Political Crossfire Forums

Francisck · Joined: 13 Aug 2006 Posts: 13 Location: New jersey

Boy, these conservatives are really something, aren't they? They're all in favor of the unborn. They will do anything for the unborn. But once you're born, you're on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don't want to know about you. They don't want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you're preborn, you're fine; if you're preschool, you're f****d.

But let's get back to this abortion s**t. Now, is a fetus a human being? This seems to be the central question. Well, if a fetus is a human being, how come the census doesn't count them? If a fetus is a human being, how come when there's a miscarriage they don't have a funeral? If a fetus is a human being, how come people say 'we have two children and one on the way' instead of saying 'we have three children?' People say life begins at conception, I say life began about a billion years ago and it's a continuous process. Continuous, just keeps rolling along. Rolling, rolling, rolling along.

Cyro · Joined: 13 Aug 2006 Posts: 3403

Well I've said it before and I'll say it again:

A paracite only has as much right to life as its host permits it.

Francisck · Joined: 13 Aug 2006 Posts: 13 Location: New jersey

Ah yes agreed :)

JayDubya · Joined: 15 Jun 2006 Posts: 1813 Location: Texas

The poll is flawed because the terms themselves are flawed. Someone that is pro-choice isn't anti-life anymore than someone pro-life is anti-choice. Essentially everyone supports the base concepts of life and choice... also, almost everyone has an opinion regarding abortion, it's legal status, the morality involved, so forth and so on.

As for your assertions, I don't consider myself to be a socially conservative person, but I also don't consider medically unneccessary abortion to be morally permissable.

Cyro wrote: Well I've said it before and I'll say it again:

A paracite only has as much right to life as its host permits it.

Wrong by definition. Calling a growing human life a parasite only demonstrates scientific ignorance. In the event you'll actually listen and you're willing to learn, here ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasite ).

You can argue whether or not the growing life is sentient, but calling it a parasite is dead wrong.

ShirzadianM · Joined: 27 Jun 2006 Posts: 140 Location: Ohio

Cyro wrote: Well I've said it before and I'll say it again:

A paracite only has as much right to life as its host permits it.

I suppose my Constitution protects parasites and their posterity then...

JayDubya · Joined: 15 Jun 2006 Posts: 1813 Location: Texas

ShirzadianM wrote: Cyro wrote: Well I've said it before and I'll say it again:

A paracite only has as much right to life as its host permits it.

I suppose my Constitution protects parasites and their posterity then...

A human being (by definition) cannot be a parasite to another human being, as they are the same species.

But yes, I would agree that life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, etc. - in an abortion, all are snuffed out from an innocent that deserves of all of these things.

The Voice · Joined: 14 Aug 2006 Posts: 2 Location: Louisiana

I'm pretty sure why this is such a big topic is because the fact that when the person has an abortion, it takes away the choice of the unborn child of whether it gets to make a choice about his/her life. What's funny about this argument is that when this child is born, it still doesnt have a choice of how he or she lives. The child has NO say in how he or she lives life.

But I myself think that you should be able to have an abortion up to a certain age. Thats just me though :-P

Otacon · Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 1:28 am Post subject:

I personal think that abortions are sick and horrible, but I support a woman's right to choose. I'm throughly pro-choice, I will defend your ability to get an abortion for any reason to my grave. I think that you should have up until you have that child to decide whether or not to have an abortion. :P

Cyro · Joined: 13 Aug 2006 Posts: 3403

JayDubya wrote: The poll is flawed because the terms themselves are flawed. Someone that is pro-choice isn't anti-life anymore than someone pro-life is anti-choice. Essentially everyone supports the base concepts of life and choice... also, almost everyone has an opinion regarding abortion, it's legal status, the morality involved, so forth and so on.

As for your assertions, I don't consider myself to be a socially conservative person, but I also don't consider medically unneccessary abortion to be morally permissable.

Cyro wrote: Well I've said it before and I'll say it again:

A paracite only has as much right to life as its host permits it.

Wrong by definition. Calling a growing human life a parasite only demonstrates scientific ignorance. In the event you'll actually listen and you're willing to learn, here ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasite ).

You can argue whether or not the growing life is sentient, but calling it a parasite is dead wrong.

Pehaps 'parasite' was the wrong term then. However I still believe that seen as the babies life hinges entirely upon the mother it should be her decition as to whether it grows into a sentient being (one would presume if I was willing to argue tha a unborn child was a parasite on the mother, then I would also believe that it hasn't achieved sentience. At least not within the 'safe abortion' period) or not.

Selfish_Meme · Joined: 31 Jan 2006 Posts: 726

Who are these people with two posts who come in and rehash all the old ground again and again, go read previous threads, they cover everything in here.

Francisck · Joined: 13 Aug 2006 Posts: 13 Location: New jersey

Well, sorry i figured i would come in and post MY thoughts about abortion.....

Selfish_Meme · Joined: 31 Jan 2006 Posts: 726

Sorry, not your fault, I have just seen the same misconceptions bought up time and time again.

Life = Living
Embryo/fetus = living
Human = Homo Sapiens Sapiens = Primate = Mammal = Animal
Being = seperate entity
Human Embryo/fetus = Seperate Enitity of Homo Sapiens Sapiens = Human Being = Life = Living = Living Human Being.

There is no evidence that an embryo is not biologically a living human being - biologically remember.

