Is a fetus a corporeal component of the gravida?

Page 1 of 2 [ 22 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

19 Nov 2009, 5:07 pm

Is a fetus a corporeal component of the gravida?

Definitions:

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



TheOddGoat
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Oct 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 516

19 Nov 2009, 8:52 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
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!



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

19 Nov 2009, 11:36 pm

TheOddGoat wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
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.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

19 Nov 2009, 11:37 pm

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



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

20 Nov 2009, 12:31 am

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.



DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

20 Nov 2009, 4:35 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
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


_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx


TheOddGoat
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Oct 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 516

20 Nov 2009, 6:19 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
TheOddGoat wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
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.


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.



leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

20 Nov 2009, 7:00 am

DentArthurDent wrote:
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'


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.

TheOddGoat wrote:
A fetus can't be outside of or disconnected from a pregnant woman and be a fetus ... because if it was outside of the woman it wouldn't be unborn anymore and so wouldn't be a fetus.


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


_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

20 Nov 2009, 7:57 am

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


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.



DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

20 Nov 2009, 8:17 am

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


you are trying to read FAR too much into it

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


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


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


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


_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

20 Nov 2009, 12:04 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Is a fetus a corporeal component of the gravida?

Definitions:

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


The fetus is a growing body inside its mother.

ruveyn



0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

20 Nov 2009, 12:23 pm

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.



leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

20 Nov 2009, 5:51 pm

DentArthurDent wrote:
The pregnant woman has what 'responsibility'


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

DentArthurDent wrote:
to call a foetus a 'child is very emotive and disingenuous.


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

DentArthurDent wrote:
leejosepho wrote:
Great point! The transition of birth is merely a change in location.


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


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".


_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================


DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

21 Nov 2009, 3:11 am

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


_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx


anna-banana
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Aug 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,682
Location: Europe

21 Nov 2009, 4:55 am

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


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.


how about host-parasite? :P


_________________
not a bug - a feature.


leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

21 Nov 2009, 7:27 am

anna-banana wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
leejosepho wrote:
It is interesting that "mother" and "foetus" appear together there rather than mother-child or host-foetus ... but that is another matter.


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.


how about host-parasite? :P


0_equals_true wrote:
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.


_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================