Male Abortion (should man have the right to abort)

[Sheldon]

ok

What does it mean to be part of a womans body?

Seriously, are you trolling? I've already answered this several times now?

 

[leroy]

Already answered multiple times? The same answer each time as well? Why do you keep asking the same questions over and over then ignoring the answers?

Because you haven’t answer or i f anything you are providing contradictory and ambiguous answers.
Deep inside you know that you are digging a hole, because you know that your “concept” of person is nonsense.

 

[leroy]

Seriously, are you trolling? I've already answered this several times now?

No you haven’t you are dishonestly avoiding an answer.


The problem is not “you as a person”, the problem is the “pro choicer” view that is full of nonsense and contradictions, and when pushed it´s imposible to defend.


The definition of person is: any human that has (or will have) consciousness/self-awareness , this definition would include babies, children, adults, people in comma, people that are currently sleeping and everything else that anyone would call a human….

This definition also excludes cadavers, nails, hair etc.

Apart from the fact that this definition would include a fetus, (and therefore it would contradict your view) do you have any other problem with this definition?

 

[Sheldon]

Because you haven’t answer or i f anything you are providing contradictory and ambiguous answers.

I have answered more than once, and my answers were very specific, and the same each time, I can only conclude you are being deliberately dishonest, as you either don't want to address the facts, or are trolling.

Deep inside you know that you are digging a hole, because you know that your “concept” of person is nonsense.

Well there you go, dishonest trolling, as it's not "my concept", I quoted the dictionary verbatim. Did I write the dictionary now...

 

[Sheldon]

No you haven’t you are dishonestly avoiding an answer.

Well I am more than happy for others to look back through my responses and see that is simply not true.

the problem is the “pro choicer” view that is full of nonsense and contradictions, and when pushed it´s imposible to defend.

Ok champ, if you say so.

The definition of person is: any human that has (or will have) consciousness/self-awareness , this definition would include babies, children, adults, people in comma, people that are currently sleeping and everything else that anyone would call a human….

Link please...

Person <LINK>
noun

1. 1.
   a human being regarded as an individual.

Apart from the fact that this definition would include a fetus, (and therefore it would contradict your view) do you have any other problem with this definition?

Well prima facie it says a human, and since a human being is defined as a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance. So obviously that does not describe a foetus, thus you are disproving your own claim.

You have also failed to offer any citation, as well as offering a definition that does not support your claim.

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
A better analogy again, would be you asking to leave a sperm sample in my fridge overnight, then months later me throwing it out, and you accusing me of murdering someone.

The sperm sample is not an independent organism, nor a human, nor a person

I never claimed it was - straw man fallacy - but since you bring it up, neither is a developing foetus, or a blastocyst. Since it is part of a woman's body, attached topologically, initially to the placental wall, then by an umbilical, which is composed of fetal and maternal-origin cells, without a clear or defined boundary between the two, and both of which are part of the woman's body and formed in it, it is immunologically tolerated by the woman's body, it gets all its oxygen and nutrition from the woman's blood, they share an immune system, and a metabolism, and of course the foetus or blastocyst is insentient. Jointly these facts pose a very strong case.

Note that at birth: the baby is no longer topologically connected (and placenta and umbilical cord are discarded); the baby is now its own physiological, homeostatic and metabolic unit, and starts to be sentient, has its own immune system, and its own metabolism.

From now on when you falsely accuse me of not answering why a foetus or blastocyst is part of a woman's body, I will simply be re-quoting this, which I have posted several times already, and you have dishonestly ignored.

 

[leroy]

I have answered more than once, and my answers were very specific, and the same each time, I can only conclude you are being deliberately dishonest, as you either don't want to address the facts, or are trolling.



Well there you go, dishonest trolling, as it's not "my concept", I quoted the dictionary verbatim. Did I write the dictionary now...

Definitions in a debate are only useful to understand your opponents point of view. I doesn’t understand why are you making this so long and tired. Why can’t you tell me exactly what you mean by individual so that I can understand the full concept of “person”?........it really semes as if you whant to keep your view ambigous so that nobody can refute it.

