The Unprogressive Progressive

[Mirdath]

You sure seem quick to dismiss something that is factual and relevant to the debate. To get an understanding of the ugliness of war, sometimes we need to see the results. This my friend is what happens to these “fetuses” as you like to call them.

I know it’s what happens to them. I sat through someone’s rather graphic presentation on abortion in an ethics class back in college and honestly, all I could think about was ravioli and sushi. Pictures do not horrify me, and they do not make your argument – in fact, they trivialize it. You’re reducing yourselves to hiding behind billboards, pointing, and saying ‘look! isn’t it sooooooo gross?!’. Come back out and debate like grownups – if not for my sake, at least for yours. It’s embarrassing to see.

The quote below is why it is relevant. You above define what is in the species using your opinion (totally misusing science terms) to fit your own personal views. That is why it is relevant: You define what is a human just like Hitler and the Consitutional Congress.

Wow, thanks. This is actually the first Hitler flame I’ve ever received. I’ll add your contribution to the list of interesting slurs I’ve gotten here.

I wasn’t using scientific terms anyway – I explicitly said it was a philosophical definition.

While I’m at, how do you feel about my severely Down’s cousin or my invalid Grandmother? You seem to have alot of omniscience.

They sound like very nice people, although unfortunately my vaunted omniscience is clouded around them and I can’t quite confirm that. I have a close relative who’s completely disabled, both physically and mentally. I love him dearly and am glad he’s around. He’s easily the most truly, deeply, simply human of all my relatives.

The choice of the mother usurp any rights of her unborn child and the father.

Yep. As the fetus depends entirely on the mother, its rights are her rights. As to the father, well, if he wants to have complete say-so he can carry it to term himself!

They can’t use science to defend their position as there is no clear line of distinction except conception.

Science left both sides of the debate long ago.

They can’t use morality (doing what is right for yourself in relation to what is right for others).

Why not?

They can’t use logic as Mirdath has proven because she rejects the logical conclusions of her own statements (see the above regarding Hitler, slavery and abortion).

Such as…?

Jennifer123:

I have to agree this is a meaningless distinction with all due respect. I don’t mean to sound disrespectful. You are only trying to make the point you feel strongly about and I am grateful for the opportunity to use my brain to find ways to tell you you’re wrong.

It’s a pleasure

The point I think here is location and viability. A “fetus” is only a “human person” once it’s delivered. But even 10 minutes before birth, it is still a “non-person” according to US law via Roe v. Wade? And even though the newborn baby is sometimes just as dependant outside the womb as it is inside because of health issues, it makes that much of a significant difference? It’s completely illogical IMHO.

I don’t know how RvW handles the question, but as I’ve stated, I believe the line is at delivery

And it is a significant difference! The mother is no longer solely responsible for supporting the baby at the expense of her own body. The child may not be healthy, but he or she is no longer within the mother draining her health – it’s a huge distinction.

 

[Orionthehunter]

I know it’s what happens to them. I sat through someone’s rather graphic presentation on abortion in an ethics class back in college and honestly, all I could think about was ravioli and sushi. Pictures do not horrify me, and they do not make your argument – in fact, they trivialize it. You’re reducing yourselves to hiding behind billboards, pointing, and saying ‘look! isn’t it sooooooo gross?!’. Come back out and debate like grownups – if not for my sake, at least for yours. It’s embarrassing to see.

Wow, thanks. This is actually the first Hitler flame I’ve ever received. I’ll add your contribution to the list of interesting slurs I’ve gotten here.

I wasn’t using scientific terms anyway – I explicitly said it was a philosophical definition.

They sound like very nice people, although unfortunately my vaunted omniscience is clouded around them and I can’t quite confirm that. I have a close relative who’s completely disabled, both physically and mentally. I love him dearly and am glad he’s around. He’s easily the most truly, deeply, simply human of all my relatives.

Yep. As the fetus depends entirely on the mother, its rights are her rights. As to the father, well, if he wants to have complete say-so he can carry it to term himself!

Science left both sides of the debate long ago.

Why not?

Such as…?

It’s a pleasure

I don’t know how RvW handles the question, but as I’ve stated, I believe the line is at delivery

And it is a significant difference! The mother is no longer solely responsible for supporting the baby at the expense of her own body. The child may not be healthy, but he or she is no longer within the mother draining her health – it’s a huge distinction.

Them: A term that refers to people.

Ravioli and sushi: I see a destroyed person and in this thread I see a person who sees them as food. Disgusting.

Embarrassed: I am embarrassed that others see ravioli and sushi.

