A Different Sort Of Abortion Thread.

[2 ton hoss]

I will type in regular letters here because I know people will take me more seriously. I am going to ask some very specific questions here and I hope you give answers to the questions I ask and not questions you perceive me to be asking.

First, putting aside the notion of a soul or of religion, is there a logical and scientific argument as to why abortion should be prevented? That is to say, I know the argument goes that embryos have souls and thus they should not be killed. I accept that insofar as I accept your religion - that is, I know you believe that but since you are working from a different premise, it has no validity for me. So, is there a secular and scientific/rational argument as to why fetuses should not be aborted? No straw men, please. I am not talking late term or partial birth abortions. I am talking, say, first trimester or RU486 type abortions. Remember what I said about specific questions.

Second, assuming the legality of abortion, should parents be able to prevent their daughter from getting an abortion? Why or why not?

Third, assuming the legality of abortion, should parents be able to force their daughter to get an abortion? Why or why not?

THANKS. LOOKING FORWARD TO SOME ENLIGHTENING REPLIES. 2 TON HOSS.

 

[2 ton hoss]

bump?

 

[manny78]

I have no problem with abortion. Embryos are NOT human beings, legally speaking.

No parents shouldnt. Why would 2 biased individuals have the right to take such decision ?

They shouldnt again. It should rather be the society (through our gov) following some specific criterio n....

 

[2 ton hoss]

The first question was not whether you personally are okay with abortion but whether there is a secular argument against it.

Second and thirdly, parents have vast legal rights to get medical care for their children - including forcing them into medical procedures or preventing them from getting them done. Why should abortion be treated any differently?

 

[Code]

It's not a matter of religion, its a question of when life starts.

If you feel life begins in the first month of conception, then abortion is murder.


If you feel life begins after birth, then just keep the law is it is.


But if you want my opinion.....
A male dominant body of legislators should never have the right to pass laws regarding this topic. A man will never know the pain, anxiety, confusion and bitterness that accompanies abortion.

 

[2 ton hoss]

It's not a matter of religion, its a question of when life starts.

If you feel life begins in the first month of conception, then abortion is murder.


If you feel life begins after birth, then just keep the law is it is.

Define life as you mean it.

Clearly the initial cells are alive. No sane person would dispute this.

The question is if there is a secular argument against killing these cells.

Also, no body of white male legislators is ever going to be NOT sold a condo because of their race. What gives them the right to make laws about this? Your argument there is worthless. Some things are right or wrong, regardless of if a person will ever experience them.

 

[Code]

Comparing the purchase of a condo to the decision to kill a human being is specious to say the least.

 

[Hollywood131]

Abortion

Does God view the life of a child as precious even during the very early stages of development after conception?

Ps. 139:13-16: "You [God] kept me screened off in the belly of my mother ....Your eyes saw even the embryo of me, and in your book all its parts were down in writing."

Ex. 20:13: "You must not murder."

The above scriptures indicate that God does indeed view the unborn child as a precious life or being. Therfore to abort a pregnancy is equivalent to murder in the eyes of God.

To often today people want to be able to act however they please, but do not want to have to take responsibility for their actions. Sex can have some very serious consequences and unplanned pregnancies is just one of them. If you are not prepared to face such consequences, then you are not prepared for the responsibilty of having sex.

 

[danielson]

1. cant think of a reason why not to get an abortion other than a possible danger to the mother......

2. no they shouldnt. i think the only case for having an abortion prevented is if one of the parents says they will look after the child (i.e. if the father wants the baby), i remember a caselike that once.

and possibly if the mother is mentally unstable and unable to make a rational descision then yes, people should be able to take it to court

3. no. if she wants the baby thats all that matters



creates the interesting predicament of someone who keeps getting pregnant and keeps aborting the foetus. one of the most saddening aspects of life that i see is the young women in the world who KNOW the dangers of unprotected sex, yet still allow themselves to have it usually with the scum of society who disappears on them leaving them pregnant and possibly with STD's.....that baby will automatically be disadvantaged from birth.

of course putting the age of consent up or down will have no effect.....in a way the pre-marital sex being taboo makes sense...

