NationStates Jolt Archive

3. Time restrictions, primarily.
How many times do you have to be told that time restrictions already exist in both law and practice?

How many times do you have to be told that the overwhelming majority of abortions occur so soon after conception that it is ridiculous to claim that a human being is being killed by it?

How many times do you have to be told that, even in Canada where there are no time restrictions in law, there are no ELECTIVE late term abortions because people just don't do that kind of thing?

How many times do you have to be told that you are decrying a problem that does not exist, that all your called-for reforms already do exist?

Your continued insistance on claiming otherwise is making you look like the most dishonest kind of anti-choicer, despite your claims otherwise.

By the way, I'm still waiting for better proof of your "baby shortage" claim or at least for an accounting of who it was you were quoting in your OP. You know why I want that? Because the "baby shortage" argument is one that was created by and is spread by racist organizations who are obsessed with the idea that white people are being "outbred" by non-whites. Did you know that?

May I remind you that I recently begged you not to kill our baby, which you in fact did proceed to eat with rasberry vinagrette mustard and that really great rye bread we got from Intangelon (and proceeded to wash down with the last bottle of that ginger beer from the hippy co-op, yet further disregard for human life)?
And it was damned tasty, let me tell you. Let's make some more!!

The fact that that's the actual definition of the word? I mean, if you want to define "parasite" as "something that is blue and made of cheese," yes, an embryo is not really anything like a parasite.

Not this shit again? Fetuses are not parasites.

Of course. Biological organisms are defined by an exhaustive list. To know what something is, you look it up on the list that we're all taught, that includes all members of that class.

Man, that unit on insects just dragged ass...


Oh then membership to lists is random and not according to the definitions. Right, then.


Which comparison? The comparison to welfare recipients?

Aha.

How is dying from starvation not biological?

Because in one case, the organism has a direct, physionomic dependency preventing it from starving.

In the other, its a series of abstract and financial circumstances that result in the being not having the means to care for itself. Its biological viability as an independently operating organism has not been compromised so much as its ability to survive in economic conditions.

If you honestly can't see the inherent and vast difference, a bio class may not help, I suppose.

Of course. Biological organisms are defined by an exhaustive list. To know what something is, you look it up on the list that we're all taught, that includes all members of that class.

Man, that unit on insects just dragged ass...

I know - I'm still on my 97th week of beetles! My mother had to take lessons in auctioneering just to be able to get through her important biology-lecture duties of reciting every species in the world to her students. It still takes her several years per course, obviously, but, I mean, how else would you learn how to classify things? It's not like you could come up with a simple, specific definition and then see if it applies to a given organism, after all!

How many times do you have to be told that time restrictions already exist in both law and practice?

How many times do you have to be told that the overwhelming majority of abortions occur so soon after conception that it is ridiculous to claim that a human being is being killed by it?

How many times do you have to be told that, even in Canada where there are no time restrictions in law, there are no ELECTIVE late term abortions because people just don't do that kind of thing?

How many times do you have to be told that you are decrying a problem that does not exist, that all your called-for reforms already do exist?

Your continued insistance on claiming otherwise is making you look like the most dishonest kind of anti-choicer, despite your claims otherwise.

By the way, I'm still waiting for better proof of your "baby shortage" claim or at least for an accounting of who it was you were quoting in your OP. You know why I want that? Because the "baby shortage" argument is one that was created by and is spread by racist organizations who are obsessed with the idea that white people are being "outbred" by non-whites. Did you know that?

I was explaining my position to the Cat Tribes who said she didnt read most of the thread. That wasnt a repeat of my arguments to you. Ok? Again, u are pissed off and I dont wanna answer to any more of ur posts.

Oh then membership to lists is random and not according to the definitions. Right, then.

Aha.

NMG with the hat-trick distortion. Pointing out that your repeated reference to a "list" is inherently problematic is now somehow comparable to claiming that the list is "random" and not according to the definitions?

Of course the definitions effect in the list, but for reasons of discovery, the list is not static. Thus, referring to the list, as you repeatedly did, is less useful.

I didn't think of my son as a parasite when he was in utero. But my reasons were not related to his absence on some list. There are sounder biological ways to distinguish a fetus from a parasite.

Ok, if it is the actual definition, then why arent human fetuses on the list of parasites?

1. What "list of parasites"?

2. I have answered this question half a dozen times now. Apparently, you really don't read my responses at all. Just the same, because I am feeling kind, I will repeat it one more time. Please try to read it this time. Ready? Here we go: A human embryo is NOT a parasite, because it is a member of the same species as its host. It fits EVERY OTHER ELEMENT of the biological definition of a parasite, thus making it VERY MUCH LIKE a parasite. Did you get that this time? Please?

Because in one case, the organism has a direct, physionomic dependency preventing it from starving.

In the other, its a series of abstract and financial circumstances that result in the being not having the means to care for itself. Its biological viability as an independently operating organism has not been compromised so much as its ability to survive in economic conditions.

If you honestly can't see the inherent and vast difference, a bio class may not help, I suppose.

Umm, I did not say they are the same. I can see the difference but can you not see the similarity? Eating is simply about economics now?

But, this is getting pointless so I give up. I dont wanna hear "oh u are so dumb, bio class wont help" on a friday night, frankly.

I know - I'm still on my 97th week of beetles! My mother had to take lessons in auctioneering just to be able to get through her important biology-lecture duties of reciting every species in the world to her students. It still takes her several years per course, obviously, but, I mean, how else would you learn how to classify things? It's not like you could come up with a simple, specific definition and then see if it applies to a given organism, after all!

He's come full circle to that, and now wants to re-emphasize the definition.

On a side note, I asked my wife "Did our son injure you while he was in your womb?"

I'm still listening to the response.

I think the best part is that it is, in NMG's universe, entirely reasonable to compare pro-choicers to murderers, Nazis, and cannibals, but terribly ignorant to compare embryos to parasites.
Well, of course, because everyone knows it's just plain stupid of you to say A is similar to B because they operate in the same way, while it is totally reasonable to say that pro-choicers are like Nazi cannibal murderers even though we don't do any of the things such characters do.

He learned that in psych.

Just think what he could have learned if he had taken biology.

1. What "list of parasites"?

2. I have answered this question half a dozen times now. Apparently, you really don't read my responses at all. Just the same, because I am feeling kind, I will repeat it one more time. Please try to read it this time. Ready? Here we go: A human embryo is NOT a parasite, because it is a member of the same species as its host. It fits EVERY OTHER ELEMENT of the biological definition of a parasite, thus making it VERY MUCH LIKE a parasite. Did you get that this time? Please?

"human embryo is NOT a parasite"

So:

Saying human embryo is a parasite would be ignorant because it doesnt fit every element of the biological definition.

What part of this do you object to?

I didn't think of my son as a parasite when he was in utero. But my reasons were not related to his absence on some list. There are sounder biological ways to distinguish a fetus from a parasite.

Ok, serious question and not in an argumentative way.

What are these biologically sounder ways?

Umm, I did not say they are the same. I can see the difference but can you not see the similarity? Eating is simply about economics now?

You claimed they were the same enough that your equivocation would somehow be tennable, otherwise you wouldn't have tried to draw the relationship.

I'm aware that welfare recipients sometimes receive the label "parasite", but the comparison is perjorative more than illustrative.


But, this is getting pointless so I give up. I dont wanna hear "oh u are so dumb, bio class wont help" on a friday night, frankly.

The way you've mischaracterized a number of positions, into something that you later say is "comparable" or a "similarity" can be equally detrimental to the evening.

Not this shit again? Fetuses are not parasites.
I have seen your argument on this before and, unless you have updated it, it boils down to you not liking to use that word to describe them. But your personal preferences do not change the fact that embryos/fetuses function identically to parasites.

I was explaining my position to the Cat Tribes who said she didnt read most of the thread. That wasnt a repeat of my arguments to you. Ok? Again, u are pissed off and I dont wanna answer to any more of ur posts.
He.

And what you were doing is repeating your errors as if the whole rest of the thread had not happened. You gave him no more information than if you had said nothing at all.

I have seen your argument on this before and, unless you have updated it, it boils down to you not liking to use that word to describe them. But your personal preferences do not change the fact that embryos/fetuses function identically to parasites.

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).

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 parasite is an invading organism -- coming to parasitize the host from an outside source.

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 fetus is NOT a parasite.

"human embryo is NOT a parasite"

So:

Saying human embryo is a parasite would be ignorant because it doesnt fit every element of the biological definition.

What part of this do you object to?
For myself, as a reader, I object to the part where you pull one phrase out of the whole, ignore all the rest of her answer, and try to play "gotcha" with those few words. I object to it for the following reasons: (1) It's dishonest of you. (2) It's really stupid of you because we can see all the rest of her words right there. (3) It's redundant -- you've been saying this stuff for pages and pages and you're still just as wrong as when you started.

You claimed they were the same enough that your equivocation would somehow be tennable, otherwise you wouldn't have tried to draw the relationship.

I'm aware that welfare recipients sometimes receive the label "parasite", but the comparison is perjorative more than illustrative.



The way you've mischaracterized a number of positions, into something that you later say is "comparable" or a "similarity" can be equally detrimental to the evening.

Both parts of your post show the same misunderstanding

similar =/= equal

the organism has a direct, physionomic dependency preventing it from starving =/= avoiding starvation from poverty

the organism has a direct, physionomic dependency preventing it from starving similar to avoiding starvation from poverty (on the basis of starvation)

I do not understand why you automatically assume they are equal when I make a comparison.

He.

And what you were doing is repeating your errors as if the whole rest of the thread had not happened. You gave him no more information than if you had said nothing at all.

Ok sorry that I gave him my starting position, instead of summarizing 50 pages of this thread. :rolleyes:

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).

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 parasite is an invading organism -- coming to parasitize the host from an outside source.

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 fetus is NOT a parasite.
Do you people suffer from a neurological problem that stops you seeing the word "LIKE"? You know, as in "LIKE a parasite"? "Similar to a parasite"? Stuff like that?

Or are you all just so caught up in appeals to emotion and faked-up indignation that you can't be bothered to actually think about what you are reading?

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).

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 parasite is an invading organism -- coming to parasitize the host from an outside source.

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 fetus is NOT a parasite.

Thank you, I should of just googled it myself instead of expecting them to give the full definition.

Do you people suffer from a neurological problem that stops you seeing the word "LIKE"? You know, as in "LIKE a parasite"? "Similar to a parasite"? Stuff like that?

Or are you all just so caught up in appeals to emotion and faked-up indignation that you can't be bothered to actually think about what you are reading?

Sorry, the person I replied to said something like "function in the same way as a parasite".
I apologize if he only ment that a fetus was like a parasite. :$ :hail:

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).

Ok, I've bolded the functional parts of the definition.

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.

As Poli has said, the difference in definition here is merely one of species, not one of function.

Interestingly, the post you quoted from Murv said that they were functionally identical, not completely identical.

So what are you arguing with here?

Ok sorry that I gave him my starting position, instead of summarizing 50 pages of this thread. :rolleyes:
Typical of your performance in this thread is that you can't figure out that you wouldn't have had to summarize a 50-page thread if you had just said, "This was my starting position. Since then I have dropped the following points as a result of being corrected on the facts during the discussion."

Ah, but I realize that would have required you to actually address the points in contention and the arguments/counter-arguments that have been presented. Since you haven't done any of that at all in 50 pages, I guess I couldn't expect you to suddenly start doing it now. So it's no surprise that, in your head, nothing has progressed.

Tell us again how sheep would have been totally fucked if they'd evolved before plants?

A parasite is defined as an organism of one species living in or on an organism of another species...

It is?


"par·a·site
Pronunciation: \ˈper-ə-ˌsīt, ˈpa-rə-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, from Latin parasitus, from Greek parasitos, from para- + sitos grain, food
Date: 1539
1 : a person who exploits the hospitality of the rich and earns welcome by flattery
2 : an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism
3 : something that resembles a biological parasite in dependence on something else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/parasite

"human embryo is NOT a parasite"

So:

Saying human embryo is a parasite would be ignorant because it doesnt fit every element of the biological definition.

What part of this do you object to?

Among other things, the fact that it is NOT YOUR OWN FREAKING ARGUMENT. Here, I'll quote your actual argument back to you, since you seem to have forgotten what it was:


I maintain that "saying an embryo is comparable to a parasite is ignorant!".

Beyond the fact that you apparently cannot grasp the rather critical distinction between "A is B" and "A is very much like B," there's also the aforementioned problem that the "ignorance" on display in your new, goalposts-moved version of your statement is, at worst, ignorance of the precise biological definition of "parasite," not ignorance about the actual biological facts surrounding pregnancy and abortion. The only way in which an embryo is technically different from a parasite is that it is a member of the same species as its host. I assure you that women seeking abortions are, by and large, not so colossally fucking stupid as to be unaware that the embryos they are seeking to remove are not, say, chickens. Your proposal that women need to be educated that the embryos they wish to remove would, if not removed, grow up to be human infants and not walruses or something is thus not exactly what anyone in their right minds would think of as necessary.

Sorry, the person I replied to said something like "function in the same way as a parasite".
I apologize if he only ment that a fetus was like a parasite. :$ :hail:
I said it, and I meant it. I meant it in the context of making a comparison in the course of a larger discussion. Gosh, I'm sorry if I wasn't literal enough for you johnny-come-latelies who can't be bothered to read the conversations you jump into.

Sorry, the person I replied to said something like "function in the same way as a parasite".
I apologize if he only ment that a fetus was like a parasite. :$ :hail:

Some peopel did say it:

Do fetuses feed off the host with no other way of feeding? Does the host also handle respiration? And waste disposal? Does the fetus cause massive physical changes that make daily life difficult and, in some cases, dangerous? Does the fetus provide any benefit to the host? No?

Then it's a parasite. Sorry if science words have been bastardized in other fields, but that is what it is.

I was objecting to that, among others.

Interestingly, the post you quoted from Murv said that they were functionally identical, not completely identical.

So what are you arguing with here?

Sorry, I thought he meant that it was a parasite, i stand corrected.

Thank you, I should of just googled it myself instead of expecting them to give the full definition.

Except, you know, I did. Several times, in fact. But hey, why actually read what other people write when you can just make things up?

Some peopel did say it:



I was objecting to that, among others.

Well it does function identically to a parasite, but it is not a parasite.

Sorry, I thought he meant that it was a parasite, i stand corrected.

The thing is - even saying it IS a parasite, is 'right'. Depending on your definitions. Are we using purely lay definitions, purely medical definition, purely scientific definitions, purely etymological definitions, or colloquial definitions? All would yield different content, but all are correct in their context.

Are any of you women?

One no adoption is not redundant. Being pregnant is not an easy task. it causes fatigue, mood swings, extreme hunger, it zaps the body of nutrition because everything is going to the baby. It is still dangerous even with modern technology for a woman to be pregnant and give birth. So yeah it is a woman's right to have an abortion or give it up for adoption.

Accidents happen birth control or the morning after does not always work. But it is still the womans choice. A baby canNOT survive out of the mom for the first 6 months sometimes 5 is possible out of the womb. Ergo if not for the mother's womb a baby will not survive. So it is in essence a part of her because it is attached to her via the ummbilical cord and inside of her via the uterus. It is taking most of the nutrients she ingests for itself.

So as far as adoption is concerned all those childless couples can either be patient for a caucasion baby or get the fuck over it & adopt a child from another country. There are plenty of parentless babies and kids waiting for adoption.

On the actual question, i dont think that abortion is redundant because some mothers dont want to go through the pains of pregnancy and just want an abortion which is their RIGHT.

Well it does function identically to a parasite, but it is not a parasite.

Interestingly, the "of another species" part of the definition isn't always included.

My guess is that it has been added specifically to exclude the reproductive process because of the negative connotation of the word.

Except, you know, I did. Several times, in fact. But hey, why actually read what other people write when you can just make things up?
Well, you see, he didn't read your posts because you didn't start them with a sentence that sounded like you were agreeing with him.

Quacawa started out by saying a fetus is not a parasite, so obviously NMG would have pounced on that as supporting him. I'm guessing about that.

Now that Quacawa is seeing the gist of the conversation and has acknowledged that, yes, a fetus does function identically to parasite, which is what we have been saying all along, I wonder what NMG will do?

Except, you know, I did. Several times, in fact. But hey, why actually read what other people write when you can just make things up?

(Sigh)

All I was saying is that if you can compare fetuses to parasites, you can also compare welfare check people to parasites.

Those are not the same thing but both are still comparable on the basis of dependency altho the type of dependency is not the same.

You can also say a really clingy person is a parasite, again on the basis of dependency but that is a different kinda dependancy (ie: emotional as opposed to starvation/dying).

Again, I think all of those are ignorant comparisons altho they make at least some sense.

<snippity>

I hereby submit that we should be able to kill everyone on welfare. It would cut our federal budget by billions!

Are any of you women?

Yes, why?

(So are Poli and Mur)


All I was saying is that if you can compare fetuses to parasites, you can also compare welfare check people to parasites.

...except for the fact that these are very different situations.

For instance, a fetus does live within a host of sorts (its mother) and does derive nourishment from her body. A welfare recipient, on the other hand, does not live on or within another organism or derive nourishment from another (living) organism's body.

As such, the comparison between an fetus and a parasite is much, much, much closer than that between a welfare recipient and a parasite.

Yes, why?

(So are Poli and Mur)



...except for the fact that these are very different situations.

For instance, a fetus does live within a host of sorts (its mother) and does derive nourishment from her body. A welfare recipient, on the other hand, does not live on or within another organism or derive nourishment from another (living) organism's body.

As such, the comparison between an fetus and a parasite is much, much, much closer than that between a welfare recipient and a parasite.

