Liberals now calling fetus an "organ of her own body"

[buckeye45_73]

Organs develop and change at various points in life. Fetal development is by far the largest such point, but puberty, ovulation, and conception also bring their own new changes to human tissues. So I will ask you as well: what defines an organ?

First and foremost it must contain 100% of the individuals DNA. Simple concept.

So transplanted organs aren't real organs by your partial definition. Nor is the placenta. Nor are people with multiple different genomes comprising their body.

Let me call out the obvious here: an organ is a loosely defined word, and people get really upset when a fetus is referred to one, even though it can technically roughly fall into that loose definition. Bottom line. Does anyone disagree?

Uh you're confusing the definitions. First of all a transplanted organ, IS an organ, and it is TRANSPLANTED....not your organ, someone GAVE it to you....
so it is someone elses organ, that you are benefitting from, usually from their death.

Next a baby may or may not be an organ, in fact it's a bunch of organs, but they're not the mothers organs, the mother, decided by nature is sheltering and PROTECTING that baby or if you will mass of organs and elective abortions are not natural and sick.

Kids shouldnt be aborted, maybe you disagree, but again, killing a baby, deprives somneone of life to get married, march in a gay parade, whatever....they dont have that CHOICE because of people like you

 

[TemplarKormac]

You bring up an interesting point with regards to the father, and I must admit it's a can of worms I care not to open presently.

I am intrigued by your last line here though. To what are you referring? Drugs and such?


I believe I'm so closed minded that I don't even understand the point you are making. Would you be so kind as to restate it please?

I am not claiming men shouldn't by allowed to legislate on female topics, if that is what you are referring to.

Weren't you just saying that there was no equality to be had among the sexes? Or was I on shrooms when I read that?

Either my text lacked clarity, or you were indeed on shrooms. HAHA!

Looking back, I see the confusion. Suffice it to say, I was refuting someone's claim on a closely related but distinct topic, not making one about gender equality. Sorry for the confusion.

No problem. No problem at all

 

[OKTexas]

Organs develop and change at various points in life. Fetal development is by far the largest such point, but puberty, ovulation, and conception also bring their own new changes to human tissues. So I will ask you as well: what defines an organ?

First and foremost it must contain 100% of the individuals DNA. Simple concept.

So transplanted organs aren't real organs by your partial definition. Nor is the placenta. Nor are people with multiple different genomes comprising their body.

Let me call out the obvious here: an organ is a loosely defined word, and people get really upset when a fetus is referred to one, even though it can technically roughly fall into that loose definition. Bottom line. Does anyone disagree?

Transplanted organs require anti-rejection drugs for the remainder of the persons life, the body never accepts is as its own. Children are not normally spontaneously rejected by the mothers body because nature creates barriers to prevent it, even though the child most often has a different blood type because blood type is determined by the father. Tell me, how many organs have a different blood type than the host?

 

[SmarterThanHick]

do you need a definition of is?
You realize babies dont stay in the mother, right? I've never seen a heart or a kidney fall out of a person, maybe you have.
You realize that if your mother had an abortion, you wouldnt be here, so would you say she made the right "choice"?
Would it have ended your life, hence killed you?

No, I don't need a definition of is. I need a definition of ORGAN: the thing you claim something doesn't count for.

Are you saying organs need to stay in people at all times? So the placenta isn't an organ then? Removed organs aren't organs? You see the problem with avoiding a definition? You're making crap up as you go along which doesn't actually hold any consistency whatsoever.

And the "would you want your mother to retrospectively choose to abort you?" question is one of the largest logical fallacies you can possibly bring to the table regarding this topic. Unless you have a time machine, I recommend we stray from discussion on possible outcomes of impossible past decisions not taken.

Just as I had suspected.....No not all organs stay, but here's the thing, how many have another person's DNA, ZERO. It's a collection of cells that make up an item to run the body...it is not part of another person, which a baby is.

Did they teach you babies are organs in the same school that 2+2 =5...just make shit up.


Liberals are so desperate they actually try to use this arguement....Unbelievable..

And you're saying that a mother getting an abortion doesnt effect the baby? Are you dumb or stupid?

