Deny Thy Nutrients

Contrary to popular misconception, zygotes do not instantaneously attach themselves to their mother's uterine wall and begin sustaining themselves on the nutrients of her body. This process does not take place until two or three days into the post-zygotic stage during which the prenatal human specimen is referred to as a blastocyst.

Until this point the zygote is not a parasite. It sustains itself not upon the body of the host but rather upon residual carbohydrates left behind by lingering traces of the male gamete in the throes of conception.

Thus, an abortion which works by preventing a zygote from forming a blastocyst and attaching itself to the uterine wall (RU-486 abortion pill,) cannot be accurately characterized as merely withholding the use of your body and its energy from another organism. Instead it is taking direction action to end the life of that organism.

So if the right to obtain an abortion is merely a right not to be forced to sustain a parasite, or if the right to an abortion emanates from a right to withhold the use of your body by a parasite, then women do not have a right to the RU-486 abortion pill or other very early term abortions.

Thus, we have two possibilities. The first is that there is no reason why we cannot ban the RU-486 because the right to terminate a pregnancy does not encompass early term abortions. The second possibility is that the right to obtain an abortion emanates from some other source entitling the mother to take direct measure to terminate her prenatal child for personal benefit.

In summation, the prochoice movement is obliged to identify a new source for the right to obtain an abortion and produce a more comprehensive argument for their position or the movement must accept that there is no right to early term abortions which function by terminating blastocysts or zygotes before they have been implanted into the uterine wall.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Abortion
• men
• women
• feminism
• misandry
• misogyny
• sexism
• rights
• opinion
• child
• support
• fetus
• embryo
• zygote
• pregnancy
• argument
• prolife
• prochoice
• human
• life
• choice

[ivyshoots]

When you say the fetus depends on the mother's nutrients for "its continued survival" you imply that it is already a fully-functioning organism, just as you depend on a constant oxygen supply for your continued survival. But for at least the first 20 weeks, the nutrients are CREATING a new life, not merely "supporting" an existing one. This misdirection diminishes the status of the woman, turning her from the creator of new life into just a vessel for a supposedly already existing life.

[WarThemedRevolution]

@ivyshoots That is not true; as a matter of simple scientific fact human life begins at the moment of conception. The United States Senate Judiciary Subcommittee actually had a hearing of international scientists to clear this up. The hearing concluded: “Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being…” --Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981, 7.-

[WarThemedRevolution]

@ivyshoots I have pages upon pages of quotes taken from scientists, legal documents, and prochoice leaders repeatedly reiterating the fact that even a zygote is a whole, individual, living human being. For example: "The basic fact is simple: life begins not at birth, but conception" -- Ashley Montague, pro-choice geneticist, professor at Harvard and Rutgers. I can send you a truckload via private message if you remain unconvinced. If in your mind this fact diminishes the status of women for you-

[WarThemedRevolution]

@ivyshoots I do not know what to tell you. I will, however, say that in my opinion sustaining an existing life is no less honorable, amazing, and miraculous than producing one ex nihilo. In any case, the creation still takes place—it just happens more quickly than some prochoice individuals choose to recognize. Interestingly enough, if you listen to the aural arguments of Roe v. Wade it's actually argued that abortion is neccesary for women to contribute equally in society.-

[WarThemedRevolution]

@ivyshoots Thus, advocates of abortion are frequently misogynistic and hold that, without a surgical handicap, women have less to offer than men. Furthermore, organizations like Planned Parenthood attempt to portray pregnancy not as a natural miracle but as a medical condition to be cured. This would seem to diminish pregnant women from miracle workers to disease victims.

[theprolifeguy]

You have great knowledgable logic my friend...The pro-choice crowd is outsmarted once again....Life is a miracle...TPLG

[WarThemedRevolution]

@theprolifeguy Thanks a lot, I'm glad you enjoyed the video. Though, it seems some people have been rating me down so i guess not everybody likes it.

[FREEAMERICANOW69]

this is really stupid, i have a right to abort any organism that is unwanted by me from my body...your point is moot, like always.

[theprolifeguy]

@ivyshoots Well I did say the "pro-choice" crowd...There are prochoice men as well...The only womans body I have any facination with is my wifes & my children would not exist today without my donated sperm (your definition) ....NEXT

[ivyshoots]

@WarThemedRevolution These are straw man arguments irrelevant to anything I said. I said nothing misogynistic nor did I call pregnancy a disease (though neither is it a "miracle"). Please address MY argument, that "continued survival" is a misleading, incorrect characterization of the CREATION of a human being, which can only "survive" AFTER it develops the means to. A conceptus is often a blighted ovum or a hydatidiform mole, in which case it IS pathological and DOES need to be "cured."

[ivyshoots]

@theprolifeguy Women are not a "crowd" and we are not outsmarted by men who spend lots of time thinking about our private lady parts and discussing them openly on youtube, I get your fascination with the female body, since it has the ability to create new life while your body can only donate sperm. Lots of old men like you think you're entitled to control women, but you're not. Don't try to warp a nice young kid like this one.

[ivyshoots]

Since a woman has the right to withhold nutrients from a "parasite," it logically follows that she therefore has the right to prevent that parasite from accessing her nutrients in the first place. Your argument makes a distinction without a difference, since it doesn't prevent the parasite's expulsion, only postpones it until after implantation, when her "right" supposedly kicks in. How does this change anything or benefit anyone?