I'm waiting for one of my study partners to make a scan, so I had a minute. the past few pages have been a failstorm if I've ever seen one.
Bart - Your coach is going to bench you if you don't improve your performance.
Bartikus wrote:Your links don't indicate a fetus as a parasite...ho hum.
My links don't indicate a list at all, it provides a definition which is qualified by a government site. It provides credibility to the definition that fungo posted of parasite.
Bartikus wrote:That's the ONLY reason? A human life has no beginning? I'm not sure what your saying. Can you clarify?
Only a MOSTLY parasitic relationship need be established? So a 51% parasitic relationship would constitute a parasite?
Humans and animals have mothers...what parasites do?
Can you provide a link that defines parasites must reproduce asexually?
Bartikus wrote:So a woman getting an abortion cannot be regarded as a mother....but a mere host?
"mere host?" Who is trivializing motherhood exactly?
Why would this definition only apply to women choosing to abort?
Bartikus wrote:Eorl wrote:Sure. Google around a bit, and you'll find plenty of medical & biological descriptions of the foetus as a parasite or it's parasitic relationship to it's mother.
(You'll find plenty of religious sites objecting to the idea too. No surprise there. It gets in the way of their romantic notion of a perfect complete mini-human person from day one.)
Some parasites have mothers, some don't. What does that have to do with anything?
Another example of picking and choosing pitches Diest? lol
Either Eorl was responding to the most recent post of yours (at that time) or he was replying to RL's post. Either way, I'm not sure how he failed to address your questions/points.
You're almost as bad of a pitcher as you are a batter.
Bartikus wrote:A woman getting an abortion is more a host than a mother?
Why only a woman choosing to abort? Your ability to define things is not very well developed. There's nothing to debate about the mother's role: She is a host. The unborn's exclusive resource for the nutrition and protection is the mother. I could care less about the definition of parasite, but the defintion of host, seems to be a profound piece of evidence as to the mother being the custodian of the rights of the unborn. Their is no other relationship such as this found in nature and because of this, having a specific set of rules for the termination of the lifeform separate from the rules that govern the termination of a born lifeform makes sense. What does not make sense is the government, having the authority to outright restrict the woman's right to choose.
The truth is that if not now, soon science will put this discussion in a whole new dynamic. Women will be able to, in very early stages, remove the embryo/zygote/fetus non-lethally. The removed lifeform could then be cryogenically frozen indefinately.
What would the pro-lifers do? Would you support this non-lethal abortion alternative? Your answer reveals your true priority. however, I've come to not expect answers from you.
Bartikus wrote: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.
I DO consider pregnant women hosts, and I don't care to refer to the unborn as a parasite, just the nature of the relationship. It's the host part that should be elaborated on. It's the host part that qualifies her and her alone the right to choose.
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.
History repeats itself.
Bartikus wrote:I have'nt read much of your arguments. Sorry. You have'nt responded much to my counter claims so don't feel bad.
On the contrary, your arguments have been monopolizing this thread for pages. By no stretch of the imagination have your points gone unanswered.
mismi40 wrote:As far as being a parasite - ...
I'm not going to cut and paste the whole thing, but your source makes a very science based argument. A good one in fact.
The source however says little to discredit that the woman is a host. I think that the hetrogenous/homogenius species fact is a great case to not define the unborn as a parasite, however, I still don't think it is unfair to refer to the mother as host, nor to make a reference to the unborn as a parasite when drawing an analogy. Recall that fungo made this relation to argue RL's post.
Example: I believe that a "seed is not a tree." This arguement makes an analogy to the unborn and a seed. It does not make the statement that "the unborn are factualy tree seeds." Bart, is attempting to derail this conversation by demanding that Fungo's post argues things it does not. Fungo is making a philosophically sound argument, and Bart is playing word games.
T
K
O
