Pro-Lifer Throws Incendiary Device at PP

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Deorum wrote:
And for what its worth I’m not some savage and I personally do not advocate aborting fetus’s… However to say a women does not have the right to remove an unwanted parasite from her body is insane… Do what the fuck you want with your body and perhaps even your woman’s body but stop trying to stick your noses up the worlds collective asshole. [/quote]

“If a mother wants to abandon her child I don’t give a fuck.” [/quote]

What I want to know is where he gets this idea a woman has a right to do whatever she wants with her body. That’s about the dumbest shit I have read today. And, I edit papers daily (for money) for students in the College of Social and Behavioral Sciences here at NAU. Let me make it clear, I read papers arguing about everything from how masturbation will increase your grades to how Hitler helped Germans…today. That’s not including the far off ones I get every once and awhile.

62

[quote]cvb wrote:

[quote]Deorum wrote:
And for what its worth I’m not some savage and I personally do not advocate aborting fetus’s… However to say a women does not have the right to remove an unwanted parasite from her body is insane… Do what the fuck you want with your body and perhaps even your woman’s body but stop trying to stick your noses up the worlds collective asshole. [/quote]

The government regulates what women do with their bodies all the time. We can’t take illegal drugs, we can’t have sex for money, and we can’t commit suicide.

The choice is whether or not you have sex.

And the poster that mentioned that a woman has a right for economic reasons. Well, my 3 teenage boys and 12 year old daughter are costing me a fortune. Can I kill them too?

41% of all New York City pregnancies end in abortion
http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/local/new_york&id=7883827

Are the women in NYC so stupid that they don’t understand how you get pregnant? It is just sad. We are the culture of death.

And I am considered a terrorist if I pray the rosary outside a planned parenthood building. [/quote]

You make me smile every time you post.

63

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Deorum wrote:

“an animal or plant that lives in or on a host (another animal or plant); it obtains nourishment from the host without benefiting or killing the host”
[/quote]

  1. Considering the biological purpose of a living organism is to pass on their genes, the mother scientifically benefits from the child. The child is not a parasite.

  2. Your same argument can be said of on infant so, if you aren’t a hypocrite, you would have to be in favor of women having the choice to just leave infants to die.

  3. Abortion is not simply the removal of the baby. An abortion is specifically designed to kill the baby in the process. It isn’t collateral damage that the human dies, it is part of the intent.[/quote]

Let me quote that post for you since it is apparently too hard for you to use the back button.

Passing on genes is a benefit to the mother. That clearly makes it a symbiotic relationship in biology.[/quote]

How is that a benefit to the mother?

64

parasite

Biology. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

65

Now the case could be made that a parasite usually lives off a host that belongs to another species, which is clearly not the case with embryos, but to claim that it “benefits the mother” is just weak.

66

[quote]orion wrote:
Now the case could be made that a parasite usually lives off a host that belongs to another species, which is clearly not the case with embryos, but to claim that it “benefits the mother” is just weak.

[/quote]

Benefit in biology is survival of genes as much as individual life. It absolutely is a benefit in evolution to propagate genes.

It isn’t a weak argument at all. The baby is a biological benefit. I agree that it’s a cold way to look at it, but that is the scientific truth.

67

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
Now the case could be made that a parasite usually lives off a host that belongs to another species, which is clearly not the case with embryos, but to claim that it “benefits the mother” is just weak.

[/quote]

Benefit in biology is survival of genes as much as individual life. It absolutely is a benefit in evolution to propagate genes.

It isn’t a weak argument at all. The baby is a biological benefit. I agree that it’s a cold way to look at it, but that is the scientific truth.[/quote]

So that makes pregnancies very beneficial for the genes that get carried on, but not necessarily for the mother.

Since evolution does not care one way or the other I doubt that anything can be beneficial to it, but if you want to go down that road, there are a plethora of situations where reproductive success could actually increase with an abortion or infanticide, which is why at least the latter happen quite frequently in the animal kingdom.

Also, why would anyone care what evolution wants? That is somewhere in the realm of not building planes because gravity does not “want” us to fly.

68

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
Now the case could be made that a parasite usually lives off a host that belongs to another species, which is clearly not the case with embryos, but to claim that it “benefits the mother” is just weak.

[/quote]

Benefit in biology is survival of genes as much as individual life. It absolutely is a benefit in evolution to propagate genes.

It isn’t a weak argument at all. The baby is a biological benefit. I agree that it’s a cold way to look at it, but that is the scientific truth.[/quote]

So that makes pregnancies very beneficial for the genes that get carried on, but not necessarily for the mother.

