Medical Questions > Debate Forums > Abortion Debate Forum

Why should women have the right to kill unborn children? (Page 1)

Let me first say, after reading several of these posts, that Pro-Choicers are selfish, some unabashedly. My main point though, is how can they say that Pro-Lifers shouldn't care about someone else's choice (they've never met). My response to this is "why should we care if a 3 year old is murdered by his/her mother?" BECAUSE IT IS MURDER, and the last time I checked, killing someone is illegal in this country. Obviously abortion is legal, but that is why I'm arguing against it, because it is killing someone that did not choose to die. We don't even allow euthanasia in this country, so to say its a mothers choice to kill her child is RIDICULOUS.
Did you find this post helpful?
First Helper User Profile GreyWolf
|

User Profile
replied February 5th, 2009
Especially eHealthy
A 3 year old is independent. A 3 year old does not require another person's body as life support. A 3 year old is recognized as a citizen of their country and is protected by the rights afforded to each citizen.

An unborn child fits none of the criteria above. Women have the right to abort an unwanted pregnancy, because it is their body that is being used to sustain it. Each person has the right to decide what to do or not do with their bodies.

Forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy against her will is sick. Women should not be forced to breed against their will. We are not brood mares. We should not have to do something because others feel we should, or because others can not, or for any other reason other than we choose to.

It's not a mother's choice to "kill her child". It's a woman's choice to end her pregnancy. No one on this forum will support the murder of a born child. There is a huge difference between an unborn child and a born child.
|
Did you find this post helpful?
Users who thank AyaMiyaki for this post: motherofhighspiritedones 

replied June 15th, 2011
Why women would be the only one to decide to kill the child! Where is the father? This abortion thing will bring people to kill their own 3 yrs old child or they will become violent to their children!
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied February 5th, 2009
AyaMiyaki,
I strongly disagree that there is a huge difference between an unborn child and a born child. A woman's body is designed to allow a fetus to grow until birth and give birth without any intervention of any kind. If it takes a special action to stop a pregnancy, then I think it stands to reason that a fetus is a child as soon as it is conceived. If left alone inside the mother's womb it would survive until birth. Sperm on its own will not become a child, nor will an egg. An embryo will.

Assuming you will disagree with that logic, I'm curious to know what your opinion is then on late-term abortions in which a baby is delivered and left to die by not being attended to? Or how about delivering the head of the baby and sucking out its brains to abort it?
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied February 5th, 2009
Community Volunteer
Late term abortions in themselves are rare. And usually done due to fetal deformities or the mother's life being at risk. And who are you to say if a fetus left alone WILL grow into a child? You cannot state that as fact. It would be inaccurate. Fetuses are miscarried all the time, born still all the time, so saying if left alone, they will grow into a child is inaccurate. We can only ASSUME that. It takes no more special attention to stop a pregnancy than to carry one. It is not your right to interfere with a woman and the choices pertaining to HER body, which includes HER uterus, not yours. It is really simple all you prolifers, you don't like abortion, don't have one. The choice should still remain, because ultimately it is NOT about the fetus, it is about how the woman concieved...eg, failed birth control, your fault, suffer. Raped? Its ok, not your fault. Deformed fetus? Its ok not your fault. Can't afford a baby right now and cannot emotionally handle adoption? Your fault, suffer. I am pro-choice. I do not care what someone else does with their own bodies. It has no effect on me. As for some other parent murdering their living, sentient 3 year old child, even their newborn, I would be saddened and upset by it, but since it does not have a direct effect on me or my family, I am not going to dwell on it for the rest of my life, like pro-lifers do.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied February 5th, 2009
Active User, very eHealthy
AyaMiyaki wrote:


It's not a mother's choice to "kill her child". It's a woman's choice to end her pregnancy. No one on this forum will support the homicide of a born child. There is a huge difference between an unborn child and a born child.


It's also a woman's choice to kill her fetus, or unborn offspring.

Sure, there's a huge difference between a fetus and a born child. One's still in the womb, the other is out of the womb. One needs another human to support it. the other can function on its own (assuming he or she doesn't have any serious disabilities). Their bodies work differently. But, there are also similarities. They're both human. They both grow, develop, need nutrients, etc. The older the unborn child, the more similar he or she will be to a born child.

Of course, all human stages of life differ from each other. There are many differences between a newborn and a toddler, a toddler and an adolescent, an adolescent and a full grown adult, etc. And of course there are similiarities.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied July 24th, 2011
I'll help you out with what these differences are, then.

