You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Calling a fetus a parasite is the first step to condoning abortion.
The Nazis called Jews "rats" in order to make killing Jews more palatable.
That tactic is alive an well in the pro-abortion camp. Their argument is that you are only killing a parasite, a clump of cells. The reason they want to create this illusion is so that you don't feel bad about making that "choice." Why would you want to give anyone a parasite, or a clump of cells, to care for and nurture? Just "terminate" it.
This is NOT a "For/Against Debate" because the title and description of this debate are accurate.
Yes..., if you want to have an abortion, then by all means..., go right ahead. I will not lift a finger to stop you. But don't be hypocritical and call it what it is..., the selfish destruction of life.
Just curious if you participated in a selfish destruction of life on a routine basis or not. Now that I know that you do, are you a hypocrite (i.e. do you call it "dinner") or do you, say, invite your wife out to "a selfish destruction of life" at Chilis on a Friday night? Like, do you call it that? "I'm going to go pick up some selfish destruction of life from the meat section, I'll be right back." Is that how you talk?
I did more than that. I have been party to the destruction of chickens for my selfish appetite for a special dish cooked by my people.
I was also party to an abortion some 30 years ago and I have had that time to think about it..., so I like to think I know what I'm talking about ;)
But..., to answer your question, that's not how I talk because that is not the vernacular. I don't see anything wrong with killing animals or fetuses. I just don't like people glossing over the truth. Abortion is a selfish act. Don't sugar coated. Recognize it for what it is.
I have been pretty patient with a lot of abortion debates. Even though i think it should be avoided when possible, i understand there are times when it may be considered. Still no matter the circumstances, whether it is right or wrong, it is still tragic. By going so far as to dismiss the fetus as a parasite (when there are an abundant reasons why that is a incorrect use of the term) is cruel and unnecessary. As i read some of the arguments that said the fetus was a parasite, i was shocked by how many of them appeared to harbor varying degrees of hatred and disdain towards the unborn.
The tactic used by the Nazis is very effective. Once you dehumanize something..., the unnecessary, cruel, tragedy..., the hatred and disdain...., soon follows. ;)
As if you didn't know already (or I should hope), the two are not analogous. A fetus can actually be biologically classed as a parasite, whereas Jews cannot be classed as rats.
I don't see why people get all butthurt over it. It's just a word we use to distinguish things. You might as well get pissed off over the word "bacteria" or something.
The definition of parasitism is "a relationship between two species of plants or animals in which one benefits at the expense of the other, sometimes without killing it." (Encyclopedia Britannica) not the same species. While the fetus may be at a different stage of life than a full grown human, it is still a human and thus not part of a separate species.
Implying that there is one universal definition for a word.
I mean, I can play that too if I want.
From Biology online: An organism that obtains nourishment and shelter on another organism. Fetus matches this.
From Thefreedictionary.com: Biology An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host. Fetus matches this.
From Oxford dictionary: an organism which lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other’s expense: Fetus matches this.
I could go on, but you get the point. Definitions are not universal, which is why I said a fetus can be classed as a parasite, not that it is. And like I said, parasite is a word like any other. Hell, most of society could be classed as parasitic somehow. It's just a word, and any connotations are made by the pro-life party, not the pro-choice party.
Holy shit. I just had a serious exchange with Uncle Joe. The Mayans were right.
That reminds me of Alice in Wonder Land..., when a character tells Alice that words mean exactly what he wants them to mean. ;)
OK, so here's what I got out of what you wrote.
A fetus is NOT classified as a parasite. No disagreement there. If a fetus was classified as a parasite, then "most of society could be classed as parasitic somehow" which would make the word useless. Words are meant to convey ideas. In order to achieve this, words need to be defined narrowly enough so as to be accurate and useful. It is not useful to define everyone as a parasite. Just use the word everyone.
Ideas affect behavior. So if, for example, you wanted to get a bunch of people to destroy something, just assign a negative word to it and get people to believe that the word assignment is accurate.
The fact that a fetus is not classified as a parasite means that my statement stands. A certain segment of the population would like to be able to classify a fetus as a parasite because that would serve their purpose. That purpose is to make abortion more palatable.
All of the definitions you selected use the word "another" or "different" organism. It is implied that the other organism is of a different species. Name one parasite that is the same species as the host. Just one. Remember, a fetus is not classified as a parasite. If you like, you can go back to those dictionaries to see what examples they site for parasite. I'm willing to bet none of the examples contain a parasite/host combination involving only one species.
No, I actually said that it can be, but it is not black or white. Your definition would assert it isn't, the majority of others assert that it is. I myself could care less.
If a fetus was classified as a parasite, then "most of society could be classed as parasitic somehow" which would make the word useless.
That was an exaggeration to show that parasite is not a term below humanity.
Ideas affect behavior. So if, for example, you wanted to get a bunch of people to destroy something, just assign a negative word to it and get people to believe that the word assignment is accurate.
The problem is that parasite is only a negative word if you, the reader, take it to be. Outside of that, it is a biological word, no different to any other.
The fact that a fetus is not classified as a parasite means that my statement stands.
Again, assuming a universal definition of a word.
A certain segment of the population would like to be able to classify a fetus as a parasite because that would serve their purpose. That purpose is to make abortion more palatable.
I sense you and I agree that using the word parasite to argue for abortion is stupid. Simply because it stops being a parasite at birth, which is the one stage abortion prevents. My only contention here is that a fetus can be classified biologically as a parasite.
All of the definitions you selected use the word "another" or "different" organism. It is implied that the other organism is of a different species.
Not at all. If I were in your house, there would be another, different organism in your house. For it to mean different species, it must specify that.
Name one parasite that is the same species as the host. Just one
The one I would name is one you clearly don't agree with. By the way, this isn't limited to human fetuses, any mammalian fetus can be classed as a parasite, assuming a given definition.
If you like, you can go back to those dictionaries to see what examples they site for parasite. I'm willing to bet none of the examples contain a parasite/host combination involving only one species.
Of course not, because that's socially inept. They wouldn't put the word nigger in to show an example of an insult. Same applies here.
Like I said, I don't really care about the consequence of using the word, and I don't feel it should be part of the abortion debate. But for classification purposes, one may wish to class a fetus as a parasite. That's all I'm arguing.
OK. So..., to recap..., you would not be opposed to classifying a fetus as a parasite? You see no degradation of the word "parasite" if it were to encompass fetuses? It matters not that both words, "parasite" and "fetus" evoke different/conflicting emotions? And you cannot find an example (other than a fetus) where the parasite and the host are the same species. Does that about covers it? ;)
So says you. There are X number of cells in the human body. At the time an abortion takes place, the fetus has Y number of cells. So you might say that the fetus is some percentage part human. I say that if a scientist can determine that it is a human fetus..., then it is human.
The life is not actually a life, and is only a life when it is capable of independant thought. It is, by means, a cluster of unspecified cells, and by ways, a parasite.
Are you saying that one cell amoebas are not alive? It does not matter that the final product is made up of highly specialized cells or just one cell. All of our cells come from only one source. They are all the same except for "training." Would you consider a starving person in Africa worth any less than an affluent person in the U.S.? One has specialized skills and training and the other one does not. Those cells starts out the same, just like people, and then they specialize, just like people and they are alive, just like people and single cell organisms.
Now, give ONE reason to chose abortion over adoption that is NOT selfish. ;)
Just because something is "alive" does not mean it should be preserved at "all costs" or maybe any cost... For example, lets take a "fetus" immediately after conception. It's a one cell "organism". Unless you believe in a soul, that one cell is not a "person" in any way shape or form. There is no brain, no consciousness, no self awareness, no anything. There is no "reason" to preserve that one cell any more than any other one cell organism in our world. It's hard to argue that that one cell should be preserved over the wishes of the mother who thinks potential harm will come to herself of the "cell" were it allowed to mature and be birthed.
You may say "we should preserve it even if it is one cell". OK, but what about every step you take outdoors. How many microscopic multicellular organisms are you "killing" with every step you take on raw earth? To what effort should you go to not to kill those organisms? The point is the "value" of a "blob of cells" is not very high to humans in our day to day life.
Is getting an abortion selfish? Probably. But almost everything we do in life is selfish (on some level) so that is not a good measure of right or wrong. Here is a list of selfish things that people are doing every day:
- Taking a hot shower. I could have taken a cold shower, saved some money and sent it to a child in Africa.
- Having a cup of coffee. I could have had water, saved some money and sent it to a child in Africa.
- Bought a computer with a 17" monitor instead of 15". I could have saved some money and sent it to a child in Africa.
- Went to the beach without asking my neighbor if he wanted to go. I'm so selfish!
- Ate dinner and did not bring the leftovers to the homeless shelter.
- Etc, etc.....
Until your willing to not be selfish at all (impossible I think) it's hard to argue that it's "selfish" (to any high degree) to terminate multicellular blobs.
Damn it. I can't argue with anything you have said. Except this ;)
that is not a good measure of right or wrong.
I never said anything about right and wrong. I guess I should have made that more clear* by saying that I am NOT making any value judgements. All I'm saying is that a fetus is not a parasite. That abortion is a selfish act. And that calling a fetus a parasite is a tactic used to dehumanize the thing you are trying to destroy in order to help make you feel better about the destruction. Whether any of those things are right or wrong..., is beyond the scope of this debate.
Hence..., I am forced to up vote you. Pay heed..., an up vote from me is a rare thing indeed ;)
It could kill you? Overpopulation as a global issue?
I hate it how men think that they know just as much about this issue- as they will never give birth, and do not have to consider that if they want their own child, they are risking their own life. The cells do not think, they cannot create or feel emotion. They have only potential- the potential to become someone who makes an amazing scientific revelation, or the potential to become a hate-cult leader who starts religious wars. If the life is aborted, it is not a life, it will not happen in this reality, finito- and that is it. It is little more than killling an amoeba.
Hmmm...., I think you think I am placing value. I make no value judgement. I am NOT saying that being selfish is bad nor am I saying that it is good. It just is.
If you are on a train that is teetering on a brink of a cliff and there are people on one side and you are on the other..., would you move to save your skin? Sure. Is it selfish? Yeah. Is it bad? Who cares? What if it's just one other person on that train? It doesn't matter how many, one or many. It doesn't matter if you are risking your life on a train or on a birth. Abortion is a selfish act.
I hate it when women do not bother to consider that the number of women who die during childbirth in a first world country is miniscule compared to the risk they face every time when they get in a car. Maybe that's why women are not allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia. Maybe we should ban women from driving because they are adverse to risk taking.
And don't even bother to consider the risk men put themselves into when they are sent to war. Can you imagine a man refusing to fight because they might die? Or firemen refusing to go into a burning building because they might die? Or the police refusing to help in a hostage situation because they might die? Men know that the price of protecting their family and country could mean their life. Do you hear most men whining about it?
And finally..., cells don't think. And yet, sperm knows where to find the egg. Cells do not feel emotion. Normal cells attack foreign cells and cancer cells. Cells cannot create. Yet Cells know how to repair a cut on a finger. Maybe cells don't think in the way we think. Or maybe, our thoughts are the thoughts of our brain cells. Why trust a scientist? They have been wrong before. Remember when the world was flat and Earth was at the center of the universe?
Again, my goal is NOT to stop abortions from happening. My goal is not judge anyone one way or another. Have as many abortions as you want.
My goal is get women to stop sugar coating abortion in my presence. If you are telling me about an abortion don't tell me it was the only solution. There's always abortion. Don't tell me it was the best solution. It was the best solution for you. Don't tell me it was just a clump of cells. It was an unwanted bastard and you felt justified in terminating him prematurely. Tell it like it is.
And no..., I don't think I will ever be successful in my goal. Because people feel the need to justify their actions. People do not want take responsibility for their actions. People feel that they are entitled to make whatever choice they want. And, ironically, they seek others approval by trying to get them to agree that it was the right thing to do. If this wasn't true, then people wouldn't argue the point. They would just say, "Look..., I don't care that you are pro-life. I'm going to do and believe whatever the hell I want."
Ooops..., I forgot to address the first paragraph. ;)
If you do something to save your life, you're being selfish. But that's OK because I may do the same.
To say you are doing it to save the planet from over population..., is like saying that you are no longer going to smoke cigarettes because you are concerned about global warming. And if that's the case, since methane gas is more problematic when it comes to global warming than cigarette smoke, you might as well stop farting also. If you want to protect the planet from over population, switch over to oral sex. ;)
800, that's about four just then, in the last hour- maybe more, maybe less. And my point is- mainly, they are women who didn't make a choice, they were sold like toys and used.
Machines can create and repair themselves- does that mean that they live and deserve life- although I admit I am really fond of my laptop, named Hex after the computer in the terry pratchett discworld novels.
Sometimes abortion is the only rational choice- for young women, as in 14-20, who couldn't deal with a pregnancy, and it's there- an option, a cure to something that ends in more pain than any man has remained conscious(sp.) through, and you call it sugar coating.
You can't say that you're killing a child. A child is over 1 year old- and it's not just felt- needed, or simply afraid of being tortured. Would you choose to be torture for a cluster of cells to have the chance to grow and produce a small human that will end up being thrown from foster parent to foster parent, always knowing he/she was unwanted?
Or is it finito, the world is overpopulated, and I want to keep my life the way it is?
Personally, I wouldn't get an abortion, because I would want my own child, I'd suffer for my descision if I made it, and I could never give up a child for adoption- I'd rather have it aborted than that.
You keep on missing my point. People can go out and kill fetuses or one year old children. I don't care.
Rational and selfishness are often the same thing. You can rationalize practically anything.
I also don't care about the pain of childbirth, men give their lives for less.
The point I'm making is that a fetus is not a parasite. That abortion is a selfish act. And that calling a fetus a parasite is a tactic used to dehumanize the thing you are trying to destroy in order to help make you feel better about the destruction. Whether any of those things are right or wrong..., is beyond the scope of this debate.
You can say same about every single women egg that it's not gonna be used or every single sperm.... because it hypothetically once maybe could be a human....
The definition of parasitism is "a relationship between two species of plants or animals in which one benefits at the expense of the other, sometimes without killing it." (Encyclopedia Britannica) not the same species. While the fetus may be at a different stage of life than a full grown human, it is still a human and thus not part of a separate species.
I see, so that's how you justify murder then. I find your own definition to be... lacking.
Life:
Noun
1. The condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional...
2. Living things and their activity
I should point out that existence is a synonym for life.
The fetus has the capacity for growth, both physical and mental. I'm unclear on what your definition of 'independent thought' is... that is to say, what defines an independent thought, and at what stage in development is it first possible?
Also how do you justify post-birth abortions, aka infanticide?
Calling the jews "rats" was simply demeaning them and just to make them feel bad. It didnt make killing them easier. They couldve called them pretty princesses and killed them just as easily.
We dont call pre-abortion fetuses "parasite" to demean them or make it easier to abort. Its actually a very accurate label for them.
The definition of parasitism is "a relationship between two species of plants or animals in which one benefits at the expense of the other, sometimes without killing it." (Encyclopedia Britannica) not the same species. While the fetus may be at a different stage of life than a full grown human, it is still a human and thus not part of a separate species.
We don't have to create the "illusion" that a zygote is a clump of cells; that's just what it is. It lacks any defining features other than a mass of tissue and blood.
A zygote, is the initial cell formed when two gamete cells are joined by means of sexual reproduction. In multicellular organisms, it is the earliest developmental stage of the embryo.
Er... yes, yes it is. All multi-celled organisms are a clump of cells.. A gamete is a cell. Two or more gametes = clump of cells. Two or more diploids = clump of cells. In the case of humans, 50 trillion diploids = clump of cells.
All multi-celled organisms are a clump of cells. Yes. But a gamete is a different type of cell. multi-celled organism is not a clump of "gamete" cells.
I know a gamete is a cell, but 1 gamete + 1 gamete = 2 gametes, ie, a clump. With humans, 50 trillion diploid cells all combined are a clump, but each one is of course not a clump.
On second thought, maybe you need more than two to be a clump, eliminating zygotes mostly (and even then they have a single cell stage, if a very small one).
Fuck I dunno, why don't we just give it a unique name? Like Trevor or something. So human life would be
Single cell ------------------------> Trevor ------------------------------> Multi cell.
Given the many forms life takes on this planet, I do not consider lungs, personality, brain, consciousness, bones, face, thought and stuff like that to be defining features of life.