All transplanted organs have another person's DNA. Heck the protective layer of our skin, the largest organ in the body, doesn't have the person's DNA. The placenta usually has large aberrancies that are different from the person's DNA.

But let's IGNORE all that. Let's pretend you're right, and every organ that you name in the human body only has their own DNA. How does that define something as an organ? Are the living cells in my blood an organ? What you did there was find something in common and use it as a definition, but it's just another logical fallacy. Grass is green, but the color doesn't define the plant.

As for your last question, a mother cannot abort a baby. Babies breath air, and fourth trimester abortions are illegal in every state. The FETUS can be aborted, and the FETUS is affected right down to the cellular level, as would any tissue be, if not sustained.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

First and foremost it must contain 100% of the individuals DNA. Simple concept.

So transplanted organs aren't real organs by your partial definition. Nor is the placenta. Nor are people with multiple different genomes comprising their body.

Let me call out the obvious here: an organ is a loosely defined word, and people get really upset when a fetus is referred to one, even though it can technically roughly fall into that loose definition. Bottom line. Does anyone disagree?

Uh you're confusing the definitions. First of all a transplanted organ, IS an organ, and it is TRANSPLANTED....not your organ, someone GAVE it to you....
so it is someone elses organ, that you are benefitting from, usually from their death.

Next a baby may or may not be an organ, in fact it's a bunch of organs, but they're not the mothers organs, the mother, decided by nature is sheltering and PROTECTING that baby or if you will mass of organs and elective abortions are not natural and sick.

Kids shouldnt be aborted, maybe you disagree, but again, killing a baby, deprives somneone of life to get married, march in a gay parade, whatever....they dont have that CHOICE because of people like you

OK so a transplanted organ is an organ in a person even though it doesn't have that person's DNA. Can we put to rest the idea that an organ must have the person's DNA then?

I agree that kids shouldn't be aborted. I doubt you'll find many people anywhere who agree with fourth trimester abortions. But they don't have ANY choice. They lack the ability to choose anything. No, we're not talking about what someone might choose if they had the ability in the future. We're talking about right now. Because every moment you're not actively procreating with as many people as possible, you are similarly depriving potential "kids" from getting married or marching in gay pride parades. Again, let's avoid straying into changing histories and futures to discuss impossible decisions of what has no rational basis for happening.

 

[OKTexas]

No, I don't need a definition of is. I need a definition of ORGAN: the thing you claim something doesn't count for.

Are you saying organs need to stay in people at all times? So the placenta isn't an organ then? Removed organs aren't organs? You see the problem with avoiding a definition? You're making crap up as you go along which doesn't actually hold any consistency whatsoever.

And the "would you want your mother to retrospectively choose to abort you?" question is one of the largest logical fallacies you can possibly bring to the table regarding this topic. Unless you have a time machine, I recommend we stray from discussion on possible outcomes of impossible past decisions not taken.

Just as I had suspected.....No not all organs stay, but here's the thing, how many have another person's DNA, ZERO. It's a collection of cells that make up an item to run the body...it is not part of another person, which a baby is.

Did they teach you babies are organs in the same school that 2+2 =5...just make shit up.


Liberals are so desperate they actually try to use this arguement....Unbelievable..

And you're saying that a mother getting an abortion doesnt effect the baby? Are you dumb or stupid?

All transplanted organs have another person's DNA. Heck the protective layer of our skin, the largest organ in the body, doesn't have the person's DNA. The placenta usually has large aberrancies that are different from the person's DNA.

But let's IGNORE all that. Let's pretend you're right, and every organ that you name in the human body only has their own DNA. How does that define something as an organ? Are the living cells in my blood an organ? What you did there was find something in common and use it as a definition, but it's just another logical fallacy. Grass is green, but the color doesn't define the plant.

As for your last question, a mother cannot abort a baby. Babies breath air, and fourth trimester abortions are illegal in every state. The FETUS can be aborted, and the FETUS is affected right down to the cellular level, as would any tissue be, if not sustained.

So you think the skin doesn't contain a persons DNA, how do they catch criminals through DNA found in skin cells. I even have a link for ya.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/bc000657.pdf

 

[SmarterThanHick]

First and foremost it must contain 100% of the individuals DNA. Simple concept.

