Woman uploads abortion video - goes viral

Sarky · 09-05-2014 05:33PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Indeed and since most abortions are miscarriages do you see why referring to a developing baby as a parasite might be offensive to some? I know you didn't coin the term here but some posters seem to think it's acceptable.

Of course I can. It doesn't stop the parallels from being pretty interesting though.

steddyeddy · 09-05-2014 05:34PM

seenitall wrote: »

A baby is not a parasite, either in my eyes or in any definition of a parasite.

A parasite will generally find any environment outside its host incompatible with continuation of life. A baby will not.

A foetus is a different story.

So you're in favour of late stage pregnancies where the developing embryo/foetus or whatever would not survive without its (the parasite's) mother?

seenitall · 09-05-2014 05:35PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Indeed and since most abortions are miscarriages do you see why referring to a developing baby as a parasite might be offensive to some? I know you didn't coin the term here but some posters seem to think it's acceptable.

The term is acceptable because it is correct.

I feel for those who have suffered the loss of miscarriage, but that doesn't give them a say on other people's decisions, choices or, indeed, dictionary definitions of certain words.

steddyeddy · 09-05-2014 05:35PM

LordChessington wrote: »

The term "pro-life" is really irritating. Less marketable than "anti-choice" I guess.

Both sides have their absolute nutjobs.

gctest50 · 09-05-2014 05:38PM

Originally Posted by LordChessington
The term "pro-life" is really irritating. Less marketable than "anti-choice" I guess.

steddyeddy wrote: »

Both sides have their absolute nutjobs.

?

"Pro-life" and anti-choice are the same thing

Sarky · 09-05-2014 05:39PM

gctest50 wrote: »

?

"Pro-life" and anti-choice are the same thing

And both contain nutters.

steddyeddy · 09-05-2014 05:40PM

Sarky wrote: »

Of course I can. It doesn't stop the parallels from being pretty interesting though.

Indeed they are interesting. Also interesting is the hypocriticism on display by those who use it. They have no problem calling it a parasite but don't agree with late term abortions.

seenitall · 09-05-2014 05:40PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

So you're in favour of late stage pregnancies where the developing embryo/foetus or whatever would not survive without its (the parasite's) mother?

Yes, I am. Whatever the medical and legal professions have marked out as time constraints in most western societies, is fine by me.

In reality, however, I don't give it much thought. Because I live in Ireland. Just getting the draconian law to relax here somewhat would feel like major progress, nay a miracle.

steddyeddy · 09-05-2014 05:41PM

Ah right sorry I read that wrong. Pro likfe and pro choice or whatever either side are calling themselves both have their extremist nutters.

Grayson · 09-05-2014 05:41PM

How about people say that a foetus is parasitic. That is, it shares some characteristics with a parasite. That is 100% true. The language might not be pretty, but it is true. It doesn't mean it is a parasite either.

My name is URL · 09-05-2014 05:44PM

seenitall wrote: »

The term is acceptable because it is correct.

I feel for those who have suffered the loss of miscarriage, but that doesn't give them a say on other people's decisions, choices or, indeed, dictionary definitions of certain words.

Have you found any scholarly articles in which foetuses have been described as 'parasites', yet?

You can do whatever you want with your body and whatever is growing inside it, but don't twist accepted definitions and science in order to tell others how to classify what is growing inside theirs.

steddyeddy · 09-05-2014 05:47PM

seenitall wrote: »

Yes, I am. Whatever the medical and legal professions have marked out as time constraints in most western societies, is fine by me.

In reality, however, I don't give it much thought. Because I live in Ireland. Just getting the draconian law to relax here somewhat would feel like major progress, nay miracle.

Right then we have no more to discuss. I actually respect you all the more for saying that. Some pro choice people actually do some weird mental gymnastics justifying one thing and not another. I am pro choice but it just annoys me.

Potatoeman · 09-05-2014 05:47PM

ash23 wrote: »

A man who makes the choice to have sex also runs the same risk as a woman in terms of that resulting in a pregnancy.

His choice is made at the time of conception. It might not seem fair but biology being what it is, that is when his decision is made.

A womans decision is made a little later and at that point it is hers to make as it is her who has to either have the abortion or give birth. Until such a time as a foetus can be transferred to a man or incubated externally, then we need to be teaching our young men that their choices are made at the time of sexual intercourse and therefore they need to be careful about who they sleep with and the way they use contraception.

You may argue that it's unfair that a man cannot choose after intercourse but it's no less fair than a woman having to be the one to bear a child. It is what it is, it won't change because women will always have autonomy over their bodies (and rightly so!).
Men have autonomy over their bodies also and they can choose to protect themselves against an unwanted pregnancy at the time of conception.

