Teen Pregnancy Drops as Planned Parenthood Vanishes

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
usmccds423, if you looked at any entries in respectable dictionaries like Oxford or Webster, you would see that a parasite is not exclusively a creature of another species. Intraspecific parasitism happens all the time in the animal kingdom, usually among egg-laying species where an animal will lay an egg in the nest of another animal of its own species, so that the mother must care for another animal’s young.

A parasite is any animal that takes advantage of its host, regardless of species, gaining resources at the host’s expense. Before the word was used in a biological sense, it referred exclusively to humans: a parasite was simply a freeloader, literally one who ate at another man’s table, contributing little or nothing to his host in return.

We may not like to refer to an unborn child as a parasite, because of the but essentially that is what it is: during gestation it receives nutrients from its host (the mother), decreasing her fitness and causing her to require more nutrients and other resources to support both her and it.

Technically speaking, for the gestational period, it would be an endoparasite (like a tapeworm), because it is inside the mother’s body, and after birth it would be an ectoparasite, like a tick, that lives outside of the host’s body.

This is not to say that babies are tapeworms or ticks. Babies are cute and fuzzy, whereas ticks typically are not. But the gestation and raising of a child involves an implicit acceptance of the parasite-host relationship on the part of the mother.
[/quote]

I like you Varqanir, but this is ridiculous. You could could call almost everything a parasite using the above definition. Every person on government assistance, every child, every person on life support, etc… Yet we do not kill (was gonna say murder, yikes!) any of them. (with the exception of life support although I would content that is just allowig nature to take it’s course, which is the opposite of an abortion).

Didn’t I link Webster?

“Intraspecific parasitism happens all the time in the animal kingdom,” can you give me an example? I have never heard of a species of animal that lays an egg in the same species nest to absolve them of rearing their offspring. Even if an example exists, it’s still not the same thing. In zero circumstance does one woman lay an “egg” in another woman without her consent tricking her into allocating resources to the “mothers” offspring.

One of the links I posted suggests there is evidence that a woman does get something out of pregnancy.

[quote]
And the abortion issue is essentially whether the host, who does not agree to the terms of such a relationship has the right to eject a freeloader from her table, with the knowledge that the freeloader will starve to death if she does. [/quote]

Ya, the host does agree to the terms 99.99% of the time. She helped seat that “parasite” at her table. [/quote]

He likes to split those hairs. So from now on we will assume that most living things are parasites. Which eliminates that term from being a point of argument.

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

This is one of the most amazing moments that life has to offer. Waiting for their little gray face to open up and start screaming is the most exciting and nerve stressing moments ever.

[/quote]

I’d have to agree with the above.

I’m am curious whether you think there is any difference between this time and say, the time between conception and the next possible menstrual cycle when as many of 50% of conceptions are miscarried without the woman even knowing she was pregnant.

[/quote]

Of course there is a difference, I can’t see it, lol.

Look, I hate the miscarriage argument, because it isn’t even remotely close to the same arena.

Abortion is the willful removal of life by a third party. A miscarriage is an unfortunate natural circumstance that we do our best to avoid, but can’t always. If a fertilized egg doesn’t implant, then there really isn’t much anyone can do about it. And having a doctor go in and pull the fertilized egg off the wall isn’t the same as a woman’s body rejecting it on its own.

You know what I mean? Two different situations. [/quote]

I am not really making an argument and I don’t usually get involved in this discussion because it is so emotional and I am pretty conflicted on the issue. But I do know that when my wife had an early miscarriage we were pretty bummed out because we really wanted a child. But if my current boy would have died during delivery it would have been a whole different deal. We would have had a funeral and I can tell you I probably would have needed grief counseling and it would have absolutely destroyed my wife. So is this a justifiable “theoretical” difference or a rational one? Maybe not, but there is a real difference as demonstrated by they way pretty much everyone responds to these different circumstances. In real life, that little speck getting washed down the first menstrual cycle just isn’t the same thing as the boy that is ready to come out of my wife’s belly. So I don’t see the issue as “black and white” as some do, even though I struggle with it. [/quote]

How you feel about something does not make it what it is.[/quote]

I agree with you. And I have seen your list of the ways boy ready to be born is objectively exactly the same as boy that was conceived a few hours ago. Can you play devils advocate and make up a list of differences?