So transplanted organs aren't real organs by your partial definition. Nor is the placenta. Nor are people with multiple different genomes comprising their body.

Let me call out the obvious here: an organ is a loosely defined word, and people get really upset when a fetus is referred to one, even though it can technically roughly fall into that loose definition. Bottom line. Does anyone disagree?

Transplanted organs require anti-rejection drugs for the remainder of the persons life, the body never accepts is as its own. Children are not normally spontaneously rejected by the mothers body because nature creates barriers to prevent it, even though the child most often has a different blood type because blood type is determined by the father. Tell me, how many organs have a different blood type than the host?

So by your new changing definition, an organ has to be accepted by the body without anti-rejection modifications. Interestingly, part of pregnancy is on that very topic. In fact, despite your false beliefs, about 30% of all conceptions are spontaneously aborted by the mother's body early on.

Let's pretend that little fact didn't exist. You were saying that nature creates a barrier to prevent rejection despite different blood types. Interesting how we have to inject mothers with a medication to prevent her body from rejecting the fetus with a different blood type. Rhogam. Look it up.

And if you believe that there is no organ in the body that is protected from the immune system, you need look no further than the eye.

 

[buckeye45_73]

So transplanted organs aren't real organs by your partial definition. Nor is the placenta. Nor are people with multiple different genomes comprising their body.

Let me call out the obvious here: an organ is a loosely defined word, and people get really upset when a fetus is referred to one, even though it can technically roughly fall into that loose definition. Bottom line. Does anyone disagree?

Uh you're confusing the definitions. First of all a transplanted organ, IS an organ, and it is TRANSPLANTED....not your organ, someone GAVE it to you....
so it is someone elses organ, that you are benefitting from, usually from their death.

Next a baby may or may not be an organ, in fact it's a bunch of organs, but they're not the mothers organs, the mother, decided by nature is sheltering and PROTECTING that baby or if you will mass of organs and elective abortions are not natural and sick.

Kids shouldnt be aborted, maybe you disagree, but again, killing a baby, deprives somneone of life to get married, march in a gay parade, whatever....they dont have that CHOICE because of people like you

OK so a transplanted organ is an organ in a person even though it doesn't have that person's DNA. Can we put to rest the idea that an organ must have the person's DNA then?

I agree that kids shouldn't be aborted. I doubt you'll find many people anywhere who agree with fourth trimester abortions. But they don't have ANY choice. They lack the ability to choose anything. No, we're not talking about what someone might choose if they had the ability in the future. We're talking about right now. Because every moment you're not actively procreating with as many people as possible, you are similarly depriving potential "kids" from getting married or marching in gay pride parades. Again, let's avoid straying into changing histories and futures to discuss impossible decisions of what has no rational basis for happening.

Ok so transplanted organs are organs, but they arent yours..same with a baby. As for abortions killing someone effects their future, so yeah you have to count for that. That's the point once the egg has been fertilized it's a person, and has a future, or should have a future.
As for choices, there are many choices you can make before you get pregnant....sometimes they dont work, you have to account for that risk.....probably one of the reasons why chastity is such a virtue......noone makes you have sex, unless it's rape and then I'm still undecided on that, right now I'll error on the side of having an abortion, because the sex is not consensual, but if it is, no excuse and abortion shouldnt be used just because you made a mistake.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Just as I had suspected.....No not all organs stay, but here's the thing, how many have another person's DNA, ZERO. It's a collection of cells that make up an item to run the body...it is not part of another person, which a baby is.

Did they teach you babies are organs in the same school that 2+2 =5...just make shit up.


Liberals are so desperate they actually try to use this arguement....Unbelievable..

And you're saying that a mother getting an abortion doesnt effect the baby? Are you dumb or stupid?

All transplanted organs have another person's DNA. Heck the protective layer of our skin, the largest organ in the body, doesn't have the person's DNA. The placenta usually has large aberrancies that are different from the person's DNA.

But let's IGNORE all that. Let's pretend you're right, and every organ that you name in the human body only has their own DNA. How does that define something as an organ? Are the living cells in my blood an organ? What you did there was find something in common and use it as a definition, but it's just another logical fallacy. Grass is green, but the color doesn't define the plant.

