Abortion Warnings?

[jfuh]

This response is as vacuous as vacuous can be.

Care to try again?

If so, try to be civil. Surely, you can find words that will enable you to formulate a refutation or, at least, a defense of your position, without having to resort to accusation and insult.

That is, of course, assuming that you do, indeed, have a position which may be defended. Thus far, that seems not to have been the case. Perhaps a sense of futility is the reason you have been driven to coarseness in your writings.

What a pity.

No surprise here, total avoidance of the issue and only now adhomenin attack on me. For shame.

 

[jfuh]

I respond by suggesting that you educate yourself on the subject. You may begin here:

Why a Human Embryo or Fetus
is Not a Parasite

by Thomas L. Johnson
Libertarians for Life
Copyright 1974, Thomas L. Johnson​

http://www.l4l.org/library/notparas.html

If you want me or anyone else to respect or accept your ideology, you're going to need to provide a source that is not biased. Libertarians for life is very much just a simple pro-life site. Thus 0 credibility. Perhaps you can provide me a scientific article (since that is what you claim to adhere to) that agrees with your take on this matter in contrast to the highly opinionated sources in which you've been providing?

Also, I think having a degree in Biological sciences is sufficient of education in this matter. what about you?

 

[jfuh]

Haven't seen any factual basis. Only seen dictionary meanings stretched and we all know prochoicers don't respect the dictionary anymore than they respect the human organism in the womb.

One day hopefully the whole argument will be televised. And you guys can all scream parasite, cargo, clump of cells....."

"Abortion is the no different than removing cancer or an appendix."

"You see we've decided a human is always a human but some of them aren't people or beings and that's why we can dismember them and place their parts in a slop bucket.

And then you can all whine when the pictures come out....."No fair....they're all fake." "All those pictures are doctored abortion doesn't look like that."

And then one of you can scream porn....the dead human organisms are porn. And I will just set back....have a beer....and watch Roe vs Wade go up in flames!

I guess it sucks being on the wrong side of the debate then. While in all, abortion is very much legal today world wide. The only side that I hear screaming right now is the pro-life side. Chanting in front of abortion clinincs and marching around while screaming indifferently to those in a psychiatric ward. So while you wait for a day that will never come, those of us that side with the rights of women are already sitting here in amusement while you desperately rant away:mrgreen:

 

[jfuh]

You forgot to mention both disclaimers at the bottom, the first being:
When some people claim preborn children are parasites, they mean "parasite" in its pejorative, that is, in its social-ethical sense. Prof. Johnson's article addresses only the biological meaning of "parasite.
And the second alluding to the fact that that was a pro-life site.
Still waiting on the no-agenda postings from sites....guess I better find something to kill all the time I'll have.
Oops! I said 'kill'....

You murderer! Pro-death fanatic!:mrgreen:

 

[jfuh]

What this means is that those in the Pro-Death crowd have no difficulty in bending, twisting, or otherwise distorting words and their meanings to produce euphemisms which will help them advance their cause.

Truth is simply suppressed, ignored, or garbled whenever expedient or when it will help to seduce into the Pro-Death camp those who take everything at face value without bothering to look under the rug, as it were.
Which is, of course, the correct thing to do.

The Pro-Death crowd cannot do this because it would damage their position by shedding light on the truth. They attempt to convince the ignorant that a child in utero is nothing more than a parsite. Sadly, ignorant persons swallow that.

How does this effect the biological veracity of the piece? If you refer to any secular biology text, you will find confirmation of the biological references made by the author.

If you're waiting until it appears, for example, on a Planned Parenthood website, you will wait until, as my grandfather used to say, "Till apples grow on cherry trees."

In the meantime, you could spend some of that time you're looking to kill by further educating yourself on the finer points of the human reproduction.

If you do, you'll find that it is neither social, nor political, but simply biological.

You're totally evading the post.
Just show us any such statment from a non-prolife nuthead site.

 

[jfuh]

hello??? you're addressing someone who spent ten years in the care of fertility specialists-considered among the best in the country. don't tell ME how reproduction works, I can run circles around anything you have to offer up. the words used was parasitic-like. you and your ilk are the twisters here-biologically speaking, the similies were not outlandish at all. But, your penchant for twisting and putting words in others' cyber-mouths have taken the meaning wrong...as usual.

Well I said parasite in the noun, as parasitic is adverb of the same word.

 

[jfuh]

Congratulations on having kept that a well concealed secret. I can't imagine that anyone reading your contributions would have ever guessed.

Thus your implying?
Can't face the fact that those of us whom are Pro-choice actually are either in the health profession or of the academic field? Where as in contrast to the pro-life side which is mostly religious ideology and misinformed individuals?

 

[jfuh]

I'm sure that a person of your obvious intelligence could find a word which is more accurately descriptive of the relationship between a child in utero and its mother than "parasite" or one of its derivatives.

What's wrong with using the word parasite or parasitic when in fact it's precisly the fact?

 

[jfuh]

I agree.
I posted to this fact quite extensively with Talloulou in the other thread.
Terminology does nothing to detract from value in this instance.

Bingo, the prolife side insists on the value factor when no one is arguing about value at all. Value is completely irrelevant to the scientific facts. Religion, culture, society and philosophy place value. Science does not assign value.

 

[Fantasea]

Originally Posted by Fantasea
I'm sure that a person of your obvious intelligence could find a word which is more accurately descriptive of the relationship between a child in utero and its mother than "parasite" or one of its derivatives.

You may not like the word, but it pretty accurately describes the situation.

