Question: Are you more human than a fetus?
Answer: Scientifically, the fetus is more human than you.
Explanation:
Scientifically, a fetus is a living thing at any stage and it is very much human. In fact, a fetus is FAR MORE HUMAN THAN YOU. The womb is actually the only place and time in a human being’s life when they are completely human. Only about 10% of an adult’s cells are human. The rest of you is comprised of bacteria and microrganisms called “flora” (look it up) that inhabit the body after birth.
The microrganisms can be beneficial or harmful. That’s why doctors recommend breastmilk over formula. The first bacteria the baby is exposed to is vitally important because it determines what types of bacteria will inhabit the body for the rest of the person’s life. In fact, the bacteria cells will soon outnumber the baby’s human cells 10 to 1.
RAPE is horrible. But pregnant women CANNOT DENY that the fetus inside them is alive and is more human than they are. They have rights.
YES; I do believe abortion is the killing of an innocent human life. NO; It is not murder simply because THEY KNOW NOT WHAT THEY DO.
14 Comments
January 23, 2009 at 5:07 pm
I’m sorry, but this question doesn’t stump me at all.
This question is black and white for you, because you are choosing your own definition of “humanness.” You are taking it to mean that the higher the percentage of our bodies that isn’t foreign in some way, the more human we are.
By this logic, someone suffering from cancer, whose normal healthy cells have been taken over by harmful cancerous cells, is less human than a healthy, non-diseased individual.
For me, humanity is not defined by your physical makeup. But I wouldn’t presume to tell someone else how they ought to define humanity, either. It obviously varies greatly. Some define it by the moment of conception. Others, by the beginning of the heartbeat. For others, it’s marked by the point at which a fetus is far enough along that medical science could keep it alive outside the womb.
But your definition feels half-baked. The more you think about it, the less sense it makes.
January 23, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Karen,
I do not choose definitions. However, I do understand that Science doesn’t come easy for everyone.
I can take a religious approach and show you why abortion is wrong if you aren’t satisfied with the purely scientific explanation.
January 24, 2009 at 12:47 am
The question is never whether you regard a fetus as a human being.
The question is whether you regard a woman as a human being.
January 24, 2009 at 5:32 am
Dear jesurgislac,
What exactly are you saying? Are you saying that somewhere amongst the list of Human Rights is a line that states, “Women have the right to kill their children?”
We all know for a fact that most pro-choice advocates still think we should try to avoid abortions. Why avoid abortions unless there is something even a little wrong with it? Abortion is the killing of the fetus. That’s what abortion is. It is either an okay thing to do or it isn’t.
If it isn’t wrong in any way, then why not streamline abortions and create a whole new industry of wealth that could help pull us out of this economic crisis?………Because women have the right to kill,…right?
January 24, 2009 at 1:00 pm
What exactly are you saying?
That women are hum an beings. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.
Are you saying that somewhere amongst the list of Human Rights is a line that states, “Women have the right to kill their children?”
Nope. But then, abortion is about terminating a pregnancy, not about killing children. Children sometimes get pregnant and need abortions, so the right to safe, legal abortion is about saving children’s lives, not about killing them. (Forcing children through pregnancy and childbirth is a particularly nasty form of child abuse.)
We all know for a fact that most pro-choice advocates still think we should try to avoid abortions.
Yes. It’s far better if women – and children – just don’t get pregnant: which is why pro-choice includes supporting adequate and comprehensive sex education for all children, and opposes the enforced ignorance of “abstinence education”; which is why pro-choice includes supporting free access to freely-available contraceptives; and supporting comprehensive and affordable health-care for all, but especially for children/pregnant women/parents… though at that point, you may as well just support health care for all; which is why pro-choice includes supporting employment rights for pregnant women and parents, so that a person doesn’t have to choose between having a baby and having a job.
Why avoid abortions unless there is something even a little wrong with it?
There’s nothing wrong with having an abortion. Just like there’s nothing wrong with having a tooth out. But it’s better if a person flosses regularly, brushes their teeth twice daily, avoids sugary foods/drinks, and goes to the dentist twice a year for a routine checkup and maintenance work, in order to avoid a tooth needing to be extracted. Likewise, it’s better to avoid unwanted pregnancy. But there’s nothing wrong with having an abortion.
If it isn’t wrong in any way, then why not streamline abortions and create a whole new industry of wealth that could help pull us out of this economic crisis?…
For much the same reason as I wouldn’t advocate streamlining tooth extractions and creating a whole new industry of wealth based on pulling people’s teeth.
Women are human. Human beings have a right to decide about the use of their body. We do not permit even forced blood extraction, not even for rare blood types, not even if a healthy person who can easily lose a pint of blood every six weeks and has a super-rare blood type that could keep a recipient alive: it’s a person’s choice. It’s a donation: a gift: a decision. We do not permit forced use of any bodily organ… but some pro-life types argue that forced use of a woman’s uterus is somehow different. No, it’s not.
January 24, 2009 at 6:48 pm
Dear jesurgislac,
You said,
“But then, abortion is about terminating a pregnancy, not about killing children. Children sometimes get pregnant and need abortions, so the right to safe, legal abortion is about saving children’s lives, not about killing them.”
By your logic, women should have the right to kill their husband if they ever become unwanted. After all, it’s not about killing anyone, its about saving the quality of the woman’s life. The fact that the husband dies is just a little side note that isn’t important.
You also said,
“We do not permit forced use of any bodily organ… but some pro-life types argue that forced use of a woman’s uterus is somehow different.”
A fetus is not one of your organs. It is another person with organs of its own.
January 24, 2009 at 8:38 pm
By your logic, women should have the right to kill their husband if they ever become unwanted
Not at all. That’s not my logic. That’s yours.
