Your blood is not connected to you, it's your blood. The egg is still within her body.
Within her body, yes. That’s not what you’re arguing - you’re arguing that the fetus is *an integral part of her body*, which it isn’t - stay consistent. We know for a fact that your blood analogy is inconsequential because fertilisation can occur completely outside of the womb, IVF disproves your “philosophical” argument entirely. The egg being or not being physically inside the woman makes no difference as far as developing a new life is concerned, it could be on a different continent and implanted in a different womb after the fact, the result would be the same - a new human life form that is unique and different from both the sperm donor and the egg donor. It wouldn’t have the genetic material of the woman it was implanted into, it would have its own genetic material derived from a combination of the material from the original biological parents. The only thing it would “take” from the new womb is nutrition.
I can’t believe you’re arguing this point in earnest - you’re effectively saying that prenatal development is not part of human development and that until a child leaves the woman’s body through the birth canal, it is *a part of her body*, which is bonkers and on the level of Flat Earth. Not even abortion proponents argue this point - the bodily autonomy argument refers to the state of the mother’s body, not the fetus, which is not part of her body in any sense, it merely resides inside of it. An ice cube floating in a glass is not part of the glass, it is the content of the glass. I understand that you support abortion and that’s fine - I also find it permissible in certain specific circumstances we discussed earlier. What I don’t understand is why you’re arguing a point that you know is false.
I’m not going to continue this bizarre debate as it’s derailing the thread - you can’t seriously expect me to fill the gaps in your education, that’s not my job. Knowing basic biology is a prerequisite to participating in the debate - if you can’t accept it, there’s nothing to discuss here.
Fingernails and hair are also already dead. They're designed to be trimmed on the regular. The living cells that grow new fingernails and hair are not so easily replacable.
Correct, it’s not living tissue. It’s dead tissue, but the discussion was about genetic material, so I entertained the insane argument regardless.
Speaking of living and non-living tissue, treating the human life inside of the woman as part of her body implies that if she dies, so will it. That’s not the case - depending on the degree of development it can be saved despite the fact that the mother is deceased - you effectively end up with a preemie. In 2019 Czech doctors managed to deliver a healthy baby of a braindead mother after keeping her functions active for 117 days, nearly 4 months, specifically to allow the fetus to develop.
https://www.euronews.com/2019/09/03...ter-brain-dead-mother-kept-alive-for-117-days
The woman was, for all intents and purposes, dead - her bodily functions were maintained with machinery.
There are less extreme examples, obviously - the youngest preemie recorded survived after only 21 weeks of gestation. If a mother dies after that point, the baby can be successfully extracted and has a chance of surviving the ordeal. Medicine is pretty impressive nowadays, as it turns out. That doesn’t sound like “a part of the mother’s body”, that sounds like a separate entity contained inside of it.