Baby in womb protects mom from disease

“Ultimately though, to have a ‘right to life’ requires that one be an individual capable of living an independent existence. One must ‘get a life’ before one has a ‘right to life.’ A fetus is not a separate individual – it lives inside a pregnant woman and depends on her for its growth. In fact, the biological definition of ‘parasite’ fits the fetal mode of growth precisely, especially since pregnancy causes a major upset to a woman’s body, just like a parasite does to its host.” -Joyce Arthur, “The Fetus Focus Fallacy,” Pro-Choice Press, Spring 2005.

The baby growing inside a woman’s womb is a nuisance, just a piece of tissue, a parasite. That’s what the pro-choice pro-abortion crowd want us to think.

The dictionary defines “parasite” as “An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.” Just like a tapeworm.

Tapeworm

But stunning new scientific evidence is showing that, far from being a nuisance, the “fetus” actually is a symbiote — the exact opposite of a parasite.

The baby growing inside a woman’s womb passes his fetal cells — embryonic stem cells! — to the mother, and those cells protect the mother from breast cancer and other diseases. More than that, the protective effect endures for the rest of the woman’s life — even if the woman had aborted killed the baby.

A baby at 4 months. Does this look like a tapeworm to you?

Peter Baklinski reports for LifeSiteNews, Jan. 4, 2012:

A standard pro-abortion argument hinges on the premise that a baby inside his mom’s womb attacks her bodily integrity. The developing baby is seen in this light as an intruder, a parasite, a threat to the woman’s autonomy. From this perspective the pregnant woman is viewed as being occupied. The only way she can continue to exercise her interest in bodily integrity, the argument goes, is to be liberated through the termination and expulsion of the invader.

But science paints a vastly different picture about the actual relationship between a baby in utero and his or her mother, showing that, far from being a parasite, the unborn child can help heal his mother for the rest of her life, as beneficial cells from the child pass into the mother’s body during pregnancy.

Science writer Jena Pinctott explores this relationship in her October 2011 book “Do Chocolate Lovers Have Sweeter Babies?: The Surprising Science of Pregnancy.”

Science has been studying the phenomena of fetal cell microchimerism for more than 30 years, after researchers at Stanford University were shocked in 1979 to discover a pregnant mother’s blood containing cells with Y sex chromosomes. Since women only have X chromosomes, they concluded that the cells must have entered into her body from the male baby she carried within her.

Drawing on studies in biology, reproductive genetics, and epigenetics, Pincott outlined in her book what science has learned since the Stanford discovery.

“During pregnancy,” she wrote, “cells sneak across the placenta in both directions. The fetus’s cells enter his mother, and the mother’s cells enter the fetus.” Scientists have discovered, she said, that a baby’s fetal cells show up more often in a mother’s healthy breast tissue and less often in a woman who has breast cancer (43% versus 14%).

Pinctott pointed out that as the quantity of fetal cells in a mother’s body increase the activity of autoimmune conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis and multiple sclerosis decreases. She called the evidence “tantalizing” that fetal cells may offer the mother increased resistance to certain diseases.

One kind of fetal cells that enter into the mother’s body is the baby’s stem cells. Stem cells have what Pinctott calls “magical properties” in that they can “morph” into other types of cells through a process called differentiation. The baby’s fetal stem cells can actually become the mother’s own cells that make up her liver, heart, or brain.

In what any ethicist might declare to be legitimate ‘embryonic stem cell therapy,’ the baby’s fetal stem cells migrate to the mother’s injured sites and offer themselves as a healing remedy, becoming part of the mother’s very body. Pinctott writes that such cells have been found in “diseased thyroid and liver tissue and have turned themselves into thyroid and liver cells respectively.”

Pinctott calls the evidence “striking” that a baby’s fetal cells “repair and rejuvenate moms.”

Genetics specialist Dr. Kirby Johnson of Tufts Medical Center, Boston, and professor Carol Artlett, a researcher at Philadelphia’s Thomas Jefferson University, back up Pinctott’s ideas. Their research shows that when a woman becomes pregnant she acquires an army of protective cells – what might be called a gift from her child – that remains with her for decades, perhaps till the end of her life.

Johnson and Artlett spoke to NPR’s Robert Krulwich in a 2006 interview.  In their research, Johnson found that a teaspoon of blood from a pregnant mother contained “dozens, perhaps even hundreds of cells… from the baby.” Science has shown that at the end of a mother’s pregnancy, up to 6 percent of the DNA in her blood plasma comes from her baby.

