Archive for January, 2012
Responding to Roe: We Will Not Rest!
Posted by jerry in Uncategorized on January 31, 2012
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Thirty-nine years ago the U. S. Supreme Court wiped from the books of all fifty states every law protecting the unborn child. In what Justice Byron White called an act of raw judicial power, seven of nine justices imposed on our land the perverse doctrine that a woman’s dignity depends upon her right to destroy her child. In concurrent decisions, Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, the Supreme Court created a constitutional right to abortion on demand and initiated a reign of terror against unborn children that has resulted in the deaths of close to 55 million babies.
Missouri Right to Life | Post Office Box 651 | Jefferson City | MO | 65102
|
Stupid Statements We Make
Posted by jerry in Uncategorized on January 31, 2012
I remember a number of years ago I head a woman, on a talk show, tell about her daughter getting an abortion. She stated that she was so afraid that the procedure room would be filthy and germy, but she was surprised when she saw that it was so clean and the people were so professional. She said that this made it all right in her mind, so she went ahead and signed for her daughter to have the abortion. This woman really needs a “Stupid Sign.”
I have a hard time understanding why the cleanliness of a room and/or the professional attitude of the staff would make abortion all right in anyone’s mind. Most slave owners were very professional people and most of them kept their houses clean, they had all the black help they needed to do just that, but slavery was still wrong.
The illogical thinking of people often embarrasses me because we are given abilities in thinking that animals do not have, yet we try to be as much like animals as we can get. I guess that is because many of these people think that we are nothing more than animals. They don’t see the difference between humans and animals. We are supposed to have highly educated people, but it seems to me that a flock of geese have more intelligence than many people today.
Click on the word link for an article on partial birth abortions, but you might consider looking at the picture if you have a weak stomach. I consider myself to have a strong stomach (after 4 years in the Navy and 11 years as a cop), but this one even took me by surprise and made me sick. It is from a blog, and one of the comments to the article was as follows:
Steve (“Klotz” As In “Blood”) said…
Manny, you know very well that the term “partial birth abortion” is not a medical term, and that doctors don’t “sever and smash the limbs” of the fetus. Hysterical mischaracterizations of abortion do nothing but intellectually damage the abortion opponents’ position.
Personally, I believe abortion should be an option up until the child turns, say, 18. After that, parents are obligated to permit their offspring to survive.
4/18/2007 3:41 PM (Okay, he needs a stupid sign)
This is one of those stupid statements that humans often make, much like Kosherkracker, in my debate with him taking the absurd position that the fetus is nothing more than a parasite that the mother should get rid of.
We have really gone overboard with stupid statements, and if statements like the ones I have mentioned weren’t so serious it would be laughable. But it really is a serious issue. Some people are so stupid when it comes to the topic of abortion, and the worst part of it is, they want to stay that way.
The prophet Hosea wrote: ”My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children“ (Hos 4:6). There is no excuse for stupidity, and one day God will punish the evil doer because of their stupidity and it will do no good to say that I was ignorant on the matter because we have the obligation to “Study to shew thyself approved unto God” (2 Tim. 2:15). ”At the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth he all men every where to repent” (Acts 17:30). Stupidity is no excuse for breaking God’s laws, and it just won’t fly in the day of judgment.
Let’s not be stupid on the matter, let’s educate ourselves and take a stand against abortion. Let us pick up a sign that says “No To Abortion.”
Out Of Touch?
Posted by jerry in Uncategorized on January 28, 2012
I never cease to be amazed at the attitude that some people have regarding little babies. I spent 11 years in law enforcement and during that time I saw babies being neglected and abused by their parents (most of the time the mother was the perpetrator), and I saw just how little concern the Division of Family Services had for these children. They would go into a home that was unfit for pigs to live in and just tell the woman that she had 48 hours to clean it up. She rarely cleaned it up, and most of the time the babies were left in the home.
Since 1973 we have legalized abortion, the murder of innocent babies, just so the mother won’t have to take on the responsibility of caring for the child. In these people’s minds it is better to just kill the child than to make people care for them, or take them away from abusive and neglective parents and put them up for adoption. In the article I posted yesterday I noticed that some congress people are looking at voting pro-life, and this angers the pro-death camp.
“Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said in a statement that politicians supporting the March for Life were ignoring more pressing issues. ’Anti-choice politicians and their allies promised to focus on creating jobs, yet they are attacking a woman’s right to choose at near-record levels,’ Keenan said. ‘This extreme agenda is out of touch with our country’s values and priorities’” (http://challenge2.wordpress.com/2012/01/28/bound-4-life-march/).
Now my question is “What takes priority over an innocent life?” Well the pro-death camp would tell us that the economy takes priority. Of course they want the economy to flourish so they can continue to charge outlandish fees for abortions that they perform at the rate of 4000 per day. If an abortion costs $350.00 per abortion, and abortions take place at the rate of 4000 per day, it doesn’t take an Einstein to see that the abortion industry is getting rich off of abortion. Notice that One Million, Four Hundred Thousand Dollars each day are charged by the abortionists who perform this muderous act. If the economy goes down then so does their income. So of course they want to focus on the economy.
While the economy is essential it is more essential to save lives. The life of one innocent child is worth more than all the economic solutions in all the world. So I whole-heartedly disagree with Ms. Keenan. These congress people need to focus more on saving lives than they do on things like the economy. I do agree with Keenan on one thing though “Our country is out of touch concerning values and priorities, and we need to get back in touch.” Solomon wrote “Righteousness exhalteth a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people” (Prov. 14:34).
Bound 4 Life March
Posted by jerry in Uncategorized on January 28, 2012
People with the group, “Bound 4 Life,” pray for an end to abortions outside of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, Sunday, Jan. 22, 2012, the 39th anniversary of the court’s landmark Roe vs. Wade decision, that legalized abortion. Supporters urged them to further their cause by working to defeat President Barack Obama in the fall.
The “March for Life” has been held every single year since 1974, just one year after the landmark Supreme Court ruling. It’s consistently one of the largest protests of the year in Washington, although soggy, chilly conditions likely kept this year’s numbers down a bit.
House Speaker John Boehner addressed the group, reminding those gathered on the muddy National Mall that he’s one of 12 children
“I’m sure it wasn’t easy for our mother to have 12 of us, but I’m glad we’re all here,” the Republican lawmaker said. “I’ve never considered being pro-life a label or a political position. It’s just who I am.”
Several dozen members of Congress addressed the rally and were cheered by participants, many of whom carried signs reading “I Vote Pro-Life First,” “Defund Planned Parenthood” and “Face It … Abortion Kills a Person.”
Signs endorsing Republican presidential contenders were less ubiquitous, although some in the crowd favored Rick Santorum and Ron Paul, both favorites of conservative Christians.
Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., urged anti-abortion voters to unite behind the eventual GOP nominee.
“We don’t have the luxury of disunity or nominee disappointment or apathy,” Smith said. “For the sake of the innocent, failure to unite is not an option.”
Republican frontrunner Mitt Romney has said he wants to see Roe v. Wade overturned. But Janet Hoven, 55, of Chester, N.J., said he still needed to do more to court anti-abortion activists.
“He’s going to have to come out very strong for life. I certainly will pray that he will,” said Hoven, a Romney supporter.
Carolee Zentkovich, 68, of Columbia Station, Ohio, said she supports Santorum but would gladly vote for Romney in the hopes of getting Obama out of office.
Americans remain strongly divided on abortion.
A Gallup poll last year showed that 49 percent of respondents identified themselves as “pro-choice,” while 45 percent called themselves “pro-life.” The same survey found that 50 percent of Americans believe abortion should be legal under some circumstances, 27 percent said it should be legal in all cases and 22 percent said it should always be illegal.
Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said in a statement that politicians supporting the March for Life were ignoring more pressing issues.
“Anti-choice politicians and their allies promised to focus on creating jobs, yet they are attacking a woman’s right to choose at near-record levels,” Keenan said. “This extreme agenda is out of touch with our country’s values and priorities.”
Some marchers said opposition to abortion transcends partisan politics.
“Eight years ago, when George W. Bush was president, we were still out here,” said Michael Tober, 36, of Muskegon, Mich. “It’s not a Republican thing; it’s not a Democrat thing. It’s a human thing.”
It’s Not About Women’s Rights
Posted by jerry in Uncategorized on January 27, 2012
While looking at an abortion video, I read the comment section and found the following:
@KasaiKendia I was wondering about the name of the person you are addressing. “proCHOICE4allWOMEN” and thought to myself, many of the babies being killed are girls, future women but I guess you don’t think they get a choice in the matter. But then again, all murder victims, born and unborn don’t ever choose to be killed” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pB0EIHFHeIw&feature=related).
When you think about it this person makes a lot of sense. Pro-Abortion advocates argue that they are for abortion rights so as to strengthen women’s rights, but as the comment points out many of the babies being killed are female (future adult women). Where are their rights to decide what to do with their own bodies? No, it isn’t about women’s rights and those who claim that it is are either deluded or flat out liars.
Abortion is about big business, run by big corporations, pure and simple! Get it down women, the people who are behind the abortion movement don’t give a red cent about your rights because if they did they wouldn’t murder so many of you on a daily basis.
Silent Scream
Posted by jerry in Uncategorized on January 27, 2012
Silent Scream is the sonagram showing an abortion in progress and the reaction of the baby at the time that the abortion happens. Here is the link to the movie http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjNo_0cW-ek
KosherKracker’s Rejoinder
Posted by jerry in Uncategorized on January 26, 2012
Abortion Exchange Rejoinder
Kosherkracker
Allow me to preface with the following: Jerry, this is going to be rather short by comparison to other posts I’ve made, as I’ll only be adressing a few of the points you’ve made, the rest of my post will be citation, quotation, and explanation, of a number of fallacies you’ve put forth, in this post alone, which I will cut out of your points, and adress only that which is relevant. You asked what assumptions you’ve made, well, rather than simply show you those, I shall instead show you all the errors I’ve observed.
Your cutting this short here and implying it necessitates a fixed end-game, leads me to believe that you entered this in the mindset of a formal, rather than informal debate, I would have appreciated it if you’d have stated this beforehand, rather than randomly cutting it off without giving me chance to rebuke, especially while putting it on that website of yours. Regardless, onwards.
McDonald:
I have already told you what purpose it serves biologically. It serves to propagate the species. You said that it did nothing for the mother, and now it seems that you are saying that it does nothing for the mother biologically. Well, you are wrong on both accounts. (1) It does serve to help the mother’s emotional well-being which, as you know will have an effect on her biological well-being. If the mother is off emotionally, she is going to be off biologically. (2) It also serves to help the mother’s biological well-being because her body is made for the purpose of bearing children. It wasn’t an accident that she came to be that way. God made the woman the way she is and he made the man the way he is so that the two of them could mate and propagate the species. When women refuse to bear children it does not help their biological well-being at all because it can have an effect on her emotional well-being which will often have an effect on her biological well-being. When women are unable to bear children there may be something wrong with their biological reproductive system which can have an ill effect on her emotional as well as biological well-being. Some women have problems with their menstrual periods until they give birth to their first child. There are all kinds of ways that the unborn child can help a woman both emotionally and biologically. Only someone who is unfamiliar with this subject would make such a foolish remark as you have made.
KosherKrackers:
Point 1. It can impact it negatively if the pregnancy is unwanted, your argument assumes the best case scenario, rather than the broad spectrum, it is therefore biased and has no place in a formal, or informal for that matter, debate.
Point 2. And I am made for the purpose of ingesting a wide variety of foods, my body is designed with the purpose of ingesting both meat and vegatables, I am an omnivore. Go forth and preach the emotional, and therefore biological damage that vegetarians are bringing upon themselves by not doing what they’re made for.
I’m sorry but this is absurd, to say that we were made for this therefore we must instantly wish to do so, denies free will and diversity, and reduces us to far less than something with no purpose, especially for a man that believes in god. We were created with free will if indeed we were created at all, what we were made for is therefore irrelevant, as we are more than able to think and decide for ourselves, and whether or not our anatomy says this, it does not necessarily reflect upon our own perception.
You’re making a lot of assumptions based around what people feel and think, and your x = y logic (They are pregnant = They are happy. They are not pregnant/They cannot become pregnant = They are unhappy) displays your ignorance in far more clarity than I could through the written word alone. (The bit I’m replying to here shall also be in the logical fallacies section, but I felt it needed a mention here also.)
Similarly, you’re assuming that a belief in god is present, if that is all you can argue, and is the fulcrum of your opinions, then you have no place in a logical and rational argument, we are here to debate fact, not personal belief, kindly stay on topic.
I would however agree, there are a lot of ways a pregnancy can help someone, there are also a lot of ways it can harm someone, but you conveniently forget to factor those into your reasoning, all the while pushing the same biased garbage forward.
As for my changing stance regarding benefit and biological benefit, I have said nothing akin to that, I said it has no positive benefit, and as I stated earlier, emotions are highly personal things, and thus emotional benefit/detriment cannot be applied across the full spectrum of the human species hence why I did not include it in my argument, and which is why I am arguing the biological angle, rather than the emotional, you are the one that brought the emotional side of things up, so, as I stated earlier, kindly don’t put words in my mouth just so you can refute them. (also, another logical fallacy I’ll be bringing to your attention.)
McDonald
The child and the mother are closely bonded during that nine months which is why when the mother dies, even the most hardened criminals break down. During that nine months the child learns the mother’s moods, her voice, her tone of voice for different events. The child begins to think much like the mother. You really don’t have much of a clue about the relationship between an unborn child and the mother do you?
Some women have committed suicide due to bearing a child they did not want, some men have committed suicide to being unable to cope financially with the issues a child brings around.
As for the relationship between mother and fetus, a dog learns to pay attention to tone of voice through exposure to said tone of voice, cats can do similarly, I fail to see how attributing this to the fetus proves anything other than that it has a comparatively rudimentary intellect, and I’d like to see your documented research into how the fetus thinks, particularly that which goes on to prove that the fetus thinks as the mother does, otherwise your postulates, like much else, have no place in a debate built on rational and logic.
McDonald
Now we see that the Merriam-Webster’s Medical Dictionary says that a fetus is “an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically: a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth.” Where does this dictionary say anything about the fetus being a parasite? It doesn’t does it? No, it says that it is an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind. It also says that specifically it is a developing human. When it comes to that communication means absolutely nothing. How can we communicate if we don’t agree on the definitions of words?
Now then, when exactly did I say that a fetus is not as the above definition you cited? Again, you’re putting your own words in my mouth in order to refute them.
I said well and true that the fetus is indeed a potential human, and that potential ought not afford legal status.
I also asked if you were not aware that things can fit more than one definition, and that a description of what something is, and what it biologically does, are two different things. Also, I did state that the fetus differs from the definition of parasite purely due to the “species” line, and that all else fits it perfectly.
Both points you’ve failed to adress in favour of attacking what you percieve as weak points in my reason, unfortuantely, these are weak points that you yourself have put there through constant misquotes, misinterpretations, and by stating my points for me, and then refuting them.
This is a logical fallacy called a strawman.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman
IE. I think the fetus is a parasite, the dictionary says a parasite is not a member of the same species, therefore I disregard definitions and hold them as notwithstanding, therefore I am illiterate, and hold the position that the fetus is a parasite on ignorant grounds.