Here’s my logic. Supposing a man is dying of liver failure. Or needs a new kidney. Or needs a pint of blood. Supposing his wife is a perfect donor – blood type and everything match. She could give up half her liver, or one of her kidneys, or a pint of blood. By your logic, because she can save his life by giving up the use of one or other of her organs, she must. If she refuses the use of a part of her body, your argument is, at a risk to her own life and health that is miniscule compared to the risk of pregnancy, she is guilty of killing him – and has therefore no right to refuse.
But in law, and in morality, she does have a right to refuse. She may love her husband greatly, yet feel organ transplants are immoral, or against her religion. No one can force her, and even if her husband dies because he didn’t get an organ donor, she is not legally or morally a murderer: it’s her body. It’s her choice.
A fetus is not one of your organs. It is another person with organs of its own.
A woman’s uterus is one of her organs. Hers, and her right to decide, just as it’s her right to decide whether to donate blood or be a live kidney or liver donor.
January 24, 2009 at 10:51 pm
What year is this again??????????
PREGNANCY IS NOT A FATAL DISEASE!
January 24, 2009 at 11:46 pm
PREGNANCY IS NOT A FATAL DISEASE!
UN FPA stats from 2005.
One in every 250 women who had a baby that year died: global maternal mortality statistics around the world were 400 out of 100 000 live births. That’s 536 000 maternal deaths. In one year. The lifetime risk of maternal death is 1 in 92.
That’s global. In developed countries – where, not at all incidentally, women have access to contraception and to safe legal abortion – maternal mortality is 9 out of 100 000. The lifetime risk of maternal death is 1 in 7300.
Where women have the right to terminate pregnancy at will, and doctors have the right and the obligation to include safe legal abortion in the options they can recommend to a woman who is pregnant, pregnancy isn’t that dangerous. Not any more. Not only because women need to be able to decide to terminate a pregnancy if that’s the best decision for their own health, but because countries that regard women as more than containers to produce babies, are countries that invest in women’s health. (cite) Countries which make abortion illegal show a prompt rise in maternal morbidity and mortality.
We’re living in the 21st century, since you asked. There is no excuse for leaving so many women each year to die because they don’t have access to the healthcare that they need. But that’s what the global gag rule did. That’s what President Obama has just ended.
For good, this time, let’s hope.
January 25, 2009 at 12:51 am
Dear jesurgislac,
#1 – You got your stats from a women’s rights activist website. The UNFPA is the epitomy of bias. I do appreciate the citation though.
#2 – We are talking about the United States. The U.S. isn’t exactly at the bottom of the barrel of developed countries, let alone those stricken with poverty.
#3 – Why don’t you find out how many baby’s lives would be saved if abortion didn’t occur? ABORTION KILLS MORE THAN IT SAVES. The day abortion saves more than it kills, I will turn pro-choice. That’s why abortion is a method of population control.
According to you, in developed countries, abortion COULD POSSIBLY save a mother’s life in 9 out of every 100,000 pregnancies…….
IN 2003, THERE WERE 26 ABORTIONS PER 1,000 WOMEN AGED 15-44 IN DEVELOPED COUNTRIES!!!!!
January 25, 2009 at 12:54 am
Save 9 people out of every 100,000 or save 26 out of every 1,000?
The answer is simple. STOP ABORTION NOW!
January 25, 2009 at 3:47 pm
I’m all out for sexual education for our youth and explaining what happens if they refuse to use protection, but abortion is not an option. Why is it okay to go to war and kill innocent civilians (ie. Iraq and Afghanistan) but it’s perfectly alright to kill a fetus? It’s death by all means of the word. Abortion needs to be outright illegalized. Doctors AND women need to be put through the ringer if they even think about getting one. And yes, it is purely black and white. Kill the baby killers.
January 25, 2009 at 4:35 pm
Why is it okay to go to war and kill innocent civilians (ie. Iraq and Afghanistan) but it’s perfectly alright to kill a fetus?
You will find “pro-lifers” who will tell you that it’s perfectly okay to kill innocent civilians providing it’s done by the US. (They tend not to like having it pointed out that some of those innocent civilians being killed are pregnant women, and small children…)
To decide – as a woman who is pregnant has to do – if she is going to use her bodily resources, her uterus, for nine months to create a baby from a fertilised egg, is a vitally important decision. A woman who decides she cannot do it, needs to get an abortion: there’s no other way to terminate the pregnancy.
Yes, obviously, it would be better if there were no unwanted pregnancies. Though pro-lifers tend not to support stuff like comprehensive sex education and free contraception. It would be better if women didn’t decide they had to abort because they couldn’t afford to have another child – the most common single reason for aborting an unplanned pregnancy in the US. But pro-lifers tend not to support stuff like paid maternity leave, paternity leave/child sick days, or free health care for pregnant women, parents, and children. Or even raising the minimum wage, or improved benefits for single mothers on welfare.
Pro-lifers, as a movement, prove not to be interested in anything much to do with the welfare of mothers and children beyond forcing a pregnant women to carry a fetus for nine months, if they can, and doing their best to ensure that women don’t have access to contraception to prevent pregnancy. (Many American health insurance policies won’t cover contraception. You won’t see pro-lifers campaigning on that issue.)
January 25, 2009 at 5:00 pm
Dear jesurgislac,
You said,
“But pro-lifers tend not to support stuff like paid maternity leave, paternity leave/child sick days…”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Are you kidding me? Yeah, screw maternity leave and child sick days! HAHAHAHAHAHA
You also said,
“You will find “pro-lifers” who will tell you that it’s perfectly okay to kill innocent civilians providing it’s done by the U.S.”
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA