ABORTION.......

real life wrote:

Jason,

Lemme see if I understand you correctly. Because of a Seinfeld episode, you seem to believe that the unborn is not a child til it 'comes out of the oven'.

Were you only able to read the "Seinfeld" analogy? Or were you able to see the other examples, apart from the "Seinfeld" analogy as well? Why were you only able to see that part? Are you able to see only what you want to see? This is problematic, if that's the case.

real life wrote:

But the American Academy of Family Physicians regards the unborn as a separate patient , as you and I discussed here http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1890281&highlight=patient#1890281

And the Bible says that Jesus is the son of God; the Koran says that he isn't; and the Jews didn't think so either. So, who's telling the truth?
And I even asked you, "in what way is the fetus not part of the mother?" Can't you really tell that this is a question because there is a "?" at the end of it? Or do I have to point out (every time) your inability to identify a question from a statement?

real life wrote:

However, Seinfeld has you convinced, right?

Not really. I was convinced waaaay before I watched that episode (it was hilarious by the way).

real life wrote:

And you can say with a straight face
Jason Proudmoore wrote:
Medical facts mean a lot to me.
*laugh track roars in approval*

I'm not saying this with just a "straight face"; I say it with a funny face as well.

real life wrote:

Well, why wouldn't we all agree with Seinfeld over the MDs? You nearly have us all convinced, I'll bet.

Not just Seinfeldlogic takes a huge part of it too. A person with a brain is capable to actually do some reasoninglogical reasoning that is.

real life wrote:

BTW where did Seinfeld get his medical degree?

I think he got it at the Comic Strip Club in Manhattan, or The Comedy Factory (But I'm not quite sure.) I'll just have to do some research.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

A fetus becomes a child when it is born.

You realize of course that by saying this you leave yourself open to the argument of the definition of born? For example a cesarean section at 8 moths versus a natural birth at 9 months.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
A fetus becomes a child when it is born.
You realize of course that by saying this you leave yourself open to the argument of the definition of born? For example a cesarean section at 8 moths versus a natural birth at 9 months.

For someone to entertain the possibility they'"left themselves open", wouldn't that presuppose a sort of fairmindedness or reasonability?

Can't bleed a rock, y'know chumly.

0 Replies

Your question is loaded with suppositions and presumptions and as such rather unfathomable. What is it you are asking me?

0 Replies

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

real life wrote:
Jason,

Lemme see if I understand you correctly. Because of a Seinfeld episode, you seem to believe that the unborn is not a child til it 'comes out of the oven'.

Were you only able to read the "Seinfeld" analogy? Or were you able to see the other examples, apart from the "Seinfeld" analogy as well? Why were you only able to see that part? Are you able to see only what you want to see? This is problematic, if that's the case.

Well, since you haven't been able to give a medically sound argument why you think that the unborn is a part of the mother's body ( erroneously claiming that the chromosomes of the egg and sperm remain separate after fertilization doesn't count) then you are kinda stuck with Seinfeld, aren't you?

The American Academy of Family Physicians on one side, Seinfeld on the other. Hmmmmm. Who's medical opinion should we trust?

If you don't like the AAFP, read the amicus brief submitted in the Roe v Wade case by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. They said basically the same thing. The unborn is a separate patient. (It's a long and eloquent statement, so bring a glass of milk and put your feet up while reading.)

Kinda makes your 'piece of protein' argument look rather lame, doesn't it? Oh, but Doc Seinfeld agrees, I forgot.

0 Replies

Hi real life,

Whether a fetus is a human being or not is pivotal on presenting a convincing logical argument on what a human being is.

You have not done that.

I challenge you to provide a convincing logical argument on what a human being is and is not and why. Otherwise all your arguments that a fetus is a human being are specious as you have not defined your terms.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Well, since you haven't been able to give a medically sound argument why you think that the unborn is a part of the mother's body

I don't need to give you anything, Curly.
I asked YOU, in what way is the fetus not part of the mother's body. You didn't answer, but began to avoid it completely, ranting about that people say that the fetus is not part of the woman's body. I don't know how to answer this problem since you haven't given me a logical explanation as how the fetus isn't part of the woman's bodysimple as that. If you don't understand English, we can't understand each other. That makes sense.

real life wrote:

( erroneously claiming that the chromosomes of the egg and sperm remain separate after fertilization doesn't count)

If you're telling me that the embryo (fetus, "child," whatever) is not part of the mother's body, because they are separate when the sperm and the egg are fertilized, don't they become part of the mother afterwards? Isn't the child dependant of the mother, and therefore, part of her as well? The fetus has the mother's DNA, and the body isn't rejecting it (not yet). I understand that the fetus isn't any of the mother's organs. That's for sure. If the fetus is not part of the mother, then the placenta isn't part of the mother either.

