Abortion is wrong, yet I am pro choice

catefrances

angelica wrote:

parasite:

2. a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/parasite

noted.

as ive pointed out more than once, i am speaking specifically of the mother-embryo relationship. an embryo simple can not survive without its mother-host. an invalid person, or a infant, does not need their mother specifically for their survival. that is my point. as it always has been.

Jeremy1012

catefrances wrote:

noted.

as ive pointed out more than once, i am speaking specifically of the mother-embryo relationship. an embryo simple can not survive without its mother-host. an invalid person, or a infant, does not need their mother specifically for their survival. that is my point. as it always has been.

You have pointed it out more than once and it makes perfect sense, certain people will just continue to ignore it Cate, because it suits them to

angelica

catefrances wrote:

noted.

as ive pointed out more than once, i am speaking specifically of the mother-embryo relationship. an embryo simple can not survive without its mother-host. an invalid person, or a infant, does not need their mother specifically for their survival. that is my point. as it always has been.

I think saveuplife was pointing out that there are other situations where it's not one's mother they are parasitic on, and yet that they are parasitic relationships, anyway. My impression was that saveuplife was implying that the parasitic relationship angle, given it occurs in many situations, cannot justify the taking of a life.

I do understand your point of view, by the way.

catefrances

angelica wrote:

I think saveuplife was pointing out that there are other situations where it's not one's mother they are parasitic on, and yet that they are parasitic relationships, anyway. My impression was that saveuplife was implying that the parasitic relationship angle, given it occurs in many situations, cannot justify the taking of a life.

I do understand your point of view, by the way.

no thats not what saveuplife was doing in my opinion. he(?) was equating the ability of the unborn to survive with/without its mother to that of a child already born and an invalid person. these situations are incomparable.

angelica

catefrances wrote:

no thats not what saveuplife was doing in my opinion. he(?) was equating the ability of the unborn to survive with/without its mother to that of a child already born and an invalid person. these situations are incomparable.

Can I ask what you feel differentiates an unborn, or a born person, or an invalid, in situations when they might all be seen as parasitic, and unable to survive on their own?

catefrances

unifiedscene wrote:

I'm ok with you making that decision for yourself and the fetus. What I argued against was someone saying that we should consider whether the fetus might want to be aborted. That's stupid. Nobody knows what the fetus wants, it can't tell anyone. Let's be real... trying to argue that abortion is just giving the fetus what it wants is bullshit and is just a lame attempt to pass the buck. I mean, how would you really react to woman saying "well I didn't want the abortion, but the fetus let me know it didn't want to be born and preferred to be aborted." It's absurd. What the fetus wants is, ipso facto, irrelevant when considering abortion. It's a woman making a judgment call about what is best for her and her potential child. I'm perfectly ok with that, but let's not be disingenuous about it.

well yes i have to agree with you on second guessing what the foetus wants. it doesnt have the capacity for such thought at the time abortions usually take place cause its still forming. besides tis an inane argument if you ask me. and certainly not one that helps the prochoice side imo.

catefrances

angelica wrote:

Can I ask what you feel differentiates an unborn, or a born person, or an invalid, in situations when they might all be seen as parasitic, and unable to survive on their own?

sure you can. and remember my argument has always been mother specific.

until the foetus reaches a stage where it can survive outside the womb naturally or with medical intervention then it is reliant on its mother host.

a born child is no longer reliant on its mother for its survival. it can gain its sustinence from other places. therefore it does not require its mother for its survival.

an invaild does not require its mother for its survival.

thus both the born child and the invalid are not parasitic within the parameters of my argument.

angelica

catefrances wrote:

sure you can. and remember my argument has always been mother specific.

until the foetus reaches a stage where it can survive outside the womb naturally or with medical intervention then it is reliant on its mother host.

a born child is no longer reliant on its mother for its survival. it can gain its sustinence from other places. therefore it does not require its mother for its survival.

an invaild does not require its mother for its survival.

thus both the born child and the invalid are not parasitic within the parameters of my argument.

Thanks

I think saveuplife added into the theoretical infant/invalid scenarios that there was no one else able to provide the care for the person in the parasitic relationship. For example, I could point to a mother of an infant....she is held responsible if she leaves the infant to starve or otherwise die. Much less she is definitely not allowed the option of terminating this born life, whether young or old. She is held to account.

is your argument that even though this is the case, and the mother (or any relative in terms of an invalid) is held to account, the baby can be taken by protective services, or the ailing relative can be removed to the care of the government, and therefore it's different than the mother/unborn scenario (edit: because others CAN provide the necessary care)?

Abuskedti

saveuplife wrote:

Example:

Let's say you have a father (mother, husband whatever), he gets a disease. He relies on you to feed him. Doctors say one day, the chances are almost 100% that he will get better, but he (your father) needs your assistance for the next several years to survive because he can't do it on his own and there's no other options. All he will need is you to care for him at the outset, like a baby, then a child and soon he'll be back to his adult self and need nothing from you. In a sense, he's what you called a "parasite" because he relies on you for food. Without you atleast for the next eight months, he will perish. Like you said, ---("you can not force your values, whatever they are, on someone else. you can not tell someone to not terminate the life" in this situation too. So, is it morally acceptable in your world to walk away or "terminate" him? Should the government stop you?

IMHO it's the exact same situation as the one you just laid out.

