• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Do humans begin life as a parasite....

dottedmint

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2007
Messages
174
Reaction score
26
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Main Entry: par·a·site
Pronunciation: 'per-&-"sIt, 'pa-r&-
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, from Latin parasitus, from Greek parasitos, from para- + sitos grain, food
1 : a person who exploits the hospitality of the rich and earns welcome by flattery
2 : an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism
3 : something that resembles a biological parasite in dependence on something else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return

1. Does not fit.

2. An embryo/fetus is an organism. The mother that it lives in is also an organism.

3. An embryo/fetus is "in dependence on" the mother "for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return".

Main Entry: par·a·sit·ism
Pronunciation: 'per-&-s&-"ti-z&m, -"sI-, "pa-r&-
Function: noun
1 : the behavior of a parasite
2 : an intimate association between organisms of two or more kinds; especially : one in which a parasite obtains benefits from a host which it usually injures

An embryo/fetus (one organism) has an "intimate association" with the mother (another organism). It "obtains benefits from a host" (the mother) that (yes) it "usually injures".

Some in here have argued that the term "parasite" does NOT apply to an embryo/fetus because we are dealing with the same species. (Homo sapien)

Well..... I did some research and let me introduce you to Photocorynus spiniceps the angler fish.

Photocorynus spiniceps

Check out the pic of this freaky fish.....

The Encyclopedia of Astrobiology Astronomy and Spaceflight

The male Photocorynus spiniceps discovered in the Philippines was first reported in the journal Ichthyological Research in 2005. It spends its life fused to its much larger female counterpart, which is many thousands of times greater in weight. While the female takes care of swimming and eating, the male fish, with its enormous (relative to its body size) testes, has almost the sole task of aiding reproduction. In scientific terms, the male P. spiniceps is described as a sexual parasite.

And.....


sex :: Courtship --* Britannica Concise Encyclopedia*- The online encyclopedia you can trust!

Encyclopedia Britannica

The small angler fish (Photocorynus spiniceps) that cruise around at great depths are most unlikely to meet a member of the opposite sex at a time or place when the female happens to be ready to shed her eggs. As a form of insurance to this end, however, any small, young male that happens to meet a large female, apparently at any time, immediately fastens on to her head or sides by his jaws and thereafter lives a totally parasitic existence sustained by the juices of the female body. Sperm thus becomes available at any time the female may produce eggs to be fertilized.

So we have established that an organism can be a parasite to another organism of the same species.

Some in here have argued that since it may cause "harm" to the mother that she should have the right to kill it.

There is a slight problem with that.

Typically one human is only allowed to LEGALLY kill another human if their LIFE is in danger.

IF some guy comes up and punches me in the face I cannot LEGALLY kill him.

IF this same guy is beating me to the point where I might die I do have a LEGAL right to use lethal force.

But I cannot kill him if he simply causes me "harm".

It has already been established that a fetus/embryo is a LIVING ORGANISM.

It has already been established that a fetus/embryo is HUMAN (Homo sapien).

Now it has been established that a fetus/embryo fits the definition of a PARASITE.
 
Now it has been established that a fetus/embryo fits the definition of a PARASITE.

The ZEF fits the definition loosely. It is not classified as such though. Biologically ZEF's are not considered parasites except sometimes in the case of twins that are fused or something. Honestly I don't think there are any mammals that are classified as parasites, are there?

Basically the term parasite applies to living organisms classified as parasites, medical deformities where parasitism occurs, and even more loosely used to describe someone that takes advantage of another. Except in the case of the parasitic twins the ZEF doesn't really fit any use of the term except the last. So a mom calling her ZEF a parasite is akin to me calling a friend who takes up residence on my couch a parasite. It's used as derogatory put down and used in that manner it has no scientific or biological merit. Humans aren't considered parasites in any scientific or biological way. So in the world of science or medicine calling the ZEF a parasite is just a put down and not a genuine clinical description in a healthy pregnancy.
 
1. Does not fit.

2. An embryo/fetus is an organism. The mother that it lives in is also an organism.

3. An embryo/fetus is "in dependence on" the mother "for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return".



An embryo/fetus (one organism) has an "intimate association" with the mother (another organism). It "obtains benefits from a host" (the mother) that (yes) it "usually injures".