Neither my likes nor dislikes have anything to do with the circumstances of a child in utero.

The use of clever euphemisms or mangled word definitions to mislead by describing circumstances in misrepresented terms because the plain, unvarnished, truth would be painful or diminish the efficacy of the tale being told has long been a favored tactic of politicians and the Pro-Death crowd.

A child in utero is not a parasite. Dupes may be persuaded to believe such foolishness; intelligent persons see through the subterfuge.

If the biological explanation provided by Thomas L. Johnson, which I cited earlier, was too deep, then perhaps this unsigned explanation, based on logic, will be more understandable.


"The only two real differences between pro-choicers and pro-lifers is the definition of a human and the parasitic qualities of (or lack thereof) a fetus/unborn baby. Only these two differences exist because abortion is only wrong (and also illegal) if determined that the fetus is a human and that this human is not a parasitic stowaway hitching an unwelcome ride. The pro-lifer must prove that the fetus is human and that this human is not parasitic.

[By the process of elimination, we will see that the only time that a human becomes human is at conception.]

Some people, such as members of numerous Protestant denominations, believe that abortions can only happen before the 3rd trimester (6-9 months). The logic for this is quite valid: the 6-month old is developed enough to look and feel like a human baby. In some cases, it can even survive outside the womb, although quite underdeveloped. Under this guise though, a fetus in the 2nd trimester (3-5 months) is less developed and thus less worthy of life than a more developed 3rd trimester fetus. However, biological processes such as abortions are not clear-cut, "line in the sand" examples. Just as variances in real life exist about development (14 year-olds males with beards versus their non-bearded 16 year-old counterparts), abortion is no different. The developmental cycle in any biological being (whether it be a bacterium or a fetus or a massive whale) is not statistically exact. Contrary to the lack of imprecision of the stock market (which can be pinpointed between quarters, weeks, days, and even minutes), the trimester of a pregnancy is rather an inexact arbitration with real variances. A 5-month 3-week old fetus (still in the 2nd trimester) can look more advanced than a 6-month 1-week old fetus (already in the 3rd trimester) because embryonic development is not fixed in stone and can vary like any other biological process, as with the 14-year old bearded male. (No wonder most fetuses aren't born exactly on their 9-month due date.)

The same argument can be applied against the logic by which humanness is defined at birth. Why can a 9-month old fetus be aborted (though rarely, but still legally) a day before delivery while a premature 8-month old fetus that has been delivered can be allowed to live? Believing that the potentially underdeveloped 8-month old fetus, or say 7-month old fetus, can live just because it is on the "outside" while the "ready" 9-month old fetus can be aborted is against common sense.

There obviously is no defining feature of humanness either during the pregnancy cycle or birth itself and because of this the "born, human, alive" argument is dead. Since the same developmental argument can be applied to any later stage (for example, why an already born baby isn't a human yet), process of elimination tells us one only one thing: either we are never human or we are human at conception, the only feasible biological beginning of the individual. As a result, the only logical conclusion is that we are humans from the first moment of conception.

We can also look at genetics for defining what it is that makes us human. At conception, the sperm (with its own genetic material) and the egg (with yet another set of genetic material) create an embryo with distinct genetic material. This new genetic material is capable to, and usually does, turn into the same human being that created it. So, if that embryo will become similar to its two creators, either it must be a human like them, or none of the three (man, woman, embryo) is human. Taking it to its logical conclusion, if no one is human, then I could shoot anybody who, for example, disagreed with me since there is no human life that has to be respected.

[Having proved that the fetus is a human and cannot be anything other than a human, I have to prove that this human is not a parasite of the mother. When that is proved, abortion no longer is plausible since we are in effect killing a harmless human.]

Reasonable outcome tells us that the human hitching a ride inside the mother is not parasitic. As opposed to a cancerous tumor, the final result of the unborn human is to be similar to its parents, and thus helps reproduce the human race, the same race the mother is from. A cancer patient will die because the cancer will literally take life away from its host. Cancer is truly a parasite: if left untreated it will, in almost all cases, cause permanent death. On the other hand, the unborn human is taking a very limited supply of the mother, as the mother can perform all vital functions needed for maintaining her own life. This "sapping" without regard for what the "woman can actually spare" is not grave, vital, or threatening to the mother's life or even health. The discomfort, as opposed to a feasible threat, of pregnancy is temporary, showing that the unborn human is not malignant. While there are a few tragic situations when the mother does die as a result of the pregnancy, it cannot be generalized just as cases in which cancer patients who mysteriously survive cannot be generalized either. (As a small sidenote, if the mother is in imminent threat and danger from dying as a result of the birth, the mother's life is to be preferred since she has proved herself to be more capable of life than the unborn child.) Having already proved that the fetus is a human, the "comforts over life" argument is illogical. For example, if I get stuck working with a boss who causes me a pay cut or makes me stay an hour after regular hours, then because of this discomfort, I could legally kill him. As people feuding over their grievances of personal discomfort would cause anarchy (as you could kill anyone who causes you discomfort), the temporary discomfort of pregnancy is to be of lesser consideration than the new human life's value.

I have proved that a fetus is a human and that this unborn human is not a parasite. All other arguments are squished underneath because now abortion deems as killing of a human life. No amounts of "fetus enslaving mother" can shatter the inherent evil of abortion because no amounts of temporary discomfort, if even that, can justify the killing of a human life."

 

[steen]

Neither my likes nor dislikes have anything to do with the circumstances of a child in utero.

That is not scientifically accurate and specific terminology. Could you please avoid clever euphemisms and mangled word definitions to mislead by describing circumstances in misrepresented terms, thanks.

