Even after all these years, abortion enthusiasts continue to drone that women have the right to control their bodies and that the unborn child is part of the mother’s body. The problem is, for that to be true we have to accept that when a woman is pregnant she has 4 arms, 4 legs, 2 heads, 2 hearts, 2 brains, and so on. And if she is carrying twins, she has 6 arms, 6 legs, 3 heads, 3 hearts, 3 brains and … well you get the picture. We’re also supposed to believe that if her unborn child is male for a few months of her life this woman has a penis.
Obviously, only a card-carrying moron could suggest such things. In reality, the unborn child has its own genetic code, blood type, fingerprints, brain, nervous system and internal organs. As a matter of fact, if it were possible for an unborn child to commit a crime, it has everything necessary to identify it in a court of law. Further, there is no possibility that this biological evidence would identify anyone other than the unborn child from whom it was taken. In short, there is no rational way to get around the fact that the unborn child is a separate individual from the mother.
To illustrate just how idiotic this “part-of-the-woman’s-body” argument is, I ask you to imagine a photograph of conjoined (Siamese) twins and decide whether you consider it to be a picture of one person or two? However, before you answer, remember that conjoined twins are much closer to being one person than is a mother and her unborn child. Conjoined twins are always the same sex, always have the same DNA, are always the same blood type, always share at least one external body structure and often share several internal organs. And as long as they are joined, if one dies they both die.
But none of that is true about a mom and her unborn baby. They are the same sex only about half the time, often don’t have the same blood type, never have the same DNA and they do not share any external body parts or internal organs. Moreover, it is not at all uncommon for one to survive when the other one dies.
The point is, while it would be absurd to claim that conjoined twins are not two distinct individuals, even that argument is more grounded in scientific reality than is the claim that a mother and her unborn child are not two distinct individuals.
Before I leave this issue, I remind you of an event that took place in the summer of 1999. A physician in Nashville, Tennessee, had just completed operating on a 21-week-old unborn child who had been temporarily removed from his mother’s uterus and placed on her abdomen. After returning the little boy to the womb, the surgeon was about to close the incision when the child suddenly punched his arm out and wrapped his hand around the doctor’s finger. Coincidently, photojournalist Michael Clancy was documenting the surgery and his picture of this astonishing event would soon be mesmerizing people around the world.
This new field of medicine also raises an interesting dilemma regarding the rhetoric of the abortion debate. The abortion lobby continues to deride our use of the words, “child” or “baby” to describe the unborn, saying that a fetus is neither. If that is true, then how should we describe the patient being operated on during this kind of surgery? It is obviously not the mother and it can’t be a fetus because it is not in the womb. So what is it? And if we are going to say that it is a baby while lying on its mother’s abdomen, on what biological basis does it lose that designation when placed back in her womb?
To put it another way, if the unborn are not living human beings and if they not separate human beings from their mothers, who was it that grabbed that doctor’s finger back in 1999?