Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.

Woman uploads abortion video - goes viral

191012141552

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,512 ✭✭✭Muise...


    Oh?



    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? =/

    Separate as in discrete. I did clarify that when I realised the confusion.

    I suggested metaphor as a possible bridge over the definition of parasite argument. If you don't want to cross it, fine. I'm over it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,534 ✭✭✭gctest50


    Abortion it really brings out the kid in some people


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Try to be nice to people and you get accused of having leather bound books. I ask you.

    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.

    No it was part of the point about claiming unique DNA meant a separate life. It very obviously doesn't.

    Odd, though, that you seem to be saying here that conjoined twins aren't separate entities. Why do parents waste time giving them separate names? And why states give them separate legal recognition? And are they still the same entity when surgically separated from each other? You're making your own argument even murkier with this line of thought.
    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.

    What do you prefer to call it when someone points out problems with the logic of something you endorsed? Strawmanning? Trolling? Victim blaming? Shutting down debate?
    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.

    Well MY daddy works for KPMG video, so nyah.

    I always thought the first time I got accused of blinding anyone, it would have been with something other than science. Nice to know you're related to Tim Dinan though, he's a nice chap that's doing some fascinating work, I hope you ask him plenty of questions. More, I hope he gives you answers.

    The point, which you have done an admittedly admirable job of avoiding, is that the "embryo is a separate, distinct life because it has unique DNA" phrase you'd endorsed is just a terrible argument. It doesn't take into account half of the things that make up a person. It ignores that without a brain to react to stimulus, there is no person. It ignores separate people who have identical DNA. It's bollocks, in a word, and there are probably other arguments you could have used that were actually sound. I imagine most of the people still looking at this thread wishes you hadn't settled for that one. Lord knows I do, and I'm one of the pedantic f*cks posting to it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 669 ✭✭✭Fizzlesque


    Splendour wrote: »
    It's a 'win win' situation. Mother has baby and can't help but love it or mother rejects baby so some childless couple get to have a much longed for child.

    Or mother has baby, can't help but love her baby, but because her circumstances haven't changed and she still hasn't got what it takes to do a good job of parenting a child (all the reasons she chose adoption in the first place; because, it's not always down to "not wanting a child", it can be quite a bit deeper than that), she goes ahead, as planned, and unwittingly sets herself up for a life of being emotionally tattered and makes herself more than a little damaged.

    I speak of my own experience of adoption, and accept not every birthmother will end up as tortured by her decision as I did, but I ruined my life by choosing adoption, and I don't say that lightly. It is now 25 years since I became a mother and after ten years of intense denial, my grief finally caught up with me and proceeded to rip me to pieces. Problem is, once it got going, it decided it wasn't ever going to stop.

    I have a semi open adoption (to touch a little upon the conversation between yourself and eviltwin) and open adoptions exist as well Mine involves letters, photos and gifts, so there's no searching for each other, just lots and lots of waiting for her to be ready to meet me. Part of my reason to choose adoption was because I was already damaged from the life I was offered as a small child, so I knew the danger of not being cared for properly, and couldn't bear to do the same to my child.

    So, mother has baby, can't help but love her baby, and for exactly that reason feels it's best to go ahead with her previous plan. Because she believes she needs to save her child from its own mother. How sad is that?

    I would say to any woman considering adoption "don't do it, please, please, please don't do it". I had no idea it was going to be this bad.

    It has the capacity to set up its own little grief-chamber in your heart and will continue to flourish in its ability to bring you great pain, every year of your life, for the rest of your life. It never runs out of steam.

    It's not easy for the child either, lots of adopted children have their work cut out for themselves coming to terms with being adopted. Not all, but lots.

    I could blather on, believe me, I have form :), but suffice to say, comments like "win-win" are wide of the mark. A lot of people trot adoption out as a suggestion, and I always feel compelled to point out that there can be a tremendously dark side to adoption that shouldn't be overlooked when suggesting it. Adoption is a lifelong situation, for the child, and all the parents (biological and adopted) and we should never allow ourselves to become glib about it but in discussions about abortion it always makes an appearance and is very often spoken about in ignorance.

    I'll stop typing now, or who knows what tangent I'll go off on, so apologies for the abrupt end.

    The End :P


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,512 ✭✭✭Muise...


    Fizzlesque, you did your best - I'm so sorry to read your story, but thanks for the honest account. Much love. x


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 669 ✭✭✭Fizzlesque


    Muise... wrote: »
    Fizzlesque, you did your best - I'm so sorry to read your story, but thanks for the honest account. Much love. x

    Cheers, Muise, and you're welcome, I thank you for reading my account. I have a need to tell it, for some reason.

