Abortion.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Curubethion

That's not the way I learned "parasite"...IIRC, a parasite was defined as something that harmed the host.

Curu, you're helping the other side.

(See Ri's post)

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Apart from how it gets in or out, the fetus still acts like a parasite inside the womb
There are many types of parasites and those you're describing sound like insects or something.

The "eating its way out", perhaps, but I think being implanted or attaching itself as opposed to being generated is pretty well universal.

[Nurvingiel]

Actually, Jonathan is right about parasitism. I believe that since foetuses are the same organism as their host, they aren't technically parasites. However, Jonathan is right about the parasitic symptoms as well.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Having had 3 kids, I must remark that they are EXTREMELY parasitic until at LEAST age 18 so why draw the line at killing them when they're in the womb? Seriously! Why?

You cannot be serious!

...Except I know you are, because sometimes you like to get people to round out their points by making them answer silly questions.

Parasitism talks about how one organism takes biological resources such as nutrients or carbon from another organism. Since this is a biological definition describing all organisms in the natural world and not solely humans, money (a strictly human contstruct) does not enter into the debate.

And why does money matter? Because a teenager is eating food that his parents bought for him. He is not obtaining nutrients directly from his parents' bodies, thus, he is not a parasite (as much as your wallet may beg to differ ).

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Jonathan is right that there are certain resemblances to a parasite, but there is as I pointed out a major difference in the matter of generation and the invasive nature of parasitism.

Nerdanel defined a parasite as: "an organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host."

Now, an infant can be considered to fit damn close to that, whether it be born or no. A baby marsupial fits the bill perfectly. Are joeys parasites?

[Valandil]

It seems strange to consider such a definition as covering someone's unborn offspring.

I mean - even look at the animal world. If you told somebody that an animal had parasites, would the hearer even begin to imagine you might be talking about it's unborn cubs, calves, puppies, kittens, etc? Do we consider an unborn whale or dolphin to be a parasite while in it's mother's body? Why then a human?

Also curious...

Was the definition found from an authoritative source, or crafted in the course of this discussion?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Wikipedia thinks it means symbiosis wherein the host is harmed. "Symbiosis encompasses commensalism ("eating at the same table", wherein two organisms co-exist in the same space, and one organism benefits while neither harming nor helping the other), through mutualism (wherein both species benefit from the interaction) to parasitism, wherein one organism, usually physically smaller of the two (the parasite) benefits and the other (the host) is harmed."

Dictionaries would be even less authoritative for strict definitions of such things than wikipedia.

[Nerdanel]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

The scientific definition of a parasite that you and Insidious have referred to is an accurate description of the human foetus. But it is wrong to treat humans as parasites because we are far more physically and mentally sophisticated than they are. Humans behave like various kinds of creatures at times, but treating them like we would insects would be morally reprehensible.

I was just joking about the humans being parasites, that's why I added the to that part. Even though the definitions fit to any kind of mammal foetus, I don't consider them parasites, since the same individual is the exact one that increases the parents' fitnesses, if it survives, naturally. Through reproduction we, as all other living organisms, guarantee that our genes survive and spread. So even though a human in one part of its life acts as a parasite, it's only a small ( can be discussed, I guess ) part of the individual's life span.
The cost might be big, especially for the female, but so is the benefit.

But, back to why I first posted at all: you said that

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Mentally and biologically, humans are far more than parasites. They should not be compared to parasites.

and my question was:

Originally Posted by Nerdanel

How are humans more than parasites, biologically?

Biologically, no animal , plant, fungi, protist, archaean nor eubacterium is more than any other. They might be divided into "higher" and "lower" groups, taxonomically, but that has nothing to do with wether they are more or less than any other living organism. To say that for instance a parasite like Plasmodium (that causes malaria), that is widespread and seems to be doing very well, is "less" than for instance any mammal, implies that you (not you personally) think that evolution through time always means progress.. If you at all believe in evolution.

Anyway, I guess I'm in the wrong thread.. >.<

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by Nerdanel

I was just joking about the humans being parasites, that's why I added the ...

Sorry - I just saw that "second-hand" - so I missed that it was intended as a joke. I've heard others say that before, and to me it seems odd to argue that case (then again... maybe others who say it intend it a bit "tongue-in-cheek" as well).

