This made me so sick, I didn't know how to respond

  • Thread starter Thread starter junostarlighter
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
distracted said:
that person is forgetting something:

Who invited the “parasite” in??? :rolleyes:

(not that rape/incest babies should be aborted… :eek: They did not ask to be there… committed no crime…are just as human / precious as planned babies…).
Click to expand...
😃 Yeah, it’s not like the face-hugger in “Alien”.
Et_Cetera said:
Scientifically speaking, an unborn child is a parasite. If that term offends you, don’t use it.
Click to expand...
Baloney. Scientifically, unborn children are offspring. Parasites are by definition not offspring as they are of an entirely different species.
 
A parasite triggers an immune response from the host. The host builds up antibodies to attack the parasite.

When women are with child, the natural effect is that the immune system becomes suppressed, in order to protect the new life.

Thus, the morning sickness, the sensitivity to smell.

To say an embryo is a “parasite” is not correct.
 
Mary_Gail_36 said:
A parasite triggers an immune response from the host. The host builds up antibodies to attack the parasite.

.
Click to expand...
mmmm…well…that’s not *always *the case, but otherwise, point taken. Some very successful parasites, especially intestinal, are adept at evading host responses.

But that’s certainly not the case with a fetus! Mom’s body accommodates and welcomes it.
 
Newbie2 said:
😃 Yeah, it’s not like the face-hugger in “Alien”.

Baloney. Scientifically, unborn children are offspring. Parasites are by definition not offspring as they are of an entirely different species.
Click to expand...
even if an unborn child is a parasite… and in a wy, it kind of is…

Who is NOT a parasite… We have all been unborn babies… Even the Oman was once a parasite, a “punishment” … 😃

As r. Reagan said: It’s interesting that all those who are pro-abortion are already born."

Anyway… the 1 yr old is a parasite also… he can’t live without help…

The 12 yr old… same thing…

Supreme Court justices… same thing…

Congress… same thing… all living off our money!!
 
Mary_Gail_36 said:
A parasite triggers an immune response from the host. The host builds up antibodies to attack the parasite.

When women are with child, the natural effect is that the immune system becomes suppressed, in order to protect the new life.

Thus, the morning sickness, the sensitivity to smell.

To say an embryo is a “parasite” is not correct.
Click to expand...
thanks… had forgotten about that…

convinces me…

(of course i never would have used such a word anyway… but did wonder if, biologically, it may be a correct kind of term…)
 
The thing wrong with most of your parasitic comments is that not all parasitic relationships are bad.

There are five forms a parasite can enter a relationship into are called symbiosis.

Mutualism - Both species benefit
Commensalism - one species benefits, the other is unaffected
Parasitism - one species benefits, the other is harmed
Competition - neither species benefits
Neutralism - both species are unaffected

Every mammalian animal at some point fed off of its mother. Technically, the creature was a parasite (throw it into any category besides the last two) who ate what the mother ate and inhaled what the mother inhaled. The blood that ran through it was not it’s own, but that of its mother.

The person who said the original post probably classified the unborn babe in a parasitic relationship with the mother, which is acceptable because the babe was taking nutrients from the mother whilst the mother went through physical and psychological changes. If the egg, for example, grew in the fallopian tube (called ectopic pregnancy), and the mother would die if the babe continued to thrive and get larger, then this would be physical harm to the host and would classify as parasitic (for the unborn babe was still benefiting from nutrients while the mother was going to die as it kept taking).

…that’s all I got…
 
I wouldn’t even kill a parasitic animal if it wasn’t hurting me…

Call the unborn a parasite if you will but that doesn’t make it right to kill him/her…

If you are not willing to say its totally OK for your own mother to have aborted you, then don’t say its OK for others…

what’s that saying?:

the height of immorality is to make an exception of yourself…
 
i think most of our congressmen (and women) are parasites…
 
Sair said:
Not sure you can say this without incorporating all life. Then you have to employ all new criteria to justify why you should differentiate between human life and every other life, if you think human life should be respected above any other. Then you also have to explain why the proliferation of human life is to be favoured over the survival of other species…
Click to expand...
Why?
 
God gave us the animals and plants to use as we wish following the flood. He made this clear to Noah.
 
Afterthought said:
The thing wrong with most of your parasitic comments is that not all parasitic relationships are bad.

There are five forms a parasite can enter a relationship into are called symbiosis.

Mutualism - Both species benefit
Commensalism - one species benefits, the other is unaffected
Parasitism - one species benefits, the other is harmed
Competition - neither species benefits
Neutralism - both species are unaffected

Every mammalian animal at some point fed off of its mother. Technically, the creature was a parasite (throw it into any category besides the last two) who ate what the mother ate and inhaled what the mother inhaled. The blood that ran through it was not it’s own, but that of its mother.