    Much love back to you too - can never have too much of that lovely love stuff floating around the place :) xx


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,002 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    Are you joking?

    I don't think he was. Listen, the language isn't pretty but a foetus can be parasitic in certain ways.

    It's not a symbiosis. Symbiosis requires that the host receive something substantial back and a pregnant woman doesn't get enough back for it to be considered symbiosis.


    I'm pro choice. At say 4 weeks, that's not a baby or person. At 9 months it is a baby. I would still say that at both stages it's parasitic. That doesn't mean that i think the 9 month baby is parasite. It's just a phrase that's used to describe the physical relationship.

    I think that the whole parasite thing is really just a diversion from the topic and people getting annoyed at language because when they hear parasite they think it had to be negative.

    Just like when they hear abortion they think it's negative. And as the girl in the OP shows, it doesn't have to be (You might disagree with me, but you have to like the way I swung the topic around)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,563 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    Grayson wrote: »

    It's not a symbiosis. Symbiosis requires that the host receive something substantial back and a pregnant woman doesn't get enough back for it to be considered symbiosis.

    They get offspring in return.. that's pretty advantageous as far as humans, or ya know; life is concerned.

    Some of the mental gymnastics in this thread is simply astounding. Talk about 'bad science' :pac:

    I guess it's only bad if it contradicts your ideals :rolleyes:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,512 ✭✭✭Muise...


    They get offspring in return.. that's pretty advantageous as far as humans are concerned.

    Some of the mental gymnastics in this thread is simply astounding. Talk about 'bad science' :pac:

    I guess it's only bad if it contradicts your ideals :rolleyes:

    The human race, yes. The individual human female, not always.

    There was an old woman who lived in a shoe...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,863 ✭✭✭✭padd b1975


    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?

    A clear conscience ain't too shabby.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,090 ✭✭✭jill_valentine


    They get offspring in return.. that's pretty advantageous as far as humans, or ya know; life is concerned.

    I'll let Anya take this one.

    "Offspring" is only a reward if you want offspring. Playing host organism for nine months - with all the attendant temporary and permanent physical havok that's going to play on your body - before driving a human head through your sex organs and letting somebody else steer your life for the next two decades or so isn't something to be done for the craic if you don't want to be a parent.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,512 ✭✭✭Muise...


    padd b1975 wrote: »
    A clear conscience ain't too shabby.

    Have you been reading pro-life guilt porn?

    Women do the best they can. If they cannot, in good conscience, have a baby, they abort their pregnancies. if they cannot, in good conscience, abort their pregnancies, they go on to have a baby. They may regret the circumstances and the experience, but that is not an unclear conscience.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,370 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    Grayson wrote: »
    Abortions don't affect a woman's chance of conceiving. An abortion in the 1960's or one performed in a back alley might, but modern day procedures don't.

    Yea, but there might be some other reason for difficulty later on, and she had her chance previously. Which might have been the posters point.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 563 ✭✭✭wdmfapq4zs83hv


    As a pro choicer I was pretty disgusted by this video. I don't believe any woman is happy about having a termination, but some feel that's the best choice for them, that's their choice. But this woman actually looked happy about what was happening. Her comments about being able to make a baby were pretty shocking given what had just happened. I'm not saying women should hide themselves away or be ashamed about this at all, but a little decorum wouldn't hurt.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,563 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    I'll let Anya take this one.

    "Offspring" is only a reward if you want offspring.


    And for every other occasion there is the 'parasite' card?

    I'm par-quoting you because none of the rest of your post is in any way pertinent to the point I am trying to put across.

    People are stating as an undeniable fact that 'foetuses are parasites' and nobody (of those otherwise pretending that they are scientifically minded) is calling it out for the bunk it is. They are making excuses for why it might be said, and why it might be applied generally.

    What are your own views on that?.. is a pregnancy, wanted or not; a parasitic invasion?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,090 ✭✭✭jill_valentine


    And for every other occasion you can play the 'parasite' card?

    I'm par-quoting you because none of the rest of your post is in any way pertinent to the point I am trying to put across.

    People are stating as an undeniable fact that 'foetuses are parasites' and nobody (of those otherwise pretending that they are scientifically minded) is calling it out for the bunk it is. They are making excuses for why it might be said, and why it might be applied generally.

    What are your own views on that?.. is a pregnancy, wanted or not; a parasitic invasion?

