ABORTION.......

You gotta have a reason.

Meaning unclear.

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.

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.

You are right. But…Are 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".

Well, but you ARE arguing.

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

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.

If these elements lack…are absent, it would mean that what you are saying doesn't apply anymore…because such definition would no longer exist.

I do not know what you mean here.

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.

Don't you think that such stage would be birth…when 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.

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.

But you gave your own opinion on the matter.

A 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

By the way Jason,

In terms of asking me questions you have tended to use the words "so" and "should it" out of context:

"so" would be construed to mean therefore
"should it" would be construed to mean a supposition of the prior text in evidence

I am sure you are a fine fellow and I look forward to logical rational and to the point dialogue.

Cheers,

Chum

One question:

Where did you ask me my opinion of the circumstances as a whole as I see them instead of in the light of your particular presumptions and suppositions?

BTW how else would you construe the word "so" to be used at the beginning of one of your preloaded questions? If not "therefore" then perhaps in a semi confrontational timbre? It's hard to envision it as conversational, prefaced as it was to some of your preloaded questions, but please enlighten me. .

Chumly wrote:

BTW how else would you construe the word "so" to be used at the beginning of one of your preloaded questions? If not "therefore" then perhaps in a semi confrontational timbre? It's hard to envision it as conversational, prefaced as it was to some of your preloaded questions, but please enlighten me. .

Ok...here goes...

Apparently; well, then. Used in expressing astonishment, disapproval, or sarcasm: So you think you've got troubles?

Do you want me to show you how I use the word "should"?

our minds will figure out if such propositions are true or not…with logic, that is…not with metaphors.

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

our minds will figure out if such propositions are true or not…with logic, that is…not with metaphors.

Wise words from a wise man. I agree. It was funny for a while after a fashion to a point but it was way too much work for no gain. We'll have to look back some day and chuckle. You are a patient and thoughtful man
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
As of course am I

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 me…if 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.

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.

human being
One entry found for human being.
Main Entry: human being
Function: noun
: HUMAN

human
Main Entry: 2human
Function: noun
: a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens) : MAN; broadly : any living or extinct member of the family (Hominidae) to which the primate belongs

Good point about the placenta. However the blood circulates by the end of the 4th week, so it's not just something that happens in 'advanced stages'.

The genetic code of the unborn is distinct from the moment of conception, so again -- not something just in the 'advanced stages'.

Brain waves have been measured by the end of the 6th week, not exactly an advanced stage either.

Main Entry: 2human
Function: noun
: a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens) : MAN; broadly : any living or extinct member of the family (Hominidae) to which the primate belongs

Good enough for me. I'm easy to get along with.

I'd say the unborn qualifies. What say you?

The fetus has the mother's DNA

No, he doesn't.

No?

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.

Thanks for repeating what I just said. I thought maybe you were beginning to get it, but alas, I read on...............

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 me…if the fetus had the mother's entire DNA structure, would it constitute as being part of her body (in this case)?

Since he doesn't, what is the point of this odd question?

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

I know.

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

I don't think so. Is the fetus growing and developing inside of the father, or inside of the mother? If the fetus is growing and developing inside of the father, I would have to rethink the whole thing.

And what is "being part of something…of anything" to you, Real? Tell me. You haven't explained it to me so far.

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.

HHHHHHeeeeelllllllloooooo Jason!!!!!

Genetically, that is --- in respect to every single cell in his body from the first moment of conception ---- the unborn is NOT part of the woman's body. Every cell of the mother will have her DNA pattern exclusively. The unborn has not one cell that mirrors the mother's DNA. He has his own distinct genetic identity i.e. his cells belong to his body, not to his mother's body.

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?

I say why don't you read what I've posted repeatedly and at least try to understand it. Or maybe find a middle schooler who passed biology and have him explain it with pictures.

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.

Well, you're partially right here perhaps. I am beginning to feel that I am wasting my time.

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.

Whozon first, Jason?

"Get what"? What do you want me to understand, Real?.........And since the argument is based upon DNA, why don't you tell when a fetus would be considered part of the mother's body, genetically?

real life wrote:

Main Entry: 2human
Function: noun
: a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens) : MAN; broadly : any living or extinct member of the family (Hominidae) to which the primate belongs

Good enough for me. I'm easy to get along with.

I'd say the unborn qualifies. What say you?

OK, you have chosen your definition, and your position will be pivotal to that effect.

Before I opine on your "the unborn qualifies" perspective I first need to discuss your accepted definition. Then we can move on and see how that definition fits into the issues at hand.

Here is my first question. Would you agree that if you cannot provide a logical definition of what constitutes a human being, that you cannot then with rationality claim that "the unborn qualifies" as a human being?