jfuh
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2005
- Messages
- 16,631
- Reaction score
- 1,227
- Location
- Pacific Rim
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
No surprise here, total avoidance of the issue and only now adhomenin attack on me. For shame.Fantasea said: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.
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?Fantasea said: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
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:talloulou said:
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!
You murderer! Pro-death fanatic!:mrgreen:ngdawg said: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're totally evading the post.Fantasea said: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.
Well I said parasite in the noun, as parasitic is adverb of the same word.ngdawg said: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.
Thus your implying?Fantasea said:Congratulations on having kept that a well concealed secret. I can't imagine that anyone reading your contributions would have ever guessed.
What's wrong with using the word parasite or parasitic when in fact it's precisly the fact?Fantasea said: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.
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.BodiSatva said: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.
Neither my likes nor dislikes have anything to do with the circumstances of a child in utero.afr0byte said:You may not like the word, but it pretty accurately describes the situation.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.
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.Fantasea said:Neither my likes nor dislikes have anything to do with the circumstances of a child in utero.
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 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.
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.A child in utero is not a parasite.
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.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,
'unsigned"? Ah, you made it up! OK, whatever.was too deep, then perhaps this unsigned explanation, based on logic, will be more understandable.
Nonsense, as "a human" is a born entity. We define this entity the same way."The only two real differences between pro-choicers and pro-lifers is the definition of a human
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.and the parasitic qualities of (or lack thereof) a fetus/unborn baby.
Again irrelevant, as rights are based on law, not science.Only these two differences exist because abortion is only wrong (and also illegal) if determined that the fetus is a human
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.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.
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![By the process of elimination, we will see that the only time that a human becomes human is at conception.]
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.....Reasonable outcome tells us that the human hitching a ride inside the mother is not parasitic.
Irrelevant. It doesn't aid the survival of the host.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.
But still is parasitic.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.
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?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.
Huh? What does silly, pro-life, slippery-slope sophistry have to do with parasitism?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.
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?I have proved that a fetus is a human and that this unborn human is not a parasite.
steen said:[/I]Nonsense, as "a human" is a born entity. We define this entity the same way.
steen said:Nonsense, as "a human" is a born entity. We define this entity the same way.
talloulou said: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 said:As you said nothing meaningful, there is nothing to reply to.
Don’t thank me. Take it up with Congress.steen said: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.Originally Posted by Fantasea
Neither my likes nor dislikes have anything to do with the circumstances of a child in utero.
The reason you wonder why is because you are to blind to see the truth about abortion and too stubborn to accept it.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 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.
As I wrote above, blind and stubborn.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.A child in utero is not a parasite.
As I wrote above, blind and stubborn.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.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,
Yeah, whatever.'unsigned"? Ah, you made it up! OK, whatever.was too deep, then perhaps this unsigned explanation, based on logic, will be more understandable.
Only the Pro-Death crowd concocts that definition because the truth would hurt them.Nonsense, as "a human" is a born entity. We define this entity the same way."The only two real differences between pro-choicers and pro-lifers is the definition of a human
As I wrote above, blind and stubborn.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.
You forget that certain rights are inalienable.Again irrelevant, as rights are based on law, not science.Only these two differences exist because abortion is only wrong (and also illegal) if determined that the fetus is a human
Only your convoluted twisted euphemistic definition. Cite for us a recognized biology text book which supports your contention. You won’t because none exists.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.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.
Cite for us a recognized biology text book which supports your contention.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![By the process of elimination, we will see that the only time that a human becomes human is at conception.]
So now you change it from “parasite” to “parasite-like”.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.....Reasonable outcome tells us that the human hitching a ride inside the mother is not parasitic.
I don’t believe that even you could believe such a blatant and ridiculous attempt to hide from the truth.Irrelevant. It doesn't aid the survival of the host.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.
I am beginning to think this discussion has caused you to become para-sick-ic.But still is parasitic.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.
Whoever it is really knocked your socks off.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?
No. I simply get a kick out of driving you up the wall.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?
You have it backwards. What does parasitism have to do with a child in utero?Huh? What does silly, pro-life, slippery-slope sophistry have to do with parasitism?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.
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.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?I have proved that a fetus is a human and that this unborn human is not a parasite.
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.
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.Fantasea said:Don’t thank me. Take it up with Congress.Steen said: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.
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.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 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.As I wrote above, blind and stubborn.
Well, when you refuse to provide a source, we can do nothing but assume that you made the whole thing up.Yeah, whatever.
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?Only the Pro-Death crowd concocts that definition because the truth would hurt them.
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.As I wrote above, blind and stubborn.
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.You forget that certain rights are inalienable.
The definition of parasitism will do. Your silly evasions don't change that. LAME.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.
Another lie. I have never said the embryo or fetus is a parasite. Nice going there, continuing to spew your outright lies.So now you change it from “parasite” to “parasite-like”.
You have finally exposed yourself as the author of phony, fraud perpetrating, misleading posts.
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 don’t believe that even you could believe such a blatant and ridiculous attempt to hide from the truth.
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.I am beginning to think this discussion has caused you to become para-sick-ic.
By claiming to have disproved parasitism without even mentioning its relevance?Whoever it is really knocked your socks off.
Friggin' irrelevant. parasites are not malignant, and thus parasitism is not malignant either. Can you really be THAT ignorant?The discomfort, as opposed to a feasible threat, of pregnancy is temporary, showing that the unborn human is not malignant.
STILL irrelevant, as parasites don't necessarily kill their hosts. Don't you know ANYTHING?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.
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.(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.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.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?
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.No. I simply get a kick out of driving you up the wall.
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.You have it backwards. What does parasitism have to do with a child in utero?
I am not looking for it; I found it in your post.If ignorance is what you’re looking for,
steen said: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.
steen said: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.
Fantasea said:...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....
steen said:...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....
What would you like me to repeat, again?star2589 said:the lack of content from both of you amazes me.
Moderator's Warning: |
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.talloulou said: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.
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.It's really just a way for you to devalue the exising life in the womb.
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.Yours is a blame game.
That unborn human in utero is parasitic and thus deserves to be killed.
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.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.
And many do not.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.
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.Nevermind that there are over 800+ planned parenthoods in 50 states.
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.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?
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.Nothing to do with the fact that planned parenthood pushes education that suggests anal sex is a way to maintain your virginity?
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?Nevermind that Planned Parenthood suggests it's possible a fetus is unable to feel pain at any point in pregnancy.
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 do with the fact that women are told all abortion pics are fake?
Why would there be? It is a surgical procedure. No more wrong than tubal ligation, appendectomy or open heart surgery.Nothing to with the fact that in our culture women are taught that there is apparently nothing morally wrong with abortion?
right. It seems like you are finally getting it.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?
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.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?
A thousand pardons.Stace said:
Moderator's Warning: Folks, please try to keep it civil or this thread will follow in the footsteps of "Abortion is murder!".
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.steen said:What does this weird, made-up "child in utero" term have to do with anything?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?