Little Susie who would be nothing if not in her mother's body? Doesn't change the point. Anywho, the abortion argument is so futile, not sure why I bothered sticking my nose in here.
Signed drug dealers, prostitutes, kiddie p*rn dealers, and people who force 12 year old girls to marry 40 year old men and serve as their sex puppets for life.
I'm not sure what your point was. Of course we need our mothers to birth us. The argument is not futile; it does get shrill sometimes, but kids are dying. I don't think I can seduce someone out of their pro-Choice stance. They will have to have their system shocked by the reality of what they wish to allow.
My point was that if you remove Little Susie from her mother's body when she could legally be aborted (not counting late-term abortions), she won't live. Do you dispute that?
OK. This will probably be defined as splitting hairs, but back to the parasite. I think andymoon is getting undeserved flack. I don't think he intended it the way you took it. I appreciate that the word has some negative connotations, but if you are describing the relationship between to organisms, how else would you describe it? Which of the following types of symbiosis do you think would best describe the relationship? [rquoter] Symbiosis: Properly, it is a neutral term, meaning "the living together in close association of two dissimilar organisms." It has the implication that the relationship is beneficial to the organisms involved, but that is properly a mutualistic relationship. Mutualism, commensalism, amensalism and parasitism are all types of symbiotic relationships. Mutualism: A symbiotic relationship in which both (or all) organisms involved benefit. Commensalism: A symbiotic relationship in which one partner benefits and the other is unaffected. Amensalism: A symbiotic relationship in which one partner is harmed and the other is unaffected. (if you know of a clean, stable example of this, please let me know) Parasitism: A symbiotic relationship in which one partner (the parasite) benefits and the other (the host) is harmed, though typically not killed directly by the action of the parasite. Pathogen: A symbiotic relationship in which one partner (the pathogen) causes disease within the other (the host) and which can disable or kill the host. [/rquoter] source The fetus takes nutrients from the mother (the benifit to the fetus) which requires her to find more food to consume (the cost to the mother). It doesn't really provide any advantage to the mother. Which of the above do you think applies to a fetus in the womb? It is most like the relationship between a shark and a lamprey in strict biological terms. Ultimately, the born baby can provide the most important imperitave of continuation of the genetic line, but for the time in womb, it is pretty much fits the definition of parasite. I don't think he was calling the fetus a dirty, rotten, shiftless no-good parasite. He was describing a relationship between two organisms that is analogous to a parasitic relationship between two species.
Ottoman: it's offensive to me to hear someone compare what i view to be a human being (albeit in the womb) to a tapeworm. i'm not calling him evil for saying it. i'm simply saying, if you wish to have a real discussion on a subject like this, the words, "parasite" and "murderer" probably ought to be off the table...or else you'll find your intended listener is no longer listening because he's too busy walking away or crossing his arms becoming defensive. i'm the father of two sons...if i were callous enough, i could come up with all sorts of metaphors about what i provide them with very little in return. a uterus has one sole purpose.
Dissimilar organisms? Two species? I don't mind you being pedantic, but this is just ridiculous. Seriously.
Read what andymoon wrote. That's what he was describing. It wasn't my analogy. BTW, I've also seen documentaries on The National Geographic Channel that use this comparison, and saw a rerun of House the other day that used it as well. This isn't some idea he pulled out of his rear. Google 'fetus parasite' and you'll find all sorts of links to people asking this question. It is legitimately a meme that is out there, bouncing around.
i'm the one who criticized, so i assume this is directed at me. and i still don't care. i don't care who made it up. i think it sucks. there are very real reasons people get abortions...and i haven't walked a step in their shoes. but to try to validate by saying, "it was really like a parasite, anyway" is disgusting to me.
This whole abortion thing is puzzling... 1. Healthy married couples plan for abortion? 2. Does anyone plan for abortion? (you know look forward to it) 3. Isn't it an out for those who want sex, but don't want babies? Am I missing the whole abortion point? (please don't tell me it is a woman's choice- go back 2 choices to the I want sex but I don't want a baby) And the 'parasite' definition is pretty good for understanding the mindset
It wasn't. It was a response to wnes' 'ridiculous' comment. Granted, you can have large groups of ridiculous people. But if we are being totally honest, it sticks in my craw when someone describes a handful of undifferentiated month old cells as a human being or a baby.
yes, but the parasite argument doesn't stop at the end of the first trimester, does it? the same arguments that support this parasite concept last until the moment the baby takes its first breath. you could use the parasite argument to validate abortion at any step.
Obama won't be getting my vote... Totalitarian Socialist imo spreading the wealth and slicing up babies
I believe he meant "parasite" in the sense that the fetus is fully dependent on the pregnant woman to survive. The term is very strong, and to many on the other side of the issue, cruel and offensive, which I wouldn't use even I am kinda sympathetic to the pro-choice camp. In all honesty nobody can't really dispute the aspect of this DEPENDENCY. However, the bunch of definitions you cited make no sense in that they ignore the basic fact that the fetus is exactly the same species as the "host," and more importantly, 50% genetically identical to the pregnant woman, unless the fertilized egg was formed by other means.
Graver than ending the life of another? (Insert whatever euphemism you want for cessation, termination, abort, curtail if it makes you feel better about it.) It's 9 months with a baby, then they can give it up for adoption or whatnot. I fail to see, once again, if the baby is a person (which is the crux of the debate and one where philosophical reasons defined by one side on the issue consider it to not be a person; or, if we decide it is a person, that ending/ceasing/killing it is justified), where that moral argument can be made- that 9 months of suffering and pain is greater than a human being. (Worse sentence ever written but what can you do when you are supposed to be writing an outline for Contracts?) What are your thoughts on FOCA Section 4(c), I posted earlier?
Of course. That is why it is an analogy. I can say I am like a sloth. This doesn't indicate that you should expect me to find me hanging from a tree by my toes. It just indicates that in one respect (laziness) I share characteristics. It was said that it was like parasitism. Max didn't like this. I sited the other relationships between organisms, to see if he thought there was an option that he believed that the relationship was more analogous to.
