One of the Weakest Pro-Life Arguments

EiriForLife wrote:

The egg is no longer part of her body the moment it ovulates to be quite honest.

proof?

Quote :

Furthermore, it becomes a unique human upon fertilization. Upon implantation, it is DEPENDENT but not PART OF her body. At 8 weeks, it is a complete human being, a person, with all its needed organs in place.

proof?

EiriForLife wrote:

The egg is no longer part of her body the moment it ovulates to be quite honest.

Are you for real? That has got to be the craziest thing I have ever heard. The egg is no longer mine when it comes out during my period.

Maz wrote:

EiriForLife wrote:

The egg is no longer part of her body the moment it ovulates to be quite honest. Furthermore, it becomes a unique human upon fertilization. Upon implantation, it is DEPENDENT but not PART OF her body. At 8 weeks, it is a complete human being, a person, with all its needed organs in place.

And therefore, while it is DEPENDENT upon HER BODY, its rights are secondary.

I agree to an extent that its rights are secondary, but it DOES have rights. It has the right to life just like any of us has. I feel that past week 12, only if the mother's life is at risk because of the pregnancy should she be allowed to remove it. If she is healthy then there is no reason to abort. Of course there are exceptions, but they should be handled on a case by case basis.

RebelCats wrote:

EiriForLife wrote:

The egg is no longer part of her body the moment it ovulates to be quite honest.

Are you for real? That has got to be the craziest thing I have ever heard. The egg is no longer mine when it comes out during my period.

Your egg is part of your body only if it is attached to your body, the same goes for any body part. It is "yours" in the same sense your born child is "yours", but it is not yours in the same sense your toes are yours.

Once fertilized it's definitely not "yours" like your toes because it is now a completely unique human. It does not contain just your DNA, but someone else's, that has combined to become a new human. You cannot "own" humans, no matter how young they are.

Now certainly the unborn does not have rights superior to your own, but I look at it this way. If you have a passenger in your car, you can't just chuck them out of the door going 80 miles per hour just because it's "your" car and you have the right for someone to not be in the car. If this person were endangering your life the situation would be totally different.

futureshock wrote:

EiriForLife wrote:

The egg is no longer part of her body the moment it ovulates to be quite honest.

proof?

No item of your body is "part" of it the moment it separates. Your lung is not "part" of your body if it is removed. That's just basic logic to me. The egg is in the ovary. Upon ovulation, it breaks free and is floating freely. A parasite isn't "part" of your body either, it's just IN your body. To be "part" of your body in the biological sense, something needs to not only contain your DNA but also be physically attached to it. A penis inside of me during sex is not "part" of my body, despite being "inside" of me, because it does not exclusively contain my DNA. My tooth, if accidentally swallowed, is also no longer part of my body, because despite containing my DNA, it is not attached to my body.

Quote :

Quote :

Furthermore, it becomes a unique human upon fertilization. Upon implantation, it is DEPENDENT but not PART OF her body. At 8 weeks, it is a complete human being, a person, with all its needed organs in place.

proof?

Its existence. Are you going to try and disprove that a fertilized ovum is NOT a unique human? I'm not saying "person" by the way, just human material. It is unique. Its genetic code has NEVER been seen on this planet before. And following my above logic, it cannot EVER be "part" of her body. It does become attached to her body, and it is IN her body. That does not make it a "part" of her body. That makes it a passenger. The proof of the 8 week comment comes from your OWN provided sources.

Eiri, with all due respect, which is none, that is completely whack.

Red blood cells float around freely; are they not part of your body?

And you've contradicted yourself marvelously with some of your made up on the fly criteria for what is part of your body:

Quote :

Your egg is part of your body only if it is attached to your body, the same goes for any body part.

Quote :

To be "part" of your body in the biological sense, something needs to not only contain your DNA but also be physically attached to it.

So a fetus, which contains part of your DNA and is physically attached, is part of your body. Oh, and it's been found that fetal DNA is in the mother's bloodstream as well. It's called Free Fetal DNA.

So I guess for you that would mean that the mother is part of the fetus' body, which logic dictates that therefore the fetus is part of the mother's body.

If you get a brain transplant* and your brain is sitting on the operating table, it's still a part of your body.

*I would look into this, if I were you.

EiriForLife wrote:

RebelCats wrote:

EiriForLife wrote:

The egg is no longer part of her body the moment it ovulates to be quite honest.

Are you for real? That has got to be the craziest thing I have ever heard. The egg is no longer mine when it comes out during my period.

Your egg is part of your body only if it is attached to your body, the same goes for any body part. It is "yours" in the same sense your born child is "yours", but it is not yours in the same sense your toes are yours.

