Posts like yours are just asking for attention. Troll.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
par·a·site (păr'ə-sīt')Tromboner999 wrote:
Debate and serious talk?KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
An unborn baby is a parasite
n.
Biology. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.
I can't think of a more relevant definition of the top of my head, can you?
Oh no, did I touch a sensitive spot for you? Biological definition fits.Tromboner999 wrote:
Posts like yours are just asking for attention. Troll.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
par·a·site (păr'ə-sīt')Tromboner999 wrote:
Debate and serious talk?
n.
Biology. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.
I can't think of a more relevant definition of the top of my head, can you?
Do you agree?
No? Why?
I'm open for debate. And I am not a troll. I am a blob of cells.
No it is not an argument you can simply extend... that argument ends the moment the baby comes out of the womb. After that anyone can take care of it.weamo8 wrote:
A newborn is basically a parasite too. I think we should be able to kill them too.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
par·a·site (păr'ə-sīt')Tromboner999 wrote:
Debate and serious talk?
n.
Biology. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.
I can't think of a more relevant definition of the top of my head, can you?
people who are against abortions in some societies also require you to pray 5 times a day to the east or else!
How about the continual survival of the species?weamo8 wrote:
A newborn is basically a parasite too. I think we should be able to kill them too.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
par·a·site (păr'ə-sīt')Tromboner999 wrote:
Debate and serious talk?
n.
Biology. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.
I can't think of a more relevant definition of the top of my head, can you?
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
Wow, the mother of all generalisations. Most disappointing.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
people who are against abortions in some societies also require you to pray 5 times a day to the east or else!
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
But what if on one wants to take care of it?topal63 wrote:
No it is not an argument you can simply extend... that argument ends the moment the baby comes out of the womb. After that anyone can take care of it.weamo8 wrote:
A newborn is basically a parasite too. I think we should be able to kill them too.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
par·a·site (păr'ə-sīt')
n.
Biology. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.
I can't think of a more relevant definition of the top of my head, can you?
It still feeds and is sheltered completely by the host, dies without the host and gives nothing back.
That is why I said "basically."
You are trying to argue the semantics instead of the argument.
Last edited by weamo8 (2007-05-01 14:53:17)
misunderstood me. i was trying to point out the lack of difference between religious fundamentalism and militant pro lifers. regardless of the society one lives in.m3thod wrote:
Wow, the mother of all generalisations. Most disappointing.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
people who are against abortions in some societies also require you to pray 5 times a day to the east or else!
The question here is whether this girl has the right to travel to the UK to have an abortion. The laws passed in Ireland seem to make her rights quite clear according to the article. In light of that, she should not be prevented from traveling. The decision to have the abortion is a whole different subject.
This is a tragic situation for mother and child. I’m encouraged that the baby is referred to as such in this article. It’s not a blob of flesh or a tumor to be removed, it’s a baby. A child. A son or a daughter. Should he/she die earlier because he/she has been diagnosed with a condition that will cause him/her to die shortly after birth? An extremely tough decision for this young girl to be sure. I know a couple whose child was diagnosed with a similar condition. She chose to carry the child to term and both she and her husband were able to hold the little one until he passed away. Sad? Yes. To them, it did not make sense to them to kill the child they had conceived in love simply because he would not live very long.
The young girl in the article decided to have an abortion because of the “physical and mental trauma the pregnancy would cause”. I hope she realizes that an abortion will do the exact same thing. It is not the quick fix it’s promoted to be. Many women have issues conceiving again when they decide they want a child and other complications can result. That’s the physical aspect, but the mental aspect is a stark reality in its own right. Every woman who is pregnant knows she is carrying a child. To pretend that is not the case is complete fiction. The depression that many women suffer after abortion is seldom mentioned.
Please dispense with the argument that this is a woman’s decision. That’s bullshit from the feminist movement. The father of a child has just as much right to decisions regarding his child’s life before birth and equal responsibility for his child’s well-being after birth.
EstebanRey: Your position that we are not human until born contradicts every biology text ever written. Human life is not classified by having passed through the vagina. That's the lie that keeps the abortion industry rolling the money of murdered babies. According to you, the doctors shouldn’t have taken emergency measures to deliver my son when he was 33.5 weeks old because he wasn’t human yet. He’s now a healthy boy almost 4 years old and at the top of the growth charts.
We're talking about children who, if allowed to live by their parents, would grow to adulthood. Not a blob that can be scalded to death by a saline abortion. Not a blob who can be torn limb from limb in excrutiating pain by a vacuum. Not a fetus whose head can have scissors plunged into the back of the head and it's brain suctioned out. IT IS A BABY. A HUMAN LIFE. WAKE UP.