“One would expect them [the fetal cells in the mother’s body] to be attacked fairly rapidly. You would expect them to be cleared within hours, if not days. What we found is that that is not the case, not anywhere near the case,” Johnson said.

Artlett pointed out that even if a woman miscarries or deliberately aborts her child, the cells of the unborn child nonetheless remain with the mother, even for decades.

Both Johnson and Artlett defend the hypothesis that the baby’s fetal cells have a beneficent purpose, not to hurt the mother, but to protect, defend, and repair her for the rest of her life, especially when she becomes seriously ill. “There’s a lot of evidence now starting to come out that these cells may actually be repairing tissue,” said Artlett.

During the interview, Johnson told the story of one woman who was admitted into a Boston hospital with symptoms of hepatitis. She was an intravenous drug user with five pregnancies on record: one birth, two miscarriages, and two abortions. Johnson speculated that she would be carrying a lot of fetal cells.

In the process of examining her, the medical team performed a liver biopsy. A sample of her liver was sent to a lab to see if any fetal cells had congregated in the diseased area of her liver. What they found surprised them. “We found hundreds… and hundreds of fetal cells,” said Johnson, adding that they saw “literally sheets of cells, whole areas that seemed to be normal.”

Scientists are still trying to determine what causes the baby’s cells to work with the mother’s body in such a synergetic fashion.

Pinctott wonders how many people have left their DNA in a mother’s body. “Any baby we’ve ever conceived,” she concludes. Pinctott sees something “beautiful” in this. “Long post postpartum, we mothers continue to carry our children, at least in a sense. Our babies become part of us, just as we are a part of them. The barriers have broken down; the lines are no longer fixed.”

Perhaps it is not at all poetic to say along with Pinctott that a baby lives a lifetime in a mother’s heart and mind.

+++

Tears streamed down my face as I read this article….

Far from being a parasite on the woman’s body, from the moment of conception, the baby offers a precious gift to his mom — the gift of his own cells that heal and protect her from diseases for the rest of her life.

I’ll leave you with a quotable quote on abortion for all the Ayn Rand acolytes out there:

“One method of destroying a concept is by diluting its meaning. Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living.” – Ayn Rand, The Ayn Rand Lexicon.

Still think she’s wonderful?

~Eowyn

17 responses to “Baby in womb protects mom from disease

  1. Thank you, Dr. Eowyn, for this absolutely wonderful and inspiring post! Thank you also for exposing the evil interpretation of a fetus by the pro-abortion/pro-choice movement. Not only is it twisted, but it completely ignores scientific findings as you have so aptly communicated. We are made in the image and likeness of God, and it is as simple as that! Our Blessed Lord, Jesus, took the form of a human being, and He grew as a fetus in the Blessed Mother’s womb!

  2. This is probably where the “glow” of pregnant women comes from. As their bodies nourish the new life growing inside, the stem cells of that new life in turn nourishes them!

  3. I always get a letter from my doctor re: my mammogram/pap tests stating better get my tests done (duh) and that my chances of getting cancer are higher since I have not had a child. Now we know why (well, as much as we know about cancer and the stats). Babies help protect moms, just as the opposite is so true.

  4. Sage,

    I’ve never understood why so many conservatives are Ayn Rand fans. Her brand of “libertarianism” (she called it “objectivism”) is really just Aleister Crowley’s (and the Church of Satan’s) motto, “Do as thou will”, except Rand’s is garbed in pretentious pseudo-intellectualism. All of which is, of course, that first temptation in the Garden: “And you will be as gods!”

  5. What a dishonest and practically slanderous piece of propaganda! Right after the part you quote from my article the Fetus Focus Fallacy, I say: “I’m not trying to disparage fetuses with the negative connotations of the word parasite; in fact, parasites and their hosts often enjoy mutually supportive relationships, and this would include most pregnancies. However, the parasitic relationship of a fetus to a woman means that its continued existence requires her consent – if she continues the pregnancy unwillingly, her rights and bodily integrity are violated.”

    You must have deliberately left that out because you knew it undermined your whole point. Don’t you have any integrity?

