Pro-Lifer Throws Incendiary Device at PP

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[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]

Yes. The reason people have gotten so upset over my choosing of words is because when one can see the fetus as what it is(a biological parasite on the mother) then it is obvious that it is the mother’s decision weather or not she wants this in her body… This becomes distorted when the issue of “human death” comes into play. It is only okay to kill men in war because that is what god says… Any other killing is “murder”…

By the way, in conjunction with that last sentence, note that I introduced all of the underlying roots for the reasoning that would follow in both sides of this argument in my first post in this thread… I’ve been down the reasoning and debating of all of the sides to this argument 1000000 times before in my own head. All the views you people are trying to tell me, I’ve thought of them already… This is fucking played out… I’m done here this is only the 1000000th time I’ve seen this one… I’m fucking bored and I’m done humoring imbeciles and playing pretend debate with them as if they are even worthy of speaking to me directly…(ut-oh the asshole comes out - have a field day with this one guys, I probably wont respond but I’ll most likely read and laugh at your responses)

82

[quote]Deorum wrote:

[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.
[/quote]

We already do. We pay in spades.

Wait, you weren’t aware of this?

83

[quote]Deorum wrote:

[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]

Yes. The reason people have gotten so upset over my choosing of words is because when one can see the fetus as what it is(a biological parasite on the mother) then it is obvious that it is the mother’s decision weather or not she wants this in her body… This becomes distorted when the issue of “human death” comes into play. It is only okay to kill men in war because that is what god says… Any other killing is “murder”…

By the way, in conjunction with that last sentence, note that I introduced all of the underlying roots for the reasoning that would follow in both sides of this argument in my first post in this thread… I’ve been down the reasoning and debating of all of the sides to this argument 1000000 times before in my own head. All the views you people are trying to tell me, I’ve thought of them already… This is fucking played out… I’m done here this is only the 1000000th time I’ve seen this one… I’m fucking bored and I’m done humoring imbeciles and playing pretend debate with them as if they are even worthy of speaking to me directly…(ut-oh the asshole comes out - have a field day with this one guys, I probably wont respond but I’ll most likely read and laugh at your responses)
[/quote]

Really?

That should be interesting.

An embryo is not a parasite because it belongs to the exact same species as the host.

Not only that, insofar as an embryo grows up to support the host organism it points more to a symbiotic relationship if said terms can be applied to potential offspring at all.

84

[quote]Deorum wrote:

[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]

Yes. The reason people have gotten so upset over my choosing of words is because when one can see the fetus as what it is(a biological parasite on the mother) then it is obvious that it is the mother’s decision weather or not she wants this in her body… This becomes distorted when the issue of “human death” comes into play. It is only okay to kill men in war because that is what god says… Any other killing is “murder”…

By the way, in conjunction with that last sentence, note that I introduced all of the underlying roots for the reasoning that would follow in both sides of this argument in my first post in this thread… I’ve been down the reasoning and debating of all of the sides to this argument 1000000 times before in my own head. All the views you people are trying to tell me, I’ve thought of them already… This is fucking played out… I’m done here this is only the 1000000th time I’ve seen this one… I’m fucking bored and I’m done humoring imbeciles and playing pretend debate with them as if they are even worthy of speaking to me directly…(ut-oh the asshole comes out - have a field day with this one guys, I probably wont respond but I’ll most likely read and laugh at your responses)
[/quote]

Not that you care, but would you like some other examples of equivalent applications of your philosophy? Here’s a little sample for you:

Nits breed lice.

Jew dog (vermin, rats, take your pick).

Sons of monkeys and pigs.

Tutsi cockroaches.

Savages.

What you are doing is an age old, transparent tactic, used by some of histories most infamous societies.

Nice company you’re in, there.

85

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Deorum wrote:

[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]

Yes. The reason people have gotten so upset over my choosing of words is because when one can see the fetus as what it is(a biological parasite on the mother) then it is obvious that it is the mother’s decision weather or not she wants this in her body… This becomes distorted when the issue of “human death” comes into play. It is only okay to kill men in war because that is what god says… Any other killing is “murder”…

By the way, in conjunction with that last sentence, note that I introduced all of the underlying roots for the reasoning that would follow in both sides of this argument in my first post in this thread… I’ve been down the reasoning and debating of all of the sides to this argument 1000000 times before in my own head. All the views you people are trying to tell me, I’ve thought of them already… This is fucking played out… I’m done here this is only the 1000000th time I’ve seen this one… I’m fucking bored and I’m done humoring imbeciles and playing pretend debate with them as if they are even worthy of speaking to me directly…(ut-oh the asshole comes out - have a field day with this one guys, I probably wont respond but I’ll most likely read and laugh at your responses)
[/quote]

Really?