This is a tragic situation for mother and child. I’m encouraged that the baby is referred to as such in this article. It’s not a blob of flesh or a tumor to be removed, it’s a baby. A child. A son or a daughter. Should he/she die earlier because he/she has been diagnosed with a condition that will cause him/her to die shortly after birth? An extremely tough decision for this young girl to be sure. I know a couple whose child was diagnosed with a similar condition. She chose to carry the child to term and both she and her husband were able to hold the little one until he passed away. Sad? Yes. To them, it did not make sense to them to kill the child they had conceived in love simply because he would not live very long.
The young girl in the article decided to have an abortion because of the “physical and mental trauma the pregnancy would cause”. I hope she realizes that an abortion will do the exact same thing. It is not the quick fix it’s promoted to be. Many women have issues conceiving again when they decide they want a child and other complications can result. That’s the physical aspect, but the mental aspect is a stark reality in its own right. Every woman who is pregnant knows she is carrying a child. To pretend that is not the case is complete fiction. The depression that many women suffer after abortion is seldom mentioned.
Please dispense with the argument that this is a woman’s decision. That’s bullshit from the feminist movement. The father of a child has just as much right to decisions regarding his child’s life before birth and equal responsibility for his child’s well-being after birth.
EstebanRey: Your position that we are not human until born contradicts every biology text ever written. Human life is not classified by having passed through the vagina. That's the lie that keeps the abortion industry rolling the money of murdered babies. According to you, the doctors shouldn’t have taken emergency measures to deliver my son when he was 33.5 weeks old because he wasn’t human yet. He’s now a healthy boy almost 4 years old and at the top of the growth charts.
We're talking about children who, if allowed to live by their parents, would grow to adulthood. Not a blob that can be scalded to death by a saline abortion. Not a blob who can be torn limb from limb in excrutiating pain by a vacuum. Not a fetus whose head can have scissors plunged into the back of the head and it's brain suctioned out. IT IS A BABY. A HUMAN LIFE. WAKE UP.
It's all up to the woman to have the baby. I don't understand how people think it's right to tell women how they can reproduce or not. Are you going to tell me how to think next?
Some people probably think that abortion is wrong since it does not further the survival of their species. But in this specific case it is the opposite effect since the babies life expectancy is short. The baby would actually be more of a problem than a benefit for the survival of the group since it will consume resources, but contributing none, while dying.
Another thing is that if the mother chooses not to support the child because of some type of problem or abuse then it will either live on it's own or die.
A fetus is a parasite until it is born, then later the baby can possibly grow to be a beneficial organism or a detrimental one.
Some people probably think that abortion is wrong since it does not further the survival of their species. But in this specific case it is the opposite effect since the babies life expectancy is short. The baby would actually be more of a problem than a benefit for the survival of the group since it will consume resources, but contributing none, while dying.
Another thing is that if the mother chooses not to support the child because of some type of problem or abuse then it will either live on it's own or die.
A fetus is a parasite until it is born, then later the baby can possibly grow to be a beneficial organism or a detrimental one.
I cant understand where people think they get the right to tell people if they are going to live or not.jgrahl wrote:
It's all up to the woman to have the baby. I don't understand how people think it's right to tell women how they can reproduce or not. Are you going to tell me how to think next?
Some people probably think that abortion is wrong since it does not further the survival of their species. But in this specific case it is the opposite effect since the babies life expectancy is short. The baby would actually be more of a problem than a benefit for the survival of the group since it will consume resources, but contributing none, while dying.
Another thing is that if the mother chooses not to support the child because of some type of problem or abuse then it will either live on it's own or die.
A fetus is a parasite until it is born, then later the baby can possibly grow to be a beneficial organism or a detrimental one.
Not especially. It's been an issue of controversy for some time but not really high on the priorities list at the present time.=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the legality of abortion a hottly contested issue in the States at the moment, and I'm sure Bush would make it illegal if he could.blisteringsilence wrote:
and you dare to critize americans for their stupid laws
Here is my somewhat barbaric view on abortion, gun crime, and all that jazz: let them do it. Let them do it, so long as they're not hurting anyone I care about. Murder? It's just population control in the long run. Wars? Same thing. I do not know these people who are getting abortions, what do I care if some kid I never meet dies? You read about people untimely dying in the newspaper all the time yet you never get outraged about it. You never know, maybe you might be stopping the next Hitler.
On a more civilized note: it [abortion] is a clear option is some cases but you have to draw the line. Back in the 1800s people were using them as a method of birth control when statistics suggested that 1 in 4 women had at least one abortion. Don't be to hasty in believing that could never happen again. People aren't too responsible, which is how many unwanted pregnancies happen in the first place.