Since evolution does not care one way or the other I doubt that anything can be beneficial to it, but if you want to go down that road, there are a plethora of situations where reproductive success could actually increase with an abortion or infanticide, which is why at least the latter happen quite frequently in the animal kingdom.

Also, why would anyone care what evolution wants? That is somewhere in the realm of not building planes because gravity does not “want” us to fly.

[/quote]

Then scientifically define benefit as it relates to biology.

So, this isn’t about science then? We should decide based on ethical reasons?

Cause I like that argument even better.

69

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
Now the case could be made that a parasite usually lives off a host that belongs to another species, which is clearly not the case with embryos, but to claim that it “benefits the mother” is just weak.

[/quote]

Benefit in biology is survival of genes as much as individual life. It absolutely is a benefit in evolution to propagate genes.

It isn’t a weak argument at all. The baby is a biological benefit. I agree that it’s a cold way to look at it, but that is the scientific truth.[/quote]

So that makes pregnancies very beneficial for the genes that get carried on, but not necessarily for the mother.

Since evolution does not care one way or the other I doubt that anything can be beneficial to it, but if you want to go down that road, there are a plethora of situations where reproductive success could actually increase with an abortion or infanticide, which is why at least the latter happen quite frequently in the animal kingdom.

Also, why would anyone care what evolution wants? That is somewhere in the realm of not building planes because gravity does not “want” us to fly.

[/quote]

Then scientifically define benefit as it relates to biology.

So, this isn’t about science then? We should decide based on ethical reasons?

Cause I like that argument even better.[/quote]

First of all you cannot “scientifically define” anything as “beneficial”.

Second, if you could, it would still be “unscientific” to make an abstraction like evolution the arbiter of what is beneficial.

Third, said “evolution” kills more innocent life than the cholera, which is kind of logical given that the cholera is part of and not greater than evolution.

Fourth, you started the ethical discussion by drawing rather crude biologisms into it, which of course immediately begs the question whether we as a species have a good track record of doing what nature commands, ironically that does not seem to be part of our nature.

70

[quote]orion wrote:

First of all you cannot “scientifically define” anything as “beneficial”.

Second, if you could, it would still be “unscientific” to make an abstraction like evolution the arbiter of what is beneficial.

Third, said “evolution” kills more innocent life than the cholera, which is kind of logical given that the cholera is part of and not greater than evolution.

Fourth, you started the ethical discussion by drawing rather crude biologisms into it, which of course immediately begs the question whether we as a species have a good track record of doing what nature commands, ironically that does not seem to be part of our nature.

[/quote]

So then, parasite cannot scientifically be defined?

71

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

First of all you cannot “scientifically define” anything as “beneficial”.

Second, if you could, it would still be “unscientific” to make an abstraction like evolution the arbiter of what is beneficial.

Third, said “evolution” kills more innocent life than the cholera, which is kind of logical given that the cholera is part of and not greater than evolution.

Fourth, you started the ethical discussion by drawing rather crude biologisms into it, which of course immediately begs the question whether we as a species have a good track record of doing what nature commands, ironically that does not seem to be part of our nature.

[/quote]

So then, parasite cannot scientifically be defined?[/quote]

Not really, because there is no easy cut off point, but then you are back to the same semantics this arguments are based on, you just would not argue what constitutes a human being but what constitutes a parasite.

72

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

First of all you cannot “scientifically define” anything as “beneficial”.

Second, if you could, it would still be “unscientific” to make an abstraction like evolution the arbiter of what is beneficial.

Third, said “evolution” kills more innocent life than the cholera, which is kind of logical given that the cholera is part of and not greater than evolution.

Fourth, you started the ethical discussion by drawing rather crude biologisms into it, which of course immediately begs the question whether we as a species have a good track record of doing what nature commands, ironically that does not seem to be part of our nature.

[/quote]

So then, parasite cannot scientifically be defined?[/quote]

Not really, because there is no easy cut off point, but then you are back to the same semantics this arguments are based on, you just would not argue what constitutes a human being but what constitutes a parasite.

[/quote]

uh, there is argument about what is human?

73

We reach a new level of dumb when we start trying to bolster our abortion arguments by pretending we believe anyone, anywhere who ever used the word in a sentence ever did so with the idea that the word “parasite” would ever in a million years even begin to hint at its being applied to a mother’s offspring regarding its relationship to her.

This is really where this argument went? Seriously? In what other normal situation, save fantastical internet abortion debates, is the word “parasite” applied in this manner? Can someone provide me with some example of the word parasite being used in reference to a child regarding it’s mother? Anywhere? Really?

You were at least entertaining when you were still referring to it as an unwanted tenant or thereabouts, orion.

