Abortion-do women have the right to kill?

[MattTheSkywalker]

What was I thinking?

You are right.

Only MEN have the right to kill. Us silly feeble women will yield to your will because we are, of course, the weaker sex and need to have men decide our lives for us.

Is this what you default to when confronted with a stance that you do not like?

Might as well put a cardboard box over your head and call that reality. Tough way to live.

 

[atlantabiolab]

http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?query=parasite&action=Search+OMD

parasite
<biology> An organism which obtains food and shelter from another organism (for example Giardia).

(27 Sep 1997)

I was wondering about that and was trying to find one - it refers to one organism living off "another" organism without giving reference to specie. I dare say you're right thought and the definition is incomplete. the point I made (poorly) above is that the relationship between host and parasite can sometimes be mutually beneficial. It is not malevolent BY NATURE.

Scientifically, what you are describing is subcatagorized as "Mutualism" and "Symbiosis". What the "parasitical argument" is implying is that the fetus is a malevolent parasite.

Also, if scientifically the fetus were a true parasite, then embryology would be a subcatagory of Parasitology, which we know is false.

Parasitism

An assortment of definitions

Parasitism is an association, generally continuous, between two different organisms, one of which lives at the expense of the other

M. Caullery - Parasitism and Symbiosis. Sidgwick and Jackson 1952.

Parasitism is a form of symbiosis in which one symbiont, or parasite, receives advantages to the detriment of the other, or host.

Hendersons's dictionary of biological terms (8th edition) Longman Ltd 1975.

Parasitism is a way of living in which an organism, the parasite, uses an organism of a different species, the host, both as a habitat and as a food.

C.P. Reed - Animal Parasitism. Prentice-Hall 1972.

Parasites are those animals which use other living animals as their environment and source of food, at the same time relinquishing to their hosts, partially or completely, the task of regulating their relationships with the external environment.

V.A. Dogiel - General Parasitology. Oliver & Boyd 1964.

Parasitism is an intimate and obligatory relationship between two heterospecific organisms during which the parasite, usually the smaller of the two partners, is metabolically dependent on the host.

T.C. Cheng - General Parasitology. Academic Press 1986.

It is clearly difficult to define parasitism precisely. It is a relationship between to species populations. The essential features are that the parasite is physiologically dependent on the host, that it has a higher reproductive potential than the host, and that it is capable ultimately of killing heavily infected hosts, and that the infections process tends to produce an overdispersed distribution of parasites within the host population.

C.P. Kennedy - Ecological Animal Parasitology. Blackwell Scientific 1975.

A parasite is an organism which has a detrimental effect on the intrinsic growth rate of its host population.

R. M. Anerson & R. M. May J. Animal Ecology 1978.

I resort to Webster's Third International Dictionary for what must be a generally accepted definition: a parasite is an organism living in or on another living organism, obtaining from it part or all of its organic nutriment, commonly exhibiting some degree of adaptive structural modification, and causing some degree of real damage to its host.

P.W. Price - Evolutionary Biology of Parasites. Princeton Univ. Press.

The fetus is in its natural existence in the mother's womb, it is empirically evident that gestation is the natural progression of every normally born man and woman. To argue that the fetus is not a human, is to claim that every man and woman are not humans. Looking at morphological differences detracts from the reality that there will be no morphological differences if not aggressed upon by some external agent.

If a person is in a coma -no brain function -is the removal of life support murder? If a person is in a coma -no brain function -is the removal of life support murder if we know that in 8 months this person WILL come out of the coma perfectly fine?

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

Huh ? What the fuck are you bringing benevolence into this for ? I merely pointed out you were wrong in saying that "Parasites, by nature, cause harm to the host." . I didnt say that parasitism was a good or bad thing for a SOCIETY (killing of welfare recipients, small children, the elderly, countries which are supported by our benevolence, etc.). Just stick to the point and you won't make so many errors which make your style of rhetoric look like raving. You were doing well up to this btw.

The point is consistent. If we agree that a fetus is a parasite (I don't maintain that it passes medical scrutiny as such, but for the sake of discusion, let's allow it) and we use that as a basis to kill off fetuses (parasites), then by extending the *same line of thought*, we can summarily begin the execution of anyone who could be described as a parasite.

I don't think it's raving.

 

[atlantabiolab]

Huh ? What the fuck are you bringing benevolence into this for ? I merely pointed out you were wrong in saying that "Parasites, by nature, cause harm to the host." . I didnt say that parasitism was a good or bad thing for a SOCIETY (killing of welfare recipients, small children, the elderly, countries which are supported by our benevolence, etc.). Just stick to the point and you won't make so many errors which make your style of rhetoric look like raving. You were doing well up to this btw.

You presented the idea of medical leeches, which is not the NATURE of a leech, it is the use of its nature by an outside influence, it is its potential.

 

[Mandinka2]

The point is consistent. If we agree that a fetus is a parasite (I don't maintain that it passes medical scrutiny as such, but for the sake of discusion, let's allow it) and we use that as a basis to kill off fetuses (parasites), then by extending the *same line of thought*, we can summarily begin the execution of anyone who could be described as a parasite.

I don't think it's raving.

The point is related , it is not consistent , fuck me am i gonna have to resort to dictionary definitions on every term? Biolab says that the nature of a parsite is that it harms the host. I took umbrage with that point and gave leeches as examples of parasites which benefit the host (they are parasites are they not ?) . I'm not using that as a basis for destruction at all , I'm not getting into the justification argument since I fought this point already on this board with HansNZ in an extremely long thread.

As to whether or not its raving you are entitled to your opinion but when someone defines a phrase and then expresses his dissatisfaction at his own definition that person loses a lot of credibility with me.

 

[Mandinka2]

You presented the idea of medical leeches, which is not the NATURE of a leech, it is the use of its nature by an outside influence, it is its potential.

OK , I'm gonna burn you alive here in two easy steps:

1. not the NATURE of a leech (2nd statement)
2. use of its NATURE (that word again in 3rd statement)

Is a leech when attached to a human a parasite ? Answer - yes
Does the leech neccessarily (by nature) damage the human ? Answer - no , in certain cases it benefits it.

 

[Apöllo]

Why is BioLab going against Pro-Choice when Objectivism and Libertarianism support it. Isn't the right to control your body and what is in it a clear act of the selfishness that Objectivism stands for?

Are you saying those ways of thinking are wrong? Maybe you're only saying that that portion is wrong. If so perhaps there are other ideas within Objectivism and Libertarianism that are wrong. Now the all of the concepts that you have put forth with such confidence and force are subject to question.

Or maybe those paths of thought are still correct, but it is yourself that is wrong. If that is so, I wonder how many other things you've been wrong about. The logic that you’ve touted seems to be biting you directly in the ass.

Truly, this is something very troubling.

 

[the nature boy]

Why is BioLab going against Pro-Choice when Objectivism and Libertarianism support it. Isn't the right to control your body and what is in it a clear act of the selfishness that Objectivism stands for?

yeah but biolab says abortion is murder. and murder can't be justified. that's my guess as to what he'd say. except he'd use more words.

 

[atlantabiolab]

Why is BioLab going against Pro-Choice when Objectivism and Libertarianism support it. Isn't the right to control your body and what is in it a clear act of the selfishness that Objectivism stands for?

Are you saying those ways of thinking are wrong? Maybe you're only saying that that portion is wrong. If so perhaps there are other ideas within Objectivism and Libertarianism that are wrong. Now the all of the concepts that you have put forth with such confidence and force are subject to question.

Or maybe those paths of thought are still correct, but it is yourself that is wrong. If that is so, I wonder how many other things you've been wrong about. The logic that you’ve touted seems to be biting you directly in the ass.

Truly, this is something very troubling.

No body of thought is perfectly knowledgeable and infallable. I have stated before that I have no absolute knowedge, and can be proven wrong at anytime. If in the light of evidence, I am demonstrated to be wrong, then I must either reconsider my beliefs or remain irrational and hold to that which has been shown to be incorrect.

What rational men MUST do is think and conform their thoughts and beliefs with that of reality. If my beliefs conform to reality then I hold that they are true, until it is shown that they do not conform. Whole systems of belief have been destroyed by such actions, while some have been extensively supported. Because one idea is disproven does not mean that all ideas are therefore incorrect.

Strict objectivists do hold that abortion is acceptable, but I differ with Rand's paltry knowledge of science. She was an amazing thinker, but she herself stated that man is not omniscient.

As for Libertarians...no, ALL libertarians are not supportive of abortion. Search the web for Libertarians 4 Life; they present an excellent argument against this practice, all based on non-theological and reasoned thinking.

Always question my arguments, but hold them to reality and decide for yourself.

 

[atlantabiolab]

OK , I'm gonna burn you alive here in two easy steps:

1. not the NATURE of a leech (2nd statement)
2. use of its NATURE (that word again in 3rd statement)

Is a leech when attached to a human a parasite ? Answer - yes
Does the leech neccessarily (by nature) damage the human ? Answer - no , in certain cases it benefits it.

On its own efforts, show me a leech drawing from another for the benefit of the host. What you have done is added another agent into the equation: man, whose nature is to reason, and in doing so has the power to manipulate nature to his desires. A chair is not a tree, but it has this potential, if man so desires. If left on their own, neither the tree nor the leech has the nature to change into the agent described.

Your example is more telling of what man can do, than the idea of parasitism.