Some in here have argued that the term "parasite" does NOT apply to an embryo/fetus because we are dealing with the same species. (Homo sapien)

Well..... I did some research and let me introduce you to Photocorynus spiniceps the angler fish.

Photocorynus spiniceps

Check out the pic of this freaky fish.....

The Encyclopedia of Astrobiology Astronomy and Spaceflight



And.....


sex :: Courtship --* Britannica Concise Encyclopedia*- The online encyclopedia you can trust!

Encyclopedia Britannica



So we have established that an organism can be a parasite to another organism of the same species.

Some in here have argued that since it may cause "harm" to the mother that she should have the right to kill it.

There is a slight problem with that.

Typically one human is only allowed to LEGALLY kill another human if their LIFE is in danger.

IF some guy comes up and punches me in the face I cannot LEGALLY kill him.

IF this same guy is beating me to the point where I might die I do have a LEGAL right to use lethal force.

But I cannot kill him if he simply causes me "harm".

It has already been established that a fetus/embryo is a LIVING ORGANISM.

It has already been established that a fetus/embryo is HUMAN (Homo sapien).

Now it has been established that a fetus/embryo fits the definition of a PARASITE.

No, it has not been established that the fetus/embryo is a parasite. You are mixing scientific jargon and vernacular definitions to the effect of creating some convenient Frankenstein definition.

The parasite is an external force that feeds on the host, for one. It may live within the host at the time of the parasitic relationship, but it is an intruder. The fetus is does not intrude; it is created by the species.

On that simple point alone, the fetus is not a parasite.
 
No, it has not been established that the fetus/embryo is a parasite. You are mixing scientific jargon and vernacular definitions to the effect of creating some convenient Frankenstein definition.

The parasite is an external force that feeds on the host, for one. It may live within the host at the time of the parasitic relationship, but it is an intruder. The fetus is does not intrude; it is created by the species.

On that simple point alone, the fetus is not a parasite.

OK....

So would you call an embryo that is implanted into a woman a parasite?

It was not created in the host but was implanted into the host.

It is (as you put it) "an external force".

In ANY CASE the definitions of a parasite does fit a ZEF.

Well....except of course : a person who exploits the hospitality of the rich and earns welcome by flattery.

You had claimed in a different discussion that a ZEF can't be a parasite because it is the same species.

Well I gave you an example of a parasite that IS the same species.

Now you are playing word games and have changed your definitions.

"Can't be a parasite because it is the same species"

Oh never mind....

"Can't be a parasite because it is not an "external force"."

What next?
 
talloulou: The ZEF fits the definition loosely. It is not classified as such though. Biologically ZEF's are not considered parasites except sometimes in the case of twins that are fused or something. Honestly I don't think there are any mammals that are classified as parasites, are there?

The only definition of a parasite that a ZEF does not fit is : a person who exploits the hospitality of the rich and earns welcome by flattery.

Every other definition it does fit.

It's used as derogatory put down and used in that manner it has no scientific or biological merit. Humans aren't considered parasites in any scientific or biological way. So in the world of science or medicine calling the ZEF a parasite is just a put down and not a genuine clinical description in a healthy pregnancy.

I strongly disagree.

I don't think there is anything wrong with saying a ZEF is a parasite.

I don't see it as degrading or insulting or anything negative.

True or False:

A ZEF is a living organism living in another organism.

True or False:

A ZEF is an organism that is dependent on the mother without providing her a useful or adequate return.

True or False:

A ZEF has an intimate association with the mother obtaining benefits from her and usually harms her.

It is still human. It is still an organism. It is still an individual entity.

It is still a living human life that should be valued more than some blob of cells......
 
The only definition of a parasite that a ZEF does not fit is : a person who exploits the hospitality of the rich and earns welcome by flattery.
Bull$hit otherwise they'd be classified as parasites and they clearly aren't!

Every other definition it does fit.
Bullshit.


I don't think there is anything wrong with saying a ZEF is a parasite.
Really? I could find a definition for retard that states a stupid obtuse person. Then I could suggest you clearly fit that definition. But you see that would be rude and wrong. :roll:


I don't see it as degrading or insulting or anything negative.
Then why don't drs. and scientists consider all mammals that reproduce with live births parasites? Hmm? Because that would be fvcking stupid that's why.