The first difference is Size. You were much smaller as an embryo than as a toddler, and you were still much smaller as a toddler than as you are now. Does that really merit killing you then for?

The second difference is Level of Development. You were much less developed as an embryo than as a toddler, and yet as a toddler, you weren't even developed to the point of having a working reproductive system. Does that really merit killing you for?

The third difference is the environment. As an embryo, you were in the womb. A journey of six inches down the birth canal can't possibly make you a person. For example, when you get in your car, are you any different of a person than when you get out of it? If so, does a journey of six inches really merit killing you?

The final difference is the degree of dependency. As an embryo, you were fully dependent on your mother for protection. As a baby, you were nearly completely dependent on your mother for being fed, and other similar needs. As a teenager, you were dependent on your parents still for money. Does the degree of dependency really merit killing you?
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied February 5th, 2009
The point here is not that I think everyone must do what I think is right, which is to never abort a baby. It is actually that I think it should be just as illegal as killing someone who has already been born. Those that still feel they must, will do it anyway and break the law, risking penalty. But by making it legal, the consequence of sex without being prepared to have a child isn't there. Those of you who say "I wouldn't do it, but I don't think we should take away a woman's right to choose" are just not concerned with preserving human life. There is nothing more innocent than an unborn baby who has not even had a chance to do anything wrong. To kill someone who is the epitome of innocence is a great treachery, and should not be legal or condoned as the Freedom of Choice Act would do. Contrary to what people might think, I am in no way trying to judge women who pursue abortions. I am extremely concerned for the innocent life that is denied his/her right to live because of that choice. Again, pro-choicers need to ask themselves: Why is it homicide to take the life of a 1 month old who is born into unfortunate circumstances, but it is just a woman making a decision about her own body if she decides to take that life during the pregnancy. Here is one more way of looking at it: if a pregnant woman is killed, the killer can be convicted of 2 homicides. For those of you saying it isn't a person until it is born, how do you justify that?
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied February 5th, 2009
Extremely eHealthy
I think that any woman has the right to remove an unwanted occupant from her uterus. It is unfortunate that this thing can't live on its own, but then, it should have picked a friendlier uterus. If anti-chociers care so much, they should be working on developing a suitable incubator, and then they can take over the job of lookign after this speck of nothing until it can survive on its own.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied February 5th, 2009
Especially eHealthy
ogettob wrote:
AyaMiyaki,
I strongly disagree that there is a huge difference between an unborn child and a born child.


If you can't see the difference between an unborn child, who gets its nutrition and oxygen solely from its mother, and a born child, who can get his/her nutrition from anyone and can breathe either on his/her own or with assistance from a machine, then I don't know what to tell you. An unborn child is not recognized as a citizen of this country, is not counted by the census, does not have a social security number, and is not afforded the rights given to us as citizens of our country.

Quote:
A woman's body is designed to allow a fetus to grow until birth and give birth without any intervention of any kind.


That is not always true. Some women need medical intervention to sustain their pregnancies. Some women's bodies attack the unborn child. Some women must take medication daily in order to carry the pregnancy to term. Many of these women suffer multiple miscarriages before the reason is discovered.

Quote:
If it takes a special action to stop a pregnancy, then I think it stands to reason that a fetus is a child as soon as it is conceived.


That makes no sense to me. One thing has nothing to do with the other. It takes a special action to stop cancer too. That doesn't make cancer a child.

Quote:
If left alone inside the mother's womb it would survive until birth.


Again, not always true. Many pregnancies end in miscarriage, some before the woman even realizes she's pregnant.

Quote:
Sperm on its own will not become a child, nor will an egg. An embryo will.


I don't see what this has to do with abortion.

Quote:
Assuming you will disagree with that logic, I'm curious to know what your opinion is then on late-term abortions in which a baby is delivered and left to die by not being attended to? Or how about delivering the head of the baby and sucking out its brains to abort it?


Late-term abortions are almost never performed in this country, and one almost always need a medical reason to obtain one. Most abortions must be performed by, I believe, 22 weeks.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied July 31st, 2011
Experienced User
Within the past few years, the time has been slimmed down to no longer than 16 weeks. In Ohio, you may only have an abortion before you are 12 weeks along. Just adding to your statement- I'm a pro- choicer.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied February 5th, 2009
Especially eHealthy
NeutralUsername wrote:
It's also a woman's choice to kill her fetus, or unborn offspring.