You don’t get it do you. Using logic:
You think you are worthy to define what is human. Hitler thought he had this right too. I stand behind my statement.

Science: It has definitely left your side but it is fully on my side. The only line of demarcation in science that isn’t subjective is conception. The rest are just shades of gray.

You were using scientific terms but perverting them to your philosophy. Such tricks are intellectually dishonest. And such tricks deny one the ability to have intelligent debate.

My Cousin: Since she doesn’t have the correct chromosones, one could more scientifically and logically define her as not human than anybody can a unborn child.

Frankly, I have never been more sickened than I have been by this entire conversation. God have mercy on your soul.

 

[fix]

And it is a significant difference! The mother is no longer solely responsible for supporting the baby at the expense of her own body. The child may not be healthy, but he or she is no longer within the mother draining her health – it’s a huge distinction.

This is perverse logic. The female body is “set up” as it is specifically for conception and gestation. It is not pathological. It is designed that way for a reason.

 

[Mirdath]

Nice try but no cigar.

I assume you took English in school and know the difference between a simile and a metaphor?

I have a right to use comparisons in argument – and the reason you object to this one is you can’t answer it.

I’ve gone over the reasons it isn’t a valid comparison (not simile, not metaphor, comparison – you did take English in school, right? Similes and metaphors are subsets, but this is neither). It’s just too precious to you, apparently. Oh well.

It’s a matter of fact. I realise you want to dispose of inconvenient facts, but I will not accept that.

That which makes us human is merely an accident of genetics? I’ll refrain from bringing up the soul, as I don’t believe in it, but I don’t buy that it is merely DNA that makes us human. Were that the case, chimpanzees would be 98% or so human and bananas would be 60-some% human, if I remember rightly. How’s that for an inconvenient fact? The goulash on your table is 80% human! (ghoulish! )

And there were murders committed in Nazi Germany without the protection of law, too. How does this affect the issue?

The commission of murders of human beings outside the law? It doesn’t, why bring it up?

No, I would choose eradication of the practice. Those who practice such an evil trade should be incarcerated – put where they cannot harm others.

In happy-clouds-and-unicorns-land, it might happen. It won’t happen in the real world. There’ll always be demand for abortions, and people will supply them, even if they’re done in conditions that’d set an 18th-century Londoner aghast. It’s like the ‘war on drugs’ – drugs are and always have been winning.

Your argument would legalize murder, rape, and bank robbery, too – “Why outlaw these things? People will still do them, and somebody might get hurt in the process.”

Ah, a nasty insinuation! Shall we call it quits over these?

It is more than permissive – in fact, you will soon see proposed legislature to make the taxpayers fund abortions.

Source please?

No one ever said doing right is easy. The fact is, most children are aborted for convenience’ sake.

Then, since you want change – how about you work to make carrying to term worth the mothers’ while? Provide prenatal care, subsidize the hospital bills, pay for counseling to help them deal with having given their children away, etc. Don’t just sit there wringing your hands if you want it done, get in there and do it!

 

[Mirdath]

Them: A term that refers to people.

And to multiple perfectly inanimate objects.

Ravioli and sushi: I see a destroyed person and in this thread I see a person who sees them as food. Disgusting.

Embarrassed: I am embarrassed that others see ravioli and sushi.

It is. That anyone would ever feel the need to show others what a dead fetus looks like in order to try to win converts is beyond puerile and degrading to all concerned (including the fetus, perhaps most of all). That they look like pasta is merely incidental.

You don’t get it do you. Using logic:
You think you are worthy to define what is human. Hitler thought he had this right too. I stand behind my statement.

Cogito, ergo sum Adolf, hm? We all have our own definitions of humanity. You just draw the line nine months further back and say you’re better than I am. You’ve still just defined it for yourself; if definitions are your issue, you’re no better than I.

Science: It has definitely left your side but it is fully on my side. The only line of demarcation in science that isn’t subjective is conception. The rest are just shades of gray.

No, I’d say it’s pretty well gone. All it could ever contribute to the debate is the knowledge that life begins at conception, and it’s done so. Questions of humanity or personhood are philosophical, not scientific.

You were using scientific terms but perverting them to your philosophy. Such tricks are intellectually dishonest. And such tricks deny one the ability to have intelligent debate.

If you’ll read my first post, I discussed the science briefly and moved right on to philosophy and ethics, where I have comfortably stayed throughout this entire thread. I haven’t gotten any more scientific than to say that an unborn fetus feeds through the umbilical cord, which is correct, yes?

My Cousin: Since she doesn’t have the correct chromosones, one could more scientifically and logically define her as not human than anybody can a unborn child.

