If a baby developing in the womb is part of your body?

Question

Then why does it have a different genetic code?

maybe: Just like infants?

Smurfette: So should mothers be classified as chimeras? Wouldn't that be redefining scientific principles to suit social desires (something the Catholic Church experimented with in the 16th century)?

maybe: Since you cited "biological terms" as your definition of "parasite", I must point out that a parasite is not dependedent on a single organism for survival. Certain parasites may be (like tapeworms or certain types of bacteria) but others are not (like leeches). A parasite is merely biologically dependent on its host in the same way that an infant is biologically dependent on another human.

wrack 'n' ruin: Mitochondria are not organisms. Taking your reasoning, one could say that a single chromosome does not have the same genetic code as all the chromosomes taken together. An infant is a genetically distinct organism with a human genetic code and is therefore, by definition, a distinct human being.

maybe: Actually a fetus and a baby are exactly the same for a good period prior to birth in that the baby is sufficiently developed to survive beyond the womb. However, I am simply pointing out that your characterization of a fetus as a parasite requires an infant to be considered a parasite per the biological definition. Humans simply don't classify other humans as parasites because that is inhuman and Nazi-like. Morally, it has dangerous consequences.

bluestareyed: That is certainly a difference, but is it a significant difference? Is that the moral line upon which abortion lies? How many people a baby can be biologically dependent upon?

egn18s: The biological definition of life is fairly straightforward and fetuses are certainly "living" organisms with a human genetic code. I would say you're searching for a concept akin to the "soul", but for some reason I suspect you don't believe in that sort of thing. I guess you can continue to rely on an arbitrary, unknown and unverifiable definition as to when your perception of "life" truly begins.

maybe: Nor did my last response to you depend on morality. I was pointing out that biologists don't classify fetuses are parasites (you incorrectly suggested they did). My comment on morality is not relevant to the fact that you're wrong, but it is relevant to the implications your error suggests.

wrack 'n' ruin: Mitochondria, like the nucleaus, are "organelle" and are not organisms. The former is a component of a cell, the latter is a complete or multiple cells.

El Puma: You don't have the right to selfish acts when your acts damage somebody else. That is why, in this liberal country, we have had a concept of civil litigation. In such civil suits, the complainant must demonstrate that the other party was responsible for the damage he endured. So then in your view is the baby the responsible party for the mother's pregnancy? Doesn't that responsibility lie with the mother?

Answer 1

another hitch (problem) with their draconian thinking

Answer 2

Even within the same person you can have multiple genetic codes regardless of being pregnant this syndrome is called chimera. A Fetus may share its mother’s body and derive sustenance from her but should still be considered an individual entity.

No you couldn't call a pegnant women a chimera unless she was one prior to becoming pegnant, I was simply pointing out that haveing multiple geneic codes in one person is not a revalation even if that person is not pregnant. That a fetus should have a different code from it's mother is a product of evolution otherwise we would all look, sound and act exactly alike.

Answer 3

Again, it is a "potential person." It is NOT a person (until it is viable outside the womb). Yes, it's alive, as are all organisms, but, in general, we don't have a problem with eliminating many other organisms, for all sorts of reasons.

Let me ask you: If the pregnancy is going to threaten the life of the mother, in effect, she will DIE if she carries on with the pregnancy, should she be obligated to do so? Supposing there is no way to save both, who, between the two, has MORE of a "right to life"? Who is "more human?"
Should she be obligated to sacrifice her life for the life inside her that hasn't yet seen the light of day? Which do you choose, and why?

Answer 4

PLEASE, READ THE WHOLE. I dont want thumbs up from pro-lifers.