Here you failed entirely to adress my actual point that the fetus is differentiated from a parasite purely due to species.
This I felt needed adressing here, rather than pointing out later.
McDonald
Now, the fetus and the mother are of the same kind. The fetus does obtain some benefits, but most of its benefits comes from its own supply. And the fetus is not there to harm the mother. The parasite on the other hand is of another kind than the host and it there for nothing more than to obtain benefits of its host and it usually causes harm. There is your difference. If you cannot see it, I cannot help you.
Again, what diferentiates the fetus is species alone.
So, as you claim the fetus gains the majority of nutrients from its own body, where exactly are your sources on this, and how exactly does a fetus ingest nutrients and oxygen from inside the womb, where it has no access to anything outside?
The benefits the fetus gains are well documented, the changes made to the host are well documented.
These changes are not consented to by the mother in every case.
Parasites are not there to harm people, if they were they’d quickly kill off there own environment, whether something is there to harm or not is irrelevant, the fact is that the fetus can, and that it necessitates changes in order for risk to be reduced to a minimum.
Again, your point refuted, and fetus still fitting the parasite definition in all but species.
McDonald
For you to compare the fetus or the parasite to champagne is absurd and has nothing to do with this discussion
… I’m not comparing the fetus to champagne, I’m pointing out the absurdity inherent with logic along the lines of “This is not this because it’s not from here.”
IE. The fetus is not a parasite purely and simple because it’s the same species, damned be the fact that the fetus fits the parasite descriptive in every other aspect.
Another logical fallacy yet I felt it needed adressing in more detail.
McDonald
Here are pictures of aborted, what you call parasites. Do these look like tapeworms to you? Do they look like tumors to you? Man you need to get your eyes checked. Now you say that the fetus is nothing more than a parasite before birth, but I challenge you to check out this video (the first one especially) and tell me that the fetus is nothing more than a parasite. Do the pictures look like any parasite you have ever seen?
Merely because it looks like a human, does not make it definitively human, nor does it allow it rights on account of potential.
Now, allow me to adress the, again, emotional rather than logical, point you’ve made.
Seen the videos, and I do indeed believe the fetus is little more than a parasite with the potential to be human, what something looks like, how horrifying it is, etc, etc, does not in any way, shape, or form, change what it is, or how it behaves, nor invalidate nor validate any line of reason.
Another fallacy that required response I felt.
McDonald
Of course the fetus alters the mother’s body and her chemistry. However, her body was made for that very purpose. It is a natural thing while the altering of the body or the body’s chemistry by a parasite is not natural. If a woman takes care of herself during pregnancy, exercises right, eats properly and gets enough rest the risks to her are unlikely. When women drink, smoke, take drugs, fail to eat and exercise right and fail to make her doctor’s appointments, then there will usually be problems. But that is the mother’s fault, and not the child’s.
Parasites are a part of nature, due to advances in medical technology we can avoid them, and/or remove them, that is the only reason in which they are, in this day and age, unnatural, until then, they were inconvenient, but most certainly natural.
Yes, the risks to her are unlikely, due to medical advances, this does not change the fact that the maternal mortality rate is 1 in 16 in some countries, the only thing that avoids that here, is medicine, not the natural act itself of pregnancy and childbirth.
Nor does it change the fact that the risk is there, if someone takes care of themselves with a tapeworm, the effects would be negligible, but in essence, if someone has to make alterations to their lifestyle in order to sustain life with minimal risk of problems when the risk would have been minimal beforehand without such changes, how can you say that the fetus does not affect the mother.
Earlier you stated that pregnancy was beneficial, or no-one would indeed reproduce, now you state that the risk is minimal, and necessitates potential changes in lifestyle.
Kindly make up your mind so I know which to refute.
McDonald
Why? I mean after all it was just a parasite wasn’t it? Andrea should have gone to the doctor and had him give her a pill to kill the unneeded piece of scum. Who wants a parasite living in them? If that is all it was, then why would you even bother to offer your condolences? Do you realize that your position on this makes us nothing but varmints? There is no real purpose for us on this earth we are just something that probably needs to be eradicated. How could something good and useful come from a parasite?
I’m sorry, but I wasn’t aware that this had suddenly become a personal issue.
You utterly ignore my sincere condolence, insinuate that I’m calling your unborn scum, and utterly miss my point in this discussion.
And you claim that I’m the inhuman one?
Yes, I realise what my position makes us, I’m an atheist, I do not believe we have any higher purpose, and I’m a happy, well adjusted person with a strong moral compass built upon freedom of choice, without inflicting upon anothers freedom of choice. To state that I believe we ought be eradicated for that is ignorant, slanderous, and has no place in this discussion, I said nothing of the sort, and implied nothing of the sort. Merely because I do not share your point of view on purpose, does not make me inherently evil, nor my ideals evil thereof, regardless of how you’d like to paint me with that brush.
As for how something useful can come from a parasite, I did state that it has potential, did I not?
Kindly adress my points, rather than putting words in my mouth and attacking what you have said in my place, similarly, kindly stop assuming you know what I believe, and attacking that. Stated earlier, those are logical fallacies, the strawman.
McDonald
You are realistic? You have a desire to put a parasite inside a woman and you call yourself realistic. I would never have impregnated my wife if I had ever thought that I was putting a parasite inside of her.
Another strawman. I never stated, nor implied, that the fetus is purely, and uniquely, a parasite and a parasite alone, nor that I have a desire to place a parasite inside a women, nor that I do not recognise that a fetus has potential. Only that potential should not afford legal status.
Again, adress my points please.
McDonald
Yes, we understand that this is how the baby gets it food and oxygen. However, this does not make it a parasite. If it was just a parasite why did the formerOhio cop get a guilty verdict for aggravated murder when he killed the unborn child? Why aren’t you all up in arms about this and out there trying to tell the people of that “lunatic” state that this man did nothing but kill a parasite? I am sure, since you seem to know so much, you ought to find people who will agree with you and help you get this man off death’s row (provided that’s where they put him), and actually it would be better for him to go on death row than to put an ex-cop in general population. For what? Killing a parasite? My our justice system is crooked. I’ll tell you, why don’t you run for President and you can run on the platform that the unborn is nothing but a parasite? Maybe Planned Parenthood would back you!
Wait… Let me quote you from an earlier portion of this…
The fetus does obtain some benefits, but most of its benefits comes from its own supply.
I thought the fetus gains most benefits from it’s own supply, not:
Yes, we understand that this is how the baby gets it food and oxygen.
… Take a viewpoint, stick with it, or admit when you’re wrong and adapt your stance, don’t pretend as though you held this viewpoint all along in order to look more believable. I can admit when I’m wrong, and that potential can matter in the minds of the people, I also adapted my standpoint to reflect that while it may matter, potential ought not afford legal status, and that it should be up to the individual, as essentially, the importance of its potential lies with the mother.
Now, a few personal statements you made for you to back up:
When did I state that the fetus should be killed, or that the choice shuold be taken out of the hands of the mother?
When did I state that I have any interest in forcing my opinion on anyone, nevermind declaring open season on the fetus?
Also kindly stop propgandising my position by associating me with prominent people and or groups, you did this earlier with references to Stalin (another logical fallacy I’ll explain later). Kindly stick to the discussion and adress my points.
McDonald
The difference is, the mother would get rid of the tapeworm when she would make the decision to keep the child.
Not in every case, if it was in every case, we wouldn’t have abortion in the first place, so your standpoint is flawed.
McDonald
I would say that it is the mother’s choice? She understands what she is going to go through in order to carry that “parasite” to term. She chooses to do it,otherwise she would just abort it.
Many mothers do abort it.
Irregardless, the choice to make these changes is not in the hands of the mother, or the fetus, they are simply instigated by the presence of the fetus, the mother does not conciously choose to make these changes, she chooses to accept any changes that are made based upon whether or not she wants the child, and if abortion is not an option for whatever reason, then there are indeed forced on her against her will.
McDonald
Thank you for finally admitting that it is “human.” Since you recognize that it is a human, then you also, by necessity, also recognize that it is not a parasite. A parasite is not a human and never will be. A human fetus is a developing human and it is much different from a parasite. That is why it isn’t considered a parasite, because it is a human, even by your own admission. Thank you for that admission. Your point is lost.
And again, putting words in my mouth.
I have stated, time and time again, that the only difference between a parasite and a fetus, is that of one little notation “Species”.
A point you have conveniently not adressed in any way shape or form other than merely restating definitions that I already know, and have made my case on.
Although if you choose to take that as an admission, you’re perfectly free to, by your own logic:
Your mother should have aborted you the first moment she found out that she had a parasite (you) inside her.
You wish me dead.
Now, perhaps we could instead continue instead of making childish claims regarding wording. Anyone can take a phrase out of context and claim the high ground.
McDonald
I fear you need to revisit biology and natural law. Actually the mother’s metabolism does not cause her to eat more. She is told by her doctor to eat more and to gain more weight. Clearly you have never taken the time to go with a woman to a visit with her OBGYN when she goes in for an examination during pregnancy. I have! I have heard my wife’s doctor tell her that she needs to gain some weight. For her? NO! For the baby! You see, she is eating for two and she needs to understand that. That is why he told her to eat more cheese, drink more milk (my wife hates milk, but she willingly drank it so our son would be healthy and have the minerals and vitamins he needed during the pregnancy. So when she eats more she does it willingly so the baby will be healthy. I have never heard of a doctor that would tell a woman to eat more so that the parasite inside of her could grow.
Quick qeustion before I adress this.
When have I stated that the fetus ought be called a parasite to the host (contrary to popular belief, I do not advocate randomly offending people, this is a debate, I ought not have to vet my opinions for your benefit, only my responses so that I am actually debating, and not antagonising), or that doctors ought treat it as such?
http://www.babycentre.co.uk/pregnancy/nutrition/diethealthypregnancy/
http://www.amazingpregnancy.com/pregnancy-articles/579.html
http://www.vegsoc.org/info/preg.html
http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=specialneed&dbid=5
http://www.pregnancy-info.net/pregnancy_first_trimester.html
The consensus seems to be that appetite fluctuates during pregnancy in the majority of cases, while I may not have been entirely accurate stating that it simply increases, it tends to decrease during the first trimester, and increase thereafter. Your standpoint, that appetite remains unchanged and that the mother must actively eat more of her own accord, is in fact, wrong.
McDonald
An insect will stray away from a source of impending doom, if it is perceived as such, but the fact remains that the insect does not have emotions, it does not have a brain, a mind, a personality. All it has is instinct. A baby, on the other hand does have emotions, a brain, a mind and a personality.
A crickets face may well be screaming also if it had one capable of expression.
Fear is a base, instinctual response, we now apply it to things such as horror movies, but that’s purely due to our own sentience, fear in the animal kingdom is there to ensure survival, if there was no fear, why would a cricket seek to escape, or hide (under a stone or log for example), from something that may well end its existence?
Insects may well not recognise their life on any meaningful level, but they are still driven by hunger, seek shelter, and, at least on some incredibly basic level, communicate (bees communicating that there’s food nearby, ants communicating by scent, a myriad of insects ‘displaying’ to avoid confrontation or to attract a mate, assassin bugs spraying acrid gas when faced with threatening circumstances), and as fear is a base instinct, I’m interested in what sources, proof, or reasoning you have that states that they have no fear response, besides “Well it’s not human, and the fetus is.” and sources that categorically state that the fetus is capable of more than simple instinctual emotional responses.
McDonald
While relations between a man and his wife do feel good it has two purposes (1) to propagate the race, and (2) it is the special way that they show each other their love for each other. Anything other than that is just recreation and we know the result of that don’t we?
Point 2 is a personal opinion and nothing more, proclaiming it as fact is inherently flawed as you assume yourself to be the mold from which we all are formed, the basis upon which we think.
We define our own purposes, other than point 1, your personal reasons are irrelevant to a discussion, and have no place beign put forward as fact without logical rationale to back them up.
McDonald
The fact that an infection is present, where the parasite is, shows that the parasite caused the infection. It causes infection and whether they are fatal or not has to do with whether or not treatment is administered. Tumors which are benign need to be removed so they won’t become malignant. Benign does not mean that they cannot become malignant, it must means that they aren’t at the time. I would want any tumor removed so that it wouldn’t have the opportunity to become malignant.
You entirely miss the point. In the cases of some parasites, the infection is not simply where the parasite is, it is itself the parasite. Some parasites do cause infection, some merely make us more susceptible to infection, but some of them, merely are the infection themselves, and bring about no others, and as I have proven, the fetus increases the chances of a very few, but still existent, infections, also, it necessitates a change of lifestyle to the host in order for the hosts health, or the fetus’ health, to remain in part, unaffected.
Indeed, it does have nothing to do with whether treatment is administered, I never stated that it did, what I said was that the choice to remove it is in the hands of the person that has it, and can be turned down if people wish it, why anyone would in the cases of generic parasites and tumours (to clarify, as I know you’d take this out of context if I allowed it, by generic, I mean other than the fetus, IE, those with no potential to become human), is beyond me, but the fact is that the choice is still there.
McDonald
Why would you say the fetus is a parasite if you don’t think that it is? If it is a parasite why would anyone get pregnant? I can see it now, the woman tells her girl friends, “O, I have a parasite inside of me, isn’t that great?” Another says, “Yes, let’s throw a parasite shower for her! Do you want a boy or girl?” I made no attempt to lash out, I just wanted to bring your statements to their logical conclusions. And besides what could you possibly know about Christianity?
You say you made no attempt to lash out, yet this post is filled with assumptions about my ideals, my opinions, my political stance. It is filled with slanderous accusations as to what I have said and what I think. It is filled with insinuated attacks on my person. Which I shall detail and cite for you later.
As for the logical conclusion, the logical conclusion I was making was not that everyone ought view the fetus as nothing more than a parasite, I merely stated that it ought not be afforded legal status based on potential, and as the mother is wholly and completely, uniquely, and potentially unconsentingly, responsible for it, the mother ought be able to make this decision for herself.
As for what I know about Christianity, I used to be a Christian, I was one for 15 years of my life, used to study the bible, and have read it from cover to cover a number of times. My faith may be gone, but knowledge does not dissipate as such. Based upon your judgements on myself, your insults, and your slander, I put the same question to you: What could you possibly know about Christianity?
And to prove my point, as to my knowledge, and your behaviour:
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. — Exodus 20:16 (Your personal attacks)
Thou shalt not raise a false report: put not thine hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness. — Exodus 23:1 (Your viewpoints on the fetus’ nutritional intake and sustainment by the mother, while sustaining that you already knew this despite contradictory points in this very same post)
Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people:neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbour; I am the LORD. — Leviticus 19:16 (Making false accusations about my allegiances, opinions, and standpoints, essentially ‘talebearing’)
19:17 Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him. Leviticus 19:17 (Your comment that I ought have been aborted, however sarcastically meant)
Devise not evil against thy neighbour, seeing he dwelleth securely by thee. Strive not with a man without cause, if he have done thee no harm. Envy thou not the oppressor, and choose none of his ways. — Proverbs 3:29-31 (You have turned a simple civil debate into a personal attack against myself, see the various citation below).
Put away from thee a froward mouth, and perverse lips put far from thee. — Proverbs 4:24 (Your constant twisting my words out of context, and putting your own in my mouth, again cited and detailed below).
Need I go on?
