Male Abortion (should man have the right to abort)

[leroy]

Are you saying there is no conclusive evidence you can present that a blastocyst or foetus is a person? Only you have claimed the opposite, so now you just have a bare opinion, that explains a lot. Or are you now introducing this transparent attempt to falsely label my compelling evidence as some sort of absolute, because you know you've failed to address that evidence, and in order to dishonestly obfuscate, because you know have no answer beyond bare denials of that evidence?

Here again then is the evidence I presented, point by point so you can address each point individually with some intellectual integrity, for the first time:

The developing foetus is not of course a person, as it is not a single individual but part of a woman's body, as has been explained. Since a blastocyst and later a foetus are (1) attached topologically, initially to the placental wall, then by an umbilical, which is composed of foetal and maternal-origin cells, (2) without a clear or defined boundary between the two, and (3) both of which are part of the woman's body and formed in it, (4) it is immunologically tolerated by the woman's body, it (5) gets all its oxygen and nutrition from the woman's blood, (6) they share an immune system, (7) and a metabolism, and of course (8) the foetus or blastocyst is insentient. Jointly these facts pose a very strong case.

So lets see 8 cogent responses from you to that evidence, since I have done you the courtesy of addressing your bare claims point by point.

Ok given the lack of a direct answer I will assume that you don’t claim to be certain that a fetus is not a person, (which would mean that there is room for reasonable doubt)

If you ever correct me and claim that your “evidence” proves beyond reasonable doubt that a fetus is not a person I will correct my previous claim

 

[Sheldon]

What is absurd about that claim?
Explain HOW not getting married doesn't prevent MARITAL rape.

The ludicrous comparison of being lied to and being raped is what is absurd, obviously. A man who doesn't wish to father a child can take simple precautions, a person getting married can take no reasonable precautions against spousal rape, the analogy is ludicrous, sorry if you can't see that.

 

[Sheldon]

Ok given the lack of a direct answer I will assume that you don’t claim to be certain that a fetus is not a person, (which would mean that there is room for reasonable doubt)

If you ever correct me and claim that your “evidence” proves beyond reasonable doubt that a fetus is not a person I will correct my previous claim

No I don't think there is a reasonable doubt, how can you not know this yet, are you trolling again? You have offered nothing beyond bare claims, and bare denials to make me change that position as well. It seems you are holding an empty bag, so here it is again: Lets see if you can offer any honest response this time?

The developing foetus is not of course a person, as it is not a single individual but part of a woman's body, as has been explained. Since a blastocyst and later a foetus are (1) attached topologically, initially to the placental wall, then by an umbilical, which is composed of foetal and maternal-origin cells, (2) without a clear or defined boundary between the two, and (3) both of which are part of the woman's body and formed in it, (4) it is immunologically tolerated by the woman's body, it (5) gets all its oxygen and nutrition from the woman's blood, (6) they share an immune system, (7) and a metabolism, and of course (8) the foetus or blastocyst is insentient. Jointly these facts pose a very strong case.

So lets see 8 cogent responses from you to that evidence, since I have done you the courtesy of addressing your bare claims point by point.

If it helps simplify things for you, try asking yourself if your foot is part of your body, then try seeing how many of those 8 points don't apply?

 

[leroy]

From



I've labelled each piece of separate evidence (8 separate points for you to address with expansive explanations, and not just bare denials), since you're clearly struggling to address them.

The developing foetus is not of course a person, as it is not a single individual but part of a woman's body, as has been explained. Since a blastocyst and later a foetus are (1) attached topologically, initially to the placental wall, then by an umbilical, which is composed of foetal and maternal-origin cells, (2) without a clear or defined boundary between the two, and (3) both of which are part of the woman's body and formed in it, (4) it is immunologically tolerated by the woman's body, it (5) gets all its oxygen and nutrition from the woman's blood, (6) they share an immune system, (7) and a metabolism, and of course (8) the foetus or blastocyst is insentient. Jointly these facts pose a very strong case.

