Abortion

Mana said:

Fun fact: everyone against abortion in this thread has their gender labelled as "male".

I think that says a lot ><.

Click to expand...

I completely agree. I noticed that too and I find that both hilarious and sad.

JohnnyMustang said:

Explain to me where did I say that you should only have sex to procreate?

Click to expand...

"I don't think it's morally fine to abort just because you were having sex for fun and not to have kids."

JohnnyMustang said:

I said exactly what you read, that I don't think it's morally fine to abort just because you were having sex for fun and not to have kids. If you had sex acknowledging the potential risks, knowing that you might procreate while doing so and choose to abort despite of it, I don't think that's morally fine, period.

Click to expand...

But the thing is, we have that option now. We have the science and the medical research to have sex without too many potential risks. We have medicine for medical risks, we have abortion for pregnancy risks. I don't see how that is a bad thing.

gimmepie said:

Snip

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, you're over it? Why does that matter to me? I am not putting words in your mouth whatsoever, but I'm not going to try to argue that with you.

And no, I've only mentioned the aids thing once, others have mentioned it and you responded to them. Differentiate between who you are talking to before you say "enough."

Johnny didn't show me evidence of anything, he just said it. Show me concrete evidence that a fetus is a human life, and I'll be on your side in this debate. But there is none. If there were concrete evidence, this wouldn't even be an issue. No one can truly know when life starts, but the generally accepted definition is around 4-6 months. Why do you assume to know more than scientists whose evidence helped craft the original abortion law in the first place? Scientists who defined life to be in that time period. If what you're saying is true and life did begin that instantly, abortion would already be banned. You think abortion in a country that is primarily Christian would be allowed if it was openly considered to be killing babies? But that's just not the case.

So we're both against late term abortion. Neat. Next.

No I haven't. You're both going back on things you have both said. You compared sex to drinking and stealing. Did you not? I mean, did I read the wrong persons post, or did you do that? Cause I swear you did it. I can find the quote if you want me to. You compared the two, you did that. I didn't put words in your mouth when you did that. You just did it. And I explained how I'm not putting words in Johnny's mouth in my response to him in this same post. Also, can you stop saying "my worldview"? This is the problem, people like you look at people like me and think we have some sort of agenda. If babies aren't dying, I'm not happy! No, we're just supporting something that we think is right. I do think women should have the option to abort. I don't think it's morally right to force a woman to carry something that hurts her for 9 months because she did something that is a completely natural urge that DOESN'T HURT ANYONE. This is where your alcohol and stealing comparison falls flat. Alcoholics hurt themselves and others. Stealing hurts the victim. Sex doesn't. Which is why comparing the three is silly.

See, this is the part that bothers me too. I don't know how to win with you. I made a valid comparison (which you just said is fine to make), you got mad/offended, instead of being a dick about it and saying "SCREW YOU, I DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS!" I decided to be civil and apologize to you for offending you, and now I'm talking down to you? I apologized because I don't like being uncivil with someone who isn't personally attacking me. I suggested you don't be here because I saw that you got really offended by something minor. You're right, I can't control where you can and can not go. You can be here if you want, I'm not TELLING you to not be here, I suggested it as one person to another because maybe this certain topic was a personal thing to you and it bothered you a lot? I don't know your life, I wasn't saying it to be condescending, I was saying it as a person to another person in the nicest way I could. Like I said, I could've been a dick about it and just went off on you or something, but instead I was civil. I don't know what you would have wanted me to do in that situation.

I think it is. For many reasons. Logically, we have too many people in the world as is. Our adoption centers are flooding with unwanted kids. Why would I want someone who doesn't want to have a kid to raise one? They're not going to give the poor child the things they need to thrive, it's just going to suffer.
Emotionally, I don't like the idea of forcing a living human being to carry around a, once again, parasite that will live off their nutrients and make them suffer for 9 months. I would much rather take care of our living people than ones who haven't been born yet. I think it's more 'pro-life' to care about people who are already alive. I wouldn't put an unborn fetus over a living human being.

em·bry·o
ˈembrēˌō/Submit
noun
1.
an unborn or unhatched offspring in the process of development.
synonyms: fetus

Also, a fetus starts at around 9 weeks. That's right after the second month, that's still 1/3 of the time I would be against abortion (6 months or after). So that's irrelevant. If you mean for the parasite comparison, a parasite is an organism that lives in a living organism and lives off their nutrients. That's literally what a fetus/embryo/even an unborn baby (an 8 month old fetus) is considered this because they live inside of a woman and use her nutrients to survive.

EDIT; Nonetheless, I see that we are only going in circles at this point. You can make your final point to me in fairness, but then I'm done with this.

Pokemon Game Fan said:

-snip-

Click to expand...

I just want to respond to one point, which might be symbolic of a larger point.

Parasitism is an interspecies phenomenon. It is just one of several interspecies interactions, which include predation, mutualism, and commensalism.