    It’s also dishonest – as well as ignorant and irresponsible – to cite one positive effect of pregnancy and pretend there’s no bad effects. Obviously, pregnancy affects women’s health in many ways – benign, positive, and negative. For example, the more babies a woman has, the more her BMI tends to increase, and overweight is of course associated with many increased health problems. (http://jech.bmj.com/content/63/Suppl_2/56.full; http://www.bocyf.org/gunderson_presentation.pdf). While pregnancy decreases the risk of breast, ovarian and endometrial cancers, repeated pregnancies over a lifetime are associated with higher risk of coronary heart disease and stroke (http://jech.bmj.com/content/60/11/968.abstract) and diabetes, cervical cancer, gall bladder disease, kidney disease, and hypertension (http://jech.highwire.org/content/39/4/343.full.pdf). Too-frequent childbearing in developing countries where women don’t have access to contraception exacerbates or leads to anemia, malnutrition, maternal depletion syndrome, and general poor health – if they survive the pregnancies themselves, which they often don’t. (www.worldpress.org/Africa/3834.cfm; http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs348/en/index.html)

    • Wow! Your explosive rage is downright frightening.

      Did you not write in your article that you consider the fetus a “parasite” in the mother’s womb? I’m a well-published author, with 4 singly-authored books and 6 co-authored books — all scholarly books published by distinguished university presses. I quote other authors and other books — and others do with my books — but no one ever ever expects or demands that someone reproduces EVERYTHING an author says in her article or book. To do that would be redundant.

      I therefore recommend that you look up the legal definition of “slander,” because that’s what you’re doing here.

      Nor am I obliged to list all the effects that pregnancy has on a woman’s health. My post is about the beneficent effects a baby’s fetal cells have on his mother. My post is NOT about everything that happens in pregnancy.

      What got you enraged is that I disagree with your premise — your value/normative judgment — that the “fetus” is a “parasite.” Your usage of the word “parasite” is a curiously unique one — a meaning that is not found in any dictionary. Of course, by your own definition, you yourself were once a parasite! But lucky for you, your mother chose to not treat you as a parasite, but instead she bore you to full term. And so you, a parasite, got to live — something that 3,700 parasites babies do not enjoy, each day, in the United States.

    • “..the parasitic relationship of a fetus to a woman means that its continued existence requires her consent – if she continues the pregnancy unwillingly, her rights and bodily integrity are violated”

      Spoken like a true pro-abortion advocate. Seems to me her consent began when she had sex (putting aside rapes). Her bodily integrity violated? Heaven forbid you think about the integrity of a baby (fetus, parasite to you) as it’s ripped apart into shreds and yanked from its mother’s womb.

    • Your links provide information, albiet some rather outdated. Increase in anything can be bad….too many Big Macs, drinking alcohol, smoking, etc. Everything in moderation, as they say.

      You BMI link cites data from 1996 – 2001. Over 10 years old. It says BMI increases with five or more births (not many women having 5 kids these days), yet BMI decreased if children were breastfed.

      As for your link to kidney, hypertension, etc., that data is from 1938 to 1960. Waaaay too old. Modern medicine has improved drastically since those years.

      And for your link to heart disease, they used data from Finland from 1996 – 01.. Again, old data.

      Too bad we can’t prevent the one thing that causes many diseases and eventually, death – getting old! But keep pushing your pro-abortion agenda.

  6. I incorporate by reference as though set forth fully within this comment, the comments of Dr. Eowyn and DCG and I affirm them! Shakespeare was so brilliant with human nature, wasn’t he, “Me thinketh the lady doth protest too much!” Why, Ms. Arthur, are you so upset when you have been quoted directly from your own publication? Perhaps you are upset that others can see the outright stupidity and evil nature of your conclusion, that a fetus “fits the fetal mode of growth precisely, especially since pregnancy causes a major upset to a woman’s body, just llike a parasite does to its host.” Ms. Arthur, clearly a pro-abortionist, does not indicate that she was misquoted on this post. The point is, Ms. Arthur, that you conclude that a fetus is a parasite and/or a fetus is like a parasite, because the fetus cannot live outside of the mother’s womb. That is the point of this post, that a fetus, which is a child made in the image and likeness of God, is not an unwanted parasite, BUT A CHILD! Goodness, Ms. Arthur, using your logic, you, too, once were a parasite and/or like a parasite, but yet, you were alive then and are alive today! At what point, Ms. Arthur, does this fetus turn into an actual child? Does it happen with a magic wand?