Ypou misunderstand my point. I'm talking about defining features you can refer to a person by (i.e. the girl with red hair, the fat guy, the bitchy old lady, etc) which are absent in a zygote. The only way you can really discribe a zygote is "a clump of cells" because that's what it is, that's it's physical appearance, and it lacks any other defining features to refer to it by. So calling a zygote a "clump of cells" isn't a deliberate illusion fabricated by the pro-choice agenda, it's simply the most accurate way to refer to a zygote.
Thank you for all the pictures of aborted fetuses (feti?).
Do you assume I don't know how a embryo develops into a baby in the womb? I've never for the life of me understood why anti-choicers constantly link pictures of aborted fetuses to support their point, which seems to be: We shouldn't terminate it because awwwwww look at the cute little toes omg so cute!!! Anyone who has taken an elementary health class or any biology knows how a egg and a sperm develop into a baby; pointing out these simple facts of human biology does nothing for your argument unless you count emotional trickery as a valid tactic in arguments.
And once again you've so completely missed my point I can only assume you're doing it deliberately. Which is fine, I guess, I just wish you'd stick to either being serious or being a troll, at least within debates, perhaps.
When a "baby" is a only a grouping of somewhere around 2 to a few hundred cells, and lacks all of the defining features I listed, all of the defining features you listed, and all the other defining features like them we could possibly list, what the fuck is wrong with referring to this clump of cells as a clump of cells? That's what it is. We're technically clumps of cells, too, but we have lots of other features you could refer to us by. That's all you can refer to a clump of cells by when it is in fact a clump of cells. I don't understand why this is an issue or why you feel you can dance and pussyfoot around the issue by linking me pictures of aborted babies. I really don't.
Really? Let me give you MY perspective. You stated that a fetus was nothing more than a clump of cells with NO defining features. YOU did NOT specify a TIME FRAME. So if it makes you cream your jeans, then YES. Before 2 months a fetus is a clump of cells. Happy? EXCEPT that abortions are typically done AFTER 2 months. My response was based on a typical time frame for an abortion AND the fact that you said that a fetus is nothing more than a clump of cells with NO defining features. Now..., it seemed to me that, as far as you are concerned, a fetus is a fetus until he/she is born. It takes 9 months for a fetus to be born. That means that for 7 fucking months that fetus HAS defining features. If you wanted to specify only the first 2 months of it's life, then you should have made that clear.
Finally..., aborted fetuses don't come out looking that nice. Those embryos are still intact.
Why do you support arguments when you're disputing them?
You stated that a fetus was nothing more than a clump of cells with NO defining features. YOU did NOT specify a TIME FRAME.
For someone who spends their time educating pro-choicers on the stages of embryonic development, you don't seem to know a whole lot about the process. I said a zygote is a clump of cells with no defining features. In calling it a zygote I DID specify a TIME FRAME.
So if it makes you cream your jeans, then YES. Before 2 months a fetus is a clump of cells. Happy?
I don't know about cream; I was just trying to correct your mistake. I am glad we took care of it, though.
EXCEPT that abortions are typically done AFTER 2 months.
I don't see what this has to do with your premise.
That means that for 7 fucking months that fetus HAS defining features. If you wanted to specify only the first 2 months of it's life, then you should have made that clear.
I like how you're trying to turn this back around on me like I was the one who wasn't being specific enough. You said that calling a developing baby a clump of cells is a deliberate illusion fabricated by pro-choicers to make abortion more socially acceptable; I am pointing out that sometimes "a clump of cells" is really the best possible way to describe a zygote, so your conspiracy theory is bunk. It doesn't matter for the sake of my argument that a fetus has defining features for 7 months, nor does it defend your mistake; the fact that it doesn't for any period of time (the period of time I specifically referenced, in fact, despite that you didn't manage to catch it) means "a clump of cells" is sometimes an accurate and applicable term and not a meticulously designed weapon of baby-murders, as you would have us believe.
Even if I hadn't specified a timeframe, which i did, my argument would still stand; a zygote, fetus, developing baby, whatever you want to call it, can be called "a clump of cells" and have it be an accurate description and not a deliberate slander.
Finally..., aborted fetuses don't come out looking that nice. Those embryos are still intact.
The most famous pictures used by anti-choicers to show how pretty and beautiful babies are in the womb are actually pictures of aborted babies. I always found this funny, which I why I mentioned it here. The fact that the process most typically used to abort a baby wouldn't result in a picture that intact doesn't mean a picture of a fetus isn't necessarily a picture of an aborted fetus; they can extract embryos quite delicately, if they want to. Nowadays it's a little easier to take a snap-shot in the womb, but back in the day when this movement began it's propaganda campaign, all the pictures were of aborted babies. I can't really speak to the individual pictures you showed me, but I can refute your assertion that fetuses never come out looking like that.
You said that calling a developing baby a clump of cells is a deliberate illusion fabricated by pro-choicers to make abortion more socially acceptable
OK. So what's your explanation? They are calling a fetus a parasite as a form of endearment ;)
"a clump of cells" is sometimes an accurate and applicable term and not a meticulously designed weapon of baby-murders, as you would have us believe.
So let me see if I understand what you are trying to say. When abortionists call a fetus a parasite, they are only referring to the first 2 months of its development and they are NOT trying to justify aborting said fetus all the way up to the 24th week ;)
a zygote, fetus, developing baby, whatever you want to call it, can be called "a clump of cells" and have it be an accurate description and not a deliberate slander.
I disagree 100%. To classify a fetus that is past 2 months old as just a clump of cells is misleading at best and a deliberate attempt to dehumanize it, at worst. That's like saying that me calling you an ass hole is just male bonding. ;)
I can refute your assertion that fetuses never come out looking like that.
Right. Because if you are going to take something out, that you are just going to throw away, you want to be as delicate and as careful as possible. ;)
Now, let's go back to YOUR previous argument:
When a "baby" is a only a grouping of somewhere around 2 to a few hundred cells, and lacks all of the defining features I listed, all of the defining features you listed, and all the other defining features like them we could possibly list, what the fuck is wrong with referring to this clump of cells as a clump of cells? That's what it is.
I think that it is clear that the mistake is yours for confusing the issue. The word, "Zygote" does not appear any where in there but the word "baby" does. So excuse me if I had a hard time understanding what the fuck you were talking about ;)
The one that I just gave: they call a zygote a clump of cells because that's what it is.
So let me see if I understand what you are trying to say.
It's hard for me to believe you're trying to understand what I'm saying when you go on to deliberately characterize my position immediately after you wrote this.
To classify a fetus that is past 2 months old as just a clump of cells is misleading at best and a deliberate attempt to dehumanize it, at worst.
Would it be possible for you to dispute my arguments and not the ones you claim I am making; not the words you put in my mouth?
Because if you are going to take something out, that you are just going to throw away, you want to be as delicate and as careful as possible. ;)
Christ, man, 3 posts in a row completely misunderstood; you should stick to trolling, because serious debating doesn't suit you. Unless this is trolling. I still can't really tell.
I think that it is clear that the mistake is yours for confusing the issue. The word, "Zygote" does not appear any where in there but the word "baby" does. So excuse me if I had a hard time understanding what the fuck you were talking about ;)
Can you read? I think it's clear the mistake is mine... if you're illiterate. I've used "zygote" over every other term at least 8 times in this thread alone. When I refer to a fetus or a zygote as a baby I make a point to put it in quotes. If you had a hard time understanding what I was talking about, you don't need to be excused, you need remedial English classes.
And throughout this post you've done a splendid job of showing your gratuitous amounts of butt hurt over being corrected, and not one genuine admission that you fucked up your terms and made a poorly supported assertion. You've done as much snidely and sarcastically, but I hardly consider that owning up to your mistake.
A zygote, is the initial cell formed when two gamete cells are joined by means of sexual reproduction. In multicellular organisms, it is the earliest developmental stage of the embryo.
The cell formed by the union of two gametes, especially a fertilized ovum before cleavage.
A zygote is NOT a clump of cells.
Here's what I'm getting. You want to change the definition of the word, "zygote" so that it includes the other stages of fetus development. You want to do this in order to then go back and change the definition of the word, "parasite" so that it can be applied to a fetus. And you want to do this because the world needs a word that describes the relationship between a woman and her fetus. Presumably because the words we currently have and use for that relationship doesn't support your argument? :)
BTW, I hope you are not butt hurt over being corrected ;)
I also wonder if you will admit that you fucked up your terms ;)
I don't think that word, "zygote" means what you think it means ;
It means exactly what I think it means. Even when the zygote is a single cell it is surrounded by other cells, and by the time it reaches the next stage of development it will already have almost 100 cells. So at very least a zygote is a cell with a clump of cells around it, at most a clump of cells within a clump of cells.
