Woman uploads abortion video - goes viral

eviltwin · 10-05-2014 02:29PM

ryan101 wrote: »

More killing doesn't make it more right.
Laws don't stop people from killing others either.
If someone wants to kill they will find a way to kill.

Do you believe a woman who has an abortion should be in prison then? Do you think abortion should be treated as murder in the eyes of the law?

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller · 10-05-2014 02:35PM

Tasden wrote: »

..just a word to describe the relationship between their baby and the mother when its physically draining everything from her during the pregnancy.

Yeah, that's all it is. Sure you often hear pregnant women referring to their baby as a parasite :rolleyes:

Anyway, time to put this one to bed:

Why the Embryo or Fetus is Not a Parasite by Dr. Thomas L. Johnson

Professor of Biology, Mary Washington College, Fredericksburg, Virginia

*Professor Johnson is an expert in Chordate Embryology & Parasitology

Professor Johnson has identified no less than eight significant differences between an embryo/fetus and a parasite:

1. (a) A parasite is defined as an organism of one species living in or on an organism of another species (a heterospecific relationship) and deriving its nourishment from the host (is metabolically dependent on the host). (See Cheng, T.C., General Parasitology, p. 7, 1973.)

(b) A human embryo or fetus is an organism of one species (Homo sapiens) living in the uterine cavity of an organism of the same species (Homo sapiens) and deriving its nourishment from the mother (is metabolically dependent on the mother). This homospecific relationship is an obligatory dependent relationship, but not a parasitic relationship.

2 (a) A parasite is an invading organism - coming to parasitize the host from an outside source.

(b) A human embryo or fetus is formed from a fertilized egg -- the egg coming from an inside source, being formed in the ovary of the mother from where it moves into the oviduct where it may be fertilized to form the zygote - the first cell of the new human being.

3 (a) A parasite is generally harmful to some degree to the host that is harboring the parasite.

(b) A human embryo or fetus developing in the uterine cavity does not usually cause harm to the mother, although it may if proper nutrition and care is not maintained by the mother.

4 (a) A parasite makes direct contact with the host's tissues, often holding on by either mouth parts, hooks or suckers to the tissues involved (intestinal lining, lungs, connective tissue, etc.).

(b) A human embryo or fetus makes direct contact with the uterine lining of the mother for only a short period of time. It soon becomes isolated inside its own amniotic sac, and from that point on makes indirect contact with the mother only by way of the umbilical cord and placenta.

5 (a) When a parasite invades host tissue, the host tissue will sometimes respond by forming a capsule (of connective tissue) to surround the parasite and cut it off from other surrounding tissue (examples would be Paragonimus westermani, lung fluke, or Oncocerca volvulus, a nematode worm causing cutaneous filariasis in the human).

(b) When the human embryo or fetus attaches to and invades the lining tissue of the mother's uterus, the lining tissue responds by surrounding the human embryo and does not cut it off from the mother, but rather establishes a means of close contact (the placenta) between the mother and the new human being.

6 (a) When a parasite invades a host, the host will usually respond by forming antibodies in response to the somatic antigens (molecules comprising the body of the parasite) or metabolic antigens (molecules secreted or excreted by the parasite) of the parasite. Parasitism usually involves an immunological response on the part of the host. (See Cheng, T.C., General Parasitology, p. 8.)

(b) New evidence, presented by Beer and Billingham in their article, "The Embryo as a Transplant" (Scientific American, April, 1974), indicates that the mother does react to the presence of the embryo by producing humoral antibodies, but they suggest that the trophoblast - the jacket of cells surrounding the embryo - blocks the action of these antibodies and therefore the embryo or fetus is not rejected. This reaction is unique to the embryo-mother relationship.

7 (a) A parasite is generally detrimental to the reproductive capacity of the invaded host. The host may be weakened, diseased or killed by the parasite, thus reducing or eliminating the host's capacity to reproduce.