Another example would be a 1 month old. You don't feed them.... they die. So, according to you, it's OK to not feed them? And if your distinction is being in the woman's stomach, do you atleast admit that there have been babies born and survived early in the pregnancy? As a matter of fact, some fetuses have even survived abortion attempts. So, why would it be OK to kill it when it could survive on it's own with some assistance from a hospital? IMHO all these things make your argument very silly, and no offense, but just plain bad.

not feeding a 1 month old causes suffering.. and I might add, that happens alot.

In your father example, I see that as different than an unborn infant, because he or she has yet to build relationships.. or memories for himself or others.. an abortion causes less human suffering than to allow a grown man to die.

in my view, in the end it is about the totality of human suffering, I believe the mother is in a better position to make that judgement than the government.

How would you punish her anyway - throw her in jail? what if she has three other children?

catefrances

angelica wrote:

Thanks

I think saveuplife added into the theoretical infant/invalid scenarios that there was no one else able to provide the care for the person in the parasitic relationship. For example, I could point to a mother of an infant....she is held responsible if she leaves the infant to starve or otherwise die. Much less she is definitely not allowed the option of terminating this born life, whether young or old. She is held to account.

is your argument that even though this is the case, and the mother (or any relative in terms of an invalid) is held to account, the baby can be taken by protective services, or the ailing relative can be removed to the care of the government, and therefore it's different than the mother/unborn scenario (edit: because others CAN provide the necessary care)?

as you have pointed out on numerous occasions angelica we are all responsible for our actions. and we must own them. is that the same as being held accountable? no it is not.
taking responsibilty for ones actions is not the same as having societal morals forced upon us.

and no that is not my argument in regards to the ability and often willingness of governments to step in where care is wanting. they are two separate issues.

angelica

catefrances wrote:

as you have pointed out on numerous occasions angelica we are all responsible for our actions. and we must own them. is that the same as being held accountable? no it is not.
taking responsibilty for ones actions is not the same as having societal morals forced upon us.

and no that is not my argument in regards to the ability and often willingness of governments to step in where care is wanting. they are two separate issues.

I think you misunderstand. I'm saying besides that we are held accountable by the government......

is your point that because the mother, or the relative of the invalid can take off, and the person in question can receive care elsewhere that this is the difference for you than with a pregnancy, when the mother has no one else to take the care of the pregnancy?

angelica

I personally wonder why we justify certain kinds of killing and not others. It's very arbitrary to me.

The majority of people cannot understand why a serial killer takes a life and connot justify it. Or we cannot accept when someone loses their temper and kills their spouse out of anger.

And then in some cultures, (and not others) we can justify taking the lives of the unborn. Apparently, because people can understand why their peers, living in their society, would want to.

it doesn't make sense to me.

digster

angelica wrote:

And then in some cultures, (and not others) we can justify taking the lives of the unborn. Apparently, because people can understand why their peers, living in their society, would want to.

it doesn't make sense to me.

I'm not even trying to step into this minefield, but many people don't define the beginning of life in the same way you are. You make it seem obvious that the life of a serial killer's victim and an unborn fetus are inherently equitable. They are anything but.

catefrances

angelica wrote:

I think you misunderstand. I'm saying besides that we are held accountable by the government......

is your point that because the mother, or the relative of the invalid can take off, and the person in question can receive care elsewhere that this is the difference for you than with a pregnancy, when the mother has no one else to take the care of the pregnancy?

no. it is not.

my point is the parasitic like embryo can not survive specifically without its mother host.

angelica

digster wrote:

I'm not even trying to step into this minefield, but many people don't define the beginning of life in the same way you are. You make it seem obvious that the life of a serial killer's victim and an unborn fetus are inherently equitable. They are anything but.

people are funny.

digster

angelica wrote:

people are funny.

Yes, people certainly are.

I don't find abortion very funny, and have no clue what you mean, but OK then.

catefrances

angelica wrote:

I personally wonder why we justify certain kinds of killing and not others. It's very arbitrary to me.

The majority of people cannot understand why a serial killer takes a life and connot justify it. Or we cannot accept when someone loses their temper and kills their spouse out of anger.

And then in some cultures, (and not others) we can justify taking the lives of the unborn. Apparently, because people can understand why their peers, living in their society, would want to.

it doesn't make sense to me.

see heres the thing we do not need to justify a killers reasoning. that is up to him. as abhorrant as that is. we can however choose to accept that he has reasoning and try to understand or we can dismiss the killer as an irredeemable monster and shut our minds off.

angelica

digster wrote:

...many people don't define the beginning of life in the same way you are. You make it seem obvious that the life of a serial killer's victim and an unborn fetus are inherently equitable. They are anything but.

this is exactly my point....it's arbitrary where people draw the line...

Some people and/or cultures give a nod to the termination of developing unborn offspring. Others do not.

digster

angelica wrote:

this is exactly my point....it's arbitrary where people draw the line...

Some people and/or cultures give a nod to the termination of developing unborn offspring. Others do not.

Any definition of where life begins, or when abortion becomes "OK", both yours and mine, is arbitrary. Only God (if one does exist) could tell us if life begins with conception.

angelica

catefrances wrote:

see heres the thing we do not need to justify a killers reasoning. that is up to him. as abhorrant as that is. we can however choose to accept that he has reasoning and try to understand or we can dismiss the killer as an irredeemable monster and shut our minds off.

We do as a society decide that we will not accept his/her actions.

And the same society says we will accept the termination of unborn offspring.

It's arbitrary. It seems to me that the difference is because people have more understanding/compassion for the termination of unborn offspring, maybe because WAAAYYYYYYY more of us have been in situations that cause us to understand the fear of unwanted offspring.