I don't think anyone should be forced into parenthood. There are huge implications for the mans life also and to ignore his wishes but expect financial support is a very one sided view of the decision.

This attitude has made me rethink of my own stance on the issue and really does the pro-life argument no favours.

steddyeddy · 09-05-2014 05:48PM

Grayson wrote: »

How about people say that a foetus is parasitic. That is, it shares some characteristics with a parasite. That is 100% true. The language might not be pretty, but it is true. It doesn't mean it is a parasite either.

I would say it's symbiotic.

gctest50 · 09-05-2014 05:48PM

My name is URL wrote: »

Have you found any scholarly articles in which foetuses have been described as 'parasites', yet?

You can do whatever you want with your body and whatever is growing inside it, but don't twist accepted definitions and science in order to tell others how to classify what is growing inside theirs.

Again ....i think we need a new word

To kick it off how about ......... Feticite

I'm sure someone can come up with something better but it'll do as a start

( in the tradition of epinephrine,ephedrine kinda thing )

seenitall · 09-05-2014 05:51PM

My name is URL wrote: »

Have you found any scholarly articles in which foetuses have been described as 'parasites', yet?

You can do whatever you want with your body and whatever is growing inside it, but don't twist accepted definitions and science in order to tell others how to classify what is growing inside theirs.

And have you missed my post where I told you I have no intention of trawling the internet in order to please your honourable self? Cos you know, that would be a pretty pointless exercise, given that you don't accept a dictionary definition to be a reputable one.

So you can stop harping on that one, it's getting tedious.

Your second paragraph is pure comedy gold, thanks for the lolz.

Muise... · 09-05-2014 05:52PM

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

Seems you are trying desperately hard to pull the wool over everybody's eyes here but you're failing, and miserably so..

You know well the word was being used with it's STRICT dictionary definition in mind. Users actually cut and pasted from Webster's Dictionary in attempt to back up their use of the word and to show how it was an apt one. Then just as the use of the word was being shown to be wholly inaccurate, not to mention grossly inappropriate, you come along with the following doozy:

In short Muise: the word was not being used as a metaphor and your sneering attempt at backing tracking failed.

No, I was trying to steer the conversation away from pedantry. Grayson put it best when s/he said perhaps we could agree that the foetus is parasitic.

Muise... · 09-05-2014 05:53PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

I would say it's symbiotic.

Really? What does the woman get out of it, if she does not want it there?

suicide_circus · 09-05-2014 06:01PM

gctest50 wrote: »

?

"Pro-life" and anti-choice are the same thing

Pro abortion

steddyeddy · 09-05-2014 06:03PM

Muise... wrote: »

Really? What does the woman get out of it, if she does not want it there?

The developing foetus results in a delivery of the hormones oxytocin, dopamine and serotonin within the mother's system. The ultimate mother "getting something out of it" as you put it is she gets to pass on her genes.

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller · 09-05-2014 06:07PM

Sarky wrote: »

Fair enough, I suppose I can just catch a later bus home..

..at this point I would like to express mild irritation that because I'm still here typing this post, my supervisor managed to offload a whole load of metagenomic work from someone else's PhD on to me.

Aren't you a great fella altogether. Guess what? We all have lives.

Earlier in this thread we had people arguing that an embryo is a separate, distinct life because it has unique DNA.

I endorsed that argument, yes.

This encounters a lot of problems; Different DNA does not confer personhood. If it did, there are a significant number of your own cells containing DNA that is different from the majority. Just a little different, I'll grant you, not quite as much as the 50% or so an embryo didn't inherit from the woman, but different nonetheless. Identical twins have "the same" DNA, so by such logic you can argue that they're just the one person.

Sorry, but for someone to make the illogical argument that twins within the womb (other than conjoined) are not separate entities, just because they share the same DNA, would NOT for even a second be close to using the same logic which is used when arguing that fetuses are not part of mother's body. You slid that in there amongst the science bit, as if it would pass the grade by association. Nice try.

That should be more than enough to show that the original argument is, not to put too fine a point on it, a pile of rancid toss.

Well, if you say so Sarky. I mean, you're the one that has metagenomic work to do and no doubt you own many leather bound books too.

If you want, you can add in the fact that a fully grown human contains about a thousand times more bacterial and viral DNA than human DNA. "Human" is starting to become a very blurry term as we discover more about how our bodies work. Do a google search for "brain gut axis" or "psychobiotics" if you're interested in seeing more about what really makes up a human being.