Tell that to Vern, he’s the one who’s all concerned about DNA. I don’t care what chromosomes she has, she’s human to me.

Frankly, I have never been more sickened than I have been by this entire conversation. God have mercy on your soul.

It’s not a nice topic. Thanks for the well-wishes though

fix:

This is perverse logic. The female body is “set up” as it is specifically for conception and gestation. It is not pathological. It is designed that way for a reason.

Oh hello, fix

A fetus is essentially parasitic: it subsists on the mother without returning anything, physically speaking.

As for design – mistakes happen. Ectopic pregnancies, anyone?

 

[vern_humphrey]

I’ve gone over the reasons it isn’t a valid comparison (not simile, not metaphor, comparison – you did take English in school, right? Similes and metaphors are subsets, but this is neither). It’s just too precious to you, apparently. Oh well.

If it’s wrong, you should be able to refute it. You haven’t, and you can’t.

That which makes us human is merely an accident of genetics? I’ll refrain from bringing up the soul, as I don’t believe in it, but I don’t buy that it is merely DNA that makes us human. Were that the case, chimpanzees would be 98% or so human and bananas would be 60-some% human, if I remember rightly. How’s that for an inconvenient fact? The goulash on your table is 80% human! (ghoulish! )

I love that lateral arabesque – " That which makes us human is merely an accident of genetics?"

When you can’t make a logical argument, throw up another smokescreen, eh?

Humans are defined genetically – but it’s no “accident.”

The commission of murders of human beings outside the law? It doesn’t, why bring it up?

Because you brought up the commission of abortion outside the law, of course.

Oh, I forgot – arguments that you can’t answer aren’t allowed.

In happy-clouds-and-unicorns-land, it might happen. It won’t happen in the real world. There’ll always be demand for abortions, and people will supply them, even if they’re done in conditions that’d set an 18th-century Londoner aghast. It’s like the ‘war on drugs’ – drugs are and always have been winning.

In happy-clouds-and-unicorns-land, it might happen. It won’t happen in the real world. There’ll always be demand for rape, murder and robbery, and people will commit them, even if they’re done in conditions that’d set an 18th-century Londoner aghast. It’s like the ‘war on drugs’ – drugs are and always have been winning.

Ah, a nasty insinuation! Shall we call it quits over these?

All you have to do is stop.

Source please?

The 2004 platform of the Democratic Party. From
democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf

Then, since you want change – how about you work to make carrying to term worth the mothers’ while? Provide prenatal care, subsidize the hospital bills, pay for counseling to help them deal with having given their children away, etc. Don’t just sit there wringing your hands if you want it done, get in there and do it!

What makes you think I’m not doing that right now?

 

[fix]

Oh hello, fix

A fetus is essentially parasitic: it subsists on the mother without returning anything, physically speaking.

As for design – mistakes happen. Ectopic pregnancies, anyone?

A parasite is pathologic. The baby is not.

Ectopic is, by definition, pathologic however that does not lead me to conclude the baby is not a person because there is a pathology in where he is gestating.

 

[vern_humphrey]

A parasite is pathologic. The baby is not.

Ectopic is, by definition, pathologic however that does not lead me to conclude the baby is not a person because there is a pathology in where he is gestating.

The true parasite is one who subsists within society while supporting the killing of the most helpless and innocent for reasons of convenience.

 

[Mirdath]

If it’s wrong, you should be able to refute it. You haven’t, and you can’t.

I can show its incongruency, and I did. That you won’t admit to it isn’t hurting me, so mh.

I love that lateral arabesque – " That which makes us human is merely an accident of genetics?"

Actually, that’s there because I posited it earlier and you did not disagree in your response. Read the fine print much?

Because you brought up the commission of abortion outside the law, of course.

There are no laws upholding and protecting murder or rape. I could start going on about the social contract and the benefits and drawbacks to society caused by abortion as opposed to the unmitigated drawbacks caused by murder or rape here but I’ll forbear.

Oh, I forgot – arguments that you can’t answer aren’t allowed.

Just as rebuttals to those arguments I can’t answer aren’t recognized

In happy-clouds-and-unicorns-land, it might happen. It won’t happen in the real world. There’ll always be demand for rape, murder and robbery, and people will commit them, even if they’re done in conditions that’d set an 18th-century Londoner aghast. It’s like the ‘war on drugs’ – drugs are and always have been winning.

Already answered above.

The 2004 platform of the Democratic Party. From
democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf

Okay. I’m actually pretty ambivalent about that, I don’t support it but I don’t strongly disagree with it either.