(b) A human embryo or fetus is absolutely essential to the reproductive capacity of the involved mother (and species). The mother is usually not weakened, diseased or killed by the presence of the embryo or fetus, but rather is fully tolerant of this offspring which must begin his or her life in this intimate and highly specialized relationship with the mother.

8 (a) A parasite is an organism that, once it invades the definitive host, will usually remain with host for life (as long as it or the host survives).

(b) A human embryo or fetus has a temporary association with the mother, remaining only a number of months in the uterus.

A parasite is an organism that associates with the host in a negative, unhealthy and nonessential (nonessential to the host) manner which will often damage the host and detrimentally affect the procreative capacity of the host (and species).

A human embryo or fetus is a human being that associates with the mother in a positive, healthful essential manner necessary for the procreation of the species.

Turtwig · 10-05-2014 02:40PM

Oh jesus!

Professor whatever is really missing the point. Nobody is claiming the foetus is "exactly" a parasite. It's a mode of comparison. The foetus is a parasite in many ways. Just like a geyser is similar a volcano in some ways i.e they both erupt. It doesn't mean the person is claiming a geyser and volcano are functionally identical in every single way. The same goes for a foetus. It's language. How people insist on doing this with analogies is beyond me. They're analogous not word for word, property for property, literal comparisons!

This is really basic stuff and I can only assume the professor was mislead in some way.

Czarcasm · 10-05-2014 02:41PM

Morag wrote: »

More women have an abortion then have their tonsils out, people can wax on and on about why they shouldn't but women are still choosing to have abortions and will continue to do so. Make it illegal or forcing women to travel doesn't stop them having abortions.

It is one of the most common surgical procedures for women, why shouldn't a woman who is pro choice and sick of all the scaremongering, browbeating choose to try and combat that?

Her film came joint first in the awards for breaking abortion stigma it was entered in, anyone know the other one ?

It was created by the IFPA featuring women who have had abortions and who are abortion rights activists.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4SSHkgD73E

I gotta be honest Morag, that video above would have made an awful lot more sense to more people, and shown that women who have had abortions could be your average woman walking down the street going about her business, than a woman who works in an abortion clinic engaging in a bit of self-promotion, waffling into the camera while she effectively ejects from her vagina an organism no more than the size of an inconvenient blood clot.

Her video is like a dentist saying there's no need to fear getting an extraction done - easy for her to say when she's dealing with the issue every day, not so easy for the average person who might only have a procedure done once in their lifetime.

I can say with quite a degree of certainty that a woman sitting in an abortion clinic, the last thing she'll be thinking about is the nice lady on youtube that made faces to the camera and told her how amazing it was that she can make a baby, when in three hours time (providing there are no complications), it's as if she won't be pregnant any more and she can carry on with her life and put that whole pregnancy business behind her.

If you're going to advocate for abortion, a little bit of thought and understanding goes a long fcuking way in helping other women to feel like they have some support, rather than promoting some idiot trying desperately for her five minutes of fame on the internet.

Grayson · 10-05-2014 02:44PM

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

Yeah, that's all it is. Sure you often hear pregnant women referring to their baby as a parasite :rolleyes:

Anyway, time to put this one to bed:

That's nice. Did you read the post you were quoting? No-one said it was a parasite, just that it was parasitic. That just means it's kinda like a parasite. And it is, kinda.

Tasden · 10-05-2014 02:46PM

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

Yeah, that's all it is. Sure you often hear pregnant women referring to their baby as a parasite :rolleyes:

Anyway, time to put this one to bed:

I even said in the post you quoted there that I'd have had no problem referring to her as such when I was pregnant.

The baby drained everything from me, it was a parasite, and every morning I was reminded of that when I woke up feeling lifeless with absolutely no energy because of the baby taking everything from me.
Didn't take away from the fact I loved her with all my heart but I don't feel the need to sugarcoat it either. Thats why I don't feel that "killing" is too strong a word either. Works both ways.

ryan101 · 10-05-2014 02:46PM

eviltwin wrote: »

Do you believe a woman who has an abortion should be in prison then? Do you think abortion should be treated as murder in the eyes of the law?