But I don't see how this supports your position; is calling a "baby" "a single cell" better than "a clump of cells?" It seems like even if I had fucked up my terms, which I didn't, we would still be left with you complaining about slanderous abortionist propaganda.
You want to change the definition of the word, "zygote" so that it includes the other stages of fetus development.
Don't want to; don't need to. Zygote perfectly describes what I was trying to describe. There is nothing that says once cell division begins the thing is no longer a zygote. The zygote is initially formed before cleavage, which is what you pointed out, but it doesn't stop being a zygote after that. Not immediately, anyways.
You want to do this in order to then go back and change the definition of the word, "parasite" so that it can be applied to a fetus.
My arguments for why a zygote can be called a clump of cells and why a fetus could be called a parasite are not one in the same. They're separate. And I'm also not suggesting that we "change" the definition, simply that we ignore one of it's factors, which is something we do regularly with words. For example, not all religions match up to every sub definition of religion in the dictionary; that doesn't mean the religions in question aren't religions.
And you want to do this because the world needs a word that describes the relationship between a woman and her fetus. Presumably because the words we currently have and use for that relationship doesn't support your argument? :)
My argument is that the words are applicable, not that we should murder babies. So I didn't make this argument because the words don't support my argument; the words are my argument.
BTW, I hope you are not butt hurt over being corrected ;)
Even if I had been, I wouldn't be butthurt. I am a little peeved that you thought attempting to correct my terms meant you could ignore the meat of my post, but I'll learn to forgive and forget, in time.
I also wonder if you will admit that you fucked up your terms ;)
If you actually do manage to successfully correct me, I promise I will give a genuine admission and apology, as opposed to the snide and sarcastic way you do the same.
I will concede this: "Once the egg is fertilized, the zygote begins a two-week period of rapid cell division and will eventually become an embryo."
"The period of the zygote lasts for about four days. Around the fifth day, the mass of cells becomes known as a blastocyst. The germinal period will last for fourteen days, after which the embryonic period will begin. The second period of development lasts from two weeks after conception through the eighth week, during which time the organism is known as an embryo. At the ninth week post-conception, the fetal period begins. From this point until birth, the organism will be known as a fetus."
So, a zygote lasts anywhere from 4 days to 2 weeks.
After 2 months (8 weeks), I no longer consider it a clump of cells. After 2 months, I consider it a human being. Is that clearer? But I'm feeling generous so I'm willing to move that up to 9 weeks ;)
To simply "ignore" any of the factors of a given word renders that word practically worthless because, as this post is a testament, when words mean different things to 2 people having a discussion, a resolution..., an understanding, between the parties cannot be reached.
And the thing is that you recognize that only a small group of people would consent to applying the word "parasite" to a fetus. Do you deny that the word "parasite" has a negative connotation? Do you deny that most mothers to be do NOT consider their fetus a parasite? Why not just take the standard definition instead of suggesting a "new/modified" definition that includes a fetus? The "old" definition has served us well in the past. It only became a problem when someone decided to apply it to a fetus for their own selfish needs. ;)
I will concede this: "Once the egg is fertilized, the zygote begins a two-week period of rapid cell division and will eventually become an embryo."
"The period of the zygote lasts for about four days. Around the fifth day, the mass of cells becomes known as a blastocyst. The germinal period will last for fourteen days, after which the embryonic period will begin. The second period of development lasts from two weeks after conception through the eighth week, during which time the organism is known as an embryo. At the ninth week post-conception, the fetal period begins. From this point until birth, the organism will be known as a fetus."
So, a zygote lasts anywhere from 4 days to 2 weeks.
Right. This was all I was trying to assert. A zygote (and a blastocyst, for that matter), visually speaking, is a clump of cells.
After 2 months (8 weeks), I no longer consider it a clump of cells. After 2 months, I consider it a human being. Is that clearer? But I'm feeling generous so I'm willing to move that up to 9 weeks ;)
We never clarified time parameters on when you or I thought abortion was acceptable, so I'm glad we cleared that up. I'm not for abortions all the way up to 8 months and 29 days, like I know some people are, but for me it's less about the fetus having the physical characteristics of a human and more about the creature in question having significant brain activity beyond twitches and sparks. Anything based on physical characteristics just struck me as overtly emotional; you notice these arguments always point towards the developing babies heart, or toes, or eyes, all cute little socially acceptable things. No anti-choicer ever argues that then the baby has develops an anus and a spleen it should be considered human. So if we're going to pick random, arbitrary body parts to draw the line at, I pick the brain once it's up and running.
To simply "ignore" any of the factors of a given word renders that word practically worthless because, as this post is a testament, when words mean different things to 2 people having a discussion, a resolution..., an understanding, between the parties cannot be reached.
I think you generally do this in regards to ever other word you use all the time except when you decide to get to rigorous about it. Look, no definitions are universal, and most definitions have multiple aspects, multiple bullet points with different and oftentimes seperate parts of the definiton listed. For, example, "religion," off of MW, has all this shit:
1 a : the state of a religious
b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
Now, when someone uses the word "religion" in a phrase like, say, "NHL was his religion," you don't bust out your dictionary to check to make sure his usage of the word meets every single criteria of the definition. No, because it meets a significant portion of them, and because you know how and why the word can be applied in that context, you let it slide and leave your dictionary out of it.
Similarly, you know how and why "parasite" can be applied to "fetus," it meets most of the criteria for the definition, but you're being unusually, oddly, perhaps unfairly technical about its use because you don't like it, not because you think language and understanding would fall apart if we weren't that rigorous with our words all the time.
So the reasons you treat "parasite" as a word differently than "religion" as a word are your own bias and a semi-serious slippery slope logical fallacy.
And the thing is that you recognize that only a small group of people would consent to applying the word "parasite" to a fetus. Do you deny that the word "parasite" has a negative connotation? Do you deny that most mothers to be do NOT consider their fetus a parasite?
I have no idea how many people would consent to calling their fetuses "parasites;" I have spent very little time around pregnant women, and have no statistics otherwise to support that idea either way.
I think "parasite" does have negative connotations; I think some of the things a fetus does, like mooching off the food the mom eats, like weighing her down as a physical burden, and fucking with her body chemistry and making her sick, are negative things even if they serve a greater purpose. So I could understand a soon-to-be mother throwing her hands up and saying something along the times of "this fucking parasite" when she just got done yacking, or eating her 6th meal of the day, or making it difficult for her to move and stand, because "parasite" is a negative word to fit a negative situation.
My parents have called me some pretty choice names over the years, but i never really questioned the fact that they loved me, and I'm certain they didn't call me those names to try to justify retroactive abortion on me. So I'm not going to agree or assert that people shouldn't call fetuses parasites, because I don't think it's as damaging and dire as all that.
Why not just take the standard definition instead of suggesting a "new/modified" definition that includes a fetus? The "old" definition has served us well in the past. It only became a problem when someone decided to apply it to a fetus for their own selfish needs.
Haha it only became a problem when you made it a problem. I don't think we have to change or modify the definition in order for it to apply to a fetus, I think we just have to treat it like any other word and it does that itself.
So the reasons you treat "parasite" as a word differently than "religion" as a word are your own bias and a semi-serious slippery slope logical fallacy.
That is not true. I try to be very strict about the meaning of words. For example, I am not against gays having marriage benefits. I am an advocate of the use of the words "Civil Union" for all government documents referring to couples in a committed relationship (both gay and heterosexual). I am not, however, in favor of modifying the word "marriage" to include gays. The reason is NOT that I am biased or a homophobic or a bigot. It is because I am an engineer and I come from a different country. I am already pissed off that English spelling is screwed up and a lost cause. But as an engineer I aim to be very precise in my communication and having a bunch of different meanings screws that up.
My statement stands: To simply "ignore" any of the factors of a given word renders that word practically worthless because, as this post is a testament, when words mean different things to 2 people having a discussion, a resolution..., an understanding, between the parties cannot be reached.
So I'm not going to agree or assert that people shouldn't call fetuses parasites, because I don't think it's as damaging and dire as all that.