What makes you think I’m not doing that right now?

If you are – great!

fix:

A parasite is pathologic. The baby is not.

‘Life is a fatal, sexually transmitted disease’

The fetus isn’t just another tapeworm, no, but it’s parasitic toward the mother until birth (and, some might argue while clutching their wallets, until through college). I’m not saying it’s a bad thing, just that it’s how it is, and that the mother is more important.
vern humphrey:

The true parasite is one who subsists within society while supporting the killing of the most helpless and innocent for reasons of convenience.

You’re just breaking my heart here.

 

[fix]

‘Life is a fatal, sexually transmitted disease’

It would be viewed as such by folks who are nihilistic.

The fetus isn’t just another tapeworm, no, but it’s parasitic toward the mother until birth (and, some might argue while clutching their wallets, until through college). I’m not saying it’s a bad thing, just that it’s how it is, and that the mother is more important.

No, that would be ascribing pathologic characteristics to health. It is contradictory. Following your logic there is no distinction between health and disease.

 

[fix]

The true parasite is one who subsists within society while supporting the killing of the most helpless and innocent for reasons of convenience.

That would be a metaphor?

A simile - or to be like something - is to retain some irresolvable difference which means one can never fully substitute for the other. On the other hand, a metaphor actually* is* a substitution - it is an * equation in principle*.

http://knowgramming.com/metaphors/metaphor_and_simile_difference.htm

 

[Mirdath]

It would be viewed as such by folks who are nihilistic.

It’s a joke at the expense of pessimists, relax

No, that would be ascribing pathologic characteristics to health. It is contradictory. Following your logic there is no distinction between health and disease.

Pregnancy is not exactly a healthy state. Morning sickness, hormonal swings, massive weight gain, bizarre cravings – there are chronic illnesses with far less of a deleterious effect.

 

[fix]

It’s a joke at the expense of pessimists, relax

Just trying to be accurate.

Pregnancy is not exactly a healthy state.

Carrying a baby is not a disease. One can become sick, but the process itself is not pathologic. Do you have evidence pregnancy is a type of disease process?

Morning sickness, hormonal swings, massive weight gain, bizarre cravings – there are chronic illnesses with far less of a deleterious effect.

Those are signs and symptoms that accompany being pregnant. The conception and gestation of a baby is not pathology.

It is like saying excercizing is pathologic because one breathes heavy during it.

 

[Jennifer123]

And it is a significant difference! The mother is no longer solely responsible for supporting the baby at the expense of her own body. The child may not be healthy, but he or she is no longer within the mother draining her health – it’s a huge distinction.

There are many, many studies that show the health benefits of having children, so to say the baby is parasitic (which is just a loaded term meant to dehumanize the baby because it is completely innaccurate BTW) is false. A parasite by scientific definition comes from outside the host in order to invade its structure to provide itself with nourishment directly from the host, not giving the host any other benefit. The fetus is grown from inside the mother, gaining nourishment but also providing the mother with benefits. A parasite also makes direct contact with its host, holding on with destructive means (suckers, teeth, other parts of its body) to the tissue it’s attacking, the fetus is only directly attached to the mother through the uterine wall for only a short period of time, it then moves for the majority of its life inside the womb into its own amniotic sac.

That is why I find the argument that the baby is wholly dependant on the mother to be misleading. I find the attempt to label the baby as a parasite, something that is known to be “disgusting” and completely false, particularily offensive.

As for human DNA making us human, well the baby isn’t made out of cat DNA or horse DNA. 100% human DNA born from two humans is human. Period. It leaves the question to you to tell me what you believe the baby in the womb is - is it property since it’s not human? Because certainly you can’t deny it is something.

 

[Mirdath]

Carrying a baby is not a disease. One can become sick, but the process itself is not pathologic. Do you have evidence pregnancy is a type of disease process?

Those are signs and symptoms that accompany being pregnant. The conception and gestation of a baby is not pathology.

It is like saying excercizing is pathologic because one breathes heavy during it.

Carrying the baby is not itself a disease, but it definitely brings various physical, mental, and emotional conditions along with it. It is not a healthy state – that’s all I was saying.

Jennifer123:

The fetus is grown from inside the mother, gaining nourishment but also providing the mother with benefits.

What are these benefits? Besides looking forward to the baby (which I’ll gladly admit is great) – I’m speaking entirely of direct physical benefit.

That is why I find the argument that the baby is wholly dependant on the mother to be misleading. I find the attempt to label the baby as a parasite, something that is known to be “disgusting” and completely false, particularily offensive.

