Rockshmo

Glad to hear that about your friend Shad0w, don't worry, I think you did the right thing.

kakashi: I in no way attacked either you or azumi, I was simply trying to put the topic back on task. Did you ever once see me say "kakashi you dumbass stfu and stop posting here." No, I didn't, and don't think you know who I am by what I post in a Debate on an ANIME FORUM.

azumi: Flaming in a different language is still flaming, remember that. Now if you two are done, which you should be because if anything else is directed towards me I won't reply so it's useless, let's get back on topic here.

We could debate laws in every Country in the world.. but it wouldn't matter as our opinions about abortion or anything else would still be the same. So let's drop the whole laws thing.. who follows laws anyway?

Like I said a few pages ago.. I feel abortion should only be executed when the fetus has not developed to the point that is considered being "alive." I know in the US, Roe v. Wade says that abortion is legal in every state up to the 1st tri-mester. So up to the end of the 3rd month, but I'm not entirely sure if after the 3rd month is when the fetus develops human qualities. Maybe we could develop some type of medical way to tell if the fetus has developed a sense of life, and based on that it could be aborted, or not.

Science is definitely the way to go though.. I mean religion is a completely different debate which I don't feel like going back to.. but I just don't see how people can let something like religion determine the fate of their life, or someone's child's life, like in Shad0w's friend's case. It just sickens me to see that parents are willing to throw their child's life away over religion.

__________________

LightDreamer

I cannot translate what you're trying to say...so I'm not gonna try...and girl-power preggy? I don't even know what you're talking about. I'm not pregnant if that's what you're talking about -.-'' I'm not in the 'up and up' with this new slang w/e. Heck I even looked it up, I got nothing. In fact, I DEMAND TO KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS!!!

I did look up parasite o.O and then azumi ignored my definition and said something about me having no right to call a baby a parasite, and then I said I never called a baby a parasite I called a fetus a parasite, and THEN I got ignored so I looked up umbilico cord too for her. For the one who assumes that I read everything he says, should note that he doesn't read everything I do.

We should not...hmmm again your perception not mine. WHy do you insist on telling me what to do? Threat to the life...I remember a certain person named azumi who said even if you knew you were going to die you should still have the baby becuase that baby deserves a chance at life. Or maybe it wasn't her I can't remember. Heck it can either die without taking it's first breathe being called a parasite, or be born being called a bastard for the rest of it's life. Unfortunately you didn't look at the factor of their being a giant mound in front of the mother's stomach, she can't see her feet, it's hard to go pee, and incredibly bad for her back. Though technically it's not harmful to the way of her life in parasitical terms, but it is harmful to her life. It is harmful to every mother's life, my mom was pregnant with me and she said she caught a high fever but wouldn't allow herself to take any drugs for fear of MY life while endangering her own. But that's what good mothers do, right? it's still housing something that depends on your nourishment to survive. and yes whether you want to be pregnant or not it can endanger your life.

Yes, but a fetus actually fits the definition of a parasite o.o It is not a someone till it's born, till then it's an it. and here all we need to kill an it is the mother's consent. San kyu. 39 OH YAH jap rules xD

__________________
GUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHHHHHH (now imagine that 100 billion decibels louder than your average fire truck alarm and you will get the summation of my feelings towards your childish bickering)

--
If you gave me the letters hrt you could give me [ea] to get h[ea]rt or [u] to get h[u]rt, but I'd rather have hurt than a heart without [u]
- GOD I love that. You could give me a hundred thousand million years and I wouldn't have thought of that.

--
All this time I've spent trying to change into someone you would love, I didn't notice you changed into someone I can't love anymore. Goodbye My King .

---

The adulation of strangers.

Azumi

did i say that, huh?
you sure? quote it.
i said that abortion can be optional especially during cases that the baby may cause harm for the mother, maybe because the baby is already dead, or the mother is ill so she should not have a baby. that's what i said. i dont remember saying the mother should die literary die so that her baby can live. the mother can choose whether to live or die for her child, but only for certain situations like the ones i said.
did i now? i didn't flame anybody. kakashi1300 could tell that.
and btw, dark aztec used other language against k1300, can you consider that flaming?