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
I cannot come up with an argument that is 100% logical and science based to defend my position [/quote]

There have quite a few secular and logical arguments put forth in this thread and others for opposing abortion.

It seems only those in favor of removing life when they see fit that keep bringing up religion…[/quote]
I brought up religion and I am not in favor of removing life.

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
I cannot come up with an argument that is 100% logical and science based to defend my position [/quote]

I doubt this very much. It may be–is–ugly as all hell, but follow a “science” guy like Dawkins to the philosophical terminus of his conception of morality and you’ll find a “logical” and science-based argument for abortion (or, at any rate, argument against abortion’s immorality).[/quote]
I don’t get your point.

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
The only right I am concerned about for the living human being is the right to live. [/quote]

I tried to travel down this road, apparently this right doesn’t exist. [/quote]

the point not mentioned is it is living at the mothers expense and no one else’s
[/quote]

So is a 5 month old.

Edit: The mohter also helped put it there. 99.99% of the time with consent. [/quote]

A 5 year old can go live with Dad or aunt Susie or worse case the State
[/quote]

So can an unborn baby 7 months into gestation. [/quote]

FTR, most pro abortion people are only for the first trimester except for the obvious cases where the mothers life is in danger. This is assuming there was no legal reason preventing them doing it in that time period.[/quote]

I’m sure most do, I don’t think Pitt does. [/quote]

yeah Pitt is some evil savage [/quote]

I didn’t say that Pitt. Is that not your position? I thought that was the entire point of the viability discussion from several days ago?[/quote]

My position is until the point of viability . The fetus lacks the criteria to be complete . A human breaths , and eats . And it’s life is totally at the discretion of it’s host (MOM)

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

This is one of the most amazing moments that life has to offer. Waiting for their little gray face to open up and start screaming is the most exciting and nerve stressing moments ever.

[/quote]

I’d have to agree with the above.

I’m am curious whether you think there is any difference between this time and say, the time between conception and the next possible menstrual cycle when as many of 50% of conceptions are miscarried without the woman even knowing she was pregnant.

[/quote]

Of course there is a difference, I can’t see it, lol.

Look, I hate the miscarriage argument, because it isn’t even remotely close to the same arena.

Abortion is the willful removal of life by a third party. A miscarriage is an unfortunate natural circumstance that we do our best to avoid, but can’t always. If a fertilized egg doesn’t implant, then there really isn’t much anyone can do about it. And having a doctor go in and pull the fertilized egg off the wall isn’t the same as a woman’s body rejecting it on its own.

You know what I mean? Two different situations. [/quote]

I am not really making an argument and I don’t usually get involved in this discussion because it is so emotional and I am pretty conflicted on the issue. But I do know that when my wife had an early miscarriage we were pretty bummed out because we really wanted a child. But if my current boy would have died during delivery it would have been a whole different deal. We would have had a funeral and I can tell you I probably would have needed grief counseling and it would have absolutely destroyed my wife. So is this a justifiable “theoretical” difference or a rational one? Maybe not, but there is a real difference as demonstrated by they way pretty much everyone responds to these different circumstances. In real life, that little speck getting washed down the first menstrual cycle just isn’t the same thing as the boy that is ready to come out of my wife’s belly. So I don’t see the issue as “black and white” as some do, even though I struggle with it. [/quote]