It makes my blood boil when I see people appropriate a scientific term for emotional exploitation in a political debate. I would much rather prefer that people discuss topics in good faith than rely on cloying pathos. I don't believe that anybody, not even you, genuinely believes that an embryo or fetus can be reduced to being a parasite, so why do we even go there?

Let's all have a debate of substance, and not a debate of distortions.

Kanzler said:

I just want to respond to one point, which might be symbolic of a larger point.

Parasitism is an interspecies phenomenon. It is just one of several interspecies interactions, which include predation, mutualism, and commensalism.

It makes my blood boil when I see people appropriate a scientific term for emotional exploitation in a political debate. I would much rather prefer that people discuss topics in good faith than rely on cloying pathos. I don't believe that anybody, not even you, genuinely believes that an embryo or fetus can be reduced to being a parasite, so why do we even go there?

Let's all have a debate of substance, and not a debate of distortions.

Click to expand...

I think it fits in the way I used it. I used it to show that you can't force a woman to carry something around that will make them suffer. I used the word parasite in this sense because

A) It's a valid comparison (Mana and even gimme both said it was a valid comparison)

and

B) It fits the connotation of my statement. It IS a parasite in the sense that it's going to leech off a living human's life and when people say we should force them to carry it, they are overlooking this fact. I don't see anything wrong with it whatsoever.

Pokemon Game Fan said:

I think it fits in the way I used it. I used it to show that you can't force a woman to carry something around that will make them suffer. I used the word parasite in this sense because

A) It's a valid comparison (Mana and even gimme both said it was a valid comparison)

and

B) It fits the connotation of my statement. It IS a parasite in the sense that it's going to leech off a living human's life and when people say we should force them to carry it, they are overlooking this fact. I don't see anything wrong with it whatsoever.

Click to expand...

Missing the point here. Of course it fits in the way you used it, otherwise you wouldn't have used it. You want to make a comparison between a fetus and a parasite so you can dehumanize it and more easily justify its destruction in an abortion. But it's a completely emotional comparison that you're making, I feel. Let me question you this then - when does a fetus stop becoming a parasite? Does it simply stop being a parasite when it is born? Because after all, parasites use the energy of their hosts, right? Does it slowly stop being a parasite as it develops, even though it uses more and more energy from the mother? If fetuses are parasites, then perhaps late-term abortions should be even more justified than early-term abortions, because the fetus only becomes a bigger parasite over time. It's a difficult question to answer meaningfully, isn't it? So it's not simply the case that a fetus "is a parasite", it's a lot more complicated than that. It fits with the connotation of your statement, but I have a major disagreement with that connotation because I think it oversimplifies the issue by appropriating a scientific term for emotional appeal at the expense of a due appreciation of all the facts.

Kanzler said:

Missing the point here. Of course it fits in the way you used it, otherwise you wouldn't have used it. You want to make a comparison between a fetus and a parasite so you can dehumanize it and more easily justify its destruction in an abortion. But it's a completely emotional comparison that you're making, I feel. Let me question you this then - when does a fetus stop becoming a parasite? Does it simply stop being a parasite when it is born? Because after all, parasites use the energy of their hosts, right? Does it slowly stop being a parasite as it develops, even though it uses more and more energy from the mother? If fetuses are parasites, then perhaps late-term abortions should be even more justified than early-term abortions, because the fetus only becomes a bigger parasite over time. It's a difficult question to answer meaningfully, isn't it? So it's not simply the case that a fetus "is a parasite", it's a lot more complicated than that. It fits with the connotation of your statement, but I have a major disagreement with that connotation because I think it oversimplifies the issue by appropriating a scientific term for emotional appeal at the expense of a due appreciation of all the facts.

Click to expand...

Yes, very good, it is an emotional comparison. That has nothing to do with anything.

Yes, by definition it stops being a parasite when it is born, because it is no longer living inside another organism.

Now I feel like I can turn around and say that it is you that is missing the point. You said,

"Then perhaps late term abortions would be justified because the fetus only becomes a bigger parasite over time."

The problem with that is, I never used the parasite argument to justify aborting it. To steal gimme's line "You're putting words in my mouth." I used the parasite argument to explain why you can't force a woman to carry it. I'm not saying it justifies aborting it, I'm using the argument to justify NOT forcing the woman to carry it. You see the difference? I don't know how to put it more simply, honestly.

So once again, no I didn't do it dehumanize it. I did it to make an emotional appeal to people reading who think "Why should we force a woman to carry it?" Well, I called it for what it is. It's a parasite. That doesn't mean "it's a parasite so it's okay to abort it." - no, I made other, very good, arguments to why abortion is ok, but that's not one of them. That was just an argument - like you said - to emotion, to justify why you can't make a woman carry this around. If I just sound "You can't make her carry this thing around!" - that just simplifies this argument way too much. Say it for what it is, she has to carry something that will drain her nutrients and make her feel horrible and live inside of her... ergo, a parasite. The pro-life argument suggests we should force them to carry it to term and then put them up for adoption, I was using this term to explain what they'd have to suffer through if that were the case.

Did you just misunderstand what I said?

Pokemon Game Fan said:

The problem with that is, I never used the parasite argument to justify aborting it. To steal gimme's line "You're putting words in my mouth." I used the parasite argument to explain why you can't force a woman to carry it. I'm not saying it justifies aborting it, I'm using the argument to justify NOT forcing the woman to carry it. You see the difference? I don't know how to put it more simply, honestly.

Click to expand...

All I'm doing is asking you a question. What I'm saying is this: let's assume that a fetus is a parasite, and taking your perspective, it only ceases to become a parasite when it is born. When a baby develops, it grows in size and it needs more nutrients - no controversy there. You said this:

Say it for what it is, she has to carry something that will drain her nutrients and make her feel horrible and live inside of her... ergo, a parasite.

Click to expand...

So if the fetus is becoming a greater parasite over time, and increasing her suffering, then wouldn't a woman be increasingly justified to terminate the pregnancy the longer the pregnancy progresses, because the fetus becomes more of a parasite (which embodies the draining of nutrients and suffering)? It's an honest question because it's logically consistent with the idea of a fetus being a parasite. Now you can avoid the question if you like, but it's a question that directly addresses a consequence of you calling fetuses parasites, so I think it deserves an answer.

You also said:

So once again, no I didn't do it dehumanize it. I did it to make an emotional appeal to people reading who think "Why should we force a woman to carry it?" Well, I called it for what it is. It's a parasite.

Click to expand...

Now I don't know about you, but I believe that most people don't exactly associate parasites with humanity. I don't know if anybody can take you seriously when you say on one hand a fetus is a parasite but on the other hand you say "oh I'm not dehumanizing it".

But forget about me, I'm just one person and perhaps my opinions are idiosyncratic. I ask the rest of the Round Table - can we call something a parasite without dehumanizing it at the same time?

Pokemon Game Fan said:

Did you just misunderstand what I said?

Click to expand...

You tell me.

Kanzler said:

All I'm doing is asking you a question. What I'm saying is this: let's assume that a fetus is a parasite, and taking your perspective, it only ceases to become a parasite when it is born. When a baby develops, it grows in size and it needs more nutrients - no controversy there. You said this:

So if the fetus is becoming a greater parasite over time, and increasing her suffering, then wouldn't a woman be increasingly justified to terminate the pregnancy the longer the pregnancy progresses, because the fetus becomes more of a parasite (which embodies the draining of nutrients and suffering)? It's an honest question because it's logically consistent with the idea of a fetus being a parasite. Now you can avoid the question if you like, but it's a question that directly addresses a consequence of you calling fetuses parasites, so I think it deserves an answer.

Now I don't know about you, but I believe that most people don't exactly associate parasites with humanity. I don't know if anybody can take you seriously when you say on one hand a fetus is a parasite but on the other hand you say "oh I'm not dehumanizing it".

But forget about me, I'm just one person and perhaps my opinions are idiosyncratic. I ask the rest of the Round Table - can we call something a parasite without dehumanizing it at the same time?



You tell me.

Click to expand...

But a parasite by definition is something that LIVES INSIDE ANOTHER ORGANISM. So no, a baby is not a parasite, because a baby doesnt live inside of another person. My argument was that you can't force a woman to CARRY IT, calling it a parasite helps that argument and is factual.

Seriously? I just explained how I didn't use 'parasite' as a reason for abortion, I used it as a reason to NOT FORCE SOMEONE TO CARRY IT. That was the connotation. Stop using the "Well that means you'd be ok with her terminating it later!" argument because that's not what I was saying with the parasite thing. It doesn't matter that it becomes more of a parasite as time goes by, that's not a reason to terminate it. It just furthers my point that you can't force someone to carry something for 9 months, the pro-life argument. The argument that I'm encouraging people to abort even later by calling it a parasite is moot because I'm not using it as a reason for abortion, I'm explaining why the pro-life argument to force someone to carry it and then put it up for adoption is a horrible thing. If a baby is late-term, then it doesn't matter whether or not it's a parasite, you can't abort it but that's a completely different argument. Why are you sticking to that argument when I just explained to you that that is not what I was implying with my post at all? I wasn't using that argument for abortion, I was using a bunch of other good arguments that you've ignored for abortion. In terms of calling it a parasite, I was using it to show the horror that the pro-life movement is trying to do by forcing someone to carry it for 9 months. I honestly have no idea how to say this any simpler. You're confusing two different arguments I made for one another. This isn't about aborting because so and so, this is saying people should be allowed to abort PERIOD. As for how long they have to abort, that's a completely different argument that the parasite comparison was not meant to address.

If calling something by its' factual name is dehumanizing it, then ok, I am dehumanizing it. That's irrelevant. Because that's not a part of my argument. Once again, calling it a parasite is to show why you can't force someone to carry it. Whether it's human or not is a different argument. If a fetus at 8 months is considered a human, it's still considered a parasite, so it can be both a human and a parasite.

I think I did tell you, you ARE misinterpreting my argument. I doubt you're doing it on purpose, but you're definitely doing it.