    "Invasion" is the wrong word, but - wanted or not - it is absolutely a parasitic dynamic in biological terms, yeah, in exactly the same way people can have a "parasitic" twin.

    It's the definition of parasitic - one partner's body is supporting the other wholly.

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/parasite
    par·a·site (păr′ə-sīt′)
    n.
    1. Biology An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

    It's not a reciprocal biological arrangement - and wouldn't even if the "offspring" was wanted and went on to be a Nobel winner, btw - because the foetus is not contributing to the host body's survival while they are linked.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 133 ✭✭fullaljackeen


    "Invasion" is the wrong word, but - wanted or not - it is absolutely a parasitic dynamic in biological terms, yeah, in exactly the same way people can have a "parasitic" twin.

    It's the definition of parasitic - one partner's body is supporting the other wholly.





    It's not a reciprocal biological arrangement - and wouldn't even if the "offspring" was wanted and went on to be a Nobel winner, btw - because the foetus is not contributing to the host body's survival while they are linked.


    Another stab at dehumanising the fetus. A horrible term to use that says more about its user than its supposed subject.

    Fetus
    Line breaks: fetus
    Pronunciation: /ˈfiːtəs /
    (British (in non-technical use) also foetus)
    NOUN (plural fetuses)

    An unborn or unhatched offspring of a mammal, in particular, an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,563 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    "Invasion" is the wrong word, but - wanted or not - it is absolutely a parasitic dynamic in biological terms, yeah, in exactly the same way people can have a "parasitic" twin.

    It's the definition of parasitic - one partner's body is supporting the other wholly.

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/parasite



    It's not a reciprocal biological arrangement - and wouldn't even if the "offspring" was wanted and went on to be a Nobel winner, btw - because the foetus is not contributing to the host body's survival while they are linked.

    lol..

    That is all

    Bunch of friggin' mentallers.. seriously, there is no point in even bothering with someone that starts off from such a diving point.

    What exactly would make it reciprocal? Should it be paying rent or what? :confused:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,002 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    They get offspring in return.. that's pretty advantageous as far as humans, or ya know; life is concerned.

    Some of the mental gymnastics in this thread is simply astounding. Talk about 'bad science' :pac:

    I guess it's only bad if it contradicts your ideals :rolleyes:

    Seriously...are you that juvenile. I'm actually trying to be rational and help stop this stupid disagreement about language. I even go so far as to say that the language doesn't even affect the reality, I said I could describe a baby as parasitic, but that doesn't mean it's a parasite. It's just a word.

    The way I could describe you as juvenile. That doesn't mean you are 5 years old just that you act like a little bitch.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,512 ✭✭✭Muise...


    lol..

    That is all

    Bunch of friggin' mentallers.. seriously, there is no point in even bothering with someone that starts off from such a diving point.

    What exactly would make it reciprocal? Should it be paying rent or what? :confused:

    The issue of reciprocity arose because someone ventured that the foetus might be in a symbiotic relationship to it's host. Do keep up.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,002 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    Another stab at dehumanising the fetus. A horrible term to use that says more about its user than its supposed subject.

    Fetus
    Line breaks: fetus
    Pronunciation: /ˈfiːtəs /
    (British (in non-technical use) also foetus)
    NOUN (plural fetuses)

    An unborn or unhatched offspring of a mammal, in particular, an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception


    It's a reality. Take babies for example. It just takes and takes and takes. Babies are the most selfish creatures on the planet. They do not care what you feel, they don't care what time it is, they just want. And they consume food and they **** and they piss. Sometimes they vomit.

    btw, I actually love kids. I love playing with my niece. Holding her is probably one of the most terrifying and thrilling things I've ever done. I still stick by my description of them though. Does it mean I hate babies? No. It means I'm realistic with the language I use.

    Just as when I say a foetus is parasitic in it's behaviour. If you don't like the language, then that's your problem and if you're willing to cast judgement on people, and especially me, because of it, that really says more about you than me.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,563 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    Muise... wrote: »
    The issue of reciprocity arose because someone ventured that the foetus might be in a symbiotic relationship to it's host. Do keep up.

    Oh.. was that it? Not because some 'tard claimed that foetuses were parasitic? :rolleyes:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,496 ✭✭✭Boombastic


    the baby gives the woman the freedom to have as much unprotected sex as she wants without the worry of getting pregnant again

    a symbiotic relationship :pac:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,512 ✭✭✭Muise...


