Letter: Unborn children not part of a woman's body

Dear Editor,

Assuming that an unborn baby is a part of the mother’s body, the pro-choice advocates among us accuse the Wyoming Legislature of endangering a woman’s “right” to have sovereignty over her own body. “Our bodies, our choice.” they cry. This would be a legitimate argument if the assumption was true. But they conveniently ignore the clear scientific proof that at no stage in its development is the unborn child ever actually a part of the mother’s body.

“How can that be,” some will exclaim. The answer is simple really. We just have to ask: “Is the DNA of the mother and baby inside her the same?” We all know now that every cell in a person’s body has exactly the same DNA. That is why at a crime scene, if any DNA can be matched to some person, it is proof positive that that individual was there and involved in some way.

So if an unborn baby is actually a part of the mother’s body, then its DNA will match the DNA of the mother.

But does it match? Absolutely not! Any knowledgeable person knows that from the moment of conception, the DNA of every cell in the developing child does not match the DNA of the mother or any other person on earth except in the case of identical twins. Therefore it is a scientific certainty that the unborn baby is never actually a part of the mother’s body. It resides there, but it is never a part of her body. (When people ride in a car, are they a part of the car? Of course not!)

So the popular pro-abortion propaganda that a woman has the right to do whatever she wishes with the baby inside of her because it is a part of her body like her finger or her ear is scientific, logical, and moral nonsense. The singular distinctiveness of the unborn child’s DNA proves that it is a new and unique little human being which our state’s legislature has every right to protect from the desire of its pro-choice mother to annihilate it by having an abortion.

Leonard Lang

Newcastle