Calling a fetus a parasite is NOT damaging. It is dehumanizing. And the examples I know of, where dehumanization was used, all lead towards the manipulation of the perception of one group of people towards another. If no manipulation is required, then dehumanization is not used.
That is not true. I try to be very strict about the meaning of words. For example,
So if I were to say, "he's married to his laptop," you would have no idea what the fuck I was talking about? You would say, "but a marriage is a union between a man and a woman, not a man and a laptop, the word "marriage" has absolutely no place here and I don't know why you said it."
If I said, "my back is killing me," would you be looking for my back to be gunning me down?
"I eat eggo waffles religiously," do you expect me to be bowing before my plate and praying after each bite?
"That ride was so gay," do you actually think the roller coaster has homosexual feelings towards other roller coasters?
"I just ate and I'm still hungry; this fetus is such a parasite!" would you actually expect the fetus to be a different species?
My father is an engineer, too, and I know you're a very rigorous and technical breed of employee, but you can't expect me to believe you wouldn't understand what I mean when I use any of the words I just used in a not very technical manner. You are not as literal as you might like to think you are for the sake of this debate; nobody is.
My statement stands: To simply "ignore" any of the factors of a given word renders that word practically worthless because, as this post is a testament, when words mean different things to 2 people having a discussion, a resolution..., an understanding, between the parties cannot be reached.
Only if one or more person gets wayyyyy to technical about it. Indeed, in my experience, no definitions are universal, so you have to come to the table prepared to discuss what you think terms mean and what your opposition thinks terms mean. So we don't even have to agree on a definition for the sake of argument; it just has to be discussed, which is what we're doing now. I've mentioned before I found definitions of parasite that don't even mention species, and I could use that to argue that technically a fetus is a parasite, but I think we can still use the definition you want to use if only we treat it like every other word we use every day, and don't get unusually technical about it.
Calling a fetus a parasite is NOT damaging. It is dehumanizing. And the examples I know of, where dehumanization was used, all lead towards the manipulation of the perception of one group of people towards another. If no manipulation is required, then dehumanization is not used.
You could compare someone to a lion and it would be dehumanizing but hardly an insult or a bad thing.
While I agree that calling a fetus a parasite is dehumanizing, I still don't find it to be an inaccurate description.
Chuck made the point that when the Nazis dehumanized the Jews by calling them rats, that was a baseless slander that was designed to compare a repulsive thing to an unrelated group of people. The definition of "rat" looks absolutely nothing like the definition of "Jew" or "human being." But the nature of a fetus is comparable to the nature of a parasite in every aspect except one, and that one aspect isn't even present in all definitions. So you're not really comparing like with like, you're comparing horrific, genocidal propaganda schemes to a relatively fair an accurate description of a fetus.
The problem was that you were using "parasite" as an analogy and I was using the more formal definition. A parasite/host relationship is between different species.
OK..., yeah..., I do get wayyy too technical. But only with 3 "y's" not 4 "y's." I think you exaggerate when you use 4 "y's" ;)
Exactly. We are hashing out the definition so that there are no misunderstandings. Agreed.
I don't think comparing someone to a lion is dehumanizing because lions don't normally have a bad connotations. I mean..., I don't think most people would be offended by the comparison.
The part that I find inaccurate about calling a fetus a parasite is that the host would want to get rid of his parasite if he was capable because of the resulting negative side effects the parasite has on their health. Most mothers do not want to kill their fetus due to the resulting negative side effects the fetus has on their health. The negative side effects of a parasite can be serious. The negative side effects of a fetus are normally not serious. To me, calling a fetus a parasite is gross exaggeration.
Disclaimer: The parasites I described in the above paragraph are the ones that people are normally aware of because of their negative effects on the host's health. The parasites that have a “symbiotic” relationship with their host are not as common because they rarely cause any problems. In other words, people focus on the bad shit ;)
So..., I guess if we preface your usage of the word "parasite" in reference to a fetus as a “symbiotic” relationship with the mother..., that would be OK. ;)
This goes back to the "defining features" part of my argument. Obviously, at a base level, we're all clumps of cells. But we have lots of other things about our appearance and personality you could refer to us by; a zygote doesn't. All it has is a clump of cells; all it is is a clump of cells. That's it. If someone showed you a picture of a zygote and told you to describe it to them, you would say, "a cell/a clump of cells." Unless you refer to something other than the zygote (i.e. the parents) you don't really have a lot of descriptive power over a zygote.
OK..., that's fine..., but let's be clear (or come to some agreement) that a zygote is the specific period before 4 weeks. Or..., if you like, before 2 months. OK? Just to pacify my analness ;)
After 2 months, there are definite characteristics. Whether or not you can differentiate them is besides the point. They are still there. I mean..., even if a certain nationality or ethnicity all look alike to you, there are still differences ;)
For example, the pictures I sent, have feet, hands, head, etc. And even though you may not be able to differentiate with the naked eye, your brain tells you that if every person has unique finger prints, then fetuses must have a unique characteristic after 2 months.
I go out of my way to use "zygote" instead of "fetus" in abortion debates because zygotes are the stage of development where a human doesn't really look much like a human, so it's best for throwing pro-lifers who think life begins at conception but use pictures of 8 month old fetuses to support their point for a loop.
Fetuses absolutely do have defining features most of the time they're in the womb; my point was that sometimes they don't, in the early days.
Your first mistake is to consider me a pro-lifer ;)
Look, I said it in my very first argument, " if you want to have an abortion, then by all means..., go right ahead. I will not lift a finger to stop you."
Regardless. I'm just glad we have made progress and have come to an agreement.
People who are pro-choice are not baby killers, they are just uninformed. The doctors are the killers, not the parents or the voters who elected politicians to keep it legal.
Being uninformed may cause a different opinion. For instance, lets say you thought Iraq had WMD's, then invading them might seem like a good idea. Yes, you "have a different opinion than yourself is all" but it is still not a great opinion to have. I am not one of those "there are no bad opinions" type of person, because there are some very stupid ones.
While you might not agree with the connotation of parasite, it is biologically speaking correct. A parasite is defined as an organism that lives off another without any benefit to the host. Fetus' gain all their nutrients and an environment to live from the mother, and biologically give nothing back. Again you might not agree with the negative connotation of the word parasite, but biologically it is accurate.
You say a parasite provides no bennift to it's host, yet among the basic life processes is the ability to reproduce and to continue one's genetic characteristics in the population. Without the fetus, there would be no reproduction.
Also, a parasite is an organism that engages in is a parasitism-based. the definition of parasitism is a "relationship between two species of plants or animals in which one benefits at the expense of the other, sometimes without killing it." (Encyclopedia Britannica) not the same species. While the fetus may be at a different stage of life than a full grown human, it is still a human and thus not part of a separate species.
You can not stress this enough so I'm going to help.
The definition of parasitism is "a relationship between two species of plants or animals in which one benefits at the expense of the other, sometimes without killing it." (Encyclopedia Britannica) not the same species. While the fetus may be at a different stage of life than a full grown human, it is still a human and thus not part of a separate species. ;)
I once had a friend who was couch-crashing at my apartment (not my decision) and he was a total mooch. He ate all our food, made messes he didn't pick up, borrowed money he oftentimes didn't pay back, etc. I frequently referred to this friend as a "parasite." Nobody once said, "No! According to Encyclopedia Britannica a parasitic relationship must be between two different species, so you're an ignorant fool to call your friend a parasite because he is clearly human, like you! Ha!" Nobody pointed this out because they understood what I meant in calling my friend a parasite and our relationship was, indeed, parasitic (in every regard save our species). Even though my description didn't adhere to the more subtle nuances of a technical biological definition, people still accepted the term as applicable.
That raises an odd question: what do you call a relationship where a plant or animal of the same species benefits at the expense of another, sometimes without killing it? Aside from a mooch?
Anyways, I think the term "parasite" can be applied as a reasonable term to describe a zygote or a fetus or what have you, and not have it mean one is taking the first step to condoning abortion, because "parasitic" pretty accurately describes the relationship between a zygote and it's mother, even if it's not 100% accurate. We cant analyze everything everyone says by it's textbook definition. Nobody thinks or talks like that. If I were to tell you, "my back is killing me," would you expect to see my back literally in the process of ending my life or would you expect me to have an ache in my back?
