Abort73.com / The Case Against Abortion / Prenatal Development / Part of the Mother’s Body?
Part of the Mother’s Body?
From conception onward, pregnancy involves two (or more) separate bodies.
Page Summary:
The slogan, "My Body, My Choice," betrays a tragic misunderstanding of what is taking place inside the womb. At no point in pregnancy is the developing embryo or fetus simply a part of the mother's body.
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."
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 Lilley (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.... It is the embryo who stops his mother's periods and makes her womb habitable by developing a placenta and a protective capsule of fluid for himself. He regulates his own amniotic fluid volume and although women speak of their waters breaking or their membranes rupturing, these structures belong to the fetus. And finally, it is the fetus, not the mother, who decides when labor should be initiated.
To put it simply, 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.
NEXT PAGE: Are Sperm and Egg Cells Alive?
BACK TO PARENT PAGE: Prenatal Development
LET US KNOW WHAT YOU THINK:
SHARE THIS PAGE: Facebook | MySpace | Twitter | Delicious | Digg | StumbleUpon | Mixx | reddit | Technorati
7 Comments on Part of the Mother’s Body?
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) (Nov 27, 2010 / 00:29 CST)
Squatmonger, if something cannot sustain life by itself, it’s not a human being. A human being is what we as a race have labeled an entity that has agency within society. When genetic researched has found that 1/3 to 1/2 of conceptions are naturally aborted because of genetic nondisjunction, or other chromosomal abnormalities, then what’s the harm? If someone can take a pill that would cause that, not naturally, would that be wrong?
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) (Jul 10, 2009 / 20:22 CST)
So Treefarmer, how is the unborn not a human?
What are the standards…?
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) (Jul 04, 2009 / 23:11 CST)
I think SquatMonger is getting the idea of human vs human being confused. Because it’s similar to a parasite it’s not a human being. A human being is a separate entity in itself. If a fetus is born as a still born it’s still human, but not a human being.
Click here to read the rest or add your own...