Read the edited version.

Read the edited version.

The edited version still doesn't acknowledge that some of these situations are much, much, much closer to biological parasitism than others.

(Sigh)

All I was saying is that if you can compare fetuses to parasites, you can also compare welfare check people to parasites.

Those are not the same thing but both are still comparable on the basis of dependency altho the type of dependency is not the same.

You can also say a really clingy person is a parasite, again on the basis of dependency but that is a different kinda dependancy (ie: emotional as opposed to starvation/dying).

Again, I think all of those are ignorant comparisons altho they make at least some sense.

Actually, that's not "all you were saying." You were saying that women needed to be educated before getting abortions, because they thought "ignorant" things like "embryos are comparable to parasites." I know, see, because I actually read your posts. You might want to try that sometime.

And yes, you could compare "welfare check people" to parasites. Only, you know, not biologically, unless the comparison in question was "welfare recipients are in no way similar to parasites, given that they meet absolutely zero aspects of the biological definition of a parasite."

I am still waiting for the way in which comparing an embryo to a parasite - something functionally identical to it - is "ignorant," as I have been waiting for something like twenty pages now. (Hand up, anyone who thinks I'll ever get a straight answer...anyone? anyone? Bueller?)

I'm sorry I keep assuming that the answer is obvious. You do realize that u get more sophisticated as u evolve more, right? Compare humans to dogs to birds to fish to trees.

Also, another relevant issue is pain. Pain receptors are found in more evolved life forms, ie: def mammals and birds and theres a debate if fish actually can feel pain.

The connection between pain/suffering and ethics should be obvious.
"more sophisticated as you evolve" . . .oh dear god. I should definitely have stayed away from this thread lol oh well. A little crash course in evolution here and maybe debating as well.
Evolution(stripped to the very very basics)
Evolution is simply a process by which the members of a species most suited to an environment thrive and reproduce while those less suitable do less well in the same environment and thus reproduce less (not. This trends so that the most suitable members eventually become dominant in the species and the species has "evolved". The mechanism for the original change is genetic mutation (essentially I know I know but im trying to keep it simple!) if the mutation is beneficial to the animal it will do better than its competition and reproduce where is competition does not. Thus the trait is passed on and becomes proportionally higher and higher until the entire species (again I know. . . simple rember) has this trait. One example is as follows, you have ten small birds. Two have slightly short beaks, 6 have "normal" beaks, and two have extremely long beaks. On the island that these ten birds are living there is a sudden change in climate and the fruit they used to eat all but disappears. Luckily the birds can still feed but they have to feed on the nectar of a flower and that plant has a very long flower. Suddenly the long beak, which was a neutral trait, had become a positive trait and while the other birds can't feed the long beaked birds can. Within a few generations all you will have are Long beaked birds. If the climate were to "shift back" and the flower were to die off a few generations later you would find an entirely short beaked race. A side point here, its is theorized that everything on the planet evolved out of a single "original" organism. Thus everything has evolved for an equal period of time if you take the long view.

Debating(Stripped to basic)
-Make sure you define you view of what certain things mean. Pain, for example, is a very broad term unless you define it.

-Make sure you think over your argument before you answer people. Have a coherent argument and instead of trying to "score points" by answering peoples questions instantly, try thinking through how your answer will fit into your argument as a whole.

-You should have done some research into the field your arguing (or at least read up on it on wiki) if you don't have an extensive background into it already. Don't use technical terms if you don't really know what they mean.

-Read up on typical logical fallacies and don't . . .use. . .them. Most NSGers (especially the long timers you've managed to get into an argument with) know these fallacies and will call you on it.

I am still waiting for the way in which comparing an embryo to a parasite - something functionally identical to it - is "ignorant," as I have been waiting for something like twenty pages now. (Hand up, anyone who thinks I'll ever get a straight answer...anyone? anyone? Bueller?)
well see you used logic and "science". I mean you can't really expect anyone to answer your posts when they are based on such flimsily stuff. :P

The edited version still doesn't acknowledge that some of these situations are much, much, much closer to biological parasitism than others.

Actually, that's not "all you were saying." You were saying that women needed to be educated before getting abortions, because they thought "ignorant" things like "embryos are comparable to parasites." I know, see, because I actually read your posts. You might want to try that sometime.

And yes, you could compare "welfare check people" to parasites. Only, you know, not biologically, unless the comparison in question was "welfare recipients are in no way similar to parasites, given that they meet absolutely zero aspects of the biological definition of a parasite."

I am still waiting for the way in which comparing an embryo to a parasite - something functionally identical to it - is "ignorant," as I have been waiting for something like twenty pages now. (Hand up, anyone who thinks I'll ever get a straight answer...anyone? anyone? Bueller?)

Ok, my last post here tho I said that before.

Human fetus is not a parasite. We all agree. We are talking about comparisons.

You can compare a white paper to a white door on the basis of colour. And you can compare that door to a boat on the basis of material, ie: wood. You can make lots of different types of comparisons but it will be meaningful or not, only depending on the context. Comparison of a door and a boat may be meaningful when you are talking about wood consumption, environment, etc. Comparison of a white paper to a white door may be meaningful like when the door is really dirty and u are comparing it to a white paper (tho thats still a very silly thing to say :p)

And I was saying that comparing human fetuses to parasites is ignorant in the context of abortion. In the context of killing something that is a "parasite" to humans. Abortion is not comparable to getting rid of intestinal worms.

Ok, my last post here tho I said that before.

Human fetus is not a parasite. We all agree. We are talking about comparisons.

You can compare a white paper to a white door on the basis of colour. And you can compare that door to a boat on the basis of material, ie: wood. You can make lots of different types of comparisons but it will be meaningful or not only depending on the context. Comparison of a door and a boat may be meaningful when you are talking about wood consumption, environment, etc. Comparison of a white paper to a white door may be meaningful like when the door is really dirty and u are comparing it to a white paper (tho thats still a very silly thing to say :p)

And I was saying that comparing human fetuses to parasites is ignorant in the context of abortion. In the context of killing something that is a "parasite" to humans. Abortion is not comparible to getting rid of intestinal worms.
Abortion is functionally comparable to getting rid of an intestinal worm. in other senses you right, its not.

I have seen your argument on this before and, unless you have updated it, it boils down to you not liking to use that word to describe them.

No, you apparently haven't seen my argument in this thread. But I guess I needn't repeat it if it's just going to be ignored and dismissed again.

No, you apparently haven't seen my argument in this thread. But I guess I needn't repeat it if it's just going to be ignored and dismissed again.

Please do. I haven't seen it yet (um we are talking in functionality here so if your argument is based on something else it may not be worth your time).

No, you apparently haven't seen my argument in this thread. But I guess I needn't repeat it if it's just going to be ignored and dismissed again.

That's what happens to both sides in every abortion thread.

And I was saying that comparing human fetuses to parasites is ignorant in the context of abortion. In the context of killing something that is a "parasite" to humans. Abortion is not comparable to getting rid of intestinal worms.

Depends on the basis for comparison, now doesn't it?

Suppose you want to abort a pregnancy because you don't want an organism living inside you, leaching nutrients from your body, and potentially causing you health problems.

As a general rule, people want to have intestinal worms removed for the same reason.

That's what happens to both sides in every abortion thread.

Yeah, you know one thing I really dislike is how one cannot quote a quotation. That way you could at least see visually the line of argument, instead of having to pour through thousands of posts, which hardly anyone is willing to do.

The result is that you can just repeat a nonsense argument, and eventually if you repeat it enough you can bury the rebuttals.

Or then you get arguments about what people argued about. Those are fun.

Yeah, you know one thing I really dislike is how one cannot quote a quotation. That way you could at least see visually the line of argument, instead of having to pour through thousands of posts, which hardly anyone is willing to do.

I think the problem is that it gets abused. We used to have quote pyramids. It gets ugly when one post takes up nearly the whole page.

But you can quote at least one back if you want, you just have to be willing to copy and paste.

(Sigh)

All I was saying is that if you can compare fetuses to parasites, you can also compare welfare check people to parasites.

Those are not the same thing but both are still comparable on the basis of dependency altho the type of dependency is not the same.

You can also say a really clingy person is a parasite, again on the basis of dependency but that is a different kinda dependancy (ie: emotional as opposed to starvation/dying).

Again, I think all of those are ignorant comparisons altho they make at least some sense.
No, only one of them is an ignorant comparison. That would be yours because the things being compared are not actually similar.

"more sophisticated as you evolve" . . .oh dear god. I should definitely have stayed away from this thread lol oh well. A little crash course in evolution here and maybe debating as well.
Evolution(stripped to the very very basics)
Evolution is simply a process by which the members of a species most suited to an environment thrive and reproduce while those less suitable do less well in the same environment and thus reproduce less (not. This trends so that the most suitable members eventually become dominant in the species and the species has "evolved". The mechanism for the original change is genetic mutation (essentially I know I know but im trying to keep it simple!) if the mutation is beneficial to the animal it will do better than its competition and reproduce where is competition does not. Thus the trait is passed on and becomes proportionally higher and higher until the entire species (again I know. . . simple rember) has this trait. One example is as follows, you have ten small birds. Two have slightly short beaks, 6 have "normal" beaks, and two have extremely long beaks. On the island that these ten birds are living there is a sudden change in climate and the fruit they used to eat all but disappears. Luckily the birds can still feed but they have to feed on the nectar of a flower and that plant has a very long flower. Suddenly the long beak, which was a neutral trait, had become a positive trait and while the other birds can't feed the long beaked birds can. Within a few generations all you will have are Long beaked birds. If the climate were to "shift back" and the flower were to die off a few generations later you would find an entirely short beaked race. A side point here, its is theorized that everything on the planet evolved out of a single "original" organism. Thus everything has evolved for an equal period of time if you take the long view.

Debating(Stripped to basic)
-Make sure you define you view of what certain things mean. Pain, for example, is a very broad term unless you define it.

-Make sure you think over your argument before you answer people. Have a coherent argument and instead of trying to "score points" by answering peoples questions instantly, try thinking through how your answer will fit into your argument as a whole.

-You should have done some research into the field your arguing (or at least read up on it on wiki) if you don't have an extensive background into it already. Don't use technical terms if you don't really know what they mean.

-Read up on typical logical fallacies and don't . . .use. . .them. Most NSGers (especially the long timers you've managed to get into an argument with) know these fallacies and will call you on it.
Did I miss anything?

I think the problem is that it gets abused. We used to have quote pyramids. It gets ugley when one post takes up nearly the whole page.

But you can quote at least one back if you want, you just have to be willing to copy and paste.

True, the quote pyramid problem. Definitely could be abused.
But they should have had a limit - say, no more than 4 in-quote quotations. That would at least extend the average attention span a little bit so the structure could be seen.

Well anyway, I'm off topic now and will cease.

Both parts of your post show the same misunderstanding

similar =/= equal

the organism has a direct, physionomic dependency preventing it from starving =/= avoiding starvation from poverty

Exactly my point, and because they are so unequal, your comparison was flawed.


the organism has a direct, physionomic dependency preventing it from starving similar to avoiding starvation from poverty (on the basis of starvation)

I do not understand why you automatically assume they are equal when I make a comparison.

My whole point is that they are NOT equal, and they are so dissimilar in that regard, that your parallels are unsound. You are the one that keeps predicating a conclusion relating to one based on "similarity" to the other, when the properties and dynamics of biology vs. economics are sufficiently distinct that the mere "similiarity" that your analogies rely on is erroneous.

Ok, serious question and not in an argumentative way.

What are these biologically sounder ways?

The womans body develops a series of things, a placenta, etc, that develop to provide and send biological support to the fetus. This is somewhat different from an organism that invades and usurps functions and nutrients.

That, as a natural function of her body, she periodically releases a female gamete indicates to me that the interaction is more "invited", speaking biologically, than the context evoked by the term "parasite".

However, I'll admit that if a parasite is "an organism that lives in or on another organism, takes nutrient from it, and harms it", I can see a fetus falling into such a class.

In either case, even if a woman's body constructs these things, that should not force her to continue to carry the child if she chooses not to. That being said, I describe the dynamic as the woman's right to end a pregnancy, not the removal of a parasite.

The womans body develops a series of things, a placenta, etc, that develop to provide and send biological support to the fetus. This is somewhat different from an organism that invades and usurps functions and nutrients.

That, as a natural function of her body, she periodically releases a female gamete indicates to me that the interaction is more "invited", speaking biologically, than the context evoked by the term "parasite".

However, I'll admit that if a parasite is "an organism that lives in or on another organism, takes nutrient from it, and harms it", I can see a fetus falling into such a class.

In either case, even if a woman's body constructs these things, that should not force her to continue to carry the child if she chooses not to. That being said, I describe the dynamic as the woman's right to end a pregnancy, not the removal of a parasite.

Thank you. I completely thought I was ignored.

Thank you. I completely thought I was ignored.

[Serious Mode]
My honest apologies, I had to go pay off my health club contract. There are posters I do ignore, but you aren't one of them.

[End Serious Mode]

[Serious Mode]
My honest apologies, I had to go pay off my health club contract. There are posters I do ignore, but you aren't one of them.

[End Serious Mode]

No apologies necessary. You had to do what you had to do. I falsely assumed since a certain amount of time had passed that it got lost in the clutter of this thread.

It seems to grow at an amazing rate.

*eats the thread*

No apologies necessary. You had to do what you had to do. I falsely assumed since a certain amount of time had passed that it got lost in the clutter of this thread.

It seems to grow at an amazing rate.

*eats the thread*
*please don't eat me*

The womans body develops a series of things, a placenta, etc, that develop to provide and send biological support to the fetus. This is somewhat different from an organism that invades and usurps functions and nutrients.

That, as a natural function of her body, she periodically releases a female gamete indicates to me that the interaction is more "invited", speaking biologically, than the context evoked by the term "parasite".

I think this is a big part of the reason that many are specifically adding the qualifier that a parasitic organism be of another species. Parasitism is generally seen in light of one organism being detrimental to the other.

In a biological sense, however, having a method of reproduction is a good thing, not a bad one. So even if the fetus may cause some harm to the mother, the species as a whole gains from the fact that it develops. Thus, we tend to want to use a different term.

"Parasite", while a biologically neutral term, also invokes connotations that most people find rather distasteful when discussing pregnancy.

I think this is a big part of the reason that many are specifically adding the qualifier that a parasitic organism be of another species. Parasitism is generally seen in light of one organism being detrimental to the other.

In looking at different definitions, I also noted that some taxonomists are espousing a spectrum of comparative harm from parasites, comparative gain from symbiotes. It appears the commensal is starting to fall out of favor as an entity in some circles, many thinking the harm/gain simply hasn't been detected in their case.


In a biological sense, however, having a method of reproduction is a good thing, not a bad one. So even if the fetus may cause some harm to the mother, the species as a whole gains from the fact that it develops. Thus, we tend to want to use a different term.

"Parasite", while a biologically neutral term, also invokes connotations that most people find rather distasteful when discussing pregnancy.

I would say what you describe aptly tempers biological precision of language with the practical reality of language and culture.

I demand you stop reasonable discussion and start flaming.

*please don't eat me*

Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and good with ketchup.

I think this is a big part of the reason that many are specifically adding the qualifier that a parasitic organism be of another species. Parasitism is generally seen in light of one organism being detrimental to the other.

In a biological sense, however, having a method of reproduction is a good thing, not a bad one. So even if the fetus may cause some harm to the mother, the species as a whole gains from the fact that it develops. Thus, we tend to want to use a different term.

"Parasite", while a biologically neutral term, also invokes connotations that most people find rather distasteful when discussing pregnancy.

Indeed. I get frustrated by the focus on connotations with scientific terms (science does not CARE whether it is a cute, lovable, cuddly parasite or a nasty, evil, icky parasite), but even so I typically try to go out of my way in these threads to say "the relationship is parasitic" rather than "the embryo is basically a parasite" in the hopes that that will calm down some of the visceral response.

I'm sorry I keep assuming that the answer is obvious. You do realize that u get more sophisticated as u evolve more, right? Compare humans to dogs to birds to fish to trees.

Also, another relevant issue is pain. Pain receptors are found in more evolved life forms, ie: def mammals and birds and theres a debate if fish actually can feel pain.

The connection between pain/suffering and ethics should be obvious.

*joins Galloism in the face-stabbing*

Indeed. I get frustrated by the focus on connotations with scientific terms (science does not CARE whether it is a cute, lovable, cuddly parasite or a nasty, evil, icky parasite), but even so I typically try to go out of my way in these threads to say "the relationship is parasitic" rather than "the embryo is basically a parasite" in the hopes that that will calm down some of the visceral response.

Yeah, but personally, I've never seen fetuses referred to as parasites in anywhere but abortion arguments. And then, only by pro-choicers. It does strike me as suspicious.

I mean who actually in their daily life, honestly refers to a fetus as a parasite? Or the pregnancy thereby a parasitic infection? "Congratulations, honey - I'm infected with a parasite!" The thought is silly, I can't imagine anyone doing that in a way that wasn't obviously for humor.

Yeah, but personally, I've never seen fetuses referred to as parasites in anywhere but abortion arguments. And then, only by pro-choicers. It does strike me as suspicious.

I mean who actually in their daily life, honestly refers to a fetus as a parasite? Or the pregnancy thereby a parasitic infection? "Congratulations, honey - I'm infected with a parasite!" The thought is silly, I can't imagine anyone doing that in a way that wasn't obviously for humor.

I can understand why it's suspicious, but given that it's pretty consistently used in response to someone arguing that pregnancy is easy and fun and a perfectly reasonable thing to demand someone go through against their will, I think it's worth acknowledging that it's simply an easy way to express that pregnancy harms a woman's body.