And then I ask you: in what sense is the fetus not part of the mother's body? Or why isn't the fetus not part of the woman's body? I don't know in what way you're referring to "not being part of the woman's body." Understand?

real life wrote:

then you are kinda stuck with Seinfeld, aren't you?

Still with the Seinfeld nonsense? Is this a weapon against me to put the blame on your inability to understand questions and reasoning? Good job!!

real life wrote:

The American Academy of Family Physicians on one side, Seinfeld on the other. Hmmmmm. Who's medical opinion should we trust?

I think we should trust the medical opinion of The Three Stooges. They will make quite good sense to you at least.

real life wrote:

If you don't like the AAFP, read the amicus brief submitted in the Roe v Wade case by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. They said basically the same thing. The unborn is a separate patient. (It's a long and eloquent statement, so bring a glass of milk and put your feet up while reading.)

"He said, she said, they said." So what? Give me a reason why a fetus is not considered part of the mother's body. You haven't given me anything yet. You're just telling me "they said thisthey said that."

real life wrote:

Kinda makes your 'piece of protein' argument look rather lame, doesn't it?

Do you know what a protein is? I don't think you do. But oh, well

real life wrote:

Oh, but Doc Seinfeld agrees, I forgot.

He's not just a doctor, Seinfeld is the Messiah. Be aware of what you say, boy.

0 Replies

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

The fetus has the mother's DNA

No, he doesn't.

The unborn has his own distinct DNA. It does not match the mother's. It does not match the father's.

It is distinct, although it does have SOME of the mother's and SOME of the father's.

Are you therefore going to tell me that the unborn is also part of the father's body?

No, the unborn has a distinct genetic identity and his own body from the moment of conception. Being connected to the mother and dependent on her does not change his distinct status, just as conjoined twins are still individuals even if they may share organs (and their DNA may be identical).

The two medical associations I quoted should rate more than a 'he said she said' unless the medical facts of the case mean nothing to you, which has been my estimation of your argument all along.

0 Replies

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

The fetus has the mother's DNA

real life wrote:

No, he doesn't.

No?

real life wrote:

The unborn has his own distinct DNA. It does not match the mother's. It does not match the father's.

The fetus doesn't just have the father's DNA, but the mother's DNA as well, which make him/her different from the two of them.

I clearly said that the fetus has the DNA of the mother. I didn't say that the fetus has ONLY the mother's DNA. Don't you think that if that's true, the fetus would constitute to her clone?

And what is this argument about, though? Tell meif the fetus had the mother's entire DNA structure, would it constitute as being part of her body (in this case)?

real life wrote:

It is distinct, although it does have SOME of the mother's and SOME of the father's.

I know.

real life wrote:

Are you therefore going to tell me that the unborn is also part of the father's body?

What is (in your own opinion) being part of anything? Answer me this. What makes you or anybody being part of a team, of a family, of a society, of a race?

Are my sperm parts of my body? Is the egg part of the woman's body? Are my red blood cells parts of my body? Are my skin cells parts of my body?

In what sense is the fetus not part of the mother's body? You haven't answered this.

Why don't you read the medical report and answer this question as logical as possible? And we will both analyze it. What do you say?

real life wrote:

No, the unborn has a distinct genetic identity and his own body from the moment of conception. Being connected to the mother and dependent on her does not change his distinct status, just as conjoined twins are still individuals even if they may share organs (and their DNA may be identical).

What makes anything part of anything?
You are wasting your time providing Illogical comparisons that don't even apply to the argument at hand.

real life wrote:

The two medical associations I quoted should rate more than a 'he said she said' unless the medical facts of the case mean nothing to you, which has been my estimation of your argument all along.

What medical facts? Give me medical facts that state that a fetus is not part of a woman's body. We'll analyze them.