The person who said the original post probably classified the unborn babe in a parasitic relationship with the mother, which is acceptable because the babe was taking nutrients from the mother whilst the mother went through physical and psychological changes. If the egg, for example, grew in the fallopian tube (called ectopic pregnancy), and the mother would die if the babe continued to thrive and get larger, then this would be physical harm to the host and would classify as parasitic (for the unborn babe was still benefiting from nutrients while the mother was going to die as it kept taking).

…that’s all I got…
Click to expand...
Parasitism is the opposite of symbiosis. Symbiosis is another word for mutualism. The relationship of mother and unborn offspring is actually mutual biologically.
The egg doesn’t grow in the tube. It grows in the ovary, ripens (a chemical change just before becoming fertilizable and by no means certain to happen to every egg), emerges from the ovary and travels down the tube with two to three others. Then at fertilization the egg becomes a human being in the stage called a zygote. There are stages to zygotehood. S/he travels farther along toward the opening during these stages and early embryohood. The embryo at one week emerges from the tube to the uterus. While growing from zygote to one-week embryo, s/he is actually living off a mixture of water and nutrients the mother’s body produces and flushes away constantly, and is equivalent to a creature that lives on sweat or dead fallen-off body hair, but is human. In the first week, s/he develops organs, skin, muscles, a basic nervous system, and blood, and forms a yolk sac, fills it with yolk by attracting and filtering nutrients from the excess fluid, and then a placenta and amniotic sac, which fill respectively with blood and nutrients, and with water and nutrients. Then for a week s/he lives attached to the endometrium and finishes off his/her yolk. When the yolk is gone, the placenta is full and the amniotic sac is vast and full of food. All this bounty is from the endometrium, which the mother was going to shed with her period anyway. For a long time the baby is living on endometrium, not on the blood that the mother’s body is using. The changes that happen to the mother’s body are primarily mutually beneficial.
 
I Googled the quote. Can’t find it except here, though I have heard this bandied about college campuses.

I’m a biologist. My response is that a parasite is by definition a member of another species, not one’s own. (In-laws overstaying their welcome don’t count.)

When students press this point I tell them that this is science, not science fiction. If they press the point further, I tell them to see someone in the counseling center.
 
The person who wrote that was once a parasite.

As he’s contributing nothing positive to society, he’s still one. :rotfl:
 
survive said:
The changes that happen to the mother’s body are primarily mutually beneficial.
Click to expand...
women who never have children are more likely to get breast and uterine cancer than those who have had children…

i thikn there are other health benefits to having children also… I know a lot of women who have had more than 5 children who lived into their 90s… (1 was 98)
 
distracted said:
that person is forgetting something:

Who invited the “parasite” in??? :rolleyes:

(not that rape/incest babies should be aborted… :eek: They did not ask to be there… committed no crime…are just as human / precious as planned babies…).
Click to expand...
I agree!
 
ready said:
I agree!
Click to expand...
when i was very young, someone said to me that abortion is an irresponsible act and even tho i agreed, i didn’t think that was one of the main issues concerning abortion. even now, I suppose it isn’t… but now that i’m older, i see just how irresponsible abortion is, objectively speaking (…not trying to judge those tempted to do it. i know their problems are serious…). but anyway, logically speaking, it is really awful to do something that you know may result in a life being created and then to turn around and destroy it…

i have sympathy for victims of rape (etc) but the child didn’t commit the crime…

Do you have any hope that roe v wade will be overturned? Clarence Thomas believes in overturning bad past decisions by the court but i don’t think they can just do that unless they have a new case to deal w ith???
 
distracted said:
when i was very young, someone said to me that abortion is an irresponsible act and even tho i agreed, i didn’t think that was one of the main issues concerning abortion. even now, I suppose it isn’t… but now that i’m older, i see just how irresponsible abortion is, objectively speaking (…not trying to judge those tempted to do it. i know their problems are serious…). but anyway, logically speaking, it is really awful to do something that you know may result in a life being created and then to turn around and destroy it…

i have sympathy for victims of rape (etc) but the child didn’t commit the crime…

Do you have any hope that roe v wade will be overturned? Clarence Thomas believes in overturning bad past decisions by the court but i don’t think they can just do that unless they have a new case to deal w ith???
Click to expand...
Yes, in time, maybe a while from now, I believe Roe ve. Wade will be overturned. The Church will continue to fight against injustice and perhaps more people will get involved against abortion now that it’s easier for them to see we are dealing with human life and not mere “tissue.” Ultra-sound should help us in our fight to reveal exactly who is being harmed. We all just have to do our parts by praying and being as persistent as the Pro-Choice population with our legislators. Mothers contemplating abortion should be informed of the grave harm to themselves by procuring an abortion, as well. Let us never give up hope! Souls are depending on us!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top