And, really, I would think it would be more suspicious is if pro-choicers DID refer to embryos that way outside of abortion debates, since then it would seem more likely to indicate an actual disdain for embryos or something rather than a way to dispute the claims of anti-choicers.

Yeah, but personally, I've never seen fetuses referred to as parasites in anywhere but abortion arguments. And then, only by pro-choicers. It does strike me as suspicious.
Suspicious? Wtf? It's a description of the functional relationship of a fetus to a woman's body, and it is cited in direct counter to certain anti-choice arguments that (a) claim that a fetus is somehow a fully independent organism throughout the entire pregnancy, or (b) that pregnancy does no harm to a woman's body because the fetus has little to no impact.

Maybe you should try reading all of the abortion debates, not just the side you're "suspicious" of. It might help you understand what's really going on.

I mean who actually in their daily life, honestly refers to a fetus as a parasite?
Well, considering that I think of most other people as less appealing than a tapeworm...

Or the pregnancy thereby a parasitic infection? "Congratulations, honey - I'm infected with a parasite!" The thought is silly, I can't imagine anyone doing that in a way that wasn't obviously for humor.
If I ever get pregnant, I'm going to do that, but not for humor. I'll do it to piss you off. I'll do that because you are a silly person who cannot read arguments as they are really presented -- i.e. fetuses function identically to parasites =/= fetuses are parasites -- and who says ridiculous guff as if you actually think that anyone is saying they literally think of fetuses as infectious parasites. If this is your "suspicion" on this point, it is idiotic.

I can understand why it's suspicious, but given that it's pretty consistently used in response to someone arguing that pregnancy is easy and fun and a perfectly reasonable thing to demand someone go through against their will, I think it's worth acknowledging that it's simply an easy way to express that pregnancy harms a woman's body.

And, really, I would think it would be more suspicious is if pro-choicers DID refer to embryos that way outside of abortion debates, since then it would seem more likely to indicate an actual disdain for embryos or something rather than a way to dispute the claims of anti-choicers.
Geez, Poli, you're so much nicer than me. I'd feel ashamed if I wasn't so annoyed at how stupid I think Trostia's remarks on this point are. I'll try to feel ashamed in the morning.

Geez, Poli, you're so much nicer than me. I'd feel ashamed if I wasn't so annoyed at how stupid I think Trostia's remarks on this point are. I'll try to feel ashamed in the morning.

Hehe. I'm in a friendly and non-confrontational mood at the moment now that my stupid cramps have finally gone away. I'll be properly bitchy again in about 25 days. :p

I can understand why it's suspicious, but given that it's pretty consistently used in response to someone arguing that pregnancy is easy and fun and a perfectly reasonable thing to demand someone go through against their will, I think it's worth acknowledging that it's simply an easy way to express that pregnancy harms a woman's body.


Well, its not necessary to make the parasite comparison to slam down any anti-choice argument. ;)

And my point is it kinda sticks out like a sore thumb to me and compells me to argue against it. Comparing humans (at whatever growth development stage) to parasites sits unwell with me because I've seen the comparison made against - well, anything. Liberals, bankers, Jews, welfare recipients, liberals, etc. Icky icky icky. It has a dehumanizing aspect.

And, really, I would think it would be more suspicious is if pro-choicers DID refer to embryos that way outside of abortion debates, since then it would seem more likely to indicate an actual disdain for embryos or something rather than a way to dispute the claims of anti-choicers.

You have a point there, that would be more suspicious - but it'd be consistent and I could understand having that as a worldview, instead of just to tick people (even certain pro-choicers who otherwise agree with every argument) off.

Hehe. I'm in a friendly and non-confrontational mood at the moment now that my stupid cramps have finally gone away. I'll be properly bitchy again in about 25 days. :p
I wish I had cramps. I'd have an excuse then. ;)

I wish I had cramps. I'd have an excuse then. ;)

*resists*

Well, its not necessary to make the parasite comparison to slam down any anti-choice argument. ;)

And my point is it kinda sticks out like a sore thumb to me and compells me to argue against it. Comparing humans (at whatever growth development stage) to parasites sits unwell with me because I've seen the comparison made against - well, anything. Liberals, bankers, Jews, welfare recipients, liberals, etc. Icky icky icky. It has a dehumanizing aspect.



You have a point there, that would be more suspicious - but it'd be consistent and I could understand having that as a worldview, instead of just to tick people (even certain pro-choicers who otherwise agree with every argument) off.
Unfortunately for you, the parasite comparison is an accurate description of what goes on in a pregnant woman's body. Just another part of pregnancy that is icky.

It has a dehumanizing aspect.


That's the point though, isn't it?

*resists*
Wise move, because you've probably noticed by now that I don't need an excuse. :tongue:

Wise move, because you've probably noticed by now that I don't need an excuse. :tongue:

I've picked up on that. I wasn't born yesterday.

I wish I had cramps. I'd have an excuse then. ;)

Ha. No, you really don't. The excuse to yell at people may be nice for the first two minutes or so, but then there's still a day or two more of feeling like something is kicking you repeatedly in the ovaries to get through. :p

Suspicious? Wtf? It's a description of the functional relationship of a fetus to a woman's body

It's a bit more than that, I'm afraid.

, and it is cited in direct counter to certain anti-choice arguments that (a) claim that a fetus is somehow a fully independent organism throughout the entire pregnancy, or (b) that pregnancy does no harm to a woman's body because the fetus has little to no impact.


It is not necessary to compare fetuses to parasites in order to make the point that fetuses are not persons, or that pregnancy is a big deal. One would think even a passing familiarity with pregnancy demonstrates the latter to anyone. And if not? Using the word parasite won't.

Maybe you should try reading all of the abortion debates, not just the side you're "suspicious" of.

Who says I don't? My point stands.


Well, considering that I think of most other people as less appealing than a tapeworm...

I'm as misanthropic as the next guy, if not more so, but - have you even seen a tapeworm? I mean bloody hell, it's like the most horrifying creature I can think of.

If I ever get pregnant, I'm going to do that, but not for humor. I'll do it to piss you off.

Now that you've stated that as your goal it's considerably less effective. Also, really?

I'll do that because you are a silly person who cannot read arguments as they are really presented -- i.e. fetuses function identically to parasites =/= fetuses are parasites --

I've not seen such attention to specifics and saying I'm a silly person, can't read, worship the devil or whatever doesn't really change my position.

and who says ridiculous guff as if you actually think that anyone is saying they literally think of fetuses as infectious parasites. If this is your "suspicion" on this point, it is idiotic.

Comparing fetuses to parasites for no real reason than to piss people off is pretty ridiculous if you ask me.

Ha. No, you really don't. The excuse to yell at people may be nice for the first two minutes or so, but then there's still a day or two more of feeling like something is kicking you repeatedly in the ovaries to get through. :p
Oh, no, I meant I wish I had the excuse right now -- and of course, I was being facetious. Oh gods, no, I do understand cramps. Hell, damn, yeah, I do.

Unfortunately for you, the parasite comparison is an accurate description of what goes on in a pregnant woman's body.

Did you just not actually read what I wrote? Again?

And my point is it kinda sticks out like a sore thumb to me and compells me to argue against it. Comparing humans (at whatever growth development stage) to parasites sits unwell with me because I've seen the comparison made against - well, anything. Liberals, bankers, Jews, welfare recipients, liberals, etc. Icky icky icky. It has a dehumanizing aspect.One could draw the conclusion that all humans are parasites. We're certainly taking a lot from the planet with very little, if any, realistic return for the planet's investment in us.

It's a bit more than that, I'm afraid.
Your fears are of no interest to me. It is an accurate description. Learn to cope.

If someone yells "It's a parasite so KILL IT!!", they are just injecting obnoxious hostility into the debate. They are also wrong.

If someone explains that the fetus functions in a way that is identical to the way parasites function and have a very similar impact on a woman's body, that is just factual. I have no concern for the squeamishness of people who cannot handle facts.

It is not necessary to compare fetuses to parasites in order to make the point that fetuses are not persons
I have already told you (twice, if you count this post) and Poli also told you that the parasite comparison is not made to say that fetuses are not persons.

, or that pregnancy is a big deal.
Nor is that why it is done, either. Although it often comes up in response to such claims, it is in fact only a part of the counter-argument to that. It is what Poli and I said it is -- a description of the function of fetuses.

One would think even a passing familiarity with pregnancy demonstrates the latter to anyone. And if not? Using the word parasite won't.
What "one" (i.e. you) would think is of even less interest (because it is even more formless) than your fears. You do not get to tell me how to frame my arguments.

Who says I don't? My point stands.



I'm as misanthropic as the next guy, if not more so, but - have you even seen a tapeworm? I mean bloody hell, it's like the most horrifying creature I can think of.
What? It's just a big worm. Guinea worms are way worse. Don't google them. Hell, tons of parasites are horribly worse than tapeworms. Bot flies. Just about anything in the water in central Africa. Don't google any of that shit. You'll have a hard time sleeping. And don't read a novel called The Dante Club. It's a very good novel, but if parasites freak you out, don't read it.

Now that you've stated that as your goal it's considerably less effective. Also, really?

I've not seen such attention to specifics and saying I'm a silly person, can't read, worship the devil or whatever doesn't really change my position.

Comparing fetuses to parasites for no real reason than to piss people off is pretty ridiculous if you ask me.
Not "people", just you. But don't worry about it. I'm not planning on getting pregnant.

One could draw the conclusion that all humans are parasites. We're certainly taking a lot from the planet with very little, if any, realistic return for the planet's investment in us.

This is the truth about humans. Like that one part from the matrix.

Did you just not actually read what I wrote?
Yes, I did read it.

Again?
I read all the posts I respond to.

This is the truth about humans. Like that one part from the matrix.Yay. :D

I would like to personally come out and thank God for creating women to deal with the reproductive process.

Your fears are of no interest to me

Are you seriously going to take my use of the phrase, "I'm afraid" to mean I am expressing an actual fear?

Equivocation doesn't become you.

It is an accurate description. Learn to cope.

You're not even reading what I'm saying.

If someone yells "It's a parasite so KILL IT!!", they are just injecting obnoxious hostility into the debate. They are also wrong.

If someone explains that the fetus functions in a way that is identical to the way parasites function and have a very similar impact on a woman's body, that is just factual.

Apparently you haven't been reading what others have been posting either. People are not simply making a sterile, context- and connotation-less scientific observation.

I have no concern for the squeamishness of people who cannot handle facts.

When did an analogy become 'fact?' It's an analogy and however appropriate you think it is, it is still not "fact."

I have already told you (twice, if you count this post) and Poli also told you that the parasite comparison is not made to say that fetuses are not persons.

It is not needed for any other argument either.

Nor is that why it is done, either. Although it often comes up in response to such claims, it is in fact only a part of the counter-argument to that. It is what Poli and I said it is -- a description of the function of fetuses.

And it's also what I said it was.


What "one" (i.e. you) would think is of even less interest (because it is even more formless) than your fears.

I'm afraid that you're just compounding on your earlier equivocation.

You do not get to tell me how to frame my arguments.

By all means, frame them as absurd and ineffectual as you like. That's certainly within your rights.

What? It's just a big worm. Guinea worms are way worse. Don't google them. Hell, tons of parasites are horribly worse than tapeworms. Bot flies. Just about anything in the water in central Africa. Don't google any of that shit. You'll have a hard time sleeping. And don't read a novel called The Dante Club. It's a very good novel, but if parasites freak you out, don't read it.


Oh, you're right that tapeworms are not the worst parasites.

But, all parasites are pretty damn bad. Calling someone a parasite, or "like" a parasite, is not a pleasant thing to do. Why? Because of this negative connotation.

*snip*
its such a minor sidepoint its not even funny lol. Oh well Trostia you make a good point and your not NMG so all is well.

I would like to personally come out and thank God for creating women to deal with the reproductive process.Treading on dangerous waters there, fiend. Women are more dangerous than God. ;)

its such a minor sidepoint its not even funny lol. Oh well Trostia you make a good point and your not NMG so all is well.

Well it might be a minor point, but it's still valid. No one ever makes really really good points on the major issue in abortion, since the lines tend to be pretty firmly drawn before any discussion and its just the same arguments going back and forth.

Are you seriously going to take my use of the phrase, "I'm afraid" to mean I am expressing an actual fear?

<snip a massive waste of my time>
1) I am not the one who is taking everything the other person says literally here. You are the one who hears the word "parasite" and immediately concludes that the speakers (a) mean it literally and (b) mean pejoratively. (By the way, those two interpretations contradict each other.) You are the one who uses the expression "I fear" and then, when the other person uses your words to express the degree to which your statement is not persuasive, you are the one who thinks they are suddenly being literal-minded.

Also, literal-mindedness =/= equivocation.

2) I have read every fucking word in this miserable thread. Just because I do not reach the same conclusions as you and because I am not interested in the one thing you think is the crux of the matter, that does not mean I am not reading the thread.

3) I understand perfectly well what your objection to the word "parasite" is. It is exactly as I suggested before you even went into it -- it is an aesthetic objection. The word upsets your sensibilities. Well, tough. It is factually accurate and I choose to use it. That is what I have been trying to tell you: The facts of a situation do not need to be nice. They do not need to be polite or reassuring. They only need to be correct. And this one is. I use it the ways I have described, and I have no intention of not using it that way just because you don't like it.

4) And I have been abundantly clear about how I use the parasite comparison. Any claims that I am using it in a pejorative manner will be a misrepresentation of my arguments on the part of the person making such a claim. Based on your statements in this regard, I will take it as a knowing and deliberate misrepresentation if it comes from you.

Treading on dangerous waters there, fiend. Women are more dangerous than God. ;)

Thanks, i'll keep that in mind.

1) I am not the one who is taking everything the other person says literally here.

Yeah you are, like when I said "I'm afraid that...." and you said "Your fears are no concern." I was using an idiom, a rather common phrase, not expressing "my fears."

And I'm not simply talking about you and only your use of the parasite term, but anyone and everyone who does. You're hardly the only one.

You are the one who hears the word "parasite" and immediately concludes that the speakers (a) mean it literally and (b) mean pejoratively. (By the way, those two interpretations contradict each other.)

Yes, I am.

You are the one who uses the expression "I fear" and then, when the other person uses your words to express the degree to which your statement is not persuasive

Perhaps because you referred specifically to "fears" which did not exist except in a turn of phrase.


2) I have read every fucking word in this miserable thread. Just because I do not reach the same conclusions as you and because I am not interested in the one thing you think is the crux of the matter, that does not mean I am not reading the thread.

The fact that you ask questions that could have been answered by reading through this thread tells me you didn't.

3) I understand perfectly well what your objection to the word "parasite" is. It is exactly as I suggested before you even went into it -- it is an aesthetic objection.

Would this not make your objection to my objection another aesthetic one? I'm to understand that "aesthetic" is your euphemism for "not relevant or valid."

The word upsets your sensibilities. Well, tough. It is factually accurate

Analogies are not facts, and saying they are "factually accurate" is silly. And missing the point, still.

and I choose to use it. That is what I have been trying to tell you: The facts of a situation do not need to be nice.

Nor do your arguments need to be effective. Feel free to piss them down the drain by defending to the point of absurdity your supposedly innocuous "factual" comparisons.

Thanks, i'll keep that in mind.

you didn't know? . . .and your still alive??? WOH . . . . . .woh

you didn't know? . . .and your still alive??? WOH . . . . . .wohSome people are just lucky like that. :(

<snip a waste of everyone's time>
You are wrong. You are misrepresenting my statements. This is off-topic. I am done with you.

The bottom line is this: You don't get to frame my arguments. I will use whatever comparisons I feel are appropriate at any given time. And I will not worry very much if the best you can come up with to "discredit" them is that you don't like them and don't think they are necessary.

If you want to expand this post into another...what? 20 paragraph?...snipe, have fun typing the [quote]s in. You'll be talking to no purpose.

And don't read a novel called The Dante Club. It's a very good novel, but if parasites freak you out, don't read it.


That book was fun! One of the more entertaining murder-mystery premises I've encountered. :)

(But yeah, the bit you're referring to is indeed pretty darn squicky.)

You are wrong. You are misrepresenting my statements.

Not really, but I understand that you can't show how and thus would rather just make the claim and run.


The bottom line is this: You don't get to frame my arguments.

When did this become about your 'rights' and me supposedly trying to censor or oppress you? It's frankly ludicrous.

I will use whatever comparisons I feel are appropriate at any given time. And I will not worry very much if the best you can come up with to "discredit" them is that you don't like them and don't think they are necessary.

Not everything in this thread is about you. If you truly had been reading (say, posts #54 and #116 by Sarkhaan and The Black Forrest, respectively, you'd see that their use of the term wasn't even an analogy. "A fetus is a parasite," literally.

My complaint remains valid and legitimate. On-topic too, since otherwise what, people can call it a parasite but I can't disagree?

If you want to expand this post in at another...what? 20 paragraph?...snipe, have fun typing the quotes in. You'll be talking to no purpose.

For someone who has supposedly read every single word in this thread, you suddenly and conveniently have no ability to read any single thing I say.

That book was fun! One of the more entertaining murder-mystery premises I've encountered. :)

(But yeah, the bit you're referring to is indeed pretty darn squicky.)
Did you read the introduction by the crawly-ologist? I made the mistake of reading it first and it upped the creep factor of the whole thing for me.

If you want to expand this post in at another...what? 20 paragraph?...snipe, have fun typing thes in. You'll be talking to no purpose.

Irony alert.

EDIT: You're not fast enough Trostia.