Once fertilized it's definitely not "yours" like your toes because it is now a completely unique human. It does not contain just your DNA, but someone else's, that has combined to become a new human. You cannot "own" humans, no matter how young they are.

Now certainly the unborn does not have rights superior to your own, but I look at it this way. If you have a passenger in your car, you can't just chuck them out of the door going 80 miles per hour just because it's "your" car and you have the right for someone to not be in the car. If this person were endangering your life the situation would be totally different.

So pregnancy is equated with driving, and a woman's uterus is equated with a non-sentient, non-living motor vehicle What a surprise that a "pro" lifer puts such little value on women and her reproductive system

EiriForLife wrote:

RebelCats wrote:

EiriForLife wrote:

The egg is no longer part of her body the moment it ovulates to be quite honest.

Are you for real? That has got to be the craziest thing I have ever heard. The egg is no longer mine when it comes out during my period.

Your egg is part of your body only if it is attached to your body, the same goes for any body part. It is "yours" in the same sense your born child is "yours", but it is not yours in the same sense your toes are yours.

So my blood is not mine? What about my brain? What about my plasma and tissues?

Btw, a fetus is attached to a woman's body. The mother and child literally have to be cut apart after birth.

Quote :

Once fertilized it's definitely not "yours" like your toes because it is now a completely unique human. It does not contain just your DNA, but someone else's, that has combined to become a new human. You cannot "own" humans, no matter how young they are.

Each egg has completely different DNA from the woman of whom it is a part.

Erulissë wrote:

Eiri, with all due respect, which is none, that is completely whack.

Red blood cells float around freely; are they not part of your body?

Ah, but they DO contain YOUR DNA. Not someone else's. I agree that they are an exception to the rule, but I'm simply trying to explain why I feel the unborn is not part of the woman's body. I'm going to feel that way regardless, but I do wish to explain it to you in a way you can understand.

Quote :

And you've contradicted yourself marvelously with some of your made up on the fly criteria for what is part of your body:

Quote :

Your egg is part of your body only if it is attached to your body, the same goes for any body part.

Quote :

To be "part" of your body in the biological sense, something needs to not only contain your DNA but also be physically attached to it.

So a fetus, which contains part

It needs to contain EXCLUSIVELY your DNA. A fetus does not. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Quote :

of your DNA and is physically attached, is part of your body. Oh, and it's been found that fetal DNA is in the mother's bloodstream as well. It's called Free Fetal DNA.

Doesn't make the free fetal DNA part of the woman's body, just means it's floating around in her. It's certainly NOT part of her, considering that many of the hormones excreted by the unborn during pregnancy are used to keep the mother's body from REJECTING it. I don't see how you can possibly consider the fetus a "part" of her body, using your own logic, you consider it a parasite - the opposite of "part" of your body.

Quote :

If you get a brain transplant and your brain is sitting on the operating table, it's still a part of your body.

No, not really. It is apart from your body, quite literally.

Maz wrote:

EiriForLife wrote:

RebelCats wrote:

EiriForLife wrote:

The egg is no longer part of her body the moment it ovulates to be quite honest.

Are you for real? That has got to be the craziest thing I have ever heard. The egg is no longer mine when it comes out during my period.

Your egg is part of your body only if it is attached to your body, the same goes for any body part. It is "yours" in the same sense your born child is "yours", but it is not yours in the same sense your toes are yours.

Once fertilized it's definitely not "yours" like your toes because it is now a completely unique human. It does not contain just your DNA, but someone else's, that has combined to become a new human. You cannot "own" humans, no matter how young they are.

Now certainly the unborn does not have rights superior to your own, but I look at it this way. If you have a passenger in your car, you can't just chuck them out of the door going 80 miles per hour just because it's "your" car and you have the right for someone to not be in the car. If this person were endangering your life the situation would be totally different.

So pregnancy is equated with driving, and a woman's uterus is equated with a non-sentient, non-living motor vehicle What a surprise that a "pro" lifer puts such little value on women and her reproductive system

Pro-choicers were the first people I heard who compared abortion and driving. Go bother them.

EiriForLife wrote:

Maz wrote:

EiriForLife wrote:

RebelCats wrote:

EiriForLife wrote:

The egg is no longer part of her body the moment it ovulates to be quite honest.

Are you for real? That has got to be the craziest thing I have ever heard. The egg is no longer mine when it comes out during my period.

Your egg is part of your body only if it is attached to your body, the same goes for any body part. It is "yours" in the same sense your born child is "yours", but it is not yours in the same sense your toes are yours.

