Why don't pregnant women's bodies reject their fetus the way transplant recipients reject organs?
594197
The maternal and fetal circulatory systems only come in contact at one place--the placenta.  The mother's antigen-presenting cells can't cross the placenta, so if an immune response was going to be mounted it would be there.  Two basic ideas as to why this doesn't happen:\n\n(1) The trophoblasts that form the fetal half of the placenta don't express the usual major histocompatibility complexes that would ordinarily prompt immunological responses in adult tissues (for example, in transplant grafts).  In other words, the fetal half of the placenta is invisible to the mother's T-cells.\n\n(2) The trophoblasts that form the fetal half of the placenta produce cell surface proteins that actively suppress the mother's immune response in the vicinity of the placenta.\n\nFor a very recent (published March 2006), in-depth review, see my source....
538642
Abortion is not murder. Murder is the willful taking of one human's life by another human. Physiologically, a fetus is more like a salamander than a human, and I'm not big into the salamander rights campaign. Neurologically, the child isn't complete until it's a year old, so while it's still in the womb, it's certainly not a developed human. Christians claim to take truth from the bible, and the bible makes no reference to abortion or infanticide. In fact the closest thing to a reference is in Exodus 21:22 to the punishment if a man does violence to a pregnant woman causing her to lose the child, which is different from the punishment for murder as described in Exodus 21:12, which clearly indicates that the basis for popular religious thought for the Judeo-Christian-Muslim traditions did not intend for the killing of a fetus to be regarded as murder
1056721
I'd like to warn you that my opinion about abortion is based on reason, and very few people approach the abortion debate using reason. For most people, it's an emotional debate fueled by guilt. The emotions on the issue tend to run so deeply most people forget which is which. So I do apologize for any hurt feelings which result from my dealing with abortion reasonably.\n\nI support a woman's right to have control over their reproductive capacity. Abortion does not affect citizens (a person is not a citizen until they are born) or the intrinsic assets of the nation, so there is no legislative basis for there to be any laws taking rights away from a citizen (the pregnant woman). Two beings cannot occupy the same body with equal rights. One has to have veto power over the other. It would be revolting to not respect the rights of Life Liberty & the Pursuit of Happiness for all citizens.\n\nFurthermore, abortion is not murder. Murder is the willful taking of one human's life by another human. I've seen pictures, and the fetus might look vaguely human, but physiologically a fetus is more like a salamander than a human. I know that sounds harsh, but there's also a degree to which deep down you know that it's true.\n\nNeurologically, the child isn't complete until it's a year old, and continues developing for about 25 years. So while it's still in the womb, it's certainly not a developed human. It's a part of our natural development for the brain to be undeveloped at birth because otherwise the head could never have fit through the opening. \n\nI asked the question "What makes humans distinct from other animals?" I received many interesting answers: The awareness that we are different from other animals, the ability to make rational decisions, the ability to suppress our animal nature, the ability to conceptualize good and evil, large brains, the ability to create art, the ability to question one's existence, speech, self improvement, and so on. At a glance, it's fairly obvious that a fetus does not have any of these qualities. In doing further research, I came across this website which I strongly recommend: http://7e.devbio.com/article.php?id=162\n\nA fetus has the potential of becoming human, but being human is a very special thing and a fetus isn't there yet. Being human is more than just a matter of our genetic make-up. It's about the way we think. Without the way we think, we are like any other animal. \n\nGiven that most people believe in the existence of a soul, It becomes an issue to consider when a person gets a soul. If you believe that only humans have souls, then the fetus doesn't have one because it's not yet human. It has the potential to become human, but it's not there yet. If you believe that all creatures have souls, then it has a soul to the degree to which a salamandar has a soul.As for what happens to the soul after death, If you believe in the polarity of Heaven and Hell, then the answer varies from person to person. If you believe in Karma, then that life served a purpose which it was there to do and can karmically celebrate that it's life accomplished what it was destined to accomplish.\n\nDon't get me wrong, I don't want anyone to think that I'm advocating killing babies. Babies are cute and respond well to people, kinda like puppies, and I am also opposed to killing puppies. In fact I have often been very supportive of all things child related and puppy related. But when it comes right down to it, and we consider the neural biology, certain facts become apparent. But I want to make it very clear that I am in no way advocating infanticide, which is much nicer than the bible which doesn't even mention infanticide despite the fact that it was commonly practiced at the time. In fact, until about a hundred years ago, I can't recall this ever having been much of an issue ever in the history of the world. Bu
712035
For the same reason they don't keep one  for miscarriages.  They are as preventable as abortions but are never discussed.  Miscarriages can easily be prevented with prenatal care for women, but as conservatives will not allow  any funding for this, poor women do not  receive it.  More babies are lost by far from miscarriages than from abortions.  If those that say they are pro-life would put their money where their mouth is, both problems would be greatly reduced.  I guess it depends on whose ox is being gored.