I don't know what the hell you're trying to prove. You can go online and find lists of numerous parasites that humans become afflicted with. You won't find fetus on any of those lists .:roll: Why is that? Why is it you only see the fetus called a parasite in regards to abortion debates or rare birth defects and disease? Hmmm? And even in the case of parasitic twins the drs. call them parasitic twins! I mean if it were a freaking given that all babies are parasites why bother with the label in regards to that birth defect?

And even with your stupid god damn fish the male still fuses itself to the female. She doesn't help create the male. He is an outside invader and not something her body creates. :roll:

Mammalian reproduction is not a parasitic process. It's just not. So why do you persist with this nonsense? Are you a prochoicer pretending to give a $hit? Because for the life of me I can't figure out why a prolifer would persist in calling the ZEF a parasite! And as proof you offer the worlds smallest freak fish which isn't a mammal, it's offspring aren't the parasites, ect. You just don't make any kinds of sense. Find me a non-parasitic species that gives birth to parasites! A species that creates it's own parasites.
 
Last edited:
Bull$hit otherwise they'd be classified as parasites and they clearly aren't!

Bullshit.


Really? I could find a definition for retard that states a stupid obtuse person. Then I could suggest you clearly fit that definition. But you see that would be rude and wrong. .

Fine. What part of the definition of a parasite (other than the one I pointed to) does not fit a ZEF?

BTW....I can roll my eyes as well.....:roll:

And even with your stupid god damn fish the male still fuses itself to the female. She doesn't help create the male. He is an outside invader and not something her body creates.

Um.... Drs fertilize an egg at the clinic and implants it in a woman who isn't even the biological mother.....

Her body did not create the organism living inside of her.

Oh I almost forgot.... :roll:

Because for the life of me I can't figure out why a prolifer would persist in calling the ZEF a parasite!

Because as I pointed out it fits the definition of a parasite.

:roll::roll::roll:
 
Fine. What part of the definition of a parasite (other than the one I pointed to) does not fit a ZEF?

BTW....I can roll my eyes as well.....:roll:



Um.... Drs fertilize an egg at the clinic and implants it in a woman who isn't even the biological mother.....

Her body did not create the organism living inside of her.

Oh I almost forgot.... :roll:



Because as I pointed out it fits the definition of a parasite.

:roll::roll::roll:

Well it fits the definition of tumor too. But again drs. use ICD9 codes for neoplasms and parasites and the code for pregnancy is different.

Will you start calling the ZEF a tumor now too? I mean it loosely fits that dictionary def too.
 
Now you are playing word games and have changed your definitions.

"Can't be a parasite because it is the same species"

Oh never mind....

"Can't be a parasite because it is not an "external force"."

What next?

No, I gave you an additional reason why. I also gave you a reason why your previous example didn't fit and even a link to a web entry that never used the word parasite.

Your desperation is showing.
 
No, I gave you an additional reason why. I also gave you a reason why your previous example didn't fit and even a link to a web entry that never used the word parasite.

Your desperation is showing.

Are you talking about the Wiki entry that you linked to????:confused:

As I explained before while the main entry didn't use the word parasite the REFERENCES that they LINKED to DID use the word parasite.

Talk about being dishonest.....

And wasn't your other reason that one organism can't be a parasite to an organism of the same species.

That as I pointed out is WRONG.

And one of your other reasons was that a parasite is an "external force".

Then (as I asked before) is a ZEF that is implanted into a woman a parasite since it is also an "external force"?

All I am doing is looking at the DEFINITION of the word parasite and pointing out that it fits the characteristics of a ZEF.
 
Are you talking about the Wiki entry that you linked to????:confused:

As I explained before while the main entry didn't use the word parasite the REFERENCES that they LINKED to DID use the word parasite.

Talk about being dishonest.....

You fail to point out that I immediately followed with this from post 649:

jallman said:
However, being that I am gracious and enjoy being fully in control of this conversation, I will indulge this latest tantrum for a time. Other texts may refer to it as a sexual parasite. In this capacity, it becomes disingenuous and dishonest to remove the pairing of the words because a whole new definition is take on.

You have absolutely no platform from which to say I was dishonest being that I took the time to find as much reference text as possible when you provided nothing of the sort. Do not project your short-comings onto me and certainly don't deflect your own dishonesty at my more than gracious effort to produce your own research for you.

And wasn't your other reason that one organism can't be a parasite to an organism of the same species.

That as I pointed out is WRONG.