No, not really, but I think people should be better educated as to what they are doing when taking a child's life away, instead of being told it's ok to kill them as they are just a parasite without any rights.

eviltwin · 10-05-2014 02:55PM

ryan101 wrote: »

No, not really, but I think people should be better educated as to what they are doing when taking a child's life away, instead of being told it's ok to kill them as they are just a parasite without any rights.

If you see abortion as taking away a child's life they why wouldn't you want to see the woman in prison? Isn't that what we do to people who kill children?

PopePalpatine · 10-05-2014 02:59PM

eviltwin wrote: »

If you see abortion as taking away a child's life they why wouldn't you want to see the woman in prison? Isn't that what we do to people who kill children?

Nah, just put them in a special kind of laundry.

Dan_Solo · 10-05-2014 02:59PM

Czarcasm wrote: »

That's the problem with assuming that pro-life people are religious, and pro-choice people aren't, you form pre-conceived notions that are plain and simple just wrong. In your case, all the more embarrassing when you can't discuss the issue in a mature fashion that is respectful to people, regardless whether you agree or disagree with them.

What a pity I didn't assume any such thing and you will be incapable of reproducing anywhere that I allegedly did so.

Grayson · 10-05-2014 02:59PM

ryan101 wrote: »

No, not really, but I think people should be better educated as to what they are doing when taking a child's life away, instead of being told it's ok to kill them as they are just a parasite without any rights.

So you'd like all people to be taught that An embryo, from the moment of conception, is a human being with rights equal to every single human being"

ryan101 · 10-05-2014 03:03PM

eviltwin wrote: »

If you see abortion as taking away a child's life they why wouldn't you want to see the woman in prison? Isn't that what we do to people who kill children?

I think until they have full knowledge of what they are actually committing, no. Though I think there is a strong case to be made for the Josie Cunningham types, and the person in the abortion video, who seem to know full well.

Czarcasm · 10-05-2014 03:03PM

psinno wrote: »

Action at a distance is something I'm fairly uncomfortable with. The idea that fatherhood is something that happens disjoint to any action on his part and with no consent to it. It seems like an artificial idea that only exists to support abortion rights.

Being forced to give birth against her will is something I'd imagine most women would be uncomfortable with. I'm not sure how you think "a man does not become a father until a woman he impregnated gives birth" is in any way an artificial idea?

This whole argument about a man not consenting to becoming a father so therefore he shouldn't have to financially support a child he didn't want is another argument completely separate to abortion.

A father's right to choose to financially support his child, or not, or be forced to financially support a child he didn't want, is a completely separate argument from a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy or give birth against her will.

ryan101 · 10-05-2014 03:04PM

Grayson wrote: »

So you'd like all people to be taught that An embryo, from the moment of conception, is a human being with rights equal to every single human being"

No, I'd like them to come to that understanding about human life themselves.
The smaller the human life does not = the smaller the human rights.
As the human race develops I hope someday that the barbaric and medieval practice of aborting babies before they are born ceases.

steddyeddy · 10-05-2014 03:14PM

Muise... wrote: »

I thought we agreed no more parasite talk? And no baby talk? Shure why not throw in killing and call in a hat trick?

I was posting after an anti abortion poster brought it up again.

_Redzer_ · 10-05-2014 03:16PM

ryan101 wrote: »

No, I'd like them to come to that understanding about human life themselves.
The smaller the human life does not = the smaller the human rights.
As the human race develops I hope someday that the barbaric and medieval practice of aborting babies before they are born ceases.

What if the mothers need one for medical reasons, or if the child was going to born with an abnormality that would be fatal?

steddyeddy · 10-05-2014 03:17PM

Turtwig wrote: »

Oh jesus!

Professor whatever is really missing the point. Nobody is claiming the foetus is "exactly" a parasite. It's a mode of comparison. The foetus is a parasite in many ways. Just like a geyser is similar a volcano in some ways i.e they both erupt. It doesn't mean the person is claiming a geyser and volcano are functionally identical in every single way. The same goes for a foetus. It's language. How people insist on doing this with analogies is beyond me. They're analogous not word for word, property for property, literal comparisons!