As I stated, you’re not exactly acting the good Christian, but in truth, that is irrelevant, as is what I do or do not know about Chrsitianity.
McDonald
The term “underdeveloped” refers to having medical knowledge, facilities and/or treatments, as well as cleanliness and other factors. In our country if someone gets a tapeworm, they go to a doctor and get medication to get rid of it. If they didn’t then problem would get serious. However, in the underdeveloped countries the reason that pregnancies cause problems, is not because of the fetus, but because of the fact that the people don’t have the medical knowledge, attention and/or facilities to properly guide the pregnant woman through. The problem doesn’t come as a result of being pregnant, but as a result of not knowing how or being able to care for the unborn. In this country a woman can get pregnant and some have even been known to have their children at home with the help of a mid-wife. I have even heard of girls giving birth to healthy babies without ever seeing a doctor. Our knowledge is better than knowledge in the underdeveloped countries.
Similarly, tapeworms cause problems in those areas because those people do not have the medical knowledge, very few parasites are fatal over here due to that, similarly, very few pregnancies are fatal over here due to aforementioned medical knowledge. You have here in no way refuted my point, childbirth kills one in 16 mothers in severely under developed countries, this is due to a lack of medical knowledge, parasites kill a great deal in under developed countries due to a lack of medical knowldge.
Yes, I too have heard of females giving birth without medical attention, it also happens a lot in under developed nations, and 15 out of 16 survive, that does not change that one in 16 do not, and that people survive it has no bearing on this argument, as people survive parasitic infections also. It’s simply a matter of chance, all you’ve done here is state that it’s a roll of the dice, and that our dice is loaded due to our medical advancement.
McDonald
So what about Terri Schiavo? She was not a fetus. She was not living inside anyone. Did you argue for her life? I am sure you did! You see, she didn’t have any legal status because “she couldn’t create nor develop her future.” So her cheating husband was allowed to put her to death. Tell me, which side of that issue were you on?
This has no basis on this topic, Terry Schiavo’s situation, and that of a fetus are in no way the same, and the statement about her legal status is similarly irrelevant.
Terry Schiavo was a grown, out of the womb, human being, who was voluntarily cared for several years prior to her death, in the hope that she would recover, how is this applicable to the position of mother and fetus?
Also, this case was a seven year legal battle, and standing by this:
You ought to go and be this former cop’s attorney. Maybe you could get him off! As a matter of fact he got off on a lesser charge for killing the mother than he did for killing the “parasite.” The address for this is found at http://www.wcpo.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=7811933e-da69-4b9a-8f65-2a592f863b79&rss=703
From your good self regarding legality, and that you sarcastically insinuate that the legal system is broken, meaning that you in fact do not believe so. As you seem to like viewing things in black and white with only one definition applicable regardless of other factors, I’d like to know how you justify hopping across this fence regarding legality when it suits you.
McDonald
The first thing the pro-abortionist wants to charge anti-abortionists with is religious convictions. Not so, these are moral convictions. Religious laws have changed three times {Patriarical, Mosaical, and Christian}, while moral laws never do. Murder always has been wrong and it always will be. No one but God has the right to decide who will live and who will die.
Other than the issue regarding god, as I have no belief in him, I do see your point, and thus concede it, your religious nature has no bearing on whether your statements are right or wrong, especially not when reasoned, and backed with evidence.
McDonald
Here is your statement: “What it can be is its potential, as a 22 year old I shall become a 23 year old, as a 23 year old I shall become a 24 year old, etc, etc I can never become anything else, and I can never be anything less, even as a corpse time will continue to pass, I may die at 22, but when the 23rd year rolls around, am I still that age?” Your example here, if it wasn’t showing that at 22 you were less human than you would be at 23 has no bearing on the discussion because your argument in the discussion is that the “fetus is not human, it has the potential of becoming human.” If your age argument was not on the same slide then you had no business making it. At 22 you are no less a human than you will be at 23, and at the fetal stage the fetus is no less a human than at birth. The only difference in either example is a matter of age and development. I think you are finally starting to see the fallacy of yourposition, you just don’t want to give it up yet.
Excuse me?
I stated that potential is nothing to base a claim on, at 22 I shall become 23, it doesn’t mean I am, and I never in any way insinuated that I would be more human AT 23.
I have stated several times that after birth, you have fulfilled that potential, and that birth is where I believe life begins. I have also made my case as to why the fetus is a parasite, while the baby is not. I have stated that the fetus is not a parasite purely due to species, and why that argument is flawed. You have refuted no points, and taken my quote entirely out of context, stated my stance for me, and refuted it with another out of context quotation.
Allow me to clarify, concisely, so that there can be little misunderstanding, if you are unsure of where I stand even after repeated enforcement of exactly what I’m saying, I’ll be more than happy to explain in more detail, all you need do is ask.
The fetus is a parasite with the potential to be human.
Potential should not afford legal status.
The fetus relies entirely upon the mother for all aspects of it’s growth, nutrition, and sustainment.
The mother does not consent to this, it happens, and she accepts, or does not.
The mother should have the option to not accept these changes she had no say in.
The mother should have the right to do with her body as she wishes, and as the fetus grows inside her, feeds from her predigested food, gains oxygen from her own lungs, and increases her heart rate to support itself, she is entirely, and uniquely responsible for the fetus, she ought have the right to remove it.
Simply because it behaves like a parasite does not mean that I view it with similar disdain.
Simply because it behaves like a parasite does not mean that its potential does not diferrentiate it from a generic parasite, but that ought not afford it legal status.
Simply because potential is all it has, does not mean that no-one should aknowledge that potential, or not have children.
Simply because i consider it a parasite, does not mean I believe it should forcibly be removed.
Simply because I consider it a parasite, does not mean I do not aknowledge the happiness a child can bring to a couple, or that I have no intention of being a father in the future.
Hopefully, this will allow you to actually understand my viewpoint, rather than your constant assumptions, accusations, insults, and misrepresentation.
McDonald
So, in other words, your parents were just having fun. They weren’t expressing their love for each other, and they weren’t planning a family. They were just having fun? My relationship with my wife has never been about my recreation, but to express my love for her and in hopes of having another child (although we are both too old for that now and I am sterile because of cancer treatments). Now our relations are for the purpose of expressing our love one for another.
I wrote up a response for this and deleted it.
What my parents were or were not doing, and for what purpose, has no relevance to the topic of abortion, the reasoning or logic behind my opinions, or how valid they are.
Kindly remain on topic rather than deflecting attention and making assumptions about how I feel.
McDonald
What assumptions are you talking about?
I’ll just make a short list, with direct quotations from yourself. And no, I won’t use this post, as I’m pointing those out as I go along, or citing them later.
It can hear and understand.
Where exactly is the research that state categorically that it can understand such things on a level comparable to a human?
Keep going and you will end up standing with the Humanist Manifesto II. Maybe you do already, you just don’t know it yet.
The first of a number of assumptions about my political standpoint.
Their health is not adversely affected at all
You assume (without ground to stand on) that due to your personal experience of your wifes pregnancy, all are like that, and that due to medical advice on diet, exercise, etc, etc, that there are no adverse effects to pregnancy because you practiced preventative measures. Similarly, research tellsus otherwise.
If you are a male, I would advise that you never marry and reproduce. If you do, don’t ever tell your wife when she tells you she is pregnant that she is carrying around a parasite inside of her and she needs to get rid of it because it is doing nothing but adversely affecting her health and is contributing nothing.
You assume that I do not recognise the value of a child, that I’m cold and insensitive, and that I believe all fetuses should be gotten rid of regardless of my statement that choice is paramount.
It doesn’t have a “mind of sorts,” it has a “mind” period. It thinks and is able to understand.
You assume (based on a propoganda video, IE, clearly biased), that you are an expert on the topic of fetal brain activity and development, and the scope of what they can and cannot feel based on an emotional response you had to that video.
The baby is there at the behest of the father and mother and is there for the purpose of securing a blood line.
You assume that everyone plans there pergnancies, and wants them.
Next time you see a pregnant woman walk up to her and tell her that she is just carrying around a parasite or a tumor and she needs to have it removed.
Again, you assume that I think abortion shuold be mandatory, and everyone should practice it.
Go ask your mother if she thought you were a parasite when she was pregnant with you.
Have you asked your mother about this? What does she say? Ask her why she didn’t abort you? Ask her if she thought you were a tumor that needed to be removed.
You assume my mother shared your view, and that that, in some way, invalidates my arguments.
Should every fetus be aborted?
Irrelevant really, as you’ve already answered this question yourself based on your assumptions as to my stance.
If everyone thought like you there would be no humans on the planet. We would all be dead!
You assume that I legislate death, when I do no such thing, I merely examine what I see, and come to what I percieve as a logical, unbiased conclusion, we are all free to an opinion, yet you assume and attack with personal things, rather than adressing the point.
Moving on.
McDonald
Well, I can see that you didn’t like my statement, but actually I think quite highly of logic. I wish you would use some in your articles.
I’ll admit my statement there was below the belt, and I apologise, but with someone repeatedly ignoring a number of points you’ve made, while adressing other ones, and twisting others, keeping a calm and level head is no easy task.
McDonald
But it’s not my opinion. That is what the Medical Dictionary said about a fetus. Find where it says that the fetus is a parasite?
As I stated, and you’ve failed to adress numerous times, the fetus displays the same properties as a parasite, the difference is potential, and species, that is all, point to me where, apart from the species part, the definition of parasite differs from the reality of what a fetus does, without bringing potential outside the womb into it, because after that I aknowledge it as completely human.
McDonald
I do believe that the operative word on the first link is “hypothetical,” since they have never had a successful experiment. As far as experimentation is concerned there has been more of it than you know. Stalin tried for years to get it right, and he never did.
Proof and sources please, as all the sources I can find say otherwise about Stalin’s supposed experiments.
Conspiracy theory is something for another topic, as I’ve said before, can we stick with the facts please.
McDonald
No, that 2% difference was put there by God because humans and chimpanzees are two different kinds. They are not related to each other, other than the fact that they are both mammals. We are not a different species from chimpanzees, we are a different kind altogether. A Zebra is a different species from a horse, but they are not a different kind so they can crossbreed. A chimpanzee and human are two different kinds, so they cannot crossbreed.
This is, frankly, a matter of opinion, as no extensive testing has been done on the topic due to various ethical concerns and so on.
And yes, hypothetical is the key word, I made no claims otherwise, I was merely pointing out that as no research has been done, your claims that we are unable to crossbreed are similarly hypothetical, as no experiments with any depth whatsoever have been made.
McDonald
God did leave proof of his existence. Paul wrote “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse” (Romans 1:20). David wrote “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork” (Psalms 19:1). All one needs to do to see evidence of God’s glory and his existence is to look around. There is no excuse for anyone not seeing it.
So, after giving people freewill and a critical mind, god leaves no other proof than “Make your own mind up.”
Remarkably convenient, not leaving any tangible sense around for people to have in order to say yeah, you’re right, god does exist.
In that case then it’s a matter of faith, believe it all you wish, I do not begrudge you your beliefs, but similarly, I ought not be begrudged for basing my opinions in fact, instead of faith. Similarly, faith is not relevant to this debate.
McDonald
Well, I don’t know what I was supposed to have missed, because I have answered that post. Now, if you can look at the pictures and the videos that I have linked in this post for you to see, and still say that the unborn is a parasite, then there is nothing more that I can do for you.
Actually you answered every post -BUT- that one. Forgive me if I’m wrong there, care to hand me a link to the post in which you answered my points?
McDonald
I don’t intend to discuss this issue further with you. I have made my point and it has to stop somewhere, so I’ll let it stop here. You are, of course, free to respond, but I won’t be responding to you unless there is something of interest. Frankly I get tired of the same old rhetoric. If you want to challenge the authenticity of these photos and videos go ahead, that would be something that might be of further interest, but as far the abortion discussion is concerned I see no point of discussing it further.
If you’re calling an end to it without allowing someone to rebuke Jerry, I’m not surprised you’ve been winning all these arguments, making personal attacks and assumptions about peoples standing based upon them having a view different to yours.
You claim to be a great debater with years of experience, but anyone can debate a topic and claim victory while deciding where it’s done with no prior arrangement thereof.
Feel free to think you’re serving some higher purpose though, but all you’re really doing by disengaging without giving someone the chance to retort, is encouraging ignorance.
Now, as stated before, the logical fallacies you’ve employed, in this post alone.
1. Ad Hominem:
Ad hominem is when a statement is made about a persons character, circumstances, or actions, and taken as evidence that this persons argument must be wrong because of it.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
The three examples that stand out most prominently:
What part of that did you not understand? O, I know, we can’t rely too much on dictionaries can we. Nope! We have to make up our own definitions so we can’t be pinned down on certain weaknesses of our positions. Whenever someone brings up a dictionary definition we say “Well, we shouldn’t rely too much on dictionaries.” I mean why should we, those definitions are only there because that is what the words mean, so why pay attention to it? You know it is no wonder why we graduate so many illiterates in this country. They make up their own definitions to words (often that go in opposition to the dictionary definitions) and we say that everyone should have the right to decide how he/she will define the word.
Stating that I’m illiterate, and disregarding the dictionary, therefore am wrong.
All I said about the fetus definition is that it describes what it is, not what it does, and that the fetus fits the parasite descriptive in all but one incredibly restrictive field, which I have illustrated to be absurd as per my point about champagne from a different region not being champagne.
A point you failed to adress.
Why would you bother reproducing? You want to put a parasite inside of a woman. You must really hate women.
Why would you want to reproduce? Why would you want to put a parasite inside of a woman? Do you hate women that much? Did some women do something to you, when you were young, to make you have such a hatred for women? And if you honestly believe that a child brings nothing but stress into the family why do it? Did you bring stress into your parent’s lives? Did your mother tell you that you were a parasite inside of her? Is that why you hate women, hate them enough to put parasites inside of them? Did your mom tell you that you caused her stress in her life? Is that why you hate women enough to put parasites inside them? Did you think before you typed that?
Irrelevant and utterly baseless claims that I hate women, therefore must be wrong as I endorse placing parasites inside them.
If you are not already married, which I really hope you don’t ruin some girl’s life by marrying her, I wouldn’t marry if I were you. Not with an attitude like yours. I can just see it now. Your wife says: “O honey, I am pregnant, see the stripe is blue.” And you say: “O big deal, its just a parasite, go to the doctor and he will give you a pill and you’ll be rid of it.” But whatever you do, don’t call it a baby and tell people how much you love it after saying it was nothing but a parasite for the nine months it was inside of your wife. And when your wife is pregnant, tell them she isn’t pregnant, she just has a tumor or a parasite inside of her.
Stating that I must hate babies because of my stance, this is irrelevant to the debate and baseless, I have said nothing to support the idea that I hate women, or hate babies, or indeed that I hate the fetus.
2. Ad Populum:
Ad populum is when a statement is profesed as true because a great deal of people are favourably inclined toward the claim.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html
Some examples that stick out:
When the one on the sonogram saw the needle coming toward it, the emotion of fear kicked in and it screamed a “silent scream.” Forgive me for not being hard as nails about it, but I just have a problem with people killing babies.
Specifically the part about killing babies, utterly irrelevant as I have made no statement supporting infant genocide, this is merely an appeal to popularity to rally to your side, it is also an appeal to emotion, and shall be in that selection of fallacies.
