Prove there's a god.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#778463 Sep 9, 2014
Stilgar Fifrawi wrote:
Hahaha. Dumb atheists.
I'm picturing drool flowing over the fleshy butt of your upturned palm as you wedge it into your buck teeth and laugh in grunts .
ROCCO

Indio, CA

#778464 Sep 9, 2014
no less careless s/b no less responsible

“The Bible is no science book”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#778465 Sep 9, 2014
Joyful8118 wrote:
curiouslu wrote:
<quoted text>
As someone who has had people residing inside my body, I agree.
Most moms won't admit it unless in confidence but we've all thought it.
It's exhausting, it's also beautiful and totally worth it but yeah, foetuses can be accurately described as parasitic.
<quoted text>
Agreed on all you said, Buck.
curiouslu wrote:
<quoted text>
As someone who has had people residing inside my body, I agree.
Most moms won't admit it unless in confidence but we've all thought it.
It's exhausting, it's also beautiful and totally worth it but yeah, foetuses can be accurately described as parasitic.
That explains a lot.
Ummmm, that is BS. How do you know that we've all thought it? I, for one, have never ever thought that, nor would I, ever. It is a vile, disgusting, worthless, evil being that would ever think or say that.
Yes, pregnancy is beautiful and totally worth it, but no, fetuses/babies are not parasites.
So now I am vile, disgusting, worthless and evil. The only person who tried to help you keep out of the deep do do and learn how to post and argue here. And you had something to say the other day because someone made a stupid remark and I should not use those kind of words. But you can call me names and it is okey? Don't think so. I have deliberately stayed out of the arguments you have had, hoping you would learn and not to add fuel to the fire. But I will not stay silent another minute.

Yes indeed, I brought up the parasitic relationship of mother/child while it is in the womb because that Is exactly what it is. You can dress it up in all the fancy loving names you want to hang around its neck, but it is what it is. Until the day it is born, it is drawing all it nutrients from its mother, despite any adverse effects it has on the mother. I have had twice as many kids as you have. So I know how wonderful it is. I know the joy, and love.

But I am a down to earth realist. The nuts and bolts of having babies isn't all joy and love.
Its feeling lousy, no balance, back aches, throw ups, and the birth itself is absolutely gory, and do you know what happens if they cant give you an emema before birth? You and the baby are covered in sh*t. And what about that big lump of afterbirth. Think we should frame it? So romantic the think of the cocoon of our young just being thrown away. Other animals eat it, but we are too civilized for that, so maybe we should freeze dry and then have it bronzed and put on the mantle with the day of birth and the childs name that was harbored inside it.

Grow up a little Joyful.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#778466 Sep 9, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
That would be you. I don't frame this in terms of winning or losing. I don't expect any of you to relent. What has transpired here is tow things:
[1] The unbelievers who weren't clear on what parasitism is in the scientific sense, or who hadn't noticed that fetuses fit the definition, are now up to speed.
[2] What a show from the theists! We all got a chance to witness another example of how wedge issues work. They are sold in terms of outrage to get believers out too the voting booths to choose Christian candidates. It's obviously manufactured outrage, not authentic or organic. Genuine outrage cuts across multiple demographics, as when Egyptian police were filmed from overhead about three years ago beating a Muslim girl dressed in a burqa, stripping her down to her blue brassiere in public. I was pissed. You were likely pissed. Yusef was pissed, Kwang Ho was pissed, Francisco was pissed. Zbignew was pissed. Gian-Carlo was pissed. Lindsy Lo... you get the point. The outrage was across the board.
Incidentally, I'm not suggesting that the rank-and-file Christians themselves are faking their outrage. They really are outraged, enough to detonate bombs at abortion clinics and murder staff. But it's manufactured outrage. They were trained to feel that way, which is why it's almost exclusively the one group that is outraged. You can condition people to be outraged at anything : "I'm no ape!" "White shoes after labor day? You Neanderthal!" "The innocent babies!" What's the difference? Only conditioned people object to any of those.
As I noted earlier, we embrace dialectic, which is the cooperative method that seeks common ground and mutual understanding. When we disagree, we go back one step prior to the point of departure where we last agreed to find shared premises, and work forward in good faith according to our separate understandings, offering arguments to one another why this path or that one is more valid. Hopefully, if we share the same values regarding how evidence is to be interpreted and how to apply reason to it without fallacy, one of us may be swayed by the other. That's the spirit of science and scholarship.
What you do doesn't resemble that at all. You simply want to make the other guy wrong by any means possible. Your goal is not to cooperate or learn, but to prevail, and not to communicate, but to obfuscate. You'll conflate distinct ideas, find distinctions that aren't there, ignore all but the definitions that you would like to impose on the discussion, put words into the mouths of others, challenge the integrity of your collocutor, impute impure motives for him, then declare yourself the victor. That's the spirit of verbal manipulation used by demagogues, apologists, propagandists, and advertisers.
That's rich.