Pokemon Game Fan said:

But a parasite by definition is something that LIVES INSIDE ANOTHER ORGANISM. So no, a baby is not a parasite, because a baby doesnt live inside of another person. My argument was that you can't force a woman to CARRY IT, calling it a parasite helps that argument and is factual.

Seriously? I just explained how I didn't use 'parasite' as a reason for abortion, I used it as a reason to NOT FORCE SOMEONE TO CARRY IT. That was the connotation. Stop using the "Well that means you'd be ok with her terminating it later!" argument because that's not what I was saying with the parasite thing. It doesn't matter that it becomes more of a parasite as time goes by, that's not a reason to terminate it. It just furthers my point that you can't force someone to carry something for 9 months, the pro-life argument. The argument that I'm encouraging people to abort even later by calling it a parasite is moot because I'm not using it as a reason for abortion, I'm explaining why the pro-life argument to force someone to carry it and then put it up for adoption is a horrible thing. If a baby is late-term, then it doesn't matter whether or not it's a parasite, you can't abort it but that's a completely different argument. Why are you sticking to that argument when I just explained to you that that is not what I was implying with my post at all? I wasn't using that argument for abortion, I was using a bunch of other good arguments that you've ignored for abortion. In terms of calling it a parasite, I was using it to show the horror that the pro-life movement is trying to do by forcing someone to carry it for 9 months. I honestly have no idea how to say this any simpler. You're confusing two different arguments I made for one another. This isn't about aborting because so and so, this is saying people should be allowed to abort PERIOD. As for how long they have to abort, that's a completely different argument that the parasite comparison was not meant to address.

Click to expand...

All I did was ask you a question, which you refused to answer twice. You decided to call a fetus a parasite, so I'm holding you to account of the logical consequences of that. I'll break it down this time into propositions:

1) Fetuses are parasites
2) Parasites drain resources and cause suffering
3) Draining a woman's resources and causing suffering provides reason for that thing to be removed.
4) The degree to which something should be removed should be proportional to how much suffering it causes
5) Fetuses drain more resources and cause more suffering as they grow and develop

From 1) and 2) we get:

6) Fetuses drain resources and cause suffering.

From 6) and 3) we get:

7) Fetuses have reason to be removed because they drain a woman's resources and cause her suffering.

From 7) and 4) we get:

8) Fetuses have reason to be removed to the degree that they cause her suffering.

From 8) and 5) we get:

9) Fetuses that are more developed have greater reason to be removed.

The argument is valid. If you agree with the first five propositions, then the last proposition follows logically from them. If you disagree with the final proposition, then maybe one of the first five propositions are wrong. Or perhaps my logical reasoning is wrong, and you can point that out instead.

The reason I'm breaking it down to this extent is because I don't know what your position is on the question. You're telling me that I'm confusing your position with another position that you don't agree with and that has nothing to do with what I'm doing, which is asking a question based on a proposition that you asserted (fetuses are parasites) and awaiting an answer. I'm not misinterpreting your argument - I'm not even interpreting your argument, really.

Pokemon Game Fan said:

If calling something by its' factual name is dehumanizing it, then ok, I am dehumanizing it. That's irrelevant.

Click to expand...

Tell that to the people who disagree with abortion that dehumanizing the fetus is irrelevant. Also, "parasite" is not a factual name for a fetus, it's an ecological concept that you decided to lift into your argument. You took it out of context. You can continue to call a fetus a parasite all you like, but as long as you take the word out of context, it's nothing more than name-calling.

Pokemon Game Fan said:

But a parasite by definition is something that LIVES INSIDE ANOTHER ORGANISM. So no, a baby is not a parasite, because a baby doesnt live inside of another person. My argument was that you can't force a woman to CARRY IT, calling it a parasite helps that argument and is factual.

Click to expand...

Which is it? Either "no, baby is not a parasite" or "calling it a parasite helps that argument and is factual". You can't have it both ways, either it's not a parasite or calling it one is factual. Make up your mind.

Seriously? I just explained how I didn't use 'parasite' as a reason for abortion, I used it as a reason to NOT FORCE SOMEONE TO CARRY IT. That was the connotation. Stop using the "Well that means you'd be ok with her terminating it later!" argument because that's not what I was saying with the parasite thing. It doesn't matter that it becomes more of a parasite as time goes by, that's not a reason to terminate it. It just furthers my point that you can't force someone to carry something for 9 months, the pro-life argument. The argument that I'm encouraging people to abort even later by calling it a parasite is moot because I'm not using it as a reason for abortion, I'm explaining why the pro-life argument to force someone to carry it and then put it up for adoption is a horrible thing. If a baby is late-term, then it doesn't matter whether or not it's a parasite, you can't abort it but that's a completely different argument. Why are you sticking to that argument when I just explained to you that that is not what I was implying with my post at all? I wasn't using that argument for abortion, I was using a bunch of other good arguments that you've ignored for abortion. In terms of calling it a parasite, I was using it to show the horror that the pro-life movement is trying to do by forcing someone to carry it for 9 months. I honestly have no idea how to say this any simpler. You're confusing two different arguments I made for one another. This isn't about aborting because so and so, this is saying people should be allowed to abort PERIOD. As for how long they have to abort, that's a completely different argument that the parasite comparison was not meant to address.

