Political veiws on abortion and other things

[Checkmate]

Raz, thank you for pointing out the nonsense in comparing pigs to children.

Muffin Man, tape worms are parasites. Parasites drain the juices of unwilling hosts. A fetus is not a parasite anymore than the child is in the first few years of their life.

Would you suggest that a breast feeding child is a parasite? Or even the fact that the baby takes food, water, milk, and certain *ahem* services from their parents while giving nothing in return. Would you call that an economic parasite?

If you can't tell the difference between a parasite and a human being, please leave the topic.

Well put.

Rei Zero, I do like attention, but I was also pointing out that it seemed they were avoiding me, and I wanted to call attention to them avoiding me.

[The Muffin Man]

Raz, thank you for pointing out the nonsense in comparing pigs to children.

Muffin Man, tape worms are parasites. Parasites drain the juices of unwilling hosts.

3 guesses how a fetus gets its' nutrients.

A fetus is not a parasite anymore than the child is in the first few years of their life.

Would you suggest that a breast feeding child is a parasite? Or even the fact that the baby takes food, water, milk, and certain *ahem* services from their parents while giving nothing in return. Would you call that an economic parasite?

The child can survive on its' own. It consumes its' own food and converts it into energy. The fetus CANNOT. Thus it feeds off the nutrients the host takes in.

[Rei_Zero]

And now starts the repitition. Potential may not always be a good thing.

Perhaps Abortion is viewed as alright to a certain extent because the embryo is a midway between alive and not alive but it hasn't yet made much of a mark on the world. That is part of the reason why killing has such a big impact on people. It removes something that had already made its mark.

[The Muffin Man]

And now starts the repitition. Potential may not always be a good thing.

Perhaps Abortion is viewed as alright to a certain extent because the embryo is a midway between alive and not alive but it hasn't yet made much of a mark on the world. That is part of the reason why killing has such a big impact on people. It removes something that had already made its mark.

Anyone who's seen my topic before the nazis got it knows my stance on this.

[Razola]

3 guesses how a fetus gets its' nutrients.

Quit trying to look smart, because it's futile.

Parasites harm the host. Guess what a baby does? Increases the population of the mother's species. OH SNAP, THAT REALLY HURTS.

[Sorovis]

The Muffin Man, I had no idea you were being serious. But like Raz said, comparing unborn human babies to parasites is terribly inaccurate.

There are three forms of symbiosis: Parasitism, commensalism, and mutualism. Guess which one babies fall under? None of them. Parasites live in an organism and benefit at the expense of that organism; organisms in a commensal relationship benefits from one organism without harming that creature; and organisms in a mutual relationship mutually benefit from each other. A child is created and nurtured inside the mother-- and then is given birth to. This is a form of incubation, not symbiosis, because the child and mother are of the same species.

[Razola]

I also should mention that Peterson should be charged with double homocide. Unless his wife was on her way to abortion clinic when she died, we should probably assume that she wanted to keep the child. Intent is the key word here.

[Scythemantis]

Hell, based on your statements, the child is much more deserving to live since it'll be just as smart as an adult pig when it's still young.

As far as I'm concerned that's the same as saying a mentally disabled person is slightly less deserving to live than an exceptionally intelligent person. Organisms are organisms to me.

Parasites harm the host. Guess what a baby does? Increases the population of the mother's species. OH SNAP, THAT REALLY HURTS.

No offense but that's an extremely stupid argument. You can't deny that pregnancy and birth have harmful side effects. Increasing human numbers and the magic of childcare do not repair this damage.

As someone who's studied parasitology for many, many years, allow me to step in and clear up this particular sub-argument:

A baby is not considered a true parasite, but the RELATIONSHIP between a mother and a developing fetus is true parasitism. The fetus draws nutrients from another organism and gives nothing in return. The only reason it is not a "parasite" per se is because it is the same species as its "host". A parasite is an organism adopting a different species as both its food source and its environment.

Incidentally, though...HELL YEAH THAT REALLY HURTS! I despise human baby-foctories and strongly believe that noone should have more than one child if they can help it, and adoption should always be considered over pregnancy. ALWAYS. Parents who just can't wait to fill their shiny new house with wonderful funderful babies are spitting in the faces of countless children who don't have food, homes or loving families.

[crypto]

I knew it would come down to animals. And I wholeheartedly agree--if human babies shouldn't be killed, or humans in general, than neither should animals. Hence why I've been a vegetarian for 6 years. The argument that the Rightards have on us on this one is that "God sez dat only da humans have da souls." Okilydokily...

