Political Crossfire Forums

[Enoch]

Plodder wrote: he is paying you a complement and thanking you for your support. and here is another. congrats on being at berkeley AND being pro life. its rare over there. Quote: No, like it or not, it is a parasite by definition. It is reliant on the host (the mother) in order to live. If the host dies, it will die.

Now, once the child is born it is no longer reliant on a host. Yes, others have to feed and care for the child until it reaches a further stage of maturity, but it is no longer in a parasitic relationship. The fact that mammals have this as a way to reproduce does not make the fact that it is a parasitic relationship any less valid. a parasite also harms the host. a baby doe snot harm the host. a tape worm can kill you. a baby will, except in extreme cases never kill the mother.
You are adding something to the definition, which does not exist, only to help your case. In biology, we can see that a parasite, by definition, "An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host."

I'm sorry, but, biologically speaking, a baby is a parasite until it is born.

[AllAmericanMan]

UrielsFyre wrote: Plodder wrote: he is paying you a complement and thanking you for your support. and here is another. congrats on being at berkeley AND being pro life. its rare over there. Quote: No, like it or not, it is a parasite by definition. It is reliant on the host (the mother) in order to live. If the host dies, it will die.

Now, once the child is born it is no longer reliant on a host. Yes, others have to feed and care for the child until it reaches a further stage of maturity, but it is no longer in a parasitic relationship. The fact that mammals have this as a way to reproduce does not make the fact that it is a parasitic relationship any less valid. a parasite also harms the host. a baby doe snot harm the host. a tape worm can kill you. a baby will, except in extreme cases never kill the mother.
You are adding something to the definition, which does not exist, only to help your case. In biology, we can see that a parasite, by definition, "An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host."

I'm sorry, but, biologically speaking, a baby is a parasite until it is born. Wrong, parasites have to be of a different species than the host. Offspring make a woman pregnant, parasites do not.

EDIT: come play with the adults and quit picking on the 16 year old :wink:

[Enoch]

AllAmericanMan wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: Helena` wrote: It's still a parasite, by definition Not unless you classify the human species as a parasite. While it may have some simularities with a parasite, it is simply a young and immature member of our species. Nature has determined our species to start out in the womb, that doesnt make us all parasites it makes us young. I was never a parasite. I was a human embryo, and there is a difference. No, like it or not, it is a parasite by definition. It is reliant on the host (the mother) in order to live. If the host dies, it will die.

Now, once the child is born it is no longer reliant on a host. Yes, others have to feed and care for the child until it reaches a further stage of maturity, but it is no longer in a parasitic relationship. The fact that mammals have this as a way to reproduce does not make the fact that it is a parasitic relationship any less valid. Such parasitic relationship is the human condition. Its how we all start out, so how does this change anything? There is a difference between offspring and parasites. Parasites come from the outside and are of a different species than the host. Offspring simply matures inside its mother. That is the key difference here. The mother created this organism through reproduction and is now pregnant. WHen a person has a parasite they are not considered pregnant. Being pregnant and having a parasite are two completely different things. Like I said, while they have simularities, they are apples and oranges.
Sorry, but that is incorrect. The way in which mammals reproduce is through a parasitic relationship. Simply because we are producing offspring instead of having a tapeworm doesn't make it any less a reality.

Babies are, by definition, a parasite until birth. Does that mean they aren't alive or aren't developing in to cute little bundles of joy? No. It just means that our reproduction is parasitic in nature.

[AllAmericanMan]

UrielsFyre wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: Helena` wrote: It's still a parasite, by definition Not unless you classify the human species as a parasite. While it may have some simularities with a parasite, it is simply a young and immature member of our species. Nature has determined our species to start out in the womb, that doesnt make us all parasites it makes us young. I was never a parasite. I was a human embryo, and there is a difference. No, like it or not, it is a parasite by definition. It is reliant on the host (the mother) in order to live. If the host dies, it will die.

Now, once the child is born it is no longer reliant on a host. Yes, others have to feed and care for the child until it reaches a further stage of maturity, but it is no longer in a parasitic relationship. The fact that mammals have this as a way to reproduce does not make the fact that it is a parasitic relationship any less valid. Such parasitic relationship is the human condition. Its how we all start out, so how does this change anything? There is a difference between offspring and parasites. Parasites come from the outside and are of a different species than the host. Offspring simply matures inside its mother. That is the key difference here. The mother created this organism through reproduction and is now pregnant. WHen a person has a parasite they are not considered pregnant. Being pregnant and having a parasite are two completely different things. Like I said, while they have simularities, they are apples and oranges.
Sorry, but that is incorrect. The way in which mammals reproduce is through a parasitic relationship. Simply because we are producing offspring instead of having a tapeworm doesn't make it any less a reality.