My view is that a developping fetus has the right to be called a human being. When we deny their status as a person, we are basing it in these premises:
"Fetuses have not the same abilities as us" right, but so do retards, and you are not going to deny one humanity right?
"A person is someone who was already born" that isn't a premise, it is your general, unbacked-up view.
"If it is not viable outside the womb, it isn't a person. There are some people outside of wombs which are not able to survive without techonology. If we had enough technology to keep an embryos alive (which is coming) outside of his or her mother's womb, this argument goes void.
This is plain old semantic BS. A fetus in your body is still a human, and his or her human rights should be respected.
However, the baby is leeching off of another's body. And human rights do not include "the right to leech off of another", so aborting could be interpreted a denial of this bond.
But then, shouldn't we just cut the chord? No, because of that, the baby would die and rot and become a health risk for the ex-host. killing him or her could be interpreted as "self defense". Of course I think abortion is selfish (in fact, the ultimate selfish act), but you are entitled to be selfish in a liberal country.
I would push for a right to a painless abortion, like putting it to sleep with morphine (after cutting the chord) before the slicing and dicing.

Answer 5

because, if you remember high school health class, you will remember that it isnt actually PART of the body, because women do not reproduce asexually.

until about 20 weeks gestation however, it is unable to survive without the womb and female body surrounding it.

an infant is physically independent of any one specific body because anyone with a pulse and the will to do so can care for it. therein lies the difference.

edit: the question of if it is a significant difference, and if that is enough to morally justify abortion is a decision each person has to make when defining where they stand on this issue. for me, it is significant, but for someone who is prolife, it may not be. its a matter of perspective at that point, since morals are by no means universal.

Answer 6

I believe you are making the point that a fetus within a woman's body is NOT part of her body. Right? This is an anti-abortion argument.

I have to say that, even though I'm for abortion, I agree with you. The anti-abortion argument about the women controlling their own body is flawed because it's not THEIR body. Their body has another person starting to grow inside it.

However, I still see nothing wrong with killing that potential person because they have no "life" yet. Sure, they may be technically alive. But they have no conscious mind, no thoughts, no knowledge, no experiences. Killing them is not putting an end to a "life". As I see it, it really doesn't matter if they die. (And don't give me that nonsense about some doctor's finding that fetuses have a conscious mind. If there is in fact some semblance of a mind in there, it can't possibly be even close to as significant as the mind of a June bug).

It's not like killing a born person that is aware and has experiences and plans for the future and friends and loved ones and is trying to go about their life happily.

Killing an unborn baby is less significant than killing an ant.

Sure, the unborn baby has the potential to grow into a functioning human with a complex mind and "life". But so what? Don't we already have far more than enough people in the world. The earth is overcrowded as it is.

Not only is the earth overcrowded, but there are already plenty of people who's lives are tough or unhappy. And if having a baby to take care would make more people unhappy in their life, why not just terminate the pregnancy before that microscopic clump of tissue turns into something or someone that actually matters and has any effect on anything?

Sur, partial birth abortions are kind of weird and bad and they make me wonder why the mother didn't have an abortion much farther in advance.

But to use terms like, "slaughtering babies" to refer to killing a microscopic group of cells is ridiculous. It'd be like using the term "holocaust" when referring to blowing your nose into anti-bacterial tissues that kill the germs.

"Slaughtering babies" calls to mind visualizations of cute little babies getting violently mutilated. Surely, when a women has an early-term abortion, that is NOT the case.

Answer 7

I am NOT suffering. My husband and I chose to have a baby. She's the most wonderful things that happened to us. Yes, there have been tough days of all-day crying or all-day feedings; 24 hour periods when I get maybe five hours of sleep; Times when I feel trapped in the house while my husband leavs for school and work and even trips to bars with friends, etc. Now that she's older, she cries less, we sleep more, and I get to go out more often. It's all worth it when she smiles at me because I'm her mommy and she knows it.

Parasite:
2 : an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism
(I thought part of the third definition was applicable as well.)

Organism:
2 : an individual constituted to carry on the activities of life by means of organs separate in function but mutually dependent : a living being

I thought Maybe gave an interesting twist on the term parasite, as it's normally considered a negative term. I don't think s/he meant it in a negative manner. From conception my 11 week old daughter has been 100% dependent on me... At least for food, as my husband can, and does, clothe and diaper her (and launders her clothes...). I'm her sole source of food, even when she takes a pumped bottle from my husband, the milk still comes from me.