 

[leroy]

I never claimed it was - straw man fallacy - but since you bring it up, neither is a developing foetus, or a blastocyst. Since it is part of a woman's body, attached topologically, initially to the placental wall, then by an umbilical, which is composed of fetal and maternal-origin cells, without a clear or defined boundary between the two, and both of which are part of the woman's body and formed in it, it is immunologically tolerated by the woman's body, it gets all its oxygen and nutrition from the woman's blood, they share an immune system, and a metabolism, and of course the foetus or blastocyst is insentient. Jointly these facts pose a very strong case.

Note that at birth: the baby is no longer topologically connected (and placenta and umbilical cord are discarded); the baby is now its own physiological, homeostatic and metabolic unit, and starts to be sentient, has its own immune system, and its own metabolism.

From now on when you falsely accuse me of not answering why a foetus or blastocyst is part of a woman's body, I will simply be re-quoting this, which I have posted several times already, and you have dishonestly ignored.

Ok and why are intestine worms not part of the woman’s body? It seems to me that they should also fit in your definition/description of being part of a “woman´s body”

(and placenta and umbilical cord are discarded);

why?

 

[Sheldon]

Definitions in a debate are only useful to understand your opponents point of view. I doesn’t understand why are you making this so long and tired. Why can’t you tell me exactly what you mean by individual so that I can understand the full concept of “person”?........it really semes as if you whant to keep your view ambigous so that nobody can refute it.

I don't know what semes (sic) means sorry? Or what whant (sic) means? Or what ambigous (sic) means?

Is this English you're using?

 

[Sheldon]

Ok and why are intestine worms not part of the woman’s body?

I give up, why?

It seems to me that they should also fit in your definition/description of being part of a “woman´s body”

Does it, why?

why?

Why what?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I give up, why?



Does it, why?




Why what?

Ok and why are intestine worms not part of the woman’s body? It seems to me that they should also fit in your definition/description of being part of a “woman´s body”


why?

Anything dependant on persons blood supply or nervous system is part of that person with the possible exception of a symbiont. even a cancer is part of a person, unwelcome certainly but intrinsically part of that person. a developing egg is part of that person, whether fertilised or not. it only ceases to be part of that person when expelled to become an independent life.

finger nail is indisputably part of a person. But a nail clipping is not. interestingly nails continue to grow after a persons death. Does that mean that they have a life of their own? of course not. they are still dependent on that dead person for sustenance.

 

[Sheldon]

Anything dependant on persons blood supply or nervous system is part of that person with the possible exception of a symbiont. even a cancer is part of a person, unwelcome certainly but intrinsically part of that person. a developing egg is part of that person, whether fertilised or not. it only ceases to be part of that person when expelled to become an independent life.

finger nail is indisputably part of a person. But a nail clipping is not. interestingly nails continue to grow after a persons death. Does that mean that they have a life of their own? of course not. they are still dependent on that dead person for sustenance.

Leroy is playing some sort of game where he repeats the same questions over and over and over, despite me already answering them multiple times. He either thinks I'll change my answer to the ones he wants, or he is trolling.

 

[GardenLady]

If you want to change their minds...don't base an
argument on a premise they reject.

I find this argument ironic, given that the "pro-life" movement has consistently failed to win the hearts and minds of the public for many decades.

 

[GardenLady]

“I do not believe it is a moral thing to do. But I cannot in good faith not extend sympathy and I believe it’s far more Christ like to offer support than condemnation.”

Pretty much my position. I don't think it's morally neutral, I don't think it's "okay." But I think it should be legal. When I was younger, I was not so understanding. But having known one woman who became pregnant after being "slipped a mickey" at a college party and one whose very-much-wanted fetus was found to have no brain and to be missing part of his heart, I became more flexible. I'd prefer all abortions happen in the first trimester, but stuff happens. (And yes, I know neither of these cases represents the majority of abortions, but further traumatizing women whose situations I think "justify" abortion by forcing them to present their case would be cruel.)

 

[leroy]

Why what?

why are "placenta and umbilical cord are discarded);" (this are your words)

 

[Revoltingest]

I find this argument ironic, given that the "pro-life" movement has consistently failed to win the hearts and minds of the public for many decades.