You insist on a definition of parasite that glosses over the scientific distinctions between it and a fetus, so that you can call a human fetus a parasite, then hurl accusations of demagoguery, while claiming to be educating people on the science.

And all this occurs while a better, more specific biological definition is freely available.

The persistence in calling a fetus a parasite is the exact opposite of educating.

My effort has not been to "make" someone wrong. They simply are wrong.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#778467 Sep 9, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
Here is a list of human parasites, A to Z, from the United States Centers for Disease Control. A fetus is not on the list. An embryo is not on the list. Your position is anti-science and anti-intellectual.
A normal pregnancy is not a disease, and you wouldn't expect to find the presence ot a human fetus in a human womb on a list of human diseases. You need to move from pathology to biology.

There is no argument available to you that will make all of those definitions Rocco provided go away.
ROCCO

Indio, CA

#778468 Sep 9, 2014
sweets2360 wrote:
<quoted text>
Poor baby. I have heard of tumors growing that fast but have never seen one. Three pounds is huge. Good luck to your baby. Keep us informed.
Thanks, Sweets. I brought her home yesterday, and the surgery was more invasive than initially thought. The lipoma was growing underneath the muscle, rather than just beneath the skin. She's still pretty dopey, bandaged in such a way that she looks like a pig in a blanket, lol, and I finally got her to eat just a few minutes ago (roast beef from the deli and a bit of specialty canned food). It's going to be a challenge for all of us for a few days, but I'm optimistic all will turn out well. I have to go to Loma Linda this morning (about an hour's drive), but she will be in good hands until I return in a few hours.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#778469 Sep 9, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm picturing drool flowing over the fleshy butt of your upturned palm as you wedge it into your buck teeth and laugh in grunts .
What's wrong with Buck teeth?

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#778470 Sep 9, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
You know my terms of engagement. Nobody has to confine their comments to ideas about ideas, but when they cross the line and make it personal, they don’t get a free k*ck.
It aint necessarily so wrote:
I'm picturing drool flowing over the fleshy butt of your upturned palm as you wedge it into your buck teeth and laugh in grunts .
Thanks for letting us all know (several times) that you lied about your so-called "terms of engagement".

Why did you lie?

Since: Apr 14

Location hidden

#778471 Sep 9, 2014
curiouslu wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't get to tell me what I am.
I don't care who invented the term any more than I care which of your relatives produced your dumb arse.
It means choice. The freedom for a woman to choose what happens to her own body.
Like you have the freedom to choose to be vile, daily.
It is the woman's business, period.
curiouslu wrote:
Legally, as far as a foetus is concerned, up to 12 weeks of gestation, it's my body.

Joyful: Pro-choice and pro-abortion are one in the same. He was just stating your position, as you have made clear and since they are one in the same, he stated it correctly. I am pro-life/anti-abortion, which are one in the same.
It means pro-choice/pro-abortion.
You mean, like you do?
It's is the two people's choice who came together to make that baby and others interest (not choice) also, since it is the ending of a life, which is murder, legal or illegal.
I respect your views, I just don't agree with them.

It's your body, but should not be just your decision. The man who helped make that baby should have a say also if he wants to vow to be there for the baby and this should be something that they are bound to for the life of that baby/child until the age of adulthood, at the least.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#778473 Sep 9, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
A normal pregnancy is not a disease, and you wouldn't expect to find the presence ot a human fetus in a human womb on a list of human diseases. You need to move from pathology to biology.
There is no argument available to you that will make all of those definitions Rocco provided go away.
I don't need them to go away. I only prefer that people not apply them erroneously. They can stay.

Parasitology is biology. Pathology is biology.

I provided a complete list of human parasites. If you check the list, the biologic organism is listed for each parasitic disease.