I sincerely hope that one day science is developed enough to remove an unborn child from the womb without killing it. I sincerely do. Unfortunately science isn't that advanced yet, and these unborn children will all die. I don't advocate their deaths - I support the woman's right to end the pregnancy if she chooses. It's unfortunate that one leads to the other. If an unborn child could be removed without causing its death, I would not support the woman's right to terminate that life.

Quote:
Sure, there's a huge difference between a fetus and a born child. One's still in the womb, the other is out of the womb. One needs another human to support it. the other can function on its own (assuming he or she doesn't have any serious disabilities). Their bodies work differently. But, there are also similarities. They're both human. They both grow, develop, need nutrients, etc. The older the unborn child, the more similar he or she will be to a born child.

Of course, all human stages of life differ from each other. There are many differences between a newborn and a toddler, a toddler and an adolescent, an adolescent and a full grown adult, etc. And of course there are similiarities.


You're correct. But the original poster was arguing that terminating a pregnancy is the same as killing a 3 year old child. I was arguing as to why the two situations are not similar. About the only similarity I can see is that in each situation, a life is ending. But aside from that, there are major differences. A newborn and an unborn child have very little in common, let alone a 3 year old and an unborn child.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied February 5th, 2009
Especially eHealthy
ogettob wrote:
But by making it legal, the consequence of sex without being prepared to have a child isn't there.


So you're of the opinion that sex should only be enjoyed by people willing to become pregnant? That's extremely judgmental of you. By that logic, no woman should ever have sex unless she wants children. They should have their uterus removed or wait until menopause before having sex. Child-free couples should abstain until their 40's or beyond. Because after all, no birth control method is 100% effective. Even sterilization is not 100% unless the ovaries and/or uterus are removed.

Quote:
Those of you who say "I wouldn't do it, but I don't think we should take away a woman's right to choose" are just not concerned with preserving human life.


At the expense of another life, no. Not without that person's consent.

Quote:
There is nothing more innocent than an unborn baby who has not even had a chance to do anything wrong. To kill someone who is the epitome of innocence is a great treachery, and should not be legal or condoned as the Freedom of Choice Act would do.


It's not about innocence, or punishment, or anything other than the woman's right to choose what happens within her body. To tell a woman that she must endure a pregnancy and childbirth against her will is nothing short of slavery. Her body is no longer her own. Pregnancy and childbirth should not be a punishment for daring to have sex. What's even more sick about that is that only women would be punished this way. Men wouldn't have to suffer physical consequences for sex. And as you so eloquently pointed out earlier, women do not make themselves pregnant. But from your opinion, only women should have to physically suffer.

Quote:
Contrary to what people might think, I am in no way trying to judge women who pursue abortions. I am extremely concerned for the innocent life that is denied his/her right to live because of that choice.


But you can't have it both ways. If you're concerned about the unborn child, you are less concerned about the mother. Her suffering is necessary because the unborn child deserves life. You are belittling her emotions, opinions and choices by raising an organism that is not capable of supporting its own life above her own life. The woman is a citizen of her country, afforded the rights thereof. She is a breathing, thinking, AWARE individual. She is much more than a uterus.

Quote:
Again, pro-choicers need to ask themselves: Why is it homicide to take the life of a 1 month old who is born into unfortunate circumstances, but it is just a woman making a decision about her own body if she decides to take that life during the pregnancy.


It's very simple. The pregnancy is inside her body. The 1 month old is not. The unborn child is considered part of her body. The 1 month old is considered an individual and a citizen, and is protected by law against harm.

Quote:
Here is one more way of looking at it: if a pregnant woman is killed, the killer can be convicted of 2 homicides. For those of you saying it isn't a person until it is born, how do you justify that?