[Insidious Rex]

Good grief people… It was just a simple statement. The fact is a fetus ACTS just like a parasite as I said. Is anyone here going to deny this? We know that’s clearly true. I never said a fetus is a parasite therefore we need to destroy them all… Geesh…

A lot of people here act like pregnancy is the best thing that could happen to you. In fact its not. Its extremely dangerous. Up until relatively recently (late 18th century?) getting pregnant meant you had a good chance of dieing from complications somewhere between inception and birth (usually around birth). So my statement about the fetus being like a parasite was in response to Liefs ridiculous notion of the mother being only a “biological life support mechanism� which is just as absurd a notion as the fetus actually BEING a parasite and im quite delighted there was so much anguish over the parasite comment since that shows quite clearly there is a double standard involved here: Its morally unacceptable to harm a fetus even up to the point of being a ball of cells… but its perfectly ok to treat the mother as a birthing machine with no rights to determine what is best for HER and HER health and situation no matter how she got pregnant, how perilous her particular situation is and no matter how undeveloped the fetus is. Utterly ridiculous…

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Exactly. That is, "saying that we have the right to kill humans who we perceive to be less developed than ourselves, and we have the right to decide where to draw that line." You're just rephrasing what I said.

If you believe that we as humans can never decide when termination of life is ok then you better drop your gung ho support for Rumsfeld and the war in Iraq Lief. Not to mention any kind of armed conflict or situation that can result in the death of another human. And you better quickly become a hard core vegan and never contribute to the death of any other organism on this planet or elsewhere or else you are in violation of your own logic here which is that we have no right to draw the lines. So better draw no lines just to be safe.

Or does your point of view stem directly from a certain religious philosophy which says oh its ok to do this but you cant do that? If that’s the case then lose the line drawing argument.

But even modern scientific data shows confirms that by the end of the first trimester, the foetus already has all its major organs. So it is clear (to me) that by that time, abortion plainly is the killing of a developed child.

So then are you saying its ok before then? Nevermind your argument here doesn’t hold water because development of “organs� says nothing about the state of the organism in question. But if this is the argument you are going to make then you are saying somewhere between inception and that point its ok to abort. And I know you believe its not ok even one moment after inception (correct me if im wrong but Im pretty sure Ive heard you say that more then once). So really much of our argument is disingenuous. Because you believe its morally wrong to abort ANY human life form no matter how developed (or non developed) it is. So why even enter into the developmental line of arguing in regards to abortion exactly?

To the best of their understanding, the Jews or women or blacks or homosexuals or the disabled or other were less developed than they were, and thus could be ethically killed or treated more harshly than more developed people.

Again this is just a ridiculous argument to me. You do realize that there were jews IN the SS itself and certainly in all levels of the nazi regime. Why? Because some jews don’t look jewish. And if you have blonde hair and blue eyes well Hitler’s “scientific� measurements couldn’t detect you. Instead you fit right in and didn’t stick out like say a 3 week old fetus would… The very idea of trying to compare these things… You cannot determine religion based on scientific measurements quite clearly. But you can certainly look at development of the mind and body AND weigh the fact that there is a HOST involved when deciding on something as serious as an abortion…

With these cases, we do all we can to prevent the innocent from dying.

That’s a laugh. We kill as we see fit and as we can get away with it (both externally and internally). It’s the nature of our species.

Racists and misogynists have often believed those they oppress or kill to be less developed than they are, which is why they feel justified in abusing them.

Which is irrelevant to the argument regarding abortions of course. Its like saying just because some people use guns to kill others that we shouldn’t allow guns to exist at all…

Do you think you are justified in killing someone off in order to avoid poverty?

Happens every day in MUCH worse ways Lief. Why aren’t you out there shouting about that? And by the way, do you think you are justified in having a woman die to avoid abortion?

Mentally and biologically, humans are far more than parasites. They should not be compared to parasites.

I can certainly compare them to parasites if I want to. See above.

[Nurvingiel]

Also, obviously parasitism and reproduction are two different kettles of non-parasitic fish. Propogating ones genes benefits the species.

Let us all remember this moment in history when the participants of the Abortion thread agreed on something. (That foetuses aren't parasites.)

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Good grief people… It was just a simple statement. The fact is a fetus ACTS just like a parasite as I said. Is anyone here going to deny this? We know that’s clearly true. I never said a fetus is a parasite therefore we need to destroy them all… Geesh…

It was impliued that fetuses are parasites by others above.

Its morally unacceptable to harm a fetus even up to the point of being a ball of cells… but its perfectly ok to treat the mother as a birthing machine with no rights to determine what is best for HER and HER health and situation no matter how she got pregnant, how perilous her particular situation is and no matter how undeveloped the fetus is. Utterly ridiculous…

Or, how about this one: it's morally acceptable for the mother to abort the fetus for any reason whatsoever, because might makes right, whereas the absolutely helpless organism, which has never even had a chance to live, has no rights. Utterly ridiculous, and a hell of a double standard.