They win some minds, not others.
When I discuss the issue with anti-abortion types, I often
find common ground in hatred of government controlling
the citizenry. They agree that government shouldn't be
able to compel one person to donate some small part to
another, eg, a snippet of a liver, bone marrow, for the
benefit of another person. They sometimes agree that
compelling giving birth is analogous.

Does this argument work?
Yes, in the sense that it creates appreciation for abortion
rights.
This argument was presented to me by a pro-life devout
Christian...the kind of guy who met for Bible study during
lunch at work. But he was sympathetic to libertarianism.
His being conflicted...that is thoughtful. I call that success.

As I tried to explain to the other poster, winning an argument
with logic is feckless if the opposition fails to find merit in it.
Tis more productive to use discussion based upon common
ground.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It would be somethign horrible ...


But aborting doesn’t solve the problem (the damage of rape would still be there)… dealing with a baby is much harder than dealing with a pregnancy but still you wouldn’t support killing the baby……….so if the fetus is a person I don’t see why would it be different

Why are you still hung on this whole "person" thingy?

It matters not if it's a person or not.
What matters is bodily autonomy.

What matters is leeching off of a person's body without their permission.
You can't take possession of someone's kidneys without their permission (not even after they died, if they explicitly said that you can't) so you also can't take possession of a uterus. Or "borrow" it.

It doesn't matter if a fetus is a person or not.

 

[Koldo]

Really can you give away a 1yo baby just like that? that’s news to me.


What abut a 2yo or a 10yo or 17yo?.............can one simply go to the adoption center and drop the baby? (I have no idea this is an honest question)

You have said it was worse to deal with a baby than with a pregnancy. I have replied that you can right away give your baby right away if that is what you want, but there is no such alternative to pregnancy. When it comes down to pregnancy, depending on how far off you are, you have to kill the fetus to get rid of it.

 

[leroy]

I - but since you bring it up, neither is a developing foetus, or a blastocyst. Since it is part of a woman's body, attached topologically, initially to the placental wall, then by an umbilical, which is composed of fetal and maternal-origin cells, without a clear or defined boundary between the two, and both of which are part of the woman's body and formed in it, it is immunologically tolerated by the woman's body, it gets all its oxygen and nutrition from the woman's blood, they share an immune system, and a metabolism, and of course the foetus or blastocyst is insentient. Jointly these facts pose a very strong case.

Note that at birth: the baby is no longer topologically connected (and placenta and umbilical cord are discarded); the baby is now its own physiological, homeostatic and metabolic unit, and starts to be sentient, has its own immune system, and its own metabolism.

From now on when you falsely accuse me of not answering why a foetus or blastocyst is part of a woman's body, I will simply be re-quoting this, which I have posted several times already, and you have dishonestly ignored.

Ok above your definition/description of what does it mean to be “part of the woman body” lets analyze it and spot the flaws

attached topologically, initially to the placental wall, then by an umbilical, which is composed of fetal and maternal-origin cells, without a clear or defined boundary between the two,

A new born (before cutting the umbilical cord) fits this description, but he is a person right?

and both of which are part of the woman's body and formed in it

Circular reasoning, you are supposed to define what does it means to be “part of a woman’s body” you can’t use “part of the woman’s body as part of your definition”

it is immunologically tolerated by the woman's body,

The same is true with many parasites that live inside the body…………are this parasites part of her body?

If the immune system doesn’t tolerate the fetus , does he become an individual?

it gets all its oxygen and nutrition from the woman's blood, t

Same is true with parasites, but they are not part of the body right?

A new born gets all his nutrients from her mother too. So is he a non-human?

,

they share an immune system, and a metabolism

source?
.....
Same is true with parasites anyway.

and of course the foetus or blastocyst is insentient.

If a 7moths old fetus in insentient, the same would be true with a new born that was born premature at 7 months. So is this new born a “non person”?

A person in coma is not sentient ether (at latest not in this moment) is he a non-person?

Jointly these facts pose a very strong case

So hypothetically an insentient human in coma, (that is likely to wake up in the future) that has been connected to another person for some medical procedure, such that this human is dependent on the other person´s body to survive.