Did you read the introduction by the crawly-ologist? I made the mistake of reading it first and it upped the creep factor of the whole thing for me.

Yes, and ditto.

Did you read the introduction by the crawly-ologist? The who-what-now? :p:)

They can't possibly be called that, can they? :D

It has a dehumanizing aspect.

Heaven forbid we "dehumanize" non-persons.

Next thing you know we will be dehumanizing pork, beef, and cabbages.

:eek:

Irony alert.

EDIT: You're not fast enough Trostia.

I'm getting old, what can I say.

I'm getting old, what can I say.

Me too. :(

If it's any consolation, when quoting your post, I messed up the quote tags, but decided to preview it first. Glad I did, or the irony would have been even larger.

Heaven forbid we "dehumanize" non-persons.


Person =/= Human


Next thing you know we will be dehumanizing pork, beef, and cabbages.

Yes, because fetuses are just like food products. Being pregnant is not being pregnant after all, it's just being a container for some meat!

<snip a post that more about me than the topic>
No intention of reading your posts =/= no ability to do so.

You have gone off topic because you are bitching about me more than you are discussing the topic. The more you talk about me, the less response you will get.

However, in regards to this particular point, the horse is dead. I, for one, don't intend to keep beating it. It boils down to this:

> You don't like it when people compare fetuses to parasites.

> I don't care if you don't like it because there are contexts in which it is appropriate to point out that a fetus functions like a parasite, and I will make that point where it is appropriate to do so.

> Nothing I say is going to get you to just accept that sometimes a point will be made that you don't enjoy.

> Nothing you say is going to get me to give credence to an objection that is based on nothing but your personal emotional response to a word.

What is there left to discuss? Nothing. Evidence of the deadness of this point is the fact that you have spent large portions of the past three posts bitching at me about me.

Only I'm not relevant to the topic of the thread, now am I?

Find something relevant to talk about and we can continue with the discussion. Keep complaining at me about words you don't like, and I'll just have to not respond after this point.

Heaven forbid we "dehumanize" non-persons.

Next thing you know we will be dehumanizing pork, beef, and cabbages.

:eek:*goes to campaign for the rights of pork, beef, and cabbages to be treated humanely while we eat them*
As you said, TCT, heaven forbid! I never knew so many non-persons were treated in such a dehumanizing manner! :eek: :eek2:

Person =/= Human

Yes, because fetuses are just like food products. Being pregnant is not being pregnant after all, it's just being a container for some meat!

Actually it is NMG that compares fetuses to food products, but you know full well that my point was that "dehumanizing" that which isn't a person is rather unobjectionable.

Regardless, if you are capable of understanding but objecting to the comparison of an unborn to a parasite, you are capable of understanding that such comparison is motivated (1) in part as a response to an irrational emotional argument that "little babies are being killed" and (2) in part by a rational attempt to explain why just because something lives inside you/is biological dependent upon you does not mean it has any more right to control your body than a parasite does.

EDIT: Beyond being the polar opposite of NMG's objection to abortion, your concern about "humanity" is ethically suspect. The brain dead are still "human," they just aren't persons.

Yes, and ditto.
And right after I read that book, I saw ads for the -- was it Pixar? -- movie about the cute funny little flies in space. I was like Tippie Hedren in "The Birds": "No....No...." :D

The who-what-now? :p:)

They can't possibly be called that, can they? :D
They should though, eh?

Okay, /hijack.

Person =/= Human



Yes, because fetuses are just like food products. Being pregnant is not being pregnant after all, it's just being a container for some meat!
If you can tell me without complaining about me, I would be curious to hear what you think being pregnant actually is.

If you can tell me without complaining about me, I would be curious to hear what you think being pregnant actually is.

Especially interesting would be what it is like to have an unwanted pregnancy.

Especially interesting would be what it is like to have an unwanted pregnancy.
Yes, I'd like to be told what that is really like, according to Trostia.

Actually it is NMG that compares fetuses to food products, but you know full well that my point was that "dehumanizing" that which isn't a person is rather unobjectionable.

It's pretty objectionable and transparently offensive. I could care less what NMG is arguing - the "comparison" has been made several times and I see no immediate relevance to NMG. I've seen it in plenty of other abortion threads too. There's always someone - who is pro-choice - who is comparing fetuses to or declaring fetuses ARE parasites.

Regardless, if you are capable of understanding but objecting to the comparison of an unborn to a parasite, you are capable of understanding that such comparison is motivated (1) in part as a response to an irrational emotional argument that "little babies are being killed" and (2) in part by a rational attempt to explain why just because something lives inside you/is biological dependent upon you does not mean it has any more right to control your body than a parasite does.

I can understand that a "rational attempt" can fail, miserably. I can understand also that people in this thread haven't just been comparing, but declaring that fetuses are parasites. I cited just two examples. What's their rational purpose?

There is no need to even mention parasites in this discussion, let alone rely on the concept so much.

EDIT: Beyond being the polar opposite of NMG's objection to abortion, your concern about "humanity" is ethically suspect. The brain dead are still "human," they just aren't persons.

I don't have an objection to abortion at all.

I would object to classifying brain-dead as "parasites" as well. I'm also not fond of the "vegetable" term. Does this make me wrong, off-topic, ultra-sensitive and stupid?

It's pretty objectionable and transparently offensive. I could care less what NMG is arguing - the "comparison" has been made several times and I see no immediate relevance to NMG. I've seen it in plenty of other abortion threads too. There's always someone - who is pro-choice - who is comparing fetuses to or declaring fetuses ARE parasites.

I can understand that a "rational attempt" can fail, miserably. I can understand also that people in this thread haven't just been comparing, but declaring that fetuses are parasites. I cited just two examples. What's their rational purpose?

There is no need to even mention parasites in this discussion, let alone rely on the concept so much.

I don't have an objection to abortion at all.

I would object to classifying brain-dead as "parasites" as well. I'm also not fond of the "vegetable" term. Does this make me wrong, off-topic, ultra-sensitive and stupid?

This "there is always someone misusing or ineptly using argument X, therefore no one can reasonably use argument X or anything vaguely like argument X" is a bit hysterical and silly -- especially when your main objection to argument X is that it is icky and gets up your nose.

I'm not a big user of the "parasite" comparison myself -- except in the course of discussion of the specific points to which I noted it was relevant.

BTW, your martyr complex on this point seems to be coming along nicely. Need help driving in the nails?

This "there is always someone misusing or ineptly using argument X, therefore no one can reasonably use argument X or anything vaguely like argument X" is a bit hysterical and silly -- especially when your main objection to argument X is that it is icky and gets up your nose.

I'm not a big user of the "parasite" comparison myself -- except in the course of discussion of the specific points to which I noted it was relevant.

BTW, your martyr complex on this point seems to be coming along nicely. Need help driving in the nails?
You can borrow my hammer. My arm's tired. :D

This "there is always someone misusing or ineptly using argument X

Even this is something Mur and certain others are not even willing to acknowledge at all.

, therefore no one can reasonably use argument X or anything vaguely like argument X" is a bit hysterical and silly -- especially when your main objection to argument X is that it is icky and gets up your nose.

It's not just my nose, the word itself HAS very negative connotations. I didn't just make it all up. And if the point in using any of this is to persuade, then "fetuses are parasites" or "fetuses are like parasites" isn't persuading. I don't see a single anti-choice person who was at all convinced by it. Do you? Even one, to justify its use as some sort of rhetorical tactic?

The only thing it does do is persuade people like me that the person making the comparison, or especially the statement of unequivocal fact, is themselves silly and hysterical. And I'm pro-choice, mind you. All it does is offend people. Now Mur and you can mock me for being offended, that doesn't change my point.

I'm not a big user of the "parasite" comparison myself -- except in the course of discussion of the specific points to which I noted it was relevant.

BTW, your martyr complex on this point seems to be coming along nicely. Need help driving in the nails?

Mur's been flinging unnecessary, unsupported and personal attacks. Me being aware of this is not a "martyr complex." I have no specific desire for anyone to act like a bratty, angry child.

Even this is something Mur and certain others are not even willing to acknowledge at all.

100% false.

I specifically stated in one of my posts, which you "responded" to, that if someone claims a fetus is "a parasite so kill it!!", they are being obnoxious, hostile and wrong. That is an explicit acknowledgement that some people misuse the comparison.

You criticized me with the claim that I couldn't show any example of you misrepresenting my argument. Well there's an example for you, right there.

You clearly are either deliberately misrepresenting my argument, or misrepresenting it because you don't know what it actually is, because you didn't read it. Were you too busy accusing me of not reading your posts to find the time to read mine?

We're done here. Kindly leave my name out of any further rantings about it. I am done talking to you.

100% false.

I specifically stated in one of my posts, which you "responded" to, that if someone claims a fetus is "a parasite so kill it!!", they are being obnoxious, hostile and wrong. That is an explicit acknowledgement that some people misuse the comparison.


They didn't say "so kill it." Just that the fetus was a parasite. I have never seen you so much as acknowledge that this non-comparison has been made, even though you made a point to brag that you'd read every single word in this thread.


You criticized me with the claim that I couldn't show any example of you misrepresenting my argument. Well there's an example for you, right there.

Not really.

You clearly are either deliberately misrepresenting my argument, or misrepresenting it because you don't know what it actually is, because you didn't read it. Were you too busy accusing me of not reading your posts to find the time to read mine?

You know, I read your posts, and responded to them point by fucking point. You responded with clever <snip> and <snip wasting my time> and a blanket dismissal followed by "I'm done with you." You even made a point to mock me specifically FOR responding to you point by point! Ha! What an ass I was, huh!

We're done here.

You said that several posts back. Well, you said "I'm done with you." Maybe you mean it this time eh?

Kindly leave my name out of any further rantings about it. I am done talking to you.

I will kindly discuss whatever the hell I feel like, including making references to your comments. That's how it works - you can say what you want, I can say what I want.

I will kindly discuss whatever the hell I feel like, including making references to your comments. That's how it works - you can say what you want, I can say what I want.
The more lies you tell about me and my arguments, the more I'll call you on it. The less stuff you make up about me, the less of my shit you'll have to put up with. Fyi, so you can make an informed decision about whether you want to discuss the topic honestly or wage war with me instead.

Things are just a little hot in here. :(

Can somebody turn on the AC?

Things are just a little hot in here. :(

Can somebody turn on the AC?

I brought tacos. That always calms things down.
*hands them out*

The Ambien I laced them with doesn't hurt either.

I brought tacos. That always calms things down.
*hands them out*

The Ambien I laced them with doesn't hurt either.
Ambien makes me dream that I know how to drive. :p

I'm going to bed. Tomorrow I'll be offline most of the day. That should give Trostia plenty of time to review the thread, realize his mistake in regards to me, and decide what he wants to do about it. Hopefully, he will realize the best course is for him to forget that I exist.

Ambien makes me dream that I know how to drive. :p

I think hallucinations is one of the side effects.

The more lies you tell about me and my arguments, the more I'll call you on it.

Back again so soon? I thought you were done with me. Ah, what's one more baseless accusation?

The less stuff you make up about me, the less of my shit you'll have to put up with. Fyi, so you can make an informed decision about whether you want to discuss the topic honestly or wage war with me instead.

You aren't, at this point, even discussing the topic. "Wage war" with you? Get a grip.

I think hallucinations is one of the side effects.
Actually, literal "sleep driving" is a side effect of Ambien. True -- people have been known to go sleep walking, get in their cars and go driving. In their sleep. They warn about it in the ads. Dangerous, but funny. :D

Actually, literal "sleep driving" is a side effect of Ambien. True -- people have been known to go sleep walking, get in their cars and go driving. In their sleep. They warn about it in the ads. Dangerous, but funny. :D

Fascinating.

You know, there could be pranks to be pulled here...

I would object to classifying brain-dead as "parasites" as well.
So would anyone else, because the brain-dead don't even remotely meet the qualification of "parasite".

So would anyone else, because the brain-dead don't even remotely meet the qualification of "parasite".

Well neither do fetuses, but SHHH.

Forgive me for interrupting, I can tell a lot of different conversations are running trough here all at once. However, I must say:

That life begins at conception.

How can you say that? It doesn't even look like a human being when the reproductive cells unite.

I can say that because, from the moment of conception, nothing is added. The fertilized egg cell continues dividing and re-dividing. No new cells are added to make it a human being.

Second, I must add that the majority of abortions in America are done on minorities. In fact, Margaret Sanger, the founder of the American Eugenics Association, which after World War II became know as Planned Parenthood, was a racist. Obviously; she founded a EUGENICS association. She believed that black folks were weeds in the human garden. She encouraged abortion among the blacks; she even spoke at KKK meetings.

Forgive me for interrupting, I can tell a lot of different conversations are running trough here all at once. However, I must say:

That life begins at conception.

How can you say that? It doesn't even look like a human being when the reproductive cells unite.

I can say that because, from the moment of conception, nothing is added. The fertilized egg cell continues dividing and re-dividing. No new cells are added to make it a human being.

Second, I must add that the majority of abortions in America are done on minorities. In fact, Margaret Sanger, the founder of the American Eugenics Association, which after World War II became know as Planned Parenthood, was a racist. Obviously; she founded a EUGENICS association. She believed that black folks were weeds in the human garden. She encouraged abortion among the blacks; she even spoke at KKK meetings.
hoooo boy . . .classic first post. read stickies if you havent already and when you make claims like Abortion=Eugenics please try to back them up with a source of some sort . . .even if its just wiki

As too your assertion that nothing is added thats just flat out wrong. Plenty is added after conception, hormones, differentiated cells, Multiple types of proteins, acquired immunities various cells, and most simply food (and drink). Also haploid cells are just a divided Diploid cell that have gone through meiosis so technically they aren't new and your not "adding a new cell" at conception your simply fusing two pre-existing cells which can happen in a grown human as well.

you didn't know? . . .and your still alive??? WOH . . . . . .woh

Hmm now that you mention it this would explain all the close calls that almost killed me in the past.

Person =/= Human



Yes, because fetuses are just like food products. Being pregnant is not being pregnant after all, it's just being a container for some meat!

I'll take my human eggs scrambled!

and here is where I get yelled at for making a sarcastic commment.

Would this not make your objection to my objection another aesthetic one? I'm to understand that "aesthetic" is your euphemism for "not relevant or valid."

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

It's not just my nose, the word itself HAS very negative connotations.

Connotations are in the eye of the beholder. If you choose to ascribe a particularly negative connotation to the word "parasite", that is your choice.

From a biological perspective, it is a neutral term.

i agree that women have the right to have an abortion but doesn't the man get a say? its his as much as its hers. if this has been mentioned before i apollogise i just didn't want to read through all 60 pages.

i understand the parasite theory but i don't agree with it. i say don't have sex at all and the problem is solved.

i agree that women have the right to have an abortion but doesn't the man get a say? its his as much as its hers. if this has been mentioned before i apollogise i just didn't want to read through all 60 pages.

It's the women's body so she has sole control over it.

i understand the parasite theory but i don't agree with it. i say don't have sex at all and the problem is solved.

That's nice. but people will have pre-marital sex and if they don't want the baby then they shjould be able to have an abortion.

That's nice. but people will have pre-marital sex and if they don't want the baby then they shjould be able to have an abortion.

why?

why?

I think he answered that question in the part of his post you did not reply to.

<snip> ... whether you want to discuss the topic honestly or wage war with me instead.

War is a failure of diplomacy.

NS mods are very, very fond of diplomacy.

Just thought I'd mention that, for when you and Trostia are back on line.

and here is where I get yelled at for making a sarcastic commment.

*Yells!* "how dare you be sarcastic! and on NSG the most solumn of forums! Take your so called "sarcasm" somewhere else, like 4chan!"

i understand the parasite theory but i don't agree with it. i say don't have sex at all and the problem is solved.

um . . .no sex=extinction of the human race (sorry that's as close as i get to humor . . . .) Also its really really tough to do if your only motivation is, I don't wanna kid. . . .at least for me. . .

i agree that women have the right to have an abortion but doesn't the man get a say? its his as much as its hers. if this has been mentioned before i apollogise i just didn't want to read through all 60 pages.

i understand the parasite theory but i don't agree with it. i say don't have sex at all and the problem is solved.
no he doesnt.

except to give his opinion to her if she allows him to.

how would "a say" work anyway?

Forgive me for interrupting, I can tell a lot of different conversations are running trough here all at once. However, I must say:

That life begins at conception.

How can you say that? It doesn't even look like a human being when the reproductive cells unite.

I can say that because, from the moment of conception, nothing is added.

Oh! Well, then, if nothing is added, it won't be a problem to remove the fertilized egg from the woman's body. It'll just develop into a baby all by itself, right?

Second, I must add that the majority of abortions in America are done on minorities. In fact, Margaret Sanger, the founder of the American Eugenics Association, which after World War II became know as Planned Parenthood, was a racist. Obviously; she founded a EUGENICS association. She believed that black folks were weeds in the human garden. She encouraged abortion among the blacks; she even spoke at KKK meetings.

That's nice. In other news, Hitler was supposedly a vegetarian; therefore, all vegetarians want to kill the Jews, right? How can anyone argue with such flawless logic?

Well neither do fetuses, but SHHH.

Fetuses meet every single requirement for being a parasite other than being a different species. The brain-dead meet none.

Obviously [she was racist]; she founded a EUGENICS association.

Um... no. It's fairly easy to be in favour of eugenics without being racist.

Fetuses meet every single requirement for being a parasite other than being a different species.

What a bloody worthless statement. Yeah - they're not parasites.

The brain-dead meet none.

Just like the brain-dead are not parasites.

And I object to calling either group a "parasite" or similar, incorrect, and offensive term. I still do and you're not convincing me I shouldn't.