Babies are, by definition, a parasite until birth. Does that mean they aren't alive or aren't developing in to cute little bundles of joy? No. It just means that our reproduction is parasitic in nature.

Wrong again, parasites by definition have to be of a different species. Youre missing one gaping fact of reality. Offspring are created by the mother from her reproductive organs. They are offspring that make her pregnant. The nature of their survival is the survival of the mothers species. Its how our species carries on into the future. It is not just destructive to the mother. In fact, it guarantee's our survival. You can not call offspring a parasite because that statement is scientifically false.

[Enoch]

AllAmericanMan wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: Helena` wrote: It's still a parasite, by definition Not unless you classify the human species as a parasite. While it may have some simularities with a parasite, it is simply a young and immature member of our species. Nature has determined our species to start out in the womb, that doesnt make us all parasites it makes us young. I was never a parasite. I was a human embryo, and there is a difference. No, like it or not, it is a parasite by definition. It is reliant on the host (the mother) in order to live. If the host dies, it will die.

Now, once the child is born it is no longer reliant on a host. Yes, others have to feed and care for the child until it reaches a further stage of maturity, but it is no longer in a parasitic relationship. The fact that mammals have this as a way to reproduce does not make the fact that it is a parasitic relationship any less valid. Such parasitic relationship is the human condition. Its how we all start out, so how does this change anything? There is a difference between offspring and parasites. Parasites come from the outside and are of a different species than the host. Offspring simply matures inside its mother. That is the key difference here. The mother created this organism through reproduction and is now pregnant. WHen a person has a parasite they are not considered pregnant. Being pregnant and having a parasite are two completely different things. Like I said, while they have simularities, they are apples and oranges.
Sorry, but that is incorrect. The way in which mammals reproduce is through a parasitic relationship. Simply because we are producing offspring instead of having a tapeworm doesn't make it any less a reality.

Babies are, by definition, a parasite until birth. Does that mean they aren't alive or aren't developing in to cute little bundles of joy? No. It just means that our reproduction is parasitic in nature.

Wrong again, parasites by definition have to be of a different species. Youre missing one gaping fact of reality. Offspring are created by the mother from her reproductive organs. They are offspring that make her pregnant. The nature of their survival is the survival of the mothers species. Its how our species carries on into the future. It is not just destructive to the mother. In fact, it guarantee's our survival. You can not call offspring a parasite because that statement is scientifically false.
You keep claiming over and over again that I am wrong. Fine, show me how A) a parasite must be detrimental to the host, B) the host and parasite must be of different species, and C) how the definition I provided; "An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host," is incorrect.

Open the dictionary, you'll find that as the definition. Can you provide evidence to the contrary?

[AllAmericanMan]

UrielsFyre wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: Helena` wrote: It's still a parasite, by definition Not unless you classify the human species as a parasite. While it may have some simularities with a parasite, it is simply a young and immature member of our species. Nature has determined our species to start out in the womb, that doesnt make us all parasites it makes us young. I was never a parasite. I was a human embryo, and there is a difference. No, like it or not, it is a parasite by definition. It is reliant on the host (the mother) in order to live. If the host dies, it will die.

Now, once the child is born it is no longer reliant on a host. Yes, others have to feed and care for the child until it reaches a further stage of maturity, but it is no longer in a parasitic relationship. The fact that mammals have this as a way to reproduce does not make the fact that it is a parasitic relationship any less valid. Such parasitic relationship is the human condition. Its how we all start out, so how does this change anything? There is a difference between offspring and parasites. Parasites come from the outside and are of a different species than the host. Offspring simply matures inside its mother. That is the key difference here. The mother created this organism through reproduction and is now pregnant. WHen a person has a parasite they are not considered pregnant. Being pregnant and having a parasite are two completely different things. Like I said, while they have simularities, they are apples and oranges.
Sorry, but that is incorrect. The way in which mammals reproduce is through a parasitic relationship. Simply because we are producing offspring instead of having a tapeworm doesn't make it any less a reality.

Babies are, by definition, a parasite until birth. Does that mean they aren't alive or aren't developing in to cute little bundles of joy? No. It just means that our reproduction is parasitic in nature.