You found the most obscure zoological anomaly that you possible could because it was your ONLY chance at making what is a worthless point to start with. Further, the organism shares an adequate symbiosis that is beneficial to both. It is questionably parasitic and not even close when you remove the "sexual" precursor. So I guess if its that important to you, sure, you can have this one. I retract that it HAS to be of two different kinds on the grounds of some deep sea fish that has males that basically become the female's hermaphroditic gonads. It's no loss to concede that point.

And one of your other reasons was that a parasite is an "external force".

Then (as I asked before) is a ZEF that is implanted into a woman a parasite since it is also an "external force"?

Then, obviously, if it is implanted into a woman as can happen, it isn't an intruder, it is a guest and it is producing reasonable return for its resources as it is clearly providing some emotional and/or genetic support for a species lineage.

Still not a parasite. The pit-bull routine isn't going to get you anywhere. Give it up already.


You can spend your days searching for the exceptions to the rules, but I will always have another hunt to send you on where this issue is concerned. Why? Because the truth is easy to defend and I can do it effortlessly while laughing at the sweat you have to pour into what, ultimately, isn't even helping your argument.

I am more than content to let you continue choosing the battles. :rofl
 
meh. one womans parasite is another womans treasure. its all part of the abortion semantics game. :shrug:
 
1. Does not fit.

2. An embryo/fetus is an organism. The mother that it lives in is also an organism.

3. An embryo/fetus is "in dependence on" the mother "for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return".


.
#2 requires that def #3 fits, and I don't think def #3 fits.

Children return a great deal to their parents in terms of love and care and support and, as Joey pointed out, future generations. The definition does not "require" that the return be simultaneous. Furthermore, there are medical benefits to pregnancy as well as the risks involved. There are actual physical benefits of pregnancy and also mental health benefits. That is a "return" for the "use" of the mother's womb.

none of the defs are a perfect fit. I agree with talloulou on this.
 
Do humans begin life as a parasite....

For once I'm actually not trying to start a fight when I ask something like this, but I honestly do not understand something about the PC argument and I hope there is a somewhat patient PCer who can explain this to me.

How can the ZEF be a parasite if it's also a part of the woman's own body ("no diferent than a pinky", the argument goes)?

Given the definition above, if the ZEF is a parasite, then it is not a part of the woman's body. If it is a part of the woman's body, then it's not a parasite.


I'm :confused:
 
Last edited:
For once I'm actually not trying to start a fight when I ask something like this, but I honestly do not understand something about the PC argument and I hope there is a somewhat patient PCer who can explain this to me.

How can the ZEF be a parasite if it's also a part of the woman's own body ("no diferent than a pinky", the argument goes)?

Given the definition above, if the ZEF is a parasite, then it is not a part of the woman's body. If it is a part of the woman's body, then it's not a parasite.


I'm :confused:

Drat, foiled again. I am just not living up to expectations here lately. You will notice that I have repeatedly, recently, been conceding the parasite argument and actually arguing that it can't be a parasite on the same grounds, among other truth that I was previously too arrogant to perceive.

It's because I noticed the exact same inconsistency you pointed out. I didn't particularly want to advertise my revision...I was hoping it would just slide through and become part of our collective understanding. I kind of lose a little face in having to recant an earlier position.

Once again, you have justified your own arrogance by calling the inconsistency to task. That is what I am used to seeing out of you.
 
For once I'm actually not trying to start a fight when I ask something like this, but I honestly do not understand something about the PC argument and I hope there is a somewhat patient PCer who can explain this to me.

How can the ZEF be a parasite if it's also a part of the woman's own body ("no diferent than a pinky", the argument goes)?

Given the definition above, if the ZEF is a parasite, then it is not a part of the woman's body. If it is a part of the woman's body, then it's not a parasite.


I'm :confused:
I doubt very much that many on the PC side actually consider a fetus to be a parasite, but rather simply use the term to counter extremism from the PL side. For those that actually do, they are in my opinon confused as to what a parasite actually is.
Its all a back and forth game of pushing to extremes, with an occasional debate about the actual issue thrown in. Regadless of peronhood, Murder, slavery, Gods Wrath....or whatever, seldom is the underlying issue ever actually discussed honestly. Instead people revert to name calling, and overly simplified opinions.

Hope that clears it up a bit.
 