Click to expand...

This entire paragraph makes absolutely no sense. Yes, your parasite comment was aimed at making abortion seem okay. You can dress it up however you like, but to suddenly not be carrying a baby that was there a moment ago, you have to either give birth to it or abort it. You can't just wave a magic wand and have it so it was never there. So by saying "she shouldn't have to carry it", you're saying that
1. She shouldn't be forced into having a child with someone (good, you're right here)
2. She is entitled to abortion so as to not carry the child she is pregnant with (since you can't go back in time and magic away the sperm before conception happens).

If calling something by its' factual name is dehumanizing it, then ok, I am dehumanizing it. That's irrelevant. Because that's not a part of my argument. Once again, calling it a parasite is to show why you can't force someone to carry it. Whether it's human or not is a different argument. If a fetus at 8 months is considered a human, it's still considered a parasite, so it can be both a human and a parasite.

Click to expand...

Of course you're okay with dehumanising it, it makes it much easier to argue for abortion when it looks less like taking a human life and more like expelling a tape worm. Also, before you call me a hypocrite, I'm not reneging on my point that you *could* apply the term. You can, you've shown us you can logically call a baby a parasite. That doesn't mean that's what it is and it doesn't mean you should deliberately dehumanise a foetus because it makes your stance seem more okay.

Once again, yes it is part of your argument. You cannot separate it from your argument because the only two options are carry the baby or abort. You can't magically move it to the womb of a parent who'll actually cares.

He's not saying you're saying the baby isn't human. It's not him misinterpreting things it's you. He's saying that you're using a word the majority of people don't apply to humans to make a foetus seem less human, because it adds weight to your argument to break emotional attachment. He's not arguing about whether or not the baby is human or not because we can pretty much universally agree that genetically speaking it is.

Oh, that reminds me, you're saying it's a parasite again but at the very beginning of your post you said it isn't. Perhaps rather that throwing around outrageous claims because Kanzler is out-debating you, you should iron out all the contradictions in your own argument.

I think I did tell you, you ARE misinterpreting my argument. I doubt you're doing it on purpose, but you're definitely doing it.

Click to expand...

I hate to come across as rude, but I'm pretty sure he's not. He's a very smart guy and from what I've read is bang on. So either you're misinterpreting him, or you've done a very bad job of actually explaining yourself. Honestly, I think both are true.

Kanzler said:

Snip

Click to expand...

I honestly have no idea what you're asking. Not being mean or anything, but I just sincerely don't know what you're saying. You're holding me to the argument that a fetus is a parasite? You can do that, I did call it that. Are you saying I used it to justify abortion? In a way I did, but I used that part of the argument to justify why we shouldn't force women to carry it. Some people don't understand how women have to suffer when they're pregnant, which is why pro-lifers often say "We can just make them have the kid and put it up for adoption!"

Do you take offense to me comparing a fetus to a parasite? I used a good comparison between the two, for no other reason but to try and give an example of why some women aren't interested in just carrying it around and putting it up for adoption instead of aborting it. I think it's a fair comparison, and Mana - being a biologist - said it's a fair comparison. If anything, this is a logical comparison and not an emotional one. I don't like the idea that I can't make a logical comparison because it might offend someone, IF it's a fair comparison - which it is. You can say it's dehumanizing it, but I don't believe that matters.

gimmepie said:

Snip

Click to expand...

Yes, I called it a parasite. I called the fetus a parasite, and yes, a baby is a parasite when it's still in the mother's stomach. It CAN be both. I don't see the issue here.

My point in that paragraph was that I didn't use the parasite comparison to justify the aborting part. The aborting part, I have a lot of other arguments for that I have already mentioned prior. Me calling it a parasite was an argument to why you shouldn't say "A woman can have a kid and put it up for adoption instead." - because she has to carry it around. It's simplifying the fact that she's gonna have to suffer through the pregnancy to do that. Yes, in this case, it would be a parasite.

I can even go one step further and say that it's a GOOD THING to dehumanize it in this case because in this specific case, the woman wouldn't want the thing inside her so she could definitely see it as a parasite. She could see it as something evil leeching off her if she doesn't want it inside her but is being forced to carry the whole pregnancy to term because abortion would be illegal. I'm not arguing that:

A fetus is a parasite, and thus it's ok to abort it.

I'm arguing:

A woman shouldn't have to carry around a parasite for 9 months and then put it for adoption.

The circumstances have nothing to do with it, it's just that specific thing. I'm not saying "In this case, she can abort it even if she's been pregnant for 8 months!" - no, I've already argued why that's not ok. Kanzler argued that that is what I said, which is why I said he's misunderstanding my argument. I didn't say that was ok. I said it's not ok to force her to carry it. There's a HUGE difference because you can't just fill in the details of my argument. I already filled out the details of my argument. So to say that I'm ok with aborting a baby at 8 months (which he said I was in his post before his last post), is a lie and it ignores all my other arguments where I said I wasn't ok with it.

Well for one, I agree with that. Yes, I did dehumanize it with that. No, I don't think that's a bad thing. I said that in my last post. Yes, it was an appeal to emotions. I want people to understand why forcing a woman to carry it around for 9 months is an awful thing. That IS appealing to emotions. That doesn't mean my entire argument is based off emotion, because I've made a lot of logical arguments against it as well. Also,

"He's not arguing about whether or not the baby is human or not because we can pretty much universally agree that genetically speaking it is."

Well, I agree that a baby is human. I've never once said it's not a human. That's a completely different argument that has nothing to do with my argument. I said it can be both a baby and a parasite, by definition. I'm dehumanizing the fetus to the point where it can be aborted. You're both assuming I'm saying it's okay to abort a baby at 8 months of pregnancy and it's ok because I dehumanized it by calling it a parasite. That's not the case at all.

He's not out-debating me, he's not understanding my point there and neither are you. I don't think either of you are doing it on purpose, I just think you're having difficulty figuring out what I'm saying. He's taking it out of context, and so are you now. In context, I'm not saying ANYTHING about abortion specifically by comparing it to a parasite. I used the word to refute the SPECIFIC argument of "Force a woman to have the baby and then put it up for adoption" JUST THAT ARGUMENT, no other argument. I didn't say "It's a parasite so it's ok to abort it." I never said that, not once. I said you can't force a woman to carry a parasite she doesn't want. If a woman WANTS to have a baby, you can see it in a different context. If a woman doesn't want to have a baby but is pregnant and is being forced to carry it, it's completely fair to dehumanize it and call it a parasite cause she's forced to keep something that's leeching off her instead of doing it out of love for what will be her future baby. There are no contradictions in my argument if you understand what I'm actually saying instead of freaking out cause I said the word 'parasite' which is usually taken as a bad connotation and comparing it to a fetus. But in my point of view, if a woman is being FORCED to carry it, it is absolutely a parasite and a horrible thing.

and I hate to sound rude too, but I don't see why I should take that as a serious argument to why his argument isn't flawed. "His argument agrees with mine, so I think it's spot-on!" - well yeah, why wouldn't you? His argument isn't spot on, it's not seeing what I'm saying correctly and instead he's saying that I said things I didn't say. That doesn't make him a bad person, nor you for that matter, just that neither of you are understanding what point I was making with that. It upsets me that you're both trying to make my arguments for me, but whatever, it's a debate and I don't take it personally. I don't like that you guys are saying that I'm saying things that I'm not. Kanzler said I said it must be ok to abort a fetus at 8 months/late term abortions because I compared it to a parasite. Problem is, that's not even close to the argument I made.

I just honestly don't know how to explain it any simpler. I've explained my argument like 50 times in the past 3-4 posts and neither of you are acknowledging what I'm saying and instead making up your own arguments for me. It's like, the things I'm writing and the things you're both reading are completely different things. I'm writing

"You can't force a woman to carry something that will leech off her life for 9 months (a parasite)."

You guys are reading:

"It's okay to abort a fetus at 8 months, it's just a parasite anyway!"

They're not the same thing, I wish you would both understand that but I honestly don't know what I can say that will make you both understand that.

EDIT: Also, I do believe Kanzler is a smart guy. I've agreed with him on pretty much everything else I've read so far. I just think he's wrong in this specific case.

EDIT 2: I decided to respond in-depth to one more point you made:

"Once again, yes it is part of your argument. You cannot separate it from your argument because the only two options are carry the baby or abort. You can't magically move it to the womb of a parent who'll actually cares."

The thing is, I'm not separating it from my argument. I'm saying it's not a general argument for my ENTIRE abortion argument. They're two different arguments. Yes, there's only two options - carry or abort. That's irrelevant.

By saying "You can't force her to carry something for 9 months and suffer for it" - I'm not saying she can abort at 8 months. Yes, absolutely, she can abort. Just at the time that she's legally allowed to, which is a different argument ("How long does it take for a fetus to be considered a human life in the womb" - which is an actual debate at the moment). I'm not trying to pretend I didn't say it or take it out of my argument, I'm trying to explain how they are two completely different arguments that are relevant to each other. We can argue

-How long a woman has to abort.
-How long it takes a fetus to be considered human.
-The difference between legality and morality when it comes to abortion.
etc. etc. etc.

But those are DIFFERENT arguments than the argument I used the parasite comparison to. In this case, I was addressing the topic of "Should we force a woman to carry a baby to term if she doesn't want it?" - I said no, I compared it to a parasite then. Different argument.

Pokemon Game Fan said:

Snip

Click to expand...

I am not arguing that you're saying a baby should be aborted eight months and I don't think Kanzler is either. He is simply suggesting that your logic falls short because if anything a baby becomes more parasitic as it grows and requires more nutrients that would otherwise go to the mother. Yet you don't think late term abortion is okay, but are all for early abortion. His point is that the parasite argument makes no sense and he's right.