Wrong again, parasites by definition have to be of a different species. Youre missing one gaping fact of reality. Offspring are created by the mother from her reproductive organs. They are offspring that make her pregnant. The nature of their survival is the survival of the mothers species. Its how our species carries on into the future. It is not just destructive to the mother. In fact, it guarantee's our survival. You can not call offspring a parasite because that statement is scientifically false.
You keep claiming over and over again that I am wrong. Fine, show me how A) a parasite must be detrimental to the host, B) the host and parasite must be of different species, and C) how the definition I provided; "An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host," is incorrect.

Open the dictionary, you'll find that as the definition. Can you provide evidence to the contrary?

Better yet, you show me where offspring is defined as a parasite. Or an example of a parasite is listed as an unborn child.


Heres an interesting quote i picked off a book review of all things.



Quote: While acknowledging that the unborn is a human person, still she calls this person a "parasite", the same chilling term the Nazi propaganda film "The Eternal Jew" used to describe the Jewish population.

Now that is interesting. :shock:

Here is someone with a degree speaking on the subject. Dr Thomas L. Johnson writes:


Quote: 1.a) A parasite is defined as an organism of one species living in or on an
organism of another species (a heterospecific relationship) and deriving its
nourishment from the host (is metabolically dependent on the host). (See Cheng,
T.C., General Parasitology, p. 7, 1973.)

b) A human embryo or fetus is an organism of one species (Homo sapiens) living in the uterine cavity of an organism of the same species (Homo sapiens) and deriving its nourishment from the mother (is metabolically dependent on the mother). This homospecific relationship is an obligatory dependent relationship, but not a parasitic relationship.

2.a) A parasite is an invading organism -- coming to parasitize the host from an outside source.

b) A human embryo or fetus is formed from a fertilized egg -- the egg coming from an inside source, being formed in the ovary of the mother from where it moves into the oviduct where it may be fertilized to form the zygote -- the first cell of the new human being.

3.a) A parasite is generally harmful to some degree to the host that is harboring the parasite.

b) A human embryo or fetus developing in the uterine cavity does not usually
cause harm to the mother, although it may if proper nutrition and care is not
maintained by the mother.
He goes a lot further but I think its suficiently debunked from the very beginning.

[Enoch]

AllAmericanMan wrote: Heres an interesting quote i picked off a book review of all things.

Quote: While acknowledging that the unborn is a human person, still she calls this person a "parasite", the same chilling term the Nazi propaganda film "The Eternal Jew" used to describe the Jewish population.
Now that is interesting. :shock:
Sorry, but this is nothing more than a combination of a moral equivilency fallacy and a transfer fallacy.

First, you equate the term being used to describe an unborn child, which is used in a biological sense, to the same term being used to describe an entire culture or community.

Then, once that is established, you try to transfer the negative feelings associated with the Nazi party, movement, and actions on to those people with whom you disagree in the abortion debate.

That is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to counteract logic with emotions. Nice try, but it was poorly done.

AllAmericanMan wrote: Here is someone with a degree speaking on the subject. Dr Thomas L. Johnson writes:


Quote: 1.a) A parasite is defined as an organism of one species living in or on an
organism of another species (a heterospecific relationship) and deriving its
nourishment from the host (is metabolically dependent on the host). (See Cheng,
T.C., General Parasitology, p. 7, 1973.)

b) A human embryo or fetus is an organism of one species (Homo sapiens) living in the uterine cavity of an organism of the same species (Homo sapiens) and deriving its nourishment from the mother (is metabolically dependent on the mother). This homospecific relationship is an obligatory dependent relationship, but not a parasitic relationship.

2.a) A parasite is an invading organism -- coming to parasitize the host from an outside source.

b) A human embryo or fetus is formed from a fertilized egg -- the egg coming from an inside source, being formed in the ovary of the mother from where it moves into the oviduct where it may be fertilized to form the zygote -- the first cell of the new human being.

3.a) A parasite is generally harmful to some degree to the host that is harboring the parasite.

b) A human embryo or fetus developing in the uterine cavity does not usually
cause harm to the mother, although it may if proper nutrition and care is not
maintained by the mother.
He goes a lot further but I think its suficiently debunked from the very beginning.
Now, this was the proper way to address the issue. Using this definition, I can see how the parasite/embryo comparison would be incorrect. Using the dictionary definition I provided then an embryo would be looked at as a parasite. However, upon further examination as to the biological nature of parasitic relationships, I can see how the conclusion I posted was faulty.