Then, obviously, if it is implanted into a woman as can happen, it isn't an intruder, it is a guest and it is producing reasonable return for its resources as it is clearly providing some emotional and/or genetic support for a species lineage.

I think when we discuss the "parasitic" biological relationship between a fetus and its host, we are referring only to the fact that the relationship is not biologically symbiotic; it is a biologically parasitic relationship.

Other organisms more conventionally understood to be "parasites" are not evil, after all; they no doubt make contributions to the world at large, or benefit nature in some way.

But to mix up a social or emotional contribution with a biological definition of parasitism is silly.
Of course many people love their fetuses. That does not mean that the fetus loves them back, however, or that it would cease extracting resources from their body, even if the host wanted it to, even if the host were ill or dying.

I'm not sure about your stance on rape pregnancies; is it that the fetus is making an adequate return by "perpetuating the species"?
What about fetuses- wanted or unwanted- who are transexed or otherwise suffering from defects that will leave them incapable of reproducing?
They will not be contributing to the "perpetuation of the species".
Are they, then, parasites?

The definition of "parasite" is broad, and can include even adult hman beings who leech off the system or off other people.

That the relationship between a fetus and its host is biologically a parasitic- not a symbiotic- one is not in question. It is fact.
That pointing this out often offends people (and leads them to make silly statements about how "perpetuating the species" makes the relationship not a biologically parasitic one... or worse, I've had women tell me that because pregnacy made their breasts bigger, their hair thicker, or yattada-yattada, the fetus was somehow engaged in a biologically symbiotic relationship with them :roll: ) is something I am aware of and generally try to be sensitive to. I am not oblivious to the needs and feelings of others.

The fetus extracts nutrients from the body of its host; that is its whole function. It does not return anything to her body but waste products, which her organs must then process and excrete, putting a lot of additional strain on them.
Whether or not the fetus is a biological parasite (it probably does not meet the scientific definition, since- as has been mentioned- the two are of the same species), and whether or not the pregnant woman is overjoyed at the prospect of being pregnant and thrilled to make the necessary sacrifices to produce healthy offspring, the relationship between the pregnant woman and the fetus is nevertheless a biologically parasitic one.

Neither the pregnant woman's emotional state nor any future contribution the fetus might make to society or to the perpetuation of the species negates or alters that fact.

I wanted my children very much, and it was my choice to have them.
But that doesn't negate the fact that the biological effect they had on my body and my health (worse, because I was extremely young, not entirely physically mature, and because the two pregnancies were very close together) was not positive.

I suffered from Pica, a disorder which is caused by malnourishment, and which caused me to compulsively eat things which are not normally considered edible, such as dirt, chalk, rocks, cat litter (clean cat litter, not used), etc.
The urge to eat these things was absolutely unavoidable. Nobody who had seen me sneaking- half-asleep- to the kitchen in the middle of the night, getting cat litter from the bag under the sink, and shoving handfuls of it into my mouth in a compulsive, instinctive effort to replace my depleted bodily resources could possibly tell me that the relationship I had with my children while they were in utero was in any way biologically symbiotic.

That's one example; it got worse. I slept through my second pregnancy, literally. I only got up to use the bathroom and eat occasionally. I was so anemic, so fundamentally unwell, that I couldn't keep my eyes open for more than a few minutes at a time. This was primarily because of anemia. I was almost like a person in a vegetative state, or a coma, only surfacing occasionally. One day when I was 7 months pregnant, I got up to use the bathroom and my water broke. At the hospital, they gave me drugs to try to stop the contractions, but it didn't work; my youngest son was born later that day. He had to stay in an isolette in the neonatal ICU for the first weeks of his life, and nearly died a couple of times in his first year; first of a previously undetected birth defect called Pyloric Stenosis (a malformation of the stomach/ esophagus; by the time we got him to the hospital to have the defect surgically corrected, he was nearly dead of dehydration/ electrolyte imbalance from all his vomiting). Next, at about six months, of sleep apnea, when I found him not breathing in his crib. Luckily, he was able to be revived, and did not suffer permanent loss of cognitive function. He had to stay in the icu for over two weeks that time while they ran tests to make sure he wasn't brain damaged from oxygen deprivation.

It took me many years- perhaps until my mid-twenties- to fully recover my health and strength. My immune system was wrecked, and I had terrible anemia. I also suffered some permanent bone density loss.
The fact that I was glad my children were here and wouldn't have traded them to have my health back does not change the fact that the relationship between a fetus and its host is biologically parasitic.
Social and emotional benefits don't come into play when discussing biology; that's just sentimental silliness.