If you believe that we as humans can never decide when termination of life is ok then you better drop your gung ho support for Rumsfeld and the war in Iraq Lief.

*waves to IR* Glad to be in agreement wit'ye.

Not to mention any kind of armed conflict or situation that can result in the death of another human. And you better quickly become a hard core vegan and never contribute to the death of any other organism on this planet or elsewhere or else you are in violation of your own logic here which is that we have no right to draw the lines.

No, that is not the logic. The logic is you cannot draw a line and say "the fetus produced by human seed and egg becomes a person here".

I lean towards agreeing about armed conflict, but sometimes it is unavoidable. War and fighting are awful things, but that does not mean they are not necessary (though I would tend to say ONLY in clear-cut self-defense against intentional harm).

So then are you saying its ok before then? Nevermind your argument here doesn’t hold water because development of “organs� says nothing about the state of the organism in question.

No, he is saying it manifestly not ok after.

Do you realize the absurdity of the statement? "organ"..."organism"...An organ means, in Greek, a tool. An organism is a body outfitted with natural tools.

But if this is the argument you are going to make then you are saying somewhere between inception and that point its ok to abort.

Non sequitur. Merely saying it is manifestly not ok now, does not mean it was before. The only thing that can logically be inferred is that it wasn't manifestly so before.

That’s a laugh. We kill as we see fit and as we can get away with it (both externally and internally). It’s the nature of our species.

No, it's not. Our species shows mercy, something that is rare to non-existent in others.

Which is irrelevant to the argument regarding abortions of course. Its like saying just because some people use guns to kill others that we shouldn’t allow guns to exist at all…

Not a terribly big fan of guns, meself...for stylistic reasons.

Nurv: Three cheers for the Abortion debate! Though I still wish we'd talk about personhood...

[Butterbeer]

Are we not all parasites on Mother earth?

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

Are we not all parasites on Mother earth?

All Parasites are Equal...but some parasites say they are more equal than the smaller ones...

[Nerdanel]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

Are we not all parasites on Mother earth?

Depends on what you believe in. Just like most statements here..

[Butterbeer]

All Parasites are Equal...but some parasites say they are more equal than the smaller ones...

eeee's 'avin a go at dwarves now!!!

[Butterbeer]

Originally Posted by Nerdanel

Depends on what you believe in. Just like most statements here..

kinda hard to argue with that one!

...


... but here goes.

No not really, i'd say it rather depends how you define a parasite.

best, BB

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Or, how about this one: it's morally acceptable for the mother to abort the fetus for any reason whatsoever, because might makes right

That’s where you lose me. I don’t think its morally acceptable to abort a fetus for “any reason whatsoever�. And that’s why I haven’t and wont. I DO think its morally reprehensible to tell other individuals they may not have control over their OWN bodies because of ones individual moral belief system. And THAT is the point you ignored there.

No, that is not the logic. The logic is you cannot draw a line and say "the fetus produced by human seed and egg becomes a person here".

Well of course that’s the logic. Because if we need to not “risk� aborting a fetus that may or may not be developed enough to feel pain, be conscious, be sentient, etc. etc. then we better not take any chances regarding killing anything at ALL. Certainly animals feel pain and are conscious and have organs ( )… So why the double standard? Why draw the line there and when you are telling me you cant draw the line anywhere?

Nevermind the disingenuousness of arguing from this point of view when you genuinely believe it is wrong to terminate even two cells which we ALL know doesn’t have any of the abilities listed above.

War and fighting are awful things, but that does not mean they are not necessary

And that’s quite an apt description of abortion too! As Ive always said it’s a necessary evil…

No, he is saying it manifestly not ok after.

Why? Whats with the “organ� rule exactly? And what about before more importantly?

Do you realize the absurdity of the statement? "organ"..."organism"...An organ means, in Greek, a tool. An organism is a body outfitted with natural tools.

Who cares what it means in Greek? Why does it matter if they have some organs or not? Are organs mentioned in the bible? If not Im assuming Liefs organ rule has to do with science. If so then what does that tell us? Just because the heart beats does that automatically and scientifically mean the brain is fully developed? The nervous system? The ability for the ORGANISM to exist on its own power without the host? Why is it ok to kill an animal fully grown with fully developed organs and not abort a fetus ¾ of an inch tall with some technically definable organs?

Non sequitur. Merely saying it is manifestly not ok now, does not mean it was before. The only thing that can logically be inferred is that it wasn't manifestly so before.

Which of course completely avoids my question… If he continually goes on and on about organ development its not so illogical to assume that he holds some value at that threshold point. So it certainly begs the question well what about BEFORE that? and if its ok before that then you are ok with abortion. No?