As for your last question, a mother cannot abort a baby. Babies breath air, and fourth trimester abortions are illegal in every state. The FETUS can be aborted, and the FETUS is affected right down to the cellular level, as would any tissue be, if not sustained.

So you think the skin doesn't contain a persons DNA, how do they catch criminals through DNA found in skin cells. I even have a link for ya.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/bc000657.pdf

Apologies, I should have been more clear. As I stated, the protective layer of our skin, being the outermost layer, generally does not contain DNA. Nor does hair. Nor do red blood cells. Inner layers of skin, hair roots, and white blood cells all have DNA, and can be used in forensics, as you pointed out.

Even if I was completely wrong about skin, the entirety of my point still stands. Is this the best you can do?

 

[Truthseeker420]

I guess he's never heard of that little thing called DNA, a baby only has half of its DNA from the mother, her organs have 100% of her DNA. So much for the left giving credit to science. But then it has never been about science has it?

I don't believe that is the definition of organ.

 

[OKTexas]

So transplanted organs aren't real organs by your partial definition. Nor is the placenta. Nor are people with multiple different genomes comprising their body.

Let me call out the obvious here: an organ is a loosely defined word, and people get really upset when a fetus is referred to one, even though it can technically roughly fall into that loose definition. Bottom line. Does anyone disagree?

Transplanted organs require anti-rejection drugs for the remainder of the persons life, the body never accepts is as its own. Children are not normally spontaneously rejected by the mothers body because nature creates barriers to prevent it, even though the child most often has a different blood type because blood type is determined by the father. Tell me, how many organs have a different blood type than the host?

So by your new changing definition, an organ has to be accepted by the body without anti-rejection modifications. Interestingly, part of pregnancy is on that very topic. In fact, despite your false beliefs, about 30% of all conceptions are spontaneously aborted by the mother's body early on.

Let's pretend that little fact didn't exist. You were saying that nature creates a barrier to prevent rejection despite different blood types. Interesting how we have to inject mothers with a medication to prevent her body from rejecting the fetus with a different blood type. Rhogam. Look it up.

And if you believe that there is no organ in the body that is protected from the immune system, you need look no further than the eye.

Yep women do miscarry, that's why I qualified my statement with the word "normally" and the drug you mentioned is not routinely given, it is used in unusal circumstances when the mothers blood may intermingle with that of the child. How many tangents due to unusual circumstance are you going to go down which are useless to the general discussion? I'll tell you now, I ain't gonna go there.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Uh you're confusing the definitions. First of all a transplanted organ, IS an organ, and it is TRANSPLANTED....not your organ, someone GAVE it to you....
so it is someone elses organ, that you are benefitting from, usually from their death.

Next a baby may or may not be an organ, in fact it's a bunch of organs, but they're not the mothers organs, the mother, decided by nature is sheltering and PROTECTING that baby or if you will mass of organs and elective abortions are not natural and sick.

Kids shouldnt be aborted, maybe you disagree, but again, killing a baby, deprives somneone of life to get married, march in a gay parade, whatever....they dont have that CHOICE because of people like you

OK so a transplanted organ is an organ in a person even though it doesn't have that person's DNA. Can we put to rest the idea that an organ must have the person's DNA then?

I agree that kids shouldn't be aborted. I doubt you'll find many people anywhere who agree with fourth trimester abortions. But they don't have ANY choice. They lack the ability to choose anything. No, we're not talking about what someone might choose if they had the ability in the future. We're talking about right now. Because every moment you're not actively procreating with as many people as possible, you are similarly depriving potential "kids" from getting married or marching in gay pride parades. Again, let's avoid straying into changing histories and futures to discuss impossible decisions of what has no rational basis for happening.

Ok so transplanted organs are organs, but they arent yours..same with a baby. As for abortions killing someone effects their future, so yeah you have to count for that. That's the point once the egg has been fertilized it's a person, and has a future, or should have a future.
As for choices, there are many choices you can make before you get pregnant....sometimes they dont work, you have to account for that risk.....probably one of the reasons why chastity is such a virtue......noone makes you have sex, unless it's rape and then I'm still undecided on that, right now I'll error on the side of having an abortion, because the sex is not consensual, but if it is, no excuse and abortion shouldnt be used just because you made a mistake.