One could not really say that the relationship between a pregnant woman and her fetus is emotionally symbiotic, either, since it is inherently one-sided; the pregnant woman may love the Z/E/F, but the Z/E/F does not love her in return.
 
Last edited:
Drat, foiled again. I am just not living up to expectations here lately. You will notice that I have repeatedly, recently, been conceding the parasite argument and actually arguing that it can't be a parasite on the same grounds, among other truth that I was previously too arrogant to perceive.

It's because I noticed the exact same inconsistency you pointed out. I didn't particularly want to advertise my revision...I was hoping it would just slide through and become part of our collective understanding. I kind of lose a little face in having to recant an earlier position.

Once again, you have justified your own arrogance by calling the inconsistency to task. That is what I am used to seeing out of you.

No, adjusting your views when you learn or realize a new truth *adds* to credibility, not subtracts it. You've lost nothing.

I thought I was just ignorant on some aspect of biology, but I guess I can go be arrogant some more now :mrgreen:

Maybe I should join the USMC instead of the National Guard….I like my arrogance being justified :cool:

….this must be how teacher feels all the time….
 
I doubt very much that many on the PC side actually consider a fetus to be a parasite, but rather simply use the term to counter extremism from the PL side. For those that actually do, they are in my opinon confused as to what a parasite actually is.
Its all a back and forth game of pushing to extremes, with an occasional debate about the actual issue thrown in. Regadless of peronhood, Murder, slavery, Gods Wrath....or whatever, seldom is the underlying issue ever actually discussed honestly. Instead people revert to name calling, and overly simplified opinions.

Hope that clears it up a bit.

That's a very objective and true opinion of abortion debate.

I only went to the actual reason why I oppose abortion once....made a whole thread on it to...but for the most part I'm here for entertainment and academics.
 
I'm not sure about your stance on rape pregnancies; is it that the fetus is making an adequate return by "perpetuating the species"?
What about fetuses- wanted or unwanted- who are transexed or otherwise suffering from defects that will leave them incapable of reproducing?
They will not be contributing to the "perpetuation of the species".
Are they, then, parasites?

The definition of "parasite" is broad, and can include even adult hman beings who leech off the system or off other people.

If I am not mistaken, and feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but we are in agreement that the "parasite" argument really boils down to it is just plain offensive on a couple of fronts. To apply the term parasite rankles pro-lifers in such a way that could be seen as cruel. It is a disregard for their wider views and where they are coming from that it is all but malicious. It serves no purpose and ultimately has no bearing on the argument anyway. When the fetus gets called a parasite, it is a sign that the discussion isn't two-way anymore; its emotional hyperbole from the PC side and nothing more.

Dottedmint, who is supposed to be pro-life, is a complete anomaly to me and I am having a measure of amusement dismantling the argument just because she seems totally disingenuous and it is a nice little proving ground with no real risk of embarassment.

I would be much more hard pressed if she actually believed the parasite comparison or if proving that comparison were in any way pivotal to her case. I am having a little bit of difficulty maintaining my argument because I have always been under the auspices of not sugar coating what I see as truth.

The truth is that the ZEF has parasitic qualities that can be applied loosely if one wants to inflame. That is about the only purpose in calling those qualities into play. Its rude and tasteless and I realize that now.

As to your question about rape victims...you are putting me in a bit of a quandary. Yes, the resulting offspring is part of her body, but no, its circumstance wasn't exactly "intruder-less". However, it is still a human off-spring and to call it a parasite, while further absolving the female (which shouldn't have to happen in the first place), still would be inflaming and dishonest on at least multiple levels, if not all.

Better to just show some ferocity in this case and lay it out that, no, it is not a parasite but that fact does not have any relevance to whether the woman has control of her bodily resources when the "feelings" or "pain" or even "lost capacity" of the fetus isn't in question.

Bottom line is this, and we all know it...no need to equivocate it: the woman has all rights to do with her zef as she sees fit provided that she does so with responsibility. Now we all know that the achievement of a 100% responsibility quotient has about a nickel's chance of going unclaimed at a BaMitzvah. That's just a fact of life and so, to compensate for human frailty, the Law needs to step in with some regulations that will protect the unborn at a time when they ARE worthy of personhood. Further, we have to be reasonable about what the qualifications of personhood are.