624389
As Keri B said, it has a lot to do with exposure to the elements...previous to this, the fetus had been suspended in amniotic fluid, which is a pretty neutral environment. Contact with the outside world is harsh on the body, and dry skin is frequently a problem in healthy newborns.\n\nSpecifically, in the case of a stillborn, there isn't any blood flow to the skin, which makes it more prone to peeling/tearing. In essence, it's a part of decomposition.\n\nAlso, I have to confess, I'm really curious as to what brought this question up...
176964
It's not an issue of how the baby was born.  It is up to the individual if they want to give up a kidney to save a life.  Doing so though puts that person's life at risk and they could have complications later.\n\nI could never ask anyone I love to donate their organs; it would be unfair.
39472
well, there are problems that may face a women who want to have uterus transplantation: first, find a donor who must have an ovulating uterus( usually age between 20-35 years old) and welling to donate. \n\nSecond, the transplanted uterus must be matching the acceptor like blood group for example.\n\n Third, and most importantly is that the person who got an organ transplanted usually take medications to prevent organ  rejection by the body and they take it along their entire life, these medications are contraindicated in pregnancy so even if they got uterus transplanted, these medications may be harmful to the baby and may cause serious abnormalities .\n\nThe practical solution for those women right now is to find a surrogate mother who can carry the fertilized ova (from the original couple) in her uterus for 9 month till give birth to the baby. I think this is going to be an easier and to some extend a convenient solution.
772222
Haha, a fetus doesn't go to Heaven if it's aborted--fetuses lack souls!  That is why abortion isn't a bad thing.  Well, also the fact that abortion helps to conserve the environment, as too many people being born will eventually kill those of us already here as our resources are depleted......
579335
you can very well believe in God yet still think abortion is okay, but it is wrong.\n\nto those who think abortion is fine, that its not murder, just go do a google search of websites that show you photographs of aborted children. you will see they have arms and legs and hearts and brains...\n\nsome even have full bodies, they just look... well... dead.\ninfact, here are some sites to copy and paste:\n\nhttp://www.100abortionpictures.com/Aborted%5FBaby%5FPictures%5FAbortion%5FPhotos/\n\nhttp://www.christiangallery.com/smdead.html\n\nif you dont want to see VERY graphic pics, dont go there. if you want to know the truth, have a look.\n\nbut every one of them is human when aborted.\nso, abortion is literally murder.\n\nIf your "mature" enough to have sex, your "mature" enough to take responsibility for your actions. and if you were raped, there is adoption. no excuses.
474211
Nothing. The problem would be if it were in reverse.\nThe mother being Rh-, and the fetus is Rh+. Then the mother's body would view the fetus as a potential threat and begin building antibodies to this "foreign" body.\nThe first pregnancy is usually fine, as it takes the body a little while to build up those antibodies. Subsequent pregnancies are in danger, which is why a woman is given a shot of Gamma Globulin after the pregnancy, to counteract those antibodies.