I believe that law is only in effect in a few states, and many people are opposed to it for the reasons I've listed above. Unborn children are not considered citizens of this country until birth, so to convict someone of the homicide of someone who does not legally exist is confusing, to put it mildly. There needs to be clarification in our justice system as to what, exactly, the status of an unborn child is, and that needs to be upheld in the court of law.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied February 6th, 2009
Active User, very eHealthy
Why should insentient embryos and fetuses have the right to use women's bodies when no born person has that right? Parents aren't legally compelled to donate a single drop of blood to their own offspring. Criminals aren't forced to donate cells or tissues to keep other people alive. Why should only females be placed under the burden of sharing their bodies against their will and why should only the unborn benefit from such tyranny?
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied February 6th, 2009
Extremely eHealthy
ogettob wrote:
AyaMiyaki,
If it takes a special action to stop a pregnancy, then I think it stands to reason that a fetus is a child as soon as it is conceived. If left alone inside the mother's womb it would survive until birth. Sperm on its own will not become a child, nor will an egg. An embryo will.


do you know how many Fertilized eggs are expelled from a womans body? I think you need to read up on that logic, in an obstetrics book.

ogettob wrote:
The point here is not that I think everyone must do what I think is right, which is to never abort a baby.

Let me explain society to you, Right and Wrong don't exist, they are "morals" that do not befit everyone, you are entitled to keep this bigotry to yourself.

Bigotry means "Utterly intolerant of ones beliefs, creed, lifestyle etc etc.

The only thing that supports us in a society is a legalized standard or a unionized standard for all, which follows under law and human rights. In order to wualify for either of these you need to be a person, only a born child is a person.

Explain to me why abortion is wrong with using educated Facts and please provide references.
ogettob wrote:

There is nothing more innocent than an unborn baby who has not even had a chance to do anything wrong.


People can be innoncent, you cannot be innoncent until you are in a siutiuation to understand morals or in a environment that you can see what is right or wrong. A mother can be innoncent, so which should have a higher value?

When you use the word innoncent you are refering to being naieve, even adults can be naieve!

ogettob wrote:

if a pregnant woman is killed, the killer can be convicted of 2 homicides. For those of you saying it isn't a person until it is born, how do you justify that?

It is done very simply and legally, Ill provide you with the correct answer....

"It was a wanted pregnancy!"
Here is something you didn't think of

If a pregnant woman is 6 months pregnant and throws her down the stairs will they charge her?

I a pregnant woman did not want a pregnancy and committed suicide who do blame, who goes to jail, her doctor?

ogettob wrote:

We don't even allow euthanasia in this country, so to say its a mothers choice to kill her child is RIDICULOUS.


I think forcing a woman to continue a pregnancy is slavery and is effin ridicoulous, reproduction is an option not a function.

For example what if I think I am a male, does it means its okay for me to have sex recreationally?

Now I am going to give you hardcore facts
-9.7 million children die yearly to the 80 000 abortion performed (thats disturbing)
-The demand of adoption cannot be met, there is not enough parents, so they suffer but who cares about the, its only when they become of age for the "military."(In a conservative view.)
-Sex is re-creational with the option for pro-creation (so says the law) dont like it well join senate.
-Pro-life dont give a damn about a childs welfare 9 only if she/he has died or been born.)
-Why is it single mother are struggling, they need help with their children and yet you're here "Biatching" about unborn children when you can't even help the children who are here?

Once again
"Why are "Biatching about "caring so much" when you haven't even helped the children who seriously need it?

I think pro-life are selfish but then again Im just reversing everything you said!

Why is it pro-lifer scream about biology but then wear clothes, of course we were born naked, why do you drive a car or sleep in a bed?
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied February 7th, 2009
Extremely eHealthy
AyaMiyaki wrote:


It's very simple. The pregnancy is inside her body. The 1 month old is not. The unborn child is considered part of her body. The 1 month old is considered an individual and a citizen, and is protected by law against harm.



The unborn is not part of a woman's body. Feeds from her yes but that's not part of the body. All parts of your body share the same DNA, same blood and have a function to support you. The unborn has a different set of DNA and in many instances like my daughter different blood too and does not perform a function to sustain you. When a egg is released from your ovary there you go it is released from your organ the ovary and when released by itself it by itself builds it's own mechanism for survival when it attaches to the womb. Since pro-choice like to call parasite. Is a parasite considered part of the body of the host? No. It's a parasite right, a complete different organism.

Just wanted to clarify the unborn while it is not considered a citizen it's not part of a woman's body. It's just society who decided to not give the right to live to the unborn.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied February 7th, 2009
Extremely eHealthy
The point is that no one has the right to attach itself to a human being and demand the use of their organs. Fair is fair.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied February 7th, 2009
Community Volunteer
nightangel73 wrote:
AyaMiyaki wrote:


It's very simple. The pregnancy is inside her body. The 1 month old is not. The unborn child is considered part of her body. The 1 month old is considered an individual and a citizen, and is protected by law against harm.