Only people who have no moral decency view it for nothing more than recreation. O, I want to have fun, so I’ll find a girl and have sex with her. No reason, just for fun. It is the “just for fun” reason that has caused sexually transmitted diseases over the years including aids.
Your opinion is your opinion, merely because it’s popular does not make it correct.
Here are pictures of aborted, what you call parasites. Do these look like tapeworms to you? Do they look like tumors to you? Man you need to get your eyes checked. Now you say that the fetus is nothing more than a parasite before birth, but I challenge you to check out this video (the first one especially) and tell me that the fetus is nothing more than a parasite. Do the pictures look like any parasite you have ever seen?
“Because the fetus does not look like a parasite, every statement you have made is therefore false, and does not require rebuke.
Also an appeal to emotion and a personal attack.
3. Ad Baculum:
Ad baculum is an appeal to fear, that if this were to happen, this unfavourable circumstance intended to generate fear in the readers/listeners, would therefore happen. Therefore this claim is false.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-fear.html
Examples:
Why? I mean after all it was just a parasite wasn’t it? Andrea should have gone to the doctor and had him give her a pill to kill the unneeded piece of scum. Who wants a parasite living in them? If that is all it was, then why would you even bother to offer your condolences? Do you realize that your position on this makes us nothing but varmints? There is no real purpose for us on this earth we are just something that probably needs to be eradicated. How could something good and useful come from a parasite?
This states that my ideals would make us nothing more than animals with no purpose, while that may be an unfavourable circumstance to some, that does not invalidate the evidence put forward.
Similarly, we would deserve eradication, another appeal to fear.
When my wife lost our first child due to miscarriage, she did not eat right, sleep good or even smile for the longest. She wanted that child. She wanted to raise it. She wanted to see it grow up. She wanted to nurture it. When that option was taken from her, it hurt her and had she not been a strong minded individual it could have taken a toll on her mental and physical health. Some women have gone insane because they have not been able to carry a child. Some women have even committed suicide because they have not been able to carry children.
This states that if women were incapable of carrying children or did not want to, they would go insane. This is not the case in a great number of individuals, and regardless, has no relevance to the validity of my claims, it is there simply to sway people against it because “if this were true, this would happen, therefore you are wrong.”
Similarly, your statement is biased, as some women do NOT want children.
I recently found an article that actually goes along, very well, with this subject about a former Ohio police officer who was found guilty of two counts of murder (one was aggravated murder for which he may get the death penalty) when he killed his pregnant girlfriend and thereby killing her unborn child. The aggravated murder charge was for the killing of the unborn child. But why should he get the death penalty for that? All he did was to kill a parasite. Maybe you ought to go and tell that judge and jury in Ohio that they are unjust for finding that man guilty of murder. And if the unborn is nothing more than a parasite, he probably did the mother a favor by killing her. After all he made it possible that she would not have be diversely affected any longer by the parasite that was inside her. You ought to go and be this former cop’s attorney. Maybe you could get him off! As a matter of fact he got off on a lesser charge for killing the mother than he did for killing the “parasite.” The address for this is found at http://www.wcpo.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=7811933e-da69-4b9a-8f65-2a592f863b79&rss=703
“If we took your stance, people would get away with aborting pregnancies forcibly!”
I don’t think I need to explain that one.
4. Ad Misericordiam
Ad misericordiam (Appeal to pity), is when someone substitutes a claim intended to create pity for evidence.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-pity.html
Examples:
When my wife lost our first child due to miscarriage, she did not eat right, sleep good or even smile for the longest. She wanted that child. She wanted to raise it. She wanted to see it grow up. She wanted to nurture it. When that option was taken from her, it hurt her and had she not been a strong minded individual it could have taken a toll on her mental and physical health. Some women have gone insane because they have not been able to carry a child. Some women have even committed suicide because they have not been able to carry children.
As much as I hate to say it, and I am truly sorry, this experience does not constitute evidence for your claim, her response to something is a personal thing, and cannot on any account be applied across the board.
Why? I mean after all it was just a parasite wasn’t it? Andrea should have gone to the doctor and had him give her a pill to kill the unneeded piece of scum. Who wants a parasite living in them? If that is all it was, then why would you even bother to offer your condolences? Do you realize that your position on this makes us nothing but varmints? There is no real purpose for us on this earth we are just something that probably needs to be eradicated. How could something good and useful come from a parasite?
Again, attempts to generate pity from ones audience in order to invalidate my points, but bad circumstance does not constitute evidence.
5. Appeal to Ridicule
An appeal to ridicule is made when a persons point is misrepresented as something ridiculous. Not to be confused with reductio ad absurdum, as that is a representation of the opponents position as ridiculous in a way that sticks to the point and is not misrepresented.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html
Examples:
Why would you say the fetus is a parasite if you don’t think that it is? If it is a parasite why would anyone get pregnant? I can see it now, the woman tells her girl friends, “O, I have a parasite inside of me, isn’t that great?” Another says, “Yes, let’s throw a parasite shower for her! Do you want a boy or girl?” I made no attempt to lash out, I just wanted to bring your statements to their logical conclusions. And besides what could you possibly know about Christianity?
I never stated that the fetus is purely and simply a parasite and noting more, therefore you have misrepresented my position in favour of reducing it to ridicule. My position is nothing to do with your statement.
If you are not already married, which I really hope you don’t ruin some girl’s life by marrying her, I wouldn’t marry if I were you. Not with an attitude like yours. I can just see it now. Your wife says: “O honey, I am pregnant, see the stripe is blue.” And you say: “O big deal, its just a parasite, go to the doctor and he will give you a pill and you’ll be rid of it.” But whatever you do, don’t call it a baby and tell people how much you love it after saying it was nothing but a parasite for the nine months it was inside of your wife. And when your wife is pregnant, tell them she isn’t pregnant, she just has a tumor or a parasite inside of her.
As above.
What part of that did you not understand? O, I know, we can’t rely too much on dictionaries can we. Nope! We have to make up our own definitions so we can’t be pinned down on certain weaknesses of our positions. Whenever someone brings up a dictionary definition we say “Well, we shouldn’t rely too much on dictionaries.” I mean why should we, those definitions are only there because that is what the words mean, so why pay attention to it? You know it is no wonder why we graduate so many illiterates in this country. They make up their own definitions to words (often that go in opposition to the dictionary definitions) and we say that everyone should have the right to decide how he/she will define the word.
Again, not my standpoint, I’ve explained this multiple times, I’m not arguing with the definitions, what I’m stating is what the fetus is, and what it does/how it survives, are not in any way, shape, or form the same thing, adn that how the fetus exists is fitting with the parasite definition in all but species, a point you have conveniently ignored, consistently simply requoting text I’ve already aknowledged, and stated my point about, with a reductio ad absurdum to illustrate that A is not B because it doesn’t come from C, is absurd.
6. Appeal to Spite
An appeal to spite is when someone substitutes evidence for a claim with the intention of generating spite. Spite is however, not evidence.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-spite.html
Examples:
Why would you bother reproducing? You want to put a parasite inside of a woman. You must really hate women.
Claiming that I wish to put parasites in women, and in fact hate them. I have neither said, nor implied, any such thing.
I recently found an article that actually goes along, very well, with this subject about a former Ohio police officer who was found guilty of two counts of murder (one was aggravated murder for which he may get the death penalty) when he killed his pregnant girlfriend and thereby killing her unborn child. The aggravated murder charge was for the killing of the unborn child. But why should he get the death penalty for that? All he did was to kill a parasite. Maybe you ought to go and tell that judge and jury in Ohio that they are unjust for finding that man guilty of murder. And if the unborn is nothing more than a parasite, he probably did the mother a favor by killing her. After all he made it possible that she would not have be diversely affected any longer by the parasite that was inside her. You ought to go and be this former cop’s attorney. Maybe you could get him off! As a matter of fact he got off on a lesser charge for killing the mother than he did for killing the “parasite.” The address for this is found at http://www.wcpo.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=7811933e-da69-4b9a-8f65-2a592f863b79&rss=703
Claiming that I support forcible abortion, and criminality.
When the one on the sonogram saw the needle coming toward it, the emotion of fear kicked in and it screamed a “silent scream.” Forgive me for not being hard as nails about it, but I just have a problem with people killing babies.
Implying that I have no problem with killing babies.
7. False Dilemma
A false dilemma is when created when a person states a claim, and the two possible outcomes, this is of course fallacious as neither could be correct.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.html
Examples:
It is not irrelevant twaddle. It is a fact. I don’t know how your mother felt about abortion, but chances are she didn’t feel that you were a parasite,otherwise she would have got rid of you before you were born. If you were the parasite inside of her that you say fetuses are then your mother should have aborted you; that is unless, of course, she loved have a parasite inside of her.
If she did not view me as a human being, either she would get an abortion, or she viewed me as a parasite, nothing more, and enjoyed having a parasite inside her.
Despite this having no bearing on the topic, neither claim is true. she in fact did not view me as a living breathing human, but having the potential to become a son or daughter, and thus carried me to term.
Why would you bother reproducing? You want to put a parasite inside of a woman. You must really hate women.
Either I hate women, or I have no desire to reproduce.
Also false, I do want a child someday, and regardless of how the fetus behaves, I recognise it’s potential, and recognise the happiness a child can bring, I simply don’t think potential should afford it legal status.
8. Guilt by Association.
This is a fallacy in which the persons claim is rejected on the basis on unfavourable groups or people supporting it.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/guilt-by-association.html
Examples:
Here are pictures of aborted, what you call parasites. Do these look like tapeworms to you? Do they look like tumors to you? Man you need to get your eyes checked. Now you say that the fetus is nothing more than a parasite before birth, but I challenge you to check out this video (the first one especially) and tell me that the fetus is nothing more than a parasite. Do the pictures look like any parasite you have ever seen?
Because my claim is supported by Dr. Tiller, it is therefore wrong.
My our justice system is crooked. I’ll tell you, why don’t you run for President and you can run on the platform that the unborn is nothing but a parasite? Maybe Planned Parenthood would back you!
Planned Parenthood shows support of abortion, therefore my claim is wrong.
9. Ad Verecundiam
Ad verecundiam is commited when the opinion of an authority with no experience in a specific field is taken as fact.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html
Example:
I recently found an article that actually goes along, very well, with this subject about a former Ohio police officer who was found guilty of two counts of murder (one was aggravated murder for which he may get the death penalty) when he killed his pregnant girlfriend and thereby killing her unborn child. The aggravated murder charge was for the killing of the unborn child. But why should he get the death penalty for that? All he did was to kill a parasite. Maybe you ought to go and tell that judge and jury in Ohio that they are unjust for finding that man guilty of murder. And if the unborn is nothing more than a parasite, he probably did the mother a favor by killing her. After all he made it possible that she would not have be diversely affected any longer by the parasite that was inside her. You ought to go and be this former cop’s attorney. Maybe you could get him off! As a matter of fact he got off on a lesser charge for killing the mother than he did for killing the “parasite.” The address for this is found at http://www.wcpo.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=7811933e-da69-4b9a-8f65-2a592f863b79&rss=703
A judge, someone with no experience in the field of pregnancy and fetal growth, has given a fetus legal status in this instance, as this was amde by a judge, it therefore has to be correct, as a judge is a strong authority figure.
10. Appeal to Emotion
This is a fallcy by which an emotional response is taken to validate or invalidate a claim, however, how someone reacts to something emotionally does not in any way alter or invalidate the claims and evidence to the contrary.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-emotion.html
Examples:
Here are pictures of aborted, what you call parasites. Do these look like tapeworms to you? Do they look like tumors to you? Man you need to get your eyes checked. Now you say that the fetus is nothing more than a parasite before birth, but I challenge you to check out this video (the first one especially) and tell me that the fetus is nothing more than a parasite. Do the pictures look like any parasite you have ever seen?
My emotional response to something, and those of other people, do no effect the validity of my reasoning, and similarly, a point made purely to ellicit an emotional response is not evidence for your point, or against mine.
Any doctor worth his salt is going to tell a person with a tumor or a parasite to get rid of it. However, most doctors naturally assume that the woman wants to keep her baby, unless she tells them different. Whether you actively support abortion across the board, you do support it when you support abortion by choice. Most abortions in this country are done simply because the mother doesn’t want to be bothered with the child, or she doesn’t want to get caught at cheating. Very few are for rape. Even fewer have to do with saving the mother’s life (eptoptic pregnancy).
Why an abortion is commited is irrelevant to the topic of whether it is or is not justified in this case, as I have never stated I support abortion only in case of rape.
Therefore someones emotional response on why they are or are not committed is irrelevant.
11. Personal Attack
A personal attack is where someone substitutes abusive remarks as evidence.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/personal-attack.html
This is by far the most common that you’ve made, examples:
Forgive me for not being hard as nails about it, but I just have a problem with people killing babies.
Here are pictures of aborted, what you call parasites.
Well, if the fetus is nothing but a parasite then, all it will do is cause biological, mental, emotional as well as spiritual detriment. Your mother should have aborted you the first moment she found out that she had a parasite (you) inside her. Then you and I wouldn’t be having this absurd discussion. What a terrible thing that she didn’t do that! Tell me, how much detriment did you bring to your mother’s biological and emotional health? As far as being capable of diversity, parasites aren’t capable of anything other than living off the host.
Why would you bother reproducing? You want to put a parasite inside of a woman. You must really hate women.
You are realistic? You have a desire to put a parasite inside a woman and you call yourself realistic. I would never have impregnated my wife if I had ever thought that I was putting a parasite inside of her.
And when your wife is pregnant, tell them she isn’t pregnant, she just has a tumor or a parasite inside of her.
After all he made it possible that she would not have be diversely affected any longer by the parasite that was inside her. You ought to go and be this former cop’s attorney. Maybe you could get him off! As a matter of fact he got off on a lesser charge for killing the mother than he did for killing the “parasite.”
Why would you want to reproduce? Why would you want to put a parasite inside of a woman? Do you hate women that much? Did some women do something to you, when you were young, to make you have such a hatred for women? And if you honestly believe that a child brings nothing but stress into the family why do it? Did you bring stress into your parent’s lives? Did your mother tell you that you were a parasite inside of her? Is that why you hate women, hate them enough to put parasites inside of them? Did your mom tell you that you caused her stress in her life? Is that why you hate women enough to put parasites inside them? Did you think before you typed that?
1. Implying I have no problem with people killing babies.
2. Implying that I call them parasites and nothing more, all I’ve said is that they fit the parasite descriptive in all but species, something you’ve said nothing on that I haven’t refuted time and time again.
3. My mother shuold have aborted me, that I, not a specific claim I have made, is absurd.
4. That I hate women and wish to put parasites in them.
5. That I’m unrealistic and with to put parasites in women.
6. That I view all pregnancies as parasitic infections.
7. That I would be insulted that a fetus has been afforded legal status after being forcibly aborted during a murder case.
8. That I hate women, that I wish to put parasites in them, that a child brings nothing but stress (despite my primary point being the joy they bring), again that I hate women, and want to put parasites in them. Again that I hate women, and finally, that ignorance sparked this personal attack on myself, despite you answering none of the points I stated in that. IE, would people cease any and all compulsion to have children and reproduce purely because they believe that the fetus has the potential to be human, but behaves as a parasite?
12: Poisoning the Well
This sort of reasoning involves trying to discredit what someone may later claim by presenting unfavourable information, be it true or false.