0 Replies

Jason Proudmoore,

I must point out that the fetus is not entirely part of the mother's body in a number of respects. Note I am referring here to the more advanced stages:

It has it's own circulatory system.
It has it's own central nervous system.
It has it's own genetic code, even though it is derived from a male and female (excepting clones)
It is separated from the mother by the placenta, which is composed of two parts, one of which is genetically and biologically part of the fetus, the other part of the mother. This interface forms a barrier, which filters out some substances which could harm the fetus. However, many other substances are not filtered out.

Real Life (as asked earlier),

Whether a fetus is a human being or not is pivotal on presenting a convincing logical argument on what a human being is.

You have not done that.

I challenge you to provide a convincing logical argument on what a human being is and is not and why. Otherwise all your arguments that a fetus is a human being are specious as you have not defined your terms.

0 Replies

Bartikus wrote:

Are you a literalist chumly?

"People were laughing their heads off."
"I have a problem with rolling body parts."

Smile

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

I must point out that the fetus is not entirely part of the mother's body in a number of respects. Note I am referring here to the more advanced stages:
It has it's own circulatory system.
It has it's own central nervous system.
It has it's own genetic code, even though it is derived from a male and female (excepting clones)
It is separated from the mother by the placenta, which is composed of two parts, one of which is genetically and biologically part of the fetus, the other part of the mother. This interface forms a barrier, which filters out some substances which could harm the fetus. However, many other substances are not filtered out.

"Is not ENTIRELY part of the mother's body"? Are all these elements what determine that a fetus is not part of the mother's body? How can it be? So, before those characteristics are even developed, should it be considered part of the woman's body then? Can you explain that?

0 Replies

Jason, I should point out I am biased for woman's rights so some of your argument may be misdirected, nevertheless it does not change the merit of my assertions that the fetus is not entirely part of the mother's body in a number of respects, as per the more advanced stages.

To further clarify, no one as of yet has defined the word "part" in this context, so I will do so for our edification. I used the word "part" to mean a section of the whole which has a defined commonality with the whole. This defined commonality can be all the way from a causal commonality (such as a wheel on a car) to being identical (such as a flake of sulfur being chemically identical to the larger chunk it came from). Ain't semantics grand?

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Are all these elements what determine that a fetus is not part of the mother's body?

Your question appears to presuppose that I am arguing that a fetus is not part of the mother's body per se, and I have made no such argument.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

How can it be?

How can what be exactly? That a fetus is not part of the mother's body? Again your question appears to presuppose that I am arguing that a fetus is not part of the mother's body per se and I have made no such argument.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

So, before those characteristics are even developed, should it be considered part of the woman's body then?

If you read my post carefully, you will see I put a specific timeline criteria in place as to the identified developmental stages in question.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Can you explain that?

Explain what exactly? Or have I answered your questions well enough?

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Your question is loaded with suppositions and presumptions and as such rather unfathomable. What is it you are asking me?

He was asking you nothing, just getting his bash frank fix.

0 Replies

He PM'd me to that effect, and I told him that I have found Frank's posts to be very reasonable i.e. using reason.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Jason, I should point out I am biased for woman's rights

You gotta have a reason.

Chumly wrote:

so some of your argument may be misdirected, nevertheless it does not change the merit of my assertions that the fetus is not entirely part of the mother's body in a number of respects, as per the more advanced stages.

Is the fetus somewhat part of the woman's body, or not? If the fetus is somewhat part of the woman's body, it is part of the woman's body. Understand?

Chumly wrote:

To further clarify, no one as of yet has defined the word "part" in this context, so I will do so for our edification. I used the word "part" to mean a section of the whole which has a defined commonality with the whole. This defined commonality can be all the way from a causal commonality (such as a wheel on a car) to being identical (such as a flake of sulfur being chemically identical to the larger chunk it came

You are right. ButAre there any more definitions to the word "part" or "part of"?

Chumly wrote:

Ain't semantics grand?

Very.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Are all these elements what determine that a fetus is not part of the mother's body?

Chumly wrote:

Your question appears to presuppose that I am arguing that a fetus is not part of the mother's body per se, and I have made no such argument.

Well, but you ARE arguing. You posted many elements that (according to you) provide the definition of a fetus being "not part of the woman's body." If these elements lackare absent, it would mean that what you are saying doesn't apply anymorebecause such definition would no longer exist.
But don't you think that there should be a stage that would describe a child not being part of the woman's body? Don't you think that such stage would be birthwhen the child is no longer inside of her?