Point 1: If I connect you topologically to me for a wild experiment, you will not stop being a person right? (agree yes or no,? if you don’t answer with a simple yes or a simple no I will assume that you agree)

Point 2: say that there is not a clear boundary, my skin and your skin are mixed such that there is no clear boundery , you will still be a person right?(agree yes or no,? if you don’t answer with a simple yes or a simple no I will assume that you agree)

Popint 4: let’s say that my immune system doesn’t react after you being connected to me, you wont stop being a person right? (agree yes or no?, if you don’t answer with a simple yes or a simple no I will assume that you agree)

Point 5 say that you are getting oxygen and nutrients from me,, you will not stop being a person right? (agree yes or no,? if you don’t answer with a simple yes or a simple no I will assume that you agree)

Point 6 and 7: lets say that we share immune system and metabolism, we are sharing say white globes to defend each other from viruses, you will not stop being a person right? (agree yes or no, ?if you don’t answer with a simple yes or a simple no I will assume that you agree)

Point 8: lets say that you are unconscious and can’t feel any pain in this exact moment, you will not stop being a person right? (agree yes or no,? if you don’t answer with a simple yes or a simple no I will assume that you agree)

Point 3: is circular reasoning, you are basically saying the fetus is part of the woman´s body because it’s part of the body


jointly these poinst wont make you a non person agree?

So jointly these points don’t make you a non-person, if you disagree please tell my exactly on what point do you disagree, (each point is intended to include all the previous points)


You haven’t answer this ether: ones intestine worms seem to fit this definition, so are they part of the body (you said no in the past) so why making an arbitrary exception with a fetus?

 

[leroy]

If it helps simplify things for you, try asking yourself if your foot is part of your body, then try seeing how many of those 8 points don't apply?

My foot has my DNA (it doesn’t have his own DNA)therefore its not a human (but rather part of a human) the foot doesn’t have and (will not have) consciousness. Therefore it´s not a person.

The fetus is different form the foot for these 2 relevant reasons.


It´s your turn

Are intestine worms part of the body or are then independent organisms?

 

[GardenLady]

if you don’t answer with a simple yes or a simple no I will assume that you agree)

So you have no interest in any discussion, just suppressing any thoughtful response by demanding a "simple yes or a simple no" to a completely non-analogous hypothesis that two born, grown, sentient beings are somehow connected in a "wild experiment."

 

[Koldo]

The ludicrous comparison of being lied to and being raped is what is absurd, obviously. A man who doesn't wish to father a child can take simple precautions, a person getting married can take no reasonable precautions against spousal rape, the analogy is ludicrous, sorry if you can't see that.

Not getting married IS the precaution.

 

[leroy]

So you have no interest in any discussion, just suppressing any thoughtful response by demanding a "simple yes or a simple no" to a completely non-analogous hypothesis that two born, grown, sentient beings are somehow connected in a "wild experiment."

My interest is to have a discussion on the specific points of disagreement this is why I am asking for specific and clear answers on weather if there is an agreement or not

 

[KWED]

You were not addressing the implications though. But merely what you wanted someone to have stated, just so you could easily beat it to the ground.

Hmm. Not sure you understand the concept of implied meaning.

It is not!
It is one thing to say that the medical science aids the law making process and another to state it informs when personhood starts. The first one is true but the second one is not.

But as you will recall, I didn't state that "medical science informs when personhood starts", I said it..."inform the law on when abortion is legally acceptable, which involves the concept of when a foetus becomes a "person".
Where exactly do you think the the law-making process gets information regarding the viability, sentience, etc of the foetus at different stages? A Christmas cracker?

 

[leroy]

The ludicrous comparison of being lied to and being raped is what is absurd, obviously. A man who doesn't wish to father a child can take simple precautions, a person getting married can take no reasonable precautions against spousal rape, the analogy is ludicrous, sorry if you can't see that.

What if these precautions fail? (what if the condom fails) should the man be obligated to care of the an unwanted child, does he has any responsibility?......................or can he simply go away claiming that he doesn’t want to be a father and nobody can force him to be father?................ can the father claim “money autonomy” and claim that he can do whatever he wants with his money which might include (or not) pay for the needs of the child?

What’s your opinion on that?