In effect, I will never defer my position on the count of a unique DNA pattern alone, however I will if it eliminates the possibility of the fetus suffering in any way, shape, or form.

21 weeks is reasonable. The morphological/anatomical structures are in place that give the ZEF possibilities that it simply did not have before. I would prefer to see a cut-off at 18 weeks. I would jump at the the offer for even 19 weeks to be the cut-off. In exchange, I am willing to concede that anyone performing an abortion after that demarcation is, in fact, guilty of murder.

Disclaimer: Excepting any risk of imminent death or irreparable injury to the mother as a result of continued gestation. In these cases, the right to life of the woman is always going to ethically trump any ethereal or theoretical rights a fetus has. It's really just a matter of who has paid their dues already and who hasn't even begun. Fair is fair.
 
Last edited:
If I am not mistaken, and feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but we are in agreement that the "parasite" argument really boils down to it is just plain offensive on a couple of fronts.

I agree that it is unnecessarily incendiary; it is not something I simply spew out unprovoked.
Likewise, I don't tell ugly people that they're ugly, unless they provoke me to an extreme.
An ugly person, however, who repeatedly got into my face insisting that they were beautiful and that I should acknowledge that, is pretty much just begging for a dose of the hard truth.
And someone who repeatedly insists, despite all evidence, that the relationship between a pregnant woman and a fetus is not a biologically parasitic one, is likewise begging for a dose of the hard ugly reality.
As someone who has been thoroughly cannibalized by the two former parasites who now make my life worthwhile (and did, even at the time), I am in a good position to be the bearer of this unwanted truth.

If you don't want to hear this truth, then do not provoke it by insisting, apropos of nothing, that the relationship between fetuses and their hosts is not biologically parasitic.

I don't particularly like hearing non-taxpaying, drug-addicted welfare recipients referred to as "social parasites"; I avoid having to hear them referred to that way, by not going around insisting that they aren't... especially insisting that they aren't based on some far-fetched, nonapplicable reasoning such as "they have lots of kids and contribute to the perpetuation of the species". :roll:
 
No, adjusting your views when you learn or realize a new truth *adds* to credibility, not subtracts it. You've lost nothing.

I thought I was just ignorant on some aspect of biology, but I guess I can go be arrogant some more now :mrgreen:

Maybe I should join the USMC instead of the National Guard….I like my arrogance being justified :cool:

….this must be how teacher feels all the time….

Well, one of the reasons our clashes can get especially embroiled and, seemingly, bitter is that we both have equivalent irreverence and arrogance. It just seems that our sense of when to express either is a bit out of sync.

teacher has his arrogance justified because he is, really, just that damned cool. You and I have our flare-ups of intellectual superiority justified because we typically will keep hacking at a problem because we just don't like to be wrong. I am pretty sure that our testosterone levels have, coincidentally, run high at the same time on more than one occasion.

But...then...we could just accept my assessment that you can be an a$$ and call it a day because we KNOW I am usually right. :mrgreen:
 
If I am not mistaken, and feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but we are in agreement that the "parasite" argument really boils down to it is just plain offensive on a couple of fronts. To apply the term parasite rankles pro-lifers in such a way that could be seen as cruel. It is a disregard for their wider views and where they are coming from that it is all but malicious. It serves no purpose and ultimately has no bearing on the argument anyway. When the fetus gets called a parasite, it is a sign that the discussion isn't two-way anymore; its emotional hyperbole from the PC side and nothing more.

Dottedmint, who is supposed to be pro-life, is a complete anomaly to me and I am having a measure of amusement dismantling the argument just because she seems totally disingenuous and it is a nice little proving ground with no real risk of embarassment.

I would be much more hard pressed if she actually believed the parasite comparison or if proving that comparison were in any way pivotal to her case. I am having a little bit of difficulty maintaining my argument because I have always been under the auspices of not sugar coating what I see as truth.

The truth is that the ZEF has parasitic qualities that can be applied loosely if one wants to inflame. That is about the only purpose in calling those qualities into play. Its rude and tasteless and I realize that now.

As to your question about rape victims...you are putting me in a bit of a quandary. Yes, the resulting offspring is part of her body, but no, its circumstance wasn't exactly "intruder-less". However, it is still a human off-spring and to call it a parasite, while further absolving the female (which shouldn't have to happen in the first place), still would be inflaming and dishonest on at least multiple levels, if not all.

