Question on DNA...

[sbbqb7n16]

Has there ever been a study that compares the DNA structure of the fetus in the womb with that of the host mother?

I have always wondered this, because the main proponents of abortion call themselves "pro-choice." In relation to the mother- "It is her body, so it is her choice," right?

definition of pro-choice: advocating a woman's right to control her own body (especially her right to an induced abortion)
define: pro choice - Google Search

Well if you were at a crime scene, and you found the DNA of someone's child (we are all someone's child), you would be readily able to identify it as separate and distinct from his/her mother - although with the normal relative similarities in structure.

So why not do a DNA test on a fetus to prove whether it is in fact its own life, or an extension of the mother's body? A different human DNA structure would obviously show that the fetus is in fact a human being altogether separate (although dependent) on the mother. And if it is shown that a fetus is a separate individual (based on DNA evidence), then clearly it is not her own body, but rather the body of a separate individual.

Pro-choicers would have no "it is her own body, so it is her own choice" to fall back on.

 

[NDNgirl4ever]

Well if you were at a crime scene, and you found the DNA of someone's child (we are all someone's child), you would be readily able to identify it as separate and distinct from his/her mother - although with the normal relative similarities in structure.

Yes, of course. But the presence of DNA doesn't mean that a fetus is a sentinent person yet. The presence of DNA doesn't prove whether or not a person is currently alive.

So why not do a DNA test on a fetus

They have. It doesn't change a thing. Until a fetus' lungs are developed enough to survive outside the womb, it's the woman's choice.

 

[sbbqb7n16]

Yes, of course. But the presence of DNA doesn't mean that a fetus is a sentinent person yet. The presence of DNA doesn't prove whether or not a person is currently alive.

That is a different argument altogether. (On which I would disagree with your conclusion - cause if a fetus can kick in the womb, possibly against the mother's will, and the mother has no control over it, then the fetus has a functioning mind of its own -although not fully functioning- and is therefore alive. among other tests of life.)

But then you would agree that the yet-to-be-born child is a separate individual, and not an extension of the mother, right? So how can a pro-choicer make the "it's the mother's body, so it's her choice" argument? (I am not really debating other arguments, primarily just this one)

They have. It doesn't change a thing. Until a fetus' lungs are developed enough to survive outside the womb, it's the woman's choice.

So if a human is incapable of supporting itself, we can choose whether or not its life should be ended? It takes more than a good set of lungs for a human to survive on its own. And like I said, the child is dependent on the mother, but is an altogether separate individual - not an extension of the mother's body. (This is my argument)

 

[lux et lex]

I can't think of any pro choice people I know trying to say that the fetus is essentially part of the woman. But it's the woman's body and resources that are being used by the fetus. Therefore it is her body and she chooses whether she wants to house the fetus or not. DNA is irrelevant.

 

[sbbqb7n16]

I can't think of any pro choice people I know trying to say that the fetus is essentially part of the woman. But it's the woman's body and resources that are being used by the fetus. Therefore it is her body and she chooses whether she wants to house the fetus or not. DNA is irrelevant.

You mean kinda like the definition from princeton that I posted in my original post?

Yes it is the woman's body and resources being used to support the fetus. Just like it is her body and resources used to nurse an infant. Does that make it okay to end the life of the infant because it is still dependent on the mother for shelter and food? Of course not.

DNA is not irrelevant at all. The fetus is a separate being trying to survive.

 

[lux et lex]

An infant is not dependent on one particular person. It can be transfered to practically anyone. If you don't see the difference between a fetus and a baby, I feel sorry for your ignorance.

 

[sbbqb7n16]

An infant is not dependent on one particular person. It can be transfered to practically anyone. If you don't see the difference between a fetus and a baby, I feel sorry for your ignorance.

If you do see a difference between a human on one side of a birth canal, and one on the other, I feel sorry for yours.

 

[lux et lex]

If you do see a difference between a human on one side of a birth canal, and one on the other, I feel sorry for yours.

Yeah...one has a social security number, rights under the law, a birth date, etc, the other does not.

 

[sbbqb7n16]

Yeah...one has a social security number, rights under the law, a birth date, etc, the other does not.

Oh wow, you're right! I totally forgot how newborn children in the Congo are born with Social Security numbers... or is that just our society? And how children in North Korea have rights under the law... or is that just our society again?