 

[Sheldon]

Point 1: If I connect you topologically to me for a wild experiment, you will not stop being a person right? (agree yes or no,? if you don’t answer with a simple yes or a simple no I will assume that you agree)

Point 2: say that there is not a clear boundary, my skin and your skin are mixed such that there is no clear boundery , you will still be a person right?(agree yes or no,? if you don’t answer with a simple yes or a simple no I will assume that you agree)

Popint 4: let’s say that my immune system doesn’t react after you being connected to me, you wont stop being a person right? (agree yes or no?, if you don’t answer with a simple yes or a simple no I will assume that you agree)

Point 5 say that you are getting oxygen and nutrients from me,, you will not stop being a person right? (agree yes or no,? if you don’t answer with a simple yes or a simple no I will assume that you agree)

Point 6 and 7: lets say that we share immune system and metabolism, we are sharing say white globes to defend each other from viruses, you will not stop being a person right? (agree yes or no, ?if you don’t answer with a simple yes or a simple no I will assume that you agree)

Point 8: lets say that you are unconscious and can’t feel any pain in this exact moment, you will not stop being a person right? (agree yes or no,? if you don’t answer with a simple yes or a simple no I will assume that you agree)

So you can't address a single point at all with any cogent objection, just ludicrous fictional scenarios which don't apply as I am not a balstocyst or foetus.

Point 3: is circular reasoning, you are basically saying the fetus is part of the woman´s body because it’s part of the body

Of course it's not a circular reasoning fallacy, since there is no unevidenced or false assertion that simply assumes the conclusion in those facts. The placenta is part of a woman's body, and the blastocyst forms attached to it, the umbilical is formed from both the woman's and the foetus's cells, and there is no clear boundary, those are biological facts, not assumptions.

jointly these poinst wont make you a non person agree?

I'm already a person, childbirth took care of that, your scenario is point by point a false equivalence that fails to address the facts, and creates a nonsensical fictional scenario.

You haven’t answer this ether: ones intestine worms seem to fit this definition,

Yes I have more than once, and again no they don't.

so are they part of the body (you said no in the past)

So I did answer it then, and you just dishonestly misrepresented me as not doing so, quelle surprise.

so why making an arbitrary exception with a fetus?

It's not arbitrary, can you not read, or are you using another word you don't actually understand the meaning of?

Earth to Leroy, I am not an insentient foetus, not since child birth changed me into a sentient individual, and worms are not a foetus or blastocyst, these are false equivalences.

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
If it helps simplify things for you, try asking yourself if your foot is part of your body, then try seeing how many of those 8 points don't apply?

My foot has my DNA (it doesn’t have his own DNA)therefore its not a human (but rather part of a human) the foot doesn’t have and (will not have) consciousness. Therefore it´s not a person.

I never said your foot was a person, and I never mentioned DNA (read above), so well done on those two irrelevant straw men. Now, there were 8 points of comparison I cited that you deny makes a foetus or blastocyst part of a woman's body, so since one assumes your foot is part of your body, how many of those 8 points don't apply to your foot? I realise a foot is not a foetus, indeed that is rather the point of the comparison, and one assumes you think a foot is part of your body?

The fetus is different form the foot for these 2 relevant reasons.

I didn't ask if a foot was the same a foetus though did I, did you not understand the question? I'll try bullet points for you..

1 Is your foot part of your body?
2. I gave an argument listing 8 biological facts, explaining why they indicate together that a foetus is part of a woman's body.
3. You have denied this, but not addressed them with anything approaching objective facts that counter them.

So, since your foot is part of your body, and you claim those points don't make a foetus part of a woman's body, how many of those 8 points of comparison do not apply to your foot?

It´s your turn

Are intestine worms part of the body or are then independent organisms?

I'd say (again) no, since worms are a symbiont. Though again I fail to see the relevance in this context, perhaps you can explain without resorting to another ludicrous false equivalence ending in a subjective absolute.

