Liberals now calling fetus an "organ of her own body"

[TemplarKormac]

So I guess now a transplanted heart is not part of one's body.

lol

Since when does a transplanted heart grow and develop?

A tapeworm in a person is not part of a person and it does grow and develop.

Does the Constitution protect the rights of a tapeworm?

How absurd. Likening a tapeworm to a child. Sicko.

 

[Zoom-boing]

So I guess now a transplanted heart is not part of one's body.

lol

Since when does a transplanted heart grow and develop?

A tapeworm in a person is not part of a person and it does grow and develop.

Does the Constitution protect the rights of a tapeworm?

You sure missed a lot of schooling, didn't you?

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Fetus and mother are not fused, they are attached via the umbilical cord which is attached to the mother via the placenta. The umbilical cord provides the nutrients/nourishment that the fetus needs, not the mother's heart. When a babby is born the umbilical cord is cut and the placenta is delivered shortly thereafter.

You're saying an unique, separate, own dna developing fetus is not separate from the mother? It is actually a physical part of her, like an arm or a leg? There is only one entity or being, if you will? Then why was Scott Peterson charged with two counts of murder?

Not fused? I don't think you actually understand how fetal development works. The placenta literally burrows into the uterus, fusing the tissues together. In fact, if you go to the wikipedia article on placenta, it uses the word FUSION to describe the inseparable connection during development. The placenta and umbilical cord carry the nutrients pumped to it from the mother's circulation to the baby. Oxygen, vitamins, amino acids, and other basic building blocks required for development do not spontaneously come from the baby, nor are they magically produced by the placenta.

You really don't know much about this topic on which you proclaim understanding, do you?

So no, they are not individual separate beings.

You didn't answer my question.

Do you believe that unfertilized eggs are the same thing as fertilized eggs? That there is no difference between the two?

A separate, unique, own dna being is the same as the mother? It is not a separate being?

Pubic hair appears when a human being reaches a certain stage of development. Humans develop from the moment they are fertilized until they become adults. That's how it works.

You seem to continue confusing the words UNIQUE and SEPARATE. These are not the same, and one does not denote the other. The placenta has its own DNA that is different than the mother. It too is not a separate unique being.

You either read something that I didn't say or I wasn't clear enough in what I did say. What I said was that fetus and mother are not fused. Are they joined together via the umbilical cord and placenta (which are fused)? Yes. Joined together does not mean they are one entity. Fetus and mother are two separate entities, two separate beings, one growing/developing within the other, not two beings fused together as one being. They are two separate beings.

If they were not individual separate beings then when a woman aborted a fetus part of her would also die/be changed/cease to be. When a woman has an abortion the only thing that no longer continues to exist is the fetus (a developing being), which is a separate individual, a separate human being. It is unique in that no other exactly like is has ever been or will be again.

If they are one being why was Scott Peterson charged with two counts of murder?

I still think you're missing something vital here. OK let's backup. The umbilical cord is part of the fetus. It's directly connected. On the other end, it's directly part of the placenta. The placenta is fused to the uterus. OK now I know this is tricky logic here, but if A is fused to B, and B is fused to C, then A is fused to C via B. The fetus is fused to the mother by way of placenta, which happens to also be fetal in origin. So to summarize, a structure directly carrying fetal DNA is directly fused to a structure carrying mother's DNA. If you sever any part of that connection, the fetus dies.

PUT ANOTHER WAY: IF YOU SEPARATE THE TWO AT ANY POINT, THE FETUS DIES. So you should probably stop claiming they are separate. You can still use the word unique, just realize it has nothing to do with anything being individual or separate.

As for what happens when a woman has an abortion: she loses both the fetus and the inner part of her uterus that was supporting it. Everything involved in the fusion goes, mother and fetus alike. Luckily, women can regrow that lost tissue. Or do I need to explain menstruation as well?