    Ms. Arthur, you maintain that this post is dishonest because it does not agree with your premise that a fetus is a parasite and/or like a parasite. There are millions of people who will disagree with you, Ms. Arthur, that a fetus is not a parasite and/or like a parasite. And then you have the complete audacity to conclude and state, “Ultimately, though, to have a ‘right to life’ requires that one be an individual capable of living an independent existence. One must ‘get a life’ before one has a ‘right to life.’ ” From the standpoint of logic alone, this conclusion would mean that you, Ms. Arthur, never had and should not have a right to life because you too, were a fetus, and like a parasite, in your mother’s womb. And, I can take your logic further to conclude that infants and children that are already born, also do not have a right to life because they, too, are not capable of living an independent existence, because they need their parents or adult guardians to raise them. Accordingly, then, with your conclusion, infants and all children do not have a right to life!

    Ms. Arthur, conclusions such as yours have been responsible for the killing of thousands of children each day. King Herod slaughtered the innocents in Bethlehem when he learned that Jesus was born, fearing that another King might take his place. You reside in the same realm as Herod with your evil conclusion.

  7. Didn’t Adam call Eve the mother of all living things? We descendants of Eve are meant to mother living things. Meaning babies, children, yes?
    We are privileged to be created in God’s image and to bear little ones that are created also in that image. That is truly AMAZING. That poor person who just doesn’t get it, what a sad way of looking at this miracle.
    The devil is a liar………………………………….of course he is furious that babies can actually contribute to their mother’s overall health and well being, but O Well! What a wonderful revelation, thanks so much.

  8. By the way, I also meant to communicate a very important point. For the sake of argument, even if you take the alleged premise away completely, that a fetus is a parasite and/or like a parasite, Ms. Arthur’s conclusion of who has a right to life sets out what she believes and sets out her clearly evil position that I have addressed above. Children cannot live independent existences, nor can disabled people like myself, nor can society as we depend on each other! Just think, Ms. Arthur, you, once, too, were a parasite and/or like a parasite, according to your conclusion!

  9. Sorry, but I’m not going to debate abortion with religious nuts who are unable to or refuse to comprehend my position, and as a result misconstrue almost everything I say and engage in hateful and bullying attacks (like most “good Christian pro-lifers”). I only came here because the blogger deliberately omitted a key part of my quote that would have undermined the theme of his post, and I thought that was dishonest.

    Yes “Dr. Eowyn” it’s probably advisable for you to remove that incomplete and out-of-context quote and my name from your post – as well as your commentary on it please, because it is not accurate or fair given my full quote. Thanks.

    I’ll just leave you all with this: http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-advice.html Have a nice day!

    • Ms. Archer, the blogger omitted that part while quoting because you made it seem like biology was thwarting a poltically-/judicially-derived right to an elective abortion. The opposite is actually true. No matter how much we think things we don’t like into being “social constructs” we can change, such isn’t reality. “Calling a tail a leg don’t make it so,” as Abraham Lincoln said.

    • Religious nuts? Nice path to take when you choose not to debate what you perceive as “reproductive justice”. Hateful and bullying attacks? Just like you did by calling us religious nuts?

      Why should I comprehend your position? I don’t believe in killing babies (or parasites/fetus as you call them). Why don’t you comprehend my position???

      I looked at the data you provided and it was weak, and outdated, to support your position. Why didn’t you try and refute anything we said, especially what Joan said? When does a “fetus” turn into an actual child? Why doesn’t “consent” begin when you choose to have sex?

      No answer expected. You can’t argue with us religious nuts afterall….

    • Ms. Arthur,
      We are all adults here. There are no reason for the name calling or bullying attacks on this site. In fact please read my comments below on what MY parasite did for me. BTW he is 7 now. :o)
      THANKS for reading!

  10. I just had an idea. If for a brief second or two, the idea that some of these “parasites” like the luciferian lady calls them grow up into just that “parasites”. In the spiritual sense as well as the material sense, then all we have to do is look at the current occupant and his family in the WH. Those luciferians know all about parasitical behavior, another way of translating parasite could be Oligarch. The dog always returns to it’s vomit.

  11. With our last baby I remember getting some stomach virus. Little Grissom protected his mom and I never had that nasty vomiting episode. :o) In fact it was brief and short. YEA for babies!!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s