Using the argument, that a baby is just an appendage is like saying "cut my arm off". But if you cut someone's arm off, there is a loss to that person "as a whole". Cut a baby out and there is no loss to that person "as a whole". Only the baby loses.
And what we also know is that the law has always held that an unborn child, until they become a living, breathing sentient being, outside of the mothers womb, has no rights.
So that being true instead of trying to restrict the rights of the individual, and thereby increasing the rights of government, why don’t we look into extending rights to the unborn child? It seems to me that none of the pro life groups ever consider that by giving the government the right to tell one that they cannot have an abortion, they are by default seting the precedent for the government to, at some future time, dictate that one must have an abortion. After all, we are setting the principle that rights in this matter do not reside with the individual, but with the government.
Do you understand the difference between the two choices?
I would say that the WHOLE BABY loses.
There's an even better argument against the "appendage", or "it's part of my body" excuses.
Question: If I found a human arm lying on the road, how could I identify with certainty whose arm it was?
Answer: Using DNA, the unique genetic blueprint of each human, I could match the found arm to it's rightful owner. The DNA of the arm would match the DNA of it's owner. The arm actually is the extension of, a part of, if you will, it's owners body.
Now, a baby does not have identical DNA to it's mother.
A baby has it's own unique genetic blueprint comprised of components of it's mother and father's DNA. A baby is it's own unique human. It's no more a "part" of the mother's body than YOUR arm is part of MY body.