You do know in certain states, there are laws that protect the unborn - for instance, some states consider a pregnant woman when murdered, to be the death of two people. So technically children in the womb do have laws - but that is a feature of the society, not a feature of the human.

I was talking more about... how they both have a heart rate, a functioning mind, a personality, a growing body, skin, bones, blood, DNA, lungs, life... that whole side of things. One just happens to be in a womb, and one is on the other side of the mothers skin.

 

[lux et lex]

You do know in certain states, there are laws that protect the unborn - for instance, some states consider a pregnant woman when murdered, to be the death of two people. So technically children in the womb do have laws - but that is a feature of the society, not a feature of the human.

In actual legal practice, that has happened once. The trial just happened to be highly publicized (Scott Peterson Trial) so people mistakenly think this is common place. The legal community was up in arms about it because it sets a horrible precedent.

I was talking more about... how they both have a heart rate, a functioning mind, a personality, a growing body, skin, bones, blood, DNA, lungs, life... that whole side of things. One just happens to be in a womb, and one is on the other side of the mothers skin.

I guess it depends on how far into the pregnancy it is. But I'm not really into giving rights to potential people.

 

[NDNgirl4ever]

That is a different argument altogether. (On which I would disagree with your conclusion - cause if a fetus can kick in the womb, possibly against the mother's will, and the mother has no control over it, then the fetus has a functioning mind of its own -although not fully functioning- and is therefore alive. among other tests of life.)

Nope. The kicking does not prove that the fetus has a functioing mind. It true that the woman cannot control the fetuses kicks. However the fetus doesn't consciously control the kicking either . It is purely a reflex. This is the way reflexes work: when you do something like burning your hand, you automatically pull it away without thinking about it. The danger message is sent to the spinal cord (NOT the brain), and the spinal cord tells the muscles in the arm to pull it back. There is no thought in it whatsoever.

REFLEX

If you do see a difference between a human on one side of a birth canal, and one on the other, I feel sorry for yours.

Any anatomy book will tell you that there are differences in between a fetus at 12 weeks and a newborn.

 

[sbbqb7n16]

Nope. The kicking does not prove that the fetus has a functioing mind. It true that the woman cannot control the fetuses kicks. However the fetus doesn't consciously control the kicking either . It is purely a reflex. This is the way reflexes work: when you do something like burning your hand, you automatically pull it away without thinking about it. The danger message is sent to the spinal cord (NOT the brain), and the spinal cord tells the muscles in the arm to pull it back. There is no thought in it whatsoever.

So it just proves that it has its own nervous system and is functioning properly in order to react to stimuli of its own accord, independently of the mother. Got it.

Any anatomy book will tell you that there are differences in between a fetus at 12 weeks and a newborn.

Just like any anatomy book will tell you there is a difference between a newborn and a 3 year old human. Or a 20yr old and a 60yr old.

Although, the same individual has the same DNA while a fetus, while a newborn, and while it is 60 years old. Why then is it okay to end its life while it is in the womb, but not once it's outside? Isn't it the same individual (as confirmed by DNA evidence) at just a different stage of its development?

And if it's the same individual, then there is no more difference between a fetus at 12 weeks and a newborn, as there is between me today, and me 8 months from now. Other than we have had more time to develop.

But just because a baby is in a womb, does not make it not human yet. It has its own body with its own life. And therefore has its own right to live, and shouldn't be aborted because a mother incorrectly thinks that it is "her body" and therefore "her choice."

You're obviously missing the point I'm making that the fetus is its own person, and is a human being with a life of its own - not just an extension of the mother.

 

[Phinehas2]

How right is a little wrong or a big wrong. The answer neither are right at all.
Life starts at conception and abortion by choice is murder. No debate necessary.

 

[lux et lex]

How right is a little wrong or a big wrong. The answer neither are right at all.
Life starts at conception and abortion by choice is murder. No debate necessary.

Obviously there is because there is an entire section here devoted to it and entire organizations devoted to both sides of the issue. As much as you try to state your opinion as fact, that will not make it so.

 

[NDNgirl4ever]

So if a human is incapable of supporting itself, we can choose whether or not its life should be ended? It takes more than a good set of lungs for a human to survive on its own. And like I said, the child is dependent on the mother, but is an altogether separate individual - not an extension of the mother's body.