This is really basic stuff and I can only assume the professor was mislead in some way.

Science is language. It's idiotic and completely messed up to bring the comparison about a foetus and parasite into a debate.

Boombastic · 10-05-2014 03:18PM

a father can't be forced to respect or support a woman who aborts their baby against his wishes

steddyeddy · 10-05-2014 03:19PM

Czarcasm wrote: »

I gotta be honest Morag, that video above would have made an awful lot more sense to more people, and shown that women who have had abortions could be your average woman walking down the street going about her business, than a woman who works in an abortion clinic engaging in a bit of self-promotion, waffling into the camera while she effectively ejects from her vagina an organism no more than the size of an inconvenient blood clot.

Her video is like a dentist saying there's no need to fear getting an extraction done - easy for her to say when she's dealing with the issue every day, not so easy for the average person who might only have a procedure done once in their lifetime.

I can say with quite a degree of certainty that a woman sitting in an abortion clinic, the last thing she'll be thinking about is the nice lady on youtube that made faces to the camera and told her how amazing it was that she can make a baby, when in three hours time (providing there are no complications), it's as if she won't be pregnant any more and she can carry on with her life and put that whole pregnancy business behind her.

If you're going to advocate for abortion, a little bit of thought and understanding goes a long fcuking way in helping other women to feel like they have some support, rather than promoting some idiot trying desperately for her five minutes of fame on the internet.

Bigtime. She's up there with the woman who had an abortion to get on big brother.

steddyeddy · 10-05-2014 03:20PM

Czarcasm wrote: »

By saying that an unborn foetus has as much right to live as the woman who is supporting it, you are immediately asserting that the unborn foetus' right to live supercedes the quality of life of the woman who is already born.

Effectively what you are saying is that the unborn foetus has more rights than the woman whom you are forcing to give birth against her wishes, because you are taking away her right to decide whether she wants to give birth, and you are telling her that she must give up her control over her own body so that the foetus will be born, at which point she will THEN become a mother, not before she gives birth; and the same goes for a man - he is not a father before a woman who is pregnant gives birth, he is only a father WHEN a woman gives birth.

Therefore in order to argue the rights of the father, a man has to become a father in the first place. Before that, he has no right either to demand that a woman give birth and become a mother against her will.

Very well said.

Czarcasm · 10-05-2014 03:23PM

Boombastic wrote: »

a father can't be forced to respect or support a woman who aborts their baby against his wishes

The other side of that argument is how much respect or support are you giving to a woman when you force her to give birth against her wishes?

(notwithstanding the fact that the man is not a father until the woman actually gives birth)

ryan101 · 10-05-2014 03:24PM

_Redzer_ wrote: »

What if the mothers need one for medical reasons, or if the child was going to born with an abnormality that would be fatal?

Then things get a bit more complicated, but the right to life of the child should also be taken into account.

The sad reality is that most abortions in counties where abortion is freely available are not for medical or fatal abnormality reasons.

steddyeddy · 10-05-2014 03:25PM

Dan_Solo wrote: »

While I'm not normally one to comment on changing words for emotional effect when they are exactly the same thing really, if the foetus is having a detrimental overall impact on your life and it is not yet of age to be considered any sort of individual human, I'm happy with parasite, yes.

Disgusting

steddyeddy · 10-05-2014 03:27PM

Dan_Solo wrote: »

No more than the pro-lifers calling a few cells a child TBH.

True they are both on the wrong side of intelligence.

Muise... · 10-05-2014 03:27PM

Czarcasm wrote: »

I gotta be honest Morag, that video above would have made an awful lot more sense to more people, and shown that women who have had abortions could be your average woman walking down the street going about her business, than a woman who works in an abortion clinic engaging in a bit of self-promotion, waffling into the camera while she effectively ejects from her vagina an organism no more than the size of an inconvenient blood clot.