Why is the fetus not on the list?

If the fetus is a parasite, why is pregnancy not a disease, as it is with other parasites?

Let's approach it from another angle using biology.

Biology says there are four main types of human parasites — protozoa, helminths (worms), and ectoparasites.

Which category does the human fetus fit into?

It can't be an ectoparasite since it's within the body.

So you are arguing that a human fetus is either a protozoa or a worm.

Are you comfortable with that argument?

The ruse is falling apart.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#778474 Sep 9, 2014
Stilgar Fifrawi wrote:
Great point, Bucko!
http://www.cdc.gov/parasites/az/index.html#f
The CDC is the bottom line.
Nah. The CDC is about disease. The bottom line would be a biology resource.

This is from a page < http://www.debate.org/opinions/is-it-wrong-to... > that asks if it is wrong to call a fetus a parasite. Here are the kinds of yes answers present - mostly people making up their own definitions and objecting to fetuses being classified as parasites for psychological reasons :

[1] "Absolutely. Not only do I feel it is wrong in the sense, it degrades an organism, but it is not scientifically accurate at all. A parasite is an organism of a SEPARATE species,"

[2] "Yes, it seems wrong. When I hear the word parasite I think of sickness and germs, a fetus is neither. I don't think it is appropriate to speak that way about a fetus because it could possibly be a real life child being born in very short amount of time. I think it sounds so harsh and disrespectful to call a fetus a parasite when I am picturing a baby."

[3] "Changing the Name Changes the Feelings Toward It. Yes, it is wrong to call a fetus a parasite. Calling a fetus a parasite just makes it easier for people to feel better about destroying it. Most people would hesitate to condone the killing of a fetus, but by calling it a parasite, we change their feelings. The word parasite brings repulsive images to mind thus making it much easier to approve of killing it. A person might not condone killing a fetus, but they would almost certainly condone the killing of a parasite."

[4] "Yes it's wrong and not morally, it's just plain incorrect. You can't compare the growth of an organism of your own DNA in your body to become its own individual to a "parasite."

[5] "Yes, it is wrong to call a fetus a parasite. The ridding of a parasite is not a catastrophe. But what if the "parasite" is a fetus? If you kill something that is going to mature into a human being, you are, in essence, killing a human"

Apart from being scientifically inaccurate and beginning with a false premise, these arguments are mostly examples of the fallacy called appeal to consequences of a belief, which is basically of the form, "X is false (or true) because if people did not accept X as being false, then there would be negative consequences."

And here are some no answers:

[1] "Why should our "FEELINGS" take precedence over scientific facts? The human fetus is a parasite, by definition: " An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host."

[2] "This is not a matter of feelings. The definition of a fetus is a being that lives inside of a house and obtains nutrients from said host. Technically speaking a fetus applies for that definition. I don't understand why people are getting so angry about this. The fetus cannot feel any emotion as far as I know and cannot get offended so what difference does it make. Saying that the fetus is a product of God,[which is not a proven fact] does not disqualify the characteristics of a parasite."

[3] "Look at the definition. "An organism which lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense."

These people begin with a valid premise - the scientific definition of a parasite - note that a fetus fits the description, and say yes, a fetus is a parasite, and so what? Whats the clamor about? This is the difference between the search for the truth, and the effort to create it as an act of will driven by emotion.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#778475 Sep 9, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
A normal pregnancy is not a disease, and you wouldn't expect to find the presence ot a human fetus in a human womb on a list of human diseases.

There's a huge flaw in that reasoning.

If a human fetus is a parasite, then a normal pregnancy is a disease. It causes sickness, intense pain in the host, sometimes even death, and requires medical intervention with various conditions.

Why isn't this parasitic disease listed as a disease?

Why this one exception for this parasite?