It is an emotional issue, and I know how you feel. My wife and I lost our second child early in her pregnancy. We were living in an agricultural area of Japan, and maybe a hundred miles away there was a garbage incinerator. We found out later that the dioxins in the exhaust from that installation were causing all sorts of reproductive problems and cancers in the people in our valley. Anyway, she was only about a month or so along, but one day she started bleeding, and we just knew. When she got pregnant again, in her third month she almost lost that baby too: a “partial miscarriage”. By then we understood the cause, and we moved away from there. She was confined to bed for a month, and she ended up giving birth to a healthy baby girl. If the baby we lost had survived, my daughter would never have been born, so although it was immensely sad to us at the time, it was a sacrifice we were willing to accept after the fact. I’ll never know what that baby would have been like, who he or she would have become. But the joy that our daughter brought us vastly outweighed any of the pain that the loss of that baby inflicted.

I don’t know whether there’s any point to what I just wrote, except to say that I’ve been there. And also that just because one’s sentiments about the welfare of the unborn in as shrill a pitch as some of the more vocal antiabortionists, it does not follow that one advocates the wholesale slaughter of innocent human beings, or any such drivel.

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
The only right I am concerned about for the living human being is the right to live. [/quote]

I tried to travel down this road, apparently this right doesn’t exist. [/quote]

the point not mentioned is it is living at the mothers expense and no one else’s
[/quote]

So is a 5 month old.

Edit: The mohter also helped put it there. 99.99% of the time with consent. [/quote]

A 5 year old can go live with Dad or aunt Susie or worse case the State
[/quote]

So can an unborn baby 7 months into gestation. [/quote]

FTR, most pro abortion people are only for the first trimester except for the obvious cases where the mothers life is in danger. This is assuming there was no legal reason preventing them doing it in that time period.[/quote]

I’m sure most do, I don’t think Pitt does. [/quote]

yeah Pitt is some evil savage [/quote]

I didn’t say that Pitt. Is that not your position? I thought that was the entire point of the viability discussion from several days ago?[/quote]

My position is until the point of viability . The fetus lacks the criteria to be complete . A human breaths , and eats . And it’s life is totally at the discretion of it’s host (MOM)
[/quote]

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
“There is no sharp limit of development, age, or weight at which a human fetus automatically becomes viable.[1] According to studies between 2003 and 2005, 20 to 35 percent of babies born at 23 weeks of gestation survive, while 50 to 70 percent of babies born at 24 to 25 weeks, and more than 90 percent born at 26 to 27 weeks, survive.[4] It is rare for a baby weighing less than 500g (17.6 ounces) to survive.[1] A baby’s chances for survival increases 3-4% per day between 23 and 24 weeks of gestation and about 2-3% per day between 24 and 26 weeks of gestation. After 26 weeks the rate of survival increases at a much slower rate because survival is high already.[5]”

[/quote]

So, less than half way through a pregnancy then?

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
My position is until the point of viability . The fetus lacks the criteria to be complete . A human breaths , and eats . And it’s life is totally at the discretion of it’s host (MOM)[/quote]

So again, you think people are well within their “rights” to shake their crying infants to death?

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
My position is until the point of viability . The fetus lacks the criteria to be complete . A human breaths , and eats . And it’s life is totally at the discretion of it’s host (MOM)
[/quote]

So again, you think people are well within their “rights” to shake their crying infants to death?

[/quote]

No his definition of “viable” is a bit different. I’ll let him explain.

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
A human breaths , and eats .
[/quote]

So as long as the doctor slices the spine of the newborn before it takes its first breath, your cool with that child being “aborted”?

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

My position is until the point of viability . The fetus lacks the criteria to be complete . A human breaths , and eats . And it’s life is totally at the discretion of it’s host (MOM)
[/quote]

So again, you think people are well within their “rights” to shake their crying infants to death?

[/quote]

No his definition of “viable” is a bit different. I’ll let him explain. [/quote]

He won’t explain, he’ll dodge this and many other questions, because he knows how full of utter shit his rational for murder is.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
FTR, most pro abortion people are only for the first trimester except for the obvious cases where the mothers life is in danger. This is assuming there was no legal reason preventing them doing it in that time period.[/quote]

Okay, first trimester is 12 weeks, 3 months or about 85-90 days right?