 

[SmarterThanHick]

The egg is part of the woman from the get go. Once fertilized it is no longer an egg, it is the very beginning of an entirely different life, of an entirely different human being.

A fertilized egg is not a fertilized egg. Hmmm...is that the kind of enlightenment that zen is supposed to lead to? I've never figured that business out.

The fucking egg is a product of the woman's body.. once fertilized it has it OWN UNIQUE DNA SIGNATURE, just as every other human life does.... it is not a piece or part of her body.... even if it is reliant upon her to be housed and nourished during development.. not unlike human children of other ages and developmental stages

I would avoid likening a growing fetus from a baby. Just because two things have something in common does note mean they are the same. Yes, both need to be "housed and nourished" but you can take a baby and house and nourish it anywhere on the planet. The fetus doesn't have that option.

 

[Noomi]

If a fetus is not part of the woman's body, and is separate from her body, as the pro lifers insist it is, then why is it that if we sever the umbilical cord, the fetus will die? Surely, if the attachment was severed, fetus would still survive, after all, it is a separate being, right, lifers?

 

[Obamanation]

If a fetus is not part of the woman's body, and is separate from her body, as the pro lifers insist it is, then why is it that if we sever the umbilical cord, the fetus will die? Surely, if the attachment was severed, fetus would still survive, after all, it is a separate being, right, lifers?

...and if we witheld food and water from YOU... what would happen?

I guess then anyone in a hospital on life support has no rights then, huh? After all if the attachment were severed, they would die.

can't sustain life on your own -you have no rights, right?

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Since when does a transplanted heart grow and develop?

Is it part of the person's body or not? It doesn't have the same DNA.

Without medical intervention the body would reject it because it does not recognize it as part of itself.

The same can be said for fetuses where the mom has negative blood and the fetus doesn't.

The retarded from the pro-"choice" crowd in here is palpable.

They seem to really believe that fetuses are organs, that fetuses are not separate beings from the mother, that fetuses are the same being as the mother, that a fertilized egg is the same thing as the contents of a stomach after eating, and that fetuses are, for some peculiar reason, the same thing as a transplanted heart.

I always find it amusing when hicks can no longer engage in debate and instead need to make these over-exaggerated statements to make themselves feel better. "OMG THAT GUY THINKS BABIES ARE TAPEWORMS AND LUNCH NOW BECAUSE I CANT FOLLOW A SIMPLE CONTRASTING EXAMPLE!!!!" Hilarious.

Fetuses are NOT separate beings from the mother. This is fact. If you SEPARATE a fetus from the mother early, that tissue DIES. This is pretty much an irrefutable litmus test for if something is separate or not. There really isn't a better indicator of separability past COMPLETE DEMISE.

As for the question about charging someone for crimes against two people, that discussion gets into a deeper understanding of why murder is wrong. Seeing as most of you can't follow simple contrasting examples, I doubt you possess much understanding of deeper ethical discussions. But to negate the entire pretext altogether: law is not biology. If a judge deems a pregnant woman a space alien, it doesn't have much bearing on the separability of mother from fetus.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

The retarded from the pro-"choice" crowd in here is palpable.

They seem to really believe that fetuses are organs, that fetuses are not separate beings from the mother, that fetuses are the same being as the mother, that a fertilized egg is the same thing as the contents of a stomach after eating, and that fetuses are, for some peculiar reason, the same thing as a transplanted heart.

They're grabbing for straws trying to rationalize and deny what they know in there hearts is the truth.

You REALLY don't understand how people work, do you?

 

[Noomi]

If a fetus is not part of the woman's body, and is separate from her body, as the pro lifers insist it is, then why is it that if we sever the umbilical cord, the fetus will die? Surely, if the attachment was severed, fetus would still survive, after all, it is a separate being, right, lifers?

...and if we witheld food and water from YOU... what would happen?

I guess then anyone in a hospital on life support has no rights then, huh? After all if the attachment were severed, they would die.

can't sustain life on your own -you have no rights, right?