The use of clever euphemisms or mangled word definitions to mislead by describing circumstances in misrepresented terms because the plain, unvarnished, truth would be painful or diminish the efficacy of the tale being told has long been a favored tactic of politicians and the Pro-Death crowd.

That sounds like a very accurate and right on target description of the pro-life revisionist linguistic hyperbole. Guess you now call pro-life the "pro-death crowd"? I wonder why.

A child in utero is not a parasite.

Well, "it" isn't anything at all, because it is an artificial construct. Now, if you were talking about an embryo or a fetus instead, then it very certainly would be parasitic, of course.

Dupes may be persuaded to believe such foolishness; intelligent persons see through the subterfuge.

If the biological explanation provided by Thomas L. Johnson, which I cited earlier,

Bit it was not a biological explanation. Rather, it was a biophilosophical reiteration of sophistry, a distortion and manipulation for the sake of political expediency. To call that "biological explanation is wildly inaccurate and rather dishonest, of course.

was too deep, then perhaps this unsigned explanation, based on logic, will be more understandable.

'unsigned"? Ah, you made it up! OK, whatever.

"The only two real differences between pro-choicers and pro-lifers is the definition of a human

Nonsense, as "a human" is a born entity. We define this entity the same way.

and the parasitic qualities of (or lack thereof) a fetus/unborn baby.

If the products of conception are using the woman's bodily resources without contributing to her survival, then it certainly functions in a parasitic fashion. That is the very nature of parasitism. Denying this would merely expose the person's extreme ignorance of even very basic scientific/biologic concepts. For sure, it would be devastatingly exposing of the blatant ignorance of anybody who would claim to have any kind of biological/scientific background or who would claim to argue based on these concepts.

Only these two differences exist because abortion is only wrong (and also illegal) if determined that the fetus is a human

Again irrelevant, as rights are based on law, not science.

and that this human is not a parasitic stowaway hitching an unwelcome ride. The pro-lifer must prove that the fetus is human and that this human is not parasitic.

As the very definition of parasitism fits the fetus and embryo, that idea is a non-starter. Anybody with even a minimum of biological knowledge or training would know this.

[By the process of elimination, we will see that the only time that a human becomes human is at conception.]

More nonsense and utterly irrelevant to the issue of parasitism. Why do you load this post up with irrelevant fluff? You must really not know what parasitism really mean, when you can push all this blabbering nonsense as "evidence" regarding parasitism!

....Reasonable outcome tells us that the human hitching a ride inside the mother is not parasitic.

The outcome is irrelevant. The question is whether the embryo or fetus function LIKE a parasite in the use of the woman's bodily resources without contributing to her survival. That is the ONLY question at hand, your blabbering and meandering post of irrelevant and thus ignorant nonsense none withstanding.

As opposed to a cancerous tumor, the final result of the unborn human is to be similar to its parents, and thus helps reproduce the human race, the same race the mother is from.

Irrelevant. It doesn't aid the survival of the host.

A cancer patient will die because the cancer will literally take life away from its host. Cancer is truly a parasite: if left untreated it will, in almost all cases, cause permanent death. On the other hand, the unborn human is taking a very limited supply of the mother, as the mother can perform all vital functions needed for maintaining her own life. This "sapping" without regard for what the "woman can actually spare" is not grave, vital, or threatening to the mother's life or even health.

But still is parasitic.

You know, this is REALLY lame. This source, be it you or somebody else, demonstrates incredibly serious ignorance of even very basic biological concepts, almost as if the source have no knowledge whatsoever of biology or science. Rather shocking, actually, raising the prospect of the source being a result of anti-science homeschooling environment? Could you enlighten us as to the source?

The discomfort, as opposed to a feasible threat, of pregnancy is temporary, showing that the unborn human is not malignant. While there are a few tragic situations when the mother does die as a result of the pregnancy, it cannot be generalized just as cases in which cancer patients who mysteriously survive cannot be generalized either. (As a small sidenote, if the mother is in imminent threat and danger from dying as a result of the birth, the mother's life is to be preferred since she has proved herself to be more capable of life than the unborn child.) Having already proved that the fetus is a human, the "comforts over life" argument is illogical.

Irrelevant. The question at hand is that of parasitism. You MUST have, if you even have a glimmer of knowledge about biology, have known that this text is utterly irrelevant and off-topic, saying absolutely nothing about parasitism. What went through your mind when serving this nonsense up as evidence?

Were you trying to figure out he best way to show your ignorance and incompetence? Is this some kind of masochistic desire to be humiliated in public by showing utter and complete ignorance?

For example, if I get stuck working with a boss who causes me a pay cut or makes me stay an hour after regular hours, then because of this discomfort, I could legally kill him. As people feuding over their grievances of personal discomfort would cause anarchy (as you could kill anyone who causes you discomfort), the temporary discomfort of pregnancy is to be of lesser consideration than the new human life's value.

Huh? What does silly, pro-life, slippery-slope sophistry have to do with parasitism?

I have proved that a fetus is a human and that this unborn human is not a parasite.

Where? This ignorant claptrap shows nothing other than the source being an imbecile WRT science and biology. numbskull source? And you felt this disproved parasitism? You feel it proved the embryo or fetus contributing to the woman's biological function? As it doesn't, I must wonder what lack of knowledge gave you the idea that it had relevance?

Your source said absolutely NOTHING about parasitism anywhere, other than claiming it had disproved it. This is downright dumb and stupid. It shows ignorance on a monumental scale.

