Mathematicians say that the inside is the same as the outside

A cancer cell in the lung had no choice in being there either. But you still cut it out.

 

Easy. The only entity that can turn a non-pregnant woman into a pregnant one is a fertilized ovum that has successfully implanted into uterine wall. The woman made a choice to have sex, not a choice to become pregnant, look up the difference between actual cause and legal cause.

Factual Cause - http://definitions.uslegal.com/a/actual-cause/
Legal Cause - http://definitions.uslegal.com/l/legal-cause/

The Legal cause of pregnancy

Pregnancy is not caused by a male. Pregnancy can only be caused by a fertilized ovum. There are two relationships, one is the sexual relationship between a man and a woman, the other is a pregnancy relationship between a zef and a woman.
While a man can cause a woman to engage in a sexual relationship with him he cannot cause a woman's body to change from a non-pregnant state to a pregnant one, the only entity that can achieve that is a fertilized ovum when it implants itself into the uterus (which is the generally accepted start of pregnancy). Thus although a fetus and woman can have a pregnancy relationship they cannot have a sexual relationship, and obviously a man cannot have a pregnancy or sexual relationship with a fetus.
So although a sexual relationship between a man and a woman usually precede a pregnancy relationship between a woman and a fetus the two relationships are by no means the same. what is more, not only is it the fertilized ovum, rather than the man, that joins with a woman in a pregnancy relationship, but it is the fertilized ovum, not the man, that is the primary cause of that relationship. The only way a woman will ever be pregnant id if a fertilized ovum implants itself and stays there, and the only way to terminate the condition of pregnancy in a woman's body is to remove the cause pf that pregnancy; the fertilized ovum (or fetus in later stages). Under the law, therefore, it is the fertilized ovum or fetus, not a man, that is the primary cause of pregnancy.
How to assess causality, whether of pregnancy or any other matter, is one of the most complex questions in the legal field. Often the law must determine cause in order to assess who or what is responsible for events or damages. The law makes that determination by assessing casual links, that is, by identifying the sequence of events, or chains, that explain how or why an event occurred. The law tries to consider only the causes that are "so closely connected with the result" -Source : Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts - Page 264 that it makes sense to regard them as responsible for it. In the process, courts distinguish between two main types of causes; factual causes, which explains in a broad context why an event occurred, and legal causes, which constitute the sole or primary reason for an event's occurrence.
A factual cause can be thought of as necessary but not sufficient cause of an event, there are two types of factual cause - 1. casual links, 2. "but for" causes, the former increases the chances that another event will occur but do not cause the actual event itself (Source : Calabresi - Concerning Cause and the Law of Torts - Page 71) and the latter are acts or activities "without which a particular injury would not have occurred", yet not sufficient in itself for its occurrence eg. If a woman jogs in Central Park at ten o-clock at night although such activity increases the chances they may be beaten, raped or murdered, it does not actually cause those events to occur; someone else has to do the beating, raping or murdering. Exposing oneself to the risk of injury, therefore, while it may be a necessary, factual cause of that injury, does not mean it is the sufficient, legal cause. The person who does the beating, raping or murdering are the necessary and sufficient cause of the injuries, and thus are the legal cause.
Among the virtually infinite number of necessary factual causes the task of the law is to locate the one necessary and sufficient cause of the event, that is, the legal cause. The legal cause is "that which is nearest in the order of responsible causation .. the primary or moving cause ... the lat negligent act contributory to an injury, without which such an injury would not have resulted. The dominant, moving or producing cause" - Source : Black's Law Dictionary 6th Ed Page 1225, the legal cause is, therefore, both a necessary and sufficient condition to explain why an event occurred.

This legal distinction between factual and legal causes relates to the distinction between sexual intercourse, cause by a man, and pregnancy, caused by a fertilized ovum. A man, by virtue of being the cause of sexual intercourse, becomes a factual cause of pregnancy. By moving his sperm into a woman's body through sexual intercourse, he provides a necessary but not sufficient condition for her body to change from a nonpregnant to a pregnant condition, not until a fertilized ovum is conceived does it's presence actually change her body from a nonpregnant to a pregnant state. For this reason, since pregnancy is condition that follows absolutely from the presence of a fertilized ovum in a woman's body, it can be identified as the fertilized ovum to be the legal cause of a woman's pregnancy state.
In the case of most pregnancies, men and sexual intercourse are a necessary condition that increase the chances of pregnancy by putting a woman at risk to become pregnant, but the conception of a fertilized ovum in a woman's body and its implantation are the necessary and sufficient conditions that actually make her pregnant. What men cause in sexual intercourse is merely on or the factual sequential links involved in pregnancy; the transportation of sperm from their body to the body of a woman. Moving sperm into a woman's body, however, is not the legal, or most important, cause of a woman's pregnant condition, it is merely a preceding factual cause that puts her at risk of becoming pregnant. Once a man has ejaculated his sperm into the vagina of a woman there is nothing more he can do to affect the subsequent casual links that lead to pregnancy. There is no way he can cause his sperm to move, or not to move, to the site of fertilization, nor can he control whether the sperm will fuse with the ovum or not, for this reason is makes no sense to say a man causes conception, much less that a man causes pregnancy. Until a fertilized ovum conceives an implants itself into a woman's body pregnancy cannot occur. Sexual intercourse, therefore, although commonly a factual cause of pregnancy, cannot be viewed as the "controlling agency" or legal cause of pregnancy. The fertilized ovum's implantation accomplishes that task.
While the man depositing his sperm inside the vagina may possibly set in motion a sequence of events that may or may not lead to the implantation of a fertilized ovum in the woman's uterus, the law does not identify events that set things in motion as the legal cause of eventual consequences.

Sexual intercourse falls therefore under the "but for" factual cause ie without men there would be no sperm; "but for" sperm, there would be no fertilized ova; "but for" fertilized ova, there would be no implantation in the uterus; "but for" implantation by fertilized ova in a woman's uterus, there would be no sustained pregnancies.

A man is a necessary factual cause in the chain of events that can lead to pregnancy .. but a man is not the legal cause
A man depositing sperm into the vagina is- for the most - a necessary factual cause in the chain of events that can lead to pregnancy .. but is not the legal cause.
The sperm fertilizing the ova is a necessary and significant cause in the chain of events that can lead to pregnancy, this is the legal cause.

----------------------

Do you have a response to post #24?

 

if it's the same on the outside as the inside, why do you have a issue with the fetus being removed from the inside

 

From a topological point of view, a body with a womb is not comparable to a hollow sphere, Joakim. A body with an uterus is topologically the same as one without. There is no barrier that separates a hypothetical inside of an uterus from the outside world (*). Let me illustrate my claim.



As you can see, there is no clear separation between the outside of the womb and the inside. There are merely some more narrow sections like the vulva or cervix. Therefore, you can imagine that it's possible to turn all of this inside out without making an incision anywhere (I apologize for this disconcerting line of thought). It's comparable to turning a sock inside out. It can be done without making a cut or pinching the surface anywhere. In maths speak, there is a continuous map between a body with an uterus and a body without one, which makes the two topologically identical.

Unfortunately, all of this is moot anyway. Topology is not an adequate tool to examine the pros and cons of abortion. The topological level of abstraction is far too extreme to gain any insight into the incitracies of the issue at hand. However, I still appreciate that you brought this up, because it made me realize that differing levels of abstraction have some relevance here. One of the main efforts of the pro-life movement is to show that there is hardly a difference between an embryo, fetus, newborn or even child. It is an abstraction to group all of these terms into one category: the young, developing human life, often called a baby. In my humble opinion, a lot gets lost when this abstraction is made. I think that it's valid to make a distinction between a child and an embryo, which has no will of its own, no sense of self, no memories, knows neither joy nor sadness, and so much more...

(*) I know little about anatomy, but after a little research I found one exception to this, called an imperforate hymen. As the name suggest, it's a congenital disorder where the hymen completely obstructs the vagina. Fewer than 1 in 1000 females are affected by this.

 

I have heard some fascinating arguments in favor of restricting abortion but this one takes the cake. Poor women, they just cannot overcome biology and their male masters. Women own their bodies. You don't, I don't, the Pope doesn't and a zygote or fetus doesn't.

 

"""" Women own their bodies. """"""........and women have the right to decide if they want an abortion or a pregnancy.....and THAT is what upsets Anti-Choicers so much.

Those uppity women doing exactly as they please!!

 

Yep. I think the men who force women to bear children are the same types who go to bed and say honey "Let's get it on." She says "not tonight, I am tired and the kids wore me out." He replies "so what, take those panties off". Women as property, it's a timeless tragedy. Sorry to be so crude but this is exactly the type of mentality expressed by forced maternity whether it be via religion or culture. Women finally got power in the 60's and it drives these people nuts. I got news for all you pro-lifers out there, the cat is not getting back into that bag. Women have power and they are not going to give it up, no way, no how.

 

If it was all just a matter of spatial geometry, then yes, there would be nothing wrong with doing that. That was my original point, the physical location—who is on the inside and who is physically surrounding on the outside—is irrelevant.

 

it's very relevant , ones has no right to be inside a women's body without their permission and if at anytime they say get out, one must get out

 

It makes no more sense to say the woman has the right because it's inside her body than it does to say the fetus is the one with the ultimate right because the woman's body is surrounding it.

Look, from a mathematical perspective, looking at it from a point of reference from inside the fetus, it is topologically as if the fetus is surrounding the woman's body, who in turn is surrounding all the outside space in the entire universe. The two frames of reference are analogous.

 

the fetus can leave anytime it wants, the women can kick it out of her body anytime she wants

 

The fetus temporarily has a right to stay attached. It's not just her body anymore.
Ever hear about easements in real estate? It's when you're the owner of a piece of property but there are certain control rights to that property you have forfeited over to someone else.

 

Does that forfeit include being injured without consent, let me know when you can find a single case of a person being denied the right to defend themselves against non-consented injuries, until then your just creating unicorn fantasies.

 

The OP is so absurd and irrelevant that to debate it is pointless.

 

This is so, so tiresome. I can barely rouse myself to respond. But I suppose I must.

You are correct in a trivial sense. It's not the location on the fetus that is at issue, it's the status of the fetus that matters. Specifically, its status as a legally-protected person. So is it, or is it not?

 

It IS JUST her body, now and forever. A woman is also not real estate. A woman can give or loan the use of parts of her body to others, but it is entirely under her control to decide, there are no easements on her body.

 

An interesting psychological study....

men who desperately desire to control women and their bodies....

because they are incapable of convincing a woman to voluntarily give her body to them sexually?

 

How's that workin' out for ya ?

 

And what ever the fetus is is irrelevant anyway.

If it is not a person then the female has all the right to remove it, if it is a person then it has no right to impose injury on to another person without consent.

 

You are arguing that no one has rights over their own body. A topic that the mathematics does not address.

 

Yes, but the fetus is within the woman's body, not in the woman's body, this is an important mathematical distinction to make. Topology does not recognize an inner space surrounded by a shell as actually being "in" that shell.

In other words, to try to translate this mathematical terminology into easy to understand English, the empty space inside of the uterus does not automatically fall under the woman's dominion.

 

And whose dominion does it fall under? Yours? The government's ?

 

Yeah, it does. Automatically fall under the woman's dominion if the uterus is IN or WITHIN her body. This business of "in" or "within" is just so much hogwash. It boggles the mind to see the lengths controllers will go to.

https://www.google.com/search?q=def....69i57j0l5.14272j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
expressing the situation of something that is or appears to be enclosed or surrounded by something else.


https://www.google.com/search?q=def....69i57j0l5.10495j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

with·in
wəˈT͟Hin,wəˈTHin/
preposition
1.
inside (something).
"the spread of fire within the building"
synonyms: inside, in, enclosed by, surrounded by;

 

Vatican City is geographically located within the nation of Italy but is not technically a part of it. Would it be fair to say Vatican City is "in" Italy?

 

You're comparing a woman's body to Italy? What is the point?