare queen mamas? who keeps cutting programs like WIC & CHIP?

Sickening, wrong and demonstrably false, as the article below shows. But if you only meant that in a figurative way, because a preborn is dependent on you, well so are your children. Are they parasites?

Why the Embryo or Fetus Is Not a Parasite

1. a) A parasite is defined as an organism of one species living in or on an organism of another species (a heterospecific relationship) and deriving its nourishment from the host (is metabolically dependent on the host).
   
   b) A human embryo or fetus is an organism of one species (Homo sapiens) living in the uterine cavity of an organism of the same species (Homo sapiens) and deriving its nourishment from the mother (is metabolically dependent on the mother). This homospecific relationship is an obligatory dependent relationship, but not a parasitic relationship.
   
   
2. a) A parasite is an invading organism -- coming to parasitize the host from an outside source.
   
   b) A human embryo or fetus is formed from a fertilized egg -- the egg coming from an inside source, being formed in the ovary of the mother from where it moves into the oviduct where it may be fertilized to form the zygote -- the first cell of the new human being.
   
   
3. a) A parasite is generally harmful to some degree to the host that is harboring the parasite
   .
   b) A human embryo or fetus developing in the uterine cavity does not usually cause harm to the mother, although it may if proper nutrition and care is not maintained by the mother.
   
   
4. a) A parasite makes direct contact with the host's tissues, often holding on by either mouth parts, hooks or suckers to the tissues involved (intestinal lining, lungs, connective tissue, etc.)
   
   b) A human embryo or fetus makes direct contact with the uterine lining of the mother for only a short period of time. It soon becomes isolated inside its own amniotic sac, and from that point on makes indirect contact with the mother only by way of the umbilical cord and placenta.
   
   
5. a) When a parasite invades host tissue, the host tissue will sometimes respond by forming a capsule (of connective tissue) to surround the parasite and cut it off from other surrounding tissue (examples would be Paragonimus westermani, lung fluke, or Oncocerca volvulus, a nematode worm causing cutaneous filariasis in the human).
   
   b) When the human embryo or fetus attaches to and invades the lining tissue of the mother's uterus, the lining tissue responds by surrounding the human embryo and does not cut it off from the mother, but rather establishes a means of close contact (the placenta) between the mother and the new human being.
   
   
6. a) When a parasite invades a host, the host will usually respond by forming antibodies in response to the somatic antigens (molecules comprising the body of the parasite) or metabolic antigens (molecules secreted or excreted by the parasite) of the parasite. Parasitism usually involves an immunological response on the part of the host. (See Cheng, T.C., General Parasitology, p. 8.)
   
   
7. b) New evidence, presented by Beer and Billingham in their article, "The Embryo as a Transplant" indicates that the mother does react to the presence of the embryo by producing humoral antibodies, but they suggest that the trophoblast -- the jacket of cells surrounding the embryo -- blocks the action of these antibodies and therefore the embryo or fetus is not rejected. This reaction is unique to the embryo-mother relationship.
   
   
8. a) A parasite is generally detrimental to the reproductive capacity of the invaded host. The host may be weakened, diseased or killed by the parasite, thus reducing or eliminating the host's capacity to reproduce.
   
   b) A human embryo or fetus is absolutely essential to the reproductive capacity of the involved mother (and species). The mother is usually not weakened, diseased or killed by the presence of the embryo or fetus, but rather is fully tolerant of this offspring which must begin his or her life in this intimate and highly specialized relationship with the mother.
   
   
9. a) A parasite is an organism that, once it invades the definitive host, will usually remain with host for life (as long as it or the host survives).
   
   b) A human embryo or fetus has a temporary association with the mother, remaining only a number of months in the uterus.

A parasite is an organism that associates with the host in a negative, unhealthy and nonessential (nonessential to the host) manner which will often damage the host and detrimentally affect the procreative capacity of the host (and species).

A human embryo or fetus is a human being that associates with the mother in a positive, healthful essential manner necessary for the procreation of the species.

(This data was compiled by Thomas L. Johnson, Professor of Biology, Mary Washington College, Fredericksburg, VA. Professor Johnson teaches Chordate Embryology and Parasitology.)​

Source: http://www.l4l.org/l

 

[playtime]

lol... what? she can have all the outside input she wants or have none at all.

That's not what you're saying.

Who is it referring to the unborn child as "her property"?

YOU.

By using that particular phrase, you are suggesting that no outside input is allowed.

her uterus & what's inside it b4 viability is her property. she can have input if she wants, but the final decision is hers. it really is that easy to understand.