In fact, Margaret Sanger, the founder of the American Eugenics Association, which after World War II became know as Planned Parenthood, was a racist. Obviously; she founded a EUGENICS association. She believed that black folks were weeds in the human garden. She encouraged abortion among the blacks; she even spoke at KKK meetings.

Meh. Recycled lies and half-truths. link (pdf) (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/PPFA/fact-margaret-sanger.pdf), link (http://womensspace.wordpress.com/2008/03/02/planned-parenthoods-statement-on-margaret-sanger/)

Margaret Sanger worked on the Negro Project with some of the greatest black leaders of that time, including Adam Clayton Powell and W.E.B. DuBois,

And Martin Luther King, Jr., didn't share your contempt for Planned Parenthood and Margaret Sanger -- guess he was a racist too. link (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-are/the-reverend-martin-luther-king-jr.htm)

What a bloody worthless statement. Yeah - they're not parasites.

Just like the brain-dead are not parasites.

And I object to calling either group a "parasite" or similar, incorrect, and offensive term. I still do and you're not convincing me I shouldn't.

How long are you going to continue to lash this expired equine?

By many (if not most) definitions, an unborn child is comparable to a parasite. More importantly, a unborn child (1) is as if not more comparable to a parasite than it is a person and (2) has no more moral claim to a woman's body than a parasite.

That you find this comparison offensive and objectionable has been noted. So has your failure to address the points made in the preceding paragraph.

War is a failure of diplomacy.

NS mods are very, very fond of diplomacy.

Just thought I'd mention that, for when you and Trostia are back on line.

Oh, oh fine. Fine. You'll bring the weight of the mods on to this, but my pleadings are puffed to powder with poetic head patting.

I hope a kea eats your Harley Davidson tires.

How long are you going to continue to lash this expired equine?

I guess as long as people are gonna stick stubbornly to this oh-so-persuasive 'comparison.' Or, you know, when they are not making a comparison but making a statement of fact. "Fact."

By many (if not most) definitions, an unborn child comparable to a parasite.

Funny thing about comparisons. Anyone can make them, about anything. A comparison is not some sort of statement of truth or fact. It's a viewpoint, an opinion. One which I'm apparently supposed to not challenge.

More importantly, a unborn child (1) is as if not more comparable to a parasite than it is a person [/quote]

Well, it's more comparable to cancer too. Why don't you do that? It's more comparable to the chest-bursters from Alien than a person. My point is it's not necessary to make comparisons in order to point out that legally, by definition, a fetus is not a person. And if you justify said comparisons as being a way to "explain" and get across this point to opponents in an abortion debate, well, how come it doesn't work? It only serves to piss people off. It works at that. Is there any other point, does it persuade anyone? No. If someone thinks abortion is murder, saying "Fetuses are parasites" or "Fetuses are like parasites" is just going to prove to them that you have some sort of grudge against unborn humans. You're just alienating the pro-choice side with it.

That you find this comparison offensive and objectionable has been noted.

*sigh*

Yes, it's just me. Just thin skinned Trostia, no one else. It's a wonderful debating tactic and has been very effective in arguing the case for choice. Look at all the people going "Oh shit! You're right! The fetus IS a parasite, I mean, it IS JUST LIKE a parasite! How mistaken I was about the baby-killers - it was just parasites they wanted to get rid of! I mean, it was JUST LIKE they were getting rid of parasites!"

What a bloody worthless statement. Yeah - they're not parasites.

Just like the brain-dead are not parasites.

And I object to calling either group a "parasite" or similar, incorrect, and offensive term. I still do and you're not convincing me I shouldn't.

It's not "just like". The former meet all relevant qualifications but one, which is often excluded entirely. The latter meet zero relevant qualifications. The only similarity between the brain-dead and a parasite is that both are organisms.

Parasite is a neutral term. If you choose to view it as offensive, then you are ascribing meaning to it that does not exist.

Connotations are in the eye of the beholder. If you choose to ascribe a particularly negative connotation to the word "parasite", that is your choice.

From a biological perspective, it is a neutral term.

Ah, this again. Yes, we're just discussing biology. It's not an abortion argument after all. How could I be so mean by disagreeing with Biology? Biology says my argument's analogies are FACT!

Let's put it this way. Welfare recipients are parasites to the nation they live in. They take money (which represents also time and energy) from the host nation and give little to nothing back. They ultimately harm the host as a result.

Now, just because you have a disagreement with the term "parasite," that's just your personal preferences. Stop being sensitive by disagreeing with my use of completely neutral biological terms.

It's fact - in every other way than the host is the body of a nation instead of an individual, welfare recipients are parasites! They are JUST LIKE parasites and you better not disagree with my cold, scientific, and objective argument!

I guess as long as people are gonna stick stubbornly to this oh-so-persuasive 'comparison.' Or, you know, when they are not making a comparison but making a statement of fact. "Fact."

Funny thing about comparisons. Anyone can make them, about anything. A comparison is not some sort of statement of truth or fact. It's a viewpoint, an opinion. One which I'm apparently supposed to not challenge.

, a unborn child (1) is as if not more comparable to a parasite than it is a person

Well, it's more comparable to cancer too. Why don't you do that? It's more comparable to the chest-bursters from Alien than a person. My point is it's not necessary to make comparisons in order to point out that legally, by definition, a fetus is not a person. And if you justify said comparisons as being a way to "explain" and get across this point to opponents in an abortion debate, well, how come it doesn't work? It only serves to piss people off. It works at that. Is there any other point, does it persuade anyone? No. If someone thinks abortion is murder, saying "Fetuses are parasites" or "Fetuses are like parasites" is just going to prove to them that you have some sort of grudge against unborn humans. You're just alienating the pro-choice side with it.

*sigh*

Yes, it's just me. Just thin skinned Trostia, no one else. It's a wonderful debating tactic and has been very effective in arguing the case for choice. Look at all the people going "Oh shit! You're right! The fetus IS a parasite, I mean, it IS JUST LIKE a parasite! How mistaken I was about the baby-killers - it was just parasites they wanted to get rid of! I mean, it was JUST LIKE they were getting rid of parasites!"

*sigh*

Arguing that a statement is unpersuasive or even counter-productive is somewhat different than stating it is untrue or offensive. You may well have a point there -- especially as to simple statements that "a fetus is a parasite, so kill it!" I think, however, it is a useful comparison when it comes to rebutting the claims that an unborn has a right to control a woman's body because it is alive, dependent, etc.

And some comparisons are more apt than others: as has been illustrated ad naseum in this thread, a fetus is arguably a parasite (depending on the definition) or is morally and biologically very like a parasite. Other than repeating the mantra that "that is untrue" and "that is offensive," you haven't really given persuasive reasons why that comparison is particularly inapt. Perhaps you are right that it is unpersuasive or off-putting, but truth is often like that.

As for the idea that anyone that has ever made the unborn/parasite comparison is thereby proving he/she has "some sort of grudge against unborn humans," that is just silly and you know it.

I think what Trostia is trying to say is the following:

Saying "The unborn is a parasite" or, if you prefer "like a parasite" is just as polarizing and destructive to dialogue as the other side saying "How can you kill a little baby?" or, if you prefer, that the unborn child is "like a baby" or "going to be a baby".

Both are arguably true (especially after the first trimester), both infuriate the other side, and both are completely counterproductive.

Arguing that a statement is unpersuasive or even counter-productive is somewhat different than stating it is untrue or offensive.

It is untrue when it it stated that a fetus IS a parasite. (Which has been done in this thread. I keep pointing it out, and people then just ignore it as if I'm hallucinating or it's not part of my point. It IS, and it's why I first posted in the thread about. It's only afterward, when I was leaped upon as some sort of evil person, that the analogy was substituted for the direct statement.)

It is merely offensive when the comparison is made. And both cases are unpersuasive and demonstrably counter-productive - as naturally, the 'pro life' crowd will be compelled to argue against the "parasite" term too. It ultimately derails the actual subject and the part where the two sides can have meaningful discussion at all.

That's all.

You may well have a point there -- especially as to simple statements that "a fetus is a parasite, so kill it!" I think, however, it is a useful comparison when it comes to rebutting the claims that an unborn has a right to control a woman's body because it is alive, dependent, etc.


I just don't see how. I knew this quite well before I'd ever heard of the parasite comparison. I mean who really relies on it for understanding that a woman has a right to her own body? You don't, but does anyone?


As for the idea that anyone that has ever made the unborn/parasite comparison is thereby proving he/she has "some sort of grudge against unborn humans," that is just silly and you know it.

Proof is in the beholder. I didn't say it consisted of objective or mathematical proof. But it will convince persons on the other end or just in the middle or even on your same side, and not in a good way. Human fetuses are not listed as parasites in any biology text I know of, nor are welfare recipients for that matter, and when I hear anyone argue that they are and that it's FACT that kind of rubs me the wrong way.

Maybe it's really persuasive to someone else though. I dunno. Personally, I don't have a martyr complex, I just think it's dogpile season in an abortion thread; what inevitably happens when the anti-choice crowd shuts up and all the pro-choicers are left remaining wanting someone to righteously scream at.

I think what Trostia is trying to say is the following:

Saying "The unborn is a parasite" or, if you prefer "like a parasite" is just as polarizing and destructive to dialogue as the other side saying "How can you kill a little baby?" or, if you prefer, that the unborn child is "like a baby" or "going to be a baby".

Both are arguably true (especially after the first trimester), both infuriate the other side, and both are completely counterproductive.

Except, of course, an embryo is functionally identical to a parasite. It is not at all functionally identical to a baby, or abortion would not really be much of an issue, seeing as embryos could be removed and survive just fine on their own.

You could make a case that pointing out that an embryo is functionally identical to a parasite is unnecessarily polarizing. I'd disagree, but that's at least an entirely reasonable argument. You don't need to try to be "fair and balanced" by attempting to come up with an equivalent point on the anti-choice side, because, quite frankly, I've never seen one - that would involve the anti-choice side being rational and scientific while the pro-choicers got all emotional, and that is, quite simply, not usually how these debates go.

Basically, this whole "parasite" issue is remarkably similar to the "theory" issue in evolution threads. Each term means something specific in science and something much vaguer in lay-terms, and people seem quite often to want to use the lay definition - with all its vagueness and its connotations - in scientific discussion. Perhaps it would be best for scientists to make up entirely new words to avoid these issues, but that just seems rather silly to me.

Except, of course, an embryo is functionally identical to a parasite. It is not at all functionally identical to a baby, or abortion would not really be much of an issue, seeing as embryos could be removed and survive just fine on their own.

Function, maybe, but not in form. See below.

You could make a case that pointing out that an embryo is functionally identical to a parasite is unnecessarily polarizing. I'd disagree, but that's at least an entirely reasonable argument. You don't need to try to be "fair and balanced" by attempting to come up with an equivalent point on the anti-choice side, because, quite frankly, I've never seen one - that would involve the anti-choice side being rational and scientific while the pro-choicers got all emotional, and that is, quite simply, not usually how these debates go.

Well, everyone looks rational and scientific to themselves - on both sides.

However, if you look at form as well as function, once a embryo forms into a fetus, it looks very much like a baby. So, when they say "you're killing a cute little baby", they're not talking about its function, but its form.

In essence, their argument is the same as yours, but about a different aspect of the fetus.

As far as the embryo stage, I have no relevant comparison.

Basically, this whole "parasite" issue is remarkably similar to the "theory" issue in evolution threads. Each term means something specific in science and something much vaguer in lay-terms, and people seem quite often to want to use the lay definition - with all its vagueness and its connotations - in scientific discussion. Perhaps it would be best for scientists to make up entirely new words to avoid these issues, but that just seems rather silly to me.

That would be silly.

It is untrue when it it stated that a fetus IS a parasite. (Which has been done in this thread. I keep pointing it out, and people then just ignore it as if I'm hallucinating or it's not part of my point. It IS, and it's why I first posted in the thread about. It's only afterward, when I was leaped upon as some sort of evil person, that the analogy was substituted for the direct statement.)

No, it wasn't. I corrected whoever-it-was's "is" statement something like 30 pages before you came into this thread, and I don't believe anyone else made the mistake of making an "is" statement during those 30 pages. (Well, except for NMG repeatedly misquoting everyone, including himself.) If it seems like that point is being ignored, I'm pretty sure it's only because the people you're still arguing with aren't the people who ever made that error.

No, it wasn't. I corrected whoever-it-was's "is" statement something like 30 pages before you came into this thread, and I don't believe anyone else made the mistake of making an "is" statement during those 30 pages. (Well, except for NMG repeatedly misquoting everyone, including himself.) If it seems like that point is being ignored, I'm pretty sure it's only because the people you're still arguing with aren't the people who ever made that error.

Um, pardon me, Poliwanacraca, but you DID once say a fetus IS a parasite.

We were in Stone Mountain Georgia, enjoying some greasy Waffle House fare after a night of drunken unprotected sex, and you told me that "If I am knocked up from your besotted rutting, the baby is a parasite no less than your embrace is like an Alien facehugger and the contorted convulsions you try to pass off as lovemaking are like being fucked by a Giger exhibit while on acid. These hashbrowns are underdone."

A parasite is somebody that lives off of others, am I right? So, technically, everybody who is not a farmer is a parasite. That means that the cities of Boston, Los Angeles, and New York, according to the parasite argument, can be nuked off the face of the earth. Farmers, as it happens, tend to be against abortion.

A parasite is somebody that lives off of others, am I right? So, technically, everybody who is not a farmer is a parasite. That means that the cities of Boston, Los Angeles, and New York, according to the parasite argument, can be nuked off the face of the earth. Farmers, as it happens, tend to be against abortion.

I think division of labor and complexity of economy (such as farmers getting tools, equipment, fertilizer, etc, from manufacturers, researchers, and companies run from cities) leaves your comparison somewhat unsound.

Its not like farmers produce on their own and the cities come and take the food. If anything, your comparison is closer to symbiosis.

A parasite is somebody that lives off of others, am I right? So, technically, everybody who is not a farmer is a parasite. That means that the cities of Boston, Los Angeles, and New York, according to the parasite argument, can be nuked off the face of the earth. Farmers, as it happens, tend to be against abortion.

Not quite comparable. More accurate would be the farmers refusing to sell their food to the people in the cities.

I think division of labor and complexity of economy (such as farmers getting tools, equipment, fertilizer, etc, from manufacturers, researchers, and companies run from cities) leaves your comparison somewhat unsound.

Its not like farmers produce on their own and the cities come and take the food. If anything, your comparison is closer to symbiosis.

Mutualism. Parasitism and mutualism are both forms of symbiosis. [/nitpick] ;)

Mutualism. Parasitism and mutualism are both forms of symbiosis. [/nitpick] ;)

Its a good nitpick, at least.

When I was in Bio, symbiosis was defined more narrowly as mutual benefit, what is now more correctly refered to as mutualism.

From wiki on Symbiosis: "Others define it more narrowly, as only those relationships from which both organisms benefit, in which case it would be synonymous with mutualism".

Your usage, though, is more current and more correct.

A parasite is somebody that lives off of others, am I right?

No, you're not. See, like, two posts ago when I explained how there's a difference between scientific terminology and lay versions of the same words.

So, technically, everybody who is not a farmer is a parasite.

Technically, you're still entirely wrong about what a parasite is. Also, farmers kinda still get the overwhelming majority of their goods and services from other people.

That means that the cities of Boston, Los Angeles, and New York, according to the parasite argument, can be nuked off the face of the earth.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

Farmers, as it happens, tend to be against abortion.

I would actually be curious to see the poll that supports this. There's no doubt that residents of rural areas are more conservative on average, but most residents of rural areas are not actually farmers.

Its a good nitpick, at least.

When I was in Bio, symbiosis was defined more narrowly as mutual benefit, what is now more correctly refered to as mutualism.

From wiki on Symbiosis: "Others define it more narrowly, as only those relationships from which both organisms benefit, in which case it would be synonymous with mutualism".

Your usage, though, is more current and more correct.

I sorta end up keeping current whether I like it or not, since my biology professor mother regularly guilt-trips me into grading her tests for her. :p

However, if you look at form as well as function, once a embryo forms into a fetus, it looks very much like a baby. So, when they say "you're killing a cute little baby", they're not talking about its function, but its form.

In essence, their argument is the same as yours, but about a different aspect of the fetus.

Except that very few abortions occur at the fetal stage, so the point is pretty much irrelevant to the discussion.

A parasite is somebody that lives off of others, am I right? So, technically, everybody who is not a farmer is a parasite. That means that the cities of Boston, Los Angeles, and New York, according to the parasite argument, can be nuked off the face of the earth. Farmers, as it happens, tend to be against abortion.

The stupidity of your fist three sentences is self-evident and I question the veracity of the bolded fourth.

Except that very few abortions occur at the fetal stage, so the point is pretty much irrelevant to the discussion.

But do they occur? Then it is valid. Very rarely have I seen an "abortions rights" thread restricted to the embryonic stage of pregnancy.

If this thread was, which it wasn't (as far as I could tell), then that would be a valid point.

But do they occur? Then it is valid. Very rarely have I seen an "abortions rights" thread restricted to the embryonic stage of pregnancy.

If this thread was, which it wasn't (as far as I could tell), then that would be a valid point.

Just because common misperceptions fail to account for when abortions usually occur, that those abortions in the fetal stage tend to be anomalies and involve medical necessity, and that abortion laws already distinquish among different stages of pregnancy, doesn't make a foolish appeal to emotion accurate.

Just because common misperceptions fail to account for when abortions usually occur, that those abortions in the fetal stage tend to be anomalies and involve medical necessity, and that abortion laws already distinquish among different stages of pregnancy, doesn't make a foolish appeal to emotion accurate.