While I may have been wrong on the idea of an embryo being a parasite, it does not change my view of the overall argument of abortion. However, I admit that I was wrong in this particularly discussion.

[AllAmericanMan]

Quote: Sorry, but this is nothing more than a combination of a moral equivilency fallacy and a transfer fallacy.

First, you equate the term being used to describe an unborn child, which is used in a biological sense, to the same term being used to describe an entire civilization.

Then, once that is established, you try to transfer the negative feelings associated with the Nazi party, movement, and actions with those people with whom you disagree in the abortion debate.

That is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to counteract logic with emotions. Nice try, but it was poorly done.
I merely stumbled across something concerning the issue at hand that I thought was interesting. Youre free to take as much or as little as you want from it.
Emotion counteracts logic all the time as is apparent when pro abortionists call themselves pro choice. Pro choice is a deliberate attempt to disguise ending a human life as a matter of liberty while completely ignoring that the parents chose to create that innocent life to begin with.





Quote: Now, this was the proper way to address the issue. Using this definition, I can see how the parasite/embryo comparison would be incorrect. Using the dictionary definition I provided then an embryo would be looked at as a parasite. However, upon further examination as to the biological nature of parasitic relationships, I can see how the conclusion I posted was faulty.

While I may have been wrong on the idea of an embryo being a parasite, it does not change my view of the overall argument of abortion. However, I admit that I was wrong in this particularly discussion.


That is quite an occurance around here. Someone actually changed their mind about something. Impressive, I applaud you.

[Enoch]

AllAmericanMan wrote: That is quite an occurance around here. Someone actually changed their mind about something. Impressive, I applaud you.
Unlike some I have noticed on here who, when faced with evidence that show they were incorrect just run away, I have no problems admitting that I was wrong.

[AllAmericanMan]

UrielsFyre wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: That is quite an occurance around here. Someone actually changed their mind about something. Impressive, I applaud you.
Unlike some I have noticed on here who, when faced with evidence that show they were incorrect just run away, I have no problems admitting that I was wrong.

Now if we can just get you to see that newly conceived humans do not deserve to be so casually thrown away. :wink:

[Enoch]

AllAmericanMan wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: That is quite an occurance around here. Someone actually changed their mind about something. Impressive, I applaud you.
Unlike some I have noticed on here who, when faced with evidence that show they were incorrect just run away, I have no problems admitting that I was wrong.

Now if we can just get you to see that newly conceived humans do not deserve to be so casually thrown away. :wink:
Remember what I said....if I had my way abortion would remain legal, but no woman would ever choose it. I find abortion to be a horrible choice for a woman to make, but I still will fight to protect her right to make such a horrible choice. :)


And, yes, I know that you don't entirely understand where I am coming from on that one. Most people don't. :lol:

[AllAmericanMan]

UrielsFyre wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: That is quite an occurance around here. Someone actually changed their mind about something. Impressive, I applaud you.
Unlike some I have noticed on here who, when faced with evidence that show they were incorrect just run away, I have no problems admitting that I was wrong.

Now if we can just get you to see that newly conceived humans do not deserve to be so casually thrown away. :wink:
Remember what I said....if I had my way abortion would remain legal, but no woman would ever choose it. I find abortion to be a horrible choice for a woman to make, but I still will fight to protect her right to make such a horrible choice. :)


And, yes, I know that you don't entirely understand where I am coming from on that one. Most people don't. :lol: Ok I HAVE to pose this question then. Why is it I shouldnt have the right to murder my newborn baby if Im going to be the one taking care of it? Why is it this doesnt apply to pregnant women? They choose to create that being there by choosing to have sex. What makes the unborn subhuman in the respect of not obtaining equal human rights?

[AllAmericanMan]

Also, why cant the man choose to abort their offspring? Or choose to stop an abortion from happening? Isnt that descrimination towards me too? Its just as much my child as it is hers.

[Enoch]

AllAmericanMan wrote: Ok I HAVE to pose this question then. Why is it I shouldnt have the right to murder my newborn baby if Im going to be the one taking care of it? Why is it this doesnt apply to pregnant women? They choose to create that being there by choosing to have sex. What makes the unborn subhuman in the respect of not obtaining equal human rights?
If you no longer want the child, you can easily give the child to an orphanage, family, friend, or even leave the child at a police station without repercussion (in many states). Once the child is born, he or she enjoys legal protections. But, at this point, there is no provision for legal protection of the unborn.