You can also find definitions that don't mention species, so... it's not like Encyclopedia Britannica is universal law when it comes to definitions, and that seems to be they keystone of your entire argument; without it, a zygote is technically a parasite and then calling a fetus a parasite isn't the first step towards condoning abortion, it's medically accurate.
You are right. Languages allow for analogies. However, my argument is not that I am a purist and that a fetus, therefore, cannot be called a parasite. I do allow for analogies. My argument goes deeper than that.
The word, "mooch," has negative connotations. The word, "parasite," also has negative connotations. So the analogy is not too far off. However, the words "fetus" and "parasite" are an oxymoron. So you have to dig deeper to understand why people are making this analogy. Especially when you consider that most people making this particular analogy are not using it as a term of endearment. Name one person who calls their fetus a "parasite" in order to show endearment towards him/her. So there are other reasons at work here. And I claim that those reasons are to either ease guilt or to condition human thinking towards accepting abortion as a viable option or both.
Now..., why should I care? Well..., if we start changing the meaning of words within one generation in order to condition the populace into accepting something that would otherwise be unthinkable, then I am in danger. The number of old people in the U.S. is staggering when compared to the number of working, young, individuals who will eventually end up paying for maintaining these people alive. If that burden becomes unbearable, then within a generation or less, the language will change to declare old people as "parasites." The obvious solution, of course, is to abort their wrinkled, old ass. Did I mention I was selfish? I don't sugar coated. Why should anyone ;)
The word, "mooch," has negative connotations. The word, "parasite," also has negative connotations. So the analogy is not too far off.
But what do we call a relationship between two members of the same species where one benefits at the expense of another? Parasitic? Negative connotation. Mooching? Negative connotation.
Name one person who calls their fetus a "parasite" in order to show endearment towards him/her.
My aunt. This habit actually continued past birth, as well, for multiple children.
If that burden becomes unbearable, then within a generation or less, the language will change to declare old people as "parasites." The obvious solution, of course, is to abort their wrinkled, old ass. Did I mention I was selfish?
Okay, okay. I see where you're coming from. What I don't understand now is why this debate isn't titled "Calling a doctor a baby-killer is the first step to condoning murder." Personally I'd be a lot more worried about people who think they have the right to end your life because you don't agree with their personal beliefs than people who want to lessen a burden by killing you. If we actually genuinely cannot continue to support your wrinkled old ass and we have to let you go, that sucks, but I think it's a much better reason to end someones life than "I didn't like what he did for a profession because the Bible tells me so." I don't know if you've ever been in the position of having to take someone off of life support, but it's not a sadistic, malicious action; it's thought out and solemn. If we had to "abort" old people because society couldn't support them, I expect it would go much the same. In comparison we have religious fanatics cheering as an abortion clinic burns to the ground, or as a doctor lies in a pool of his own blood with a bullet in his face. I would be much, much more worried about the latter situation. Abortion isn't gleeful or excessive or violent; the opposition to it is.
But what do we call a relationship between two members of the same species where one benefits at the expense of another?
Well..., in my day..., we used to call it a baby ;)
"Calling a doctor a baby-killer is the first step to condoning murder." True. But..., more fetuses are killed each year than doctors who perform abortions. So the title to my debate stands as is.
So... in your day you called a moochy roommate "baby?"
My point is "parasitic" is a perfectly applicable term if you don't get too technical and rigorous about it (i.e. if you treat it like every other word you use in day to day speech), and, in fact, there isn't really another word that fits the bill of describing that kind of relationship, at least not that we can think of, so it becomes applicable out of necessity. Well, unless you want to go around calling moochy, parasitic people "baby," but I'm not going to do that.
And to me intent is usually as if not more concerning than pure statistics. For example I think a psychotic maniac who raped and butchered one young girl is more of a threat to society than a bus driver who killed two people in a accident. Similarly, I find fanatics who are willing to gleefully slaughter other humans because they don't agree with their fanatical interpretation of the Bible (or whatever) far more concerning than doctors who solemnly carry out medical procedures, even if less humans are killed in the former instance.
You and I are on two totally different, parallel universes. How can we ever even begin to have a reasonable discussion if your words are as alien to me as mine may appear to you?
I find it hard to believe that you have never used the words, "Stop being such a baby." But hey..., whatever.
And you apparently have plenty of experience with women who call their fetus a parasite. Maybe that's the norm on your planet but it is not the norm on mine. If you want to state that one woman calling her fetus a parasite supports your case, then more power to you.
If I didn't answer your main point it is probably because I do not know what it is. See paragraph one above.
Malicious slaughter VS "solemn" medicine.
#1. To me, that's an oxymoron when you consider that doctors take a Hippocratic oath..., but hey..., whatever. ;)
#2. I have stated throughout this debate that I do not place value judgement. But I will do so here and now on the issue you brought up. Abortionists (doctors and women) are NOT doing it out of malicious intent..., they are doing it for selfish reasons. The doctor because he's going to get paid for performing a non-life threatening procedure, and the woman because she doesn't want to deal with the baby at this point in her life.
You and I are on two totally different, parallel universes. How can we ever even begin to have a reasonable discussion if your words are as alien to me as mine may appear to you?
You don't appear alien to me, just ignorant.
I find it hard to believe that you have never used the words, "Stop being such a baby." But hey..., whatever.
That's not the question you asked. Please refrain from characterizing what I say, I've had enough of that from you already.
And you apparently have plenty of experience with women who call their fetus a parasite.
I'm starting to detect a theme, here, actually. You literally can't say a word against any of my arguments unless you change, alter, and misconstrue them into your own straw men. This happens too often and too deliberately for me to think it is a mistake. Take this sentence, for example. I have clearly (again, if you understand English) stated that I have known ONE woman to do this; in fact I've already clarified this exact fucking point for your already when you mischaracterized it last time. Then you take what I said, change it into something you said, and then attack it as my own. I won't have it. Cut this shit out, seriously. Read my fucking posts and argue my position as I make it or I have no reason to write them to you...
If you want to state that one woman calling her fetus a parasite supports your case, then more power to you.
... and then you contradict yourself in the same paragraph. I don't even know what position I'm arguing against, anymore.
If I didn't answer your main point it is probably because I do not know what it is. See paragraph one above.
I'll give you a hint: it's the words that come after I started the middle paragraph with, "My point is..."
In fact, if you had read and addressed anything beyond my first sentence you would have had it covered. Unfortunately that wasn't the case; i refuse to believe this was due to a lack of understanding, though.
I have stated throughout this debate that I do not place value judgement.
You never said that to me; you've judged values before; you've been judging values in this debate prior to this post. So... the fuck? We all make judgements every day.
But I will do so here and now on the issue you brought up.
Er... again, no. The issue I brought up was that fundamentalists who murder doctors should be a more pressing concern than doctors who murder babies, from your point of view and mine.
I don't know what the hell you were talking about but once again it's only vaguely resembles anything I said.
;) Possibly the first time I have used a smiley to start an argument. Oh the irony of your remark. OK..., I'll play along. Below is your point.
My point is "parasitic" is a perfectly applicable term if you don't get too technical and rigorous about it (i.e. if you treat it like every other word you use in day to day speech), and, in fact, there isn't really another word that fits the bill of describing that kind of relationship, at least not that we can think of, so it becomes applicable out of necessity.
To me that means the following: "If you change the meaning of the word 'parasite' and get everyone to play along and use it, then we can apply it to a fetus because there's currently a dire need to describe that kind of relationship and the words we currently have and use just don't cut it."
Is that what you want me to address? Because that seems..., well..., let me not continue with the name calling ;)
As far as "the contradiction" all I can say is that the internet is in dire need of a sarcastic font ;)
you've been judging values in this debate prior to this post.
Show me.
The issue I brought up was that fundamentalists who murder doctors should be a more pressing concern than doctors who murder babies
First of all, I got that the first time around. I did NOT dispute that fundamentalists who murder doctors should be a more pressing concern
My response was regarding "intent."
And to me intent is usually as if not more concerning than pure statistics.
I said that Abortionists (doctors and women) are NOT doing it out of malicious intent which I believe is in line with your reasoning. I then continue with they are doing it for selfish reasons. which is in line with the topic of this debate.
I also got that "intent" is more important to you than the statistic that prove my point. ;)
;) Possibly the first time I have used a smiley to start an argument. Oh the irony of your remark. OK..., I'll play along. Below is your point.