I’ve expressly avoided using the term ‘parasite’ because, as I said, a fetus isn’t just another tapeworm. It’s proto-human, and there is value in that, it’s just the mother is even more important. Unfortunately, there isn’t another word I’m aware of to properly describe the state of taking one’s basic needs from another being to whom one is attached other than ‘parasitic’.

As for human DNA making us human, well the baby isn’t made out of cat DNA or horse DNA. 100% human DNA born from two humans is human. Period. It leaves the question to you to tell me what you believe the baby in the womb is - is it property since it’s not human? Because certainly you can’t deny it is something.

It is a human creature, of the human species. It is not yet a human being. One’s humanity in the philosophical sense is not a question of genetics.

 

[fix]

C

I’ve expressly avoided using the term ‘parasite’ because, as I said, a fetus isn’t just another tapeworm. It’s proto-human, and there is value in that, it’s just the mother is even more important. Unfortunately, there isn’t another word I’m aware of to properly describe the state of taking one’s basic needs from another being to whom one is attached other than ‘parasitic’.

It is human. It never turns out to be anything but human.

The baby is not taking anything from the mother. The mother provides it as it is designed exactly for such purposes. It is not some anomoly. It works as planned.

 

[Jennifer123]

Carrying the baby is not itself a disease, but it definitely brings various physical, mental, and emotional conditions along with it. It is not a healthy state – that’s all I was saying.

A lot of things in life bring “physical, mental, and emotional conditions”, being pregnant is just one of them.
You know, abortion also has its own set of “physical, mental, and emotional conditions” which by far are worse than the condition of being pregnant. We can’t allow babies to be killed because of “mental and emotional” conditions, otherwise we also by logical order have to allow the end of life at all stages due to “physical, mental, and emotional conditions”.

What are these benefits? Besides looking forward to the baby (which I’ll gladly admit is great) – I’m speaking entirely of direct physical benefit.

health.discovery.com/centers/pregnancy/americanbaby/pregnancybenefits.html

This is just what I picked up an a quick search although I’ve known of benefits for a long time, mainly in regards to protection against cancers.

I’ve expressly avoided using the term ‘parasite’ because, as I said, a fetus isn’t just another tapeworm. It’s proto-human, and there is value in that, it’s just the mother is even more important. Unfortunately, there isn’t another word I’m aware of to properly describe the state of taking one’s basic needs from another being to whom one is attached other than ‘parasitic’.

By your definition, many other people in the world are also parasitic, like my children. It’s just not a scientific or accurate label.

It is a human creature, of the human species. It is not yet a human being. One’s humanity in the philosophical sense is not a question of genetics.

With all due respect, your argument is all about semantics here.

 

[vern_humphrey]

That would be a metaphor?

Nope. It’s a declarative statement.

A human can be a parasite only thrugh his actions, not through his biological status.

 

[Mirdath]

A lot of things in life bring “physical, mental, and emotional conditions”, being pregnant is just one of them.
You know, abortion also has its own set of “physical, mental, and emotional conditions” which by far are worse than the condition of being pregnant.

All anyone can say about that is anecdotal evidence. I know people who’ve had abortions and who say that they started feeling far better an hour later, that everything started going back to normal. And I’ve seen people I don’t know talking about how abortion always causes depression, regret, and so on… given that I’ve heard people I know very well tell me the exact opposite I don’t buy it. It’s just not that way for all cases – some, certainly, even many, I don’t know. But it’s far from universally so.

health.discovery.com/centers/…ybenefits.html

This is just what I picked up an a quick search although I’ve known of benefits for a long time, mainly in regards to protection against cancers.

I sit informed I’m not sure about 2 and 6, but the others, okay!

By your definition, many other people in the world are also parasitic, like my children. It’s just not a scientific or accurate label.

Didn’t quite bold far enough

state of taking one’s basic needs from another being to whom one is attached (ie, physically attached, just to be painfully specific)

 

[Jennifer123]

All anyone can say about that is anecdotal evidence. I know people who’ve had abortions and who say that they started feeling far better an hour later, that everything started going back to normal. And I’ve seen people I don’t know talking about how abortion always causes depression, regret, and so on… given that I’ve heard people I know very well tell me the exact opposite I don’t buy it. It’s just not that way for all cases – some, certainly, even many, I don’t know. But it’s far from universally so.

**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.

abortionfacts.com/effects/effects.asp**

state of taking one’s basic needs from another being to whom one is attached (ie, physically attached, just to be painfully specific)

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

**Sorry with the bolding but I am not tecnologically savvy enough to do multiple quotes or whatever. **