That should be interesting.

An embryo is not a parasite because it belongs to the exact same species as the host.

Not only that, insofar as an embryo grows up to support the host organism it points more to a symbiotic relationship if said terms can be applied to potential offspring at all.

[/quote]

orion, you sincerely crack me up :slight_smile:

86

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Deorum wrote:

[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]

Yes. The reason people have gotten so upset over my choosing of words is because when one can see the fetus as what it is(a biological parasite on the mother) then it is obvious that it is the mother’s decision weather or not she wants this in her body… This becomes distorted when the issue of “human death” comes into play. It is only okay to kill men in war because that is what god says… Any other killing is “murder”…

By the way, in conjunction with that last sentence, note that I introduced all of the underlying roots for the reasoning that would follow in both sides of this argument in my first post in this thread… I’ve been down the reasoning and debating of all of the sides to this argument 1000000 times before in my own head. All the views you people are trying to tell me, I’ve thought of them already… This is fucking played out… I’m done here this is only the 1000000th time I’ve seen this one… I’m fucking bored and I’m done humoring imbeciles and playing pretend debate with them as if they are even worthy of speaking to me directly…(ut-oh the asshole comes out - have a field day with this one guys, I probably wont respond but I’ll most likely read and laugh at your responses)
[/quote]

Not that you care, but would you like some other examples of equivalent applications of your philosophy? Here’s a little sample for you:

Nits breed lice.

Jew dog (vermin, rats, take your pick).

Sons of monkeys and pigs.

Tutsi cockroaches.

Savages.

What you are doing is an age old, transparent tactic, used by some of histories most infamous societies.

Nice company you’re in, there.
[/quote]

I can respond to you… At least your responses aren’t literally taunting me to turning this into a bitch-fest…

Dehumanization of a cluster of cells that is little more a “human” than a zygote or even a sperm? Yea right… I’m not one for 9th month abortions… I believe if they should be done it is reasonable enough that they are done early. This is not dehumanization at all anymore. It is the removal of a parasitic clump of cells that the mother does not want in her own body.

87

[quote]Deorum wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Deorum wrote:

[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]

Yes. The reason people have gotten so upset over my choosing of words is because when one can see the fetus as what it is(a biological parasite on the mother) then it is obvious that it is the mother’s decision weather or not she wants this in her body… This becomes distorted when the issue of “human death” comes into play. It is only okay to kill men in war because that is what god says… Any other killing is “murder”…

By the way, in conjunction with that last sentence, note that I introduced all of the underlying roots for the reasoning that would follow in both sides of this argument in my first post in this thread… I’ve been down the reasoning and debating of all of the sides to this argument 1000000 times before in my own head. All the views you people are trying to tell me, I’ve thought of them already… This is fucking played out… I’m done here this is only the 1000000th time I’ve seen this one… I’m fucking bored and I’m done humoring imbeciles and playing pretend debate with them as if they are even worthy of speaking to me directly…(ut-oh the asshole comes out - have a field day with this one guys, I probably wont respond but I’ll most likely read and laugh at your responses)
[/quote]

Not that you care, but would you like some other examples of equivalent applications of your philosophy? Here’s a little sample for you:

Nits breed lice.

Jew dog (vermin, rats, take your pick).

Sons of monkeys and pigs.

Tutsi cockroaches.

Savages.

What you are doing is an age old, transparent tactic, used by some of histories most infamous societies.

Nice company you’re in, there.
[/quote]

I can respond to you… At least your responses aren’t literally taunting me to turning this into a bitch-fest…

Dehumanization of a cluster of cells that is little more a “human” than a zygote or even a sperm? Yea right… I’m not one for 9th month abortions… I believe if they should be done it is reasonable enough that they are done early. This is not dehumanization at all anymore. It is the removal of a parasitic clump of cells that the mother does not want in her own body.[/quote]

Okay. Understood.

So what is the point at which the parasite becomes a human? What changes, exactly?