The main example of this, is in fact on your website.
With thinking like this it is of little wonder that we have so many people standing for abortion. As you can see, he compares the human fetus to a parasite or a tumor to be removed as though it was something harmful to the mother’s body. He/she even says that the fetus adversely affects the woman’s health.
With attempts to make my reasoning and my stance seem ridiculous beforehand, you are already influencing people to discard what I say.
Secondly, these claims are false, and not a representation of my position, I have compared fetus and parasite, and you have done little to refute me in any satisfactory manner that I have not revealed as flawed, I have never stated that it should definitively and categorically been removed, not advocated taking the choice from the hands of the mother, and it certainly is harmful to the mothers body in some ways, and I have presented medical evidence of this, which you have ignored.
13. Strawman
I’ve presented a few of these throughout the topic. This is when someone ignores someones actual position, and substitutes a distorted, exagerrated, or misrepresented version of that position that he then refutes.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html
Examples, and why they are strawmen.
You said that it did nothing for the mother, and now it seems that you are saying that it does nothing for the mother biologically.
Wrong, I have, all along, stated that it has little to no biological benefit, and that it in fact has biological detriment, I have cited a website with medical information of some detrimental changes, and it is abundantly evident that the mother needs a larger intake of nutrients, as the fetus detracts from what would otherwise sustain her body.
You are the one that introduced the emotional and spiritual side of benefits, a point which is subjective and depends on how someone views the pregnancy (IE, whether or not it is a desiredpregnanc, notnecessarily planned, but wanted), and which I accepted as true in your case, but that it’s illogical to think that this state of mind is unanimous, that it differs from person to person, and that it therefore has no influence as evidence for your claim.
Now we see that the Merriam-Webster’s Medical Dictionary says that a fetus is “an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically: a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth.” Where does this dictionary say anything about the fetus being a parasite? It doesn’t does it? No, it says that it is an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind. It also says that specifically it is a developing human. When it comes to that communication means absolutely nothing. How can we communicate if we don’t agree on the definitions of words?
I never once stated that it was not, I view, in this case, development as the fulfillment of potential, and again you utterly bypassed my point about the fetus fitting the parasite descriptive in all but species, and I demonstrated how ridiculous stating that it categorically is not a parasite due to this, but illustrating how absurd it is to claim that champagne is not champagne unless it is produced in said region of France, regardless of the fact that the process, etc, etc, is exactly the same.
Yes, we understand that this is how the baby gets it food and oxygen. However, this does not make it a parasite. If it was just a parasite why did the former Ohio cop get a guilty verdict for aggravated murder when he killed the unborn child? Why aren’t you all up in arms about this and out there trying to tell the people of that “lunatic” state that this man did nothing but kill a parasite? I am sure, since you seem to know so much, you ought to find people who will agree with you and help you get this man off death’s row (provided that’s where they put him), and actually it would be better for him to go on death row than to put an ex-cop in general population. For what? Killing a parasite? My our justice system is crooked. I’ll tell you, why don’t you run for President and you can run on the platform that the unborn is nothing but a parasite? Maybe Planned Parenthood would back you!
I merely support a persons right to choose, and do not feel that they should be forced to carry children that they do not want, to term.
I have never stated that I support murdering children, unborn or otherwise, or that abortion should be mandatory, or that forced abortion is an acceptable thing.
This is nothing but assumption, and you putting words in my mouth.
Thank you for finally admitting that it is “human.” Since you recognize that it is a human, then you also, by necessity, also recognize that it is not a parasite. A parasite is not a human and never will be. A human fetus is a developing human and it is much different from a parasite. That is why it isn’t considered a parasite, because it is a human, even by your own admission. Thank you for that admission. Your point is lost.
I’m not entirely sure where to start here…
Alright, to begin, I have time and again stated that a fetus has potential, it is a human in the making, and that it relies entirely and uniquely upon the mother for sustenance in every instance, and that it grows inside her.
I have stated that the only thing that differentiates a fetus from a parasite by definition, is the species portion of said definition of parasite, and have shown this to be absurd, a matter which you disregarded out of hand regardless of it being a perfectly apt comparison of logic. This is called reductio ad absurdum, or, reducing to absurdity, and unlike an appeal to ridicule, it does not misrepresent the point.
IE. You claim that the fetus cannot be a parasite, regardless of its behaviour fitting all necessary parameters, because it is of the same species. My statement was that this is illogical, and followed thus: champagne cannot be champagne if it is made outside of said region of France, regardless of it being exactly the same in every other way.
It is absurd that champagne could be considered any different due to it being produced elsewhere but in exactly the same manner, therefore, it is ridiculous to say that the fetus is any different to a parasite purely because it is of a different species. The fetus has potential, nothing more.
Fifth Exchange
Posted by jerry in Uncategorized on January 26, 2012
Abortion Exchange Number Five
KosherKrackers;10649
Happiness, hope, joy, these are concocted due to the mind of the host, not due to the fetus, you can get happiness, joy, and hope, from a pay rise, a new pair of shoes.
We’re talking biology and reason here, not fuzzy logic and fluffly feel-god stories, what purpose does the fetus serve biologically? None.
McDonald
I have already told you what purpose it serves biologically. It serves to propagate the species. You said that it did nothing for the mother, and now it seems that you are saying that it does nothing for the mother biologically. Well, you are wrong on both accounts. (1) It does serve to help the mother’s emotional well-being which, as you know will have an effect on her biological well-being. If the mother is off emotionally, she is going to be off biologically. (2) It also serves to help the mother’s biological well-being because her body is made for the purpose of bearing children. It wasn’t an accident that she came to be that way. God made the woman the way she is and he made the man the way he is so that the two of them could mate and propagate the species. When women refuse to bear children it does not help their biological well-being at all because it can have an effect on her emotional well-being which will often have an effect on her biological well-being. When women are unable to bear children there may be something wrong with their biological reproductive system which can have an ill effect on her emotional as well as biological well-being. Some women have problems with their menstrual periods until they give birth to their first child. There are all kinds of ways that the unborn child can help a woman both emotionally and biologically. Only someone who is unfamiliar with this subject would make such a foolish remark as you have made.
Kosher
Benefit to the host is not equal to ebnefit to the species, furthering the species does not contribute in any way, shape, or form, to the survival of the host itself.
McDonald
Again, you speak from ignorance. (1) Benefit to the host does equal benefit to the species because if the host finds no benefit in carrying a child, raising a child, etc., the host (the mother) will not carry the child to term which will, in turn, have an ill effect on the survival of the species. (2) Furthering of the species does contribute to the survival of the host. Most of the time when a parent loses her child, she begins to die slowly over time. It is perfectly natural for a child to bury a parent, but it is certainly not natural and it seems is unnatural for a parent to bury a child. When my wife lost our first child due to miscarriage, she did not eat right, sleep good or even smile for the longest. She wanted that child. She wanted to raise it. She wanted to see it grow up. She wanted to nurture it. When that option was taken from her, it hurt her and had she not been a strong minded individual it could have taken a toll on her mental and physical health. Some women have gone insane because they have not been able to carry a child. Some women have even committed suicide because they have not been able to carry children. The child and the mother are closely bonded during that nine months which is why when the mother dies, even the most hardened criminals break down. During that nine months the child learns the mother’s moods, her voice, her tone of voice for different events. The child begins to think much like the mother. You really don’t have much of a clue about the relationship between an unborn child and the mother do you?
Kosher
Indeed it cannot, but the deifnition differentiates only due to species, all else is parasitic, does this make it anything less of a parasite in anything but name? I think not.
Ok, let’s look at the definition of the fetus again and then we will look, again, at the definition of the parasite. First the definition of the fetus:
“Medical Dictionary
One entry found for fetus.
Main Entry: fe•tus
Variant(s): or chiefly British foe•tus /ft-s/
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural fe•tus•es or chiefly British foe•tus•es or foe•ti /ft-/
: an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth — compare EMBRYO
Potential: a latent excellence or ability that may or may not be developed”
(http://www2.merriam-webster.com/cgi-…dical&va=fetus).
Now we see that the Merriam-Webster’s Medical Dictionary says that a fetus is “an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically: a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth.” Where does this dictionary say anything about the fetus being a parasite? It doesn’t does it? No, it says that it is an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind. It also says that specifically it is a developing human. What part of that did you not understand? O, I know, we can’t rely too much on dictionaries can we. Nope! We have to make up our own definitions so we can’t be pinned down on certain weaknesses of our positions. Whenever someone brings up a dictionary definition we say “Well, we shouldn’t rely too much on dictionaries.” I mean why should we, those definitions are only there because that is what the words mean, so why pay attention to it? You know it is no wonder why we graduate so many illiterates in this country. They make up their own definitions to words (often that go in opposition to the dictionary definitions) and we say that everyone should have the right to decide how he/she will define the word. When it comes to that communication means absolutely nothing. How can we communicate if we don’t agree on the definitions of words?
However, the parasite is defined as follows:
“Medical Dictionary
2 entries found for parasite. Select an entry and then click ‘Go’.
parasitemalaria parasite
Main Entry: par·a·site
Pronunciation: par–st
Function: noun
: an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism”
(http://www2.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/mwmednlm).
The problem is that the fetus does not live in parasitism with the host. Notice the definition of parasitism:
Medical Dictionary
One entry found for parasitism.
Main Entry: par·a·sit·ism
Pronunciation: par–s-tiz-m, -st-iz-
Function: noun
1 : 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
2 : PARASITOSIS “ (http://www2.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/mwmednlm).
Now, the fetus and the mother are of the same kind. The fetus does obtain some benefits, but most of its benefits comes from its own supply. And the fetus is not there to harm the mother. The parasite on the other hand is of another kind than the host and it there for nothing more than to obtain benefits of its host and it usually causes harm. There is your difference. If you cannot see it, I cannot help you.
Kosher
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champagne_%28wine%29
“This legal protection has been accepted by numerous other countries worldwide. Most recently Canada, Australia and Chile signed agreements with Europe that will limit the use of the term Champagne to only those products produced in the Appellation of Champagne in these countries.”
It may be sparkling wine made in the same way as champagne is, and from the same grapse, but unless it comes from aforemationed region of France, it cannot bear the name champagne.
McDonald
For you to compare the fetus or the parasite to champagne is absurd and has nothing to do with this discussion
Kosher
To say that something displaying all the characteristics of a parasite, is not a parasite merely because it is the same species, is as absurd as the above.
The male ceratoid may well further the species as a whole, but it has no benefit to the host itself, it is in fact detrimental to the host, as the host must sustain it entirely.
McDonald
As I have said the things left on the female ceratoid are not parasites. They are the remains of the male ceratoid that remain behind to help the female in the pregnancy.
Kosher
Ok, you’ve just told me what I already know, I know full well what a fetus is, but notice how that definition goes into biological detail about what a fetus is, not about what it does, you are aware that things are capable of fitting more than one definition? That things are not purely black and white with no grey area in between? That a description of something and a description of what it does are not the same?
What a fetus does – It grows within anothers body, feeding on nutrients that said other body has predigested, and existing on oxygen that said other body has absorbed. Said other body has no say in this, the body is altered in ways that make this so by the fetus that draw out all the fetus needs regardless of the hosts health.
Sounds more like a parasite to me.
McDonald
Here are pictures of aborted, what you call parasites. Do these look like tapeworms to you? Do they look like tumors to you? Man you need to get your eyes checked. Now you say that the fetus is nothing more than a parasite before birth, but I challenge you to check out this video (the first one especially) and tell me that the fetus is nothing more than a parasite. Do the pictures look like any parasite you have ever seen?
Kosher
I suppose this depends on your classification of human, yours entails a developing mass of cells that cannot support its own life without leeching off of the metabolic and respiratory system of another human.
I however do not, as that is parasitic behaviour. It has all the potential to be human, but until that is fulfilled, it means nothing.
I can however see your point in this matter, whether or not it’s parasitic, one can certainly be validated in thinking it is indeed human, potential can be a difficult thing to disregard, but in that case it comes down to being a matter of opinion, and thus, ought to be decided by the person as to whether it is or is not right for you.
Actually, any other mother could breastfeed it, a wetnurse could breastfeed it, and the father could feed it baby formula. any human with the right equipment can care for a baby, anyones baby, the fetus on the other hand, is reliant on one host, solely, and completely, and draws nutrients and oxygen from the host whether or not the host consents.
In such a case, its biological needs are met through consent, people choose to do so, its biological needs are not drawn out of a host body with or without the hosts consent
Yes, yes, yes, more insinuations of anti-religious extremism please, then we can devolve into you calling me godless and satanic and I can claim that you want to burn homo***uals at the stake.
http://www.medstudents.com.br/ginob/ginob5.htm
After a quick glimpse, a few negative effects, and potential infections caused by pregnancy:
“During pregnancy , each kidney increases in leagth by 1-1,5cm, with a concomitant increase in weight.The renal pelvis is dilated.The ureters are dilated above the brim of the bony pelvis.The ureters also elongate, widen, and become more curved.Thus there is an increase in urinary stasis, this may lead to infection and may make tests of renal function difficult to interprete.”
“Glucosuria during pregnancy is not necessarily abnormal, may be explained by the increase in GFR with impairment of tubular reabsortion capacity for filtered glucose.Increased levels of urinary glucose also contribute toincreased susceptibility of pregnant women to urinary tract infection.”
“With the increase in red blood cells, the need for iron for the production of hemoglobin,naturally increases. If supplemental iron is not added to the diet, iron deficiency anemia will result. Maternal requiriments can reach 5-6mg/d in the latter half of pregnancy. If iron is not readly available, the fetus uses iron from maternal stores. Thus, the production of fetal hemoglobin is usually adequate even if the mother is serely iron deficient. Therefore anemia in the newborn is rarely a problem; instead, maternal iron deficiency more commonly may cause preterm labour and late spontaneus abortion, incresing the incidence of infant wastage and morbidity.”
“Clearly, coagolation and fibrinolytic sistems undergo major alterations during pregnancy. Understanding these physiologic changes is necessary to manange two of the more serious problems of pregnancy: hemorrage and thromboembolic desease, both caused by disorders in the mechanism of hemostasis.”
Even without these potential health concerns though, the fact that the fetus alters the body chemistry of its host is undeniable.
McDonald
Of course the fetus alters the mother’s body and her chemistry. However, her body was made for that very purpose. It is a natural thing while the altering of the body or the body’s chemistry by a parasite is not natural. If a woman takes care of herself during pregnancy, exercises right, eats properly and gets enough rest the risks to her are unlikely. When women drink, smoke, take drugs, fail to eat and exercise right and fail to make her doctor’s appointments, then there will usually be problems. But that is the mother’s fault, and not the child’s.
Kosher
My condolences over the loss of your first.
Why? I mean after all it was just a parasite wasn’t it? Andrea should have gone to the doctor and had him give her a pill to kill the unneeded piece of scum. Who wants a parasite living in them? If that is all it was, then why would you even bother to offer your condolences? Do you realize that your position on this makes us nothing but varmints? There is no real purpose for us on this earth we are just something that probably needs to be eradicated. How could something good and useful come from a parasite?
Kosher
I make no assumptions as to the potential mental, and spiritual benefits of pregnancy, but to say that these apply across the board is to say that we’re incapable of diversity.