Anyway, my stance on abortion is this: you can have up to two abortions, no matter what the circumstance, but you cannot use it as a form of birth control. Any more than two, you get your uterus sewed-up. Plus, the abortions have to be in a certain alotted time--preferably the most underdeveloped stage of the fetus. Anything past a month or two is pushing it in my eyes.

Same goes for sexual offenders. Castrate them after their second sexual offense, or sew them up if they are female (unlikely). Hey, it will keep them from corrupting youth/having unwanted babies/passing their genes along.

As for the person who said that an unborn child might bring something special to the world, how do you know the unborn child isn't the next Hitler? It's a double-edged sword, kiddies...and unfortunately Bush is wielding it.

[phaedrus]

Anyway, my stance on abortion is this: you can have up to two abortions, no matter what the circumstance, but you cannot use it as a form of birth control. Any more than two, you get your uterus sewed-up. Plus, the abortions have to be in a certain alotted time--preferably the most underdeveloped stage of the fetus. Anything past a month or two is pushing it in my eyes.

then there's no SEX!!!!WTFMATE!!!!! just get sterilized, it's probably cheaper anways....

Same goes for sexual offenders. Castrate them after their second sexual offense, or sew them up if they are female (unlikely). Hey, it will keep them from corrupting youth/having unwanted babies/passing their genes along.

WTFNOKIDS!!!! it's called imprisonment or execution or rehabilitation

[crypto]

then there's no SEX!!!!WTFMATE!!!!! just get sterilized, it's probably cheaper anways....



WTFNOKIDS!!!! it's called imprisonment or execution or rehabilitation

Obviously you're retarded. I said if somebody uses abortion as a form of birth control, i.e. instead of condoms, and they use it twice, they should just be sterilized. People would still have kids...just not retarded people.

Obviously you read my post with haste or with a biased opinion. In other words, STFU.

[phaedrus]

Obviously you're retarded. I said if somebody uses abortion as a form of birth control, i.e. instead of condoms, and they use it twice, they should just be sterilized. People would still have kids...just not retarded people.

you just said sew up the uterus 1 post ago.

Obviously you read my post with haste or with a biased opinion. In other words, STFU.

getting feisty?

[Lulu]

Abortion is wrong,It's taking away a childs life that hasn't even started,Abortion isn't another form of birth control It's MURDER.If a child is unwanted it shouldn't be killed or Abused (soz had to put that in there) It should be put up for adoption since that is the best way,even though adoption isn't the greatest thing!If a woman does not want to get pregnant either don't have sex or use the pill or a condom!

[crypto]

you just said sew up the uterus 1 post ago.



getting feisty?

Yes I said that, but only if it's a sexual offender. Obviously the death penalty isn't plausible, plus making them sterile would be much more of a punishment.

Yes, I am always feisty.

[Razola]

As far as I'm concerned that's the same as saying a mentally disabled person is slightly less deserving to live than an exceptionally intelligent person. Organisms are organisms to me.

Of course they are less deserving. They are going to be less productive if both retard and normal person live to their potential.

No offense but that's an extremely stupid argument. You can't deny that pregnancy and birth have harmful side effects. Increasing human numbers and the magic of childcare do not repair this damage.

It's a hell of a better argument than calling unborn children parasites. TMM also neglects the fact that the mother CHOOSES to get pregnant. Last time I checked parasites aren't invited by their hosts.

A baby is not considered a true parasite, but the RELATIONSHIP between a mother and a developing fetus is true parasitism. The fetus draws nutrients from another organism and gives nothing in return. The only reason it is not a "parasite" per se is because it is the same species as its "host". A parasite is an organism adopting a different species as both its food source and its environment.

There is a benefit for the mother. She is doing her job to her species and creating another generation of offspring. That's why she has the child in the first place.

Incidentally, though...HELL YEAH THAT REALLY HURTS!

Look at the bigger picture. They choose to become pregnant. There's a benefit to the mother.

As for the person who said that an unborn child might bring something special to the world, how do you know the unborn child isn't the next Hitler? It's a double-edged sword, kiddies...and unfortunately Bush is wielding it.

Quite using this stupid argument. How many people are famous? How many infamous? Now how many are just normal people? A lot more. A WHOLE lot more. So chances are you're killing an average joe. Nice one, lefttard.

[crypto]

Quite using this stupid argument. How many people are famous? How many infamous? Now how many are just normal people? A lot more. A WHOLE lot more. So chances are you're killing an average joe. Nice one, lefttard.

News flash: I was pointing out the flaws in that argument to the people who were using it.

Plus, it's not always the woman's choice to get preggo.

Dude, no wonder nobody here likes you. You need to settle your ass down.

[Red Angel]

Heated argument, isn't this?