 

[talloulou]

[/I]Nonsense, as "a human" is a born entity. We define this entity the same way.

There is no way a human organism (which is what a human embryo is) could be considered not a human. Taxonomy is the practice of scientists classyifying organisms. And only a totally brainwashed bafoon with little to no education would believe that a human embryo or a human fetus would fall under some parasite classification vs the human or homosapien classification.

I'll await your response which I'm sure will contain little substance and tons of personal attack.

 

[steen]

As you said nothing meaningful, there is nothing to reply to.

 

[talloulou]

Nonsense, as "a human" is a born entity. We define this entity the same way.

There is no way a human organism (which is what a human embryo is) could be considered not a human. Taxonomy is the practice of scientists classyifying organisms. And only a totally brainwashed bafoon with little to no education would believe that a human embryo or a human fetus would fall under some parasite classification vs the human or homosapien classification.

I'll await your response which I'm sure will contain little substance and tons of personal attack.

As you said nothing meaningful, there is nothing to reply to.

At least you're consistent. :roll:

 

[Fantasea]

Originally Posted by Fantasea
Neither my likes nor dislikes have anything to do with the circumstances of a child in utero.

That is not scientifically accurate and specific terminology. Could you please avoid clever euphemisms and mangled word definitions to mislead by describing circumstances in misrepresented terms, thanks.

Don’t thank me. Take it up with Congress.

The Innocent Child Protection Act (H.R. 4888), introduced by Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fl.) on July 19, 2000, prohibits state governments from carrying out a sentence of death on a woman who carries a child in utero.

The use of clever euphemisms or mangled word definitions to mislead by describing circumstances in misrepresented terms because the plain, unvarnished, truth would be painful or diminish the efficacy of the tale being told has long been a favored tactic of politicians and the Pro-Death crowd.

That sounds like a very accurate and right on target description of the pro-life revisionist linguistic hyperbole. Guess you now call pro-life the "pro-death crowd"? I wonder why.

The reason you wonder why is because you are to blind to see the truth about abortion and too stubborn to accept it.

A child in utero is not a parasite.

Well, "it" isn't anything at all, because it is an artificial construct. Now, if you were talking about an embryo or a fetus instead, then it very certainly would be parasitic, of course.

As I wrote above, blind and stubborn.

Dupes may be persuaded to believe such foolishness; intelligent persons see through the subterfuge.

If the biological explanation provided by Thomas L. Johnson, which I cited earlier,

Bit it was not a biological explanation. Rather, it was a biophilosophical reiteration of sophistry, a distortion and manipulation for the sake of political expediency. To call that "biological explanation is wildly inaccurate and rather dishonest, of course.

As I wrote above, blind and stubborn.

was too deep, then perhaps this unsigned explanation, based on logic, will be more understandable.

'unsigned"? Ah, you made it up! OK, whatever.

Yeah, whatever.

"The only two real differences between pro-choicers and pro-lifers is the definition of a human

Nonsense, as "a human" is a born entity. We define this entity the same way.

Only the Pro-Death crowd concocts that definition because the truth would hurt them.

and the parasitic qualities of (or lack thereof) a fetus/unborn baby.

If the products of conception are using the woman's bodily resources without contributing to her survival, then it certainly functions in a parasitic fashion. That is the very nature of parasitism. Denying this would merely expose the person's extreme ignorance of even very basic scientific/biologic concepts. For sure, it would be devastatingly exposing of the blatant ignorance of anybody who would claim to have any kind of biological/scientific background or who would claim to argue based on these concepts.

As I wrote above, blind and stubborn.

Only these two differences exist because abortion is only wrong (and also illegal) if determined that the fetus is a human

Again irrelevant, as rights are based on law, not science.

You forget that certain rights are inalienable.

and that this human is not a parasitic stowaway hitching an unwelcome ride. The pro-lifer must prove that the fetus is human and that this human is not parasitic.

As the very definition of parasitism fits the fetus and embryo, that idea is a non-starter. Anybody with even a minimum of biological knowledge or training would know this.

Only your convoluted twisted euphemistic definition. Cite for us a recognized biology text book which supports your contention. You won’t because none exists.

[By the process of elimination, we will see that the only time that a human becomes human is at conception.]

More nonsense and utterly irrelevant to the issue of parasitism. Why do you load this post up with irrelevant fluff? You must really not know what parasitism really mean, when you can push all this blabbering nonsense as "evidence" regarding parasitism!

Cite for us a recognized biology text book which supports your contention.

....Reasonable outcome tells us that the human hitching a ride inside the mother is not parasitic.

The outcome is irrelevant. The question is whether the embryo or fetus function LIKE a parasite in the use of the woman's bodily resources without contributing to her survival. That is the ONLY question at hand, your blabbering and meandering post of irrelevant and thus ignorant nonsense none withstanding.

So now you change it from “parasite” to “parasite-like”.
You have finally exposed yourself as the author of phony, fraud perpetrating, misleading posts.

As opposed to a cancerous tumor, the final result of the unborn human is to be similar to its parents, and thus helps reproduce the human race, the same race the mother is from.

Irrelevant. It doesn't aid the survival of the host.

I don’t believe that even you could believe such a blatant and ridiculous attempt to hide from the truth.

A cancer patient will die because the cancer will literally take life away from its host. Cancer is truly a parasite: if left untreated it will, in almost all cases, cause permanent death. On the other hand, the unborn human is taking a very limited supply of the mother, as the mother can perform all vital functions needed for maintaining her own life. This "sapping" without regard for what the "woman can actually spare" is not grave, vital, or threatening to the mother's life or even health.