__________________

kakashi1300

oh, i'm the one saying "I'm sorry" for her. she's my sister. don't worry, i'll tell her off it.

i hear ya... but what i'm pointing out is this: abortion is legal, infanticide is illegal. if both involve killing then why one is legal and the other one is illegal? what is really the variable that sets the difference between a fetus and a newborn?

see, i'm playing around with the aristotelian concept of substance and accident. because a zygote and a newborn is the same substantially, but different accidentally. if laws grant protection to others and not to another, the they must be substantially different. so i'm looking for the substantial difference between the newborn and a fetus (or a zygote).

and there's something worth quoting...

leave azumi out of our discussion. even if she's pro-life like me she has a different view of things. and parasitism in the first place involves "two organisms that belong to different species". so i think we should not regard the mother-fetus relationship as a symbiotic relationship. it doesn't apply.


that's just mediocre factors any mother (willing or unwilling) can cope with. i'll say it again, if it threatens the life of the mother, abortion will be allowed. the exact rationale is that if the fetus will still be allowed to live under that circumstance, the mother will die, which will bring about the death of the fetus. that's a lose/lose situation that our laws don't want to happen. and even if the fetus is really a parasite that must not be the defining factor to legalize abortion.


prove to me, that it is not a "someone". how do you define being a "someone"? give exact charactersitics that differentiate the two.

i've been pointing out that scientifically the fetus (from conception) is already a human. give me the exact differences that separates a fetus from a newborn. alright, let's drop out our useless discussions earlier. i just got pissed by you accusing me of presenting irrelevant topics when in fact i do present good ones. i mean how do you know i really do not? i'm not debating with you after all.

__________________
Hey Language Gringos Check This Out:
fsi-language-courses.com

Azumi

oops... i forgot. gomen. gomen...
that's what i'm trying to say...

__________________

Rockshmo

fe-tus
1. The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural resemblance to the adult animal.
2. In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo.

new-born
1. Very recently born: a newborn baby.
2. Born anew: newborn courage.

I guess we could say the only real difference between a fetus and a newborn is that "it" is considered a fetus from the end of the eigth week of conception to it's birth, and a newborn when it is born.

The only real catch is when it is considered a human which can't be explained simply by definition. Now, I'm not a scientist, nor do I feel like looking up scientific facts right now but I guess we could say that when it's considered a human can be based on many things.. religion, your opinion, facts, etc.

__________________

LightDreamer

What? I don't remember having a discussion with you, I remember having a discussion with azumi, then you came and started arguing with something I said to her, therefore I have every right to include azumi in my reasoning of my answers, seeing as how they were directed TO HER! If you want to have a discussion with me NOT including her, I suggest not quoting me on something I said to her. DUR. Okay, dandelion, and daisy. They are both plants =O NO WAY. One is a weed, one is a flower. One steals nutrients the other needs. Stop saying I think we should not, you can think that all you want doesn't do shit to me.


Well my laws differ, appparently.



Humans, people, persons, are someones. How do you define human?

Human: A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.
A person: the extraordinary humans who explored Antarctica.

adj.
1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of humans: the course of human events; the human race.
2. Having or showing those positive aspects of nature and character regarded as distinguishing humans from other animals: an act of human kindness.
3. Subject to or indicative of the weaknesses, imperfections, and fragility associated with humans: a mistake that shows he's only human; human frailty.
4. Having the form of a human.


How many of these definitions fit that of a fetus? I'll tell you, maybe 1. Fragility/weakness. Perhaps. Other than that, fetus = not human according to definition. Therefore fetus are not 'someones'

Haha, see how this is not your discussion with me? Well lemme butt my head in. Fetus, need umbilico cords connecting themselves to their mothers to survive. Babies don't, in fact you don't even need the mother after the baby is born, you can buy baby milk. Fetus at 3 weeks don't look like newborns. Babies shit and pee all by themselves [usually] where as fetus need their mothers to remove their waste for them. Babies breathe oxygen, fetus don't. Etc. Etc.

To AZUMI: hmm...maybe you didn't say it...maybe it was that matonly o.o something like that person. sorry. bad memory...wat are you gonna doo.

__________________
GUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHHHHHH (now imagine that 100 billion decibels louder than your average fire truck alarm and you will get the summation of my feelings towards your childish bickering)

--
If you gave me the letters hrt you could give me [ea] to get h[ea]rt or [u] to get h[u]rt, but I'd rather have hurt than a heart without [u]
- GOD I love that. You could give me a hundred thousand million years and I wouldn't have thought of that.