 

[Robert Jan]

there was this class once a week in my school where you discuss ethics etc and my school pays way too much too much attention to this and it drives everybody MaD so my sister always skipped the class and once she got caught and the year principle called the house and she picked up:

"Why arent you in class now?"
"Well... we have ethics now, and you see I already had 2 abortions and I want to be a stripper anyway so I dont think it really applies to talk about abortion for another hour"
"WHAT??? I must talk to your parents"
*hangs up*

He like totally bought it. My sister was 15 yrs old at the time.
He even had my mother come to school to discuss and he was all like yeah I must talk to you your daughter has such bad ideas about her career blabalablabalbbla

this guy is such a pooface. no sense of humour in him anywhere.

 

[the nature boy]

abortion is basically killing a living thing, so if killing living things is okay then so be it. HOWEVER, it is in the interest of society that abortions remain legal. Generally these children, if not aborted, will fall through the cracks of the foster care system, and will be unloved. And an unloved child will eventually grow up to become a monster.

I know this isn't really what you were asking but that's how I fee about it. It is a necessary evil.

 

[Frackal]

I agree with nature boy

 

[Lao Tzu]

No one seems to be offering the information you are looking for.


It depends on how you define 'living'. If a terminally ill person commits suicide, that isn't percieved the same way that a young person dying by murder is. The former was guaranteed to die soon, and had little reason to live, the latter had their whole life in front of them.

Assumming that 20% of all pregnancies lead to a miscarriage (i don't know what the real number is) then 80% of all conceptions guarantee a life, then abortion is murder of someone who will eventually become an individual.

However, then you end up in a slippery slope. If abortion is murder, then is wearing a condom murder (a life would have been created if you hadn't, but wasn't. I don't know if that is why the Catholic church opposes birth control). I don't know.

So abortion is the murder of what would one day end up being a living individual.

 

[cockdezl]

abortion is basically killing a living thing, so if killing living things is okay then so be it. HOWEVER, it is in the interest of society that abortions remain legal. Generally these children, if not aborted, will fall through the cracks of the foster care system, and will be unloved. And an unloved child will eventually grow up to become a monster.

I know this isn't really what you were asking but that's how I fee about it. It is a necessary evil.

Horrible argument. This type of reasoning gives credibility to the forced sterilization programs that occured in the early 1900's. I can think of many "reasons" why certain groups of society should be prevented from giving birth, since there is a higher "chance" of unwanted children.

This idea of unwanted children roaming the streets if abortion were not around is simply unsupportable garbage from groups like NARAL, NOW, etc. I really can't see any major change since the 1970's till today, can you? Were we tripping over a bunch of Oliver Twists prior to Roe v. Wade? Plus the argument falls apart when you realize that the women who these organizations purport to be concerned with, the poor, are not the women who tend to have abortions. The majority have always been middle class white women less than age 30. It is simply last resort birth control.

How has 20 weeks been considered the cut-off point (and it is not in D&X procedures, "partial birth" abortions, which allows a later stage procedure) where a fetus is not a 'life'? Why not 19 weeks, 21 weeks, etc.? There is no real scientific reason, since it is arbitrary bullshit. The only non-arbitrary logical concept is that life begins with conception. Prior to conception there is no zygote, so the religious position of condoms and masturbation is bullshit. After conception, trying to quantify a certain "stage" is nothing but a slippery slope.

I realize that nothing will make abortion illegal now. Man is simply lazy, mentally and ethically, this is just another cog in the wheel of man's desire to escape all responsibility and create "the easy way out".

 

[Hangfire]

cockdezl is right on the money....again.

But if you want my opinion.....
A male dominant body of legislators should never have the right to pass laws regarding this topic. A man will never know the pain, anxiety, confusion and bitterness that accompanies abortion.

Not true. A man whose partner has murdered his unborn child will suffer all of those things.

It is ridiculous to assert that male legislators have no business formulating law that governs abortion. If law was made only by the special-interest groups that purport own the specific issues, there would be no "law" to speak of. Laws need to address the greater public welfare---not the whims of the special interests.

 

[the nature boy]

Horrible argument. This type of reasoning gives credibility to the forced sterilization programs that occured in the early 1900's. I can think of many "reasons" why certain groups of society should be prevented from giving birth, since there is a higher "chance" of unwanted children.

This idea of unwanted children roaming the streets if abortion were not around is simply unsupportable garbage from groups like NARAL, NOW, etc. I really can't see any major change since the 1970's till today, can you? Were we tripping over a bunch of Oliver Twists prior to Roe v. Wade? Plus the argument falls apart when you realize that the women who these organizations purport to be concerned with, the poor, are not the women who tend to have abortions. The majority have always been middle class white women less than age 30. It is simply last resort birth control.

http://www.esri.com/news/thedistrict/episode13/facts_figures.html

http://home.rica.net/rthoma/sub-pop.htm

children in the foster care system or children that are abused are more likely to commit crime than those not in those situations. prove otherwise.

 

[spentagn]

However, then you end up in a slippery slope. If abortion is murder, then is wearing a condom murder (a life would have been created if you hadn't, but wasn't. I don't know if that is why the Catholic church opposes birth control). I don't know.

Condoms minimize the chance of a possible conception. Your wording suggests that conception is definite.

 

[circusgirl]

This is interesting because of how it applies to me.

I currently take long-term medication for manic depressive illness. Which is linked to possible birth defects when taken in the first 3 months of pregnancy.

It is not currently possible for me to exist as a sane normal human being without my meds. I, quite simply, go nuts, within a few weeks without them. The chance of my hurling both me and the unborn off a building withint a month of stopping the meds if pregnant would be very high. I know this doesn't make me sound like a responsible person, however I am completely normal with the meds.

In addition, since manic depression has a high hereditary component, it would be irresponsible of me to procreate with the 40%+ chance of passing this illness on to my child.

So, I am married. I have sex with my husband on a regular basis. I use the depo-provera contraceptive injection as this is extremely reliable and I don't have to remember to take pills every day, it works even when on antibiotics etc. but there is a slight chance that someday, I am going to get pregnant anyway, by some mishap. The probability is not 0.000, although slight.

I have thought about this. It would be very dangerous to my health if I attempted to carry a, possibly already mentally ill, child, to term. So, in that case, I would have an abortion. As it happens, I quite like the idea of having kids, BUT it's not an option open to me in this life. I could not have sex with my husband at all, but I am not willing to do this, because I think the probability of getting pregnant is very low. Still, not entirely zero.

I think people need to realise that most women who have abortions are in fact MARRIED women who already have kids, and don't want a 6th or 5th one, or can't have them for health reasons or financial reasons. This is because married people have sex far more often than those who date once a week, and so are more likely to conceive. The same people who rant about abortion on this page also complain in the same breath about "welfare single mommies" - you gotta make your choice, folks, about which you hate the least.

circusgirl

 

[paradox]

Its murder plain & simple. You shouldnt even being out fucking around if your not ready to take on the responsibility that comes with it. Your takeing another human life because of your irresponsibility.

 

[Latimer]

I think abortion should be legal up untill the 72nd trimester.

 

[Imnotdutch]

I suspect that Code meant that when the embryo becomes conscious it would be murder to abort. A cell is alive, yes....but it is not conscious. Defining the point at which the embryo becomes conscious is however very difficult (not to mention that we have no problem killing other conscious organisms for food / fun etc).

Define life as you mean it.

Clearly the initial cells are alive. No sane person would dispute this.

The question is if there is a secular argument against killing these cells.

Also, no body of white male legislators is ever going to be NOT sold a condo because of their race. What gives them the right to make laws about this? Your argument there is worthless. Some things are right or wrong, regardless of if a person will ever experience them.

 

[CAGED whiteman]

the major problem with abortion is the wrong people are using it...abortion should only be used if you cant care for your kid and most of the people who cant do this arent getting abortions...i wont name the people who should be aborting because it will just piss you pussy offs but it is the TRUTH!!!!

 

[Imnotdutch]

the major problem with abortion is the wrong people are using it...abortion should only be used if you cant care for your kid and most of the people who cant do this arent getting abortions...i wont name the people who should be aborting because it will just piss you pussy offs but it is the TRUTH!!!!

Quit being a pussy and just name them........

 

[CAGED whiteman]

Quit being a pussy and just name them........

well it really is the poorer folks including white people but i think it is more of problem in urban areas...too many kids in the city equals more crime and babies!!!

