Abortion - A woman has the right to do what she wants with her own body. Is the fetus her body?

Question

If a woman wants to donate a kidney, that is her right. Check the kidney's DNA and it matches her. If she gives blood, it will match her DNA. If she has liposuction, what is removed has her DNA.

But when she has an abortion, what is removed does not match her DNA.

In a criminal trial, if the DNA of a person is found, do they charge the mother with a crime? No. Why? It is not hers, it is her child's. How do they know? The DNA is not the same.

The fetus is not her DNA. It is a different person because it has human DNA which is different than hers. So doesn't that mean it is not only her body that is affected during an abortion?

Wow - try to have an intelligent discussion and the name callers abound. Calling me a Nazi sure means your argument is flawed. I didn't insult anybody with the question did I? I am trying to understand.

As to those who say that it can't live on its own so it is the mothers choice. At what age do you decide it can live on its own? I wasn't really capable until my teen years. I needed somebody's help.

What about late term abortions, when a viable fetus is killed when we have the technology to keep it alive? What is the rationale there?

Addendum: Hey SPRCPT - it is interesting you talk of spewing theological yada yada when there was no mention of God in this. Only science. I am against capital punishment as well, which makes me unusual for the "conservatives" you seem to want to lump me with.

Nice try to ruin a discussion. It is amazing how people who refuse to listen to another point of view call those of us trying to learn narrow-minded.

Stunning display of logic!

Answer 1

Wow Brian, are you wrong. Medical science can tell the who the egg and the strep throat belongs to.

It sure is convenient to say differing DNA doesn't make it a person. It is the only argument they have. The problem is medical science is able to keep preemie babies alive earlier and earlier. If it reaches the point where the whole nine months before birth can be spent outside the mother, will that change the definition of when life begins?

Life begins at conception. At that point in time, you have something with human DNA that differs from the mother. If that fertilized egg lives to be 100, the DNA will be the same whole time. If it is human DNA at 100, why isn't it at conception, since it is the same?

Answer 2

I believe that if a woman feels she won't be able to support a baby and she won't be able to give it a good life, then she has the right to do what she wants. I think that since a fetus is linked directly to the mother, the mother can do what she wants. If a woman was raped, I don't think she would want to keep that baby because it would be a constant reminder of that one event. I know people who have gotten pregnant while on the pill, and and even when they have their tubes tied, so I don't think that every unplanned pregnancy is due to the lack of birth control usage. Scientifically speaking, until several weeks into a pregnency, the zygote is just a ball of cells with no nerves, so it feels no pain. You have millions of eggs, you can make millions of babies.

Answer 3

You've missed the whole point in Roe v. Wade. No one said the fetus was part of the mother, only that her right to her own body supersedes the rights of the fetus.

That may make perfect legal sense, but it also exposes abortion as the selfish act of an irresponsible human being.

Just because abortion is legal, doesn't mean it is right. Nothing can absolve the parents (Yes, both of them!) that created that life, of their responsibility to that life.

Answer 4

Until the umbilical cord is cut, it's biologically part of her body.

EDIT:

"What about late term abortions, when a viable fetus is killed when we have the technology to keep it alive? What is the rationale there?"

And just how many critically ill, full term newborns do you suggest other parents sacrifice, while 20 week old fetuses that have a half of a percent of a chance of surviving tie up the few NICU beds available in the country?

Are other babies less worthy of saving because their mothers chose to bring them to term?

Answer 5

Yes it is part of her body and it is technically a parasitic growth.

Nice trolling from an anti freedom of choice Nazi.

Edit - Spewing theocratic anti freedom propaganda is not even close to having an intelligent discussion.

Edit 2 - The only people that are pushing the anti freedom of choice agenda on this issue (as you are doing) are those who would use legislation to enforce religious doctrine.

It is your position on this issue that defines you and who you are lumped together with, not your words. You lumped yourself in with them.

And yes I did answer the question in the first sentence.

Answer 6

In my opinion that fetus could not survive without being inside the mother...therefore it is a part of her body. It is attached to her, inside of her, her body nourishes it, it is part of her. If the mother died the fetus would die too. It is not an individual human being yet because it can not survive without the mother. Therefore she can make the decision whether she wants to have that baby or not.

Answer 7

The fetus is part of her body until it reaches the stage in development when it is clearly a human being - not just DNA.

At what point the stage of development is, is another matter.

Answer 8

The right to do what you want with your body is NOT absolute. If you ask a doctor to cut off your leg for no reason, he will refuse. If he does not, it is a crime.

Answer 9

your line of reasoning is flawed.

a fetus is not identical in dna, and neither is any of her eggs, nor a cell in her throat that was infected with strep...

Answer 10

The fetus cannot sustain life by itself, thus it is still part of the womans body.