Is he a person?
It fits your description of “non person” at least in most of the points

Note that at birth: the baby is no longer topologically connected (and placenta and umbilical cord are discarded)

Why are these discarted?

he baby is now its own physiological, homeostatic and metabolic unit, and starts to be sentient,

Really? Does the new born gets all that at the moment of birth? (not before, nor after)…..source please

A person in coma has non of that stuff and he is still a person right?

From now on when you falsely accuse me of not answering why a foetus or blastocyst is part of a woman's body, I will simply be re-quoting

Sure, if you want to embarrass yourself over and over again, then quote this “definition/description” as many times you want.



Given your definition/description a parasite would also be part of her body (which you already denied in the past)

I´t easy to imagine a scenario where a human has all those characteristics and he would still be a person


So in summery:

Being inside “X” doesn’t make you part of “X”....
(For example being inside your house doesn’t makes you part of your house.)
...agree? yes or no?

Being dependent on X doesn’t makes you part of .......agree? yes or no?

Being connected to X doesn’t makes you part of .......agree? yes or no?

Sharing stuff with X doesn’t makes you part of .......agree? yes or no?

(assuming that you agree)
................................why making an arbitrary exception with pregnant women and fetus?

 

[Koldo]

Well they're synonymous really, as a person is defined as a human being regarded as an individual.

We were talking about the definition of person. You can't include the word meant to be defined within the very own definition.

Nope, that is how they are commonly understood, which is why the dictionary defines them that way. though of course no one is obliged to believe anything they don't want to, but it is wrong to suggest this is an arbitrary definition, or subjective on my part. I'm not citing the dictionary because i disagree with the claim, I disagree with claim because that is what those words mean.

Well the dictionary clearly defines a person as a single individual, but yes, I am arguing that a foetus or blastocyst, is not a single individual. Certainly during the part of its development where abortions take place, and for the reasons I have stated. though of course no one is obliged to share my views.

No I am not interpreting the definition of person, I am quoting it verbatim. The argument is not about what the word defines, it is based on you disagreeing with me, that a foetus or blastocyst is not a single individual, but part of a woman's body.

Correct, and I was disagreeing with the foetus being described by Leroy as a person.

No, as I said we are disagreeing that a foetus is a single individual, and as I assert, part of a woman's body.

The primary definition is meant to reflect common usage, so I'm not sure that is true, though there are often more than one definition. Gay for example has a secondary definition that used to be its primary definition, but most people now use it to mean people who are not heterosexual.

I doubt it, as I again, I quoted the definition verbatim. Our disagreement seems to be focusing on whether a foetus is a single individual or part of a woman's body. I assume we both agree that a person is defined as a human being regarded as an individual?

Let me try it like this: Where in the dictionary have you found that the word 'individual' as in the sentence 'a human being regarded as an individual' means any of the things you have mentioned? Where have you found all of those criteria for what counts as an individual in the dictionary?

They are not there. It is your interpretation of what this word means in practice.

Well it was your claim, so one assumes you had something in mind, like distinct from the mother. My toenail clipping then also have DNA distinct from my mother, so the claim distinct DNA makes a foetus a person seems dubious, without a special pleading fallacy.

The claim is that if something resides in your body, and doesn't have your DNA, it is not a part of your body. Whether it is a person or not is another point to be debated, but it is certainly not a body part.

I disagree.

Then don't, this is a debate forum after all. However it is attached throughout gestation, it is immunologically tolerated by the pregnant organism, it is directly and topologically connected to the rest of the maternal organism via umbilical cord and placenta, which is composed of foetal and maternal-origin cells, without a clear or defined boundary between the two. The foetus is physiologically integrated into the pregnant organism, and regulated as part of one metabolic system. Whilst none of these are perfect indicators of organismic parthood, they jointly pose a very strong case. Note that all of these change radically at birth: the baby is no longer topologically connected (and placenta and umbilical cord are discarded); the baby is now its own physiological, homeostatic and metabolic unit (although still heavily dependent on maternal care/provision and care); and it is no longer in direct contact with the maternal immune system.

None of which matter to me, and a lot of other people, as far as determining whether something or someone can be considered an individual.