 

[huntmaster]

As time passes more and more we are becoming a society void of responsibility composed of individuals who are interested in finding new ways to escape the consequences of thier actions.

we are now a self-serving society. for many that is OK. for me --- it is sick.

we debate subjects that were considered no-brainers years ago when society held folks accountable. back in the day when there was no 'three strikes and your out' as slick willie said. back when everyone carried a gun on thier side and theives were hung in public--for all to see.


we are a society with sold priorities. we sold our priorities for pleasure and convenience. in doing so we will leave our children a world to live in that is more corrupt and chaotic than ever before. maybe they will be the ones to wise up and make a difference. maybe they will be the ones to embrace the leaders who have standards instead of despising them as we do.

maybe

 

[thebabydoc]

Well, I'd just like get back to and reply to 2 ton's initial question:

1. No, there is no "scientific or logical" reason to prevent abortion.

But is there a "scientific of logical" reason to prevent murder?
(Don't get me wrong, I don't equate the two, I am pro-choice).
What I am saying is that the question is weak at best, but the answer is still no.

All of anti-abortion responses have a common thread: God or taking life.

God plays no role because the existance of God is a BELIEF which is interpreted by all people in many different ways. (Why should the fact that one person believes in God be any more valid than the belief another has that God does not exist?)

Taking life may be a bit more relevant but that is how and why the abortion laws have been written. Trying to define the moment at which life starts is a joke and a concept manufactured and twisted by anti-abortion believers for just this argument. More relevant is when can life support itself independently or with current technology. It has been pretty much agreed that 24-25 weeks is presently the limit (and let's not even get into what it takes to keep 24-27 week neonates alive or the long-term consequences).

The fetus is a parasite by all medical and scientific definitions. It derives benefit while harming the host. It does not meet the classification of a symbiote or even a commensalist:

Symbiote: A living organism that lives in conjunction with another living organism, to their mutual benefit. A good example of a symbiotic relationship is the millions of bacteria that inhabit your intestines, allowing you to digest foods you would not normally be able to.

Parasite: A living organism that lives off of another organism (called a "host") which usually harms the host in the process. A good example of a parasite is a leech or a tick. Not all parasites harm their hosts, or are completely unwelcome. The remora which attaches itself to a shark's side is a parasite, as is a human fetus developing inside its mother .

To remove it, "scientifically and logically" should be the decision of the host organism and no one else. But because there is a point at which life can exist independently and there are laws against murder (be they logical or scientific), there must be a point at which to abort a fetus would be murder, even the staunchest pro-choicer would have to concur. To protect against "gray areas" in the laws, the 24-25 week cutoff has been established. VERY IMPORTANT POINT HERE: This has also been given exceptions in the law as for example when the fetus, although alive in utero, would not survive outside independently (e.g. anencephaly).

2. Parents are the guardians of their children. It is assumed that children (up until some point) are not mature/educated/etc... enough to make certain decisions (examples: consentual sex, marriage, drinking, gambling). So there is sound logic (if you agree with any of the aforementioned examples) for requiring some kind of adult consent. On the other hand, parents cannot give consent for their children to do any of the things mentioned in the examples I gave. For this reason we have a bodies of laws which establish certain (moral?) "rights and wrongs".

Who and what should determine this is a question that will probably rage forever.

 

[huntmaster]

scientific bullshit

 

[thebabydoc]

scientific bullshit

1. Typical pro-life response to logic. Is that as opposed to "religious truth"?

2. The reply was an answer to the original question and what the post topic asked for: a "scientific or logical" reason that abortion should be prohibited.

 

[huntmaster]

1. Typical pro-life response to logic. Is that as opposed to "religious truth"?

2. The reply was an answer to the original question and what the post topic asked for: a "scientific or logical" reason that abortion should be prohibited.

no sir, not "religious truth"--just common sense

 

[BronzedGoddess]

In Brazil abortion is ILLEGAL but they perform twice as many a year as we do in US. Just a fact I saw on MTV once.........

 

[Latimer]

In Brazil abortion is ILLEGAL but they perform twice as many a year as we do in US. Just a fact I saw on MTV once.........

I hope they still aren't using coathangers. That's some horrible shit.

 

[cockdezl]

Well, I'd just like get back to and reply to 2 ton's initial question:

1. No, there is no "scientific or logical" reason to prevent abortion.

But is there a "scientific of logical" reason to prevent murder?
(Don't get me wrong, I don't equate the two, I am pro-choice).
What I am saying is that the question is weak at best, but the answer is still no.

All of anti-abortion responses have a common thread: God or taking life.

God plays no role because the existance of God is a BELIEF which is interpreted by all people in many different ways. (Why should the fact that one person believes in God be any more valid than the belief another has that God does not exist?)

