Not trying to be argumentative or against your position, its just that the child isn't part of her body.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Not trying to be argumentative or against your position, its just that the child isn't part of her body.
That's a loaded statement as soon as you use the term "unborn child" instead of fetus
Same goes when you use the term fetus instead of unborn child.
Both sides of this debate use word play and rhetoric to make people choose sides based on emotions.
Fetus is the medically accurate term however. If you use unborn child you can take the next step and say "possible future nobel prize winner"
So the chance of a child being born is as rare as winning the nobel prize? I thought that being born is the natural unmolested result of pregnancy.
Fair enough. Embryo or fetus are the medical terms.
Women have been having both natural and forced abortions, i.e. miscarriages and abortions induced from drugs produced by natural plants, for thousands of years. I expect that this trend will continue for thousands more, assuming we don't kill ourselves off in a mass extinction event.
Couldn't it be a loaded statement if I used the term "fetus" instead of unborn child? I mean the definition is pretty much the same.
Although I am repulsed by the idea of abortion, I would be just as repulsed if I were to support any law that put people in cages for practicing abortion. That's my take.
Calling a fetus and unborn child is talking about "could-be's" or hopes. It doesn't reflect what "is". Calling a fetus an possible Nobel Prize winner or possible president is going further down that road.
Your argument is sound from a medical standpoint, but since statistically children in the womb, or even taken out and raised in test tubes will more likely than not continue their natural progression, I'm ok with unborn child and find it unoffensive
If we didn't have so many unnatural "laws" forced on us, healthier abortions using natural methods like plants would be more common, and maybe there wouldn't be so much financial struggle involved in having a kid!
Are you for late abortions?
It absolutely is part of her body. Without the use of her body the fetus or unborn cannot survive. That woman has to go through nine months physical changes and a lifetime of responsibility due to an easy mistake. Do people really think women should be forced into that?
I never said they should be forced, my point is that relying on someone doesn't make you5you part of their body. Once a baby is born, if left in a dumpster, would die if no one provided for its needs. Not part of the body. Can survive with care provided by another.
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.
No I mean it is LITERALLY part of the mother's body. It is attached by umbilical cord, the unborn/fetus takes sustenance from what the mother eats. It is in fact part of her body until the day the umbilical cord is detached.
Tell me what is the difference between the termination of a pregnancy that occurred due to the decision of the woman's mind and the one due to the decision of the woman's body?
In some places, even miscarriage is illegal.
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. Though it’s possible for someone to have a transplanted organ that does not share the same genetic code as the rest their body, that transplanted organ does match the genetic code of the original donor. The same can not be said of an unborn child.
uman embryos are not independently generated by the woman. According to former United States Surgeon General, C. Everett Koop,"we should not view the unborn baby as an extension of the woman's body [because] it did not originate only from the woman. The baby would not exist without the man's seed."1
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."2
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.
The late Christopher Hitchens, a prominent public intellectual, atheist, and abortion advocate wrote the following in his book, God is Not Great:
It wasn't the only stupid thing or even the stupidest one Hitchens ever said.