Her video is like a dentist saying there's no need to fear getting an extraction done - easy for her to say when she's dealing with the issue every day, not so easy for the average person who might only have a procedure done once in their lifetime.

I can say with quite a degree of certainty that a woman sitting in an abortion clinic, the last thing she'll be thinking about is the nice lady on youtube that made faces to the camera and told her how amazing it was that she can make a baby, when in three hours time (providing there are no complications), it's as if she won't be pregnant any more and she can carry on with her life and put that whole pregnancy business behind her.

If you're going to advocate for abortion, a little bit of thought and understanding goes a long fcuking way in helping other women to feel like they have some support, rather than promoting some idiot trying desperately for her five minutes of fame on the internet.

If you read Morag's previous posts on the subject, you would realise that she has far more understanding than you ever will.

Grayson · 10-05-2014 03:27PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Science is language. It's idiotic and completely messed up to bring the comparison about a foetus and parasite into a debate.

Science isn't language. If you're talking about the relationship between language and logic, there is one, but that's not in question here. More likely you're talking about the metaphysical or phenomenological implications of confusing two words.

However, i think we all understand the point the pro choice people are trying to make and I think we all understand the reason the pro life people are offended by the word.

Pro-choice point: the embryo/foetus etc... takes nutrients from it's host (the mother). It doesn't give any nutrients or physical benefits back. This is parasitic. As in kinda like what a parasite does.

Pro life point: However parasites are bad, so comparing a foetus to a parasite is bad. the word itself is bad.

I understand it's not a nice word. I don't like it either.

Can we just get over it already. This fecking argument has gone on and on. It's the most pointless, waste of time. There are actual serious issues being discussed and this keeps cropping up. Over and over again.

gctest50 · 10-05-2014 03:28PM

ryan101 wrote: »

I think until they have full knowledge of what they are actually committing, no. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.

What are they "actually committing" ?

ryan101 · 10-05-2014 03:29PM

gctest50 wrote: »

What are they "actually committing" ?

Killing another human life, a defenceless child at that, something no one has a 'right' to.

Morag · 10-05-2014 03:32PM

Czarcasm wrote: »

I gotta be honest Morag, that video above would have made an awful lot more sense to more people, and shown that women who have had abortions could be your average woman walking down the street going about her business.

I agree but the media had no interest in that it's not sensational enough for them, which is why the IFPA video won, it's not gotten the same exposure.

Czarcasm wrote: »

If you're going to advocate for abortion, a little bit of thought and understanding goes a long fcuking way in helping other women to feel like they have some support, rather than promoting some idiot trying desperately for her five minutes of fame on the internet.

I do agree with the need for debunking the procedure, esp as the other side do their best to make it out to be horrendous, but yes I do have issues with the way the tact that video took.

Like I said I prefer the other one, I try to link do that one, but that one doesn't cause the same level of interest which is sad.

steddyeddy · 10-05-2014 03:33PM

Grayson wrote: »

Science isn't language. If you're talking about the relationship between language and logic, there is one, but that's not in question here. More likely you're talking about the metaphysical or phenomenological implications of confusing two words.

However, i think we all understand the point the pro choice people are trying to make and I think we all understand the reason the pro life people are offended by the word.

Pro-choice point: the embryo/foetus etc... takes nutrients from it's host (the mother). It doesn't give any nutrients or physical benefits back. This is parasitic. As in kinda like what a parasite does.

Pro life point: However parasites are bad, so comparing a foetus to a parasite is bad. the word itself is bad.

I understand it's not a nice word. I don't like it either.

Can we just get over it already. This fecking argument has gone on and on. It's the most pointless, waste of time. There are actual serious issues being discussed and this keeps cropping up. Over and over again.

I'm pro choice and offended by the word for one reason. It's the misuse of science to support ones belief. It shares parasitic, symbiotic qualities yes but you could apply that to a living child of a certain age, physical or mental ability if so wished. A fellow scientist uses the term to describe children with disabilities or mental issues. It's a word designed to hurt the other side of the argument and its frankly disgusting.

Woman uploads abortion video - goes viral

Comments