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#778476 Sep 9, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Nah. The CDC is about disease. The bottom line would be a biology resource.
This is from a page < http://www.debate.org/opinions/is-it-wrong-to... > that asks if it is wrong to call a fetus a parasite. Here are the kinds of yes answers present - mostly people making up their own definitions and objecting to fetuses being classified as parasites for psychological reasons :
[1] "Absolutely. Not only do I feel it is wrong in the sense, it degrades an organism, but it is not scientifically accurate at all. A parasite is an organism of a SEPARATE species,"
[2] "Yes, it seems wrong. When I hear the word parasite I think of sickness and germs, a fetus is neither. I don't think it is appropriate to speak that way about a fetus because it could possibly be a real life child being born in very short amount of time. I think it sounds so harsh and disrespectful to call a fetus a parasite when I am picturing a baby."
[3] "Changing the Name Changes the Feelings Toward It. Yes, it is wrong to call a fetus a parasite. Calling a fetus a parasite just makes it easier for people to feel better about destroying it. Most people would hesitate to condone the killing of a fetus, but by calling it a parasite, we change their feelings. The word parasite brings repulsive images to mind thus making it much easier to approve of killing it. A person might not condone killing a fetus, but they would almost certainly condone the killing of a parasite."
[4] "Yes it's wrong and not morally, it's just plain incorrect. You can't compare the growth of an organism of your own DNA in your body to become its own individual to a "parasite."
[5] "Yes, it is wrong to call a fetus a parasite. The ridding of a parasite is not a catastrophe. But what if the "parasite" is a fetus? If you kill something that is going to mature into a human being, you are, in essence, killing a human"
Apart from being scientifically inaccurate and beginning with a false premise, these arguments are mostly examples of the fallacy called appeal to consequences of a belief, which is basically of the form, "X is false (or true) because if people did not accept X as being false, then there would be negative consequences."
And here are some no answers:
[1] "Why should our "FEELINGS" take precedence over scientific facts? The human fetus is a parasite, by definition: " An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host."
[2] "This is not a matter of feelings. The definition of a fetus is a being that lives inside of a house and obtains nutrients from said host. Technically speaking a fetus applies for that definition. I don't understand why people are getting so angry about this. The fetus cannot feel any emotion as far as I know and cannot get offended so what difference does it make. Saying that the fetus is a product of God,[which is not a proven fact] does not disqualify the characteristics of a parasite."
These people begin with a valid premise - the scientific definition of a parasite - note that a fetus fits the description, and say yes, a fetus is a parasite, and so what? Whats the clamor about? This is the difference between the search for the truth, and the effort to create it as an act of will driven by emotion.
"The bottom line would be a biology source"

Then here's the bottom line:

"A parasite is defined as an organism of one species living in or on an organism of another species (a heterospecific relationship) and deriving its nourishment from the host (is metabolically dependent on the host).-Cheng, T.C., General Parasitology, p. 7,

Show me any biology source with a list of human parasites which includes a fetus.

That would be a biology source. It is conspicuous in its absence.

“The Bible is no science book”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#778477 Sep 9, 2014
ROCCO wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks, Sweets. I brought her home yesterday, and the surgery was more invasive than initially thought. The lipoma was growing underneath the muscle, rather than just beneath the skin. She's still pretty dopey, bandaged in such a way that she looks like a pig in a blanket, lol, and I finally got her to eat just a few minutes ago (roast beef from the deli and a bit of specialty canned food). It's going to be a challenge for all of us for a few days, but I'm optimistic all will turn out well. I have to go to Loma Linda this morning (about an hour's drive), but she will be in good hands until I return in a few hours.
Give her a hug and pat from me. Wishing her all the best.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#778478 Sep 9, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I am correct. Rocco has provided multiple definitions that would include a fetus.
Parasite
A plant or animal that lives upon or within another living organism at whose expense it obtains some advantage; see symbiosis.
An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.
An organism that lives in or with another organism, called the host, in parasitism, a type of association characterized by the parasite obtaining benefits from the host, such as food, and the host being injured as a result.
An organism living in or on and obtaining nourishment from another organism. An obligate parasite is one that depends entirely on its host for survival.
A plant or animal that lives upon or within another living organism at whose expense it obtains some advantage; see also symbiosis.
<quoted text>
You are the one showing the disrespect for science to refuse to accept its definition.
<quoted text>
That is not a requirement. Read the definitions above. None of them include that limitation.
<quoted text>
And that relationship is called parasitism.
<quoted text>
That's your take. I don't consider the term "parasite" pejorative unless it is used in a metaphorical sense, as with Joyful and the clergy. In it's scientific sense, the term is merely descriptive- just like fetus.
<quoted text>
Agreed.
You are being as dishonest as Buck is in definitions here Ians.