I don't understand why where you put the troll trademark really matters. If you indicate that you're joking around before or after a serious sentence it's still equally confusing.
And you never got around to telling me why you support posts you are disputing.
Is that what you want me to address?
No, that's your straw man of what I wanted you to address. But I'm coming to understand you have a kind of straw man filter that prevents any arguments you disagree with from reaching your brain intact and in their original form; by the time you read and process the argument, you've already changed and morphed the aspects of that argument into something you can more easily deal with. So if I let you address that or attempt to clarify my point again I feel we'd still end up right back where we are now, with you rewriting my posts in your own words.
Show me.
Actually if you just go and look at the very first thing you posted on this debate you will see a value judgement. Well, presumably it's the first; it's at the top.
First of all, I got that the first time around. I did NOT dispute that fundamentalists who murder doctors should be a more pressing concern
Actually you argued that it should be a less pressing concern that abortions because more babies are killed than doctors. Which I why I brought up intent.
I said that Abortionists (doctors and women) are NOT doing it out of malicious intent which I believe is in line with your reasoning. I then continue with they are doing it for selfish reasons. which is in line with the topic of this debate.
You understand my confusion when I'm trying to get us to compare the mentalities of abortionists to abortionist murderers, and you're only talking about the intent of the abortionists. I understand now, it just wasn't explicitly stated prior.
On a side note about "selfish reasons," I agree with you that choosing to have an abortion is selfish, but in that particular context the word isn't as negative as it might usually be. See, being selfish is only bad if you're being partial to yourself over other people. Otherwise it's just focusing on yourself, which is a good thing. No, somebody has to get the short end in order for selfishness to be bad. If you're supposed to be sharing a cake with your friend and you eat the whole cake, that's selfish. If you we're alone with a cake and you ate the cake, it's not selfish.
In the case of abortion (I understand we'll never agree on this, but I'm explaining my rational) you have the choice of making the person who would be getting the short end of selfishness not exist. Obviously you see a single cell the same as a person, so you feel there is a person who is getting shafted by its mother's selfishness. For me, that's not a person that exists yet; there's only the mother and the doctor and the potential for life. So if she chooses to focus on herself, from where I'm sitting, she didn't choose to focus on herself over anyone else, so I have a hard time seeing it as selfish and instead see it as self aware.
Clearly I don't think we'll be able to reconcile this position, as it's based on a fundamental difference we have when it comes to recognizing human life, but I did want to explain why, from my perspective, abortions aren't selfish.
OK..., I see that I have to clarify something. I do not place a value judgement on selfishness. I do not say it is good nor do I say it is bad. It just is. When I say I do not place a value judgement, I mean that I see it as just being. I don't see it as good nor do I see it as being bad. Good and bad are the value judgements I'm talking about placing.
Second, and this is important..., I do NOT see a single cell as a person.
One single cell is NOT a person. One single cell is a zygote. But the zygote state doesn't last long. After the first cell division, it is no longer a zygote. I still don't consider 2 cells a person. It isn't until about 8 weeks where I say, "hey..., wait a minute..., that looks like a person. The defining features are feet, hands, head, etc." And most abortions occur AFTER 2 months.
Having said all of that, the definition of the word "selfish" is Lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure.
After 2 months I see a fetus as a person. I don't care if you chose to kill it. But here's is the crux of my argument.
When people decide to have an abortion, after 2 months, instead of putting it up for adoption, the majority of those people are NOT doing it because they got raped and got pregnant. They are NOT doing it because of incest. They are NOT doing it because the birth will kill the mother. Most of them are doing it because a child at that point in their life will screw up their life plans and goals. And that, my friend, is selfish by definition.
Now, as to why I support..., Because I really don't think we are too far apart on this.
I have conceded the following points that you have made:
1. I participate in the destruction of life on a routine basis.
2. Before 2 months I consider it a clump of cells.
3. Calling a doctor a baby-killer is the first step to condoning murder.
4. Fundamentalist who murder doctors should be more of a concern.
5. Abortionists are not doing it out of malicious intent.
I have rejected the following:
1. A zygote consists of a clump of cells. I contend that a zygote is a single cell.
2. A fetus has no defining features. I contend that after 2 months, a fetus does have defining features.
3. Calling a fetus a parasite should be perfectly acceptable. I contend that most mothers find that word, when applied to their fetus, as offensive. But more importantly, that word is used, more often than not, as a ploy meant to dehumanize a fetus in order to further the legality of abortions.
Now..., if only I had a red, Christmas, bow to wrap it all up, nice and neat ;)
Second, and this is important..., I do NOT see a single cell as a person.
One single cell is NOT a person. One single cell is a zygote. But the zygote state doesn't last long. After the first cell division, it is no longer a zygote. I still don't consider 2 cells a person. It isn't until about 8 weeks where I say, "hey..., wait a minute..., that looks like a person. The defining features are feet, hands, head, etc." And most abortions occur AFTER 2 months.
I didn't know this about you but I feel like we covered most of this in the other post; you conceded the zygote point and we compared when and why we make the cutoff for a human being.
After 2 months I see a fetus as a person. I don't care if you chose to kill it. But here's is the crux of my argument.
When people decide to have an abortion, after 2 months, instead of putting it up for adoption, the majority of those people are NOT doing it because they got raped and got pregnant. They are NOT doing it because of incest. They are NOT doing it because the birth will kill the mother. Most of them are doing it because a child at that point in their life will screw up their life plans and goals. And that, my friend, is selfish by definition.
If you don't see any of this as good or bad what are you arguing for or about? If you don't care, you don't judge, and you don't think the subject in discussion is bad, why did you make a debate about it?
Now, as to why I support..., Because I really don't think we are too far apart on this.
You're still doing a hell of a lot more disputing than you are agreeing, as am I.
I have conceded the following points that you have made:
1. I participate in the destruction of life on a routine basis.
2. Before 2 months I consider it a clump of cells.
3. Calling a doctor a baby-killer is the first step to condoning murder.
4. Fundamentalist who murder doctors should be more of a concern.
5. Abortionists are not doing it out of malicious intent.
Great. In conceding these points I think you negated a few of the points you made in the debate description, I think you made this debate seem trivial, biased, and unnecessary in admitting that the opposition should actually be of more concern, and shot yourself in the foot in regards to making any kind of judgement on the subject, which apparently you didn't intend to do, anyways, but you position oozes "pro-life," so I don't think you're as impartial as you could be.
I have rejected the following:
1. A zygote consists of a clump of cells. I contend that a zygote is a single cell.
2. A fetus has no defining features. I contend that after 2 months, a fetus does have defining features.
3. Calling a fetus a parasite should be perfectly acceptable. I contend that most mothers find that word, when applied to their fetus, as offensive. But more importantly, that word is used, more often than not, as a ploy meant to dehumanize a fetus in order to further the legality of abortions.
1. You conceded this in a later post, so we can move it to the "concede" list, above.
2. That's not a point I made; you can reject it, if you like, but it doesn't belong in our debate.
3. So we're really left with one thing you're rejecting; the term "parasite," and it comes down to you speaking on behalf of mothers everywhere and to your conspiracy theory.
Lets examine these.
First of all, are you proposing that the word be made illegal when applied to a fetus? I don't think you are, but it's perfectly within a mothers right to call a fetus a parasite if she wants. It's my right to refer to them as such, too. So your contention that mothers find the word offensive doesn't really have any place here, it seems, unless you are proposing a slander law, which you haven't said anything about.
So then there's your conspiracy theory. Do you have anything other than speculation and conjecture and a vague link to Naziism to support this theory that the term "parasite" was deliberately engineered by abortionists to dehumanize a fetus? If we ignore my assertions that I think the word is generally pretty applicable, what evidence or facts do you have to support your claim? To me it seems likely that the word came into use as it is now because that's the way language works. You're proposing there's a grander, more malicious scheme at work, here, and I'd like to know if you have anything tangible to support that theory.
At this point in the discussion, I think it's all you have left.
I made the debate because young people are going around saying, "Oh yeah, a fetus is a parasite." and they have no idea that they are being manipulated. I want them to know the truth and then decide.
I agree that people immediately jump on the, "You are Pro-Life" bandwagon. I get that a lot. People are not able to separate nuances. For example, one problem I always get from people is that if I'm angry, I hate them. They can't make the distinction between anger and hate. I am very sensitive to the meaning of words because I want to be perfectly clear.
