I just saw someone use this comparison to justify abortion, I was wondering if there is a large number of people who can't tell the difference, of it's its just that one person.
2007-10-15 06:08:08 · 10 answers · asked by Yahoo Answer Angel 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
All of the posters and readers here are former fetuses.
None of them are former cancerous tumors.
2007-10-15 06:26:56 · answer #1 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋
At first, I thought I could explain the difference. But the more I thought about it I realized they are kind of similar. Both have unique genetic makeup (cancer through mutation; fetus through fertilization), and both grow incredibly fast. Then I thought, "Wow, that explains some people. Maybe they're really just walking, talking cancerous tumors."
Seriously, though, a fetus is a new life beginning. A cancerous tumor could be the end of your life.
2007-10-15 13:15:46 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
There are similarities -- both are based on human genetic material, and both grow inside the host human, taking resources away from the host human.
The differences are that a fetus -- if it grows properly -- usually only has a temporary effect on the body, and part of the natural bodily processes provide a mechanism for the body to remove it.
A tumor -- or even a malformed fetus -- grows improperly, and usually requires surgery unless the body is able to expel the tissue on its own.
The analogy isn't particularly useful -- because it doesn't address any of the substantive legal issues involved in the debate.
2007-10-15 14:34:57 · answer #3 · answered by coragryph 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Cancerous tumor kills life..Fetus is a beginning of life who may have cancer once she/he born.
to above answer, If a woman don't want to get pregnant she should take pills and other method. If there's no pills or other method then the option is aborting pregnancy.
I was taking pills before I had children(1). I believed fetus is unborn human being. Therefor: killing fetus is murder.
2007-10-15 14:22:30 · answer #4 · answered by o_o 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Simone de Beauvoir once wrote, that when a woman becomes pregnant, she ceases to exist in her own right and becomes simply a receptacle.for the child growing within her. But she never had children and was the life-long partner of Jean-Paul Sartre.
On the other hand, if all women refused to become pregnant, what would become of man/womankind?
I know from experience that some children can be a pain in the neck, a thorn in the side and downright Bolshie, but I would never call them a cancerous growth.
2007-10-15 13:17:49 · answer #5 · answered by cymry3jones 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
A cancerous tumor is by definition a genetic malformation or mutation. A fetus is a genetically correct using the human genome.
2007-10-15 13:17:06 · answer #6 · answered by tabby90 5 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Thats just stupid as one has the potential left to turn into a human and the other one can end life. But that doesnt mean abortion isnt justifiable. A woman has the right to control how many children she has. The world is dying of over population and people who are anti abortion aren;'t helping. That fetus has a soul that no one can kill, and will come back on earth if that person is meant to. And whether you believe that or not, irregardless, the world is dying of over population.
2007-10-15 13:17:46 · answer #7 · answered by yourdoneandover 5 · 1⤊ 5⤋
What a riot. You cannot be serious. Although I think I have known some tumors before.
2007-10-15 13:59:20 · answer #8 · answered by mamadixie 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
well the baby could be born into a living thing at some point. the tumor cant?
2007-10-15 13:16:30 · answer #9 · answered by fallenxx7 2 · 4⤊ 0⤋
the difference is that one will kill you and the other is cancerous.
2007-10-15 13:15:27 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