Return to CreateDebate.comjaded • Join this debate community

Joe_Cavalry All Day Every Day


ChadOnSunday's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of ChadOnSunday's arguments, looking across every debate.

If she was on coke she would've got away, clean.

Sounds more like a tweaker to me.

And I still have a iPod and an IPod Mini that are 10 and 8 years old respectively, and they work just fine. I've never had any problems with my Apple computer.

I have to essentially bring my PCs back from the dead every couple years or so, though.

First of all, the woman in question is a regular shopper at Walmart. If there's any indicator she's an idiot, it's that, not the fact she wanted an iPad.

She was banned from Walmart prior to this incident for robbery, shoplifting, and trespassing, and came back to try to buy iPads with her food stamps. When this failed she just ran with the merch, assaulting two employees along the way. She then went to a different Walmart to try this "scam" again, where she was arrested.

Based on this story you might be able to argue that this woman is an insane delinquent, but I don't see how that says anything about Apple.

I can keep this up all day; lucky for me, words generally have antonyms.

Then I prefer the unusual . . . . .

Hahaha if 2001-2009 was "normal" I'll take the abnormal, any day.

Who doesn't bust faster wacking it over doing it? The whole point of masturbation for both guys and girls is to bust. Sex is a different kind of activity altogether; you're generally trying to prologue it.

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.

I can agree with all this.

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.

I'm going to do this in reverse order.

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:

http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2009/04/30/visualizing-the-fetus/

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/odyssey/nilsson.html

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!

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.

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 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."

http://psychology.about.com/od/zindex/g/ def_zygote.htm

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

3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness

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.

;) 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.

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.

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.

OK. So what's your explanation?

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.

So..., you have never said, to a moochy roommate, "Stop being such a baby, grow up and get a job?"

No.

And you have seen pregnant women and said, "How's the little parasite doing?"

No; she referred to her kids as parasites.

Does that about sum it up ;)

No; you didn't answer the main point of my post nor did you address the bit about malicious slaughter vs solemn medicine.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I would say, so?

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.


2 of 7 Pages: << Prev Next >>

Results Per Page: [12] [24] [48] [96]