Well the heart is beating and pumping blood by week 6…

Genitals form in week 11. Therefore for the “woman’s rights” camp to be consistent they have to limit abortions to less than 11 weeks, or only for males after week 11.

So why then do people like wendy Davis fight to NOT limit abortions to just 20 weeks? (20 weeks is 5 months, or more than half the pregnancy.)
[/quote]

I feel this is a problem that mostly takes care of itself. She was fighting for the 1% of abortions, why… I do not know exactly. Many people here said they would be happy to get rid of a majority of abortions even if some were still legal. So what Davis was fighting for was irrelevant in the overall problem.

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
usmccds423, if you looked at any entries in respectable dictionaries like Oxford or Webster, you would see that a parasite is not exclusively a creature of another species. Intraspecific parasitism happens all the time in the animal kingdom, usually among egg-laying species where an animal will lay an egg in the nest of another animal of its own species, so that the mother must care for another animal’s young.

A parasite is any animal that takes advantage of its host, regardless of species, gaining resources at the host’s expense. Before the word was used in a biological sense, it referred exclusively to humans: a parasite was simply a freeloader, literally one who ate at another man’s table, contributing little or nothing to his host in return.

We may not like to refer to an unborn child as a parasite, because of the but essentially that is what it is: during gestation it receives nutrients from its host (the mother), decreasing her fitness and causing her to require more nutrients and other resources to support both her and it.

Technically speaking, for the gestational period, it would be an endoparasite (like a tapeworm), because it is inside the mother’s body, and after birth it would be an ectoparasite, like a tick, that lives outside of the host’s body.

This is not to say that babies are tapeworms or ticks. Babies are cute and fuzzy, whereas ticks typically are not. But the gestation and raising of a child involves an implicit acceptance of the parasite-host relationship on the part of the mother.

And the abortion issue is essentially whether the host, who does not agree to the terms of such a relationship has the right to eject a freeloader from her table, with the knowledge that the freeloader will starve to death if she does. [/quote]

Oh brother. Okay, so by that definition, infants are parasites, really old people, children of any age really and a whole load of grown people who are dependant on others for their existence, and suck the life out of them and don’t return the favor.
If you want to broaden the definition, then fine. That will include a lot of people.

So I guess, if you are a organism that depends on another organism for it’s survival we’ve expounded that definition to just about most people. [/quote]

If you are an organism that depends for your survival on another organism, without appreciably contributing anything to that organism in return, then yes, you are a parasite. If you are not a freeloading piece of shit, then you probably don’t fit that description.

Most people do not, in fact, fit this definition. Most people have a symbiotic relationship with others. Many partnerships may not be entirely equal, but the essence of symbiosis is “you do something for me, I do something for you”. The essence of parasitism is “you do something for me, I do nothing for you”.

Pregnancy and child-rearing is a voluntary (in the majority of cases) parasite-host relationship, with the implicit understanding that the relationship will be a temporary one, and in fact that the roles may very well reverse at a later time, when a grown child may play host for its enfeebled parent.

viability in this case is it’s ability to function outside the womb, I am sorry I thought my point was clear . Still no one has answered my question of what would be wrong with in vitro adoption ?

Maybe allowing mothers to sell the adoption of a child would also have some benefit in reducing the amount of abortion . I know it already exists but only for the wealthy

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
usmccds423, if you looked at any entries in respectable dictionaries like Oxford or Webster, you would see that a parasite is not exclusively a creature of another species. Intraspecific parasitism happens all the time in the animal kingdom, usually among egg-laying species where an animal will lay an egg in the nest of another animal of its own species, so that the mother must care for another animal’s young.

A parasite is any animal that takes advantage of its host, regardless of species, gaining resources at the host’s expense. Before the word was used in a biological sense, it referred exclusively to humans: a parasite was simply a freeloader, literally one who ate at another man’s table, contributing little or nothing to his host in return.