Philosophically/Religously a Human Being is a whole other animal
Human Being = Person = Life = Human = Soul

Of course the conflict arises because of the inherent dichtomy betweeen the two viewpoints and the innacuracy of the english language.

Cyro · Joined: 13 Aug 2006 Posts: 3403

Selfish_Meme wrote: Sorry, not your fault, I have just seen the same misconceptions bought up time and time again.

Life = Living
Embryo/fetus = living
Human = Homo Sapiens Sapiens = Primate = Mammal = Animal
Being = seperate entity
Human Embryo/fetus = Seperate Enitity of Homo Sapiens Sapiens = Human Being = Life = Living = Living Human Being.

There is no evidence that an embryo is not biologically a living human being - biologically remember.

Philosophically/Religously a Human Being is a whole other animal
Human Being = Person = Life = Human = Soul

Of course the conflict arises because of the inherent dichtomy betweeen the two viewpoints and the innacuracy of the english language.

Whilst I'lll grant you that a fetus is most definately alive, and potentially human, it still isn't sentient. If a being cannot grasp the concept that it has a right to life, then does it?

Selfish_Meme · Joined: 31 Jan 2006 Posts: 726

Cyro wrote: Whilst I'lll grant you that a fetus is most definately alive, and potentially human, it still isn't sentient. If a being cannot grasp the concept that it has a right to life, then does it?
I think it would depend on what definition you are talking about. I was using it in an object that exists kind of way when talking biologically. Philosophically it is much murkier.

Cyro · Joined: 13 Aug 2006 Posts: 3403

Selfish_Meme wrote: Cyro wrote: Whilst I'lll grant you that a fetus is most definately alive, and potentially human, it still isn't sentient. If a being cannot grasp the concept that it has a right to life, then does it?
I think it would depend on what definition you are talking about. I was using it in an object that exists kind of way when talking biologically. Philosophically it is much murkier.

I think everyone agrees that it exists and is alive on some level. It's the value of it's existance and the Philosophical ideas behind it which are the issue.

Selfish_Meme · Joined: 31 Jan 2006 Posts: 726

Cyro wrote: I think everyone agrees that it exists and is alive on some level. It's the value of it's existance and the Philosophical ideas behind it which are the issue.
Yes, that is what I was arguing, people come here and say the question is 'is it a human being' without even knowing what they means. Pro-choice people tend to focus on the biology while pro-life people concentrate on the philosophical/religous side and they talk using the same words about different things.

Cyro · Joined: 13 Aug 2006 Posts: 3403

Selfish_Meme wrote: Cyro wrote: I think everyone agrees that it exists and is alive on some level. It's the value of it's existance and the Philosophical ideas behind it which are the issue.
Yes, that is what I was arguing, people come here and say the question is 'is it a human being' without even knowing what they means. Pro-choice people tend to focus on the biology while pro-life people concentrate on the philosophical/religous side and they talk using the same words about different things.

Well we have come to an agreement on how the issue is handled.

The actual issue itself on the other hand seems 'dead in the water' so to speak.

Selfish_Meme · Joined: 31 Jan 2006 Posts: 726

I was actually thinking today about it, and thought that life consists of two parts, a vessel (body/brain) and its contents, the entity it contains/propogates/binds.

If a vessel can exist without the contents, eg brain dead person. Then what is special is the entity, but an entity can't exist without the container (religous views aside).

So from my point of view the container is not especially valuable, unless it's contents are valuable. This is consistent with why I think it is ethical to turn off life support machinery for a brain dead person.

Also the contents do not always have the same value. A chicken consists of the same two parts but I do not find either particularly valuable, which is why I eat chicken.

What about a fetus/embryo? well the vessel is being built, but cannot contain what I think is valuable yet. Also what is being built will affect the contents it holds. So the eventual contents cannot yet be determined. This means no link from initial build until the contents are present. Also it either has contents or it does not.

What do I think is valuable? Sapience, sentience, memories, emotions, empathy. All these but they must be of suffiecient level. Just having them is not enough.

Zybthranger314 · Joined: 09 Jun 2006 Posts: 29

Selfish Meme, reading your view pleases me ... me gusta.

Before reading this thread, and even after starting to read it, I never thought of an embryo as a parasite. But then JayDubya provided the link to the definition of parasite. After reading that, it became quite clear that an embryo is essentially a parasite. Even though it technically isn't, as the host and parasite are defined to be different species, I will now think of embryos as a parasite. And it definitely is parasitic. That descriptor is exact and true.

Selfish_Meme · Joined: 31 Jan 2006 Posts: 726

Zybthranger314 wrote: Selfish Meme, reading your view pleases me ... me gusta.

Before reading this thread, and even after starting to read it, I never thought of an embryo as a parasite. But then JayDubya provided the link to the definition of parasite. After reading that, it became quite clear that an embryo is essentially a parasite. Even though it technically isn't, as the host and parasite are defined to be different species, I will now think of embryos as a parasite. And it definitely is parasitic. That descriptor is exact and true.
Zyb, I am pleased that you like my views, I sorry but I don't however agree with the parasite hypothesis.

An embryo/fetus exists not only because of its perch in the host, but because the host actively changes its relationship to facillitate it. That does not happen with a parasite. The body welcomes an embryo/fetus and changes to the needs of the embryo/fetus.