The unborn is not part of a woman's body. Feeds from her yes but that's not part of the body. All parts of your body share the same DNA, same blood and have a function to support you. The unborn has a different set of DNA and in many instances like my daughter different blood too and does not perform a function to sustain you. When a egg is released from your ovary there you go it is released from your organ the ovary and when released by itself it by itself builds it's own mechanism for survival when it attaches to the womb. Since pro-choice like to call parasite. Is a parasite considered part of the body of the host? No. It's a parasite right, a complete different organism.

Just wanted to clarify the unborn while it is not considered a citizen it's not part of a woman's body. It's just society who decided to not give the right to live to the unborn.
Do you know what maternal DNA is? It is the DNA that we, and only we, as women, pass to our children. Yes, they DO share SOME of our DNA. How about the placenta? Did you know it contains maternal cells as well as fetal cells? Does the fetus not receive nutrients from OUR blood via the filtering system of the placenta? Then, yes, it is a part of our body. No, our blood normally does not mix with the fetuses, but since it CAN, we are given Rh immunoglobin if we are Rh negative to prevent any problems during pregnancy AND delivery. Do you know why some medications that are beneifical to the woman's health cannot be given to her while she is pregnant? Duh. Because the fetus shares some part of our body, and through that part, anything we take CAN affect the fetus. And yes, a fetus COULD be considered parasitic. To call something parasitic is NOT calling it a parasite. Parasitic is an adjective, a word used to DESCRIBE something or the nature of something. And since a fetus will do anything it can to sustain life, including gaining nutrients from our bodies (hence why we have to intake extra calories and vitamins/minerals while pregnant), then it could be considered parasitic. That does not make it a parasite. For someone who supposedly has a background in the medical field, you should know all of this. Oh and by the way, no child shares the same blood as a parent, same blood type maybe. But not the same blood.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied February 7th, 2009
Active User, very eHealthy
Re: Why should women have the right to kill unborn children?
ogettob wrote:
Let me first say, after reading several of these posts, that Pro-Choicers are selfish, some unabashedly.



EVERYONE is selfish. Selfishness is not always a bad thing.



Quote:
"why should we care if a 3 year old is murdered by his/her mother?" BECAUSE IT IS homicide, and the last time I checked, killing someone is illegal in this country.



What country? There are people from all over the world out here on the Internet, ya know.


In MY country (Canada), homicide is the killing of a human being. I quote from the Criminal Code of Canada:

222. (1) A person commits homicide when, directly or indirectly, by any means, he causes the death of a human being.


Not all homicide is illegal:


(2) Homicide is culpable or not culpable.

(3) Homicide that is not culpable is not an offence.

(4) Culpable homicide is murder or manslaughter or infanticide.




Our criminal code specifies that for the purpose of law, a human being is born:

223. (1) A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother, whether or not

(a) it has breathed;

(b) it has an independent circulation; or

(c) the navel string is severed.




Quote:
Obviously abortion is legal, but that is why I'm arguing against it, because it is killing someone that did not choose to die. We don't even allow euthanasia in this country, so to say its a mothers choice to kill her child is RIDICULOUS.


As long as said child is living IN and ATTACHED TO the woman's body, she has the choice to kill it. As it should be.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied February 7th, 2009
Community Volunteer
Re: Why should women have the right to kill unborn children?
msrosie wrote:
ogettob wrote:
Let me first say, after reading several of these posts, that Pro-Choicers are selfish, some unabashedly.



EVERYONE is selfish. Selfishness is not always a bad thing.



Quote:
"why should we care if a 3 year old is murdered by his/her mother?" BECAUSE IT IS homicide, and the last time I checked, killing someone is illegal in this country.



What country? There are people from all over the world out here on the Internet, ya know.


In MY country (Canada), homicide is the killing of a human being. I quote from the Criminal Code of Canada:

222. (1) A person commits homicide when, directly or indirectly, by any means, he causes the death of a human being.


Not all homicide is illegal:


(2) Homicide is culpable or not culpable.

(3) Homicide that is not culpable is not an offence.

(4) Culpable homicide is homicide or manslaughter or infanticide.




Our criminal code specifies that for the purpose of law, a human being is born:

223. (1) A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother, whether or not

(a) it has breathed;

(b) it has an independent circulation; or

(c) the navel string is severed.




