Is a fetus a corporeal component of the gravida?

Post Reply New Topic

Is a fetus a corporeal component of the gravida?

Definitions:

*Fetus: an unborn child.
*Corporeal: of the body, bodily.
*Gravida: a pregnant woman.

I am going to say yes.

If the fetus doesn't like it it can go somewhere else...

... oh wait, sucker!

Therefore anything which is confined to one location is a component of that location?
My memopad is confined to my pocket, therefore my memopad is a component of my pocket.

Also, while bread is being cooked in the oven it is confined to the oven.
Therefore, the bread is a component of the oven.

I am not sure we are dealing with solid lines here, what does it mean for something to be "a part of" a person's body? Certainly, I am not sure this is a very relevant question. I mean a fetus could be considered separate from the body, but then again, so is a person's crap while it is still in their intestines. Is this really the most important place to start? Or am I missing something?

Arguably though, a fetus is a component of a pregnant woman, but it is not a component of a woman who happens to be pregnant. The reason being that in the former case, the fetus is a part of the definition of the being. In the latter case though, the fetus is not a part of how this being is defined. A pregnant woman must have a fetus in her. A woman, does not have to have this fetus, but because she happens to be pregnant, she now does.

Perhaps this is a semantic game here, but then again, I am not sure about the question.

Indeed

I suspect the OP is asking in a roundabout way 'does the mother have rights over the foetus or does the foetus have rights over the mother' if this is the case I would support the former argument

That wasn't actually the logic behind my joke.

Your memopad can be outside of your pocket and still be a memopad.

A fetus can't be outside of or disconnected from a pregnant woman and be a fetus if a fetus is an unborn child, because if it was outside of the woman it wouldn't be unborn anymore and so wouldn't be a fetus.

It is interesting that "mother" and "foetus" appear together there rather than mother-child or host-foetus ... but that is another matter.

As to alleged "rights", neither would be true above. The mother has a responsibility and the child is helplessly dependent upon her.



Great point! The transition of birth is merely a change in location.

Actually, the term "gravida" is the medical term for a pregnant woman, which should be used along with the medical term "fetus" if fetus is to be used.

you are trying to read FAR too much into it



The pregnant woman has what 'responsibility' in my mind she has a responsibility firstly to herself, and to call a foetus a 'child is very emotive and disingenuous. However I was just trying to clarify the original question.

That I stand by my original 'rights' query as this is the main line of attack used by pro lifers as in the 'rights of the unborn baby' etc




what point ?? again you seem to be inferring that a foetus is a fully fledged child. By your crude analysis a miscarriage is also merely a change of location

The fetus is a growing body inside its mother.

ruveyn

This is actually quite an easy question to answer based on common knowledge.

Gestation cannot occur without the environment, and chemical (natural or artificial). So the baby is neither an independent being nor a parasite. You might say it is most like a colony animal, except the mother isn't really interdependent like the baby. But frankly it is what it is: a foetus. It does not develop on its own.

A responsibility as a gravida, and for the sake of the foetus.



Just as when a mere gravida is called a mother?!



You need to stop all your innuendo! I have not inferred anything, and I made no analysis at all.

The period of gestation is a period of maturity for the foetus, then a change of location takes place for that child that had begun developing right after conception. And yes, a miscarriage is identically a "change of location" ... and I did *not* just say "an identical change of location".

You stated that birth was merely a change in location. By describing it so you are dismissing the major change that has just occurred, one from being a foetus to an independent living human baby. This suggests that you regard a foetus as a fully viable human which it clearly is not. I am not making innuendo i am merely reading what you have written

how about host-parasite?