Once fertilized it's definitely not "yours" like your toes because it is now a completely unique human. It does not contain just your DNA, but someone else's, that has combined to become a new human. You cannot "own" humans, no matter how young they are.

Now certainly the unborn does not have rights superior to your own, but I look at it this way. If you have a passenger in your car, you can't just chuck them out of the door going 80 miles per hour just because it's "your" car and you have the right for someone to not be in the car. If this person were endangering your life the situation would be totally different.

So pregnancy is equated with driving, and a woman's uterus is equated with a non-sentient, non-living motor vehicle What a surprise that a "pro" lifer puts such little value on women and her reproductive system

Pro-choicers were the first people I heard who compared abortion and driving. Go bother them.

Why should I? If you have other debates going on, take YOUR debate to them. You are the one reducing women's bodies and pregnancy down to driving on THIS THREAD, so as I am also ON THIS THREAD, I'll take THIS discussion on this thread, and bother you, okay?

So again, why do YOU - in this discussion! - seek to reduce a woman and her body to something non-living and impersonal as driving?

EiriForLife wrote:

Erulissë wrote:

Eiri, with all due respect, which is none, that is completely whack.

Red blood cells float around freely; are they not part of your body?

Ah, but they DO contain YOUR DNA. Not someone else's.

What about a chimera?

Back to the fetus, after I delivered my daughter the doctor asked my husband if he wanted to cut the cord. Th poor guy almost fainted, and he politely declined. The point is, even after she was born, she was STILL connected to my body!

Look, there will always be exceptions. We're not talking about them.

Also, I never said the fetus isn't connected to the body. Connected vs a PART (in the same sense your actual body is a "part" of you) of you are two different things.

EiriForLife wrote:

Ah, but they DO contain YOUR DNA. Not someone else's. I agree that they are an exception to the rule, but I'm simply trying to explain why I feel the unborn is not part of the woman's body. I'm going to feel that way regardless, but I do wish to explain it to you in a way you can understand.

No, red blood cells do not contain DNA. Go back to school. They are free floating in your body, without your DNA. By your definition, they are not part of your body.

Oh, wait, they are an exception? But a fetus isn't? Why is that?

EiriForLife wrote:

It needs to contain EXCLUSIVELY your DNA. A fetus does not. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Is that in your newest edition of a dictionary?

EiriForLife wrote:

Doesn't make the free fetal DNA part of the woman's body, just means it's floating around in her. It's certainly NOT part of her, considering that many of the hormones excreted by the unborn during pregnancy are used to keep the mother's body from REJECTING it. I don't see how you can possibly consider the fetus a "part" of her body, using your own logic, you consider it a parasite - the opposite of "part" of your body.

If red blood cells are part of your body, then certainly free fetal DNA is.

My logic is not this free for all standard of what is or is not a body part. I've never said anything about a parasite. You are lying just to take the heat off yourself.

Quote :

No, not really. It is apart from your body, quite literally.

That's really funny. If you weren't trying to defend this ridiculous position you've taken you'd have a laugh, too. How can you keep as straight face?

EiriForLife wrote:

Look, there will always be exceptions. We're not talking about them.

That's hysterical. "We're not talking about exceptions, because then my logic would be blown apart so I won't discuss what I call 'exceptions''.

What happens if you get a transplant? Does that mean that your new heart is not really part of your body?

This is kind of funny, especally at the end (do not skip ahead!)

Quote :

Dear Yahoo!:
Does a blood transfusion change your DNA?
Lori
Evart, Michigan
Dear Lori:
The short answer is "no," and the longer answer is "no way." We assembled our own little blog of blood to explain, drawing from a San Diego Union Tribune column, a posting on the MadSci Network, and several other sources.

It seems blood is composed of four main elements: red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets, and plasma. And, indeed, white blood cells do contain DNA. However, most blood transfusions involve only red blood cells, which do not contain DNA. And even in a rare whole blood transfusion, no traces of foreign DNA from the white blood cells have been detected in a recipient's blood.

On the other hand, there is at least one situation in which a transplant can change your DNA. After a bone marrow transplant, the DNA in a blood sample may actually reflect the donor rather than the recipient. That's because in this case, blood stem cells are transferred. The recipient will produce blood that contains the donor's cellular elements but almost none of his or her own DNA. And yes, this would affect DNA blood evidence (though there are other ways to test for DNA.)

Then there's the even rarer case of blood being transferred due to the anti-social behavior of vampires. But that's a whole other ball of serum.

The point is, exceptions are otherwise known as evidence disproving your case.