The Unprogressive Progressive

[Mirdath]

Abortion hurts women. Apart from any physical or emotional trauma, it is exploitative and abusive. Pregnancy is beneficial to women, it provides physical and emotional benefits. Now, the manner or circumstances in which a woman finds herself pregnant may not be beneficial, but that is not the case with actual pregnancy. As abortion harms women, it does not serve a woman in any capacity to kill the unborn, as we can not condone an inherently evil act to satisfy any perceived moral good.

It does not serve a woman in any capacity to kill the unborn? Sometimes it saves their lives. Pregnancy can be deadly, and the rate in the US for death in childbirth is far worse than that of any other first-world nation – we’re in there with the third world. Is it any surprise that some women wouldn’t want to risk it? And that’s not even getting into less immediately dramatic situations, like trying to raise a child with no help and only minimum wage.

Regardless of what you think, science tells us the fetus is not a parasite.

No, science tells us it is one. It subsists on the mother, is attached to her, and gives no nutriment back. If the mother doesn’t have enough food for herself and the child, both die. That’s pretty much the textbook definition; the fact that a fetus lacks lamprey-teeth is incidental. It doesn’t need them, it’s already attached through the umbilical cord.

 

[vern_humphrey]

No, science tells us it is one. It subsists on the mother, is attached to her, and gives no nutriment back. If the mother doesn’t have enough food for herself and the child, both die. That’s pretty much the textbook definition; the fact that a fetus lacks lamprey-teeth is incidental. It doesn’t need them, it’s already attached through the umbilical cord.

Science tells us no such thing. The unborn child is no more a parasite than a man on welfare, or an older person on Social Security.

 

[Mirdath]

Science tells us no such thing. The unborn child is no more a parasite than a man on welfare, or an older person on Social Security.

A fetus meets most if not all of the conditions to be considered a physical parasite. Social parasites are a completely different matter, and I strongly disagree that someone on welfare or SS is one based merely on that. Particularly SS – if someone’s on that, they had to pay into it first.

 

[vern_humphrey]

A fetus meets most if not all of the conditions to be considered a physical parasite.

“meets most if not all”

Nice tap dance. Ever considered trying out for a Broadway musical?

Here’s a hint – a physical parasite, by definition is a different species from the host organism.

Social parasites are a completely different matter, and I strongly disagree that someone on welfare or SS is one based merely on that. Particularly SS – if someone’s on that, they had to pay into it first.

Riiiiight. Simply calling such a person a parasite would offend you. But it’s okay to call a child a parasite and to kill it.

 

[Jennifer123]

It does not serve a woman in any capacity to kill the unborn? Sometimes it saves their lives. Pregnancy can be deadly, and the rate in the US for death in childbirth is far worse than that of any other first-world nation – we’re in there with the third world. Is it any surprise that some women wouldn’t want to risk it? And that’s not even getting into less immediately dramatic situations, like trying to raise a child with no help and only minimum wage.

There are options for women who don’t want to raise their child. No one is forcing them to raise their children, there are many people waiting to adopt.

As for maternal deaths, the abortion procedure is far riskier and in many cases very unsafe.
abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_21.asp#What%20is%20the%20maternal%20mortality%20from%20childbirth?

But something tells me you are relunctant to weigh evidence as you are repeating the same things without barely acknowledging evidence we’ve shown to the contrary.

 

[Mirdath]

“meets most if not all”

Nice tap dance. Ever considered trying out for a Broadway musical?

The only problems are I’m shy and I hate Andrew Lloyd Webber’s work

Here’s a hint – a physical parasite, by definition is a different species from the host organism.

I checked, and yeah, you’re right. Let it be ‘most’ then. I’ll even refrain from calling them parasites directly – but please note that I was not the first to do so.

Riiiiight. Simply calling such a person a parasite would offend you. But it’s okay to call a child a parasite and to kill it.

They’re not physically attached to someone else and sucking food out of their bodies, are they?

Jennifer123:

There are options for women who don’t want to raise their child. No one is forcing them to raise their children, there are many people waiting to adopt.

You are forcing them to have them, though – something which is often quite dangerous to their physical and mental health, even deadly. Not to mention then telling them to give them up – which would be absolutely devastating for a new mother, much more so than ‘giving them up’ through abortion while they’re pregnant; there’s been far less time to bond. Motherly love just does not work in a way that would allow someone to go through nine months of pregnancy, the anguish of labor, and the joy of first holding the child, all to give him or her away never to see again. It’s not a rational thing, it’s instinct – and so strong an instinct it overrides everything else. You can’t just wave it away by saying ‘well, give it up for adoption’.

Let me be perfectly clear and honest here: I do not like abortion. I don’t know anyone who does. I’ve never heard anyone seriously say ‘hey, it’s a long weekend… wanna come with me, we’ll get abortions!’ It’s an ugly thing, but it’s better than the alternative.

Were gestation accomplished entirely in vitro, I’d be completely silent here; it just wouldn’t be an issue. We have the ability to do that (if not now, very soon), even allowing people who for some reason want the ‘natural experience’ to have it their way. It just isn’t profitable enough to the powers that be (who are mostly male and less interested), and for some reason the thought seems to kick up almost as much a fuss as abortion does, in spite of its potential ability to get rid of abortion almost entirely.

As for maternal deaths, the abortion procedure is far riskier and in many cases very unsafe.
abortionfacts.com/online_…%20childbirth?

Have a source that isn’t quite obviously pushing an agenda?

But something tells me you are relunctant to weigh evidence as you are repeating the same things without barely acknowledging evidence we’ve shown to the contrary.

My main argument is rational, not empirical, and for the tangents that do not I readily admit when I’ve made a mistake (which I have done, see above). Evidence doesn’t come into that principal argument, and so far most of the ‘evidence’ that’s been presented in spite of that is pictures of fetuses.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I checked, and yeah, you’re right. Let it be ‘most’ then. I’ll even refrain from calling them parasites directly – but please note that I was not the first to do so.

As someone on this thread pointed out, we share about 80% of our DNA with cauliflower. Now, that’s “most” of our DNA – but it doesn’t make us cauliflower, now does it?

Let’s put this silly argument to rest now – an unborn child cannot be a parasite. Period. End of discussion.

 

[Mirdath]

Let’s put this silly argument to rest now – an unborn child cannot be a parasite. Period. End of discussion.

Other than being of the same species, a fetus shares practically all the characteristics of one. Technically you’re right, but that’s ignoring quite a lot.

You’re imposing outside moral values on the word ‘parasite’. It’s just a word, and morally neutral until your attitude towards it comes into play. Some parasites are even beneficial to the host. If you don’t want to hear ‘parasite’, what about the word ‘tumor’? Once again, there are plenty of shared characteristics – and they share the same DNA as the host, even. I used the former word because it has less of a negative connotation; I’m quite willing to switch to another which has even fewer bad things associated with it, I just can’t find one. Feel free to suggest another term for something that exists within and drains a host.

Children can be and often are quite beneficial after gestation; during that time, however, they are a gross liability to their host mother. If nothing else, that should argue for the better treatment of women, pregnant or not.

 

[Gabriel_Gale]

"GG:

Do you consider premature babies (26-32 weeks) human?

*At the very least they’ve started on that path *They’re out of the womb and no longer directly dependent on their mothers for absolutely everything, even if they have other health issues that require assistance.

The most critical difference is that a human being can live without being physically attached to the mother. The only other one that comes to mind right now is the presence of a conscience.

GG:

*So do you consider human fetuses with-in the womb at 26 weeks on that path? *

Mirdath:

They’re not outside the mother’s body, so no, they aren’t yet. They have the capability to become so, but up until that happens the mother is more valuable; given the choice to act so as to save the mother but not the child or to save the child but not the mother I would choose the former option.

So, you would consider the 38 human organism in the womb not a human being (and therefore not deserving of any special protection) because of the physical attachment to the mother but on the other hand you would consider the 26 week old prematurely born infant on a respirator and intravenous fluids a human being (and therefore deserving of special protection).
GG:

Sounds like vaibility isn’t your only requirement for “humaneness”, what else do you have on your list?

Midrath:

That’s pretty much the absolute base.

Is it viability or the umbilical cord?

 

[Gabriel_Gale]

No, ‘on the way’ means ‘on the way’ – no more, no less.

Mirdath: Are you at here at work?
Employee (John) : I’m on the way.
Mirdath: OK. Cool
Mirdath’s Boss: Where’s John?
Mirddath: He’s on the way.
Mirdath’s Boss: Is he here?
Mirdath: I don’t know, he says that he is on the way.
Boss: Aaaaargh.
I agree with your boss.

 

[Gabriel_Gale]

Other than being of the same species, a fetus shares practically all the characteristics of one. Technically you’re right, but that’s ignoring quite a lot.

You’re imposing outside moral values on the word ‘parasite’. It’s just a word, and morally neutral until your attitude towards it comes into play. Some parasites are even beneficial to the host.

And you weren’t aware of any negative moral values attached to the word parasite.
Midrath:

Social parasites are a completely different matter, and I strongly disagree that someone on welfare or SS is one based merely on that.

Mr. Pot paging Mr. Kettle

 

[Mirdath]

So, you would consider the 38 human organism in the womb not a human being (and therefore not deserving of any special protection) because of the physical attachment to the mother but on the other hand you would consider the 26 week old prematurely born infant on a respirator and intravenous fluids a human being (and therefore deserving of special protection).

Pretty much. Even you should admit that people develop both physically and spiritually at different rates.

Is it viability or the umbilical cord?

It’s ‘living outside the mother’.

Mirdath: Are you at here at work?
Employee (John) : I’m on the way.
Mirdath: OK. Cool
Mirdath’s Boss: Where’s John?
Mirddath: He’s on the way.
Mirdath’s Boss: Is he here?
Mirdath: I don’t know, he says that he is on the way.
Boss: Aaaaargh.
I agree with your boss.

Where I work this is how it’d likely go:

M: Are you in yet?
J: I’m on the way.
M: Okay, see you in a bit.
B: Where’s John?
M: He said he’s on the way in.
B: Tell him to get over here as soon as he gets in the door!

My boss is smarter than you give him credit for

And you weren’t aware of any negative moral values attached to the word parasite.

I was; I do not know a better descriptive term, though, and I was not the first to call them ‘parasites’. I said they had parasitic attributes. Feel free to suggest a better word for the concept.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Other than being of the same species, a fetus shares practically all the characteristics of one. Technically you’re right, but that’s ignoring quite a lot.

And you’re wrong.

You’re imposing outside moral values on the word ‘parasite’.

What are “outside moral values?”

It’s just a word, and morally neutral until your attitude towards it comes into play.

Now you’re blowing smoke up my kilts! You use the word because of its negative connotations. And you got hot when the same word was applied to people on welfare and Social Security, now didn’t you?

Some parasites are even beneficial to the host. If you don’t want to hear ‘parasite’, what about the word ‘tumor’? ]

When you admit people on welfare or Social Security are “parasites” and “tumors.”

Once again, there are plenty of shared characteristics – and they share the same DNA as the host, even. I used the former word because it has less of a negative connotation; I’m quite willing to switch to another which has even fewer bad things associated with it, I just can’t find one. Feel free to suggest another term for something that exists within and drains a host.

Why do you have to use this kind of language at all? You are offended when it is used in relation to people on welfare and Social Security – so don’t pretend it’s “neutral.”

Children can be and often are quite beneficial after gestation; during that time, however, they are a gross liability to their host mother. If nothing else, that should argue for the better treatment of women, pregnant or not.

Better treatment of women? Like taking a pregnant girl who’s a victim of statutory rape, giving her an abortion, concealing the fact from her parents, sheltering the rapist and refusing to cooperate with the law, and sending her right back into that same environment to be raped again?

 

[fix]

Children can be and often are quite beneficial after gestation; during that time, however, they are a gross liability to their host mother. If nothing else, that should argue for the better treatment of women, pregnant or not.

Unless there is a pathologic condition they are not a gross liability. Again, pregnancy is not a disease procress. It is how the human race sustains itself and is natural in the most authentic sense.

 

[Mirdath]

What are “outside moral values?”

The connotations you attach to the word.

Now you’re blowing smoke up my kilts! You use the word because of its negative connotations. And you got hot when the same word was applied to people on welfare and Social Security, now didn’t you?

I use it because I can find no better term. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again – give me a better one and I’ll use that.

Nor, as you suggest, was I angry over the term – I think it highly inaccurate, and further rather ignorant to claim someone who’s getting something out of the Social Security system into which he or she has been paying throughout life is a parasite – but your jabs at me aren’t worth anger.

When you admit people on welfare or Social Security are “parasites” and “tumors.”

Some people on welfare are. Many more are simply unfortunate. And people on SS have been paying into it all their working lives; to call them parasites for getting their own money back is hardly just.

Why do you have to use this kind of language at all? You are offended when it is used in relation to people on welfare and Social Security – so don’t pretend it’s “neutral.”

Offended? I wouldn’t go that far – mildly annoyed at poor use of the language, perhaps.

Better treatment of women? Like taking a pregnant girl who’s a victim of statutory rape, giving her an abortion, concealing the fact from her parents, sheltering the rapist and refusing to cooperate with the law, and sending her right back into that same environment to be raped again?

And there we go down the slippery slope, whee! That isn’t even worth a response.

fix:

Unless there is a pathologic condition they are not a gross liability. Again, pregnancy is not a disease procress. It is how the human race sustains itself and is natural in the most authentic sense.

Pregnancy does a lot of potentially (read ‘usually, with very rare exception’) harmful things to the body as well as some beneficial. It is how humanity’s stayed here, it’s natural, but that doesn’t make it a physically or mentally pleasant process.

Diseases are natural in the most authentic sense as well.

 

[fix]

Pregnancy does a lot of potentially (read ‘usually, with very rare exception’) harmful things to the body as well as some beneficial. It is how humanity’s stayed here, it’s natural, but that doesn’t make it a physically or mentally pleasant process.

Pleasant or unpleasant pregnancy is not a disease process.

Diseases are natural in the most authentic sense as well.

If you cannot distinguish between health and disease then I can see why you would think a baby is a parasite.

 

[vern_humphrey]

The connotations you attach to the word.

You mean the connotations you attach to it. You introduced that word into this thread. And you obviously meant it to be perjorative – as proven by your reaction when I suggested it might be applied to other people.

I use it because I can find no better term. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again – give me a better one and I’ll use that.

You mean you can find no worse term.

I’ll give you a better one – “baby.” How’s that?

Nor, as you suggest, was I angry over the term – I think it highly inaccurate, and further rather ignorant to claim someone who’s getting something out of the Social Security system into which he or she has been paying throughout life is a parasite – but your jabs at me aren’t worth anger.

My “jabs” are not at you but at the hypocracy of using a word that has negative connotations, and pretending it is neutral – then flying off the handle at the same word when used with a different subject.

Some people on welfare are. Many more are simply unfortunate. And people on SS have been paying into it all their working lives; to call them parasites for getting their own money back is hardly just.

But if “parasite” is neutral as you say, how can it be unjust?

Offended? I wouldn’t go that far – mildly annoyed at poor use of the language, perhaps.

Poor use of language? You mean like calling a baby a “parasite?”

And there we go down the slippery slope, whee! That isn’t even worth a response.

English translation: “He has a valid argument, but I have no answer for it.”

Pregnancy does a lot of potentially (read ‘usually, with very rare exception’) harmful things to the body as well as some beneficial. It is how humanity’s stayed here, it’s natural, but that doesn’t make it a physically or mentally pleasant process.

Diseases are natural in the most authentic sense as well.

So you’re a gynecologist?

 

[Mirdath]

You mean the connotations you attach to it. You introduced that word into this thread. And you obviously meant it to be perjorative – as proven by your reaction when I suggested it might be applied to other people.

In the spirit of the current level of discussion: did not!

You mean you can find no worse term.

Tumor it is, then?

I’ll give you a better one – “baby.” How’s that?

It doesn’t say anything about how the fetus siphons the resources it needs directly from the body of the mother. Won’t work.

My “jabs” are not at you but at the hypocracy of using a word that has negative connotations, and pretending it is neutral – then flying off the handle at the same word when used with a different subject.

Sure. Vern, I’m only flying off any handles in your imagination. Your attempts to get to me are mildly annoying at best.

But if “parasite” is neutral as you say, how can it be unjust?

Because the people you were talking about often don’t have any attributes of a parasite?

Poor use of language? You mean like calling a baby a “parasite?”

I’ve been perfectly honest that it isn’t the best word; I’m still open to suggestions that describe the actions a fetus in the womb takes for sustenance.

English translation: “He has a valid argument, but I have no answer for it.”

English-for-everybody-but-Vern translation: ‘His argument is juvenile and ignorant and not worth doing anything but laughing at’.

So you’re a gynecologist?

Merely well-educated. It happens to some people

 

[Jennifer123]

You are forcing them to have them, though – something which is often quite dangerous to their physical and mental health, even deadly. Not to mention then telling them to give them up – which would be absolutely devastating for a new mother, much more so than ‘giving them up’ through abortion while they’re pregnant; there’s been far less time to bond. Motherly love just does not work in a way that would allow someone to go through nine months of pregnancy, the anguish of labor, and the joy of first holding the child, all to give him or her away never to see again. It’s not a rational thing, it’s instinct – and so strong an instinct it overrides everything else. You can’t just wave it away by saying ‘well, give it up for adoption’.

Let me ask this - 20 years after an abortion would you rather be able to say that you killed your unborn offspring through an abortion, or had the child and gave it to a loving home?

Abortion does much more damage to women and society than having an “unwanted” child ever will. I am not forcing women to have children but to only realize there is always a consequence to any action. Sex equals pregnancy (atleast for heterosexuals). It doesn’t have to in every circumstance (I’m not a fan of contraception either but that’s for another thread) but it is the logical consequence. If you don’t want to take those risks then don’t have sex. Now you may say that creates an unequal burden on women especially with rape, but that’s just the way we were made.

Adoption is a perfectly good option for women. I personally know of two women who have courageously made that choice and they don’t regret it. Sure it was a hard choice and it hurts, but I guarantee it hurts less than the pain of knowing you’ve killed your unborn baby.

Not all rights are equal, not all choices are right. You have the right to raise your fist, but that right ends at my nose. A burgler can make a choice to enter my home, but that doesn’t mean it’s a right moral choice. We have to understand that a woman’s personal “right” ends when there is another human being involved. That is why you dehumanize by calling it a “parasite”, saying that it is not a complete human being, it goes on and on.

I guess that’s all I have to say about that.

 

[Mirdath]

Let me ask this - 20 years after an abortion would you rather be able to say that you killed your unborn offspring through an abortion, or had the child and gave it to a loving home?

I honestly do not know, never having had an abortion. A close friend of mine is quite glad she terminated – if she hadn’t, she’d be dead (the doctors told her ‘either the fetus dies, or you both do’).

Abortion does much more damage to women and society than having an “unwanted” child ever will.

To some women, perhaps; others regard it as a cure. How is it deleterious to society – other than fostering a concept of ethicality you disagree with?

I am not forcing women to have children but to only realize there is always a consequence to any action. Sex equals pregnancy (atleast for heterosexuals). It doesn’t have to in every circumstance (I’m not a fan of contraception either but that’s for another thread) but it is the logical consequence. If you don’t want to take those risks then don’t have sex.

You can say that all you like, but it’s not going to stop people from doing it. Animal instincts are a pretty tough force to overcome; as long as sex comes with the chance of impregnation, there will be unwanted children and danger to women.

Now you may say that creates an unequal burden on women especially with rape, but that’s just the way we were made.

‘Just the way we were made’? What? That thought leads to the idea that rape is just something to be put up with if it can’t be avoided because that’s just how the plumbing is set up. Needless to say, I don’t buy it.

‘Unequal burden’ is an understatement of epic proportions. Men have nothing to risk in pregnancy except being sent to the grocery at 2am for pickles and ice cream – and that’s those that stay around, which is a far lower number than it should be. On the other side, women can potentially die in childbirth. Expectant mothers are very, very fragile, and need all the protection they can get whether they carry to term or not; and that decision should rest on them.

Adoption is a perfectly good option for women. I personally know of two women who have courageously made that choice and they don’t regret it. Sure it was a hard choice and it hurts, but I guarantee it hurts less than the pain of knowing you’ve killed your unborn baby.

In theory, of course it’s a good option – if the mother is taken care of. But theory ignores maternal love.

I have no first-hand experience with either abortion or giving a child up for adoption. I haven’t made any guarantees about mental harm caused by one or the other – merely passed along what information I know from others who do have that experience. Do you have any more personal experience with both situations than I, that you can make such guarantees? And remember, such a thing is by no means universal; different people are affected in different ways.

Not all rights are equal, not all choices are right. You have the right to raise your fist, but that right ends at my nose. A burgler can make a choice to enter my home, but that doesn’t mean it’s a right moral choice. We have to understand that a woman’s personal “right” ends when there is another human being involved. That is why you dehumanize by calling it a “parasite”, saying that it is not a complete human being, it goes on and on.

Were the fetus outside the mother and not directly draining her physical resources, I’d fight for their protection just as much as I support the choice of the mother now. However, that’s simply not the case. Until the fetus fulfills those conditions, its rights are entirely subordinate to the mother’s will.