I didn't say support itself, I said "survive outside the womb". There is a difference. Also, in several places the Bible mentions that life is in the breath. Some of these are Genesis 1:30,2:7,6:17 and Ezekiel 37 .

So it just proves that it has its own nervous system and is functioning properly in order to react to stimuli of its own accord, independently of the mother. Got it.

Yes, it has a nervous system. However, you are wrong when you say that proves that it is functioning properly. What really matters is lung and brain development, and as I said, reflex movements are independent of the brain. In fact, there is a condition called anencephaly. In anencephaly the forebrain never develops. Those born with the condition cannot hear, see, or feel pain, and remain unconscious. Most are stillborn, and of those that survive birth die within a few days. However, those with anencephaly DO have reflex movement, and would be able to move in the womb. So you can't say that reflex movement means that there is a properly functioning nervous system.

Anencephaly Information

You're obviously missing the point I'm making that the fetus is its own person, and is a human being with a life of its own - not just an extension of the mother.

No, I understand your point, I just disagree about when a fetus should be considered a person.

Life starts at conception and abortion by choice is murder. No debate necessary.

That's easy to say when you'll never have to be the one to make the choice, isn't it?

 

[lux et lex]

Reflexes are part of brain stem function. You don't need a brain to have a reflex.

 

[sbbqb7n16]

I didn't say support itself, I said "survive outside the womb". There is a difference. Also, in several places the Bible mentions that life is in the breath. Some of these are Genesis 1:30,2:7,6:17 and Ezekiel 37 .

Infants may also literally die without touch - even if supported by a mechanical breathing apparatus. So obviously not all infants cannot survive on their own outside of the womb.

A lighter touch may help preemies breathe easier (02/6/09)

The Bible also says life is in the blood:

11. `For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement.'12. "Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, `No person among you may eat blood, nor may any alien who sojourns among you eat blood.'13. "So when any man from the sons of Israel, or from the aliens who sojourn among them, in hunting catches a beast or a bird which may be eaten, he shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth.14. "For as for the life of all flesh, its blood is identified with its life. Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, `You are not to eat the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood; whoever eats it shall be cut off.'
Leviticus 17:11-14

Yes, it has a nervous system. However, you are wrong when you say that proves that it is functioning properly. What really matters is lung and brain development, and as I said, reflex movements are independent of the brain. In fact, there is a condition called anencephaly. In anencephaly the forebrain never develops. Those born with the condition cannot hear, see, or feel pain, and remain unconscious. Most are stillborn, and of those that survive birth die within a few days. However, those with anencephaly DO have reflex movement, and would be able to move in the womb. So you can't say that reflex movement means that there is a properly functioning nervous system.

Anencephaly Information

Didn't you just say that the purpose of the nervous system was to respond to stimuli? (see your post about reflex, and the link you posted) And then you say that just because it responds to stimuli does not mean it's working? And you give evidence citing an improperly grown brain as a reason for why the nervous system isn't working, when just earlier, you said that a brain isn't the nervous system?

No, I understand your point, I just disagree about when a fetus should be considered a person.

Okay. That is why I started this debate. To the guy who said no debate necessary... that's just foolish.

That's easy to say when you'll never have to be the one to make the choice, isn't it?

Kinda like how the fetus never gets to choose whether it will get to live or die?

 

[sbbqb7n16]

Reflexes are part of brain stem function. You don't need a brain to have a reflex.

Okay, so do you need a fully functioning brain in order to be a human?

 

[lux et lex]

Okay, so do you need a fully functioning brain in order to be a human?

Well generally you need a brain in order to live, so I'd say you need a brain. Do any of us have a fully functional brain?

 

[sbbqb7n16]

Well generally you need a brain in order to live, so I'd say you need a brain. Do any of us have a fully functional brain?

hah that's my point.

if a brain isn't functioning well enough, are we allowed to say that they're not alive? like how a fetus' brain just isn't as developed as it will be. does that mean it's not alive?

I almost feel like people are trying to make the argument that just because a seed is still underground and hasn't fully developed into a plant, that it is not alive and growing. Does the seed have to sprout above the ground before people would say that it is alive? Of course not.

But instead of a seed underground, it's a human being in a womb - which is way more important.