We may not like to refer to an unborn child as a parasite, because of the but essentially that is what it is: during gestation it receives nutrients from its host (the mother), decreasing her fitness and causing her to require more nutrients and other resources to support both her and it.

Technically speaking, for the gestational period, it would be an endoparasite (like a tapeworm), because it is inside the mother’s body, and after birth it would be an ectoparasite, like a tick, that lives outside of the host’s body.

This is not to say that babies are tapeworms or ticks. Babies are cute and fuzzy, whereas ticks typically are not. But the gestation and raising of a child involves an implicit acceptance of the parasite-host relationship on the part of the mother.
[/quote]

I like you Varqanir, but this is ridiculous. You could could call almost everything a parasite using the above definition. Every person on government assistance, every child, every person on life support, etc… Yet we do not kill (was gonna say murder, yikes!) any of them. (with the exception of life support although I would content that is just allowig nature to take it’s course, which is the opposite of an abortion).

Didn’t I link Webster?

“Intraspecific parasitism happens all the time in the animal kingdom,” can you give me an example? I have never heard of a species of animal that lays an egg in the same species nest to absolve them of rearing their offspring. Even if an example exists, it’s still not the same thing. In zero circumstance does one woman lay an “egg” in another woman without her consent tricking her into allocating resources to the “mothers” offspring.

One of the links I posted suggests there is evidence that a woman does get something out of pregnancy.

[quote]
And the abortion issue is essentially whether the host, who does not agree to the terms of such a relationship has the right to eject a freeloader from her table, with the knowledge that the freeloader will starve to death if she does. [/quote]

Ya, the host does agree to the terms 99.99% of the time. She helped seat that “parasite” at her table. [/quote]

He likes to split those hairs. So from now on we will assume that most living things are parasites. Which eliminates that term from being a point of argument.[/quote]

No, most living things are symbionts. See my earlier response. Like I said, words have meanings.

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
No, most living things are symbionts. See my earlier response. Like I said, words have meanings. [/quote]

So is a fetus, see my earlier response and link.

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
viability in this case is it’s ability to function outside the womb, I am sorry I thought my point was clear . Still no one has answered my question of what would be wrong with in vitro adoption ?
[/quote]

Function in what way? A 3 day old can do NOTHING on it’s own. It can not survive ALONE. It needs a 3rd party to survive, which as we’ve learned means it’s a parasite and we can kill it.

[quote]
Maybe allowing mothers to sell the adoption of a child would also have some benefit in reducing the amount of abortion. [/quote]

Now you want to sell people? We’ve done that before, there was some backlash.

[quote]
I know it already exists but only for the wealthy [/quote]

Can you provide a link please?

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

Most people do not, in fact, fit this definition. Most people have a symbiotic relationship with others. Many partnerships may not be entirely equal, but the essence of symbiosis is “you do something for me, I do something for you”. The essence of parasitism is “you do something for me, I do nothing for you”.

Pregnancy and child-rearing is a voluntary (in the majority of cases) parasite-host relationship,

[/quote]

I think you are playing devil’s advocate here because you blew a hole in this line of reason with your post about your daughter.

Symbiosis - A relationship of mutual benefit or dependence

You’re going to sit here and tell me children give no benefit to the parent with a straight face? The emotional benefit alone…

Come on man.

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
viability in this case is it’s ability to function outside the womb, I am sorry I thought my point was clear . [/quote]

Again, so as long as the doctor slices the child’s head off the moment after birth and before it starts to scream you are okay with that then?

Again, an infant doesn’t “function” much. So you are okay with people shaking their crying infants to death?

Your point isn’t clear at all, and you dodge tough questions over and over. Why?

And based on the link I posted earlier, by week 12 the child’s body functions pretty damn well actually. So at week 20 I would imagine it functions damn well close enough to the same way it will once it is born. Why does being in the womb make it okay to murder, but being out of the womb not okay, Pittttttt?