First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
Absolute Proof a Fetus is NOT Part of its Mother's Body.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 7/22/10 , edited 7/24/10
Logical proof that a fetus is not part of its mother's body!

First Syllogism:
Premise 1: The mother is a human.
Premise 2: All humans have 46 chromosomes.
Conclusion: The mother has 46 chromosomes.

Second Syllogism:
Premise 1: A prenatal human is a part of its mother.
Premise 2: 46 chromosomes outside the mother's original 46 are a part of the prenatal human
Conclusion: The mother has a total of 92 chromosomes. (If A is a part of B and B is a part of C, A is a part of C. A brick on the wall of the house is a part of the house itself. 46 +46=92.)

Now we have a problem with logical consistency. It cannot true that the mother has 46 chromosomes while at the same time having 92. Since we know as a matter of scientific fact that all humans have 46 chromosomes then either the mother is no longer a human when she becomes pregnant or the zygote/embryo/fetus is not a part of its mother. Since we know the mother is a human we know that the fetus/embryo/zygote is not a part of the mother.



Video Presentation:

Long version:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZxMYLxS0p8

Compressed version:
Not yet uploaded.

Further Proof
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzygJIvwQ3Q
Posted 7/22/10
It's a parasite since antibodies try to attack it.
75430 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
49 / F / Center of the Uni...
Online
Posted 7/22/10
And? You're "pro-life." We get it. when have you NOT posted something about abortion?
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 7/22/10

papagolfwhiskey wrote:

And? You're "pro-life." We get it. when have you NOT posted something about abortion?


Do a search for all the threads I have started. I've done everything from the economy to global warming to racism to theology to the Israel Palestine conflict to the 9/11 conspiracy theories, so on and so forth. Just happen to be in an abortion kind of mood!

And I'm not prolife except under certain circumstances, though I am anti-war and against capital punishment for what that's worth.

In any case, I'm not the subject.
8715 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / North Carolina
Offline
Posted 7/22/10
It still heavily deals with her body.

I thought all of the "It's her body, she should be able to do it" wasn't all about not the fetus being part of her, but the fact the fetus being there heavily affects the way she lives life for the next 9 months of her life and probably many years after that, it forces her into a certain diet (or you can give birth knowing "It's got Fetal Alcohol Syndrome!"), and it makes her unattractive to many people's eyes and can affect the way she looks even after birth.

This is nice to know, but I don't think it changes anything.
Posted 7/22/10
so the umbilical cord does not count for anything? the child is not able to survive with out the mother sending nutrients through the cord for 9 months give or take a few days. Also what the mother eats/drinks affects the child as well which is why they have warning labels on medicine and alcohol. I mean this is from my understanding after all.
Posted 7/23/10
Pretty much what Cecil said. That sounds like a pseudo theory to me. Or miscalculated information.
8742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Scotland, Aberdeen
Offline
Posted 7/23/10 , edited 7/23/10
Discussions on Crunchyroll are highly scripted. All members just repeat the typical stuff associated with them and admittedly, I do that too. So, let me just point it out that we can nevertheless abort the foetus whether it is a part of the pregnant woman's body or not. Whether using sophisticated arguments pertaining to minute details we deduce that indeed such and such holds true as regards the nature of a foetus, we make no alterations to the truth that the foetus is an object that may strain the host in various ways, is reliant upon the host and is, geographically, located inside of the host and also that the host may wish to have foetus taken the hell out of her.

So fine, let it be, let us consider a foetus a separate object from the host, but that makes no difference in the pro-choice vs pro-child hatchery debate.
Posted 7/23/10

DerfelCadarn wrote:

Discussions on Crunchyroll are highly scripted. All members just repeat the typical stuff associated with them and admittedly, I do that too. So, let me just point it out that we can nevertheless abort the foetus whether it is a part of the pregnant woman's body or not. Whether using sophisticated arguments pertaining to minute details we deduce that indeed such and such holds true as regards the nature of a foetus, we make no alterations to the truth that the foetus is an object that may strain the host in various ways, is reliant upon the host and is, geographically, located inside of the host and also that the host may wish to have foetus taken the hell out of her.

So fine, let it be, let us consider a foetus a separate object from the host, but that makes no difference in the pro-choice vs pro-child hatchery debate.


It does make for entertaining t.v. though. I love to watch people yell back and never really winning a debate.
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 7/23/10 , edited 7/23/10

SeraphAlford wrote:

Logical proof that a fetus is not part of its mother's body!

First Syllogism:
Premise 1: The mother is a human.
Premise 2: All humans have 46 chromosomes.
Conclusion: The mother has 46 chromosomes.
.


There is a problem with your second premise, since not all humans have 46 chromosomes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_abnormalities

Therefore, it is illogical to determine whether something is a human or not simply based on the amount of chromosomes it has. Unless you believe that people with Down's syndrome, Turner's syndrome, or any other disorder involving chromosome abnormalities is not a human.