I am not attached to another human being, am I?

Answer the question.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

If a fetus is not part of the woman's body, and is separate from her body, as the pro lifers insist it is, then why is it that if we sever the umbilical cord, the fetus will die? Surely, if the attachment was severed, fetus would still survive, after all, it is a separate being, right, lifers?

...and if we witheld food and water from YOU... what would happen?

I guess then anyone in a hospital on life support has no rights then, huh? After all if the attachment were severed, they would die.

can't sustain life on your own -you have no rights, right?

Again, this is using that terrible logical fallacy of "if two scenarios have ANYTHING in common, they are exactly the same." It's moronic. Yes, people on life support are attached, and separating them from machines would result in death. But they HAD BEEN separate. They obtained that previously. Temporarily losing something IS NOT THE SAME as never having it in the first place. Your comparison is terrible inept.

Once a baby breaths, there's no going back. Not even with life support.

 

[Obamanation]

If a fetus is not part of the woman's body, and is separate from her body, as the pro lifers insist it is, then why is it that if we sever the umbilical cord, the fetus will die? Surely, if the attachment was severed, fetus would still survive, after all, it is a separate being, right, lifers?

...and if we witheld food and water from YOU... what would happen?

I guess then anyone in a hospital on life support has no rights then, huh? After all if the attachment were severed, they would die.

can't sustain life on your own -you have no rights, right?

I am not attached to another human being, am I?

Answer the question.

Who cares??? You have said a number of times that the reason a fetus/embryo isn't a human is because they can't exist on their own. Same is true of ANYONE on life support...

...and just because a fetus is attached to another human being, doesn't make them any less human.

I guess siamese twins who share organs aren't human either? if not connected, at least one of them would die...

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Abortion control must be returned to the states and they can do what they want with it.

A right to one's own innards is a human right, its not up to the states



Here's how you tell if something is one of your organ's, BTW - if it dies when you die, its your organ. THat includes all non-viable fetuses.

 

[Noomi]

...and if we witheld food and water from YOU... what would happen?

I guess then anyone in a hospital on life support has no rights then, huh? After all if the attachment were severed, they would die.

can't sustain life on your own -you have no rights, right?

I am not attached to another human being, am I?

Answer the question.

Who cares??? You have said a number of times that the reason a fetus/embryo isn't a human is because they can't exist on their own. Same is true of ANYONE on life support...

...and just because a fetus is attached to another human being, doesn't make them any less human.

I guess siamese twins who share organs aren't human either? if not connected, at least one of them would die...

Life support is not the same thing. Its a machine you are attached to, not a PERSON.
Why are lifers so dumb they can't understand something so basic?

Although they DO understand it, they just pretend the don't because they'd be admitting they don't have an answer.

 

[tinydancer]

Abortion control must be returned to the states and they can do what they want with it.

A right to one's own innards is a human right, its not up to the states



Here's how you tell if something is one of your organ's, BTW - if it dies when you die, its your organ. THat includes all non-viable fetuses.

What part did you miss of this. We are now talking about whacking off the kid if it survives the abortion.

Do you kill it or not? According to lefties, we call it now a post abortion. aka. whack the live kid on the birth table.

 

[Noomi]

Abortion control must be returned to the states and they can do what they want with it.

A right to one's own innards is a human right, its not up to the states



Here's how you tell if something is one of your organ's, BTW - if it dies when you die, its your organ. THat includes all non-viable fetuses.

What part did you miss of this. We are now talking about whacking off the kid if it survives the abortion.

Do you kill it or not? According to lefties, we call it now a post abortion. aka. whack the live kid on the birth table.

No one survives an abortion. Its like saying someone survived being murdered.
If the baby is born alive, then no abortion took place. Abortion kills a fetus, it doesn't result in the birth of a live baby.

 

[tinydancer]

Abortion control must be returned to the states and they can do what they want with it.