 

[leroy]

So you can't address a single point at all with any cogent objection, just ludicrous fictional scenarios which don't apply as I am not a balstocyst or foetus.
Ok you you agree with all my points

am not a balstocyst or foetus

Circular reasoning,

What you are supposed to do is explain what is the relevant difference between you and a fetus, that makes you a person and the fetus a non-person

Since none of your points seem to indicate “lack of personhood (as you tacitly admitted) you have failed to provide a relevant difference between you and the fetus

Of course it's not a circular reasoning fallacy, since there is no unevidenced or false assertion that simply assumes the conclusion in those facts. The placenta is part of a woman's body, and the blastocyst forms attached to it, the umbilical is formed from both the woman's and the foetus's cells, and there is no clear boundary, those are biological facts, not assumptions.

Ok the your point 3 is irrelevant , I can grant (at least for the purpose of this discussion) that the placenta and the umbilical cord are part of the mother. ………it doesn’t follow that therefore the fetus is not a person

I'm already a person, childbirth took care of that, your scenario is point by point a false equivalence that fails to address the facts, and creates a nonsensical fictional scenario.

Ok so being born magically transforms you in to a person, then none of your 8 points is relevant right? ………Once you are born it doesn’t matter if you are connected, share stuff, are dependent and/or get nutrients from another person, you are still a person, is this a correct representation of your view?

It's not arbitrary, can you not read, or are you using another word you don't actually understand the meaning of?

Earth to Leroy, I am not an insentient foetus, not since child birth changed me into a sentient individual, and worms are not a foetus or blastocyst, these are false equivalences.

You haven’t explained why are parasites not part of the body and fetuses are. You havent shown any relevant difference, all we have is a “because I say so argument”

 

[Sheldon]

So you have no interest in any discussion, just suppressing any thoughtful response by demanding a "simple yes or a simple no" to a completely non-analogous hypothesis that two born, grown, sentient beings are somehow connected in a "wild experiment."

@leroy seems to think that endless false dichotomies, accompanied by jejune demands people must play along with yes or no answers, is somehow compelling argument.

It's not unlike watching a toddler try to hammer a square peg into a round hole, in a relentless and determined effort to not understand why it doesn't fit. Though I'm confident I could teach the toddler to use the round peg, I have no such confidence here, after many pages of discussion.

 

[Sheldon]

Not getting married IS the precaution.

I know, and it is a ludicrous notion and comparison, as I said.

 

[Sheldon]

What if these precautions fail? (what if the condom fails) should the man be obligated to care of the an unwanted child, does he has any responsibility?......................

What’s your opinion on that?

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.

I don't know how many yes's are in there, but you can pick one each time you want to repeat this question to me, save me answering it over and over.

 

[Koldo]

I know, and it is a ludicrous notion and comparison, as I said.

Great! Then you most certainly agree that being able to prevent something doesn't, per se, make you responsible for it, right?

 

[leroy]

I never said your foot was a person, and I never mentioned DNA (read above),

no you did not mentione it, I did, I explained a relevant difference a fetus and a foot that makes one a person and the other a non-person

so well done on those two irrelevant straw men. Now, there were 8 points of comparison I cited that you deny makes a foetus or blastocyst part of a woman's body, so since one assumes your foot is part of your body, how many of those 8 points don't apply to your foot? I realise a foot is not a foetus, indeed that is rather the point of the comparison, and one assumes you think a foot is part of your body?

Thats a strawman.

My claim is that having all those 8 points doesn’t necessarily makes you a “non-person”… yes the foot has all those 8 points, but that’s not the reason why the foot is not a “non person”

1 Is your foot part of your body?

Yes, see I can answer questions with a simple YES and NO, why cant you?

2. I gave an argument listing 8 biological facts, explaining why they indicate together that a foetus is part of a woman's body.

Sure I accept the biological facts* (at least for the purpose of this discussion).....

I don’t accept your conclusion “that these 8 facts necesairly makes something part of somelese bodey."

And you seem to agree with me, given that you accept that parasites are not part of the bodey despite the fact that they have all 8 points

3. You have denied this, but not addressed them with anything approaching objective facts that counter them.

I gave you 2 examples of things that are not part of someone else’s body that match all these 8 facts

Example 1 (real): parasites that live in your body

Example 2 (hypothetical): you being connected to my body

This shows that these 8 facts don’t necessarily show that something is part of one body

So, since your foot is part of your body, and you claim those points don't make a foetus part of a woman's body, how many of those 8 points of comparison do not apply to your foot?