Part of the beauty and awesomeness of pregnancy and having a child is knowing that she is her own unique person, yet still a part of you and your spouse. Soon, we'll be able to see her own personality emerge, to see how she is like me, is like my husband and only uniquely her. To say that it's beautiful and awesome are just understatements.

Answer 8

"maybe: Just like infants?"

No, not just like infants. An infant is entirely dependent on SOMEONE taking care of it, but that can be anybody. It doesn't have to be the mother (although that would be best since she could breastfeed).

"Smurfette: So should mothers be classified as chimeras? Wouldn't that be redefining scientific principles to suit social desires (something the Catholic Church experimented with in the 16th century)?"

Mothers should be classified as humans suffering from a parasite. It is her choice to spare that parasite's life or not.

Answer 9

In biological terms, a fetus can be described as a parasite.
No matter how you spin it, the developing fetus is 100% dependent upon the host body and the choices she makes.

Edit: No. An infant, while completely dependent upon another person for it's survival, can be cared for by ANY person who chooses to take responsibility for it. A fetus is dependent 100% on it's host body. It cannot be transferred.

Maybe you should direct your energy toward developing a safe and reliable methods of transferring unwanted fetuses from unwilling hosts to willing surrogate wombs?

EDIT 2: I see where you are going...you are attempting to make a fetus and an infant appear the same. They are not.

Final Edit: Your initial question did not include morality... now that you see support for my position you pull out the morality card? Tsk tsk.

Answer 10

Trying to stay on topic here...

Our bodies host numerous organisms, bacteria, viruses and even parasites, on our skin, in our digestive and reproductive tracts. Their genetic codes are certainly different from ours. We produce and host other cells that have genetic codes distinct from ours; our gametes (eggs and spermatozoa) formed by meiosis, containing a mix of our own mothers' and fathers' DNA. Complimentary gametes come together at intercourse to form the zygote, which of course has another distinct genetic code, the code of a potential child. At any given time, a woman can therefore have all kinds of genetic material in her body that is different from the code that "spells" her as an individual. She can "host" eggs, sperm and a zygote all at once, along with all the other free riders mentioned above, plus even a transplanted pig heart valve or human kidney.

What about a transplanted kidney? It's genetically separate from the host, but it's kind of part of the host too... destined to sustain the host's life. Likewise, as the zygote implants and develops to embryo, fetus, and so forth, it grows various "maternal liaison" tissues and organs such as the placenta, chorion, amnion, umbilical vessels; all sharing a common genetic code. Is all this throw-away tissue, whose purpose is to sustain the fetus, with the same genetic code as the fetus, part of the body of the fetus? That's also debatable.

In the end, is all this tissue, fetus and placenta, part of a woman's body? Is it there to sustain the woman's life? I would have to answer "no", in fact, it can sometimes threaten a woman's life through ectopic pregnancy, placenta previa, post-partum septicemia etc. Perhaps one could say that rather than sustaining a pregnant woman's life, the fetal tissue she carries is there to contribute to the sustanance of our species.

Embryonic tissue is as distinct from the woman's body as the commensal bacteria she carries in her saliva and gut. So is a zygote, a unicellular organism formed by the union of human egg and sperm, the same to a woman as a single E. coli in her gut? No... One's human, the other isn't. Fairly huge difference there.

Is this genetically and bodily separate tissue, while it is hosted by a woman, hers to do with as she likes? Is the host woman (hostess?) a mere extension of that placental liaison tissue mentioned above, whose irrevocable purpose is to sustain the fetus?

It's complicated.

Answer 11

Because it takes two........if you remember anything from science or even health class when discussing reproduction that the chromosomes from both parents have to come together.....that's what makes the baby a seperate person....being part of the body is because the mother is the only one who is capable of carrying the growing baby.....so it feels like part of the body.