1. A symbiont isn't a parasite, see mutualism.
2. Parasites invade a host, and are different species.
3. A fetus shares qualities with both of these definitions, but fails to qualify as either.
4. The whole aspect of placental mammalian sexual reproduction is lost in your terms.

You share some of the same qualities as a chimpanzee.
Does using definitions that include these similarities prove you are a chimp?

Chimpanzee..

an intelligent animal that is a type of ape
smaller than a gorilla
Chimpanzees are highly social and live in flexible groups.

Yep you're chimp.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#778479 Sep 9, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>

And here are some no answers:
[1] "Why should our "FEELINGS" take precedence over scientific facts? The human fetus is a parasite, by definition: " An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host."
[2] "This is not a matter of feelings. The definition of a fetus is a being that lives inside of a house and obtains nutrients from said host. Technically speaking a fetus applies for that definition. I don't understand why people are getting so angry about this. The fetus cannot feel any emotion as far as I know and cannot get offended so what difference does it make. Saying that the fetus is a product of God,[which is not a proven fact] does not disqualify the characteristics of a parasite."
[3] "Look at the definition. "An organism which lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense."
These people begin with a valid premise - the scientific definition of a parasite - note that a fetus fits the description, and say yes, a fetus is a parasite, and so what? Whats the clamor about? This is the difference between the search for the truth, and the effort to create it as an act of will driven by emotion.
1. Fails, for least two but not limited to these two reasons.
A. propagation of the species is creating a survivor of the host,
(genes are passed on to next generation).
B.The fetus contributes to the hosts immune system.
2. this description is so vague all placental mammals fall under it.
Are you trying to reduce the taxonomy charts?
3. You are omitting a major determining factor .
Different species.
Scientific fact.
There is no instance where a parasite becomes larger than it's host.
This eliminates 90% of human males.

So are you calling women parasites?
KENTUCKY

Louisville, KY

#778480 Sep 9, 2014
SCIENCE PROVES HUMAN LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION !!!!!!

So now an innocent human fetus is considered a parasite by the atheist regime.

Is anyone surprised ?

The ONLY reason to label a human fetus a parasite is to falsely justify the killing of life.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#778481 Sep 9, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Nah. The CDC is about disease. The bottom line would be a biology resource.
This is from a page < http://www.debate.org/opinions/is-it-wrong-to... > that asks if it is wrong to call a fetus a parasite. Here are the kinds of yes answers present - mostly people making up their own definitions and objecting to fetuses being classified as parasites for psychological reasons :
[1] "Absolutely. Not only do I feel it is wrong in the sense, it degrades an organism, but it is not scientifically accurate at all. A parasite is an organism of a SEPARATE species,"
[2] "Yes, it seems wrong. When I hear the word parasite I think of sickness and germs, a fetus is neither. I don't think it is appropriate to speak that way about a fetus because it could possibly be a real life child being born in very short amount of time. I think it sounds so harsh and disrespectful to call a fetus a parasite when I am picturing a baby."
[3] "Changing the Name Changes the Feelings Toward It. Yes, it is wrong to call a fetus a parasite. Calling a fetus a parasite just makes it easier for people to feel better about destroying it. Most people would hesitate to condone the killing of a fetus, but by calling it a parasite, we change their feelings. The word parasite brings repulsive images to mind thus making it much easier to approve of killing it. A person might not condone killing a fetus, but they would almost certainly condone the killing of a parasite."
[4] "Yes it's wrong and not morally, it's just plain incorrect. You can't compare the growth of an organism of your own DNA in your body to become its own individual to a "parasite."
[5] "Yes, it is wrong to call a fetus a parasite. The ridding of a parasite is not a catastrophe. But what if the "parasite" is a fetus? If you kill something that is going to mature into a human being, you are, in essence, killing a human"
Apart from being scientifically inaccurate and beginning with a false premise, these arguments are mostly examples of the fallacy called appeal to consequences of a belief, which is basically of the form, "X is false (or true) because if people did not accept X as being false, then there would be negative consequences."
And here are some no answers:
[1] "Why should our "FEELINGS" take precedence over scientific facts? The human fetus is a parasite, by definition: " An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host."
[2] "This is not a matter of feelings. The definition of a fetus is a being that lives inside of a house and obtains nutrients from said host. Technically speaking a fetus applies for that definition. I don't understand why people are getting so angry about this. The fetus cannot feel any emotion as far as I know and cannot get offended so what difference does it make. Saying that the fetus is a product of God,[which is not a proven fact] does not disqualify the characteristics of a parasite."
[3] "Look at the definition. "An organism which lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense."
These people begin with a valid premise - the scientific definition of a parasite - note that a fetus fits the description, and say yes, a fetus is a parasite, and so what? Whats the clamor about? This is the difference between the search for the truth, and the effort to create it as an act of will driven by emotion.
If the bottom line is a biological source, which I agree with, why did you post a debate forum?