Fallacious logic.

The fact that the foot has all these 8 points and the fact that my foot is part of my body, doesn’t imply that everything that matches these 8 points is part of my body.

I'd say (again) no, since worms are a symbiont. Though again I fail to see the relevance in this context, perhaps you can explain without resorting to another ludicrous false equivalence ending in a subjective absolute.

The relevant thing is that worms have all those 8 points and you don’t consider them part of the woman’s body … which means that having all these 8 points doesn’t necessarily makes you part of ones body

since worms are a symbiont

Ok so are you adding a ninth argument to your list ?

Having all those 8 points plus “not being simbiot” makes you part of ones bodey?

You must have a especial and uncomon defintion of symbiont
Because according to traditional definitions an unwanted fetus would count as a symbiote

Examples of Symbiosis
Symbiosis is a relationship between two or more organisms that live closely together. There are several types or classes of symbiosis:

Commensalism
One organism benefits and the other is neither harmed nor helped.
Mutualism
Both organisms benefit. An obligate mutualist cannot survive without its partner; a facultative mutualist can survive on its own.
Parasitism
One organism (the parasite) benefits and the other (the host) is harmed

An unwanted fetus (and many intestine worms) seem to be expales of parasitism


So you failed even if we add this 9th point to the list the fetus woudl not be part of this point.

 

[leroy]

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.

I don't know how many yes's are in there, but you can pick one each time you want to repeat this question to me, save me answering it over and over.

So do you agree that arguments that say “abortion is ok even if the fetus where a person, because the woman can do whatever she wants with her body” are fallacious?.... if you don’t provide a direct answer I will assume that you agree.

I am not accusing you of making these types of arguments, I just want to know if we agree on this point. (being our only point of disagreement if the fetus is a person or not)

 

[Sheldon]

Circular reasoning.

explain what is the relevant difference between you and a fetus, that makes you a person and the fetus a non-person

Again, seriously? Ok knock yourself out...

The developing foetus is not of course a person, as it is not a single individual but part of a woman's body, as has been explained. Since a blastocyst and later a foetus are (1) attached topologically, initially to the placental wall, then by an umbilical, which is composed of foetal and maternal-origin cells, (2) without a clear or defined boundary between the two, and (3) both of which are part of the woman's body and formed in it, (4) it is immunologically tolerated by the woman's body, it (5) gets all its oxygen and nutrition from the woman's blood, (6) they share an immune system, (7) and a metabolism, and of course (8) the foetus or blastocyst is insentient. Jointly these facts pose a very strong case.

Now think carefully, do any of those apply to me? And please, don't resort to a Frankenstein hypothetical that slowly asks if each point did apply to me, would I become a foetus, as that is self evidently pointless.

Since none of your points seem to indicate “lack of personhood (as you tacitly admitted) you have failed to provide a relevant difference between you and the fetus

The 8 biological facts I presented absolutely demonstrate a compelling argument that a foetus is not a person, so I have tacitly admitted nothing of the sort, are you insane? I have stated this unequivocally, so why you have misrepresented that here again is baffling, are you trolling again?

Ok the your point 3 is irrelevant , I can grant (at least for the purpose of this discussion) that the placenta and the umbilical cord are part of the mother. ………it doesn’t follow that therefore the fetus is not a person

They are also part of the foetus, and formed form both the woman's and the foetus's cells, with no clear boundary, so of course they are relevant, again you seem to think a bald denial of a fact as relevant is a compelling argument, baffling.

Ok so being born magically transforms you in to a person, then none of your 8 points is relevant right? ………

What on earth are you blathering about? It's like some kiddies game where I explain something carefully and you say "no it isn't" all the time.

You haven’t explained why are parasites not part of the body and fetuses are. You havent shown any relevant difference, all we have is a “because I say so argument”

I have repeatedly offered you 8 unequivocal biological facts about a foetus or blastocyst, that show why it is not a single individual, and I said from the start I didn't believe a foetus could be described as a parasite, though it shares some characteristics.

Parasite.
noun

1. an organism that lives in or on an organism of another species (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense.