mismi40 wrote:Parasite...well in my small and sheltered world - I have never seen a parasite turn into anything more than a bigger parasite. The beginnings of most things are simple but there is purpose in their beginning...they become something. Actually calling a fetus a parasite sounds like yet another conscience quelling trick to me. Because a fetus has purpose - when it is conceived it is well on it's way to becoming a baby unless terminated naturally or by abortion. When a parasite is hatched - it simply continues being a parasite.
I am sure that I have missed reading this somewhere else - and you all have discussed it - I have been going back and skimming the best I can any new information I can find. Granted, I am not the most brilliant or well versed person in this - so what I say is simply my opinion - no more...though the more I read the more I am convinced that I am right. :wink:
I'm glad some posts make sense to me. Thanks mismi!
I wonder why parasites don't normally EVOLVE into human beings? lol
Bartikus wrote:So a woman getting an abortion cannot be regarded as a mother....but a mere host?
A pregnant woman is a pregnant woman, whether she has an abortion or not. I guess she becomes a mother when she has a baby. I guess that's why the term "Mother-to-be" exists.
What you are trying to do is load the language with emotive propaganda, instead of looking at the actual facts of the situation, and the biology involved.
Eorl wrote:Bartikus wrote:So a woman getting an abortion cannot be regarded as a mother....but a mere host?
A pregnant woman is a pregnant woman, whether she has an abortion or not. I guess she becomes a mother when she has a baby. I guess that's why the term "Mother-to-be" exists.
What you are trying to do is load the language with emotive propaganda, instead of looking at the actual facts of the situation, and the biology involved.
You said that the unborn were parasites...special but parasites none the less.
Parasites require hosts to live right?
A woman getting an abortion is a host! Right? These "facts" came from you NO?
Do you now have a problem with these "facts"?
A woman getting an abortion is more a host than a mother?
Bartikus wrote:Eorl wrote:Bartikus wrote:So a woman getting an abortion cannot be regarded as a mother....but a mere host?
A pregnant woman is a pregnant woman, whether she has an abortion or not. I guess she becomes a mother when she has a baby. I guess that's why the term "Mother-to-be" exists.
What you are trying to do is load the language with emotive propaganda, instead of looking at the actual facts of the situation, and the biology involved.
You said that the unborn were parasites...special but parasites none the less.
Parasites require hosts to live right?
A woman getting an abortion is a host! Right? These "facts" came from you NO?
Do you now have a problem with these "facts"?
You are missing the point.
Sure, if you want to call them hosts, you can. Why are you are trying to separate women having abortions from women who carry to term? My wife was certainly a wonderful host to both of my beautiful ex-parasites. (Actually, the relationship is still quite parasitic, but less so, because we get a lot back from them.)
Eorl wrote:Bartikus wrote:Eorl wrote:Bartikus wrote:So a woman getting an abortion cannot be regarded as a mother....but a mere host?
A pregnant woman is a pregnant woman, whether she has an abortion or not. I guess she becomes a mother when she has a baby. I guess that's why the term "Mother-to-be" exists.
What you are trying to do is load the language with emotive propaganda, instead of looking at the actual facts of the situation, and the biology involved.
You said that the unborn were parasites...special but parasites none the less.
Parasites require hosts to live right?
A woman getting an abortion is a host! Right? These "facts" came from you NO?
Do you now have a problem with these "facts"?
You are missing the point.
Sure, if you want to call them hosts, you can. Why are you are trying to separate women having abortions from women who carry to term? My wife was certainly a wonderful host to both of my beautiful ex-parasites. (Actually, the relationship is still quite parasitic, but less so, because we get a lot back from them.)
I don't consider women hosts....you did...when you called the unborn parasites. Your missing the point.
But I can call them hosts? Thanks.
Barticus, have you just been missing my posts? Or do you not have a response to my arguments? Because the more you harp on that single word from my post, the more it looks like you don't have a response to the rest of them. Cowboy up.
fungotheclown wrote:Barticus, have you just been missing my posts? Or do you not have a response to my arguments? Because the more you harp on that single word from my post, the more it looks like you don't have a response to the rest of them. Cowboy up.
I have'nt read much of your arguments. Sorry. You have'nt responded much to my counter claims so don't feel bad.
Eorl wrote:Bartikus wrote:Eorl wrote:Bartikus wrote:So a woman getting an abortion cannot be regarded as a mother....but a mere host?
A pregnant woman is a pregnant woman, whether she has an abortion or not. I guess she becomes a mother when she has a baby. I guess that's why the term "Mother-to-be" exists.
What you are trying to do is load the language with emotive propaganda, instead of looking at the actual facts of the situation, and the biology involved.
You said that the unborn were parasites...special but parasites none the less.
Parasites require hosts to live right?
A woman getting an abortion is a host! Right? These "facts" came from you NO?
Do you now have a problem with these "facts"?
You are missing the point.
Sure, if you want to call them hosts, you can. Why are you are trying to separate women having abortions from women who carry to term? My wife was certainly a wonderful host to both of my beautiful ex-parasites. (Actually, the relationship is still quite parasitic, but less so, because we get a lot back from them.)
So your wife went from being a host to a mother when the parasite was born? Then why do you not see why I seperate a woman who gets an abortion and one who carries to term?
A woman is not a mother to be let alone a mother when getting an abortion is she? She remains just a host right....according to your "facts"! Right?
Which counter claims haven't I responded too? The endless harping on a single word? I'm sorry, I try to focus on actual points rather than responding to emotionally driven, unthinking propaganda. I've found over the years that such nonsense is usually a waste of time. But if I missed something important, please, bring it back up so I can address it.
fungotheclown wrote:Which counter claims haven't I responded too? The endless harping on a single word? I'm sorry, I try to focus on actual points rather than responding to emotionally driven, unthinking propaganda. I've found over the years that such nonsense is usually a waste of time. But if I missed something important, please, bring it back up so I can address it.
Is that what the term parasite is regarding the unborn? An emotionally driven unthinking propaganda? I knew that already. Just wanted to hear you say it.
Keep your parasitic propaganda to yourself then k?
I am not you k?
Barticus, I can argue that past point, but I see it would be futile. You clearly don't want to let this go, but whatever. Again, I'm going to ask that you either point out your arguments that I haven't addressed, or respond to mine.
Quote:So, I'm still waiting to hear back from a few of you on this...
Real Life said
Quote:
War is morally justifiable as self defense.
How is killing the innocent anything like defending oneself (or one's country) to the death against an aggressor?
Many states have laws under which you can be charged with murder of the unborn, (for instance, when you shoot a pregnant woman and both she and the baby die).
Do you agree that you should be held liable for two murders in this situation?
Why or why not?
I said
Quote:
First off, I don't think that self-defense is the only valid justification for war. I seriously doubt you do either. If you do, the American Revolutionary War was unjustified, because the colonists were not in danger. The American Civil War was not justified, because those who led and fought the majority of it were not in danger. Really, with the exception of a war with genocide as its goal, no war is justified, because simply accepting the aggressor's rule would almost certainly result in a lower loss of human life than resisting.
Second, I think the second murder charge as well as the legality of the abortion should be dependent on the level of the fetuses development. I agree that late-term and partial-birth abortions are wrong, but I don't think that a fertilized egg or early fetus is a human being. The nervous system is completely undeveloped, and it is completely dependent on the mother for survival. It's a parasite, one that we like, but a parasite nonetheless. It's closer to a leech or tapeworm than it is to a human being. In my eyes, the morning after pill is morally equivalent to tapeworm meds.
There are plenty of things that are morally justifiable, or even morally necessary, that we try to limit. Police actions, operations, laws in general, etc. You still haven't shown this this line of thinking to be a valid argument.
I've heard a lot about the word parasite, but nothing about the actual arguments, being that there are other moral justifications for war than self defense, and that a fetus lacks a central nervous system developed enough to be considered murder. I'm looking at you reallife, these arguments were made in direct response to your argument. So far, they've been unchallenged by the group. Seems you might want to refute them...
If you say that the only way to justify a war is through self defense, then really the only war that is justified is one that resists genocide, because resisting anything else would almost assuredly cost more lives than the invasion itself (i.e. if you surrender, you'll be better off in teh long run in terms of a body count, unless your enemies goal is not to take land or resources, but merely to exterminate you).
Does that help?
fungotheclown wrote:If you say that the only way to justify a war is through self defense, then really the only war that is justified is one that resists genocide, because resisting anything else would almost assuredly cost more lives than the invasion itself (i.e. if you surrender, you'll be better off in teh long run in terms of a body count, unless your enemies goal is not to take land or resources, but merely to exterminate you).
Does that help?
If I say?
Did I say? or did RL? Why are you asking me then? Why must I answer?
Ask him!
Does that help? No your response does'nt help! RL and I are different persons k?
RL you must be flattered? lol just kidding.
By the way you have not explained whether you think there is 1 or more reasons....you said both. Maybe you can explain it when addressing RL!?
NEWSFLASH FOR FUNGO........beep beep beep. This just in....
Rl did not say self defense was the ONLY justification for war either!
Who did fungo?
Using "If you say..." was being used to indicate a hypothetical statement, not to indicate that someone had actually made that claim. Sorry for the confusion. As for the 1 or more reasons, I was preemptively addressing the question of why I think there are more than one. Is there any other way you would like to convolute my statements to skirt the issues?
Most women are not finding out they are pregnant until they are around 6 weeks pregnant. The fetus has 100% of it's genetic makeup determined already, intentionally moving toward becoming a baby. Just two weeks later at 8 weeks the baby actually does have neuro-anatomic structures...a sensory nerve, a thalamus and motor nerves - it apparently is still being studied but many do believe that because these things are in place the baby is feeling pain - it reacts to pain, so logical thinking would say it is in pain.
As far as being a parasite -
a) A parasite is defined as an organism of one species living in or on an organism of another species (a heterospecific relationship) and deriving its nourishment from the host (is metabolically dependent on the host). (See Cheng, T.C., General Parasitology, p. 7, 1973.)
b) A human embryo or fetus is an organism of one species (Homo sapiens) living in the uterine cavity of an organism of the same species (Homo sapiens) and deriving its nourishment from the mother (is metabolically dependent on the mother). This homospecific relationship is an obligatory dependent relationship, but not a parasitic relationship.
a) A parasite is an invading organism -- coming to parasitize the host from an outside source.
b) A human embryo or fetus is formed from a fertilized egg -- the egg coming from an inside source, being formed in the ovary of the mother from where it moves into the oviduct where it may be fertilized to form the zygote -- the first cell of the new human being.
a) A parasite is generally harmful to some degree to the host that is harboring the parasite.
b) A human embryo or fetus developing in the uterine cavity does not usually cause harm to the mother, although it may if proper nutrition and care is not maintained by the mother.
a) A parasite makes direct contact with the host's tissues, often holding on by either mouth parts, hooks or suckers to the tissues involved (intestinal lining, lungs, connective tissue, etc.).
b) A human embryo or fetus makes direct contact with the uterine lining of the mother for only a short period of time. It soon becomes isolated inside its own amniotic sac, and from that point on makes indirect contact with the mother only by way of the umbilical cord and placenta.
a) When a parasite invades host tissue, the host tissue will sometimes respond by forming a capsule (of connective tissue) to surround the parasite and cut it off from other surrounding tissue (examples would be Paragonimus westermani, lung fluke, or Oncocerca volvulus, a nematode worm causing cutaneous filariasis in the human).
b) When the human embryo or fetus attaches to and invades the lining tissue of the mother's uterus, the lining tissue responds by surrounding the human embryo and does not cut it off from the mother, but rather establishes a means of close contact (the placenta) between the mother and the new human being.
a) When a parasite invades a host, the host will usually respond by forming antibodies in response to the somatic antigens (molecules comprising the body of the parasite) or metabolic antigens (molecules secreted or excreted by the parasite) of the parasite. Parasitism usually involves an immunological response on the part of the host. (See Cheng, T.C., General Parasitology, p. 8.)
b) New evidence, presented by Beer and Billingham in their article, "The Embryo as a Transplant" (Scientific American, April, 1974), indicates that the mother does react to the presence of the embryo by producing humoral antibodies, but they suggest that the trophoblast -- the jacket of cells surrounding the embryo -- blocks the action of these antibodies and therefore the embryo or fetus is not rejected. This reaction is unique to the embryo-mother relationship.
a) A parasite is generally detrimental to the reproductive capacity of the invaded host. The host may be weakened, diseased or killed by the parasite, thus reducing or eliminating the host's capacity to reproduce.
b) A human embryo or fetus is absolutely essential to the reproductive capacity of the involved mother (and species). The mother is usually not weakened, diseased or killed by the presence of the embryo or fetus, but rather is fully tolerant of this offspring which must begin his or her life in this intimate and highly specialized relationship with the mother.
a) A parasite is an organism that, once it invades the definitive host, will usually remain with host for life (as long as it or the host survives).
b) A human embryo or fetus has a temporary association with the mother, remaining only a number of months in the uterus.
A parasite is an organism that associates with the host in a negative, unhealthy and nonessential (nonessential to the host) manner which will often damage the host and detrimentally affect the procreative capacity of the host (and species).
A human embryo or fetus is a human being that associates with the mother in a positive,healthful essential manner necessary for the procreation of the species.
[This data was compiled by Thomas L. Johnson, Professor of Biology, Mary Washington College, Fredericksburg, VA. Professor Johnson teaches Chordate Embryology and Parasitology. This is reprinted, with the author's permission, from the National Right to Life News, April-May, 1974. It also appears in "The Position of Modern Science on the Beginning of Human Life," by Scientists for Life. $1.75 plus postage for two ounces for each copy to: Sun Life, 2399 Cool Springs Road, Thaxton, VA 24174, 540/586-4898.]
Found it to be interesting reading...still researching though. But I am thinking that calling it a parasite because it relies on the "host" for it's nourishment may be a bit of a stretch...at least according to this - and honestly - I know there is something for pro-choice folks that will say the opposite and support what they believe - in other words - we believe what we want to believe. Only experiencing something profound would change your mind...it's easy for those of us who had children to say it is wonderful and awe inspiring to have a child, or to know the devastation of losing a "fetus" when you so desperately wanted a child, or know the relief of knowing you dodged a bullet after taking the morning after pill or aborted the "fetus", or the anguish of thinking that somehow, you might have just done something that was really horrid...It seems to me that there is no clear answer as long as the ones that are biased are the ones determining the criteria. There are no impartial judges here.
But were I to err - I would err on the side of taking into account that more things than not point to a life carried by a "mother" (source of origin as defined by Websters Dictionary) which does feel pain, which can fulfill what it was conceived for determined by biology (live, develop, become part of society) if given the chance. Why can someone who does not want the burden of carrying a baby be the one who determines that that life is not really a life? Seems conflicted to me. But then again - I am speaking emotionally - as a Mom. So I am indeed biased.
fungotheclown wrote:Using "If you say..." was being used to indicate a hypothetical statement, not to indicate that someone had actually made that claim. Sorry for the confusion. As for the 1 or more reasons, I was preemptively addressing the question of why I think there are more than one. Is there any other way you would like to convolute my statements to skirt the issues?
WHAT?
I convoluted your hypothetical and skirt your hypothetical issues?
I convoluted nothing but, yes I will skirt your hypothetical.
Do not allow yourself to be convoluted....your discussion was with RL...not me.
Take your hypothetical to him.
"IF you say" is a hypothetical? Then ask someone who does say...ok.
a) A parasite is defined as an organism of one species living in or on an organism of another species
thanks mismi. Look...it's not a hypothetical!