AllAmericanMan wrote: Also, why cant the man choose to abort their offspring? Or choose to stop an abortion from happening? Isnt that descrimination towards me too? Its just as much my child as it is hers.
Personally, I would be for a change in abortion law that mandated the consent of a woman's husband if she is married. Now, for unmarried women, it gets trickier. The father may not ever know she was pregnant, and since they are not married I see no legal reason to require his permission. However, once married, I think that the husband should be involved since they are legally joined.

[AllAmericanMan]

Quote: If you no longer want the child, you can easily give the child to an orphanage, family, friend, or even leave the child at a police station without repercussion (in many states). Once the child is born, he or she enjoys legal protections. But, at this point, there is no provision for legal protection of the unborn Yes but why should they enjoy that legal protection only at that point? I could understand the law if this was 500 years ago when we really didnt have an understanding of microbiology and conception that we do now. We now know life begins at conception, not birth. Birth and life in the outside world is just another stage in a persons life. To make a separation between any stage of development and to say, this young one doesnt yet have the right to live relies on arbitrary decisions of value. We can define the human organism, why not assign rights to it? To me its no different than any other type of descrimination that has occured throughout man kinds history. The less something is like us, the more we can not accept and love it.

[AllAmericanMan]

Quote: Personally, I would be for a change in abortion law that mandated the consent of a woman's husband if she is married. Now, for unmarried women, it gets trickier. The father may not ever know she was pregnant, and since they are not married I see no legal reason to require his permission. However, once married, I think that the husband should be involved since they are legally joined.

Good points, I see where marriage becomes an important factor.

[Enoch]

AllAmericanMan wrote: Quote: If you no longer want the child, you can easily give the child to an orphanage, family, friend, or even leave the child at a police station without repercussion (in many states). Once the child is born, he or she enjoys legal protections. But, at this point, there is no provision for legal protection of the unborn Yes but why should they enjoy that legal protection only at that point? I could understand the law if this was 500 years ago when we really didnt have an understanding of microbiology and conception that we do now. We now know life begins at conception, not birth. Birth and life in the outside world is just another stage in a persons life. To make a separation between any stage of development and to say, this young one doesnt yet have the right to live relies on arbitrary decisions of value. We can define the human organism, why not assign rights to it? To me its no different than any other type of descrimination that has occured throughout man kinds history. The less something is like us, the more we can not accept and love it.
While it is true that life begins at conception, I think there is another issue at stake here: The hierarchy of rights.

To me, the rights of a person (the mother) supercede the rights of the potential person (the unborn).

[AllAmericanMan]

Quote: To me, the rights of a person (the mother) supercede the rights of the potential person (the unborn). The term person is an arbitrary separation of one human life from another. One is young, the other developed to a stage where it has the ability of thought. I could define a person as someone whos brain is fully developed. Marking the beginning of personhood at 20-something-years-old. Then say we have the right to kill our children until they are 21. It is absolutely no different than setting a line anywhere else in a persons development. One is just as arbitrary as another.

[Enoch]

AllAmericanMan wrote: Quote: To me, the rights of a person (the mother) supercede the rights of the potential person (the unborn). The term person is an arbitrary separation of one human life from another. One is young, the other developed to a stage where it has the ability of thought. I could define a person as someone whos brain is fully developed. Marking the beginning of personhood at 20-something-years-old. Then say we have the right to kill our children until they are 21. It is absolutely no different than setting a line anywhere else in a persons development. One is just as arbitrary as another.
While it may be arbitrary, it becomes a philisophical construct for which there is no scientific data to support or refute either way.

To me, the rights of the mother supercede the rights of the unborn as the unborn is still a potential person. Until they are fully developed (meaning able to live independently of the mother's womb) I see no reason to assign rights to the unborn.

[AllAmericanMan]

Quote: While it may be arbitrary, it becomes a philisophical construct for which there is no scientific data to support or refute either way.
Precisely! So why not use what we can define? Conception!

Quote: Until they are fully developed (meaning able to live independently of the mother's womb) I see no reason to assign rights to the unborn. A major reason behind our laws existence is to protect those who can not protect themselves. You are arguing the exact opposite, that the more capable and the more developed a human life is, the more it requires our protection. This seems to me to be backwards logic.