372513
Where *exactly* in the bible does it say "removing a clump of cells is wrong"? and please, don't try the "thou shalt not kill" maneuver. You can't kill something that isn't alive. btw, alive= thinking & breathing, which a fetus doesn't do until the 2nd trimester. Also, that reasoning only applies to people that belive in the bible, which most don't. \n\nPro-lifers often change their tune when faced with an unwanted pregnancy. Just look to our fine presidant as an example. He supported his girlfriends abortion, yet is pushing to make it illegal and force women to resort to "back alley abortions" once again.\n\nIn answer to your question, I think it's about control. Control over what women do with their lives, control over prisoners, and control over other countries.
114168
No.  A person is an individual substance of a rational nature.  Pre-viability, the baby is still a being with a rational nature, just not able to use reason yet.
1014401
Instead of bringing religion in as a tool of argument, I'm going to use the scientific definition of an organism being alive.  A living organism must have the ability to live independantly from another organism, thus a fetus cannot be considered a living organism.  And also, according to Federal Law, not all humans are given these fundamental rights.  Convicted criminals and unlawful combatants are NOT entitled to these rights.  And finally, to use God in an argument of law is inherently questionable, as the First Amendment prohibits religious doctrine in law.
954274
you know I am not the type of person that really has a problem with other people having their own opinion, but this is just outrageous.. on the web huh?? I has 3 miscarriages before my first son was born and I can tell you that they were most definitely not fully formed. It looked like a mass of blood, there was no shape. AND what about women who have been the victims of rape/incest or have medical problems and may die if they continue with the pregnancy ? Force a woman to carry a baby for 9 moths and remind her of a brutal rape??? Or force her to face eminent death ?? Come on now, be reasonable, most pro-choice people are and don't try to jam their beliefs down your throat, why do you insist on jamming yours down everyone Else's??\n\nAdditional:\n\nTo Orchid, I NEVER told YOU that your daughter was a blob of tissue, I was very upset when I miscarried my first 3 pregnancies as well. I just said , I SAW it, I didn't have it  "sucked" out like you stated, it came out in my own home and although it may have had limbs, it looked like a mass of blood, or a huge blood clot. You see, I would personally never have an abortion, but I DON'T believe you or anyone else has the right to tell me I must carry a baby that was the product of rape, etc because it's "murder" if I don't. You cry adoption, etc. that is your opinion and I respect your opinion, I however know that there are millions of children that are still waiting to be adopted. You have your opinion and I have mine, no need to attack me, as I did not attack anyone either. Respect me and I respect you. We live in a diverse world. How is it ok for you to say woman can't say it's their bodies, but you want to inflict your own values and outlaw abortion?
757776
Are you even a citizen in the womb?  --prego woman can't use their babies in the belly as a second person for the car pool lane--
855329
For the record I am against all abortion.  But from what I've read thus far on the subject, it seems that the opponents of the abortion are looking at the baby and arguing it is cruel to them.  Supporters are arguing it is safest for the woman (since they may not consider the fetus a baby until it is born).\n\nThey do crush the skull and/or cut it open and remove the brain into a vacuum.  With the subsequent smaller head it is much easier to remove the baby/fetus (whichever you'd like) from the uterus.  The only other way that I know of is to cut up the baby part by part inside and remove each part one by one.  The baby is killed first so its pain is limited in that second one.\n\nIt does seem to me that since both styles hurt the child about the same, that in essence the opponents aren't trying to end one as being too cruel to the kid; rather they are trying to limit abortions and make each abortion type illegal one by one rather than the stop all abortions at once (which has repeatedly failed at the Supreme Court level).  I guess its up to each of us to decide what we believe is right and then to fight for that.  I've chosen no abortions, but I fully understand when others want to make exceptions or make it fully legal; we each go for what we think is right.
7989
I am not a believer in abortion.  It is an easy way out.  I am a single mother and even though it is hard to raise a child on my own, I would never have considered aborting my baby.  How many people out there have ever really seen what an abortion does to an unborn child?  It's positively horrifying, and no other word besides "murder" describes it.  It is not just about a woman's body, there is another life involved!  One that feels pain, has a heartbeat, and is completely defenseless and dependant on it's mother.  Yes, you are right.  Women SHOULD take care of their responsibilities.  Never is abortion ok, not when you consider that that baby can feel everything as it's being ripped apart.