    Oh.. was that it? Not because some 'tard claimed that foetuses were parasitic? :rolleyes:

    Yes, that's what it was. "Some 'tard", eh? Never mind embryos and foetuses; your contribution to this thread is essentially parasitic.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,563 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    Muise... wrote: »
    Yes, that's what it was. "Some 'tard", eh? Never mind embryos and foetuses; your contribution to this thread is essentially parasitic.

    Are you upset by certain words or descriptions? Awh bless...

    I'm still waiting for the scientifically meaningful citation that you and others have used to describe unborn kids as 'parasites'.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,512 ✭✭✭Muise...


    Are you upset by certain words or descriptions? Awh bless...

    I'm still waiting for the scientifically meaningful description that you and others have used to describe unborn kids as 'parasites'.

    Well you are apopletic about the word parasite...

    You have had several descriptions, from several posters. You don't like them, fine, that doesn't prove they are not "scientifically meaningful". And don't call people "'tards" when they have more smarts and grace than you ever will.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,090 ✭✭✭jill_valentine


    Oh.. was that it? Not because some 'tard claimed that foetuses were parasitic? :rolleyes:

    It's not a claim. It is what the word means, simple as. It can be a symbiote - in which case it would contribute to the living system's body, give-and-take - or it can be parasitic - in which case it's one-way. A foetus does not contribute to the woman's survival. It's therefore parasitic. Wanted or not, a happy event or not, that's the nature of the relationship.

    This is what these terms mean. It's not subjective, they're quite straightforward concepts. They don't stop being accurate just because they don't sound very nice, and they won't stop being accurate even if you plug your fingers in your ears and throw tantrums about it.

    I'm sorry if the biological reality of a pregnancy upsets you gentlemen, but I hope this helps you understand what a daunting prospect it is to a woman for whom there is no upside.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,496 ✭✭✭Boombastic


    ...
    I'm sorry if the biological reality of a pregnancy upsets you gentlemen, but I hope this helps you understand what a daunting prospect it is to a woman for whom there is no upside.


    that's sexist


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,512 ✭✭✭Muise...


    Boombastic wrote: »
    that's sexist

    No, it's sex.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,337 ✭✭✭Wishiwasa Littlebitaller


    Apologies, didn't see your reply..
    Sarky wrote: »
    No it was part of the point about claiming unique DNA meant a separate life. It very obviously doesn't.

    DNA is the best means we currently have of testing for uniqueness. Uniqueness is something we use to identify one human being from another. Even identical twins, who share the "same" DNA, could be uniquely identified if they were both in a car wreck and DNA testing was the only means of telling their remains apart. Hence why they don't share the same fingerprints.
    What do you prefer to call it when someone points out problems with the logic of something you endorsed? Strawmanning? Trolling? Victim blaming? Shutting down debate?
    You haven't even come close to showing the argument for separate entity to be incorrect, let alone reach a position where you could be excused saying that the opinion that an embryo should be considered a separate entity at the five month stage (for example) is a "pile of rancid toss".
    I always thought the first time I got accused of blinding anyone, it would have been with something other than science. Nice to know you're related to Tim Dinan though, he's a nice chap that's doing some fascinating work, I hope you ask him plenty of questions. More, I hope he gives you answers.
    Just by marriage and yes, he is for sure but I haven't been able to ask him any questions as I have never met the man, but would be very interested to ask him what his thoughts are on Fecal bacteriotherapy (stool transplants) and if he thinks they might one day be a useful therapeutic tool.. which I guess is precisely why I don't get asked to dinners he is attending.
    The point, which you have done an admittedly admirable job of avoiding, is that the "embryo is a separate, distinct life because it has unique DNA" phrase you'd endorsed is just a terrible argument.
    You have said this, but not shown this. Am I just supposed to accept your opinion that it is a terrible argument or something?
    It doesn't take into account half of the things that make up a person. It ignores that without a brain to react to stimulus, there is no person.
    And those "things" are?

    As for a fetus having no brain? Are you serious? The brain is developing from at least week 4.
    It ignores separate people who have identical DNA. It's bollocks, in a word..
    Eh, no, it doesn't. You keep saying things which are untrue.
    ..and there are probably other arguments you could have used that were actually sound. I imagine most of the people still looking at this thread wishes you hadn't settled for that one. Lord knows I do, and I'm one of the pedantic f*cks posting to it.
    And those "other arguments" are?

    I asked this earlier, but got no reply and so I will ask it once more.

    Do all of you who believe that a embryo should not be considered a separate entity until the point of birth believe then that Scott Peterson should only have been charged with one count of murder and not the two?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement