Thoughts on Abortion

[xj0hnx]

Simply false. You have merely rearranged constituent parts. If I take a box of legos and build a house, I have only rearranged the legos in the form of a house. I have built a house. I haven't "created" a house.

LOL, comparing building a Lego house to pancakes. Seriously, if you can't comprehend the difference between building a Lego house, and reproduction, or even cooking, you REALLY need to get back in school.

You obviously don't grasp the point. Your basis for distinguishing gametes from zygotes and embryos was given as "that they don't become a fetus on their own." Since this is true also of zygotes and embryos, this cannot be a basis for distinction. Please, try to focus so I don't have to keep explaining your own arguments to you.

It's pretty funny that you can't see how this destroys you argument

Sorry, I'm still laughing too hard at the Lego house thing to laugh anymore at the rest of you digital scribbling. Hahaha, you're like that guy that tried to use plastic in boxes to demonstrate the physics of the towers collapsing during 9/11.

You have merely rearranged constituent parts.

Would you eat a big bowl of poop? I mean, it's merely a rearrangement of the constituent parts of your pancakes right? which is just some flour, milk, and eggs in a bowl right?

 

[Cogman]

Birds eggs do not live in or on a host organism nor do they derive their nourishment directly from that organism's body.

Actually, they do, at least for a short period of their life.

I didn't "classify all reproduction as parasitism." I described the behavior of a fetus as parasitic, which it is, making the fetus a parasite.

Your definition of parasitism can be applied to any form of reproduction. Because reproduction, by its nature, is taking some resource from the parent to create a new organism. Because that was at one point a part of the parent, the thing being reproduced must have gone through a parasitic cycle.

In other words, all reproduction is done at the cost of the parent, something that you would classify as parasitism. By the nature of reproduction, all, or part of the new organism must have fed off of the parent.

I reject your claim that the element of species distinction is "standard" in the definition of a parasite. For example, I can go here and find 2 definitions that do not make a distinction of species, and only 1 that does.

Again, if it is not mentioned it is implied. You can point out that they use the term organism, but the fact is, you'll be hard pressed to find a biologist that would suggest that human reproduction is a form of parasitism.

In what way, pray tell? Keep in mind that you have not and cannot differentiate a fetus from a parasite on the basis of its actual behavior. What does it say about the pro-life position if they cannot be honest about what pregnancy entails?

I already have given the differentiating factor, parasites are separate species from the host. Behaviorally, yes, they do behave the same in some aspects.

I have not purported to affect the morality of abortion.

Then why bring it up in a topic on morality? The only purpose of calling a fetus a parasite is so you can somehow dehumanize and devalue a fetus. Your argument is something along the lines of "Parasites are bad, fetuses are parasites, fetuses are bad therefore abortion is A-OK".

This is a tatic that is, in my opinion, somewhat disgusting as it has been used to justify a whole slew of things we now consider wrong. It is the act of dehumanizing and devaluing so that mistreating and destroying can be easily justified.

Would you argue that a baby is still a parasite? After all, a baby STILL feeds primarily off of the mother. And if so, would you say killing a baby is justified? (oh, and before you say "Oh, I said parasites live IN the host." That is FAR from the standard definition of parasitism.)