I'm a little bit out of water on this, as I don't know exactly what the cutoff date, legally, actually is for a pregnancy. However, since it appears that by your post it is after the fetal stage, perhaps you could enlighten me.

I'm sure there's no hard and fast rule everywhere in the world for how many weeks/months, but perhaps you could give me an example.

I'm a little bit out of water on this, as I don't know exactly what the cutoff date, legally, actually is for a pregnancy. However, since it appears that by your post it is after the fetal stage, perhaps you could enlighten me.

I'm sure there's no hard and fast rule everywhere in the world for how many weeks/months, but perhaps you could give me an example.

Of course I am not claiming there is a hard and fast rule everywhere in the world. For one thing, many, many countries ban abortion generally or absolutely. This thread was discussing (at least primarily if not exclusively) North America.

Under Roe, abortion in the U.S. could be limited in the second trimester and banned except for cases of medical necessity in the third trimester. Since then, SCOTUS has moved the lines back -- allowing a ban at the point of viability and allowing limits earlier than that.

Regardless, some 60% of abortions in the U.S. occur within the first eight weeks of gestation and 90% occur within the first thirteen weeks. Abortions beyond thirteen weeks are almost all (if not all) due to medical necessity, rape, and/or incest. (Numbers for Canada are similar.)

I guess technically I overstated things because the fetal stage can be said to occur at 8 weeks -- though the resembelance to a born child (which was your point) doesn't necessarily occur until later. Nonetheless, the simple truth is that most abortions don't involve something that "looks like a baby" and those that do involve extenuating circumstances.

I'm a little bit out of water on this, as I don't know exactly what the cutoff date, legally, actually is for a pregnancy. However, since it appears that by your post it is after the fetal stage, perhaps you could enlighten me.

I'm sure there's no hard and fast rule everywhere in the world for how many weeks/months, but perhaps you could give me an example.

http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/index.htm#Abortion

More than half (62%) of the reported legal induced abortions [in 2005] were performed during the first 8 weeks of gestation; 88% were performed within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.

Under Roe, abortion in the U.S. could be limited in the second trimester and banned except for cases of medical necessity in the third trimester. Since then, SCOTUS has moved the lines back -- allowing a ban at the point of viability and allowing limits earlier than that.

Point of viability. Is that when it is capable of surviving on its own? I.E. - there is some chance that if you removed the baby it could start breathing and survive on its own. Or, does that mean the baby could survive with hospital assistance (probably)?

Regardless, some 60% of abortions in the U.S. occur within the first eight weeks of gestation and 90% occur within the first thirteen weeks. Abortions beyond thirteen weeks are almost all (if not all) due to medical necessity, rape, and/or incest. (Numbers for Canada are similar.)

Thank you.

I guess technically I overstated things because the fetal stage can be said to occur at 8 weeks -- though the resemblance to a born child (which was your point) doesn't necessarily occur until later. Nonetheless, the simple truth is that most abortions don't involve something that "looks like a baby" and those that do involve extenuating circumstances.

Well, that probably depends on what you see as "resemblance". Many see it at differing stages I'm sure.

Forgive me for interrupting, I can tell a lot of different conversations are running trough here all at once. However, I must say:

That life begins at conception.

How can you say that? It doesn't even look like a human being when the reproductive cells unite.

I can say that because, from the moment of conception, nothing is added. The fertilized egg cell continues dividing and re-dividing. No new cells are added to make it a human being.

Second, I must add that the majority of abortions in America are done on minorities. In fact, Margaret Sanger, the founder of the American Eugenics Association, which after World War II became know as Planned Parenthood, was a racist. Obviously; she founded a EUGENICS association. She believed that black folks were weeds in the human garden. She encouraged abortion among the blacks; she even spoke at KKK meetings.

Eugenics =/= racist.

The argument that life begins at conception is both wrong, and irrelevent. Irrelevent, because 'life' and "A Life" are not the same thing. Wrong, because sperm are alive and eggs are alive - so 'life' existed long before conception.

Point of viability. Is that when it is capable of surviving on its own? I.E. - there is some chance that if you removed the baby it could start breathing and survive on its own. Or, does that mean the baby could survive with hospital assistance (probably)?

The latter, only it's more like "could survive with hospital assistance (probably not, but it at least has a shot)."

why?

Because it's better than the alternatives.

The latter, only it's more like "could survive with hospital assistance (probably not, but it at least has a shot)."

So, on average, where would that be on a time-basis?

What a bloody worthless statement. Yeah - they're not parasites.



Just like the brain-dead are not parasites.

And I object to calling either group a "parasite" or similar, incorrect, and offensive term. I still do and you're not convincing me I shouldn't.

I'm offended by people calling those things that roll around on four wheels 'cars'.

So, on average, where would that be on a time-basis?

The youngest premature baby ever to survive was born at 22 weeks. Only something like 20% of 23rd-24th week premies survive. I believe the usual cutoff point for elective abortions is around 20 weeks.

The youngest premature baby ever to survive was born at 22 weeks. Only something like 20% of 23rd-24th week premies survive. I believe the usual cutoff point for elective abortions is around 20 weeks.

Thank you.

So, since SCOTUS has made it where the state can mandate cutoff points no sooner than the "age of viability", which is not a fixed point, as hospital technology improves might that be pushed further and further back as time goes on and the age of viability gets lower? I think that sentence was grammatically correct, but it was long.

Thank you.

So, since SCOTUS has made it where the state can mandate cutoff points no sooner than the "age of viability", which is not a fixed point, as hospital technology improves might that be pushed further and further back as time goes on and the age of viability gets lower? I think that sentence was grammatically correct, but it was long.

Presumably, yes. I think I recall that at the time of Roe v. Wade, the standard "point of viability" was more like 28 weeks.

Thank you.

So, since SCOTUS has made it where the state can mandate cutoff points no sooner than the "age of viability", which is not a fixed point, as hospital technology improves might that be pushed further and further back as time goes on and the age of viability gets lower? I think that sentence was grammatically correct, but it was long.

Absolutely - and to be honest, most of those in favour of a 'choice' alternative are looking forward to the day that the foetus can be made viable from the moment of conception onwards - because that would be the entire point of abortion voided.

The problem with the pro-life label of "baby killer" is that it is not only inaccurate, but it completely misses the point. Abortion isn't about 'killing' anything, it's about 'get this thing out of ME'. If you can reach the point where you can remove the unwanted material at any point, and have it remain viable to run full term, abortion is irrelevent.

Presumably, yes. I think I recall that at the time of Roe v. Wade, the standard "point of viability" was more like 28 weeks.

Ah, thank you for the information.

Absolutely - and to be honest, most of those in favour of a 'choice' alternative are looking forward to the day that the foetus can be made viable from the moment of conception onwards - because that would be the entire point of abortion voided.

True - Abortion would no longer exist as a practice, and there would be nothing to complain about (from this particular angle - there will always be things for people to complain about).

The problem with the pro-life label of "baby killer" is that it is not only inaccurate, but it completely misses the point. Abortion isn't about 'killing' anything, it's about 'get this thing out of ME'. If you can reach the point where you can remove the unwanted material at any point, and have it remain viable to run full term, abortion is irrelevant.

Indeed it would be. Perhaps someday...

I'd comment, but I'm still trying to figure out the thread title. I'm thinking my answer to the thread title's question is yes, but I'm not quite sure. I don't think it can be redundant, so "is it not redundant"...yes. It is not redundant.

I think.

War is a failure of diplomacy.

NS mods are very, very fond of diplomacy.

Just thought I'd mention that, for when you and Trostia are back on line.
*reads the last three pages of the thread*

Gee, Ard, seems you directed this to the wrong person.


Basically, this whole "parasite" issue is remarkably similar to the "theory" issue in evolution threads. Each term means something specific in science and something much vaguer in lay-terms, and people seem quite often to want to use the lay definition - with all its vagueness and its connotations - in scientific discussion. Perhaps it would be best for scientists to make up entirely new words to avoid these issues, but that just seems rather silly to me.
This. ^^ And I'll just come right out and say that, like the "theory" debate in evolution, this strikes me as just another distraction tactic to keep people wrangling over terms relating to sub-topics instead of discussing the actual issue.

Function, maybe, but not in form. See below.
Rain is not similar in form to a lake, but they'll both make you wet. Function is the point of the comparison.

Well, everyone looks rational and scientific to themselves - on both sides.
Of course, only one side actually has scientific data to back up their rational arguments. Kind of renders moot any question of how rational they seem to themselves, when they can clearly demonstrate their rationality to anyone who bothers to look and listen.

Farmers, as it happens, tend to be against abortion.
I would be very interested to see the data from which you drew this conclusion.

And after you prove that your statement is true, I will be even more interested to see you explain what the opinions of farmers about abortion have to do with your odd and erroneous notions about whether they are parasites or not.

But do they occur? Then it is valid. <snip>
No, it is not valid, unless you are arguing that no pregnancy should ever be aborted even if the mother's health and/or life are in danger and/or if the fetus itself has died in the uterus.

Is that your position?

Because if it is not then late term abortions, which are performed out of medical necessity, are not relevant to this discussion in any way. The argument over choice is about women choosing to abort or not abort. That means elective abortion, not medically necessary abortion.

Also, this:
Just because common misperceptions fail to account for when abortions usually occur, that those abortions in the fetal stage tend to be anomalies and involve medical necessity, and that abortion laws already distinquish among different stages of pregnancy, doesn't make a foolish appeal to emotion accurate.

Rain is not similar in form to a lake, but they'll both make you wet. Function is the point of the comparison.

I understand that, and form is the point of the pro-lifer's comparison, which is equally valid once the fetus takes on the form of a child - I.E., brain, spine, two hands, a couple of eyes, a couple of feet, you know, the normal things most people have.

Going back to embryonic, well, hard to make an argument there.

Of course, only one side actually has scientific data to back up their rational arguments. Kind of renders moot any question of how rational they seem to themselves, when they can clearly demonstrate their rationality to anyone who bothers to look and listen.

I'm sure there are plenty of people they look rational to. I'm even sure there are some people that you look rational to.

No, it is not valid, unless you are arguing that no abortion should be aborted even if the mother's health and/or life are in danger and/or if the fetus itself has died in the uterus.

Is that your position?

Strawman. This has nothing to do with anything at all that I have ever said anywhere in this thread or ever at all, actually.

Because if it is not then late term abortions, which are performed out of medical necessity are not relevant to this discussion whatsoever. The argument over choice is about women choosing to abort or not abort. That means elective abortion, not medically necessary abortion.

And, as was demonstrated previously in this thread, elective late term abortions are still performed, legally, where this type of comparison is relevant.

I'm offended by people calling those things that roll around on four wheels 'cars'.

That's unusual since "car" doesn't have the same negative connotation as "parasite." That is to say you are burning a strawman here. You have fun with that; it contradicts nothing I've argued.

That's unusual since "car" doesn't have the same negative connotation as "parasite." That is to say you are burning a strawman here. You have fun with that; it contradicts nothing I've argued.

What part of "parasite has no negative connotations but the ones you, personally, choose to apply to it" don't you get?

What part of "parasite has no negative connotations but the ones you, personally, choose to apply to it" don't you get?

The part where it's patently not true?

Are you HONESTLY going to pretend you've never seen, nor heard of, the use of the term "parasite" in a negative sense? That the one, and only meaning is "neutral" and "biological," and that all others are invalid, imagined, and exclusive to me, alone?

I understand that, and form is the point of the pro-lifer's comparison, which is equally valid once the fetus takes on the form of a child - I.E., brain, spine, two hands, a couple of eyes, a couple of feet, you know, the normal things most people have.

Going back to embryonic, well, hard to make an argument there.



I'm sure there are plenty of people they look rational to. I'm even sure there are some people that you look rational to.



Strawman. This has nothing to do with anything at all that I have ever said anywhere in this thread or ever at all, actually.



And, as was demonstrated previously in this thread, elective late term abortions are still performed, legally, where this type of comparison is relevant.
I know it's a strawman. That was deliberate. I was demonstrating the absurdity of the argument.

What I have seen demonstrated in this thread is that the OVERWHELMING majority of late term abortions are considered medically NECESSARY. I.e. NOT elective. And that the overwhelming majority of elective abortions are performed in the first trimester. I.e. NOT late term.

So, what exactly is this "form" comparison relevant to?

I know it's a strawman. That was deliberate. I was demonstrating the absurdity of the argument.

Except it was a strawman - not a reductio ad absurdum argument. They are two different things.

What I have seen demonstrated in this thread is that the OVERWHELMING majority of late term abortions are considered medically NECESSARY. I.e. NOT elective. And that the overwhelming majority of elective abortions are performed in the first trimester. I.e. NOT late term.

I'm not debating that, and we have demonstrated that it is clearly legal and allowable to have abortions past the fetal stage, as Poli said, up to the 20th week is "generally" the cutoff point.

So, what exactly is this "form" comparison relevant to?

To the abortions that occur in the fetal stage, especially those that are not medically necessary. Apparently, it's still legal, and since it's legal, it's an accepted argument to assume that some abortions will occur during the fetal stage. In the fetal stage, the fetus may "function" like a parasite, but it has the "form" of a child.

Form and function are two different aspects of any creature, machine, or well pretty much anything ever really. Ergo, when they say (referring to the fetal stage) that "it's like a child", in form it is. You say "it's like a parasite", in function it is.

Neither is wrong, but both create sudden and violent outbursts, division, and polarization to both sides of the argument, with no one left straddling the fence.

Except it was a strawman - not a reductio ad absurdum argument. They are two different things.

I'm not debating that, and we have demonstrated that it is clearly legal and allowable to have abortions past the fetal stage, as Poli said, up to the 20th week is "generally" the cutoff point.

To the abortions that occur in the fetal stage, especially those that are not medically necessary. Apparently, it's still legal, and since it's legal, it's an accepted argument to assume that some abortions will occur during the fetal stage. In the fetal stage, the fetus may "function" like a parasite, but it has the "form" of a child.

Form and function are two different aspects of any creature, machine, or well pretty much anything ever really. Ergo, when they say (referring to the fetal stage) that "it's like a child", in form it is. You say "it's like a parasite", in function it is.

Neither is wrong, but both create sudden and violent outbursts, division, and polarization to both sides of the argument, with no one left straddling the fence.

Except, once again, the vast majority of abortions don't occur during the fetal stage, so the "it's like a child" argument is an empty argument to use against abortion in general. In addition to being a fallacious appeal to emotion, it is either deliberately disingenuous or founded in utter ignorance.

If someone wants to make the argument that "oh, yeah, well that relatively small percentage of abortions that occur during the fetal stage and aren't medically necessary shouldn't be legal because it's like a child because it looks vaguely like a child," so be it. I don't anyone will be impressed.

The bottom line is that considering form OR function the subject of abortion is far, far more like a parasite (and depending on the definition IS A PARASITE) than it is like a person or even a born child.

The part where it's patently not true?

Are you HONESTLY going to pretend you've never seen, nor heard of, the use of the term "parasite" in a negative sense? That the one, and only meaning is "neutral" and "biological," and that all others are invalid, imagined, and exclusive to me, alone?

The vast majority of the times that I have seen or heard the term "parasite" used it was in a completely neutral sense. From that the only inference I may draw is that odds are that the term "parasite" does not normally carry a negative connotation. If it does not normally carry a negative connotation, then any negative connotation involved in it is not inherent, and thus must stem from either the one who uses the word or the one who perceives it. That other people perform an action does not make the action one that has not been personally performed.

The part where it's patently not true?

Are you HONESTLY going to pretend you've never seen, nor heard of, the use of the term "parasite" in a negative sense? That the one, and only meaning is "neutral" and "biological," and that all others are invalid, imagined, and exclusive to me, alone?

This is the new standard for offensive words: if it has ever been understood by anyone in any context to have a negative sense, it is offensive?

EDIT: Not to mention the fact that either as a comparison OR as a biological definition (see Dem1's arguments) it is arguably (if not patently) true!

EDIT2: It is rather disingenuous to argue on the one hand that an unborn is not a parasite because of a technical biological definition (i.e., difference in species between host and parasite), but argue on the other hand that parasite is an offensive term because it has meanings beyond the biological definition.

The vast majority of the times that I have seen or heard the term "parasite" used it was in a completely neutral sense. From that the only inference I may draw is that odds are that the term "parasite" does not normally carry a negative connotation.

Oh, well maybe we should just limit all premises to what you, personally have experienced, and then base the conclusions just on that, ignoring and dismissing all else as aberrant.

If it does not normally carry a negative connotation, then any negative connotation involved in it is not inherent

If I'm right then I'm right!

Except, once again, the vast majority of abortions don't occur during the fetal stage, the "it's like a child" argument is an empty argument to use against abortion in general. In addition to being a fallacious appeal to emotion, it is either deliberately disingenuous or founded in utter ignorance.

That is quite possible. There is a large amount of ignorance in the world.

If someone wants to make the argument that "oh, yeah, well that relatively small percentage of abortions that occur during the fetal stage and aren't medically necessary shouldn't be legal because it's like a child because it looks vaguely like a child," so be it. I don't anyone will be impressed.

38% is not really a small percentage. I mean, it's smaller than 50%, but not really that small.

Even 12% - the amount that occurred after 12 weeks (according to Poli's link) works out to 98,418 abortions in the US alone that occurred after 12 weeks.

However, that's not the point - the point is they're both polarizing statements, and both equally absurd to me. A fetus is not like a parasite, or like a child. A fetus is like a fetus because it is a fetus. They are both true, after a fashion, but they have no purpose other than to solidify support for the people that are leaning onto their side, and alienating the rest.

