I'm not quite sure how that relates to my post you quoted: """""No, the "just leave it on a shelf" analogy is good for those who believe the fetus is NOT part of the woman it's in.... If that was true then the fetus could be taken out of the woman and set on the shelf to grow by itself.....why would it have to be in the woman if it's not part of her?""" ...uhh, a newborn is BORN, that makes it separate from the woman it used to be in and attached to and living on it's own....there is a huge difference between born and unborn.... The fact that newborns need care has nothing to do with being part of an adult or not...
And you can't leave a fetus on a shelf to grow by itself because it needs to be in a woman and attached to her to grow and survive. Which proves that those who think a fetus is not attached to the woman it's in are wrong. Why is that so hard to grasp ?
That wasnt the point. You said if the unborn could be left on a shelf and it'll grow on its own then it's not apart of the mother. My point that a newborn can't survive if you leave on a shelf without the care of an adult. By your logic that newborn is apart of whatever adult is taking care of it. Besides, what about unborn that are 21 weeks and older which can survive out of the womb? Are they not apart of the mother?
NO, I did NOT say a fetus COULD be left on a shelf IF, as some OTHER POSTER CLAIMED, it was separate from the woman. You post that crap above because you can't grasp what I'm saying and then post what I said again...: """"And you can't leave a fetus on a shelf to grow by itself because it needs to be in a woman and attached to her to grow and survive. Which proves that those who think a fetus is not attached to the woman it's in are wrong. Why is that so hard to grasp ?"""" ....and you STILLLLLLLLL can't get it....OMGAWD! Your: ""Besides, what about unborn that are 21 weeks and older which can survive out of the womb? Are they not apart of the mother""" NO....and that has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE POINT I'M making...the one you cannot get, can't or won't comprehend. What about a 21 week fetus that can survive outside the womb? It can't without help. DUHHHHHHHHHHHH, if it's outside the womb, DUH, it is NOT in the woman....so then it is not attached. READ VERRRRRRRY SLOWLY...when a fetus is in a woman it is attached to her, a part of her... it doesn't float around with no attachment to the woman.....and that is the POINT I was making to dunderheads who think a fetus is NOT part of the woman.. ...and don't tell me what was or wasn't the point, I MADE the point
Then what were you saying? That's what I thought you said. Either way my point is you can't leave a newborn on a shelf because it needs the care of an adult. No one that I know claimed otherwise. What I am claiming though is that the unborn isn't apart of the woman's body. It has its own DNA and half the time its own gender. To say it's nothing more than a body part of the woman is grossly misinformed at best. Don't start insulting. Again, no one claimed that the unborn wasnt attached to the mother. What science says however is its a separate entity. And you misunderstood mine.
Science does NOT say it is a separate entity....if it was a separate entity , Unattached to the woman, it could be set on a shelf and left to grow on it's own..... you obviously have NO idea what a 10-12 week fetus looks like...do you think all fetuses are instantly Gerber baby look alikes!!!!! ..and NO, NO other human could help it grow unless they implant it in their womb and connect it. My GAWD, you actually think a fetus just floats around in a woman!!! ...and none of this matters, the fetus belongs to the woman it's in so it's nobody's business what she does with it...
Does having an appendectomy kill the patient? Does having a tooth pulled? BTW, there is no "baby" involved in abortion.
Are you suggesting that the procedure or tooth is the same entity that Balto was referencing (as well as Balto's term "baby") in Balto's post? Do you see the expectant mother and developing human/baby/child as one entity too? I think you've misjudged Balto's position (as well as my intended point).
No, but the tooth IS connected to the patient...and then removed without killing the patient. You suggested that if they were both the same entity that the woman would be killed at the same time the fetus is....and that's ridiculous. The tooth is like the fetus in that it is connected to, and needs, the person it's in to survive and grow. The person can have it removed without dying.....just as a woman can have a fetus removed (detached) without dying.
Obviously killing "Baby" would not kill it's mother as it is no longer inside of her. Until the moment it does escape her body it is NOT a Baby, in fact we have developed term specifically for the stages it grows through until it does.
I know the point of the Balto "entity" question (asked of Balto) has thus far escaped all who have chosen to respond to it. No worries. Perhaps seasons might be more appropriate for a differential comparison? An obvious difference (there maybe more) between a tooth and an unborn child is the tooth is hopefully permanently attached, lasting a lifetime but the shared season of the unborn and his/her expectant mother is but a temporary one.
I know the point of the Balto "entity" question (asked of Balto) has thus far escaped all who have chosen to respond to it. No worries. Point being that the Mother and the unborn (Baby) insert your "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet" description here ____, are two completely distinct organisms. Thus, two human beings, in different stages of development and life. However, in contrast, killing or murdering Mother would, barring immediate successful surgical intervention/rescue, end her unborn child's life too. Just stating the obvious as well,
As in your individual constitutional right to do whatever you like with your own body. Can anyone else force you to donate your blood, one of your kidneys or some bone marrow? So explain exactly what right you have to dictate that someone else must do something with their own body? Please note that we are talking individual rights that apply to natural born persons under the Law of the Land here. The fetus has no rights since it does meet the criteria of being a naturally born person. So your answer must be specific as to what right do you have to dictate to another person what they must do with their own body.
A simple observation. The unborn enjoy the exact same right(s) as the historic slave once enjoyed. Abortions have been performed throughout the history of pregnancies but not with the blessing of a righteous society. There were prohibitions against abortion (now a few timelines are prohibited) and slavery was a right for the master. Now slavery is universally illegal (though still exists in practice) and abortion now has its legal plantations and masters. History replicates itself.
That doesn't answer : "" what right do you have to dictate to another person what they must do with their own body."" You said slavery is illegal and it is so what right do you have to dictate to another person what they must do with their own body ?
The unborn do not have the rights of a slave in ANY WAY because they are NOT BORN! Until a human is Born they cannot have rights in any way at all without taking away rights from the individual they live within and depend on for life. You place yourself in a terrible position here.....Either eliminate a womans right to her own life and body (the only things she actually owns without question), or do not give rights to the unborn. Choose carefully because this will define your perceived and reality based nature of personality.
Your egregious attempt at trying to equate slavery and abortion backfires because it is YOU, and your fellow anti-abortionists, who are trying to ENSLAVE WOMEN! That you are unaware of this obvious parallel is ironic!
Then an unborn at five months is a separate entity since as you put you can put it on a shelf and grow on its own. What does that have to do with anything I just said? What makes you think I don't know what a 10-12 week unborn human looks like? How is looks even relevant to whether or not the unborn have a right to life? Should ugly people be denied human rights because of their looks? Uh, what? My goodness, you actually think I believe that! Show me exactly where did I said that. Did not I acknowledged that the unborn is attached? I said while the unborn is attached it is not apart of the mother. Apart of the mother means it has the same DNA just like your arm is apart of your body and a parasite isn't. That would be true if it wasn't its own entity, which is is. Does not DNA establish wether something is apart of you or not? That's how the animal kingdom is categorized. The canine family and feline family are separated because they have deferent DNA.