No, it's not. Our species shows mercy, something that is rare to non-existent in others.

Our species shows mercy because showing mercy can be a benefit to us. (Please note I did NOT say our species shows mercy when it’s a benefit to us…). Also note that MANY other animals show what we call “mercy�. We just choose not to connect that particular motivation to their action. But their actions result in the same result either way.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

That’s where you lose me. I don’t think its morally acceptable to abort a fetus for “any reason whatsoever�. And that’s why I haven’t and wont. I DO think its morally reprehensible to tell other individuals they may not have control over their OWN bodies because of ones individual moral belief system. And THAT is the point you ignored there.

1) Why not?
2) When is it?

Well of course that’s the logic. Because if we need to not “risk� aborting a fetus that may or may not be developed enough to feel pain, be conscious, be sentient, etc. etc. then we better not take any chances regarding killing anything at ALL.

The point is not whether it can feel pain, etc. The point is that, at the absolute minimum, it might be a human person.

Certainly animals feel pain and are conscious and have organs ( )… So why the double standard? Why draw the line there and when you are telling me you cant draw the line anywhere?

Because (mere) animals and humans are apples and oranges. Both mere animals and humans are animals, just as apples and oranges are both fruits. But they are very different in other respects.

Nevermind the disingenuousness of arguing from this point of view when you genuinely believe it is wrong to terminate even two cells which we ALL know doesn’t have any of the abilities listed above.

Read above. I am not arguing from feeling, sentience, or consciousness. I am concerned with personhood. Don't just sit there and put false words in my mouth; show me where I said it is derived from any of the above abilities. Where did I say that?

And that’s quite an apt description of abortion too! As Ive always said it’s a necessary evil…

See my criterion for allowing violence.

Why? Whats with the “organ� rule exactly? And what about before more importantly?

Don't ask me; it's his rule.

Who cares what it means in Greek?

You know, the etymology is important, and does tell you a lot. What I provided was an etymologically-derived definition of 'organism'.

Why does it matter if they have some organs or not?

It's not a question of some organs. It's a matter of all major organs.

Are organs mentioned in the bible? If not Im assuming Liefs organ rule has to do with science. If so then what does that tell us?

Ask him.

Just because the heart beats does that automatically and scientifically mean the brain is fully developed?

See above.

The ability for the ORGANISM to exist on its own power without the host?

Irrelevant.

Why is it ok to kill an animal fully grown with fully developed organs and not abort a fetus ¾ of an inch tall with some technically definable organs?

It's not okay to kill an animal without good reason; it's not okay to kill a fetus because of personhood.

Which of course completely avoids my question… If he continually goes on and on about organ development its not so illogical to assume that he holds some value at that threshold point.

Given the way he argues, it is. He is merely trying to make an argument that others can agree with.

Our species shows mercy because showing mercy can be a benefit to us.

Can you prove that? Not just provide examples, but prove it?

But if that is true, mercy is non-existent; it's a selfless thing. You may have something that looks merciful if done for benefit, but it isn't.

(Please note I did NOT say our species shows mercy when it’s a benefit to us…)

By this do you mean to indicate that our species sometimes shows mercy when it's not a benefit, or that our species sometimes does not show mercy when it is? Because it seems that the former indicates that benefit is not the cause.

Also note that MANY other animals show what we call “mercy�. We just choose not to connect that particular motivation to their action. But their actions result in the same result either way.

See above. Also, can you provide examples? I know there are some, but I'd like to see specifics.

[hectorberlioz]

I find it ironic that life is so sacred once outside the womb...can't be fully responsible for murderous crimes until you're after eighteen...that's Ginsburg for ya, the mother of all calamities. Lowering age of consent down to twelve too, yeah, before your daughter is even past puberty. Yep, that's Ginsburg.

Once you're outside the womb suddenly nobody seems to want to kill you anymore... , they're all about non-violence the sacredness of LIFE...

[Nurvingiel]

Well, I find it ironic that life is so sacred inside the womb, but once you're born you're on your own. Yup, doesn't matter if the mother would have had an abortion because of a lack of physical and emotional resources to support a child, as long as she has the child, that's all the matters.

Just turning it around on ya buddy.

Also, who the heck holes is Ginsburg, and why does he/she want to lower the age of consent to 12? On a related note, what does that have to do with abortion?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Well, I find it ironic that life is so sacred inside the womb, but once you're born you're on your own. Yup, doesn't matter if the mother would have had an abortion because of a lack of physical and emotional resources to support a child, as long as she has the child, that's all the matters.

I was about to say that. And I get to say both to all of you.