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#778482 Sep 9, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
[2] "This is not a matter of feelings. The definition of a fetus is a being that lives inside of a house and obtains nutrients from said host. Technically speaking a fetus applies for that definition. I don't understand why people are getting so angry about this. The fetus cannot feel any emotion as far as I know and cannot get offended so what difference does it make. Saying that the fetus is a product of God,[which is not a proven fact] does not disqualify the characteristics of a parasite."
This one is really funny, I'm surprised that you used it in your defense.

"The definition of a fetus is a being that lives inside of a house..."

Umm..........

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#778483 Sep 9, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Nah. The CDC is about disease. The bottom line would be a biology resource.
This is from a page < http://www.debate.org/opinions/is-it-wrong-to... > that asks if it is wrong to call a fetus a parasite. Here are the kinds of yes answers present - mostly people making up their own definitions and objecting to fetuses being classified as parasites for psychological reasons :
[1] "Absolutely. Not only do I feel it is wrong in the sense, it degrades an organism, but it is not scientifically accurate at all. A parasite is an organism of a SEPARATE species,"
[2] "Yes, it seems wrong. When I hear the word parasite I think of sickness and germs, a fetus is neither. I don't think it is appropriate to speak that way about a fetus because it could possibly be a real life child being born in very short amount of time. I think it sounds so harsh and disrespectful to call a fetus a parasite when I am picturing a baby."
[3] "Changing the Name Changes the Feelings Toward It. Yes, it is wrong to call a fetus a parasite. Calling a fetus a parasite just makes it easier for people to feel better about destroying it. Most people would hesitate to condone the killing of a fetus, but by calling it a parasite, we change their feelings. The word parasite brings repulsive images to mind thus making it much easier to approve of killing it. A person might not condone killing a fetus, but they would almost certainly condone the killing of a parasite."
[4] "Yes it's wrong and not morally, it's just plain incorrect. You can't compare the growth of an organism of your own DNA in your body to become its own individual to a "parasite."
[5] "Yes, it is wrong to call a fetus a parasite. The ridding of a parasite is not a catastrophe. But what if the "parasite" is a fetus? If you kill something that is going to mature into a human being, you are, in essence, killing a human"
Apart from being scientifically inaccurate and beginning with a false premise, these arguments are mostly examples of the fallacy called appeal to consequences of a belief, which is basically of the form, "X is false (or true) because if people did not accept X as being false, then there would be negative consequences."
[snipped for space]
These people begin with a valid premise - the scientific definition of a parasite - note that a fetus fits the description, and say yes, a fetus is a parasite, and so what? Whats the clamor about? This is the difference between the search for the truth, and the effort to create it as an act of will driven by emotion.
The clamor was explains in the first [3].

[3] "Changing the Name Changes the Feelings Toward It. Yes, it is wrong to call a fetus a parasite. Calling a fetus a parasite just makes it easier for people to feel better about destroying it. Most people would hesitate to condone the killing of a fetus, but by calling it a parasite, we change their feelings. The word parasite brings repulsive images to mind thus making it much easier to approve of killing it. A person might not condone killing a fetus, but they would almost certainly condone the killing of a parasite."

Whoever that is is absolutely correct.

What you're doing, trying to redefine a fetus as a parasite, is in relations to pro-choice, and you know it.

As Buck said, the ruse is failing.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 27 min Tellthetruth 447,410
I miss her so bad. Should I reach out? 51 min mikex28 1
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 1 hr Nohweh 71,615
How to make an interracial relationship work 2 hr malvin48 1
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 2 hr Gay Equals Pervert 699,410
James Comey's conflicted TWO FACES 5 hr Dang Jersey Piney 122
Are Quadroons and Griffes Considered Mulatto? (Aug '10) 5 hr Jank 55