EDIT: I just noticed the spoiler in the OP, but it is still a flaw in your logic that you didn't explain very well. One could argue that pregnancy is a unique state in which an organism can have double the amount of chromosomes it usually has.

Although I believe that a fetus is more of a parasite than a part of the mother's body, I wouldn't consider this to be absolute proof of that idea.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 7/23/10

Cuddlebuns wrote:

There is a problem with your second premise, since not all humans have 46 chromosomesTherefore, it is illogical to determine whether something is a human or not simply based on the amount of chromosomes it has. Unless you believe that people with Down's syndrome, Turner's syndrome, or any other disorder involving chromosome abnormalities is not a human.


As I said I did not want to get into genetics, but when it comes to abnormalities in the chromosome count you do not have “additional,” chromosomes so much as “separate,” chromosomes. To use your example, and individual with Down Syndrome has three copies of chromosome 21 (hints I called it Trisomy 21) instead of 2. When it comes to the fetus, however, the 46 chromosomes carry addition DNA.

In any case I addressed this in my original post.




EDIT: I just noticed the spoiler in the OP, but it is still a flaw in your logic that you didn't explain very well. One could argue that pregnancy is a unique state in which an organism can have double the amount of chromosomes it usually has.


You could argue that, but it would put you at odds with the scientific community. I do not have to prove a given premise. Instead, if you want to challenge my premise then the onus of proof is on you and you must go up against rudimentary science.

Also, that wouldn’t be an error in logic so much as in phrasing. The logic comes from deriving a conclusion from the premises and given A and B then C necessarily follows so my logic was flawless. You can, however, challenge the validity of the argument by challenging the premise that all humans have 46 chromosomes which seems to be what you are doing here. But, again, if you want to challenge –that- premise you’ll have to take it up with the scientists.



Although I believe that a fetus is more of a parasite than a part of the mother's body, I wouldn't consider this to be absolute proof of that idea.


Assuming the scientific fact that you challenged in your post, it is absolute logical proof based on the laws of logical consistency. But there are philosophies out there which defy reason and rationality preferring to rejected science/logic in favor of human intuition. But I don’t think you’re going to take that approach.

Again, if your only problem with my argument is that the scientific information I’ve transferred from the pages of a text book to the internet then I don’t think you have a very strong case.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 7/23/10

HokiePokie wrote:

It still heavily deals with her body.

I thought all of the "It's her body, she should be able to do it" wasn't all about not the fetus being part of her, but the fact the fetus being there heavily affects the way she lives life for the next 9 months of her life and probably many years after that, it forces her into a certain diet (or you can give birth knowing "It's got Fetal Alcohol Syndrome!"), and it makes her unattractive to many people's eyes and can affect the way she looks even after birth.

This is nice to know, but I don't think it changes anything.



I see what you mean, but consider this in terms of parental obligation in general. When it comes to debating child support the prochoice platitude is that fathers should have certain obligations but no abortion rights. There are two defenses of this position.

The first claims the burden on the mother is greater than that on the father, but that is only ever presented by youths who have not really thought the position through. On the first hand it is not always true, but that really doesn’t matter. It would be silly to force the undue burden of a lifestyle change on somebody, small or large.

So the second defense resorts to “it’s my body,” and this simply is not true. Which either suggests that fathers should not have to pay child support or that women should not be allowed to obtain abortions. An undue burden is an undue burden regardless of the magnitude. The only question left is whether or not the burden providing for the dependents you have created is undue or not undue. But if it is undue, it’s undue for both goose and gander.

In any case I really think that it comes down to whether or not the fetus has rights. If the fetus has rights then abortion should be illegal. If not then it should be legal and father's should have a chance to sign away their rights and responsibilities as they do with adoption.
Posted 7/23/10 , edited 7/23/10
No advertising
8742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Scotland, Aberdeen
Offline
Posted 7/23/10
You're playing semantics. Of what relevance is such arbitrary categorisation? Life is a cyclic process which involves the movement and reactions of matter in space. We either intervene how we wish or we don't. There is no 'human' in reality, we are fairly sophisticated collections of matter.
75430 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
49 / F / Center of the Uni...
Online
Posted 7/23/10
I'm sorry but ever since you revived two dead threads and started a third and then added a fourth and this Fifth one. all I've seen is a systematic attempt to dismantle the pro-choice position while avoiding the usual counter trap of invoking god. It reminds me of intelligent design types insisting that Evolution is only a theory and their counter theory (which has nothing to do with god of course) thus deserves equal treatment.

I'd ask you to 'Harp no more on that string, woman.'

But I suspect your response will amount to 'Harp on it still, til heartstrings break"

So go ahead and have the last word. I'm not listening to posts on this subject anymore.

First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.