Taking life may be a bit more relevant but that is how and why the abortion laws have been written. Trying to define the moment at which life starts is a joke and a concept manufactured and twisted by anti-abortion believers for just this argument. More relevant is when can life support itself independently or with current technology. It has been pretty much agreed that 24-25 weeks is presently the limit (and let's not even get into what it takes to keep 24-27 week neonates alive or the long-term consequences).

This is incorrect. The criteria for 'life' and 'living' are well established in biological science, and a fetus fits perfectly in this. Viruses are the organisms that have problems falling into the catagory of 'living' due to their limited biological machinary. Logically, the only non-arbitrary decision is that life begins at conception, everything else is arbitrary.

The fetus is a parasite by all medical and scientific definitions. It derives benefit while harming the host. It does not meet the classification of a symbiote or even a commensalist:

This is, as HUNTMASTER stated, bullshit, not scientific bullshit, but semantic/legal bullshit. Nowhere, but in the context of abortion arguments, is a fetus ever described as a parasite. Please show us in any biological texts, zoological texts or mammalian physiology texts, where offspring are classified as parasites. Nowhere in nature can you find a parasite that is in the same species as its host.

This is simply rationalization of a concept to make it more appealing to others, similar to the concept of "ethnic cleansing" over genocide, genocide over murder. Humans are very adept at changing words to change the emphasis it places on the action. By this same reasoning, I can justify why some living humans should be classified as "parasitical" to society, by their actions. I think that Hitler and Stalin showed us how this type of logic can be used to justify a purging of society from the unwanted.

Symbiote: A living organism that lives in conjunction with another living organism, to their mutual benefit. A good example of a symbiotic relationship is the millions of bacteria that inhabit your intestines, allowing you to digest foods you would not normally be able to.

Parasite: A living organism that lives off of another organism (called a "host") which usually harms the host in the process. A good example of a parasite is a leech or a tick. Not all parasites harm their hosts, or are completely unwelcome. The remora which attaches itself to a shark's side is a parasite, as is a human fetus developing inside its mother .

To remove it, "scientifically and logically" should be the decision of the host organism and no one else. But because there is a point at which life can exist independently and there are laws against murder (be they logical or scientific), there must be a point at which to abort a fetus would be murder, even the staunchest pro-choicer would have to concur. To protect against "gray areas" in the laws, the 24-25 week cutoff has been established. VERY IMPORTANT POINT HERE: This has also been given exceptions in the law as for example when the fetus, although alive in utero, would not survive outside independently (e.g. anencephaly).

Since science and medicine is progressing to where the age at which a fetus can survive outside of the womb is decreasing, do you expect the law to follow suit and decrease the stage where an abortion can be performed? I realize that this is dreaming, because I understand that the law was never intended to consider infant viability, it was simply a way to rectify a perceived problem. The people who pushed for Roe v. Wade do not care about motherhood or family planning, they despise the concept of a women's biological role in society, they ridicule women who choose motherhood over corporate society, they feel that mothers are oppressed half-humans. They simply wished to have the sexual freedom, that they felt that men had benefited from, with none of the strings.

2. Parents are the guardians of their children. It is assumed that children (up until some point) are not mature/educated/etc... enough to make certain decisions (examples: consentual sex, marriage, drinking, gambling). So there is sound logic (if you agree with any of the aforementioned examples) for requiring some kind of adult consent. On the other hand, parents cannot give consent for their children to do any of the things mentioned in the examples I gave. For this reason we have a bodies of laws which establish certain (moral?) "rights and wrongs".

Who and what should determine this is a question that will probably rage forever.

 

[cockdezl]

This is interesting because of how it applies to me.

I currently take long-term medication for manic depressive illness. Which is linked to possible birth defects when taken in the first 3 months of pregnancy.

It is not currently possible for me to exist as a sane normal human being without my meds. I, quite simply, go nuts, within a few weeks without them. The chance of my hurling both me and the unborn off a building withint a month of stopping the meds if pregnant would be very high. I know this doesn't make me sound like a responsible person, however I am completely normal with the meds.

In addition, since manic depression has a high hereditary component, it would be irresponsible of me to procreate with the 40%+ chance of passing this illness on to my child.

So, I am married. I have sex with my husband on a regular basis. I use the depo-provera contraceptive injection as this is extremely reliable and I don't have to remember to take pills every day, it works even when on antibiotics etc. but there is a slight chance that someday, I am going to get pregnant anyway, by some mishap. The probability is not 0.000, although slight.

I have thought about this. It would be very dangerous to my health if I attempted to carry a, possibly already mentally ill, child, to term. So, in that case, I would have an abortion. As it happens, I quite like the idea of having kids, BUT it's not an option open to me in this life. I could not have sex with my husband at all, but I am not willing to do this, because I think the probability of getting pregnant is very low. Still, not entirely zero.

You thought your situation out extensively, yet you did not choose the best option to prevent a pregnancy, tubal ligation or vasectomy, for your husband. So if you do get pregnant it is because you did not do your best to prevent it.

I think people need to realise that most women who have abortions are in fact MARRIED women who already have kids, and don't want a 6th or 5th one, or can't have them for health reasons or financial reasons. This is because married people have sex far more often than those who date once a week, and so are more likely to conceive. The same people who rant about abortion on this page also complain in the same breath about "welfare single mommies" - you gotta make your choice, folks, about which you hate the least.

circusgirl

Sorry, but married women never have been in the majority of women who have abortions. And around 1% are for health reasons. Also, who the hell dates once a week? How long has it been since you have been in the dating scene? I can attest to more sex prior to marriage, and most people that I know feel this way.

 

[thebabydoc]

This is incorrect. The criteria for 'life' and 'living' are well established in biological science, and a fetus fits perfectly in this. Viruses are the organisms that have problems falling into the catagory of 'living' due to their limited biological machinary.

.
Just proved my point as to pro-life advocates' use of "life" to frame their argument. Since you, like Clinton lovers, somehow seem to ignore facts placed in front of your faces, I will repeat my statement:

Trying to define the moment at which life starts is a joke and a concept manufactured and twisted by anti-abortion believers for just this argument.

.Logically, the only non-arbitrary decision is that life begins at conception, everything else is arbitrary.

WTF? What language is this??? As Yoda might have said: a self-defining concept, we have here.

Nowhere, but in the context of abortion arguments, is a fetus ever described as a parasite. Please show us in any biological texts, zoological texts or mammalian physiology texts, where offspring are classified as parasites. Nowhere in nature can you find a parasite that is in the same species as its host.

. Well I'm sorry to have brought your world of mistaken and manufactured beliefs crashing down around you. I already gave you the definition of a parasite...oh, I forgot, you often miss facts when they are placed DIRECTLY in front of you, so I will once again repeat the definition for you (BTW, you CAN find this in ANY ZOOLOGICAL, BIOLOGICAL, OR MEDICAL TEXTBOOK):

Parasite: A living organism that lives off of another organism (called a "host") which usually harms the host in the process. A good example of a parasite is a leech or a tick. Not all parasites harm their hosts, or are completely unwelcome. The remora which attaches itself to a shark's side is a parasite, as is a human fetus developing inside its mother .
just because it hasn't been brought up in previous "abortion arguments" doesn't lessen its truth. Rather than making it more "appealing" as you'd like to write it off to, it's actually rather ugly and crude to describe a potential human as a parasite but it's the ugly truth- the fetus meets and exceeds the definition of a parasite. I challenge you to prove otherwise.

and lastly,

By this same reasoning, I can justify why some living humans should be classified as "parasitical" to society, by their actions. I think that Hitler and Stalin showed us how this type of logic can be used to justify a purging of society from the unwanted.

Actually, no you cannot use this same reasoning because all humans give some benefit to society an in your the words of your kind, "all life is precious". How typical to call upon such completely irrelevant names as Stalin and Hitler to try to distract attention from the truth and facts:

1. Fetus = parasite (by ALL definitions)
2. "Life" NOT equal to viability (ability to live without support).

 

[cockdezl]

.
Just proved my point as to pro-life advocates' use of "life" to frame their argument. Since you, like Clinton lovers, somehow seem to ignore facts placed in front of your faces, I will repeat my statement:

Trying to define the moment at which life starts is a joke and a concept manufactured and twisted by anti-abortion believers for just this argument.

[/B]WTF? What language is this??? As Yoda might have said: a self-defining concept, we have here.

WOW, now that you increased the font on your post, I see the errors in my reasoning. Actually the above concept comes from "Biomedical Ethics", Mappes and Zembaty, that is used in many pre-med, pre-pharmacy curriculums. You might wanna try looking at more than Vogue and Cosmo for some deeper reading.

[/B]. Well I'm sorry to have brought your world of mistaken and manufactured beliefs crashing down around you. I already gave you the definition of a parasite...oh, I forgot, you often miss facts when they are placed DIRECTLY in front of you, so I will once again repeat the definition for you (BTW, you CAN find this in ANY ZOOLOGICAL, BIOLOGICAL, OR MEDICAL TEXTBOOK):

Actually, I prefer real definitions, that relate to real science, not your contracted versions of definitions. Using your defining skills a whale is a fish. Here is a better more specific definition of a parasite which demonstrates why a fetus is not, and has never, scientifically been classified as a parasite:

parasite
Biology
• an animal or plant living in or on an organism of another species (its host), obtaining from it part or all of its organic nutriment, and commonly exhibiting some degree of adaptive structural modification. The host is typically, but not always, harmed by the presence of the parasite; it never benefits from this presence. (AP Dictionary of Science and Technology)

Parasitism
The term parasitism may be defined as a two-species association in which one species, the parasite, lives on or in a second species, the host, for a significant period of its life and obtains nourishment from it. This is a commonly accepted working definition of parasitism and using it we can emphasize several important features of the host-parasite relationship.
-Parasitism always involves two species, the parasite and the host.
-Many of these parasitic associations produce pathological changes in hosts that may result in disease.
-Successful treatment and control of parasitic diseases requires not only comprehensive information about the parasite itself but also a good understanding of the nature of parasites' interactions with their hosts.
-The parasite is always the beneficiary and the host is always the provider in any host-parasite relationship. (University of Pennsylvania, College of Parasitology and Parasitic Disease)

In case you don't understand the relevance of the definitions, they point to the idea that I originally stated, parasites do not occur within the same species, they are not related by genetics. Now you can throw around the only case of parasitism you seem to know, that being the Remora and the Shark, but how about searching for a real world parasite that exists off of its kin. I would be very interested.

As for the concept of harm done by the fetus on the mother, there is recognized benefit to the species and the mother, namely propagation of the genes, and the links between pregnancies and reduction in certain cancer rates. Now, the Myxomycete virus devastated (intentionally) the Spanish rabbit popluation in Australia, Yersina pestis devastated the human population in Europe, HIV is devastating the population in parts of Africa, please show us where childbirth is affecting, negatively, the populations in any country.

snipped the rest of your pseudo-scientific rant.

1. Fetus = parasite (by ALL definitions)
2. "Life" NOT equal to viability (ability to live without support).

 

[thebabydoc]

Cockdezl:

I'm sorry, what was it you do for a living besides picket abortion clinics? Because I speak from experience here so please do not lecture me or circusgirl about that which you have NO ACTUAL EXPERIENCE OR KNOWLEDGE. Did you know that tubals and vasectomies fail? Depending on the type of tubal, sometimes even more that the depo-provera?

Apparently, though, contraception is ok with you, well thank goodness for little things. Tell me, what do you think about the IUD? Did they teach you these things in "pre-med or pre-pharmacy?"

Go on and continue to focus on one little point of the entire picture, what I accurately noted is a PARASITIC relationship between the growing fetus and the mother. Forget and ignore all the issues of self-determination, individuals' rights, and viability and well, (excuse me on this one), THE LAW. Introduce new and exciting concepts like whether or not a virus is alive. I finished all these topics in high school along with philosophy in college, and yes, even bioethics in medical school.

In the real world there are real people like Circusgirl or the 21 year-old Vietnamese girl carrying an anencephalic infant that I aborted last week who do not fall into neat little CATEGORIES as you would like them to. Which makes it a good thing that we as Homo sapiens have the ability to think and the right to self-determination, no thanks to the likes of you.

BTW, overpopulation is probably regarded as the world's single largest problem today. You might just want to ask the Indians or the Chinese about this. As for Mappes and Zembaty, they are pretty much regarded as anti-abortionists and only thinly veil their bias in their texts.

 

[circusgirl]

hmmmm regarding married women and abortions - I know that the stats for Irish women travelling to the UK for abortions is that around 60% of them are married women who already have at least one child. I do not have the figures for the US.

And regarding how long I have been out of the dating scene - yes, a long time! Maybe 6 years... but if you are living with someone, opportunities for nookie arise more often than if you meet up a few times a week.... trust me on this one .

circusgirl

 

[cockdezl]

Cockdezl:

I'm sorry, what was it you do for a living besides picket abortion clinics? Because I speak from experience here so please do not lecture me or circusgirl about that which you have NO ACTUAL EXPERIENCE OR KNOWLEDGE. Did you know that tubals and vasectomies fail? Depending on the type of tubal, sometimes even more that the depo-provera?

Nice try, BABYDOC, I see that your font seems to have decreased. Actually, I am a real scientist. I have my emphasis in microbiology.

What, in this discussion, does one have to have experience with? Are you trying to tell me that moral ethics must only be weighed by those who have first-hand experience in the matter? Nice try, but not quite.

Oh, and just to let you know, I have never been to an abortion clinic.

Apparently, though, contraception is ok with you, well thank goodness for little things. Tell me, what do you think about the IUD? Did they teach you these things in "pre-med or pre-pharmacy?"

I have no problems with any contraceptive measures, I do not feel that haploidal DNA is a human life. I hope they teach these things in "pre-med" or "pre-pharmacy", but I would not know since I am not in either of these professions.

Go on and continue to focus on one little point of the entire picture, what I accurately noted is a PARASITIC relationship between the growing fetus and the mother. Forget and ignore all the issues of self-determination, individuals' rights, and viability and well, (excuse me on this one), THE LAW. Introduce new and exciting concepts like whether or not a virus is alive. I finished all these topics in high school along with philosophy in college, and yes, even bioethics in medical school.

At what point did a very defining characteristic of the term become 'one little point'? Is it when you realized that "little point" prevents your definition from working. Maybe we should use loose interpretations for all definitions, so that we can have more ideas fall under the terminology we wish to portray. Instead of getting your definitions from NARAL, why don't you try looking into the matter yourself.

And congratulations on becoming a doctor, I am sure there is somebody who is proud of you.

In the real world there are real people like Circusgirl or the 21 year-old Vietnamese girl carrying an anencephalic infant that I aborted last week who do not fall into neat little CATEGORIES as you would like them to. Which makes it a good thing that we as Homo sapiens have the ability to think and the right to self-determination, no thanks to the likes of you.

And since you have no idea of my stance on abortion, you assume that I think that these people should not be able to obtain one. Since you simply saw me argue points on this topic, you assumed that I must be a 'Bible thumpin' protester, -anybody who doesn't think that abortion is the second coming of Christ, must be an anti-abortion activist, right? Well, as you state, not everyone fits into your 'neat little catagories'. I have no issue with a woman who has true medical reasons for abortions, such as your above example, but I understand that this is the exception, not the rule.

I take offense at people who, like yourself, try to skew the picture of reality and attempt to tell the public, utilizing the falsity of authority, lies, such as "the fetus is a parasite"(....ohhh, wait, let me pull a few words here from the definition, and then...yep now it fits.) And garbage, such as, without abortion we would have unwanted children just running around the streets, living in garbage cans, etc.

BTW, overpopulation is probably regarded as the world's single largest problem today. You might just want to ask the Indians or the Chinese about this.

Really?, you might wanna check, there are about 50 groups who think that their cause is the #1 problem facing humanity, whether it is global warming, cosmic impact, cell phones or pizzas.

I have no idea where Mappes and Zembaty stand on the position of abortion, since their text is simply a compilation of arguments, from various authors, concerning current Biomedical topics, and was, in my version, skewed for abortion. But nice attempt to grasp at straws.

As for Mappes and Zembaty, they are pretty much regarded as anti-abortionists and only thinly veil their bias in their texts.

 

[john937]

You aren't interested in religious reasons, so I think it's interesting to look at one of the countries that does allow abortion and takes an anti-religious view on it - China.
China wants their citizens to have few children in order to reduce their overall population.
So Chinese citizens are allowed to have abortions, and I hear, even forced to have abortions after the first "allowable", "authorized" births.
But every Chinese family wants to have a boy to carry on the family dynasty.
So when they hear their first baby is going to be a female, they get abortions, and try again till they have a "desirable" male pregnancy.
And what has been the result? We now hear China has entirely more Males than Females. We don't know what the implications of this will be, but it could include a more competitive stressfull or unballanced society, and possibly a larger military presence (what are all those single males to do with their lives in such a homosexually-repressive culture?)
The bottom line is they've allowed man to tinker with the balance of nature, and man has screwed it up, again.

All that said, I still support a woman's right to decide the destiny of what happens in her own body.

 

[the nature boy]

I think it's safe to agree that nobody is going to change his or her mind on this topic.