Oh, and those who oppose abortion becuase the embryo could "potentially contribute to society": why don't you look to any given third world country? I'm pretty sure that all the impoverished people there could use the resources you're about to use on that kid you don't need, and, unlike the embryo, there's no quetion of them being human and being quite ready to contribute to society without potty training.

[Brain]

I think that abortion should be allowed from the moment of conception to the moment of birth.

If some action has a practical use, and that it has predictable and observable benefits, e.g. allowing already established human beings to live a life of better quality by sacrificing a being no one cares about, then it is an action which I support. The balance of an abortion seems fairly positive to me (or no one would do it) so abortion is ok in my book. Seriously, I really don't give a crap whether the baby is a parasite or a lump or cells or a human being or anything, I just don't see how it's relevant. If "killing" it has observable benefits then let's just do it. We've seen worse.

Life is a renewable resource anyway. There's nothing sacred about it.

As for the potential issue, it's irrelevant. There are numerous accounts of important scientific discoveries which have been done simultaneously by several people who didn't even know about each other. If you kill someone who would have made an important contribution to society, then someone else will do it sooner or later, it's unavoidable. People aren't nearly as unique as we would like to believe - they are very easily replaced. Besides, you could as well argue that an unwanted baby would ruin its mother's life and prevent her from making important contributions to society.

[Lulu]

Someone may care about the baby but don't know it because it wasn't born,Adoptive parents would care about it if it was put up for adoption and they adopted it.Also you can't just replace a person or a life,Each life is special to at least one other person,It's not like a plant once it dies you go out and buy a new one,It's special and every one IS unique!

[Iveechan]

But not every kid who gets put up for adoption even gets adopted. It's easier when the kid is a baby, but once a few years pass, then people would rather not deal with a kid who has a defined personality. Oprah may go on and on about those magical adoption stories, but in truth, adoptions are few and far between.

[Razola]

News flash: I was pointing out the flaws in that argument to the people who were using it.

You both use it.

"Because you could be killing Beethoven, amirite?"
"More like 'Because you could be killing Hitler, amirite?"

Since there are far more normal people that don't do anything seriously wrong, I'd say pro-life wins that argument.

Plus, it's not always the woman's choice to get preggo.

I only support abortion in cases of rape and maybe if the mother's life is in peril.

Read much?

Dude, no wonder nobody here likes you. You need to settle your ass down.

OH NOES! A BUNCH OF FOURTEEN-YEAR-OLDS ON THE INTARWEB DON'T LIKE ME!

Settle down? It's a bunch of symbols on a screen. It's not like I'm throwing chairs or threatening to eat your children.

Stop taking it so damn seriously.

[The Muffin Man]

Quit trying to look smart, because it's futile.

Parasites harm the host.

Quit trying to look smart, because it's futile.

Practice what you preach. Ever heard of a symbiotic relationship? The fetus sucks nutrients from the host, and in turn keeps the species alive. Technically it's a symbiotic relationship.

[Razola]

Practice what you preach. Ever heard of a symbiotic relationship? The fetus sucks nutrients from the host, and in turn keeps the species alive. Technically it's a symbiotic relationship.

THEN IT'S NOT A PARASITE YOU DOLT.

Now your last five posts or so have no meaning. Are you trying to look stupid on purpose by hinting that fetus = parasite or what? Or is it some grandoise explanation of your your views using deep, elaborate symbolism.

[The Muffin Man]

THEN IT'S NOT A PARASITE YOU DOLT.

Now your last five posts or so have no meaning. Are you trying to look stupid on purpose by hinting that fetus = parasite or what? Or is it some grandoise explanation of your your views using deep, elaborate symbolism.

You mean a parasite isn't a creature that feeds off its' host and without the host, would die?

Oh dear it looks like biology was wrong!

No, wait. think it's Raz who's wrong. Maybe if he pulled his head out of his self-righteous ass for once and gave it some "thought".

[Red Angel]

You mean a parasite isn't a creature that feeds off its' host and without the host, would die?

You know, I believe there's a word you missed between "its'" and "host". That word is "unwilling".

[The Muffin Man]

You know, I believe there's a word you missed between "its'" and "host". That word is "unwilling".

Rape, anyone?

[Syberia]

Originally posted by Raz:
I only support abortion in cases of rape and maybe if the mother's life is in peril.

Asked and answered.

[Red Angel]

Rape, anyone?

You have a point. However, don't cotraceptive drugs work for up to 72 hours AFTER the event? And you still can't argue that it is a partasite becuase it happens to be a natural body function. Name me a life form that produces parasites for itself.