88

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Deorum wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Deorum wrote:

[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]

Yes. The reason people have gotten so upset over my choosing of words is because when one can see the fetus as what it is(a biological parasite on the mother) then it is obvious that it is the mother’s decision weather or not she wants this in her body… This becomes distorted when the issue of “human death” comes into play. It is only okay to kill men in war because that is what god says… Any other killing is “murder”…

By the way, in conjunction with that last sentence, note that I introduced all of the underlying roots for the reasoning that would follow in both sides of this argument in my first post in this thread… I’ve been down the reasoning and debating of all of the sides to this argument 1000000 times before in my own head. All the views you people are trying to tell me, I’ve thought of them already… This is fucking played out… I’m done here this is only the 1000000th time I’ve seen this one… I’m fucking bored and I’m done humoring imbeciles and playing pretend debate with them as if they are even worthy of speaking to me directly…(ut-oh the asshole comes out - have a field day with this one guys, I probably wont respond but I’ll most likely read and laugh at your responses)
[/quote]

Not that you care, but would you like some other examples of equivalent applications of your philosophy? Here’s a little sample for you:

Nits breed lice.

Jew dog (vermin, rats, take your pick).

Sons of monkeys and pigs.

Tutsi cockroaches.

Savages.

What you are doing is an age old, transparent tactic, used by some of histories most infamous societies.

Nice company you’re in, there.
[/quote]

I can respond to you… At least your responses aren’t literally taunting me to turning this into a bitch-fest…

Dehumanization of a cluster of cells that is little more a “human” than a zygote or even a sperm? Yea right… I’m not one for 9th month abortions… I believe if they should be done it is reasonable enough that they are done early. This is not dehumanization at all anymore. It is the removal of a parasitic clump of cells that the mother does not want in her own body.[/quote]

Okay. Understood.

So what is the point at which the parasite becomes a human? What changes, exactly?[/quote]

To me its cut and dry. Whenever the fetus’s survival no longer pivots on co-existence in a parasitic biological interaction then it is no longer a parasite and becomes “human”. Basically, when you can pull that little fetus out of the womb and hook it up to some machines and shit and have it live… If you can pull it out of the womb(lets have a 4month old fetus as an example) and through no miracle of medical science have it any hopes of living, it is still a parasite. If you can pull it out of the womb(lets call this fetus 8months) and hook it up to a machine and have that little bastard live… Ect. Of course, I THINK the state defines this transition as the third trimester.

89

[quote]Deorum wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Deorum wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Deorum wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
We reach a new level of dumb when we start trying to bolster 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]

Yes. The reason people have gotten so upset over my choosing of words is because when one can see the fetus as what it is(a biological parasite on the mother) then it is obvious that it is the mother’s decision weather or not she wants this in her body… This becomes distorted when the issue of “human death” comes into play. It is only okay to kill men in war because that is what god says… Any other killing is “murder”…

By the way, in conjunction with that last sentence, note that I introduced all of the underlying roots for the reasoning that would follow in both sides of this argument in my first post in this thread… I’ve been down the reasoning and debating of all of the sides to this argument 1000000 times before in my own head. All the views you people are trying to tell me, I’ve thought of them already… This is fucking played out… I’m done here this is only the 1000000th time I’ve seen this one… I’m fucking bored and I’m done humoring imbeciles and playing pretend debate with them as if they are even worthy of speaking to me directly…(ut-oh the asshole comes out - have a field day with this one guys, I probably wont respond but I’ll most likely read and laugh at your responses)
[/quote]

Not that you care, but would you like some other examples of equivalent applications of your philosophy? Here’s a little sample for you:

Nits breed lice.

Jew dog (vermin, rats, take your pick).

Sons of monkeys and pigs.

Tutsi cockroaches.

Savages.

What you are doing is an age old, transparent tactic, used by some of histories most infamous societies.

Nice company you’re in, there.
[/quote]

I can respond to you… At least your responses aren’t literally taunting me to turning this into a bitch-fest…

Dehumanization of a cluster of cells that is little more a “human” than a zygote or even a sperm? Yea right… I’m not one for 9th month abortions… I believe if they should be done it is reasonable enough that they are done early. This is not dehumanization at all anymore. It is the removal of a parasitic clump of cells that the mother does not want in her own body.[/quote]

Okay. Understood.

Sooooo what is the point at which the parasite becomes a human? What changes, exactly?[/quote]

To me its cut and dry. Whenever the fetus’s survival no longer pivots on co-existence in a parasitic biological interaction then it is no longer a parasite and becomes “human”. Basically, when you can pull that little fetus out of the womb and hook it up to some machines and shit and have it live… If you can pull it out of the womb(lets have a 4month old fetus as an example) and through no miracle of medical science have it any hopes of living, it is still a parasite. If you can pull it out of the womb(lets call this fetus 8months) and hook it up to a machine and have that little bastard live… Ect. Of course, I THINK the state defines this transition as the third trimester.
[/quote]

Ok. So your transition from parasite to human is dependent on the current state of medical technology, correct?