But still is parasitic.

I am beginning to think this discussion has caused you to become para-sick-ic.

You know, this is REALLY lame. This source, be it you or somebody else, demonstrates incredibly serious ignorance of even very basic biological concepts, almost as if the source have no knowledge whatsoever of biology or science. Rather shocking, actually, raising the prospect of the source being a result of anti-science homeschooling environment? Could you enlighten us as to the source?

Whoever it is really knocked your socks off.
The discomfort, as opposed to a feasible threat, of pregnancy is temporary, showing that the unborn human is not malignant. While there are a few tragic situations when the mother does die as a result of the pregnancy, it cannot be generalized just as cases in which cancer patients who mysteriously survive cannot be generalized either. (As a small sidenote, if the mother is in imminent threat and danger from dying as a result of the birth, the mother's life is to be preferred since she has proved herself to be more capable of life than the unborn child.) Having already proved that the fetus is a human, the "comforts over life" argument is illogical.
[/quote]
Irrelevant. The question at hand is that of parasitism. You MUST have, if you even have a glimmer of knowledge about biology, have known that this text is utterly irrelevant and off-topic, saying absolutely nothing about parasitism. What went through your mind when serving this nonsense up as evidence?
[/quote]
As I read it, I immediately thought of you and couldn’t wait to post it. I knew it would get you all fired up. However I’m disappointed because you have not provided a shred of authoritative backup for your ranting and raving. It’s simply more of the same drivel you constantly spew because you are unable to provide authoritative sources to support your inane claims.

Were you trying to figure out he best way to show your ignorance and incompetence? Is this some kind of masochistic desire to be humiliated in public by showing utter and complete ignorance?

No. I simply get a kick out of driving you up the wall.

For example, if I get stuck working with a boss who causes me a pay cut or makes me stay an hour after regular hours, then because of this discomfort, I could legally kill him. As people feuding over their grievances of personal discomfort would cause anarchy (as you could kill anyone who causes you discomfort), the temporary discomfort of pregnancy is to be of lesser consideration than the new human life's value.

Huh? What does silly, pro-life, slippery-slope sophistry have to do with parasitism?

You have it backwards. What does parasitism have to do with a child in utero?

I have proved that a fetus is a human and that this unborn human is not a parasite.

Where? This ignorant claptrap shows nothing other than the source being an imbecile WRT science and biology. numbskull source? And you felt this disproved parasitism? You feel it proved the embryo or fetus contributing to the woman's biological function? As it doesn't, I must wonder what lack of knowledge gave you the idea that it had relevance?

Your source said absolutely NOTHING about parasitism anywhere, other than claiming it had disproved it. This is downright dumb and stupid. It shows ignorance on a monumental scale.

If ignorance is what you’re looking for, after reading your weak, feeble, empty denials of the truth, I suggest that you stand in front of a mirror. You will find ignorance staring back at you.

In the meantime, go find some authoritative sources to back up your claims and denials.

 

[steen]

That is not scientifically accurate and specific terminology. Could you please avoid clever euphemisms and mangled word definitions to mislead by describing circumstances in misrepresented terms, thanks.

Don’t thank me. Take it up with Congress.

What a moronic evasion, as congress is not scientific but rather is political. If you want to discuss abortion on a political basis, then please don't lie and claim you are debating on a scientific basis. When you claim to debate scientifically, then you need to use scientific sources.

Obviously you do not know what that is!! :roll:

The reason you wonder why is because you are to blind to see the truth about abortion and too stubborn to accept it.

Actually, we were talking about pro-life liars, not abortions. Is there some reason you are to afraid to deal with the issues at hand? Lack of knowledge, perhaps? Why the deceptions and evasions, why the constant running away from the issues? LAME.

As I wrote above, blind and stubborn.

As I pointed out above, lame and cowardly evasion.

As I wrote above, blind and stubborn.

As I pointed out above, lame and cowardly evasion. You are still deceptively claiming to use scientific facts when spewing political and philosophical claims. That's deception, and as I have called you on it before, it must be deliberate lying.

Yeah, whatever.

Well, when you refuse to provide a source, we can do nothing but assume that you made the whole thing up.

Only the Pro-Death crowd concocts that definition because the truth would hurt them.

Again, the lying crap about pro-death. Amazing, the dishonesty you always display. And are you saying that you define a born person differently than pro-choice does?

Oh, I get it. If that born person is a pregnant woman, then you define her as tissue with no rights, as a self-propelled uterus only. :doh How could I forget the incredible misogyny of pro-life.

As I wrote above, blind and stubborn.

As I pointed out above, lame and cowardly evasion. You are still deceptively claiming to use scientific facts when spewing political and philosophical claims. That's deception, and as I have called you on it before, it must be deliberate lying.

You forget that certain rights are inalienable.

Can you show the specific law providing such "inalienable rights"? No? So you are again spewing outright falsehoods.:roll: That still is not a surprise.

And again, such laws would still not be based on scientific proof, still making your claim a lie.

Only your convoluted twisted euphemistic definition. Cite for us a recognized biology text book which supports your contention. You won’t because none exists.

The definition of parasitism will do. Your silly evasions don't change that. LAME.

Cite for us a recognized biology text book which supports your contention.

The definition of parasitism will do. Your silly evasions don't change that. LAME.

So now you change it from “parasite” to “parasite-like”.
You have finally exposed yourself as the author of phony, fraud perpetrating, misleading posts.

Another lie. I have never said the embryo or fetus is a parasite. Nice going there, continuing to spew your outright lies.