I don't feel I have made any judgement. The message I am trying to get out is, "This is a manipulative tactic and you need to be aware of it before you decide." But people see things as black and white. As pro and con. I am either on your side and tow the line or I am not. that is very closed minded. I want people to recognize the nuances..., the shades of gray. The underlying tone.
To me, the younger generation is only interested in sound bytes. They do NOT want to do any critical thinking. they don't want to consider the implications. People want to label other people.
The debate is biased only in the sense that the format does not allow for another angle. For obvious reasons..., it's convoluted enough as it is. The "other" angle is that the other side is doing the same thing. They are using words and pictures to manipulate you to their side. But their side is kinda bland. So I don't bother with it. This side is controversial ;)
Now to the rest.
First of all, are you proposing that the word be made illegal when applied to a fetus? No. I am stating that it is being used as hyperbole. I mean..., like..., really? I mean..., REALLY!!! A parasite??? WOW!!!
Do you have anything other than speculation and conjecture and a vague link to Naziism to support this theory that the term "parasite" was deliberately engineered by abortionists to dehumanize a fetus?
Lol..., no..., I didn't get the memo so I missed the meeting ;) Now..., do you have anything other than speculation to support your theory that pictures of aborted fetuses are deliberately being used by pro-lifers to humanize a fetus?
If we ignore my assertions that I think the pictures are generally pretty applicable, what evidence or facts do you have to support your claim? To me it seems likely that the pictures came into use as it is now because that's the reality of abortions. You're proposing there's a grander, more malicious scheme at work, here, and I'd like to know if you have anything tangible to support that theory. ;)
My point is that both sides are doing it. if you deny one side..., you have to deny it for the other side as well. And I really don't care which side you pick. I have made it clear what side I'm on ;)
Now..., do you have anything other than speculation to support your theory that pictures of aborted fetuses are deliberately being used by pro-lifers to humanize a fetus?
My theory was that lots of pictures of fetuses, sometimes those used by pro-lifes, are not pictures of babies in the womb but pictures of aborted babies. I was under the impression this was mainly because flash photography inside the womb was a pain in ass back in the day, but apparently it's still going on:
The first one is talking about the dude in the 70s who used aborted babies to make pro-life propaganda showing how beautiful babies are.
The second one talks about how this is still common practice for people who want to take pictures of fetuses.
My point is that both sides are doing it. if you deny one side..., you have to deny it for the other side as well. And I really don't care which side you pick. I have made it clear what side I'm on ;)
Well, no, my theory is supported with facts and evidence and yours is propped up by baseless speculation and paranoia. So I don't have to deny one side if I deny the other; I can deny your side because it's poorly supported and my side isn't.
Lol..., no..., I didn't get the memo so I missed the meeting ;)
Okay I'd just like to recap thus far that the one point we have whittled your entire argument down to you now admit has literally no factual or statistical or tangible evidence to support it.
I don't often feel anyone ever "wins" or "loses" debates on this site, but this is about as close as I think I've ever seen it get.
To me, the younger generation is only interested in sound bytes. They do NOT want to do any critical thinking. they don't want to consider the implications. People want to label other people.
I don't really see generations changing all that much. Technology and society changes but people generally just adapt to go with the flow. We're obsessed with sound bytes, I'll admit, but the older generations was preoccupied with newspaper clippings and radio... bytes? Lol. And my generation has to remove the labels that previous generations bestowed in order to place their own. People don't change that much from generation to generation, we just keep getting older.
I don't feel I have made any judgement.
You argued to me that the word "parasite" has intrinsic negative connotations, and I agreed. I think similarly you would have to concede that most people consider hypocrisy and selfishness to be negative things, even if you explicitly stated that you personally don't think it's good or bad. And yet by the parameters of the debate, anyone who is on the opposing side is either a hypocrite, selfish, or both, and people see that as a negative judgement. Not everyone who reads those initial judgements will read this far down our debate thread to see that you don't actually judge those intrinsically bad things to be bad, I think they'll just think you're making a judgement.
I made the debate because young people are going around saying, "Oh yeah, a fetus is a parasite." and they have no idea that they are being manipulated. I want them to know the truth and then decide.
The message I am trying to get out is, "This is a manipulative tactic and you need to be aware of it before you decide." But people see things as black and white.
I know. Except thus far you haven't provided, well, anything to support your conspiracy theory. There was a lot of flim-flam packed around he gist of your argument and we've been chipping away at it since the beginning and now we're left with this one thing; my question is given how poorly supported this conspiracy theory is, given how you have been retreating from and conceding your points, one after another, since the start of the debate, and given that the opposition to your position is admittedly of greater concern, how can you think that spreading your paranoia and speculation is some kind of enlightening or truthful humanitarian mission? You haven't shown it to be enlightening or truthful!
OK..., so let me get this straight..., you think that I had this great, grandiose, argument/conspiracy theory meant to spread paranoia (a humanitarian mission) and that you whittled it down to one point? That I retreated and conceded to you and that you won the argument. You think highly of me and yourself ;)
I never had anything BUT one point. Your so called whittling down and my concessions mounts to nothing more than you and I disagreeing on terms and definitions. And then finally deciding on those terms and definitions in order to move the conversation along. You were hell bent on winning an argument..., I'm just trying to have a dialog. I mean..., think about it. Who is the biggest troll on this site? And who are you trying to have a "serious" debate with? ;)
What part of "Calling a fetus a parasite is the first step to condoning abortion" did I retreat or concede? The only part we are down to is that you want supporting evidence.
Here's that list, again, of what I conceded:
1. I participate in the destruction of life on a routine basis.
2. Before 2 months I consider it a clump of cells.
3. Calling a doctor a baby-killer is the first step to condoning murder.
4. Fundamentalist who murder doctors should be more of a concern.
5. Abortionists are not doing it out of malicious intent.
NONE of those things on that list have any bearing on the debate title.
I don't have a conspiracy theory. There's no conspiracy. There are only strategies and tactics used by both sides. But you want me to do some research on the web and give you some links that support my statement..., whatever. I'll get back to you.
In fact, the biological definition of “parasite” fits the fetal mode of growth precisely, especially since pregnancy causes a major upset to a woman’s body, just like a parasite does to its host. I’m not trying to disparage fetuses with the negative connotations of the word parasite; in fact, parasites and their hosts often enjoy mutually supportive relationships, and this would include most pregnancies. However, the parasitic relationship of a fetus to a woman means that its continued existence requires her consent[13] – if she continues the pregnancy unwillingly, her rights and bodily integrity are violated. Fetal dependence on a woman’s body also refutes the common anti-choice assertion that fetuses are “innocent” and therefore deserving of protection. An unwanted fetus has no ill intent of course – like a parasite, it’s just doing what it naturally has to do – but the physical risks of pregnancy and its total disruption to a woman’s body and life means the fetus is not harmless, and therefore not innocent.
There are, of course, numerous problems with that argument. For one thing, the fetus is a member of the same species as his or her mother, and therefore can’t be thought of as simplistically as you would a lower order of creature, like a tapeworm, invading your body. For another, fetuses aren’t foreign entities, but the natural result of the human body functioning correctly. Doesn’t the act of creating the “parasite” constitute at least tacit consent for it to take up residence inside you?
But the Sinai study demonstrates that the relationship between mother and unborn child can be more than just “mutually supportive.” Many mothers will discuss the intangible benefits of their pregnancy—joy, purpose, fulfillment, etc.—but if the study is correct, the mother also gets something much more quantifiable out of the deal: babies have the potential to actually heal their mothers, perhaps even save their lives, from within the womb. And that’s not the only known health benefit of pregnancy, either. How long will it be before we discover even more astounding ways that babies’ stem cells help their mothers?
Those looking for new biological terminology to describe pregnancy would be better off ditching “parasitic” for “symbiotic”: two organisms living together for mutual benefit. Think that’ll make it into Planned Parenthood’s educational efforts?
If the answer is, "No..., it will not make it into the Planned Parenthood's educational efforts." Then you'll have to ask yourself..., "Why not?"
A fetus is itself the gift back to the mother. Without the fetus there is no child, without the ability to produce children there is no human race. Also, a parasite is not the same species as it's host.
It's also a bit sickening when children are looked upon as a parasite. At least a lion lets his children be born before he eats them.