As regards the gov’t’s definition, I am not sure that I really care what they define it as. As noted ad nauseum elsewhere on this site and on every damn political board everywhere, the govt has been very wrong in its definitions of many important things over the years. I really do not accept a govt definition (by itself, standalone) in ethical matters–ANY ethical matters, not just abortion-- because of that. In legal matters, sure. That goes without saying. However, as a general precept I think that ethical definitions of any kind should have a better standard than “the govt defines it thus”.

90

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]Deorum wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Deorum wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Deorum wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
We reach a new level of dumb when we start trying to bolster 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]

Yes. The reason people have gotten so upset over my choosing of words is because when one can see the fetus as what it is(a biological parasite on the mother) then it is obvious that it is the mother’s decision weather or not she wants this in her body… This becomes distorted when the issue of “human death” comes into play. It is only okay to kill men in war because that is what god says… Any other killing is “murder”…

By the way, in conjunction with that last sentence, note that I introduced all of the underlying roots for the reasoning that would follow in both sides of this argument in my first post in this thread… I’ve been down the reasoning and debating of all of the sides to this argument 1000000 times before in my own head. All the views you people are trying to tell me, I’ve thought of them already… This is fucking played out… I’m done here this is only the 1000000th time I’ve seen this one… I’m fucking bored and I’m done humoring imbeciles and playing pretend debate with them as if they are even worthy of speaking to me directly…(ut-oh the asshole comes out - have a field day with this one guys, I probably wont respond but I’ll most likely read and laugh at your responses)
[/quote]

Not that you care, but would you like some other examples of equivalent applications of your philosophy? Here’s a little sample for you:

Nits breed lice.

Jew dog (vermin, rats, take your pick).

Sons of monkeys and pigs.

Tutsi cockroaches.

Savages.

What you are doing is an age old, transparent tactic, used by some of histories most infamous societies.

Nice company you’re in, there.
[/quote]

I can respond to you… At least your responses aren’t literally taunting me to turning this into a bitch-fest…

Dehumanization of a cluster of cells that is little more a “human” than a zygote or even a sperm? Yea right… I’m not one for 9th month abortions… I believe if they should be done it is reasonable enough that they are done early. This is not dehumanization at all anymore. It is the removal of a parasitic clump of cells that the mother does not want in her own body.[/quote]

Okay. Understood.

Sooooo what is the point at which the parasite becomes a human? What changes, exactly?[/quote]

To me its cut and dry. Whenever the fetus’s survival no longer pivots on co-existence in a parasitic biological interaction then it is no longer a parasite and becomes “human”. Basically, when you can pull that little fetus out of the womb and hook it up to some machines and shit and have it live… If you can pull it out of the womb(lets have a 4month old fetus as an example) and through no miracle of medical science have it any hopes of living, it is still a parasite. If you can pull it out of the womb(lets call this fetus 8months) and hook it up to a machine and have that little bastard live… Ect. Of course, I THINK the state defines this transition as the third trimester.
[/quote]

Ok. So your transition from parasite to human is dependent on the current state of medical technology, correct?

As regards the gov’t’s definition, I am not sure that I really care what they define it as. As noted ad nauseum elsewhere on this site and on every damn political board everywhere, the govt has been very wrong in its definitions of many important things over the years. I really do not accept a govt definition (by itself, standalone) in ethical matters–ANY ethical matters, not just abortion-- because of that. In legal matters, sure. That goes without saying. However, as a general precept I think that ethical definitions of any kind should have a better standard than “the govt defines it thus”.
[/quote]

We are not talking miracles of technology… We are talking when the fetus is no longer biologically dependent on the mother.

91

[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.[/quote]

So two wrongs make a right. Someone has irresponsible sex out of wedlock and we fix the problem with murder.

If abortion was illegal, less people would get pregnant. Right now, many are using abortion as birth control. If they knew that abortion was not an option, they would be more careful about getting pregnant. I am against artificial birth control but I would rather see less money spent on killing and more on preventing pregnancy.

A woman should have to look at an ultrasound of her baby before she kills it. They could determine the sex and name the baby. Let’s not live in denial of what is really happening. It is murder.