I'm arguing that your argument makes no sense too, it's good that you're not contradicting yourself with the "parasite/not a parasite" thing anymore, nice to have cleared that up. However you're still trying to separate parts of the debate that can't be separated.

"I'm only using it to determine that you shouldn't force the woman to carry it, not to justify the abortion" makes absolutely zero sense. The only way you're going to stop carrying that baby is to give birth or to abort. So by saying anything along the lines of "she shouldn't have to carry it" you're inherently arguing for abortion. You can't seperate the two unless you're a wizard and can magic the foetus somewhere else without killing it.

As for "A woman shouldn't have to carry a parasite for nine months" even if you want to (wrongfully) apply the term parasite to a baby, yes she should if she willingly participated in the act that resulted in that baby's creation. Parasite or not, that's a human life and if you do something then you should live with the consequences of that action. You can call it a parasite, you can dehumanise it, however it is biologically human. Nobody has the right to take another life simply as a matter of convenience.

Pokemon Game Fan said:

I honestly have no idea what you're asking. Not being mean or anything, but I just sincerely don't know what you're saying. You're holding me to the argument that a fetus is a parasite? You can do that, I did call it that. Are you saying I used it to justify abortion? In a way I did, but I used that part of the argument to justify why we shouldn't force women to carry it. Some people don't understand how women have to suffer when they're pregnant, which is why pro-lifers often say "We can just make them have the kid and put it up for adoption!"

Click to expand...

The claim I am making is "women have more reason to abort a later-term fetus than an earlier-term fetus". The question is "do you agree or disagree with that statement". Based on the claim that "fetuses are parasites", the answer to that question should be yes. The reasoning is found in post 104 of this thread. If you hold the claim that fetuses are parasites but answer no to the question, then 1) your answer is true but my reasoning must be false or 2) your answer is true but the claim that "fetuses are parasites" must be wrong or at least inaccurate, or 3) your answer is true but one or more of the four remaining starting propositions must wrong, or 4) your answer no is false given the claim "fetuses are parasites". I hope I didn't miss anything.

I'm actually surprised that I take a peek into this topic and the conversation is a long-winded back-and-forth about whether or not a baby is a parasite.

No, a baby is not a parasite, despite having aspects some would consider parasitic ("taking nutrients from a host", if that's the route you want to take). Parasites are an invading species. The mother's hormonal cycle is organized around the event of producing ova--her own eggs--and with the help of the father's sperm, paired up human chromosomes and fertilized an ovum to begin the process of development.

A symbiotic relationship is suggested in the creation of a placenta, which is formed from part of the mother's uterine lining and part of the cluster of differentiated embryonic cells that is the blastocyst. It is there to exchange whatever materials between the two for the duration of the mother's pregnancy. If the embryo were a parasite, one would believe the mother's immune system would have skipped all of that preparation for nurture and attacked it instead, resulting in her own natural, rightful abortion. And no, a miscarriage would not be supportive of the argument that it is the occurrence of a natural abortion as due to the body's immune system attacking the ovum itself as a foreign object (except in the case of immunological disorders--where antibodies attack one's own tissue, including embryos). There are several reasons as to why miscarriages happen, and oftentimes it's due to detrimental lifestyle habits or bacterial infection in the parents' genital tracts.

I also remember reading an article some years ago about how women who suffer heart problems before or during pregnancy recovered quickly from it because the fetus donates its cells to assist its mother, these cells migrated--not harvested by the mother--through the body to help reinforce weakened cardiac walls. I may be wrong on the specifics, but the gist of it is, if the mother was "suffering" before, she should be glad her unborn was there to offer up its own stem cells. Symbiotic.

You can de-romanticize the process of pregnancy to support the claim for abortion without going to the length of writing off a human blastocyst and its development as something so decisively derisive as a parasite, in much the same way that I can turn people to my side of an argument without calling my opponent nothing more than a piece of shit to be utterly disregarded. You win flies by knowing your opponent's viewpoints and addressing their aversion with tact. A general statement, as I read only a few paragraphs to a few posts.

One could counter by saying, "well, your opponent is at least a fully-developed human", and therein lies the argument, in which I no longer participate.

As an aside for some to consider, it only takes ten weeks since conception for the now-fetus to develop all its major vital organs. That's two-and-a-half months. The process is a quick one to try and catch, but it is at that point one could now consider it human, unless you are of the mind of "my womb; don't care".

I'm sorry but neither of you are getting me, and honestly the only response I can think of is the same one I've made a hundred times already. I sincerely mean no offense to either of you but I'm not responding to that anymore. If you'd like an answer, read my posts again, any of them actually. I've explained why me calling it a parasite doesn't mean I'm ok with aborting it at 8 months. I've already explained it like 10 times, so I'm sorry but I'm not going to make the same argument again.