A right to one's own innards is a human right, its not up to the states



Here's how you tell if something is one of your organ's, BTW - if it dies when you die, its your organ. THat includes all non-viable fetuses.

Sorry. A personhood has already been defined. So no matter what you think, no matter what you believe the definition by law is out there.

 

[Mr. H.]

If a fetus is not part of the woman's body, and is separate from her body, as the pro lifers insist it is, then why is it that if we sever the umbilical cord, the fetus will die? Surely, if the attachment was severed, fetus would still survive, after all, it is a separate being, right, lifers?

I cut my daughter's umbilical. Hell I caught the kid in my hands right out of the poot chute. The first words out of my mouth? "She looks just like your mother!" And believe it or not, I happen to like my mother in law.

Anyhow- The little critter spent a week in neonatal intensive. She was a preemie. Oxygen dome, wires, monitors- the whole nine yards.

I stood and watched while the attending nurse shoved her fist up my wife's cooter trying to recover the remaining placenta, while her blood flowed over the bedsheets.

The next morning Mrs. H. fainted in the shower, so I pulled the emergency rope and you should have seen the commotion. They refused to give her a transfusion... AIDS and all. Who do I thank for that?

I could have asked the attending physician to sever my daughter's umbilical cord before she was born, but I figured I'd wait around and see what happened.

Lo and behold! She's a 17 year old Junior at a prestegious arts academy high school majoring in dance and getting straight A's.

Damn, if only I cut that umbilical sooner....

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Who cares??? You have said a number of times that the reason a fetus/embryo isn't a human is because they can't exist on their own. Same is true of ANYONE on life support...

Except for one big difference. EVERYONE on life support BREATHES AIR. They may require a MACHINE to do it, or pure OXYGEN or other special gas mixture - but they all share that same characteristic with every other non-fetal human being in the world - we all BREATHE GASEOUS MIXTURE INTO OUR LUNGS TO CONSUME O2 AND RELEASE CO2. FETUSES DO NOT DO THAT.

Also - another key difference - the fetus shares an organ with the mother - and dervies all of its nutrients and oxygen and releases all of its wastes from and though said mother. The only other human example of this would be the extremely rare case of the parasitic conjoined twin.

https://www.google.com/search?q=par...Mn22AXf3YDwAg&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=960&bih=458


BTW - under the absurd anti-abortion viewpoint, the host twin wouldn't be legally allowed to have his parasitic twin surgically removed. Its human life. You can't kill it, right?

...and just because a fetus is attached to another human being, doesn't make them any less human.

My hand is human. Its not a human being though.

I guess siamese twins who share organs aren't human either? if not connected, at least one of them would die...

Not true. Successful separations of both twins occur all the time. At any rate - in all but the parasitic case each twin contributes something to body function - breathing air, for instance - the hallmark of being a non fetal human.

 

[Obamanation]

A right to one's own innards is a human right, its not up to the states



Here's how you tell if something is one of your organ's, BTW - if it dies when you die, its your organ. THat includes all non-viable fetuses.

What part did you miss of this. We are now talking about whacking off the kid if it survives the abortion.

Do you kill it or not? According to lefties, we call it now a post abortion. aka. whack the live kid on the birth table.

No one survives an abortion. Its like saying someone survived being murdered.
If the baby is born alive, then no abortion took place. Abortion kills a fetus, it doesn't result in the birth of a live baby.

So, if the baby survives ATTEMPTED murder --- then it's what again?

Why is it that everytime the libs don;t like the rules they just create more labels so they can rewrite the rules?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Abortion control must be returned to the states and they can do what they want with it.

A right to one's own innards is a human right, its not up to the states



Here's how you tell if something is one of your organ's, BTW - if it dies when you die, its your organ. THat includes all non-viable fetuses.

Sorry. A personhood has already been defined. So no matter what you think, no matter what you believe the definition by law is out there.

Its "out there" ?

WTF are you even babbling about?