McDonald
Well, if the fetus is nothing but a parasite then, all it will do is cause biological, mental, emotional as well as spiritual detriment. Your mother should have aborted you the first moment she found out that she had a parasite (you) inside her. Then you and I wouldn’t be having this absurd discussion. What a terrible thing that she didn’t do that! Tell me, how much detriment did you bring to your mother’s biological and emotional health? As far as being capable of diversity, parasites aren’t capable of anything other than living off the host.
Kosher
I fail to see the point of this as anything but an attempt to appeal to the illogical.
Who’s to say I have not reproduced already? Or that I have no intention of reproducing?
McDonald
Why would you bother reproducing? You want to put a parasite inside of a woman. You must really hate women.
Kosher
What something is and what it means are very different things, it does adversely effect her health, it is a parasite, and it is contributing nothing to her well being. That doesn’t mean that that potential ought not be fulfilled if someone wants a child, nor does it mean that I would care about it any less, it simply means that I’m realistic.
McDonald
You are realistic? You have a desire to put a parasite inside a woman and you call yourself realistic. I would never have impregnated my wife if I had ever thought that I was putting a parasite inside of her.
Kosher
So go ahead and send me that stupid sign, but be sure to affix a return adress so that me and my wife can mail it back after having a good laugh about it.
McDonald
If you are not already married, which I really hope you don’t ruin some girl’s life by marrying her, I wouldn’t marry if I were you. Not with an attitude like yours. I can just see it now. Your wife says: “O honey, I am pregnant, see the stripe is blue.” And you say: “O big deal, its just a parasite, go to the doctor and he will give you a pill and you’ll be rid of it.” But whatever you do, don’t call it a baby and tell people how much you love it after saying it was nothing but a parasite for the nine months it was inside of your wife. And when your wife is pregnant, tell them she isn’t pregnant, she just has a tumor or a parasite inside of her.
I recently found an article that actually goes along, very well, with this subject about a former Ohio police officer who was found guilty of two counts of murder (one was aggravated murder for which he may get the death penalty) when he killed his pregnant girlfriend and thereby killing her unborn child. The aggravated murder charge was for the killing of the unborn child. But why should he get the death penalty for that? All he did was to kill a parasite. Maybe you ought to go and tell that judge and jury in Ohio that they are unjust for finding that man guilty of murder. And if the unborn is nothing more than a parasite, he probably did the mother a favor by killing her. After all he made it possible that she would not have be diversely affected any longer by the parasite that was inside her. You ought to go and be this former cop’s attorney. Maybe you could get him off! As a matter of fact he got off on a lesser charge for killing the mother than he did for killing the “parasite.” The address for this is found at http://www.wcpo.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=7811933e-da69-4b9a-8f65-2a592f863b79&rss=703
Kosher
And:
The mother consumes, the mother inhales, the mothers heart beats, and the fetus benefits from this. It gains nutrients from what the mother digests, it gains oxygen from the mothers blood stream, and it’s the mothers own body that gives it what it needs, and not by the choice of the mother.
McDonald
Yes, we understand that this is how the baby gets it food and oxygen. However, this does not make it a parasite. If it was just a parasite why did the former Ohio cop get a guilty verdict for aggravated murder when he killed the unborn child? Why aren’t you all up in arms about this and out there trying to tell the people of that “lunatic” state that this man did nothing but kill a parasite? I am sure, since you seem to know so much, you ought to find people who will agree with you and help you get this man off death’s row (provided that’s where they put him), and actually it would be better for him to go on death row than to put an ex-cop in general population. For what? Killing a parasite? My our justice system is crooked. I’ll tell you, why don’t you run for President and you can run on the platform that the unborn is nothing but a parasite? Maybe Planned Parenthood would back you!
Kosher
The tapeworm absorbs that which has been predigested, the fetus absorbs that which has been predigested, the only difference between the two in this specific matter, is the portion of the body they inhabit.
McDonald
The difference is, the mother would get rid of the tapeworm when she would make the decision to keep the child.
Kosher
The mothers appetite increases because the fetus is drawing off of the nutrients she would otherwise use to sustain herself, the respiratory system expands because the fetus is drawing off of oxygen she would otherwise use to sustain herself, the heart rate increases because the fetus requires more blood.
Are you saying this is the mothers choice? I wouldn’t.
McDonald
I would say that it is the mother’s choice? She understands what she is going to go through in order to carry that “parasite” to term. She chooses to do it, otherwise she would just abort it.
Kosher
If it was something other than a human causing these changes, sustaining itself in this way, it would be considered a parasite, and a particularly virulent one at that.
McDonald
Thank you for finally admitting that it is “human.” Since you recognize that it is a human, then you also, by necessity, also recognize that it is not a parasite. A parasite is not a human and never will be. A human fetus is a developing human and it is much different from a parasite. That is why it isn’t considered a parasite, because it is a human, even by your own admission. Thank you for that admission. Your point is lost.
Kosher
You stated earlier that the mother eats for two, her lung capacity increases, etc, etc, and now you say she takes nothing from the mother as a parasite does?
So, the mother actively gives the fetus these things, rather than being driven by her metabolism to eat more? Rather than it being drawn from her blood stream directly for the fetus’ specific and unique gain?
You were speaking of biology and natural law I believe. I fear you need to revisit them.
McDonald
I fear you need to revisit biology and natural law. Actually the mother’s metabolism does not cause her to eat more. She is told by her doctor to eat more and to gain more weight. Clearly you have never taken the time to go with a woman to a visit with her OBGYN when she goes in for an examination during pregnancy. I have! I have heard my wife’s doctor tell her that she needs to gain some weight. For her? NO! For the baby! You see, she is eating for two and she needs to understand that. That is why he told her to eat more cheese, drink more milk (my wife hates milk, but she willingly drank it so our son would be healthy and have the minerals and vitamins he needed during the pregnancy. So when she eats more she does it willingly so the baby will be healthy. I have never heard of a doctor that would tell a woman to eat more so that the parasite inside of her could grow.
Kosher
Forgive me for not being the sentimental type, but I fail to see the point, an insect will stray away from a source of impending doom if it’s perceived as such, do they also have a “mind” period, or are they simply acting on instinct?
I wonder what a crickets face would look like after being backed into a corner and slowly crushed, if it had a face capable of expression.
McDonald
An insect will stray away from a source of impending doom, if it is perceived as such, but the fact remains that the insect does not have emotions, it does not have a brain, a mind, a personality. All it has is instinct. A baby, on the other hand does have emotions, a brain, a mind and a personality. When the one on the sonogram saw the needle coming toward it, the emotion of fear kicked in and it screamed a “silent scream.” Forgive me for not being hard as nails about it, but I just have a problem with people killing babies.
Kosher
If that were so we wouldn’t have accidental pregnancies.
You assume that people view *** as purely for the furthering of the species, while that may be its underlying meaning, it on no account means that a great deal of people view it as anything but recreation.
McDonald
Only people who have no moral decency view it for nothing more than recreation. O, I want to have fun, so I’ll find a girl and have sex with her. No reason, just for fun. It is the “just for fun” reason that has caused sexually transmitted diseases over the years including aids.
While relations between a man and his wife do feel good it has two purposes (1) to propagate the race, and (2) it is the special way that they show each other their love for each other. Anything other than that is just recreation and we know the result of that don’t we?
Kosher
Parasites don’t often bring infection or disease in any other form than they themselves, and the great majority are not fatal.
Tumours can also be benign, and other than they themselves, bring no infection.
McDonald
The fact that an infection is present, where the parasite is, shows that the parasite caused the infection. It causes infection and whether they are fatal or not has to do with whether or not treatment is administered. Tumors which are benign need to be removed so they won’t become malignant. Benign does not mean that they cannot become malignant, it must means that they aren’t at the time. I would want any tumor removed so that it wouldn’t have the opportunity to become malignant.
Kosher
As for my mother aborting me, how sweet of you to say.
If you honestly think that as I believe the fetus to be a parasite, that no-one shuold procreate, then your ability to reason is not merely impaired, but actively working against you. If, however, this was a supposed appeal to my fluffy side, or the fluffy sides of others, then I say to you that you’re grasping at straws.
In this case, the middle ground is simply that you find me distasteful, and are indeed getting rather angry and attempting to lash out. Tsk tsk, that’s not very Christian.
McDonald
Why would you say the fetus is a parasite if you don’t think that it is? If it is a parasite why would anyone get pregnant? I can see it now, the woman tells her girl friends, “O, I have a parasite inside of me, isn’t that great?” Another says, “Yes, let’s throw a parasite shower for her! Do you want a boy or girl?” I made no attempt to lash out, I just wanted to bring your statements to their logical conclusions. And besides what could you possibly know about Christianity?
Kosher
What, so just because I don’t view a fetus as a human life, and abortion as murder, I, and everyone else, wuld cease any compulsion to have children, regardless of the joy (and, in all honesty, stress) they bring to their families?
Did you think before you typed that?
McDonald
Why would you want to reproduce? Why would you want to put a parasite inside of a woman? Do you hate women that much? Did some women do something to you, when you were young, to make you have such a hatred for women? And if you honestly believe that a child brings nothing but stress into the family why do it? Did you bring stress into your parent’s lives? Did your mother tell you that you were a parasite inside of her? Is that why you hate women, hate them enough to put parasites inside of them? Did your mom tell you that you caused her stress in her life? Is that why you hate women enough to put parasites inside them? Did you think before you typed that?
Kosher
Tapeworms pose a [b]serious[/b] health risk in underdeveloped countries, in developed countries, they’re little more than a nuisance, so, let’s take a look at maternal moratality rates in aforementioned underdeveloped countries.
http://www.deathreference.com/En-Gh/Gender-and-Death.html
Owch, in some of the least developed countries the chance of dying while giving birth is 1 in 16. This, much like the infections of the tapeworm, can be directly attributed to the tapeworm itself.
Tapeworms provide little to no risk in developed nations, similarly, nor does pregnancy.
McDonald
The term “underdeveloped” refers to having medical knowledge, facilities and/or treatments, as well as cleanliness and other factors. In our country if someone gets a tapeworm, they go to a doctor and get medication to get rid of it. If they didn’t then problem would get serious. However, in the underdeveloped countries the reason that pregnancies cause problems, is not because of the fetus, but because of the fact that the people don’t have the medical knowledge, attention and/or facilities to properly guide the pregnant woman through. The problem doesn’t come as a result of being pregnant, but as a result of not knowing how or being able to care for the unborn. In this country a woman can get pregnant and some have even been known to have their children at home with the help of a mid-wife. I have even heard of girls giving birth to healthy babies without ever seeing a doctor. Our knowledge is better than knowledge in the underdeveloped countries.
Kosher
I found the rest of this sentence I’d already dealt with, but this struck a chord, if sentimental twaddle is at the core of your ideals, then it has no place in a legal system built on reason.
… Where do you get your reasoning.
I don’t live inside another human being, with it eating and breathing for me, relying on its cardiac system to deliver my nutrients and oxygen.
I am not a fetus, you are not a fetus, and when exactly did I state that a fetus SHOULD be removed? I’m merely standing on the side of someone having the right to remove it if they so desire, my thinking it to be parasitic does not mean that I don’t recognise that it has the potential to be a human child, merely that its potential ought not allow it legal status.
McDonald
So what about Terri Schiavo? She was not a fetus. She was not living inside anyone. Did you argue for her life? I am sure you did! You see, she didn’t have any legal status because “she couldn’t create nor develop her future.” So her cheating husband was allowed to put her to death. Tell me, which side of that issue were you on?
Kosher
I stand corrected, if you are indeed arguing this on the basis of personal morality unrooted in religion, then I retract my comment, and apologise.
McDonald
The first thing the pro-abortionist wants to charge anti-abortionists with is religious convictions. Not so, these are moral convictions. Religious laws have changed three times {Patriarical, Mosaical, and Christian}, while moral laws never do. Murder always has been wrong and it always will be. No one but God has the right to decide who will live and who will die.
Kosher
State where I said this, or stop putting your words in my mouth and then rebuking them.
McDonald
Here is your statement: “What it can be is its potential, as a 22 year old I shall become a 23 year old, as a 23 year old I shall become a 24 year old, etc, etc I can never become anything else, and I can never be anything less, even as a corpse time will continue to pass, I may die at 22, but when the 23rd year rolls around, am I still that age?” Your example here, if it wasn’t showing that at 22 you were less human than you would be at 23 has no bearing on the discussion because your argument in the discussion is that the “fetus is not human, it has the potential of becoming human.” If your age argument was not on the same slide then you had no business making it. At 22 you are no less a human than you will be at 23, and at the fetal stage the fetus is no less a human than at birth. The only difference in either example is a matter of age and development. I think you are finally starting to see the fallacy of your position, you just don’t want to give it up yet.
Kosher
Again, irrelevant sentimental twaddle, what someone feels is nor necessarily what is logically apt.
As a sidenote, my mother passed away one and a half years ago, I’d be thankful if you could cease referring to her as someone who shared your view.
McDonald
It is not irrelevant twaddle. It is a fact. I don’t know how your mother felt about abortion, but chances are she didn’t feel that you were a parasite, otherwise she would have got rid of you before you were born. If you were the parasite inside of her that you say fetuses are then your mother should have aborted you; that is unless, of course, she loved have a parasite inside of her.
Kosher
I did speak with her about abortion, I was not me when I was in the womb, while she did have an emotional attachment to me as a fetus, neither her, nor myself, viewed a fetus as a human, it was the potential thereof that formed her emotional bond, and she grew to love me as a son thereafter.
McDonald
If that was truly her view why would she have an emotional attachment to you? Did she like parasites inside her? How could any woman form an attachment to something inside her that was not human; that was a parasite?
Kosher
As a sidenote, my conception was accidental, not planned, I have never once said that abortion shuold be practiced across the board, nor would I support any action that took the choice to get an abortion, or to deny one, out of the hands of the host. We do not forcibly remove parasites or tumours, people consent to treatment.
McDonald
So, in other words, your parents were just having fun. They weren’t expressing their love for each other, and they weren’t planning a family. They were just having fun? My relationship with my wife has never been about my recreation, but to express my love for her and in hopes of having another child (although we are both too old for that now and I am sterile because of cancer treatments). Now our relations are for the purpose of expressing our love one for another.
Any doctor worth his salt is going to tell a person with a tumor or a parasite to get rid of it. However, most doctors naturally assume that the woman wants to keep her baby, unless she tells them different. Whether you actively support abortion across the board, you do support it when you support abortion by choice. Most abortions in this country are done simply because the mother doesn’t want to be bothered with the child, or she doesn’t want to get caught at cheating. Very few are for rape. Even fewer have to do with saving the mother’s life (eptoptic pregnancy).
Kosher
You’re making a lot of incredibly asinine and ridiculously unfounded assumptions on myself and my political stance in this post, aren’t you?
McDonald
What assumptions are you talking about?
Kosher
That’s right, beware logic, for he who uses it against your own opinions shows immorality against any aspect of your personal moral code, he therefore shall cause the downfall of mankind.
McDonald
Well, I can see that you didn’t like my statement, but actually I think quite highly of logic. I wish you would use some in your articles.
Kosher
Grow up.
McDonald
Does that mean I am not human yet? Do I have the potential of becoming human? If not, maybe someone ought to abort me.
Kosher
Dealt with this earlier in this very same post.