Is a fruit part of a tree?

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

How can it be?

Chumly wrote:

How can what be exactly? That a fetus is not part of the mother's body?

Yes.

Chumly wrote:

Again your question appears to presuppose that I am arguing that a fetus is not part of the mother's body per se and I have made no such argument.

But you gave your own opinion on the matter. I just asked you if you could explain it, when such definition would no longer apply. (I will assume that you don't know.)

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

So, before those characteristics are even developed, should it be considered part of the woman's body then?

Chumly wrote:

If you read my post carefully, you will see I put a specific timeline criteria in place as to the identified developmental stages in question.

I know that. And if you read mine carefully, you will find that I asked you a question regarding another timeline.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Can you explain that?

Chumly wrote:

Explain what exactly? Or have I answered your questions well enough?

I'm still waiting.

0 Replies

Quote:

Is a fruit part of a tree?

Only until it falls off or is picked
Wink

0 Replies

Good one Dok!

0 Replies

Doktor S wrote:

Quote:

Is a fruit part of a tree?

Only until it falls off or is picked

You got it!! Shocked

0 Replies

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

You gotta have a reason.

Meaning unclear.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Is the fetus somewhat part of the woman's body, or not?

I would argue (as I already in fact have) that at certain timelines and in certain respects the fetus can be viewed as having a separateness. I would further argue (and I can provide my rationale but I am not sure there is the need given that you take this position) that at certain timelines and in certain respects the fetus can be viewed as having a sameness.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

If the fetus is somewhat part of the woman's body, it is part of the woman's body. Understand?

I am not sure what you asking me to specifically understand if the prior response does not provide the clarification you seek.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

You are right. ButAre there any more definitions to the word "part" or "part of"?

Yes there are no doubt innumerable definitions. That is why it is so important at the outset to define your terms. Something I have done (to some degree) and I would expect the same in return. I ask that you define: "part".

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Well, but you ARE arguing.

I am not sure what your point is here. Do you understand the term argue in this context?

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

You posted many elements that (according to you) provide the definition of a fetus being "not part of the woman's body."

No I did not say that. I posted some examples which under the correct conditions suggest separateness "I must point out that the fetus is not entirely part of the mother's body in a number of respects"

I would much appreciate that you do not paraphrase and reinterpret my text but that if you wish to inform me of what I have said you use direct and specific quotes.

On the other hand if you are asking for clarification, that is something different. That would mean instead of claiming what you think I said, you would ask me if that is what I meant. Much more efficient and direct.

Also our communiqué would be vastly more efficient and direct if you did not laboriously repeat similar questions and points by rephrasing.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

If these elements lackare absent, it would mean that what you are saying doesn't apply anymorebecause such definition would no longer exist.

I do not know what you mean here.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

But don't you think that there should be a stage that would describe a child not being part of the woman's body?

Your question presupposes a conclusion but I will try and answer. The farther you go backwards in the timeline the more the fetus is part of the mother. The farther you go ahead in the timeline the more the fetus is separate from the mother. Within the realm of the entire process of course.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Don't you think that such stage would be birthwhen the child is no longer inside of her?

Your question presupposes a conclusion but I will try and answer. The farther you go backwards in the timeline the more the fetus is part of the mother. The farther you go ahead in the timeline the more the fetus is separate from the mother. Within the realm of the entire process of course.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Is a fruit part of a tree?

A false analogy unless you are going to apply human rights to the tree at all times and to the fruit at some point.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

But you gave your own opinion on the matter.

Precisely where did I say that this is my opinion on the matter? And by that I assume you mean my opinion in it's entirely on the matter of when and or if a fetus is part or separate from the mother. All I simply did was point out a flaw in your argument and you have construed that to represent a whole series of questionable conjectures and questionable presumptions.

If you want to know my views on the subject at hand the simplest way would be to ask.

Cheers,

Chum

Addendum from your prior post:
Your question to me alludes to a conclusion that I neither made nor implied

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

So, before those characteristics are even developed, should it be considered part of the woman's body then?

and your claim that

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

you will find that I asked you a question regarding another timeline.

is disingenuous given the context of my prior text and the clearly out of context timbre of your question.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know