Also, where do you define the boundary of life? By most logic you could say that from the moment a woman becomes pregnant with one zygote that there are two human lives there. But also, you could say that a fetus is a citizen if it is human bere being born. I really don't know, this debate will go on forever so people better just get their own ideas about it.
the same reason why i cant understand what gives other people the right to tell other people what to do with their own bodies.weamo8 wrote:
I cant understand where people think they get the right to tell people if they are going to live or not.jgrahl wrote:
It's all up to the woman to have the baby. I don't understand how people think it's right to tell women how they can reproduce or not. Are you going to tell me how to think next?
Some people probably think that abortion is wrong since it does not further the survival of their species. But in this specific case it is the opposite effect since the babies life expectancy is short. The baby would actually be more of a problem than a benefit for the survival of the group since it will consume resources, but contributing none, while dying.
Another thing is that if the mother chooses not to support the child because of some type of problem or abuse then it will either live on it's own or die.
A fetus is a parasite until it is born, then later the baby can possibly grow to be a beneficial organism or a detrimental one.
It is a genetically distict being. It is actually not her body. You can certainly argue it is a "parasite," but not that it is part of her body.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
the same reason why i cant understand what gives other people the right to tell other people what to do with their own bodies.weamo8 wrote:
I cant understand where people think they get the right to tell people if they are going to live or not.jgrahl wrote:
It's all up to the woman to have the baby. I don't understand how people think it's right to tell women how they can reproduce or not. Are you going to tell me how to think next?
Some people probably think that abortion is wrong since it does not further the survival of their species. But in this specific case it is the opposite effect since the babies life expectancy is short. The baby would actually be more of a problem than a benefit for the survival of the group since it will consume resources, but contributing none, while dying.
Another thing is that if the mother chooses not to support the child because of some type of problem or abuse then it will either live on it's own or die.
A fetus is a parasite until it is born, then later the baby can possibly grow to be a beneficial organism or a detrimental one.
By the way, the baby does have a body. Where does she have the right to tell the baby to do with its body?
Age?
No you're trying to use an argument against itself and it doesn't work. There is nothing semantic about the error (a word meaning indicated by context-use). It is an error of logic. Not semantics in this instance.weamo8 wrote:
But what if no one wants to take care of it? (<--- That is not relevant, and mere nonsense, asked and answered - it is internally self-evident - as it is probable that someone could be found: i.e. adoption.)topal63 wrote:
No it is not an argument you can simply extend... that argument ends the moment the baby comes out of the womb. After that anyone can take care of it.weamo8 wrote:
A newborn is basically a parasite too. I think we should be able to kill them too.
It still feeds and is sheltered completely by the host, dies without the host and gives nothing back. That is why I said "basically." You are trying to argue the semantics instead of the argument.
thats where definition of a body and seperate living thing comes into play. that organism IS NOT a seperate entity from the mother. no, its her body, her choice. the developing fetus cannot survive on its own.weamo8 wrote:
It is a genetically distict being. It is actually not her body. You can certainly argue it is a "parasite," but not that it is part of her body.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
the same reason why i cant understand what gives other people the right to tell other people what to do with their own bodies.weamo8 wrote:
I cant understand where people think they get the right to tell people if they are going to live or not.
By the way, the baby does have a body. Where does she have the right to tell the baby to do with its body?
Age?
Age huh? why dont you share your age. debate and serious talk remember? 7, yeah. im 24 if your dying to know.
You seem like a great father and husband, but sadly it is not the case with many of the people out there. My friend was told about precautions, and the guy she was with said he had it covered - turns out he hadn't.weamo8 wrote:
I don't know your friends situation, and I don't judge her. I am not saying she is a bad person. For her sake, it would have been nice if someone, in the first 15 years of her life should have explained to her that you can get pregnant by having sex. Then, hopefully she would have chosen not to or would have made him take precautions.
I had several friends, one who was very close to me, that were in the same situation, and several had abortions. That is their choice, whether or not I disagree. However, I am simply trying to say that I do take 100% responsibility for my own actions before I suggest that others do so with theirs.
People having abortions is their choice. What bothers me is when people pretend it is no big deal. If none of us were born yet, and we took a vote, I bet most of us would be against abortion.
He left her as soon as he found out. That is why I judge a lot of people harshly in that respect.