Better to just show some ferocity in this case and lay it out that, no, it is not a parasite but that fact does not have any relevance to whether the woman has control of her bodily resources when the "feelings" or "pain" or even "lost capacity" of the fetus isn't in question.

Bottom line is this, and we all know it...no need to equivocate it: the woman has all rights to do with her zef as she sees fit provided that she does so with responsibility. Now we all know that the achievement of a 100% responsibility quotient has about a nickel's chance of going unclaimed at a BaMitzvah. That's just a fact of life and so, to compensate for human frailty, the Law needs to step in with some regulations that will protect the unborn at a time when they ARE worthy of personhood. Further, we have to be reasonable about what the qualifications of personhood are.

In effect, I will never defer my position on the count of a unique DNA pattern alone, however I will if it eliminates the possibility of the fetus suffering in any way, shape, or form.

21 weeks is reasonable. The morphological/anatomical structures are in place that give the ZEF possibilities that it simply did not have before. I would prefer to see a cut-off at 18 weeks. I would jump at the the offer for even 19 weeks to be the cut-off. In exchange, I am willing to concede that anyone performing an abortion after that demarcation is, in fact, guilty of murder.

Disclaimer: Excepting any risk of imminent death or irreparable injury to the mother as a result of continued gestation. In these cases, the right to life of the woman is always going to ethically trump any ethereal or theoretical rights a fetus has. It's really just a matter of who has paid their dues already and who hasn't even begun. Fair is fair.

This post is a masterpiece.
:applaud
 
That's a very objective and true opinion of abortion debate.

I only went to the actual reason why I oppose abortion once....made a whole thread on it to...but for the most part I'm here for entertainment and academics.

Should you ever want to debate this issue comprehensively and honestly, Let me know...I would enjoy the challenge.
 
I agree that it is unnecessarily incendiary; it is not something I simply spew out unprovoked.
Likewise, I don't tell ugly people that they're ugly, unless they provoke me to an extreme.
An ugly person, however, who repeatedly got into my face insisting that they were beautiful and that I should acknowledge that, is pretty much just begging for a dose of the hard truth.
And someone who repeatedly insists, despite all evidence, that the relationship between a pregnant woman and a fetus is not a biologically parasitic one, is likewise begging for a dose of the hard ugly reality.
As someone who has been thoroughly cannibalized by the two former parasites who now make my life worthwhile (and did, even at the time), I am in a good position to be the bearer of this unwanted truth.

I like you. You have a very clear and fair idea of what is right and what is wrong. You have a genuine desire to have dialog without a need to compromise your positions. You also know how to pick your battles and to avoid fruitless discourse. Grannie is the same...It has been a pleasure to have the two of you since you showed up at a time when I was holding this position almost on my own.

The random people that come in here and spew some fortune cookie philosophy do nothing to help us. The expect that this droll "women are being enslaved, the fetus is just a parasite" to be an end to the conversation, yet we know, and luckily certain elements of our adversaries know, that the issue is almost eternal in its depth. They get indignant and inflammatory over trivial battles when they are rightly challenged by the serious pro-lifers. How much hell to I give the random PL'ers that make an appearance without much of a contribution? I tend to shut them down because we cull the intellectually feeble out of the conversation quickly so that more equal minds can continue our honest pursuit of some reasonable solution.

In fair turn, we have to expect that PL'ers are going to do the exact same to the weak in our camp.

I have a feeling that all of us who seriously join this debate are people who have some question or concern over the issues. If we didn't, we would be taking an approach much like my dear Oma:

"I don't have to have this discussion with you because I am old and smart enough to know better and you are young and too stupid still to realize that I am only right because it is the truth. It is meaningless until you grow up some more."

By the way, I still get told that sometimes and I have kinda learned to accept that she probably is right.

In any event, we all have something to contribute and something we want to take away from these interactions. It's just not productive to make needless incendiary assertions.

Now it comes to a crux of "Do we adopt a policy of always taking the high road and suffer under-handed slights in favor of being the clear trailblazers in diplomacy and bridge-building or do we for-go tact at all in favor of the faith that our position is an absolute truth? I do see the latter as the most dangerous of the two. I prefer any chance at dialog if it is there.
 
Back
Top Bottom