[Razola]

You mean a parasite isn't a creature that feeds off its' host and without the host, would die?

Oh dear it looks like biology was wrong!

No, wait. think it's Raz who's wrong. Maybe if he pulled his head out of his self-righteous ass for once and gave it some "thought".

God damn, you REALLY ARE this stupid. Like said before, you are missing two vital elements:

A. An unwilling host (95% of the time the mother wants it).
B. A negative effect to the mother (the purpose of birth is to increase specie population, and isn't created to hurt the mother).

You can stop trying to win, TMM. You're only going to make yourself look worse.

[RedStarWarrior]

According to dictionary.com a parasite is "an organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host." Now, last time I checked a baby doesn't contribute to the survival of the host, despite continuing the species. I see nothing about harming the host in this most basic definition. The only thing that would keep a human fetus from being considered a parasite is the use of the word 'different'. Now, different can merely mean that it isn't the parasite itself or it can mean that it is a seperate species. However, I lean towards the latter since the word 'another' could be substituted if the first definition of different was the intended one to prevent misconstruction. In conclusion, TMM is incorrect, but his belief isn't that radical. It is merely a simple mistake.

[Razola]

That isn't a good defintion, as there is third type of relationship where one benefits and the other is just there.

Parasites specifcally harm the host.

[Checkmate]

cotraceptive drugs still create an abortion inside your body, Red Angel. A child is conceived at the time of sex. If you have an embryo and then you don't, that means something got rid of it. (the drug) So if you're completely against abortion, even the abortion of an embryo, then one would be against contraceptive drugs.

I haven't studied the matter a whole lot, but I'm personally against the abortion of even an embryo. It's not a question of whether or not he's the next Hitler or the next Pope. What matters is that it's a human life. No one has the right to take a human life.

People need to realize that when two people have consensual sex, (stupid move even with birth control) and then they have an abortion they are making the only innocent party suffer. It's not the baby's fault, but the baby gets punished for it. How much sense does that make?

Scythemantis, as much as you study animals, how do you say 'an organism is an organism'. Organisms survive by killing other organisms of different species. (unless they're photosynthetic) But that stops when it's your own species. But I suppose you're pro-choice and that might answer my question. If you are, is that to say that you don't see the difference between your own species and another?

I most likely sound edgy when you're reading this, but I'm actually just trying to understand your views. Sorry for the way it probably reads.

My question is this: What is the difference between abortion and murder. Both a fetus and a person are living things. I, personally, consider them both to be human. What's the difference?

[The Muffin Man]

God damn, you REALLY ARE this stupid. Like said before, you are missing two vital elements:

A. An unwilling host (95% of the time the mother wants it).

Does the mother just say "I want this egg fertilized!*pop*" all the time? Is every pregnancy planned? Quit pulling numbers out of your ass

B. A negative effect to the mother (the purpose of birth is to increase specie population, and isn't created to hurt the mother).

You're not even saying the same thing. It DOES negatively effect the mother. In order to nurish the fetus, she has to eat more. Why? BECAUSE IT'S TAKING NUTRIENTS FROM HER. That's pretty negative, if I do say so myself. Christ, Raz, are you really this stupid or are you trying to prove some sort of point here?

You can stop trying to win, TMM. You're only going to make yourself look worse.

You keep saying that, and you just come off as an arrogant *******, not as some sort of righteous defender of truth.

[The Muffin Man]

That isn't a good defintion, as there is third type of relationship where one benefits and the other is just there.

Parasites specifcally harm the host.

Yeah really. What the hell does Dictionary.com know?

[RedStarWarrior]

Raz, you may want to note that a parasite is not capable of mutualism. If it helps its host by providing substinance or whatnot, then it isn't a parasite.

[Brain]

I haven't studied the matter a whole lot, but I'm personally against the abortion of even an embryo. It's not a question of whether or not he's the next Hitler or the next Pope. What matters is that it's a human life. No one has the right to take a human life.

Anyone has the right to take any human life if it isn't forbidden by law.

People need to realize that when two people have consensual sex, (stupid move even with birth control) and then they have an abortion they are making the only innocent party suffer. It's not the baby's fault, but the baby gets punished for it. How much sense does that make?

The baby doesn't get punished at all. Murder is not a punishment for the victim, it is a punishment for the people it knows, and who care about it. Come to my house with an AK-47 and shoot me in the head before I can figure out what's going, and the only people you're going to punish are my family and my friends. I will be dead, so obviously, I won't give a crap. I mean, if no one cared about me, if my absence didn't affect anything, and that someone would try to kill me, although I would resist, I wouldn't view it as morally wrong. Worthless, but not wrong, because there is nothing wrong about actions that have no negative impact on anything.