Now you're just trying to blind us all with science. I happen to know a bit about the gut / brain connection, Tim Dinan in Cork is an in-law you see and while I wouldn't pertain to know all there is to know in this field, or even a tenth of it, I am still more than well aware of enough about it to know that not a single aspect of it disproves, or even weakens, the argument that a fetus is separate entity and to be honest, I find it absurd that you would even try imply that it did.

Sarky · 09-05-2014 06:08PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

I would say it's symbiotic.

For a symbiotic relationship both organisms would have to benefit. What does the woman get out of it that outweighs out the hormone fluctuations, back pains, vomiting, and all the other nasty unpleasant effects of pregnancy?

My name is URL · 09-05-2014 06:10PM

seenitall wrote: »

And have you missed my post where I told you I have no intention of trawling the internet in order to please your honourable self? Cos you know, that would be a pretty pointless exercise, given that you don't accept a dictionary definition to be a reputable one.

So, you can't provide a source which would support your mad yet genuine view that foetuses are parasites, then?

So you can stop harping on that one, it's getting tedious.

You're fed up of it so others should just shut up and accept bull**** as being true?

Your second paragraph is pure comedy gold, thanks for the lolz.

What's comedy gold is that Muise thanked your post.. after stating repeatedly that an unborn child and mother are the same entity until birth.

Muise... · 09-05-2014 06:11PM

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

Aren't you a great fella altogether. Guess what? We all have lives.

I endorsed that argument, yes.

Sorry, but for someone to make the illogical argument that twins within the womb (other than conjoined) are not separate entities, just because they share the same DNA, would NOT for even a second be close to using the same logic which is used when arguing that fetuses are not part of mother's body. You slid that in there amongst the science bit, as if it would pass the grade by association. Nice try.

Well, if you say so Sarky. I mean, you're the one that has metagenomic work to do and no doubt you own many leather bound books too.

Now you're just trying to blind us all with science. I happen to know a bit about the gut / brain connection, Tim Dinan in Cork is an in-law you see and while I wouldn't pertain to know all there is to know in this field, or even a tenth of it, I am still more than well aware of enough about it to know that not a single aspect of it disproves, or even weakens, the argument that a fetus is separate entity and to be honest, I find it absurd that you would even try imply that it did.

Science sheds light. If it blinds you, you have misread it.

Can I clear this one up?

Separate can mean discrete, as in unattached, objects. When I say the foetus is not separate, I mean that it is inside the woman and cannot exist outside her body until she delivers it.

runawaybishop · 09-05-2014 06:12PM

Well, this thread got boring as ****.

steddyeddy · 09-05-2014 06:14PM

Sarky wrote: »

For a symbiotic relationship both organisms would have to benefit. What does the woman get out of it that outweighs out the hormone fluctuations, back pains, vomiting, and all the other nasty unpleasant effects of pregnancy?

Are you joking?

seenitall · 09-05-2014 06:17PM

My name is URL wrote: »

So, you can't provide a source which would support your mad yet genuine view that foetuses are parasites, then?

I can, and I did. But of course you don't accept a reputable dictionary definition as anything other than bullsiht. It doesn't fit in with your brainwashed world-view.

The only thing I'm getting fed up with is your particular kind of patronising bullsiht. I'm grand with anything else. You should try anything else sometime.

Muise... · 09-05-2014 06:17PM

My name is URL wrote: »

What's comedy gold is that Muise thanked your post.. after stating repeatedly that an unborn child and mother are the same entity until birth.

No, I didn't state that.

That you think a slight disagreement on one item of discussion means that I cannot agree with seenitall on other things in a post is not so much comedy gold as like talking to a snotnosed kid who thinks he's found the design flaw in the Death Star.

gctest50 · 09-05-2014 06:21PM

Muise... wrote: »

Science sheds light................................................................

I mean that it is inside the woman and cannot exist outside her body until she delivers it.

You could probably transplant it into say a pig* since

pigs’ cardiac valves and pancreases have been successfully transplanted into humans

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/06/19/national/science-health/animal-human-embryo-test-clears-first-hurdle/#.U20M7aJ2hdg

* GM'd etc - wouldn't be making rashers out of it afterwards at the office barbecue

My name is URL · 09-05-2014 06:40PM

Muise... wrote: »

No, I didn't state that.

Oh?

Have you noticed the way women have bumps before they have babies? Good. Inside this bump is the foetus. You can't see it without technological imaging processes because you see, it is under her skin and flesh, in her womb, not yet a separate entity.

Anyway, do you agree that foetuses are (and not metaphorically) parasites?

Seenitall is stating that as fact.. not as a figure of speech. Should it not be challenged? =/

Woman uploads abortion video - goes viral

Comments