In your opinion, surely it is, unfortunately, it’s also a parasite, and as its using the host body, if that is against the will of the host, the host ought have the right to terminate its further use of her.
McDonald
But it’s not my opinion. That is what the Medical Dictionary said about a fetus. Find where it says that the fetus is a parasite?
Kosher
Yoohoo, genetic incompatibility would like a word.
Sidenote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanzee
Despite your claims to the contrary, experimental hybridization between apes and humans has very little history, none in the case of inseminating human females with ape semen.
We already have crossbreeds Jerry, mules, tigons, ligers, zorses, to name but a few.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_%28biology%29
This has been experimented with at great length, documented and researched, some animals are not compatible with others, even within the same genera, as few to no experiments have been made with humans and apes, I say to you that it your own cries of godlessness, of us playing god, of your petty morality, that deny us the opportunity to put this to the test and prove you wrong.
McDonald
I do believe that the operative word on the first link is “hypothetical,” since they have never had a successful experiment. As far as experimentation is concerned there has been more of it than you know. Stalin tried for years to get it right, and he never did. The reason we have tigons, ligers, zorses, and mules is because they have crossbred within their own kinds. Lion and tigers are of the same kind. Lepords and Tiger are of the same kind. Zebras and horses are of the same kind. Horses and Donkeys are of the same kind. However, humans and chimpanzees are not of the same kind. Try to crossbreed a lion to a mule and see what happens? That would be like trying to crossbreed a human with a chimpanzee. It won’t work because they are not of the same kind. If you don’t understand that you really need to go back and re-take biology.
Kosher
Nature itself disagrees with your in a great deal of instances other than humankind. Tell me Jerry, is that 2% of our DNA the differs from chimpanzees a buffer implanted by god purely to stop us breeding, or is it in fact that which makes us a different species.
McDonald
No, that 2% difference was put there by God because humans and chimpanzees are two different kinds. They are not related to each other, other than the fact that they are both mammals. We are not a different species from chimpanzees, we are a different kind altogether. A Zebra is a different species from a horse, but they are not a different kind so they can crossbreed. A chimpanzee and human are two different kinds, so they cannot crossbreed.
Kosher
Admittedly, we may not have the so called ‘missing links’ but someone with your faith in your imaginary friend in the sky, something invisible and intangible, which has no proof of its existence and something which logic denies in the form you see it, has no real place saying that we’re the ones not making sense.
McDonald
God did leave proof of his existence. Paul wrote “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse” (Romans 1:20). David wrote “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork” (Psalms 19:1). All one needs to do to see evidence of God’s glory and his existence is to look around. There is no excuse for anyone not seeing it.
Kosher
An insect larvae is there as an act of reproduction, and is there to further the species, yet can begin its life as a parasite, irregardless, many insects are also parasitic, yet that does not stop them being insects.
McDonald
I wrote a term paper on evolution vs. creation in preachers school, many years ago, about a wasp that lays its larvae into certain beetles that they find hanging around fence posts. If they can’t find the beetle they will lay it in the first thing that they can find, even a human. It is called “the red wasp.” They are famous in Texas and Southwest Missouri. The reason their sting hurts worse is because they are laying their larvae in you. However, unless the larvae is laid in this certain beetle just at the right angle the larvae will die. The larvae cannot eat too much, it must eat only enough of the beetle otherwise it will kill the beetle too soon and it will die as well. If it is laid in anything other than this specific beetle the larvae will die. It is not a parasite, it is a larvae and it kill’s its host. Why does it kill its host, because the larvae is laid into something other than its own kind. It eats it away until the host dies. As I have already shown you, parasites go into creatures of different kinds, not their own kind.
Kosher
Can things only fit into one little box that you set out for them Jerry? Or is it only those that you would otherwise find distasteful that can only have one definition?
And I believe you missed my earlier post Jerry, allow me to lend a hand - http://www.zomgforums.com/debates-serious-discussions/223-abortion-crime-not-4.html#post10649
McDonald
Well, I don’t know what I was supposed to have missed, because I have answered that post. Now, if you can look at the pictures and the videos that I have linked in this post for you to see, and still say that the unborn is a parasite, then there is nothing more that I can do for you.
I don’t intend to discuss this issue further with you. I have made my point and it has to stop somewhere, so I’ll let it stop here. You are, of course, free to respond, but I won’t be responding to you unless there is something of interest. Frankly I get tired of the same old rhetoric. If you want to challenge the authenticity of these photos and videos go ahead, that would be something that might be of further interest, but as far the abortion discussion is concerned I see no point of discussing it further.
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald
Fourth Exchange
Posted by jerry in Uncategorized on January 26, 2012
Abortion Exchange Number Four
Kosherkracker
| The parasite has no such function. It is there for the sole purpose of living off the host. The remains of the male ceratioids were not; they were there for the purpose of reproduction. To call them parasites is as absurd as calling the fetus a parasite. |
And what purpose does a fetus serve until it’s born, than to live off the host exactly?
Similarly the male ceratoids contribution to the survival of the species is of no consequence, as it has no benefit to the host, and exists purely due to the nourishment of said host.
Parasites does not live exclusively to feed off of a host, they too exist to further there species, and to say the ceratoid is not parasitic to the host female merely because it has a secondary goal of furthering the species once its own survival is assured, is as ridiculous as claiming that champagne made from a seperate region of france is not champagne.
Merely because the same name does not apply, the definition remains unchanged.
| There is no evolutionary ladder. We did not evolve from lower forms of life as is clearly evident from the fact that we cannot mate with lower forms of life. |
Everyone is entitled to an opinion, however wrong it may be.
However, this is an entirely seperate topic, and can be adressed here - http://www.zomganime.com/forums/show…0249#post10249
With that said however, of course we can’t breed with them, genetics and the incompatibility between seperate species is the cause of that, not an imaginary friend in the sky.
| The parasite is not an intelligent being, it has no mind, it has no soul it has no potential to become anything other than a parasite. |
Having a soul is a moot point really, as it depends on what you believe in, and whether or not you believe that to be anything of consequence, let us debate with what we can prove, rather than what we can postulate, otherwise I ciould dream up a vast array of equally probable stories with which to attempt to use as a fulcrum for my ideas.
| The unborn is simply a human at an early stage of devolopement, (you failed to deal with this next statement) and the only difference between the born and the unborn is one of development. |
A baby is a human at an early stage of development, a fetus is a human in the making.
Blueprints and contracts with building companies are not houses.
The difference between a baby, and a fetus, is that the fetus is reliant wholly upon the mother host, whereas a baby can be cared for by any human being with the right credentials and equipment, male or female, whereas a fetus seperated from its mother host either dies, or survives, but either way, it ceases to be a parasite, as it no longer relies solely upon the mother host for its biological needs.
What was it you said again:
| It is there for the sole purpose of living off the host. |
Much like a fetus in fact, correct me if I’m wrong here, but it contributes nothing to the mother, while adversely affecting her regular health, and existing solely to feed, and grow.
| It does not live off the mother. |
And this is ridiculous, if it did not in fact live off the mother why would it need to remain within the womb in order to survive until developed enough to be called human.
Regardless of how it gains oxygen, nutrients, etc, etc, tell me, where do they all come from, all of them, exclusively, come from the mother, to say it does not live off her is to say a child does not live off their parents money because they give it to them rather than said child taking it.
| At times it will play and suck its thumb. It can hear and understand. One of the reasons that the baby is used to the mother and father’s voice is because he/she has been listening to those voices for 9 mos. It is attached to the mother for the same reason that a newborn sits on its mothers lap; it cannot take care of itself at this point. |
While a great deal of people are happy to swallow touching garbage that has no relevance to anything, I, am not.
Whether or not it plays is irrelevant, I never said it wasn’t alive, quite the opposite in fact, I said it was a parasite, a fetal human being, a clump of cells that has potential.
I never questioned that it has a mind, of sorts, although I would question your claim of it being able to understand. Certainly it can hear, but so can many insects, and they work largely off of instinct, so it’s ability to react to stimulus merely classifies it as alive, not necessarily anything of any worthwhile, or humanly recognisable intellect.
Dogs can become accustomed to voices after a few weeks, and near enough every mammal latches onto a mother figure for security after it’s born, this has nothing to do with having an attachment to the mother in any sentimental sense however.
All you’ve said here is what I’ve already stated, but with some frilly bits as crowd pleasers. It is still a parasite, is it still, until seperated, a tumour with a purpose that relies entirely upon the mother for all it needs to live, and grow, much like any parasite.
| The fetus gets its food from the mother, but not by sucking the food out of her. |
The tapeworm lives in the digestive tract, and absorbs predigested nutrients from the host, it does not suck them from the hosts bloodstream, it in fact, simply takes what it is given.
The difference between a tapeworm and a fetus in the case of how they get their nutrients, is simply that the tapeworm does so without the knowledge of the host.
| Stand corrected, you are wrong. I am not arguing for potential human life , I am saying that human life is present at conception. It is not potentially anything. It is a human being, a living person. It is a human life. That is what I am arguing for. |
I stand corrected, your stance is considerably less reasonable than I thought.
Humans consist of a vast series of complex organs, and either sustain themelves, or die, we are hunter-gatherers, not parasites, we do not live inside anothers body, we do not draw nourishment and oxygen directly from the bodies of humans around us.
A fetus has nothing but potential to be a human, to say it is a human is to say that someone in medical school is a consultant doctor. What we become and what we are are by no means the same, and to say that they are is as absurd as legislating religious prattle.
| It will never become anything else and it will never be anything less. |
What it can be is its potential, as a 22 year old I shall become a 23 year old, as a 23 year old I shall become a 24 year old, etc, etc I can never become anything else, and I can never be anything less, even as a corpse time will continue to pass, I may die at 22, but when the 23rd year rolls around, am I still that age?
A tadpole can never become anything but a frog, therefore it is in fact, a frog?
No, it’s a seperate stage of development, and in the fetal stage, it may well become a human, but that doesn’t mean it is at the present time, you may as well say that it’s a human life as soon as a fertile couple decides to have a child. What it will become is its potential, not what it is at the present time.
I can get my head around your argument perfectly well, but the problem is that it’s flawed.
| You can say what you want till your ears fall off, but that won’t make the fetus a parasite, and that won’t mean that the fetus is only a potential human. |
Indeed, what I say is in fact irrelevant, it is in fact how the fetus behaves, how the fetus survives, how the fetus ‘lives’ until birth, that makes it a parasite, not what I say.
If what I say made things so, the world would be a much more interesting place, unfortunately, I don’t dictate reason, I merely translate.
| A parasite is something that infects and causes diseases. |
Parasites, while some are linked to disease, are not the manufacturers thereof, parasites are merely a form of life that survives on the host while contributing nothing to, or indeed impairing, the hosts survival.
| The only difference between the two is in the matter of devolopement. The only difference between a young tick and an old tick is a matter of devolopement. It cannot ever be anything else. The only difference between an unborn baby and a born baby is one of development. It will always be human and never will be anything else. |
Development, eh?
Development: the act or process of developing; growth; progress
So, by progressing, by growing, by developing, a fetus can, and will, become a human.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but did I not say something similar and then dismiss it as remarkably silly saying that because something can or will become something, that it is that same thing, several times already?
Potential: a latent excellence or ability that may or may not be developed.
So I did.
How developed something is or is not, does not make it that thing that it shall one day develop into. I’m sure I said that.
| Abortion is murder; legalized murder, but murder nonetheless. |
And as one cannot legislate religion, thank chemical chance, it shall remain so, feel free to call it murder though if you must, I for one don’t find it murder to terminate an undeveloped mass of cells with nothing more than potential on the horizon.
Jerry McDonald
|
Originally Posted by KosherKrackers
 And what purpose does a fetus serve until it’s born, than to live off the host exactly?
|
It serves many purposes. It gives the mother joy and happiness. I watched my wife when she was pregnant with our son, she enjoyed carrying him. It gives the mother hope. As the mother carries the child she has the joy of thinking about all that she is going to teach the child, and how she is going to raise him.
| Similarly the male ceratoids contribution to the survival of the species is of no consequence, as it has no benefit to the host, and exists purely due to the nourishment of said host. |
It has no benefit to the host? Are you kidding? This is how the species reproduces. I would say that this is of great benefit to the host.
| Parasites does not live exclusively to feed off of a host, they too exist to further there species, |
But the thing is, the parasite does not further the species of the host, it may further its own species (and most of them don’t do that much), but not the species of the host. The unborn child, on the other hand, furthers the host’s species as the host and the fetus are of the same species and linage. The unborn furthers the linage of the mother, can that be said of the parasite? I don’t think so!
| and to say the ceratoid is not parasitic to the host female merely because it has a secondary goal of furthering the species once its own survival is assured, is as ridiculous as claiming that champagne made from a seperate region of france is not champagne. |
Your example does not make sense, since regardless of what region the champagne comes from it is still champagne. However, the ceratoid furthers the hosts own species, the parasite (such as the tape worm) won’t do that.
| Merely because the same name does not apply, the definition remains unchanged. |
I gave you the definition of the parasite in my earlier post. The definition of a fetus is as follows: “an unborn or unhatched vertebrate esp. after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind” (Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition, p. 463). There is no similarity between the definition of a parasite and the definition of a fetus.
| Everyone is entitled to an opinion, however wrong it may be. |
However, this is an entirely seperate topic, and can be adressed here - http://www.zomganime.com/forums/show…0249#post10249
With that said however, of course we can’t breed with them, genetics and the incompatibility between seperate species is the cause of that, not an imaginary friend in the sky.
Having a soul is a moot point really, as it depends on what you believe in, and whether or not you believe that to be anything of consequence, let us debate with what we can prove, rather than what we can postulate, otherwise I ciould dream up a vast array of equally probable stories with which to attempt to use as a fulcrum for my ideas.
I was merely responding to what you had brought up. If you don’t wish to discuss it here, then don’t bring it up. If you want to debate with what you can prove, then prove, using medical material, that the fetus is nothing more than a parasite.
| A baby is a human at an early stage of development, a fetus is a human in the making. |
Blueprints and contracts with building companies are not houses.
No, the newborn is a human at an early stage of development. An unborn is a human at an earlier stage of development. However, they are both human.
| The difference between a baby, and a fetus, is that the fetus is reliant wholly upon the mother host, whereas a baby can be cared for by any human being with the right credentials and equipment, male or female, whereas a fetus seperated from its mother host either dies, or survives, but either way, it ceases to be a parasite, as it no longer relies solely upon the mother host for its biological needs. |
According to the Humanist Manifesto II “Human life has meaning because we create and develop our future” (Humanist Manifesto II, Ethics, Third). You say that the fetus becomes human when it is separated from its mother for its biological needs, the Humanist Manifesto II says it isn’t human until it begins to create and develop its future. If the newborn is breastfed, no one but the mother can do that, so I guess, since the mother makes the choice to breastfeed, that it is still a parasite with the mother’s permission.
However, in any case the newborn is still a parasite (according to your idea) because it is solely dependent upon either the mother, the father, sibling or someone to feed it and care for it. Keep going and you will end up standing with the Humanist Manifesto II. Maybe you do already, you just don’t know it yet.
| What was it you said again: |
Much like a fetus in fact, correct me if I’m wrong here, but it contributes nothing to the mother, while adversely affecting her regular health, and existing solely to feed, and grow.