This conversation is way too heated so I'll go with my beliefs quickly: I think a baby isn't born until the moment the foetus comes out of the womb so it's free game until then. Of course, terminating a foetus when it's close to 6, 7 months is dangerous for the mother herself so abortions should be done earlier unless carrying the foetus to term would be even more dangerous still.

I believe it's up to the mother to decide what to do with it until the end of the pregnancy, and that treating pregnancy as a punishment is completely retrograde.

If you want to disregard the parasite argument, there's a clear answer to it.

When is a foetus a parasite? When the mother decides it is. If a mother doesn't have an emotional connection then it's quite clear to me that parasite is a logical term. If a mother wants to have a child then I doubt she'd think the same way. But that's pretty much the point. It's up to the mother.

Mana said:

If you want to disregard the parasite argument, there's a clear answer to it.

When is a foetus a parasite? When the mother decides it is. If a mother doesn't have an emotional connection then it's quite clear to me that parasite is a logical term. If a mother wants to have a child then I doubt she'd think the same way. But that's pretty much the point. It's up to the mother.

Click to expand...

I could grant that a mother could decide when a fetus is a parasite, if parasite is used as a descriptive term. But I don't think that's very substantive unless being a parasite has any effect on any rights of the fetus (this fetus is a parasite, and now loses whatever protection it might have otherwise had). In that case, I don't think it's up to individuals to judge. For instance, we can do whatever we like to an animal as long as it's in the bounds of animal rights, but individuals don't decide animal rights, it's something we decide as a society.

Mana said:

If you want to disregard the parasite argument, there's a clear answer to it.

When is a foetus a parasite? When the mother decides it is. If a mother doesn't have an emotional connection then it's quite clear to me that parasite is a logical term. If a mother wants to have a child then I doubt she'd think the same way. But that's pretty much the point. It's up to the mother.

Click to expand...

Thank you. You put my own argument out there in one paragraph better than I could in several essays. This is exactly what I meant when I called it a parasite. I kinda said that, but in many more words so it might have been lost in translation. But thank you, this. 100 times this.

Kanzler said:

I could grant that a mother could decide when a fetus is a parasite, if parasite is used as a descriptive term. But I don't think that's very substantive unless being a parasite has any effect on any rights of the fetus (this fetus is a parasite, and now loses whatever protection it might have otherwise had). In that case, I don't think it's up to individuals to judge. For instance, we can do whatever we like to an animal as long as it's in the bounds of animal rights, but individuals don't decide animal rights, it's something we decide as a society.

Click to expand...

What I meant to say was, in few words, is essentially what Mana said. That is what I had came to with the initial argument. A mother DOES get to decide when she calls it a parasite. If she wants to have a baby, then the fetus inside her is something she loves. If she's being FORCED to have the baby, then the fetus inside is a parasite to her.

That's what I meant. I just didn't know how to say it I guess.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/trump-exposes-truth-of-anti-abortion-politics-656239171633

Watch from 16:40 on. I think her description of the scenario is pretty bluntly clear.

I'm coming into this conversation quite late, and honestly couldn't be bothered reading through all 5 pages, so forgive me if I'm repeating someone else here. Am I in favour of abortion? In certain situations, yes. This is not a question that can be answered in a black and white fashion, and anyone who thinks it can is quite frankly a naive fool.

Whenever you talk about Abortion you have to always consider what is best for both the Mother and the Child-to-be-born:

1. Is the birth going to severely harm or even kill the mother?
If the answer is yes then I would seriously consider an abortion. Some would argue that it is better to save the child's life than the mother's, but I would argue against that. First off, there is no guarantee that the child would come out of it healthy, and in trying to carry on with the birth, you risk losing the child as well as the mother.

Second, let's assume that the mother is a fine, upstanding member of society who has a lot of people relying on her (including friends and family). You are taking that away for the chance of getting a child who is going to be just as important or up-standing as the mother. You have no way of knowing this until it is far too late.

Third, growing up without a biological mother is very very hard, and a lot of children get permanently scarred by it, which effects them later in life, anything from depression and anxiety to psychotic outbursts. Granted this is not guaranteed to happen but would you want to put a child through that?

2. If the child is born can the parents support them?
Again, if the answer is no, then you might consider Abortion. Now, you could argue that if the mother can't support a child, why get pregnant? Not all pregnancies are intended. Pregnancy from rape is always possible, and pills can fail on occasion. If for example a woman in poverty gets pregnant from rape, I would fully support Abortion, as it would be kinder than trying to raise a child in poverty.

Finally, since so many of you are so set on this parasitic argument, I'll give my 2 cents on that too. To me, deciding whether a fetus is a parasite or not is irrelevant, and doesn't make Abortion any more or less morally acceptable. I'm going to make my own comparison when it comes to Abortion, by comparing it to putting an animal to sleep.

Just like Abortion, putting an animal to sleep is something you can only decide is right on a case by case basis. Anyone who's been in that situation (as I have) knows how it feels. You can be pro life all you like, but there are times where it is better to end a life than see it exist in pain and misery. It's not a decision to take lightly, but sometimes it is the best option.