74

[quote]Cortes wrote:
We reach a new level of dumb when we start trying to bolster our abortion arguments by pretending we believe anyone, anywhere who ever used the word in a sentence ever did so with the idea that the word “parasite” would ever in a million years even begin to hint at its being applied to a mother’s offspring regarding its relationship to her.

This is really where this argument went? Seriously? In what other normal situation, save fantastical internet abortion debates, is the word “parasite” applied in this manner? Can someone provide me with some example of the word parasite being used in reference to a child regarding it’s mother? Anywhere? Really?

You were at least entertaining when you were still referring to it as an unwanted tenant or thereabouts, orion. [/quote]

He posted that an embryo could not be a parasite, I provided several definitions that would include an embryo.

I also pointed out that there are definitions that define a parasite as an organism that has another species as a host.

I dont care either way, but his argument was weak.

75

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
What he doesn’t realise is that most true blue Conservatives aren’t interested in the war (besides ending it), there is no declaration of war, we shouldn’t be in those countries.[/quote]

Amen!
This is why a ‘True Blue Conservative’ would NEVER support a Rebublican or Democrat for office. Neither party’s actions adhear to Constitutional retraint.

76

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
We reach a new level of dumb when we start trying to bolster our abortion arguments by pretending we believe anyone, anywhere who ever used the word in a sentence ever did so with the idea that the word “parasite” would ever in a million years even begin to hint at its being applied to a mother’s offspring regarding its relationship to her.

This is really where this argument went? Seriously? In what other normal situation, save fantastical internet abortion debates, is the word “parasite” applied in this manner? Can someone provide me with some example of the word parasite being used in reference to a child regarding it’s mother? Anywhere? Really?

You were at least entertaining when you were still referring to it as an unwanted tenant or thereabouts, orion. [/quote]

He posted that an embryo could not be a parasite, I provided several definitions that would include an embryo.

I also pointed out that there are definitions that define a parasite as an organism that has another species as a host.

I dont care either way, but his argument was weak.

[/quote]

Heh. Okay, would you then say that the original argument presented, that an embryo is a parasite (with the implication, therefore, abortable) is a strong one in the context of abortion arguments?

77

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
What he doesn’t realise is that most true blue Conservatives aren’t interested in the war (besides ending it), there is no declaration of war, we shouldn’t be in those countries.[/quote]

Amen!
This is why a ‘True Blue Conservative’ would NEVER support a Rebublican or Democrat for office. Neither party’s actions adhear to Constitutional retraint. [/quote]

I vote for Ron Paul, he’s Republican. And, I’m a Republican, as well, just not in the sense of the party.

And, if Deurom (however you spell his name) wants to, we can switch tickets, I will never support killing of enemy combatants again, if he never supports for killing of unborn children, again.

78

BC, the kid labels fetuses as parasites, I highly doubt he would be against the killing of unborn children. I would not hold my breath with this kid my man.

79

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
We reach a new level of dumb when we start trying to bolster our abortion arguments by pretending we believe anyone, anywhere who ever used the word in a sentence ever did so with the idea that the word “parasite” would ever in a million years even begin to hint at its being applied to a mother’s offspring regarding its relationship to her.

This is really where this argument went? Seriously? In what other normal situation, save fantastical internet abortion debates, is the word “parasite” applied in this manner? Can someone provide me with some example of the word parasite being used in reference to a child regarding it’s mother? Anywhere? Really?

You were at least entertaining when you were still referring to it as an unwanted tenant or thereabouts, orion. [/quote]

He posted that an embryo could not be a parasite, I provided several definitions that would include an embryo.

I also pointed out that there are definitions that define a parasite as an organism that has another species as a host.

I dont care either way, but his argument was weak.

[/quote]

Heh. Okay, would you then say that the original argument presented, that an embryo is a parasite (with the implication, therefore, abortable) is a strong one in the context of abortion arguments?[/quote]

Not really, because how could that possibly go over with the embryos are baaaabiiieees crowd if you call embryos parasites?

80

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

One word RESPONSIBILITY. The parents of a “parasite” should have to live with the consequences of making said “parasite”

We can debate when/if there is a legitimate place for abortion, but when two consenting adults create a “parasite” they should be legally required to give that “parasite” the opportunity to live at which point they can put he/she up for adoption or whatever.
[/quote]

And if nobody wants the bastard? Then what? Then you put YOUR money up and pay for the human being that YOU want to bring into this world. Because it is obvious the parents do not want it. Put your fucking money where YOUR mouth is. Start paying for some of these fucking bastard children or do not complain when they are aborted. That goes for all in favor of having these bastard babies born into a world where nobody wants them. You want them so bad, pay for them. It is as simple as that.

This arrogant blind fuck says, “adoption or whatever”… Jesus fucking Christ… Why don’t you go abroad and kill something Mr. Marine.