I don’t believe that even you could believe such a blatant and ridiculous attempt to hide from the truth.

The truth is that parasitism is defined per an entity using a body for resources without adding to its survival. That you so cowardly try to run from that with your very poor sophistry is merely evidence that you didn't have an argument to begin with.

I am beginning to think this discussion has caused you to become para-sick-ic.

What a lame evasion. You sure are doing your darnest not to have to deal with the exposure of your lies and outright ignorance. How cowardly of you.

Whoever it is really knocked your socks off.

By claiming to have disproved parasitism without even mentioning its relevance?

And what do you mean with "whoever it is"? YOU provided the source. You don't even know the relevance or factuality of the source, you don't even know who it is or where it originated?

Now, THAT sure is lame and showing how poor your reasoning is.

The discomfort, as opposed to a feasible threat, of pregnancy is temporary, showing that the unborn human is not malignant.

Friggin' irrelevant. parasites are not malignant, and thus parasitism is not malignant either. Can you really be THAT ignorant?

While there are a few tragic situations when the mother does die as a result of the pregnancy, it cannot be generalized just as cases in which cancer patients who mysteriously survive cannot be generalized either.

STILL irrelevant, as parasites don't necessarily kill their hosts. Don't you know ANYTHING?

(As a small sidenote, if the mother is in imminent threat and danger from dying as a result of the birth, the mother's life is to be preferred since she has proved herself to be more capable of life than the unborn child.) Having already proved that the fetus is a human, the "comforts over life" argument is illogical.

Irrelevant. The question at hand is that of parasitism. You MUST have, if you even have a glimmer of knowledge about biology, have known that this text is utterly irrelevant and off-topic, saying absolutely nothing about parasitism. What went through your mind when serving this nonsense up as evidence?

As I read it, I immediately thought of you and couldn’t wait to post it. I knew it would get you all fired up. However I’m disappointed because you have not provided a shred of authoritative backup for your ranting and raving. It’s simply more of the same drivel you constantly spew because you are unable to provide authoritative sources to support your inane claims.

I don't need to prove anything until you actually provides something that deals with whether the embryo or fetus is a parasite or not.

No. I simply get a kick out of driving you up the wall.

Ah, so you are trolling and flaming. But I am puzzled. How does you spewing lies and exposing your self as ignorant and deceptive possibly drive me up the wall? I am having great fun exposing you as both a liar and an ignoramus.

You have it backwards. What does parasitism have to do with a child in utero?

What does this weird, made-up "child in utero" term have to do with anything? That aside, the embryo or fetus uses the woman's bodily resources without contributing to her survival, so it absolutely is parasitic.

If ignorance is what you’re looking for,

I am not looking for it; I found it in your post.

 

[talloulou]

What a moronic evasion, as congress is not scientific but rather is political. If you want to discuss abortion on a political basis, then please don't lie and claim you are debating on a scientific basis. When you claim to debate scientifically, then you need to use scientific sources.

Obviously you do not know what that is!! :roll:

Actually, we were talking about pro-life liars, not abortions. Is there some reason you are to afraid to deal with the issues at hand? Lack of knowledge, perhaps? Why the deceptions and evasions, why the constant running away from the issues? LAME.

As I pointed out above, lame and cowardly evasion.

As I pointed out above, lame and cowardly evasion. You are still deceptively claiming to use scientific facts when spewing political and philosophical claims. That's deception, and as I have called you on it before, it must be deliberate lying.

Well, when you refuse to provide a source, we can do nothing but assume that you made the whole thing up.

Again, the lying crap about pro-death. Amazing, the dishonesty you always display. And are you saying that you define a born person differently than pro-choice does?

Oh, I get it. If that born person is a pregnant woman, then you define her as tissue with no rights, as a self-propelled uterus only. :doh How could I forget the incredible misogyny of pro-life.

As I pointed out above, lame and cowardly evasion. You are still deceptively claiming to use scientific facts when spewing political and philosophical claims. That's deception, and as I have called you on it before, it must be deliberate lying.

Can you show the specific law providing such "inalienable rights"? No? So you are again spewing outright falsehoods.:roll: That still is not a surprise.

And again, such laws would still not be based on scientific proof, still making your claim a lie.

The definition of parasitism will do. Your silly evasions don't change that. LAME.

The definition of parasitism will do. Your silly evasions don't change that. LAME.

Another lie. I have never said the embryo or fetus is a parasite. Nice going there, continuing to spew your outright lies.

The truth is that parasitism is defined per an entity using a body for resources without adding to its survival. That you so cowardly try to run from that with your very poor sophistry is merely evidence that you didn't have an argument to begin with.

What a lame evasion. You sure are doing your darnest not to have to deal with the exposure of your lies and outright ignorance. How cowardly of you.

By claiming to have disproved parasitism without even mentioning its relevance?

And what do you mean with "whoever it is"? YOU provided the source. You don't even know the relevance or factuality of the source, you don't even know who it is or where it originated?

Now, THAT sure is lame and showing how poor your reasoning is.

Friggin' irrelevant. parasites are not malignant, and thus parasitism is not malignant either. Can you really be THAT ignorant?

STILL irrelevant, as parasites don't necessarily kill their hosts. Don't you know ANYTHING?

I don't need to prove anything until you actually provides something that deals with whether the embryo or fetus is a parasite or not.

Ah, so you are trolling and flaming. But I am puzzled. How does you spewing lies and exposing your self as ignorant and deceptive possibly drive me up the wall? I am having great fun exposing you as both a liar and an ignoramus.