--
All this time I've spent trying to change into someone you would love, I didn't notice you changed into someone I can't love anymore. Goodbye My King .

---

The adulation of strangers.

kakashi1300

NO! it is explained scientifically. zygotes already contain the required genetic material to be called humans. humans contain 46 sets of chromosomes, a special feature already present from the moment of conception to a zygote. in fact, even at conception, the sex of the zygote can already be determined. if the X-chromosome from the egg meets with an X-chromosome sperm, the zygote is a female. if the egg meets with a Y-chromosome sperm, it will be a male one. and another thing, does the timely difference really matter? a fetus is a human only about months to be born, so it must lose it's right to live when the mother wants to dispose off it? quote everything i said that states opinions or morals or religion...

if you want (i hope you are not lazy to read) you can read this:
http://www.morningafterpill.org/whendoes.htm

contains everything and has a clearer elaboration of what i have said.

well, aren't we having a discussion? you're quoting me and i'm quoting you, then what do we have? don't you forget i'm talking to you earlier?



1. first of all, a fetus is a Homo sapiens. if it's not then what it is?
2. you cannot butt in definitions that are useless. first of all, can you name those characteristics mentioned in the definitions? the traits that makes us human, different from animals, etc.? making conclusions from definitions constitute a very weak argument.
3. lemme ask you again, how many of those definitions fit a newborn?



fetus don't breathe oxygen? ha ha vairy funny. well, BREATHING is not limited to the lungs. haven't heard of "cell breathing"? and yet, does the differences you've mentioned really justify enough reasons to kill it off? fetuses don't look like humans, fetuses need the mother for survival, fetuses are really dependent from the mother. so what does it matter? does this differences make a fetus a non-human from a newborn?

in fact, at some point in Roe vs. Wade (only got these from Wikipedia), the Supreme Court justices agreed that if a fetus is already a person, then the case of Roe, the appellant, will collapse because the right to life of the fetus will prevail as guarnteed in the Fourteenth Ammendment. so the main issue is that: is the fetus already a person?

@all pro-choicers: again, what i don't understand about your arguments is the woman's right to choose. she has a right to choose because after all, it's her body. how about a rapist? doesn't he has a right to choose to rape a woman? it's his body, after all, that he will use to rape the woman. but the fact is that the woman's right is ignored. that's my point. if the right to choose will violate the rights of others, especially the right to life, then that right to choose must not prevail. restrictions must be done because we cannot do anything we want.

__________________
Hey Language Gringos Check This Out:
fsi-language-courses.com

Azumi

it's ok. and forgive me for calling you names, i regret it.

it's because the baby is still under the development period of what they call pre-natal development. babies use to depend on what their mother could give them, e.i., the nutrition from what the mother eats.
the new born babies undergo developments called natal develpment. there they start to use their senses for the outside environment, e.i., to see things, to hear things around them, to feel their mother, to smell them, things like that. it is diffferent from their sense development inside the womb because they have a new environment already.
and babies do not breath with the use of their lung inside the womb. actually, their lungs dont function during that time, unless they are out of the womb. you know why doctors try to make babies cry after they got out? to make them get a lot of air to fill their lungs.
babies get oxygen through the umbilical cord. maybe the oxygen is directed to their blood so they wont have to breath (honestly, how can you breath if u r inside the womb)
right you are, nii-san.
in fact, i believe (accrdng to my observations) that most of the pro-abortion here thinks that there are lots of cases of irrationalities (i mean choosing abortion of abortion). Remember: NOT ALL PREGNANCIES ARE UNWANTED. many are still happy to have a child. and i connect that to DA and LD calling babies parasites. i think the relationship bet. a baby and his mother is mutual. both benefit from each other. the baby gets everything he needs for develoment. the mother is happy for her life would be complete coz she will have a baby to raise with, or she can give her husband a child to prove her love for him, therefore strenghtening their realtionship.
and cases of unwanted pregnancies due to teenage sex, unsafe sex, premarital sex, and so many reasons, well, you have a choice, right?
you chose to have sex, so therefore you can also choose not to abort the baby. after all, it's all because of you that the baby is made, right?
dont waste a life just because of irrationality that "omg, i will lost my teenage life" wtf! it's all your fault, isn't it? it's not the baby's!
or "omg, i can't have the baby coz he wont marry me..." wtf! confide in him and tell him of your situation.
or your raped... well, obviously, the woman's right is violated, but between violation of life or violation of rights, the life comes first, isn't it? like what k1300 had said. life comes first before rights.