Murder is outlawed because people care about other people, and to give them a sense of security. No one cares about an embryo or fetus, and it won't affect anyone's sense of security.

Anyway, when you kill a living being you don't harm it. You just terminate its existence. It ceases to work. You can't harm something that does not function. What you can harm, are living beings who DO function. This said, I don't see anyone harmed in the case of an abortion.

My question is this: What is the difference between abortion and murder. Both a fetus and a person are living things. I, personally, consider them both to be human. What's the difference?

Even if it was murder, why would it be outlawed? Murder isn't always wrong you know. Plenty of wars, as well as death penalty, have demonstrated this, though I personally would say that abortion is much more justified than any of these two.

Anyway, the difference is that no one cares about the fetus, and that's the only reason you need. Life doesn't have any inherent worth. It is renewable. It's worth nothing when taken out of context.

Someone may care about the baby but don't know it because it wasn't born,Adoptive parents would care about it if it was put up for adoption and they adopted it.Also you can't just replace a person or a life,Each life is special to at least one other person,It's not like a plant once it dies you go out and buy a new one,It's special and every one IS unique!

If it isn't born it isn't born. There is no point in hypothetic scenarios, because you can push them as far as your imagination will allow you to. You're not going to miss something that never existed in the first place.

And yes, everyone is unique, but actually, so is every plant, and so is every rock. That doesn't mean they can't be replaced. "Life" is an overrated concept, because, well, actually, it just doesn't mean anything. Living beings are legos. They are nature's building blocks. There's an infinite supply of these building blocks, and even if they all think they're special, the fact remains that nature has plenty of choice to build its castle. If one block falls, there's a hundred more waiting in line.

Cells can be replaced, plants can be replaced. So can humans. We aren't exactly a finality, you know.

But that's just my own philosophical bullshit, I guess

edit: **** ass **** ***** ******

edit2: damn I thought the censor was gone

[Red Angel]

cotraceptive drugs still create an abortion inside your body, Red Angel. A child is conceived at the time of sex. If you have an embryo and then you don't, that means something got rid of it. (the drug) So if you're completely against abortion, even the abortion of an embryo, then one would be against contraceptive drugs.

I suppose if you're completely adamant about a 72-hour fertilized egg being "alive", you have a point. But then answer me this: by your definition, doesn't a woman commit murder every time she has her period? Each of those eggs has the "potential" to become a child, no?

My question is this: What is the difference between abortion and murder. Both a fetus and a person are living

... and so is the chicken you ate last night. Well, assuming you're not vegetarian, and even vegetables are alive, to an extent. I'd even go so far as to say that a 72-hour old fertilized egg is quite a bit less developed than a vegetable.

I, personally, consider them both to be human. What's the difference?

That's really a matter of opinion, and you're free to think what you will on the issue, obviously. As far as I'm concerned, "potential" really doesn't cut it. I'm sure one of the couple billion bacteria you killed today had the "potential" to evolve into some super-sentint species, given a couple billion years.

[Iveechan]

So far, Brain's post was my favorite one. No, really, I found it enlightening. I have never thought of death as being punishment only to people who cared for the being and not the being itself. Oh yeah, last week my body murdered one of my eggs :*(

[Razola]

Does the mother just say "I want this egg fertilized!*pop*" all the time? Is every pregnancy planned? Quit pulling numbers out of your ass

You think fetuses loom on blades of grass, awaiting their next victim? The majority are planned. Last time I checked, the majority of parasites are not invited by their host.

You're not even saying the same thing. It DOES negatively effect the mother. In order to nurish the fetus, she has to eat more. Why? BECAUSE IT'S TAKING NUTRIENTS FROM HER. That's pretty negative, if I do say so myself. Christ, Raz, are you really this stupid or are you trying to prove some sort of point here?

So increasing the population isn't a benefit to you all? Big picture people. My point is to look at the big picture.

You keep saying that, and you just come off as an arrogant *******, not as some sort of righteous defender of truth.

You realize that lines like that don't make you look any better right?

[Razola]

Yeah really. What the hell does Dictionary.com know?

BECAUSE DICTIONARY.COM IS THE ONLY SOURCE FOR DEFINITIONS, AMIRITE?

Main Entry: par·a·sit·ism
Pronunciation: 'par-&-s&-"ti-z&m, -"sI-
Function: noun
1 : the behavior of a parasite
2 : an intimate association between organisms of two or more kinds; especially : one in which a parasite obtains benefits from a host which it usually injures

Preganancy does not always hurt the mother, because we want the mother to live to increase the population some more.

I'm enjoying myself.