Quote:
Obviously abortion is legal, but that is why I'm arguing against it, because it is killing someone that did not choose to die. We don't even allow euthanasia in this country, so to say its a mothers choice to kill her child is RIDICULOUS.


As long as said child is living IN and ATTACHED TO the woman's body, she has the choice to kill it. As it should be.

-----------------

To the mods - when I click "submit" on this post, I get a notice that my post contains a word that is not allowed here and that I could be banned for posting it. I have no idea what word that is, could someone please enlighten me?
LOL if you wrote the "m" word, another common word for homicide (mur- and then der, just combine them), for some reason, it will be automatically changed to homicide. I do not see what is wrong with that word but for some reason ehealth does. That might be why your post was labled inappropriate.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied February 8th, 2009
Extremely eHealthy
motherofhighspiritedones wrote:
nightangel73 wrote:
AyaMiyaki wrote:


It's very simple. The pregnancy is inside her body. The 1 month old is not. The unborn child is considered part of her body. The 1 month old is considered an individual and a citizen, and is protected by law against harm.



The unborn is not part of a woman's body. Feeds from her yes but that's not part of the body. All parts of your body share the same DNA, same blood and have a function to support you. The unborn has a different set of DNA and in many instances like my daughter different blood too and does not perform a function to sustain you. When a egg is released from your ovary there you go it is released from your organ the ovary and when released by itself it by itself builds it's own mechanism for survival when it attaches to the womb. Since pro-choice like to call parasite. Is a parasite considered part of the body of the host? No. It's a parasite right, a complete different organism.

Just wanted to clarify the unborn while it is not considered a citizen it's not part of a woman's body. It's just society who decided to not give the right to live to the unborn.
Do you know what maternal DNA is? It is the DNA that we, and only we, as women, pass to our children. Yes, they DO share SOME of our DNA. How about the placenta? Did you know it contains maternal cells as well as fetal cells? Does the fetus not receive nutrients from OUR blood via the filtering system of the placenta? Then, yes, it is a part of our body. No, our blood normally does not mix with the fetuses, but since it CAN, we are given Rh immunoglobin if we are Rh negative to prevent any problems during pregnancy AND delivery. Do you know why some medications that are beneifical to the woman's health cannot be given to her while she is pregnant? Duh. Because the fetus shares some part of our body, and through that part, anything we take CAN affect the fetus. And yes, a fetus COULD be considered parasitic. To call something parasitic is NOT calling it a parasite. Parasitic is an adjective, a word used to DESCRIBE something or the nature of something. And since a fetus will do anything it can to sustain life, including gaining nutrients from our bodies (hence why we have to intake extra calories and vitamins/minerals while pregnant), then it could be considered parasitic. That does not make it a parasite. For someone who supposedly has a background in the medical field, you should know all of this. Oh and by the way, no child shares the same blood as a parent, same blood type maybe. But not the same blood.



Ahh interesting we have had debates where pro-choice call the fetus "parasite" and now pro-choice is saying "parasitic nature". Very nice to see pro-choice maturing to not think now that a fetus is a parasite.

Of course we all know that an embryo has half DNA from mom and half from dad. Soo? Just "some" of your DNA doesn't make a functional organ. It takes the complete set of DNA half of your mom and half of the dad so for a organism can be created. This is a separate LIFE get that into your head. It's just feeding from you and breathing with your oxygen supply. The placenta is created by the embryo!! You do not create it!! Yes of course it has both maternal and fetal cells it's has to duh!! Maternal blood has to pass through the organ so that it can give the oxygen and the nutrients to the fetus.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied February 8th, 2009
Extremely eHealthy
nightangel73 wrote:



Ahh interesting we have had debates where pro-choice call the fetus "parasite" and now pro-choice is saying "parasitic nature". Very nice to see pro-choice maturing to not think now that a fetus is a parasite.


Please don't generalise. I still think a fetus is a parasite. Evil little blood-suckers!

It's even more evil than most parasites, since it has the ability to alter the biological processes of the host to suit itself, ie altering its immune system to prevent it being rejected.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied February 8th, 2009
Extremely eHealthy
oopoopoop wrote:


It's even more evil than most parasites, since it has the ability to alter the biological processes of the host to suit itself, ie altering its immune system to prevent it being rejected.



Since it is so evil can't understand why women don't work harder to not get pregnant in the first place.
|
Did you find this post helpful?