This is the new standard for offensive words: if it has ever been understood by anyone in any context to have a negative sense, it is offensive?

If I started calling you or anyone else here a parasite, would you be offended? Would you think offense was meant? Or would you say, "Gee, he must be making a completely neutral biological analogy that has no other connotation!"

Gimme a fucking break.

EDIT: Not to mention the fact that either as a comparison OR as a biological definition (see Dem1's arguments) it is arguably (if not patently) true!

Nonsense. You can interpret definitions to your hearts content. But science does not consider human fetuses to be parasites.

By all means. Show me ONE scientific publication, an accredited biology or medical or parasitology journal, whatever; that says either human fetuses or embryos are parasites.

I've been trying to do this - you know, giving your side the benefit of the doubt, thinking you can't all be arguing out of your ass - but maybe my Google-fu is weak. I CAN however, find a lot of shit about parasitology that has NO MENTION of human fetuses. Huh. Must be pure coincidence.

If I started calling you or anyone else here a parasite, would you be offended? Would you think offense was meant? Or would you say, "Gee, he must be making a completely neutral biological analogy that has no other connotation!"

Gimme a fucking break.



Nonsense. You can interpret definitions to your hearts content. But science does not consider human fetuses to be parasites.

By all means. Show me ONE scientific publication, an accredited biology or medical or parasitology journal, whatever; that says either human fetuses or embryos are parasites.

I've been trying to do this - you know, giving your side the benefit of the doubt, thinking you can't all be arguing out of your ass - but maybe my Google-fu is weak. I CAN however, find a lot of shit about parasitology that has NO MENTION of human fetuses. Huh. Must be pure coincidence.

How many scientific publications have you found that consider the term "parasite" to be offensive?

Except it was a strawman - not a reductio ad absurdum argument. They are two different things.
No. Follow: I posited the strawman. I asked you if that was your position. I then said, "Because if it isn't, then..." That sentence allowed that it was NOT your position, and since it is not your position, and since it is the only position in which late term abortions matter in this debate, your arguments about late term abortions are invalid because they are irrelevant and absurd to the positions that do matter in this debate.

So it was a use of a strawman to make the point that this line of argument is absurd and irrelevant.

If it had been an actual strawman argument, I would have accused you of arguing that medically necessary abortion should be banned, but I didn't do that.

Also, showing that an argument is absurd in a given context is NOT a reductio ad absurdum argument. For that I would have had to try to link your original point to an absurd point. I didn't do that, either.

I'm not debating that, and we have demonstrated that it is clearly legal and allowable to have abortions past the fetal stage, as Poli said, up to the 20th week is "generally" the cutoff point.

To the abortions that occur in the fetal stage, especially those that are not medically necessary. Apparently, it's still legal, and since it's legal, it's an accepted argument to assume that some abortions will occur during the fetal stage. In the fetal stage, the fetus may "function" like a parasite, but it has the "form" of a child.
I see. So you're arguing that the anti-choice "form" argument has merit on the grounds that 20-week-old fetuses do look more people-y at that point?

Okay, I suppose it depends on your definition of "people-y" but whatever.

What I don't see is the merit the argument has. Who cares what it looks like? How is what it looks like an argument of equal weight to what it does? And while you're at it, show me how the way the anti-choice side USES the "but it looks like a cute little baby" argument is in any way comparable to the way the pro-choice side USES the "it functions like a parasite" argument.

I'm sure there are equivalencies. And I am sure there are differences. If you can show me some equivalencies, then at least you would be making an argument that could be discussed, rather than just repetitively pointing out that some people say something sometimes.



Form and function are two different aspects of any creature, machine, or well pretty much anything ever really. Ergo, when they say (referring to the fetal stage) that "it's like a child", in form it is. You say "it's like a parasite", in function it is.

Neither is wrong, but both create sudden and violent outbursts, division, and polarization to both sides of the argument, with no one left straddling the fence.
Form and function are two aspects of a thing, but they are not the same aspect, so unless you have just been posting all these words to practice your typing, you're going to have to make an argument that says something about the relationship of the two arguments to each other and/or to the topic as a whole.

Talking about something's form is not the same as talking about its functions and is not done for the same purposes.

How many scientific publications have you found that consider the term "parasite" to be offensive?

None, of course. But then, they're scientific publications, not abortion arguments, and they mention the term "parasite" only to refer to, you know, actual parasites.

Are you going to address the question at hand?

Except, once again, the vast majority of abortions don't occur during the fetal stage, so the "it's like a child" argument is an empty argument to use against abortion in general. In addition to being a fallacious appeal to emotion, it is either deliberately disingenuous or founded in utter ignorance.

If someone wants to make the argument that "oh, yeah, well that relatively small percentage of abortions that occur during the fetal stage and aren't medically necessary shouldn't be legal because it's like a child because it looks vaguely like a child," so be it. I don't anyone will be impressed.

The bottom line is that considering form OR function the subject of abortion is far, far more like a parasite (and depending on the definition IS A PARASITE) than it is like a person or even a born child.
Yes, thank you, THIS ^^ is what I was trying to say.

None, of course. But then, they're scientific publications, not abortion arguments, and they mention the term "parasite" only to refer to, you know, actual parasites.

Are you going to address the question at hand?

I just did. You are applying a double standard. As I said earlier:

It is rather disingenuous to argue on the one hand that an unborn is not a parasite because of a technical biological definition (i.e., difference in species between host and parasite), but argue on the other hand that parasite is an offensive term because it has meanings beyond the biological definition.

However, that's not the point - the point is they're both polarizing statements, and both equally absurd to me. A fetus is not like a parasite, or like a child. A fetus is like a fetus because it is a fetus. They are both true, after a fashion, but they have no purpose other than to solidify support for the people that are leaning onto their side, and alienating the rest.
Well the last sentence is just patently false, as has been abundantly explained in this thread.

And as to the bolded part, that adorable but trite little truism is all very well and good and could just as easily be said about anything, but it is quite useless because the comparisons made are parts of specific arguments or answers to questions. Unless you are either going to forbid this conversation from being had at all, or you are going to issue an approved vocabulary that we must use in all contexts, then you are just going to have to deal with analogies, comparisons, and descriptives being used as part of the demands of communication of ideas via language.

<snip irrelevancies>
I see. So you're arguing that the anti-choice "form" argument has merit on the grounds that 20-week-old fetuses do look more people-y at that point?

Okay, I suppose it depends on your definition of "people-y" but whatever.

It's used the same way.

What I don't see is the merit the argument has. Who cares what it looks like? How is what it looks like an argument of equal weight to what it does? And while you're at it, show me how the way the anti-choice side USES the "but it looks like a cute little baby" argument is in any way comparable to the way the pro-choice side USES the "it functions like a parasite" argument.

Of course you don't see the merit if their argument. They don't see the merit of yours. That's the point. Both sides are designed to completely alienate the other and reduce the argument to this:

"Yes it is!"
"Nuh uh!"
"Uh Huh!"
"Nuh uh!"
"Uh huh!"
"Nuh uh, and THIS!"
"Nuh uh!"
"Uh huh!"
ad nauseum

I'm sure there are equivalencies. And I am sure there are differences. If you can show me some equivalencies, then at least you would be making an argument that could be discussed, rather than just repetitively pointing out that some people say something sometimes.

Oh I don't know - warm blooded, four chambered heart, , opposable thumbs, there's a lot. Health was a long time ago.

Form and function are two aspects of a thing, but they are not the same aspect, so unless you have just been posting all these words to practice your typing, you're going to have to make an argument that says something about the relationship of the two arguments to each other and/or to the topic as a whole.

Well I do need to practice my typing. The topic as a whole is not my concern, as I am solidly on the side of pro-choice, and my input is not really required for that on this board. I just happen to think that this whole "it's a parasite" thing only alienates the people you're trying to convert. Ergo: pointless.

Why can't we call it what it is? First an embryo, then a fetus?

Talking about something's form is not the same as talking about its functions and is not done for the same purposes.

But in the way that it's executed here, it is. Both arguments are designed to polarize, group into two camps, and then fight the other camp.

I just did.

Um. No. You haven't. I'm still waiting for that publication that asserts fetuses are parasites. The one we both know doesn't exist.

You are applying a double standard. As I said earlier:

It is rather disingenuous to argue on the one hand that an unborn is not a parasite because of a technical biological definition (i.e., difference in species between host and parasite), but argue on the other hand that parasite is an offensive term because it has meanings beyond the biological definition.

It's the same argument. Calling a human fetus a parasite is both incorrect, and offensive. Where's the contradiction?

It's used the same way.



Of course you don't see the merit if their argument. They don't see the merit of yours. That's the point. Both sides are designed to completely alienate the other and reduce the argument to this:

"Yes it is!"
"Nuh uh!"
"Uh Huh!"
"Nuh uh!"
"Uh huh!"
"Nuh uh, and THIS!"
"Nuh uh!"
"Uh huh!"
ad nauseum

No shit, Sherlock, it's called a controversy.

Oh I don't know - warm blooded, four chambered heart, , opposable thumbs, there's a lot. Health was a long time ago.
What the hell are you muttering about now? I asked you for equivalencies between the form argument and the function argument. Are you suggesting that the two arguments both have four chambered hearts?

Well I do need to practice my typing. The topic as a whole is not my concern, as I am solidly on the side of pro-choice,
That would explain why you do such a poor job of defending the other side. :p

and my input is not really required for that on this board. I just happen to think that this whole "it's a parasite" thing only alienates the people you're trying to convert. Ergo: pointless.
I'm not trying to convert anybody.

And even if I was, I would not fudge facts to do it.

Why can't we call it what it is? First an embryo, then a fetus?
If you read my posts you will find that I generally do, unless I drop one just for expediency or I use "fetus" to keep in step with whatever I am specifically responding to. I am the one who is always typing "embryo/fetus" or just plain "embryo."

But in the way that it's executed here, it is. Both arguments are designed to polarize, group into two camps, and then fight the other camp.
Once more, and I am never going to type these words to you again (just c&p this post the next time you bring it up to me): NO, BOTH ARGUMENTS ARE NOT DESIGNED TO POLARIZE, GROUP INTO TWO CAMPS, AND THEN FIGHT THE OTHER CAMP. Only ONE of the arguments is designed to do that, and it is not the pro-choice one.

In fact, the parasite comparison IS NOT EVEN AN ARGUMENT. It is only a descriptive comparison that is part of an argument. Its purpose is to transmit factual information via a description of a real function and its impact on a woman's body. THAT has been explained numerous times in this thread. It will not be explained again.

Um. No. You haven't. I'm still waiting for that publication that asserts fetuses are parasites. The one we both know doesn't exist.

It's the same argument. Calling a human fetus a parasite is both incorrect, and offensive. Where's the contradiction?

*sigh*

Perhaps one of our resident scientists can surprise me, but I won't bother looking for what I agree with you doesn't exist.

My point, however, is that you are using one definition for the purposes of correctness and another for the purposes of offensiveness.

Regardless, I expect in the future you will be able to back up any assertions or analogies you make with peer-reviewed publications that can be linked. ;)

EDIT: I'd be especially interested in seeing a "scientific publication, an accredited biology or medical or parasitology journal, whatever" that says that unborn humans are more like persons than parasites or that they have a right to life.

What the hell are you muttering about now? I asked you for equivalencies between the form argument and the function argument. Are you suggesting that the two arguments both have four chambered hearts?

Ah, I misunderstood. I think we both have four chambered hearts. Does that count?

Lets see, equivalences between the form argument and the function argument.

Function argument:----------------------------Form Argument
Uses nutrients of the mother-------------------Four limbs, human shaped
Requires mother to respirate for it--------------Four chambered heart, beating
Requires waste removal by the mother---------Human brain, albeit small
forces mother to carry it around-----------------Has a wee-wee (if it's a boy)

I hope this works out on your screen. I'm on a 16x9 and I fiddled with it so it looks decent (damn jolt and only allowing one space).

That would explain why you do such a poor job of defending the other side. :p

Last I checked, I wasn't trying to.

I'm not trying to convert anybody.

Trying to be converted?

And even if I was, I would not fudge facts to do it.

Of course not. I wouldn't ask you to.

If you read my posts you will find that I generally do, unless I drop one just for expediency or I use "fetus" to keep in step with whatever I am specifically responding to. I am the one who is always typing "embryo/fetus" or just plain "embryo."

That really wasn't what I meant by that statement. I wasn't criticizing your completeness in posting. I meant all the "omgz its like a parasite and it's killing us" thing. It may be factually true (to a point), but there are better ways to put it. You know, you catch more flies with honey and all that. For instance:

"The fetus lives off the mother, taking her vital nutrients and making her do all the breathing, eating, and waste removal for it. It also actually harms her by causing A, B, and C."

As opposed to:

"The fetus is like a parasite. It causes A, B, and C."

Now, which do you think is likely to be more negatively reacted to?
Once more, and I am never going to type these words to you again (just c&p this post the next time you bring it up to me): NO, BOTH ARGUMENTS ARE NOT DESIGNED TO POLARIZE, GROUP INTO TWO CAMPS, AND THEN FIGHT THE OTHER CAMP. Only ONE of the arguments is designed to do that, and it is not the pro-choice one.

In fact, the parasite comoparison IS NOT EVEN AN ARGUMENT. It is only a descriptive comparison that is part of an argument. Its purpose is to transmit factual information via a description of a real function and its impact on a woman's body. THAT has been explained numerous times in this thread. It will not be explained again.

Relax Murv. Breathe deeply.

Ah, I misunderstood. I think we both have four chambered hearts. Does that count?
No.

Lets see, equivalences between the form argument and the function argument.

Function argument:----------------------------Form Argument
Uses nutrients of the mother-------------------Four limbs, human shaped
Requires mother to respirate for it--------------Four chambered heart, beating
Requires waste removal by the mother---------Human brain, albeit small
forces mother to carry it around-----------------Has a wee-wee (if it's a boy)

I hope this works out on your screen. I'm on a 16x9 and I fiddled with it so it looks decent (damn jolt and only allowing one space).
It works well enough for me to see that these are not equivalencies between the ARGUMENTS (at least, MY argument is a girl, so no wee-wee).

By the way, the way you link up the supposed points of equivalence -- those aren't equivalent to each other, either.

Last I checked, I wasn't trying to.
Oh, well, that's good, at least.

Trying to be converted?
Nope.

Of course not. I wouldn't ask you to.



That really wasn't what I meant by that statement. I wasn't criticizing your completeness in posting. I meant all the "omgz its like a parasite and it's killing us" thing. It may be factually true (to a point), but there are better ways to put it. You know, you catch more flies with honey and all that. For instance:

"The fetus lives off the mother, taking her vital nutrients and making her do all the breathing, eating, and waste removal for it. It also actually harms her by causing A, B, and C."

As opposed to:

"The fetus is like a parasite. It causes A, B, and C."

Now, which do you think is likely to be more negatively reacted to?
I happen to know for a fact, from several years and hundreds (possibly thousands) of hours of personal experience, that the first example gets the exact same level of hostility in reaction as the second one does. That is why I am not especially interested in pussy-footing with my terms -- I know it will avail me nothing. Since I will gain nothing by not using the accurate term, I will use the accurate term where appropriate.

Relax Murv. Breathe deeply.
I mean it, G. That point has been hashed enough. It is now downgraded to copy/paste responses.

It works well enough for me to see that these are not equivalencies between the ARGUMENTS (at least, MY argument is a girl, so no wee-wee).

By the way, the way you link up the supposed points of equivalence -- those aren't equivalent to each other, either.

Sure, one of form - or structure, if you will - the other is in function.

Nope.

I happen to know for a fact, from several years and hundreds (possibly thousands) of hours of personal experience, that the first example gets the exact same level of hostility in reaction as the second one does. That is why I am not especially interested in pussy-footing with my terms -- I know it will avail me nothing. Since I will gain nothing by not using the accurate term, I will use the accurate term where appropriate.

I mean it, G. That point has been hashed enough. It is now downgraded to copy/paste responses.

And I guess that, if you aren't looking to convert or be converted, and you're only going to copy/paste responses from here on out, there's nothing further for me to say.

Also, it's still not accurate. It doesn't fit the scientific definition.

38% is not really a small percentage. I mean, it's smaller than 50%, but not really that small.

Even 12% - the amount that occurred after 12 weeks (according to Poli's link) works out to 98,418 abortions in the US alone that occurred after 12 weeks.


You're making a fairly big error here in (apparently) assuming that "occurring before the elective cutoff point" necessarily means "elective." (For that matter, you also seem to be including abortions AFTER the elective cutoff point, i.e. ones that definitionally are not elective.) Unless one is arguing against medically necessary abortions or abortions in cases of rape or incest, second- or third-trimester abortions aren't really very relevant, because every set of stats I've seen on the subject suggests that the overwhelming majority of abortions after the first trimester are prompted by medical necessity.

Oh, well maybe we should just limit all premises to what you, personally have experienced, and then base the conclusions just on that, ignoring and dismissing all else as aberrant.

Sort of like what you're doing here? You've dismissed what, half a dozen people's statements that parasite is a neutral term?

If I'm right then I'm right!
That doesn't make any sense whatsoever as a response.

Um. No. You haven't. I'm still waiting for that publication that asserts fetuses are parasites. The one we both know doesn't exist.

Out of curiosity, is there a statute of limitations on this?