Apparently you don’t know much about pregnancy. Have you ever noticed how pregnant women are affected by pregnancy? Their health is not adversely affected at all, unless there is something wrong with the mother’s body or she does something to either herself or the child (like smoking and drinking) to cause complications. As far as contributions go, I watched my wife all nine months of her pregnancy and she was happier then than I had ever seen her. Our first child died in the pregnancy and she was miserable and we tried for three years for her to get pregnant again and she would not be satisfied until she did. I would say that our son contributed a lot to her physical, spiritual and mental well being during the pregnancy.
If you are a male, I would advise that you never marry and reproduce. If you do, don’t ever tell your wife when she tells you she is pregnant that she is carrying around a parasite inside of her and she needs to get rid of it because it is doing nothing but adversely affecting her health and is contributing nothing. But if you are stupid enough to do that, let me know what hospital you end up in and I’ll be sure to send you flowers with a big STUPID sign attached to them.
| And this is ridiculous, if it did not in fact live off the mother why would it need to remain within the womb in order to survive until developed enough to be called human. |
It is required to remain within the womb in order to survive, until it is able to survive on its own. It is already human, but at 8 months it can survive on its own, but it doesn’t leave the womb for another month (or so) because it still needs protection that only the mother can give. It is so tightly wrapped in the mother that it is very well protected. Of course it has to eat which is why the mother eats for two. It has to breath which is why the mother’s respiratory system expands to make such possible.
| Regardless of how it gains oxygen, nutrients, etc, etc, tell me, where do they all come from, all of them, exclusively, come from the mother, to say it does not live off her is to say a child does not live off their parents money because they give it to them rather than said child taking it. |
While a great deal of people are happy to swallow touching garbage that has no relevance to anything, I, am not.
How it gains nutrients and oxygen is everything. You act as if it does the same as a tape worm, living in the intestinal system eating away at whatever comes its way. No, the baby has a natural umbilical cord that is attached to the wall of the uterous and all it’s needs come through that umbilical cord. Its amniotic fluid is changed every 24 hours and is expelled in the mother’s urine. It takes nothing from the mother as the parasite does. You can call it garbage all you want, but most people call it biology and natural law.
| Whether or not it plays is irrelevant, I never said it wasn’t alive, quite the opposite in fact, I said it was a parasite, a fetal human being, a clump of cells that has potential. |
I never questioned that it has a mind, of sorts, although I would question your claim of it being able to understand. Certainly it can hear, but so can many insects, and they work largely off of instinct, so it’s ability to react to stimulus merely classifies it as alive, not necessarily anything of any worthwhile, or humanly recognisable intellect.
It doesn’t have a “mind of sorts,” it has a “mind” period. It thinks and is able to understand. It feels pain and fear. On the movie “Silent Scream” a sonogram shows an abortion in progress. The baby is playing and sucking its thumb, then the needle punctures the water sack and the heads towards the baby and the baby jumps back in fear and starts making defensive moves. The needle penetrates the baby’s head and begins sucking its insides out. The last thing you see of the baby is its eyes are wide open, its mouth is wide open screaming in pain. I would say that this qualifies it as intelligent.
| Dogs can become accustomed to voices after a few weeks, and near enough every mammal latches onto a mother figure for security after it’s born, this has nothing to do with having an attachment to the mother in any sentimental sense however. |
All you’ve said here is what I’ve already stated, but with some frilly bits as crowd pleasers. It is still a parasite, is it still, until seperated, a tumour with a purpose that relies entirely upon the mother for all it needs to live, and grow, much like any parasite.
The fetus is nothing like the parasite. The parasite is there solely for its own purpose. The baby is there at the behest of the father and mother and is there for the purpose of securing a blood line. To compare a fetus with a tumor takes the cake. I guess your mother should have aborted you when she found out that she was pregnant with you because you were nothing more than a tumor. A parasite and tumor cause infection and death. The fetus brings life; the opposite of the parasite and the tumor. Find the medical book that calls the fetus a tumor or a parasite. Call your neighborhood obstetrics doctor up and ask him/her if he/she considers the fetus a tumor or a parasite. Next time you see a pregnant woman walk up to her and tell her that she is just carrying around a parasite or a tumor and she needs to have it removed. Do you understand the implication of what you are saying? If everyone held to your position the human race would die.
| The tapeworm lives in the digestive tract, and absorbs predigested nutrients from the host, it does not suck them from the hosts bloodstream, it in fact, simply takes what it is given. |
The difference between a tapeworm and a fetus in the case of how they get their nutrients, is simply that the tapeworm does so without the knowledge of the host.
“Definition
Tapeworms are a group of parasitic worms that live in the intestinal tracts of some animals. Several different species of tapeworms can infect humans. Tapeworm disease or cestodiasis occurs most commonly after eating raw or undercooked meat or fish that contains the immature form of the tapeworm.
Description
Tapeworm infections pose a serious public health problem in many less developed countries due to poor sanitation conditions. The disease is most common where livestock, such as cattle and pigs, are raised in areas where human feces are not disposed of in a sanitary manner. Another common source of human tapeworms are certain species of freshwater fish. Tapeworm infections tend to occur more frequently in areas of the world where the people regularly eat raw or undercooked beef, pork, or fish. Persons of all ages and both ***es are susceptible to tapeworm infection, but children are generally not exposed until they are old enough to begin eating meat or fish” (http://www.healthatoz.com/healthatoz…m_diseases.jsp).
The tapeworm pose serious public health problems while the fetus does not. The tapeworm causes diseases while the fetus does not. You really ought to take a biology course before you start saying that the fetus is the same as a tape worm or a tumor.
| I stand corrected, your stance is considerably less reasonable than I thought. |
I am not the one who holds the unreasonable position. I am not the one who says that the fetus is nothing more than a parasite or a tumor. I am not the one who says that the fetus can become human. I am the one who says that the fetus is human, just at an early stage of development. I am the one who says that there is a world of difference between a parasite, a tumor and a fetus. Go ask your mother if she thought you were a parasite when she was pregnant with you. Ask her why she didn’t abort you.
| Humans consist of a vast series of complex organs, and either sustain themelves, or die, we are hunter-gatherers, not parasites, we do not live inside anothers body, we do not draw nourishment and oxygen directly from the bodies of humans around us. |
A fetus has nothing but potential to be a human, to say it is a human is to say that someone in medical school is a consultant doctor. What we become and what we are are by no means the same, and to say that they are is as absurd as legislating religious prattle.
A fetus is a human, it doesn’t have the potential to be a human. What makes you any more a human than a fetus is? More development! If that is the case then someone who is more developed than you are is more human than you are and you are still a parasite or a tumor that needs to be removed.
This has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with morality. Don’t say we can’t legislate morality because we do it all the time. We tell people they can’t murder, steal, cheat, etc.,. All those things are moral issues. Religious issues are between man and God, moral issues are between man and man. God it?
| What it can be is its potential, as a 22 year old I shall become a 23 year old, as a 23 year old I shall become a 24 year old, etc, etc I can never become anything else, and I can never be anything less, even as a corpse time will continue to pass, I may die at 22, but when the 23rd year rolls around, am I still that age? |
Does this mean that someone who is 25 is more human than you are because he/she is a couple of years older? Man that must mean that I am really more human than you!
| A tadpole can never become anything but a frog, therefore it is in fact, a frog? |
A tadpole is an underdeveloped frog just like a puppy is an under developed dog, but the truth is the puppy is still a dog. It was a dog before it was born and it is a dog after it is born and will be a dog until it dies; not potentially, but in reality.
| No, it’s a seperate stage of development, and in the fetal stage, it may well become a human, but that doesn’t mean it is at the present time, you may as well say that it’s a human life as soon as a fertile couple decides to have a child. What it will become is its potential, not what it is at the present time. |
I can get my head around your argument perfectly well, but the problem is that it’s flawed.
Indeed, what I say is in fact irrelevant, it is in fact how the fetus behaves, how the fetus survives, how the fetus ‘lives’ until birth, that makes it a parasite, not what I say.
It may not well become a human because it is a human. It is a human embryo or fetus. It is just at an earlier stage of development. It never has been a parasite or a tumor. Every parasite and tumor ought to be removed. Should every fetus be aborted? Have you asked your mother about this? What does she say? Ask her why she didn’t abort you? Ask her if she thought you were a tumor that needed to be removed.
| If what I say made things so, the world would be a much more interesting place, unfortunately, I don’t dictate reason, I merely translate. |
I thank God the world isn’t run by people who think like you. Hitler thought much like you in trying to create the master race. Stalin thought much like you in trying to create a super race of soldiers. If everyone thought like you there would be no humans on the planet. We would all be dead! You don’t dictate and you can’t even properly translate.
| Parasites, while some are linked to disease, are not the manufacturers thereof, parasites are merely a form of life that survives on the host while contributing nothing to, or indeed impairing, the hosts survival. |
Development, eh?
Development: the act or process of developing; growth; progress
So, by progressing, by growing, by developing, a fetus can, and will, become a human.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but did I not say something similar and then dismiss it as remarkably silly saying that because something can or will become something, that it is that same thing, several times already?
Go back up and look at my statements concerning tapeworms. Look at the following statement about parasites:
“A parasite lives in a close relationship with another organism, its host, and causes it harm. The parasite is dependent on its host for its life functions. For example, viruses are common parasites. The parasite has to be in its host to live, grow, and multiply. Parasites rarely kill their hosts. A common, well-known type of a parasite is a hookworm. It is possible for humans or their pets to get them. Hookworms attach themselves in the lining of the small intestine, and cause diseases, and malnutrition as well, as they eat the nutrients and keep them from going to the host” (http://student.biology.arizona.edu/h…saparasite.htm).
Now look at the Medical Dictionary’s definition of the word “fetus.”
“Medical Dictionary
One entry found for fetus.
Main Entry: fe•tus
Variant(s): or chiefly British foe•tus /ft-s/
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural fe•tus•es or chiefly British foe•tus•es or foe•ti /ft-/
: an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth — compare EMBRYO
Potential: a latent excellence or ability that may or may not be developed”
(http://www2.merriam-webster.com/cgi-…dical&va=fetus).
| So I did. |
How developed something is or is not, does not make it that thing that it shall one day develop into. I’m sure I said that.
And as one cannot legislate religion, thank chemical chance, it shall remain so, feel free to call it murder though if you must, I for one don’t find it murder to terminate an undeveloped mass of cells with nothing more than potential on the horizon.
Go back and look at the things I have said. You will see that the fetus is a “developing human,” not a parasite.
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald
Third Exchange
Posted by jerry in Uncategorized on January 26, 2012
Quote:
| Parasitism is a type of symbiotic relationship between organisms of DIFFERENT species |
| However neither of these things can be considered any thing close to a fetus (baby). |
| The difference between a parasite and its host is altogether different. |
| How can you claim that the fetus is nothing more than a parasite. |
| Does this mean that when you were a fetus that you were a parasite? |
Kosher Krackers.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KosherKrackers
“Some anglerfishes of the superfamily Ceratiidae employ an unusual mating method. Since individuals are presumably locally rare and encounters doubly so, finding a mate is problematic. When scientists first started capturing ceratioid anglerfish, they noticed that all of the specimens were females. These individuals were a few inches in size and almost all of them had what appeared to be parasites attached to them. It turned out that these “parasites” were the remains of male ceratioids.”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AnglerfishThe only reason your quote exists is due to parasitism among the same species being, outside the womb at least, unique to the anglerfish as far as I’m aware.
|
But the problem with that is that the remains of the male ceratioids are not parasites, but the reproductive remains of the male that were attached to the female. Those were there for the purpose of mating and reproduction. The parasite has no such function. It is there for the sole purpose of living off the host. The remains of the male ceratioids were not; they were there for the purpose of reproduction. To call them parasites is as absurd as calling the fetus a parasite.
| And why not exactly? Because they lack a spirit? Because they have no potential to become a human being? Because they’re below us on the evolutionary ladder? |
There is no evolutionary ladder. We did not evolve from lower forms of life as is clearly evident from the fact that we cannot mate with lower forms of life. Humans can only mate with humans and monkeys can only mate with monkeys (their kind). The parasite is not an intelligent being, it has no mind, it has no soul it has no potential to become anything other than a parasite. However, it is a parasite while it is in its early stages and it will be a parasite in its fully grown stage. It will never be anything else. It is there to live off the host and can cause harm to the host. A leach is a parasite and will always be a parasite. However, it will also always be a leach, nothing more, nothing less. The unborn is simply a human at an early stage of devolopement, (you failed to deal with this next statement) and the only difference between the born and the unborn is one of development. It has never been, nor will it ever be a parasite. It does not live off the mother. Its umbilical cord takes in oxygen from the mothers respiratory system (which goes into the amniotic fluid and provides the baby with oxygen), and food from her system. However, it has its own blood supply, its own brain waves, its own heart beat and it is a sentient being all its own. At times it will play and suck its thumb. It can hear and understand. One of the reasons that the baby is used to the mother and father’s voice is because he/she has been listening to those voices for 9 mos. It is attached to the mother for the same reason that a newborn sits on its mothers lap; it cannot take care of itself at this point.
| Irregardless of their genetics or species, there are indeed still organic lifeforms, much the same as a fetus. |
The parasite is an organic life form, but that does not make the baby (fetus) a parasite. A dog is an organic life form, but the dog is not a parasite. A human is an organic life form, but the human is not a parasite. Do you understand the purpose of a parasite? It lives off the host, the fetus does not. The fetus gets its food from the mother, but not by sucking the food out of her. The nurishment goes into the umbilical cord just like amniotic fluid does. Once in the umbilical cord it goes to the fetus and nurishes it.
| Not so with the anglerfish, and not so with the fetus, the concept of the fetus as a parasite is a largely controversial one, and, due to irrational people, would spark a great deal of protest and debate, the definition of how a parasite behaves however, fits the fetal stage perfectly. Correct me if I’m wrong there, but once again, you’re arguing for potential. |
Stand corrected, you are wrong. I am not arguing for potential human life , I am saying that human life is present at conception. It is not potentially anything. It is a human being, a living person. It is a human life. That is what I am arguing for.
| Because what something is, and what something can be, are two very different things, a concept you seem incapable of wrapping your head around no mattr how many times I state it, or in what ways I phrase it. |
Just because the unborn is not fully developed does not mean that it is a potential human being. It will never become anything else and it will never be anything less. It is a human being and that’s all it ever will be. That is something that you cannot seem to get your head around. You can say what you want till your ears fall off, but that won’t make the fetus a parasite, and that won’t mean that the fetus is only a potential human.
| To put it bluntly and concisely; Yes.I have no delusions about what I was, and as a fetus I was the same as every other, and I was indeed a parasite also.In Chemical Chance, Kosher Krackers. |
A parasite is something that infects and causes diseases. A tick can be considered a parasite. A flea can be considered a parasite. According to your logic your mother should have done something to get rid of you when you were a parasite because you were there for no other purpose than to live off her body and would cause an infection or disease. A tick will never be anything more than a tick. A flea will never be anything more than a flea. A human fetus will never be anything more than a human. The only difference between the two is in the matter of devolopement. The only difference between a young tick and an old tick is a matter of devolopement. It cannot ever be anything else. The only difference between an unborn baby and a born baby is one of development. It will always be human and never will be anything else.
In Christ Jesus
Jerry D. McDonald