Your statements regarding organs, and same with a baby, is in agreement with Chomsky.

One the egg has been fertilized it is no more reached personhood than the moment before it was fertilized. Its future is no greater. Over 25% of all conceptions will be miscarried either way. No one looks at an acorn and says "THATS A GREAT LOOKING TREE!" No one believes a crushed seed as something that could have provided shade 20 years later.

But let's put our fundamental beliefs in personhood aside for one moment. The fact remains that every study that investigated outlawing abortion concludes that the number of abortions is not significantly changed. The only significant result in making abortion illegal is an increase in women dying from attempted abortion gone wrong. Either way the number of abortions will be roughly the same, so ask yourself if you'd want more women dying because it's illegal.

 

[OKTexas]

I guess he's never heard of that little thing called DNA, a baby only has half of its DNA from the mother, her organs have 100% of her DNA. So much for the left giving credit to science. But then it has never been about science has it?

I don't believe that is the definition of organ.

For once you're correct, but what make you think I was trying to define an organ? I was simply stating a characteristic of an organ that would belong to a particular individual. Is it past your bed time?

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Transplanted organs require anti-rejection drugs for the remainder of the persons life, the body never accepts is as its own. Children are not normally spontaneously rejected by the mothers body because nature creates barriers to prevent it, even though the child most often has a different blood type because blood type is determined by the father. Tell me, how many organs have a different blood type than the host?

So by your new changing definition, an organ has to be accepted by the body without anti-rejection modifications. Interestingly, part of pregnancy is on that very topic. In fact, despite your false beliefs, about 30% of all conceptions are spontaneously aborted by the mother's body early on.

Let's pretend that little fact didn't exist. You were saying that nature creates a barrier to prevent rejection despite different blood types. Interesting how we have to inject mothers with a medication to prevent her body from rejecting the fetus with a different blood type. Rhogam. Look it up.

And if you believe that there is no organ in the body that is protected from the immune system, you need look no further than the eye.

Yep women do miscarry, that's why I qualified my statement with the word "normally" and the drug you mentioned is not routinely given, it is used in unusal circumstances when the motherm blood may intermingle with that of the child. How many tangents due to unusual circumstance are you going to go down which are useless to the general discussion? I'll tell you now, I ain't gonna go there.

Normally? Over 25% is not a rare occurrence! The drug I mentioned is given EVERY TIME the baby has positive blood and the mother does not. Every time. You seem to have an unusual definitions if ONE IN FOUR is "unusual circumstances." I'm curious to hear what you think of the odds associated with a coin flip! ONE IN FOUR!

 

[OKTexas]

So transplanted organs aren't real organs by your partial definition. Nor is the placenta. Nor are people with multiple different genomes comprising their body.

Let me call out the obvious here: an organ is a loosely defined word, and people get really upset when a fetus is referred to one, even though it can technically roughly fall into that loose definition. Bottom line. Does anyone disagree?

Uh you're confusing the definitions. First of all a transplanted organ, IS an organ, and it is TRANSPLANTED....not your organ, someone GAVE it to you....
so it is someone elses organ, that you are benefitting from, usually from their death.

Next a baby may or may not be an organ, in fact it's a bunch of organs, but they're not the mothers organs, the mother, decided by nature is sheltering and PROTECTING that baby or if you will mass of organs and elective abortions are not natural and sick.

Kids shouldnt be aborted, maybe you disagree, but again, killing a baby, deprives somneone of life to get married, march in a gay parade, whatever....they dont have that CHOICE because of people like you

OK so a transplanted organ is an organ in a person even though it doesn't have that person's DNA. Can we put to rest the idea that an organ must have the person's DNA then?

I agree that kids shouldn't be aborted. I doubt you'll find many people anywhere who agree with fourth trimester abortions. But they don't have ANY choice. They lack the ability to choose anything. No, we're not talking about what someone might choose if they had the ability in the future. We're talking about right now. Because every moment you're not actively procreating with as many people as possible, you are similarly depriving potential "kids" from getting married or marching in gay pride parades. Again, let's avoid straying into changing histories and futures to discuss impossible decisions of what has no rational basis for happening.