What does this weird, made-up "child in utero" term have to do with anything? That aside, the embryo or fetus uses the woman's bodily resources without contributing to her survival, so it absolutely is parasitic.

I am not looking for it; I found it in your post.

The embryo or fetus is "parasitic like" in the same way an adult who argues like a two year old is child-like. Certainly not in a scientific....this is how scientists would classify this organism way. It's really just a way for you to devalue the exising life in the womb. And you'll cling to the dictionary to prove your case for this parasitism and yet you'll toss the dictionary when it comes to using terms such as baby and chld to describe the unborn human.

Yours is a blame game.

That unborn human in utero is parasitic and thus deserves to be killed.

The pregnant women doesn't know how to use birth control and thus her pregnancy is the not the fault of her or her lover it's the fault of right wing conservative prolifers.

Nevermind that the abortion numbers are ridiculously high in an age where almost everyone has immediate access to any information they want via the computer. Never mind that most teenage girls know how to use the computer and many have their own web sites. Nevermind that there are over 800+ planned parenthoods in 50 states. The reason these teenage girls and adult women are having abortions has nothing to do with the fact that the prochoice movement has devalued human life to the point that there is no shame in abortion right? Nothing to do with the fact that planned parenthood pushes education that suggests anal sex is a way to maintain your virginity? Nevermind that Planned Parenthood suggests it's possible a fetus is unable to feel pain at any point in pregnancy. Nothing to do with the fact that women are told all abortion pics are fake? Nothing to with the fact that in our culture women are taught that there is apparently nothing morally wrong with abortion? Nothing to do with the fact that abortion as birth control is socially acceptable and a constitutional right for proud women across the nation? Nothing to do with the fact that Planned Parenthood runs at a profit?

Right?

And it has everything to do with prolife conservatives? We're the ones to blame for the mentality that has developed in an abortion on demand world? Right?

 

[Fantasea]

What a moronic evasion, as congress is not scientific but rather is political. If you want to discuss abortion on a political basis, then please don't lie and claim you are debating on a scientific basis. When you claim to debate scientifically, then you need to use scientific sources.

Obviously you do not know what that is!! :roll:

Actually, we were talking about pro-life liars, not abortions. Is there some reason you are to afraid to deal with the issues at hand? Lack of knowledge, perhaps? Why the deceptions and evasions, why the constant running away from the issues? LAME.

As I pointed out above, lame and cowardly evasion.

As I pointed out above, lame and cowardly evasion. You are still deceptively claiming to use scientific facts when spewing political and philosophical claims. That's deception, and as I have called you on it before, it must be deliberate lying.

Well, when you refuse to provide a source, we can do nothing but assume that you made the whole thing up.

Again, the lying crap about pro-death. Amazing, the dishonesty you always display. And are you saying that you define a born person differently than pro-choice does?

Oh, I get it. If that born person is a pregnant woman, then you define her as tissue with no rights, as a self-propelled uterus only. :doh How could I forget the incredible misogyny of pro-life.

As I pointed out above, lame and cowardly evasion. You are still deceptively claiming to use scientific facts when spewing political and philosophical claims. That's deception, and as I have called you on it before, it must be deliberate lying.

Can you show the specific law providing such "inalienable rights"? No? So you are again spewing outright falsehoods.:roll: That still is not a surprise.

And again, such laws would still not be based on scientific proof, still making your claim a lie.

The definition of parasitism will do. Your silly evasions don't change that. LAME.

The definition of parasitism will do. Your silly evasions don't change that. LAME.

Another lie. I have never said the embryo or fetus is a parasite. Nice going there, continuing to spew your outright lies.

The truth is that parasitism is defined per an entity using a body for resources without adding to its survival. That you so cowardly try to run from that with your very poor sophistry is merely evidence that you didn't have an argument to begin with.

What a lame evasion. You sure are doing your darnest not to have to deal with the exposure of your lies and outright ignorance. How cowardly of you.

By claiming to have disproved parasitism without even mentioning its relevance?

And what do you mean with "whoever it is"? YOU provided the source. You don't even know the relevance or factuality of the source, you don't even know who it is or where it originated?

Now, THAT sure is lame and showing how poor your reasoning is.

Friggin' irrelevant. parasites are not malignant, and thus parasitism is not malignant either. Can you really be THAT ignorant?

STILL irrelevant, as parasites don't necessarily kill their hosts. Don't you know ANYTHING?

I don't need to prove anything until you actually provides something that deals with whether the embryo or fetus is a parasite or not.

Ah, so you are trolling and flaming. But I am puzzled. How does you spewing lies and exposing your self as ignorant and deceptive possibly drive me up the wall? I am having great fun exposing you as both a liar and an ignoramus.

What does this weird, made-up "child in utero" term have to do with anything? That aside, the embryo or fetus uses the woman's bodily resources without contributing to her survival, so it absolutely is parasitic.

I am not looking for it; I found it in your post.

Ridicule, denial, accusations abound.
Factual refutation?
Non-existent, as usual.​

 

[FallingPianos]

...The reason you wonder why is because you are to blind to see the truth about abortion and too stubborn to accept it....

...As I wrote above, blind and stubborn....

...As I wrote above, blind and stubborn....

...Yeah, whatever....

...Only the Pro-Death crowd concocts that definition because the truth would hurt them....

...As I wrote above, blind and stubborn....

...You forget that certain rights are inalienable....

...I don’t believe that even you could believe such a blatant and ridiculous attempt to hide from the truth....