__________________

LightDreamer

Yes, only after you put your head into a discussion you hadn't been invited into.



o.o an IT! Since when have definitions ever been useless? Kindness, empathy, sympathy, distaste. All human emotions. I watched these 2 birds flying together, one flew into my window, it died, the other one watched and waited for it to get up, when it realized it wasn't getting up, it flew away. Now had a human watched a fellow companion get hit by a car on the way home, do you think it would just wait long enough to see if it were dead before walking away? no? I call that sad. I'd look up the definition for you, but you seem to be against them. If you are against documented definition, I can only suppose you must make up your own. Which constitutes a 'weak' arguement. Newborn = homosapiens, have human form, show acts of weakness [ie crying]/ fragility, show acts of sadness [ie crying], show acts of happiness [ie laughing]. I'd say plenty of those definitions fit a newborn.

Then what makes a fetus different then a plant? can you give me just reasons to kill a dandelion that don't also conclude reasons to kill a fetus? Heck even a dandelion is bigger and prettier than a fetus. Yes it matters, becuase something so incredibly dependent on another being to live makes it matter. A newborn has a mind, is learning, is breathing, is creating memories every second it lives, it recognizes it's mother, it's father, will eventually learn painful facts of life, like walking into the coffee table is a bad thing as well as standing up underneath one. Whereas a fetus won't do anything at all till it becomes a newborn. A fetus does nothing in comparison to a real human, though has a chance to become a real human, it is not yet one. The only thing you could conclude about a fetus being a human is that it has homo sapien genetics.

I have no idea wat you're trying to say. You just asked a question answered a million times over.

It's simple, the guy can't rape the girl becuase that will be violating another human being's rights. The girl can abort the fetus, because she can do that within her own rights as a human being, against something that is growing inside her, that many countries do not see as a human being. That's pretty much it. The fetus in our eyes is not a human being, that is why it is illegal to rape a girl, and not abort. [at least in my country]

__________________
GUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHHHHHH (now imagine that 100 billion decibels louder than your average fire truck alarm and you will get the summation of my feelings towards your childish bickering)

--
If you gave me the letters hrt you could give me [ea] to get h[ea]rt or [u] to get h[u]rt, but I'd rather have hurt than a heart without [u]
- GOD I love that. You could give me a hundred thousand million years and I wouldn't have thought of that.

--
All this time I've spent trying to change into someone you would love, I didn't notice you changed into someone I can't love anymore. Goodbye My King .

---

The adulation of strangers.

GAma_Oyabun

geez...this debate has undergone a nasty turn....anyway, u can look anywhere and it wont say a baby inside the mother's womb is a parasite. as i said before, the mother is making a new being in order to continue the line of species. thats the rule of nature. eat, poop, and then reproduce. The last thing a species wants is to go extinct. a parasite as stated above is something that takes from the host and does not give back in any way, shape or form. the baby continues the line and allows the species to continue to survive

__________________


FC's
owner of the Village Brawl fc ^^-----LIKE RPGS??? join Village BRAWL FC>..the original rpg fc

member of the Fruits Basket Fc

ColaBear_BiteMe09

just depedning. i mean i dont think its right at all. its takeing a life; murder. no mtter how u put it. but i do think if ur raped and are preg. it is ..well not ok..but prehibitable. even tho i still dont agree with it.

__________________




/\ /\
(O.O) Meow!
(> <)

kakashi1300

a big HA HA HA again. can you present me a valid proof that newborns cry because they are sad? laugh because they're happy? all of those are emotions. can you show me that newborns have already emotions? true emotions, i mean. all of those you've mentioned are just ways of the infant to communicate what they are feeling right now, and they are comfort and discomfort. smiling and crying can be triggered through the brainstem stimulation. so researchers say that it works the same way as in the case of newborns. their smiling and crying are only triggered by their brainstem due to the absence or presence of some stimulus. therfore newborns doesn't fit on that definition of humans. kindness, empathy, sympathy, distaste, are all of them present already on the newborns?