My bold. Only one question on this one, how the hell does anyone do a FOURTH TRIMESTER abortion?

 

[SmarterThanHick]

exactly.

think it through.

 

[OKTexas]

exactly.

think it through.

There are leftist "intellectuals" who claim infanticide is reasonable up to the age of two, so yes there are people who would agree with it.

 

[NoNukes]

I guess he's never heard of that little thing called DNA, a baby only has half of its DNA from the mother, her organs have 100% of her DNA. So much for the left giving credit to science. But then it has never been about science has it?

And of course, you have the credentials that we should listen to you rather than the most quoted person in the world.

 

[OKTexas]

I guess he's never heard of that little thing called DNA, a baby only has half of its DNA from the mother, her organs have 100% of her DNA. So much for the left giving credit to science. But then it has never been about science has it?

And of course, you have the credentials that we should listen to you rather than the most quoted person in the world.

Prove me wrong, I double dog dare ya.

Also I think John Stewart is the most quoted person in the world if this board is any indication.

 

[buckeye45_73]

OK so a transplanted organ is an organ in a person even though it doesn't have that person's DNA. Can we put to rest the idea that an organ must have the person's DNA then?

I agree that kids shouldn't be aborted. I doubt you'll find many people anywhere who agree with fourth trimester abortions. But they don't have ANY choice. They lack the ability to choose anything. No, we're not talking about what someone might choose if they had the ability in the future. We're talking about right now. Because every moment you're not actively procreating with as many people as possible, you are similarly depriving potential "kids" from getting married or marching in gay pride parades. Again, let's avoid straying into changing histories and futures to discuss impossible decisions of what has no rational basis for happening.

Ok so transplanted organs are organs, but they arent yours..same with a baby. As for abortions killing someone effects their future, so yeah you have to count for that. That's the point once the egg has been fertilized it's a person, and has a future, or should have a future.
As for choices, there are many choices you can make before you get pregnant....sometimes they dont work, you have to account for that risk.....probably one of the reasons why chastity is such a virtue......noone makes you have sex, unless it's rape and then I'm still undecided on that, right now I'll error on the side of having an abortion, because the sex is not consensual, but if it is, no excuse and abortion shouldnt be used just because you made a mistake.

Your statements regarding organs, and same with a baby, is in agreement with Chomsky.

One the egg has been fertilized it is no more reached personhood than the moment before it was fertilized. Its future is no greater. Over 25% of all conceptions will be miscarried either way. No one looks at an acorn and says "THATS A GREAT LOOKING TREE!" No one believes a crushed seed as something that could have provided shade 20 years later.

But let's put our fundamental beliefs in personhood aside for one moment. The fact remains that every study that investigated outlawing abortion concludes that the number of abortions is not significantly changed. The only significant result in making abortion illegal is an increase in women dying from attempted abortion gone wrong. Either way the number of abortions will be roughly the same, so ask yourself if you'd want more women dying because it's illegal.

You cant be this stupid. ok so miscarriages happen, nature said no, not bitching about that, so toss that one out.
Next noone says an acorn is a tree because it hasnt been planted yet. With a fertilized egg you have the same conditions you need for growing. You need air, food/water, and time. That's what gets you from 2 to 85 years old, same with a fertilized egg....sperm and eggs are not people because they need to combine, but once they do, the same conditions needed to grow are in place and you are now a person.

Stop with the bs about women dying, if they are going to risk it...too bad, women die with breast implants, and other unnecessary surgeries.

The fact is if people dont have the escape hatch, they'll be a little more careful, like you know when abortion was illegal. sure some tried a DIY abortion and died, but most people had shotgun weddings or gave the babies up for adoption. Atleast the babies have a chance to bitch on a message board, when they're aborted they dont.

And Jane Roe's son is glad her mommy didnt have an abortion, imagine his feeling...just a little bit faster and he'd be dead, would be alive....tell him abortion doesnt effect people....wow you're pretty heartless.....it's all about you and your selfishness.

Now maybe you will know, people who oppose abortion but are still pro choice. WHY do they oppose abortion?