Just a thought but if it is legal for a doctor to destroy a baby inside it's mother that is unwanted...?

Question

then what's to stop our government from allowing a doctor to take our lives when it deems we are no longer "productive" or "needed" or if your children are tired of caring for you?

Peace Be With You,
Debra

You say they are "parts of " the mothers body? Since when do "parts" have their own brain and heart?

"Parasite" then you and I are parasites.

No human mother has ever given birth to anything except a human baby. Why do pro-abortionists alway steer away from calling it what it is a baby? My 2 year old neice can look at a fetus or an embryo and tell you it's a baby. I've had miscarriages and I can tell you what I saw wasn't a blob of cells or a "parasite."

Answer 1

then we are all doomed....

Answer 2

The two are totally different. First of all, the baby needs the mother's body to live. The baby feeds off of the nutrients in the mother, causes the mother's hormones to surge, causes great discomfort physically and maybe emotionally. The baby cannot survive outside of the womb until a certain point. In that time, the mother has the right to make a decision to remove the baby/fetus from her body and in doing so, destroying the potential for life to have developed further. I do believe that a living cell is life, and a collection of lots of cells is life, and a fetus is life. I think the difference is if that fetus is a citizen yet, or even a human being. It is not yet a citizen of our country, not yet a human being, but a living fetus that would maybe continue to grow into a human being if it were successfully born without complications, but it will not have that opportunity. It gets it's birth certificate upon birth, when it then becomes a citizen... otherwise we might be citizens of the country in which we were concieved rather than born in.

For the government to kill us after we are alive just because we are unproductive is not analogous to abortion in the least. We are already living human beings and citizens of the nation. We are not relying on another human beings body and nutrients to stay alive. The government could just leave us out in the cold, not give any money or care if it wanted, but as human beings we could still fend for ourselves hopefully. No one has the right to kill us because we are not "feeding" off of another's body. Also, we are citizens and a fetus is not.

Answer 3

Embryos and immature fetuses are parts of the host's body, not independent beings, not "babies."

If the embryo or fetus is not parasitic, and is capable of surviving outside the woman's body with medical care, then it is a person. If it cannot survive, it is a temporary extension of the woman's body.

Judaism on abortion, from http://www.uscj.org/Embryonic_Stem_Cell_5809.html
< During the first 40 days of gestation, the fetus, according to the Talmud, is “as if it were simply water,” and from the 41st day until birth it is “like the thigh of its mother.” Neither men nor women may amputate their thigh at will because that would be injuring their bodies, which belong to God. Thus, according to Jewish law, abortion is generally prohibited, not as an act of murder (the Catholic position) but as an act of self-injury. On the other hand... if the woman’s life or health is at stake, an abortion must be performed to save the life or the physical **or mental** health of the woman, for she is without question a full-fledged human being ... while the fetus is still only part of the woman’s body. >

As you addressed my answer in a postscript, I'll P.S. this too: I would have an abortion only under extreme circumstances, but that's my personal decision, this is my body. I respect the right of women to make their own decisions - that's not my business. And for the record, I lost a son in infancy, and I had two heartbreaking miscarriages.

And technically, yes, an embryo qualifies as a parasite: from http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=4769

Answer 4

Personally, I don't agree with abortion except in very rare cases. However is it really fair to force others to live by my own ideals? I'm not saying not to have an opinion, but you nor anyone has the right to judge such an intimate issue. As for the embryo (it's called a fetus eight weeks after the time of conception) being just a collection of cells, I totally agree, but it all depends on what that collection of cells MEANS to the woman housing (lol) them. If she does not want this baby, why should she give birth to it and potentially endanger this child? I had a miscarriage at 22 weeks with my twins. The doctors by law had to LET them die. My nurse told me that if I could have held on for 2 more weeks they could have tried. I was devastated, but they were not considered people. In my heart they WERE people from the time I knew they were there which was at a about four weeks. It all depends on how the mother views the fetus. After all she is the one who has to carry them around for close to 10 months. It seems to me that most people who don't agree with abortions have to say: "well if that's legal then what's to stop ...(fill in some awful tragedy that no one would agree with)..." It's the same with the same sex marriage debate "well if homosexuals get married what will stop me from marrying my dog?" Common sense I hope. However I digress, if you don't agree with abortions don't have them.

Answer 5

Oh, brother. The doctor doesn't destroy a baby inside the mother. The doctor uses a device to vacuum out unwanted fetal material. The thing isn't a baby until it's born, before that, it's a fetus. Your analogy is incredibly stupid and retarded. There's a difference between a lump of unwanted cells clinging to some woman's uterine wall and a fully viable human being who has invested a lifetime contributing to society. Try again, Debra, and this time, wipe the dead baby from your eyes.

Answer 6

It is INSIDE the mother, therefore, it is part of the mother until birth...since YOU do not know the situation of the mother's, who are you to tell someone they cannot receive an abortion? What if the mother was raped by her father or does not have enough money to care for a child? Why neglect that child financially or emotionally just for the sake of religion or law? If abortion is illegal, sooner or later women will try to abort the child themsleves with clothes hangers and wind up hurting themselves...If it is not happening to you, why should you care? Some people may say to put the baby up for adoption, but for the rest of that child's life, they will be wondering who they are and who their parents are and where they came from...

As for taking the lives of someone who is no longer "needed," if the family says pull the plug then pull the plug...The same goes for assisted suicides...If a terminally ill person wants to die fast instead of living day by day in agony and pain for the greed of others (such as their family), then let them die peacefully...

Answer 7

I think that you and I and most sane people would agree that, in a perfect world, there would be no abortion whatsoever. Nobody actually wants abortions to happen.

But this is not a perfect world, and today abortions are performed by trained medical professionals in a sanitized environment to ensure the abortion goes as correctly as possible.

If abortion were outlawed, that would not stop women from wanting abortions. Just like since murder's outlawed, that has not stopped some people from wanting to murder, has it?

The women who want abortions, but cannot have it legally, will do it illegally, in dirty alleys by untrained people. Obviously, in this setting, there is a higher chance of more than just the fetus being harmed. The woman is more likely to die, or catch a disease, or be injured.

Do you get what I'm trying to say?

Answer 8

The first is the voluntary act of the woman to remove an unwanted parasite. The second would be an imposition by government on the woman's freedom of choice.

There is no logical link between the one and the other.

NB: The questioner would do well to look up the word "parasite."

Answer 9

good question. I think we've gone too far allowing people to kill babies that are completly innocent. They have a heartbeat, so why are they not considered human beings until later? That is so dumb. Above this answer someone said "let's illegalize abortion and have mothers who dont want their babies put them into dumpster, drown them in bath-tubs, and leave them on hill-sides." Mother Teresa said something to this extent to Clinton "You know all those babies you're letting people kill before they're born, if they're unwanted by their mothers, bring them to me. I'll take them all." Mother Teresa might not be living anymore, but I guarantee there are people that would take these babies. I'd be happy to raise a baby someone else would throw away. They are worth way more than that, their life may not have been planned by their parents, but they have value and worth as HUMANS.

Answer 10

the 14th ammendment. Fetuses are by definition, not citizens, because to be a citizen, you must be BORN in the united states, or go through a nationalization process. Also several other ammendments have defined the right to privacy, and it is a woman's private right to terminate a fetus. Many of the above posts are misinformed, or just based on raw emotion, I represent the legal argument as it was explained to me.

Answer 11

The difference is there is no debating a person that can breathe and receive food, etc WITHOUT being physically attached to another living thing is alive.

Two days after conception, can the blob in the uterus do that?