The way you say it is their choice - that is what I am trying to point out. It is their choice, and not for the government or us to decide. It is a big deal, and I agree. So I think we may have come to some sort of agreement
edit:
I'm pretty sure he was kidding - unless he managed to impregnate his now (in that case) 6 year old wife twice, which would have required him to start when he was - say - 5-6 years old xDGunSlinger OIF II wrote:
7, yeah.
-konfusion
Last edited by konfusion (2007-05-01 15:23:13)
i think he may be IRC'ing some pootang channel and forgot to alt-tab....so you got his age sex location advances! Lucky youGunSlinger OIF II wrote:
thats where definition of a body and seperate living thing comes into play. that organism IS NOT a seperate entity from the mother. no, its her body, her choice. the developing fetus cannot survive on its own.weamo8 wrote:
It is a genetically distict being. It is actually not her body. You can certainly argue it is a "parasite," but not that it is part of her body.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
the same reason why i cant understand what gives other people the right to tell other people what to do with their own bodies.
By the way, the baby does have a body. Where does she have the right to tell the baby to do with its body?
Age?
Age huh? why dont you share your age. debate and serious talk remember? 7, yeah. im 24 if your dying to know.
Last edited by m3thod (2007-05-01 15:29:05)
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
Hey, the youngest mother was like 5 I think.konfusion wrote:
I'm pretty sure he was kidding - unless he managed to impregnate his now (in that case) 6 year old wife twice, which would have required him to start when he was - say - 5-6 years old xD
-konfusion
Your argument is moot. In this case, the baby is going to die. PHYSICS is dictating it's death, not the mother. Is it not morally acceptable to allow the mother to prevent harm being done to her body in the form of a birth? Birthing can kill a person, it's not as common now, but it still can. Her baby is going to die regardless. Would you endanger the mother's life as well?weamo8 wrote:
I cant understand where people think they get the right to tell people if they are going to live or not.jgrahl wrote:
It's all up to the woman to have the baby. I don't understand how people think it's right to tell women how they can reproduce or not. Are you going to tell me how to think next?
Some people probably think that abortion is wrong since it does not further the survival of their species. But in this specific case it is the opposite effect since the babies life expectancy is short. The baby would actually be more of a problem than a benefit for the survival of the group since it will consume resources, but contributing none, while dying.
Another thing is that if the mother chooses not to support the child because of some type of problem or abuse then it will either live on it's own or die.
A fetus is a parasite until it is born, then later the baby can possibly grow to be a beneficial organism or a detrimental one.
I agree with that - as well (more or less).konfusion wrote:
You seem like a great father and husband, but sadly it is not the case with many of the people out there. My friend was told about precautions, and the guy she was with said he had it covered - turns out he hadn't.weamo8 wrote:
I don't know your friends situation, and I don't judge her. I am not saying she is a bad person. For her sake, it would have been nice if someone, in the first 15 years of her life should have explained to her that you can get pregnant by having sex. Then, hopefully she would have chosen not to or would have made him take precautions.
I had several friends, one who was very close to me, that were in the same situation, and several had abortions. That is their choice, whether or not I disagree. However, I am simply trying to say that I do take 100% responsibility for my own actions before I suggest that others do so with theirs.
People having abortions is their choice. What bothers me is when people pretend it is no big deal. If none of us were born yet, and we took a vote, I bet most of us would be against abortion.
He left her as soon as he found out. That is why I judge a lot of people harshly in that respect.
The way you say it is their choice - that is what I am trying to point out. It is their choice, and not for the government or us to decide. It is a big deal, and I agree. So I think we may have come to some sort of agreement.
This is an IMO from another older thread:
(1)Stingray24 wrote:
(1) They’ve been voted in to represent you, so your state has given them the power to present this legislation . . . hardly commie. Vote them out the next election and reverse the legislation. I don’t see any problem with each state should be able to decide this issue on their own imho. We don't elect judges, we elected legislature to represent us. Therefore, they should be deciding, not the courts. If a state does not want elective abortions occuring in their state, they should be able to put it into law. Then those who still wish to have an abortion of convenience can go to a state that allows it.
What would be the point of aborting a baby that is not the product of rape or incest, not a risk to the mother’s life, and lacking fatal deformities? (2) Oh, that’s right, it’s “inconvenient” because the woman couldn’t keep her legs together or the guy was too stupid to wrap up properly, so one or both of the parents have the right to carry out a death sentence against their child. If they did that after birth, we’d toss them in jail and throw away the key.
a. Considering many people don’t vote - that concept means less in reality than you think it does (?).
b. Representing me - does not equate to a majority suppressing a minority - nor does it mean a majority imposing their beliefs (religious belief-system) or personal-agenda upon a minority - or worse imposing their beliefs; personal agendas upon an apathetic majority that does not vote or care; etc.
c. It is very commie; because your (religious belief-system) beliefs are already intact. No one; and No LAW is demanding that you should have a mandatory abortion - no matter what State you live in. You already are protected by LAW - your beliefs are not prohibited by any LAW. What is prohibited is you / me / or anyone imposing such beliefs upon the minority; what is prohibited (currently) - is you / me / or anyone imposing such beliefs; personal-agendas upon an apathetic majority that does not share your beliefs.