Edit: Since we're not supposed to discuss the parasite thing anymore and I was gone for that thus never having a chance to link what I found, I'll link it in this post. (http://books.google.com/books?id=C9IAAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA442&lpg=PA442&dq=fetus+as+parasite+journal&source=web&ots=aQFId7n5N9&sig=V_of-ftWKcCJkHdrAi2LBWWFXak#PPA442,M1)

Ha. No, you really don't. The excuse to yell at people may be nice for the first two minutes or so, but then there's still a day or two more of feeling like something is kicking you repeatedly in the ovaries to get through. :p

After years of being on continuous birth control, I accidentally skipped a couple of pills and experienced some of the most horrible pain of my entire life, for which I actually went to the ER, because I was pretty sure I had somehow ingested in a razor and it was working its way through my abdomen.

Apparently, it was just "extra strong" ovulation after not ovulating for many cycles (rather like repiercing an ear, I guess?). However, I like to think of it as one of my unborn children trying to claw its way out of my ovary.

I think hallucinations is one of the side effects.

Indeed. Also, having entire conversations/hours of activity go by that you don't remember unless and until someone brings them up. Also being unable to type or read, but insisting on doing so.

Not that I would know. Move along, nothing to see.

I can say that because, from the moment of conception, nothing is added. The fertilized egg cell continues dividing and re-dividing. No new cells are added to make it a human being.

Second, I must add that the majority of abortions in America are done on minorities. In fact, Margaret Sanger, the founder of the American Eugenics Association, which after World War II became know as Planned Parenthood, was a racist. Obviously; she founded a EUGENICS association. She believed that black folks were weeds in the human garden. She encouraged abortion among the blacks; she even spoke at KKK meetings.

Damn it, where did I put that screwdriver I was stabbing myself in the face with? Ah, there it is... sweet, sweet distraction.

Soooo....Was Abortion Redundant......Or not? lol

Sort of like what you're doing here? You've dismissed what, half a dozen people's statements that parasite is a neutral term?

Even a whole half a dozen people can be wrong. :rolleyes:

Yes, I will gleefully and repeatedly dismiss non-arguments like that right there. A fetus isn't a parasite, and if you want to convince me (or anyone) that it is (or that the term has no negative connotations), you'll have to do better than "there's six of us and one of you."

*sigh*

Perhaps one of our resident scientists can surprise me, but I won't bother looking for what I agree with you doesn't exist.

So, why defend the claim at all?

My point, however, is that you are using one definition for the purposes of correctness and another for the purposes of offensiveness.

Still don't follow. There's a technical definition. It has some non-technical connotations. Case in point, again - if I called you a "leech", I would be patently wrong (biologically), and it would still be offensive.

Regardless, I expect in the future you will be able to back up any assertions or analogies you make with peer-reviewed publications that can be linked.

Surely, if I am making a statement of 'scientific fact,' and support is required and requested, then yes. But don't go expecting me to pull out 10 pages of citations if I happen to say that water is kinda wet. :p

EDIT: I'd be especially interested in seeing a "scientific publication, an accredited biology or medical or parasitology journal, whatever" that says that unborn humans are more like persons than parasites or that they have a right to life.

You won't, because analogies are literary, not scientific.

(I note that I never claimed that anyone, born or not, has a right to life.)

Soooo....Was Abortion Redundant......Or not? lol
Abortion is NOT Redundant.

So the answer to the OP title question is yes. Abortion is not redundant.

Sure, one of form - or structure, if you will - the other is in function.
Except that, for example, having the form of a brain is not equivalent in either form or function to having the function of a heart.

And I guess that, if you aren't looking to convert or be converted, and you're only going to copy/paste responses from here on out, there's nothing further for me to say.

Also, it's still not accurate. It doesn't fit the scientific definition.
Ah, choosing just to ignore the information that has been posted in this thread that shows that, in fact, it DOES fit the scientific definition closely enough to be a valid comparison?

Or did you just forget the whole history of the conversation in your zeal to keep repeating yourself?

You're making a fairly big error here in (apparently) assuming that "occurring before the elective cutoff point" necessarily means "elective." (For that matter, you also seem to be including abortions AFTER the elective cutoff point, i.e. ones that definitionally are not elective.) Unless one is arguing against medically necessary abortions or abortions in cases of rape or incest, second- or third-trimester abortions aren't really very relevant, because every set of stats I've seen on the subject suggests that the overwhelming majority of abortions after the first trimester are prompted by medical necessity.
Thank you for posting this. It gets really hard to keep the real points above the rising tide of repetitive BS in this thread.

Except that, for example, having the form of a brain is not equivalent in either form or function to having the function of a heart.

Fail. I never said brain = heart. The fetus does have both form and function of a beating four-chambered heart, just as humans do. The heart starts beating on its own at 6-7 weeks. Once it enters the fetal stage, it also has a brain, and most of its other organs - in the same shape and form as grown humans do, but much smaller of course.

Ergo, it has the form of a human - a very small human.

Ah, choosing just to ignore the information that has been posted in this thread that shows that, in fact, it DOES fit the scientific definition closely enough to be a valid comparison?

Or did you just forget the whole history of the conversation in your zeal to keep repeating yourself?

Lets examine scientific definitions shall we?

Parasite: an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.

Homo Sapien: A taxonomic species within the genus Homo; humanity.

Now, you can argue that all you want - but those are the definitions.

Thank you for posting this. It gets really hard to keep the real points above the rising tide of repetitive BS in this thread.

It sure does. Please stop.

You're making a fairly big error here in (apparently) assuming that "occurring before the elective cutoff point" necessarily means "elective." (For that matter, you also seem to be including abortions AFTER the elective cutoff point, i.e. ones that definitionally are not elective.) Unless one is arguing against medically necessary abortions or abortions in cases of rape or incest, second- or third-trimester abortions aren't really very relevant, because every set of stats I've seen on the subject suggests that the overwhelming majority of abortions after the first trimester are prompted by medical necessity.

Well, I'm looking through this cdc article you gave, and it doesn't have any category for what's elective vs required. I would like to split that out, but I have insufficient data.

However, if 10-12% of all pregnancies have to be aborted for the health of the mother, I think we should ban the practice of getting pregnant altogether. It's clearly far too hazardous.

Fail. I never said brain = heart. The fetus does have both form and function of a beating four-chambered heart, just as humans do. The heart starts beating on its own at 6-7 weeks. Once it enters the fetal stage, it also has a brain, and most of its other organs - in the same shape and form as grown humans do, but much smaller of course.

Ergo, it has the form of a human - a very small human.



Lets examine scientific definitions shall we?

Parasite: an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.

Homo Sapien: A taxonomic species within the genus Homo; humanity.

Now, you can argue that all you want - but those are the definitions.



It sure does. Please stop.
*compares the above to the whole rest of the content of the thread and all the information that has been posted in it* *notices how Galloism wholesale ignores all of that content to (a) deny the content of his own post and (b) pretend that he's making the big breakthrough on definition posting* *also notices that, just as his equivalencies were not equivalent to each other, his supposedly definitive definitions are in fact not relevant to the point being made* *decides that G does not know what "equivalent" means* *loses respect for G*

You know what I'm going to do to cut down on the repetitive bullshit in this thread? I'm going to stop feeding you.

Bottom line: You are wrong. Human fetuses do function the same as parasites. I will say so in any context in which it comes up appropriately. Done.

Bottom line: You are wrong. Human fetuses do function the same as parasites. I will say so in any context in which it comes up appropriately. Done.

They do. And they have the form of a human being.

You will continue to say they're like parasites. Pro-Lifers will continue to say they're like people. You will both get angry and offended at the other, and it will degenerate into:

"Nuh uh!"
"Uh huh!"
"Nuh uh!"
"Uh huh!"
"Nuh uh!"
"Uh huh!"

This is the theme of every abortion thread ever, for this exact reason. Nothing ever changes, and nothing ever gets done, because both sides feel it necessary to completely offend the other at every opportunity.

Also, I didn't know you had respect for me.

They do. And they have the form of a human being.

You will continue to say they're like parasites. Pro-Lifers will continue to say they're like people. You will both get angry and offended at the other, and it will degenerate into:

"Nuh uh!"
"Uh huh!"
"Nuh uh!"
"Uh huh!"
"Nuh uh!"
"Uh huh!"

This is the theme of every abortion thread ever, for this exact reason. Nothing ever changes, and nothing ever gets done, because both sides feel it necessary to completely offend the other at every opportunity.

Also, I didn't know you had respect for me.
All right, here's a question for you: What, precisely, do you think should be "getting done" in an internet forum debate about abortion?

All right, here's a question for you: What, precisely, do you think should be "getting done" in an internet forum debate about abortion?

Food fight. *nod*

All right, here's a question for you: What, precisely, do you think should be "getting done" in an internet forum debate about abortion?

You make a valid point. It's very sarcastic, but very true.

However, I would expect that with a political science forum (as NSG tends to be, although it's also filled with irrelevancies), one would attempt to present ideas in such a way as to sway one of the readers. I have no doubt that many of the participants couldn't be swayed in either direction at gunpoint.

However, there are many people who sit and read the threads and just let it go. I read this whole thread beginning to end as it was being formed, looking to add information to my (relatively limited) knowledge base. When people start deliberately insulting each other and making inflammatory statements, it reduces the amount of information presented.

Ergo, to the silent masses that read the thread, everyone looks like they're frothing at the mouth and it's falling on the keyboard, making text appear. It degenerates us all.

You make a valid point. It's very sarcastic, but very true.

However, I would expect that with a political science forum (as NSG tends to be, although it's also filled with irrelevancies)
Where did you dream up that?

, one would attempt to present ideas in such a way as to sway one of the readers.
Which one? (treat as rhetorical question)

I have no doubt that many of the participants couldn't be swayed in either direction at gunpoint.

However, there are many people who sit and read the threads and just let it go. I read this whole thread beginning to end as it was being formed, looking to add information to my (relatively limited) knowledge base. When people start deliberately insulting each other and making inflammatory statements, it reduces the amount of information presented.

Ergo, to the silent masses that read the thread, everyone looks like they're frothing at the mouth and it's falling on the keyboard, making text appear. It degenerates us all.
What are you talking about? Degenerates us from what? Our obligation to impress forum lurkers?

Are we supposed to be trying to sway the lurkers in some manner? How are we going to know if we've succeeded? As far as I know this forum does not contain an Applause Meter function.

You know which NSG reader I'm interested in? The one who responds to sound arguments that are founded on clear logic and real facts. The one who judges the quality of an argument on how sound, logical and factual it is. I do my best to present such arguments in support of my points, and I do my best to expose my opponents' arguments as not sound, not logical, and/or not factual.

I am not interested in the reader who will only pay attention to an argument if if feels "nice" to him/her, or if the poster seems to be trying to cater to their feelings. My opponents can have those readers.

But since I have little way of ever knowing how readers will judge any given thread debate, I do not worry about whether I am swaying them or not. I just present my arguments in the way that I see fit.

You make a valid point. It's very sarcastic, but very true.

However, I would expect that with a political science forum (as NSG tends to be, although it's also filled with irrelevancies)

In fairness, we see you guys as the irrelevant ones. ;)

Where did you dream up that?

My mistake. I thought you were on a political game forum discussing a really hot political topic - namely, abortion.

What are you talking about? Degenerates us from what? Our obligation to impress forum lurkers?

From rationality, from dignity, that sort of thing.

Are we supposed to be trying to sway the lurkers in some manner? How are we going to know if we've succeeded? As far as I know this forum does not contain an Applause Meter function.

*submits idea*

You know which NSG reader I'm interested in? The one who responds to sound arguments that are founded on clear logic and real facts. The one who judges the quality of an argument on how sound, logical and factual it is. I do my best to present such arguments in support of my points, and I do my best to expose my opponents' arguments as not sound, not logical, and/or not factual.

I think mostly people here dismiss the opponent's arguments as irrelevant and then repeat what they said. I am not excepting anyone present.

I am not interested in the reader who will only pay attention to an argument if if feels "nice" to him/her, or if the poster seems to be trying to cater to their feelings. My opponents can have those readers.

But since I have little way of ever knowing how readers will judge any given thread debate, I do not worry about whether I am swaying them or not. I just present my arguments in the way that I see fit.

You do it deliberately in a way that antagonizes and alienates your opponent. That's the point - we're not having a discussion or even a well formed argument. We have this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM

The other side does the same thing.

In fairness, we see you guys as the irrelevant ones. ;)

Well, I am often filling NSG with irrelevancies, but this is not one of those times.

Well, I am often filling NSG with irrelevancies, but this is not one of those times.
No, actually, I think Dinaverg is right this time. It is especially clear that this side point has no relevance to anything since your last post addressed to me is little more than a protracted personal snipe that brings us right back to square one. By the way, you also repeated the accusation that I told had been downgraded to a c&p response only. It will come up shortly, and it will be the last post from me to you on this side-topic, and probably any other topic as well. I intend to return to the actual thread rather than just pay attention to you bitching at me.

No, actually, I think Dinaverg is right this time. It is especially clear that this side point has no relevance to anything since your last post addressed to me is little more than a protracted personal snipe that brings us right back to square one. By the way, you also repeated the accusation that I told had been downgraded to a c&p response only. It will come up shortly, and it will be the last post from me to you on this side-topic, and probably any other topic as well. I intend to return to the actual thread rather than just pay attention to you bitching at me.

Ok, given you've either blatantly dismissed without explanation or completely misrepresented every point I've made throughout this thread, and implied that everything I've said is either stupid and/or irrelevant, I don't see why I'm still here. I'm a glutton for punishment, I guess.

You go for it. I think everyone's already been run off that's willing to argue, so perhaps this thread will die a merciful death.

Man, it's awesome when people say my name. :D

It's the women's body so she has sole control over it.

yes thats true, but the both of them could of took preventative measures to ensure they wouldn't have a baby. i think a man has more obligation to ensure this but still it takes two to tango. i feel that if both parties agree that an abortion should be made then fine but when one agrees and the other doesn't thats when it becomes unfair.

if the man wants her to have an abortion but she doesn't want too, he has to give her money to support the child weather he wanted the child or not.
but if she wants an abortion but he doesn't, well he just has to sit with his thumb up his ass while she goes and does it.

i just feel that it is unfair to men. but before i get ripped to pieces for that statement, there are things very unfair to women aswell.

um . . .no sex=extinction of the human race

made me laugh but i ment it as a joke.

You do it deliberately in a way that antagonizes and alienates your opponent.
As promised if you went back to that "your argument is designed to polarize" bullshit:


Once more, and I am never going to type these words to you again (just c&p this post the next time you bring it up to me): NO, BOTH ARGUMENTS ARE NOT DESIGNED TO POLARIZE, GROUP INTO TWO CAMPS, AND THEN FIGHT THE OTHER CAMP. Only ONE of the arguments is designed to do that, and it is not the pro-choice one.

In fact, the parasite comparison IS NOT EVEN AN ARGUMENT. It is only a descriptive comparison that is part of an argument. Its purpose is to transmit factual information via a description of a real function and its impact on a woman's body. THAT has been explained numerous times in this thread. It will not be explained again.

You lapped yourself. We're done. 'Bye.

You lapped yourself. We're done. 'Bye.

And, just as in the first time, your over-the-top response is insufficient to answer the charge. Clearly, you had at least one person - Trostia - who finds it offensive. Offensive speech always causes polarization.

It's equivalent to saying "Nuh uh!"

Shit. Now I'm part of the "Nuh uh!" "Uh huh!" argument.

Ah, this again. Yes, we're just discussing biology. It's not an abortion argument after all. How could I be so mean by disagreeing with Biology? Biology says my argument's analogies are FACT!

Let's put it this way. Welfare recipients are parasites to the nation they live in. They take money (which represents also time and energy) from the host nation and give little to nothing back. They ultimately harm the host as a result.

Now, just because you have a disagreement with the term "parasite," that's just your personal preferences. Stop being sensitive by disagreeing with my use of completely neutral biological terms.

It's fact - in every other way than the host is the body of a nation instead of an individual, welfare recipients are parasites! They are JUST LIKE parasites and you better not disagree with my cold, scientific, and objective argument!

No, you don't have a martyr complex at all. That's why you respond to a statement about the difference between connotation and denotation by going off on a barely related rant.

All I have to say is dont kill the babies.

That's unusual since "car" doesn't have the same negative connotation as "parasite." That is to say you are burning a strawman here. You have fun with that; it contradicts nothing I've argued.

Me 'objecting' to the word 'car' doesn't have any bearing on whether it is an applicable word.

You saying you are 'unconvinced' about 'parasite' being an appropriate term is irrelevent (to anyone but you).

Even a whole half a dozen people can be wrong. :rolleyes:

It's not a matter of right or wrong. Connotations are never inherent in a word. Someone who chooses to see a word simply by its actual definition will not be applying extra connotations. Thus, to them, the word has no negative connotation.

If you choose to apply a negative connotation, then it has one - to you. It may or may not have one to the person using it and the person using it may or may not have been trying to invoke that reaction in you. Of course, you only have control over your own reactions.

The part where it's patently not true?

Are you HONESTLY going to pretend you've never seen, nor heard of, the use of the term "parasite" in a negative sense? That the one, and only meaning is "neutral" and "biological," and that all others are invalid, imagined, and exclusive to me, alone?

If we were talking about a four legged pet that barks, and you objected because you once heard someone call a friend of yours 'a dog'... it doesn't affect whether 'dog' is the appropriate name for that pet.

You're making a semantic argument about nothing. Do you honestly think that the entire abortion debate hinges on how 'appropriate' the word 'parasite' is?

If I started calling you or anyone else here a parasite, would you be offended? Would you think offense was meant? Or would you say, "Gee, he must be making a completely neutral biological analogy that has no other connotation!"


Which has what parallel to an entity that really DOES exist (functionally) parasitically?

That's right - none.

Are you going to start complaining that 'baby' is an inappropriate phrase for the post-partum entity, because it might be considered insulting, if I called you a baby?