1. simple. a dandelion is a plant, a fetus is a human. plants are easily expendable, humans are not. laws protect humans, not plants.

2. a newborn is also dependent on others. can you tell me it can survive on it's own? even you, can you suvive on your own? a fetus has also a chance to learn, will eventually show emotions, will recognize it's parents someday, and all of the cases you've mentioned that will happen to a newborn. the only difference is that a fetus will learn them months later than a newborn.

as far as i know, that question is not yet answered because all you do is bring up definitions and draw conclusions to that, which is not valid. what i'm trying to say is bring up facts, not definitions. do you think you can use definions only when making conclusions in case studies or thesis reports?


1. a fetus is not a human, you say? if it's not then what organism it is?

2. i've been telling you that your perception of fetuses as not humans has no basis at all. and perceptions does not matter here as much as morals and religions does not matter. it is subjective. do you make your laws based on your perception? now, my point on fetuses are humans is based on science, not on my perception. do you believe in science?

3. that something that is growing inside the mother is no way a part of the mother. it is a completely different individual. she may have a right over her internal organs, but she has no right to kill a human. if she wants to abort the fetus, she's violating the right to life of the fetus.

well, i see you have a point. see, if they are still continuing to argue about fetus-mother relationship then it follows that it's the same to all mammals. but i haven't seen biology regarding it as parasitism.

__________________
Hey Language Gringos Check This Out:
fsi-language-courses.com

LightDreamer

When a newborn baby comes out of the mother's womb, what is the first thing the doctor does after it cuts the umbilico cord? Spanks the baby, to make it cry, so it starts to breathe. There you have it, the first true human emotion, reaction to pain, which evidentally starts life, life invoked by emotion you could say. When a baby eats a food it doesn't like and makes a face, that is distaste. When a baby wakes up in the middle of the night only to realize that it's alone, it starts to cry, why? Because it's lonely, it's scared. I can't honestly say that babies show all emotions, babies are fairly selfish humans. However, there is a video of me as a baby where my mom is trying to feed me and everytime I put food into my mouth I'd pick up another piece of food from my bowl and shove my hand out to her, giving her some. o.o you could say that's irrelevant, and I don't wanna sound proud by saying it, but I'd say that's a show of some very simple form of kindness. Peek-a-boo with a baby; amusement? Does screaming at a baby not make it cry?

Yeah? And my laws protect humans, not fetus.

A fetus is dependent on a significant single other. A newborn is dependent on other human contact. A fetus has a chance to learn as soon as it becomes a newborn, however it is not a newborn. And you were the one asking me the difference between a newborn and a fetus, and i have told you. A fetus does not do human things, until it is a newborn, before then, it does nothing.

Facts? What facts? I can't prove to you that fetus aren't human by facts, only by definition, which is obviously wat I'm doing, but you're not satisfied, and that my good man is not my problem. Becuase fetus by definition is not human, but you're all...no way man, definition doesn't mean shit. Fetus are homo sapiens purely by their genetics, and nothing else. I can say shit like that too, I have a chance at being the prime minister one day, I have the chance to become a hobo, I have a chance at getting into Queen's university, I have a chance of flunking all my exams. Hell I have a chance at being a boy if I really felt like it and could come up with them money. However, you can't bring things that 'could happen' into an arguement, you have to bring nows, and presents. Presently, fetus have been proven not to be sentient until 3-4 weeks, meaning though it has a 'chance' to be a newborn baby, it is not yet, in fact thus far it is a clump of genetic cells, that science is able to abort, and thus 'has the chance of never existing'


iunno, I don't really care.

Wtf? what are your 'laws' based off of then? you're not allowed to kill ppl becuase it's bad for the economy? Becuase stats say raping ppl causes overall IQ to go down? What exactly ARE your laws based off of if not perception and morals? Laws here are not built off of MY perception, per say. But they are built off of the perception of a community. Hell, the law in your country saying that abortions are illegal is the 'perception' that fetus are human, and are thus protected by the law. Yet the laws here say fetus are part of the girl, therefore is not protected by the law, and can be aborted; that my friend is the perception of the government, and community and overall majority perception. Not by science and statistics.

Science proves that fetus aren't sentient until 3-4 weeks, science can take an aborted fetus and use it to create specific cells to help a dying human being who already exists, who someone already loves, who someone will hurt terribly to see die. See that's where I think it's sick, ppl are stopping girls from getting abortions becuase they see it as a human life yet lived, but what they don't look at is this 'baby' will be born into a life where the mother doesn't even want it in the first place, the dad could have denied being the biological father, it will grow up in a possibly terribly atmosphere, however the aborted fetus could have been used as stem cell research and help save future lives of people who are already loved dearly, who's loved ones are desperately clinging to the hope that science can save them. Do I believe in science? Yes I do.

You are a very religious fellow. Has science ever proved to you that souls exist? That there is life after death? Or do you just have faith? That killing someone will cause you to go to hell? What again is the reason you disagree with abortion? Ah yes, becuase that's a human spirit you've just stopped, and only god can give and take life. Now, do you believe in science?

If it is a completely different individual then in no way should it have to rely on the mother, oh woops there's where you're wrong. Sorry, she does have a rights over it, becuase she controls it, she's housing it, it's her body. A baby is a completely different individual becuase it does not rely on one person to live or die. If a pregnant lady dies, does the baby not die with her? Therefore, no it is not yet a completely different individual.

__________________
GUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHHHHHH (now imagine that 100 billion decibels louder than your average fire truck alarm and you will get the summation of my feelings towards your childish bickering)

--
If you gave me the letters hrt you could give me [ea] to get h[ea]rt or [u] to get h[u]rt, but I'd rather have hurt than a heart without [u]
- GOD I love that. You could give me a hundred thousand million years and I wouldn't have thought of that.

--
All this time I've spent trying to change into someone you would love, I didn't notice you changed into someone I can't love anymore. Goodbye My King .

---

The adulation of strangers.

kakashi1300

i told you, all of the events you've mentioned aren't really emotions. they're just merely the ways of an infant to communicate. because they can't speak. they can't say "mom, i'm hungry." dogs scream when spanked, they show a facial expression similar to a smile when given food. shout to a dog or cat and they will run away. do they have emotions then? does that make them more human than fetuses? scared? lonely? see, emotions are controlled by our cerebrum. but our cerebrum is not yet functioning to it's fullest during the neonatal stage.

fetuses are humans.

do you think means really matter? the fact remains that we are all dependent for support. newborns, us, fetuses, we are all the same. it's just happens that by it's nature, fetuses are dependent by directly taking from the mother nutrients. as newborns, we are taking the money needed to by for our milk that is supposed to be for other means, such as for the pleasure of the mother. the mother also experience discomforts such as having to wake up at night because our dear baby is crying, we need to prepare milk and change diapers, etc. how is that different from a fetus? aristotle's concept of substance and accidents: substantially, we are all dependent; accidentally we have different means of getting support.


aren't we all made up of "clumps of genetic cells"? what makes it different? we have all chances of being killed, you, me, newborns, all of us has a chance of not existing. a fetus existed, so you cannot say it "never existed". and definitions really are useless because philosophy, biology, politics, and other fields of study have different definitions of a same term. i dunno where was your definition based.

i don't think it is because of the "general perception" of the government or people that the abortion law is created. review the case of roe vs. wade.

so, you're saying sentience matters? since it's not sentient it's worth expendable? chickens, pigs, and cows are sentient, therefore they should be protected against slaughtering? guinea pigs are sentient, therefore we should create laws against using them as research specimen that involves killing them? and besides, in that stem-cell research thing, no need to cry out the significance of the project in the future because first of all adult cells can be used which will not result in killing them.

i believe in God, i believe in science. they are not opposite things so you can't tell me that i should choose only one. now, most of you here (i dunno about you) said that in debating this thing we should not use religion, morals, or ethics. so i just played their game and used science instead to defend my belief. even catholic leaders debating on this topic used science to defend their point.

it's not her body. it just happens that it is residing inside the mother accidentally, but substantially it's an individual already (aristotle's concept of substance and accidents). and there are chances where the mother dies but the fetuses live to see daylight (esp. if they reach the 6th month). the fetus is not part of her body. if it is then what particular part of her body? what organ? what tissue?

__________________
Hey Language Gringos Check This Out:
fsi-language-courses.com