...I am beginning to think this discussion has caused you to become para-sick-ic....

...Whoever it is really knocked your socks off....

...As I read it, I immediately thought of you and couldn’t wait to post it. I knew it would get you all fired up. However I’m disappointed because you have not provided a shred of authoritative backup for your ranting and raving. It’s simply more of the same drivel you constantly spew because you are unable to provide authoritative sources to support your inane claims....

...No. I simply get a kick out of driving you up the wall....

...If ignorance is what you’re looking for, after reading your weak, feeble, empty denials of the truth, I suggest that you stand in front of a mirror. You will find ignorance staring back at you....

...Again, the lying crap about pro-death. Amazing, the dishonesty you always display. And are you saying that you define a born person differently than pro-choice does?...

...What a lame evasion. You sure are doing your darnest not to have to deal with the exposure of your lies and outright ignorance. How cowardly of you....

...Now, THAT sure is lame and showing how poor your reasoning is....

...Ah, so you are trolling and flaming. But I am puzzled. How does you spewing lies and exposing your self as ignorant and deceptive possibly drive me up the wall? I am having great fun exposing you as both a liar and an ignoramus....

...I am not looking for it; I found it in your post....

the lack of content from both of you amazes me.

 

[Fantasea]

the lack of content from both of you amazes me.

What would you like me to repeat, again?

 

[Stace]

Moderator's Warning:

Folks, please try to keep it civil or this thread will follow in the footsteps of "Abortion is murder!".

 

[steen]

The embryo or fetus is "parasitic like" in the same way an adult who argues like a two year old is child-like. Certainly not in a scientific....this is how scientists would classify this organism way.

They would not classify it as a parasite in a biological taxonomy system. But its function would be classified as parasitic, if that was the question, yes. If you ask a biologist if the embryo or fetus functions parasitically, they would say yes.

It's really just a way for you to devalue the exising life in the womb.

More lies. It is not a value judgment, it is a classification of function. Could you stop misrepresenting me? Science does not make value judgments, your false claim none withstanding.

Yours is a blame game.

That unborn human in utero is parasitic and thus deserves to be killed.

you are outright lying about my post. You know fully well that my justification regarding abortion has nothing at all to do with the fetus. The point here is solely and only about scientific accuracy.

To even make claims about "deserve" is dishonest here. Shame on you.

The pregnant women doesn't know how to use birth control and thus her pregnancy is the not the fault of her or her lover it's the fault of right wing conservative prolifers.

When they restrict the sex-ed that otherwise would have taught them, or when they restrict the access to that contraception, then yes it very much is.

Nevermind that the abortion numbers are ridiculously high in an age where almost everyone has immediate access to any information they want via the computer. Never mind that most teenage girls know how to use the computer and many have their own web sites.

And many do not.

Nevermind that there are over 800+ planned parenthoods in 50 states.

never mind that there are places in the US where people would have to travel at least 8 hours to get to a Planned Parenthood clinic.

The reason these teenage girls and adult women are having abortions has nothing to do with the fact that the prochoice movement has devalued human life to the point that there is no shame in abortion right?

other than it being pathetic that you want to shame others into following your particular moral code, the reason women have abortions is that they don't want to be pregnant, that same reason they always have had.

Nothing to do with the fact that planned parenthood pushes education that suggests anal sex is a way to maintain your virginity?

Well, if you are worried about what is taught at Planned Parenthood, why are you not condemning the pro-life movement's emphasis on restricting sex-ed in schools? At least have your argument make sense rather than come across as a hypocrite.

Nevermind that Planned Parenthood suggests it's possible a fetus is unable to feel pain at any point in pregnancy.

As no abortions at PP ever is done at a stage where the fetus can feel pain, that is rather irrelevant. It certainly is true for anything happening at Planned Parenthood. But yes, it is not scientifically accurate, and I have written to them, just like I write to the pro-life sites that claim abortion causes breast cancer. They, generally are hostile and refuse to accept science. I am sure you agree that is wrong as well, right?

Nothing to do with the fact that women are told all abortion pics are fake?

many of them certainly are. And the ones that may be of real abortions, are so advanced in age that they have no relevance to the actual abortions performed. I am sure you would object to somebody claiming that "this is what your baby looks like when it is aborted" if it is outright false, depicting a gestational age 15-20 weeks later, right? I am sure you would object to such deception, right? After all, per my previous interaction, I will need your assurance that you actually object to specific falsehoods and misrepresentations.

Nothing to with the fact that in our culture women are taught that there is apparently nothing morally wrong with abortion?

Why would there be? It is a surgical procedure. No more wrong than tubal ligation, appendectomy or open heart surgery.

Nothing to do with the fact that abortion as birth control is socially acceptable and a constitutional right for proud women across the nation? Nothing to do with the fact that Planned Parenthood runs at a profit?

Right?

right. It seems like you are finally getting it.

And it has everything to do with prolife conservatives? We're the ones to blame for the mentality that has developed in an abortion on demand world? Right?

Pro-life conservatives are the ones who block sex-ed, block contraceptive access, and block support of pregnant women. So yes, that is where the blame must fall.

 

[jimmyjack]

Pro-life must be winning the argument in here.

 

[Fantasea]

Moderator's Warning:

Folks, please try to keep it civil or this thread will follow in the footsteps of "Abortion is murder!".

A thousand pardons.

 

[Fantasea]

What does this weird, made-up "child in utero" term have to do with anything?

I can understand your denial of this common medical term because to do otherwise would poke a hole in the facade you are attempting to prop up with reams of unsubstantiated opinion.