92

[quote]cvb wrote:

[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.[/quote]

So two wrongs make a right. Someone has irresponsible sex out of wedlock and we fix the problem with murder.

If abortion was illegal, less people would get pregnant. Right now, many are using abortion as birth control. If they knew that abortion was not an option, they would be more careful about getting pregnant. I am against artificial birth control but I would rather see less money spent on killing and more on preventing pregnancy.

A woman should have to look at an ultrasound of her baby before she kills it. They could determine the sex and name the baby. Let’s not live in denial of what is really happening. It is murder. [/quote]

Well said, over 90% of all abortions are for convenience. Sad, sad state of affairs.

93

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Deorum wrote:

[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.
[/quote]

We already do. We pay in spades.

Wait, you weren’t aware of this? [/quote]

Adoption? What a novel idea, I think I will…oh we already do.

94

[quote]Deorum wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

Ok. So your transition from parasite to human is dependent on the current state of medical technology, correct?

As regards the gov’t’s definition, I am not sure that I really care what they define it as. As noted ad nauseum elsewhere on this site and on every damn political board everywhere, the govt has been very wrong in its definitions of many important things over the years. I really do not accept a govt definition (by itself, standalone) in ethical matters–ANY ethical matters, not just abortion-- because of that. In legal matters, sure. That goes without saying. However, as a general precept I think that ethical definitions of any kind should have a better standard than “the govt defines it thus”.
[/quote]

We are not talking miracles of technology… We are talking when the fetus is no longer biologically dependent on the mother.[/quote]

Not according to what you just said… [quote]Whenever the fetus’s survival no longer pivots on co-existence in a parasitic biological interaction then it is no longer a parasite and becomes “human”. Basically, when you can pull that little fetus out of the womb and hook it up to some machines and shit and have it live…[/quote]

That definition of “human” vs. paraisite is DIRECTLY dependent on the state of medical technology for what is survivable via “hooking it up to some machines and shit” or not. I am asking, is this correct? Is this your definition for what is parasitic and what is human?

95

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

I can respond to you… At least your responses aren’t literally taunting me to turning this into a bitch-fest…

[/quote]

I must say that I iz honestly disappoint.

First you made this into a bitch fest, that you taunted us with your amazing intellectual prowess and debating skills and then here I stand with my dick in my hand, unable to drink from the fountain of your wisdom.

So sad now.

96

A question that I hope will be answered by the mental giants that slum it amjongst us, is someone who had an accident and is on life support a “parasite”?

Inquiring minds need to know and since I know for a fact that one or the other of the posters in this thread has worked this all out in detail I can only hope that he will swing by and enlighten all of us.

97

[quote]orion wrote:
A question that I hope will be answered by the mental giants that slum it amjongst us, is someone who had an accident and is on life support a “parasite”?

Inquiring minds need to know and since I know for a fact that one or the other of the posters in this thread has worked this all out in detail I can only hope that he will swing by and enlighten all of us.

[/quote]

No, they are not on a parasite because they are on life support.

98

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
A question that I hope will be answered by the mental giants that slum it amjongst us, is someone who had an accident and is on life support a “parasite”?

Inquiring minds need to know and since I know for a fact that one or the other of the posters in this thread has worked this all out in detail I can only hope that he will swing by and enlighten all of us.

[/quote]

No, they are not on a parasite because they are on life support.[/quote]

But wait, how can this be?

If embryos are parasites because they cannot live on their own, someone on life support surely is a parasite too?

99

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

I can respond to you… At least your responses aren’t literally taunting me to turning this into a bitch-fest…

[/quote]

I must say that I iz honestly disappoint.

First you made this into a bitch fest, that you taunted us with your amazing intellectual prowess and debating skills and then here I stand with my dick in my hand, unable to drink from the fountain of your wisdom.

So sad now.

[/quote]

Um, I didn’t say that. I think you meant someone else :slight_smile:

100

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

I can respond to you… At least your responses aren’t literally taunting me to turning this into a bitch-fest…

[/quote]

I must say that I iz honestly disappoint.

First you made this into a bitch fest, that you taunted us with your amazing intellectual prowess and debating skills and then here I stand with my dick in my hand, unable to drink from the fountain of your wisdom.

So sad now.

[/quote]

Um, I didn’t say that. I think you meant someone else :)[/quote]

Damn.

Lately I am so obsessed with fixing broken quote functions that I seriously overlook Who posted what.

My apologies kind Sir, I failed you, me, and I probably also brought shame to my family.