Those Against Abortion yet Pro-Capital Punishment and War

[Sandy Eggo]

You know, I didn't think of any of my kids as clumps of nonviable cells at any point during my pregnancy's. 

Neither did I, but that doesn't change the fact that medically that's what they are at the early stages of a pregnancy.

...and that doesn't change the fact that it's not our place to make that decision for someone else based on our thoughts/feelings.

[Henry Hawk]

I may be wrong for butting in, but it seems like we are getting off track, when we refer to a woman having an abortion, because she doesn't want her body to get fat and ugly..........as part of ANY natural process........

i understand the arguement of pushing ones "beliefs" into a law.........but, I will, until the day I die, defend the right to life, for those yet to be born.......because it IS my belief that it is wrong to kill a baby, simply because the mother does NOT want to be pregnant.

[Ghost of Jaco]

And although no two person's have identical DNA, the DNA of a fetus would be close enough to the "host" organism, (mother), as to identify it (mother) as its source to a statistically profound exclusion of all others.

Except the sperm donor. He has the same equal statistical profound exclusion as the mother...er "host". Being NOT identical is my point.
If the egg donor can claim it as part of her bosy for that reason, then so can the sperm donor.

My brother and I are not genetically identical, but are statistically very close in DNA structure...should I be allowed to claim by brother's foot as my own and hack it off if it inconveniences me? Ha! That'll teach HIM to stick his foot out and trip me as I walk by the couch, lol!

In reality a fetus is nothing more than a parasite to the host (female) body; but for the genetic similarity between the host and the parasite the body's immune system would reject it with extreme prejudice.

Ummm...for the sake of your argument...ok (we have all kinds of DNA-foreign critters living in symbiosis within our bodies).

So, since nature's identification system readily accepts this parasite as a part of the host, it should be easy to say that according to the laws of biology the parasite is in fact a part of the host; providing the host via proxy the legal ability to choose between excising the parasite or bringing it to full term. Or should we be so bold (foolish) as to assume that mankind's laws supercede those of nature?

Hey! Did you just call me a parasite that's was allowed to come to full term? I am INSULTED, lol!
Kidding aside, that is an excellent argument, PH If we consider anything with 1/2 or MORE of our DNA, but is not IDENTICAL to us as a parasite. Of course, awol's poor conjoined twins and fraternal twins are still going to be fighting a battle for supremacy.

I guess it is only by fiat that zygotes are not legally described as "parasites".
The parasite argument is one that occurred to me also, and I've not come up with an argument against it, biologically (yet).
Should we allow that a parasite is, by definition, harmful to it's host, then we can make an argument for "health of the mother", at least.

[Ghost of Jaco]

A woman has the right to decide if she wants her body to play host to a clump of nonviable cells whether they are genetically identical or not. It's her body which the required life giving sustance would be obtained from.

That's the "parasite" argument - and it's a good one.  See below...er above, by now.

[Exterminator]

My argument is to whether a person can claim that which is not genetically identical to themselves a their own and exercise dominion over it (them).

Based on your logic, a person would have no right to remove a cancer.

[Ghost of Jaco]

Certainly humankind's ability to reason places us above such instinctual behaviors, or is this in fact a restriction?

I would say some other (still, small) voice "reasons" us above such instinctual behavior.
But, that is my opinion, not based upon any biological argument.

[Exterminator]

You know, I didn't think of any of my kids as clumps of nonviable cells at any point during my pregnancy's. 

You'll be glad to know that the rest of us have since.  

[Ghost of Jaco]

Based on your logic, a person would have no right to remove a cancer.

I thought about that...but cancer cells are still the person's cells, just on growth-overdrive. At least, that's how I understand it, but I didn't even stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night, let alone am I a doctor.

So, by my logic, that may be the case. Like I said, the argument sure opens up a host of other questions.
Maybe cancer is another "corner case".
What do you think?

[Henry Hawk]

i think science can put a spin on anything..........and make good sence...............but the bottom line is..........this cluster or mass, or zygotes or dna material...........IS, life itself as we know it.        if a mothers life is NOT in danger.....then we are simply destroying a life to be.......and simply for selfish reasons...........that will always bother me.

[Palehorse]

i think science can put a spin on anything..........and make good sence...............but the bottom line is..........this cluster or mass, or zygotes or dna material...........IS, life itself as we know it.        if a mothers life is NOT in danger.....then we are simply destroying a life to be.......and simply for selfish reasons...........that will always bother me.

Nope. These genetic materials have no free will or choice; their life or death riding simply upon the expected chemical reactions / interactions to further their development or progression. They have no ability to choose, tell right from wrong (human creation), or ability to follow a predetermined path. (Other than that which chemical interaction / reaction provides for it).

If "cells" or genetic materials are the determination of life then we are each guilty of multiple murder; since everything on the face of the earth is made of it. We are a race of murdering fools! 

And a mother's life is in danger from the moment the parasite takes form; for it is leaching from her life support systems and draining her. The slightest imbalance of her circulatory, respiratory, nervous,  or digestive systems will pose a threat to her life, which is multiplied by the presence of the parasite.

In human beings, almost every cell in the body is diploid meaning it contains two sets of nearly identical copies of 23 chromosomes, a total of 46 being both female and male. The exception to this are gametes which are eggs or sperm.  They are called haploid for they only contain one copy of each of the 23 chromosomes, the egg being female and the sperm being male.

When the female egg is fertilized by the male sperm during sexual reproduction, the two separate haploid cells fuse together to become one cell called a diploid zygote, meaning it now has 46 chromosomes with 23 coming from each gamete, which develops into a new diploid individual. For example, when you were born you inherited 23 chromosomes from your mother, from the fertilized egg, and 23 chromosomes from your father, from the sperm that fertilized the egg.

A parasite lives in a close relationship with another organism, its host, and causes it harm.  The parasite is dependent on its host for its life functions.  (For example, viruses are common parasites).   The parasite has to be in its host to live, grow, and multiply. 

Once fertilization takes place the diploid zygote is now parasitic in nature for it is dependent upon the host for nutrients in order to continue its development.

[Henry Hawk]

the bottom line IS..........for abortion AND capital punishment...............it should be left to the States and the People as defined in the 10th Amendment....." The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

[Exterminator]

Choice is leaving it to the people.

[Henry Hawk]

Choice is leaving it to the people.

and if the people choose to enact a law to protect a fetus?

[Palehorse]

and if the people choose to enact a law to protect a fetus?

What is there to protect? It is not self sustaining for the majority of its development,(with late third trimester an area worthy of discussion); incapable of thought or initiating a purposeful action, nor ability to choose. Until the point of first breath it is not a human life. . .

[Henry Hawk]

What is there to protect? It is not self sustaining for the majority of its development,(with late third trimester an area worthy of discussion); incapable of thought or initiating a purposeful action, nor ability to choose. Until the point of first breath it is not a human life. . .

in your opinion....I say.....Life begins at gastrulation...the point at which a developing embryo forms distinct layers that grow into different organs.....Embryos are capabable of splitting into twins as late as 12 days after fertilization resulting in separate individuals. Gastrulation commences when the zygote, now called an embryo, implants into the uterus....

there are people who are NOT "self sustaining" everyday........because of a number of reasons........but are capable of being self sustained, with the help of medical experts....this may be a stretch to make a point...........but, because a "woman" decides her BUTT is not going to look good.......you say it is her right to stop this process.....at any given point in time?......I know it is me, but.....I cannot comprehind anyone thinking this is an okay thing?