(2)
a. That part is BS rhetoric, most woman who fall in the “unwanted” pregnancy area - are not well-formed adults to begin with and are probably not ready to properly take care of a child. This you want them to follow through with an unwanted child - is nonsense. There is a lot more to a life (a women; a young woman); other than being a vessel or container for a growing child. You are valuing your beliefs and yourself as greater than the woman and her beliefs. And you wish to call it murder. And many would call it murder at any stage of the pregnancy even when it is clearly just a glob of cells.
b. You're also focusing on your personal belief and a potential-life (and also unwanted) over the woman (which is not a potential; but a whole life already living in the world). There are just so many whole-life issues / agendas to be concerned with; people living and breathing already to be concerned with; that it amounts to imposing a specific religious belief upon others - while ignoring the living; and the quality of their whole-life (which is not a potential).
All that being said - to many abortions do happen. It most certainly is NOT a form of birth control. Certain restrictions seem appropriate. Late trimester abortions should not be allowed - please give me a break - you could not tell you were pregnant? Also considering it is a matter personal belief - alternatives could & should be discussed. Many young people often don’t have well formed belief-systems anyway (and might not be sure what they want to do anyway; or how they really feel about it). I don’t think allowing a discussion with a psychologist (non-religious; non-pressuring; not promoting a personal agenda) about the adoption-alternative - is in any way intrusive or offensive. Also the Christian ethic that human life has meaning at any level may NOT be shared as a belief (by all); but it is not worthy of being discounted in it’s entirety. (a) Adoption is an alternative. (b) Birth-control and sex education is an alternative. Any sex education class should comprehensively cover both (a & b).
I really dont care. Why do you?GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
thats where definition of a body and seperate living thing comes into play. that organism IS NOT a seperate entity from the mother. no, its her body, her choice. the developing fetus cannot survive on its own.weamo8 wrote:
It is a genetically distict being. It is actually not her body. You can certainly argue it is a "parasite," but not that it is part of her body.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
the same reason why i cant understand what gives other people the right to tell other people what to do with their own bodies.
By the way, the baby does have a body. Where does she have the right to tell the baby to do with its body?
Age?
Age huh? why dont you share your age. debate and serious talk remember? 7, yeah. im 24 if your dying to know.
i only asked you once, your the one that seems so concerned. ill tell you why i asked. why do you believe the way you do? is it because these are original thoughts and opinions that youve formed over the years or was it through religious indoctrination. thats what i was curious about, i thought i was pretty polite about it.
Genetically distinct. Can it survive without a placenta? One entity until the placenta detaches and that cord gets snipped.weamo8 wrote:
It is a genetically distict being. It is actually not her body. You can certainly argue it is a "parasite," but not that it is part of her body.
By the way, the baby does have a body. Where does she have the right to tell the baby to do with its body?
Age?
Is it morally wrong to let a baby drown in a swimming pool? I would go in after it, but adults have been known to drown too. I probably wont drown, but I better not take the chance. However, the baby drowning isnt my fault, the pool killed it, not me. I heartily disagree with your argument. I believe you are looking for a culprit that isnt there.jonsimon wrote:
Your argument is moot. In this case, the baby is going to die. PHYSICS is dictating it's death, not the mother. Is it not morally acceptable to allow the mother to prevent harm being done to her body in the form of a birth? Birthing can kill a person, it's not as common now, but it still can. Her baby is going to die regardless. Would you endanger the mother's life as well?weamo8 wrote:
I cant understand where people think they get the right to tell people if they are going to live or not.jgrahl wrote:
It's all up to the woman to have the baby. I don't understand how people think it's right to tell women how they can reproduce or not. Are you going to tell me how to think next?
Some people probably think that abortion is wrong since it does not further the survival of their species. But in this specific case it is the opposite effect since the babies life expectancy is short. The baby would actually be more of a problem than a benefit for the survival of the group since it will consume resources, but contributing none, while dying.
Another thing is that if the mother chooses not to support the child because of some type of problem or abuse then it will either live on it's own or die.
A fetus is a parasite until it is born, then later the baby can possibly grow to be a beneficial organism or a detrimental one.