Robert Dean <robert_dean@bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
Robert Dean <robert_dean@bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
A fetus is not part of a woman's body, from a biological
prospective.
A fetus is biologically part of a pregnant woman's body.
It is biologically and genetically separate.
Claiming that a fetus that is attached to and wholly dependant upon
a
woman's body is "biologically separate" is a bald-faced lie
bordering
on insanity.
A woman's immune system would attack and destroy a fetus if it
were not _isolated_ from her immune system in embryonic fluid
in an embryonic sac.
So what? It is still not separate. In fact, separating a fetus from
the woman will typically lead to the death of the fetus unless the
pregnancy is well advanced.
A fetus is separated in embryonic fluid.
Your heart is separated from you by the pericardium.
Good point! But my heart contains the same DNA.
So what? Since when does separation depend upon DNA?
It's only physical attachment to the
woman is the embryonic cord.
Which makes it ATTACHED and not SEPARATE.
Are you really this stupid? Or is it a matter of lying to yourself in
order to justify an immoral ideology?
I disassociate myself with morality.
That much is obvious.
Except in the case of identical twins no
two are genetically the same.
Given your gross ignorance when it comes to genetics I suggest that
you not pretend that it has any relevance to anything.
You think identical twins have different genetics
You are neither smart enough nor honest enough to state what I think.
If identical twins don't have the same exact genetics why then are they
identical.
Since you claim to be an expert on genetics then surely you know that
answer, right?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
