I should note that not all anti-abortion folks are also anti-birth-control and anti-sex-ed. (I don’t know why I feel the need to defend my dad by proxy in these discussions–probably because he’s the only person I’ve talked to personally who actually starts with “life begins at implantation” and has a completely internally consistent moral position with that axiom in mind)
Oh, Christ, not that MRA bullshit again. It * is* bullshit. Your rights end at the woman’s nose, and your choices end at ejaculation. The ultimate choice is hers, and men have to get up to speed and accept that their choices are limited by biological reality and that that’s not unfair, that’s just them whining that for just once women have one more choice that they don’t get. They need to accept that accidents happen, that condom use is not optional, and that yes, sometimes women do change their mind upon getting pregnant. Of course, it would help if this were discussed prior to sex, but the impression I get from the guys who make this argument is that they want sex, they don’t want to use condoms, and they don’t want to have to talk to women before sex, either. I’m sure we’ll now be treated to any number of stories about devious women oopsing men and deviously getting pregnant without the mens’ consent. I can hardly wait.
OK. So, why is an advocate of abstinence-only until marriage helping people end their marriages & break up homes? (“Helping” for pay, of course.) Should people wait for marriage to have sex but have the power to dump a spouse if things don’t work out? Unless you only defend those left behind because their spouse found somebody hotter. Or only people seeking divorce because of horrible abuse.
In any case, you’re ensuring that your clients pay only the legal minimum child support. Surely, they pay you enough that you can put your kids in the “purest” of private schools–where they learn only abstinence. While they are young, you can filter their TV access so they aren’t exposed to any of those influences that corrupted you. (Yeah, right.)
Your children will learn most of their morality at home. From their parents.
That’s just interspecific parasitism. Intraspecific parasitism involves the same species as both parasite and host (such as brood parasitism or the parasitic males of some fish). Also, the egg may be from inside, but the sperm is an invader from an outside source, and without that you have no fetus.
No matter how you slice it, a fetus is a parasite, dependent on its host and giving nothing back in return. It’s appropriate to oust such a parasite from your body - you don’t owe it anything.
shrug Okay, so I said, “Abortion should be legal and no-questions-asked because that’s the only sane policy, but it still occupies a different moral position than other elective surgeries because of the potential conflict of interest regarding the dual status of a fetus (which is codified into law elsewhere, and rightly so, in such things as ‘stiffer penalties for assaulting a pregnant woman and damaging her fetus’) and the fact one party to the creation of a fetus is correctly (due to risk balance) not party to the decisions regarding it.”
And you took off on a screed. Well done. Very likely to convince people you’re not crazy, and that your opinions have merit.
That would be, in fact, what I said.
It’s hardly “whining” any more than it was “whining” when abortion was illegal and you wanted it to be so. It’s a place where the right to decide is highly unbalanced for reasons of risk balance, but that doesn’t make “the best option” equivalent to “completely fair”.
Nice strawman. I use condoms every time, and have since high school.
You might want to have that knee checked, though.
I find this argument to be a little ridiculous. Species reproduction does not fit under the normal application of the term parasite. Trying to find some technical definition to win a semantic argument adds nothing to a discussion of the issue.
It does, in fact, fit the biological definition of “parasite”, though. From a pure biology standpoint, abortion is little different from any other of the multitude of species that eat their own young when conditions are (in the mother’s opinion) wrong for raising young.
The plain fact of the matter is this: the fetus is resident in the mother’s uterus, if it is a person at all. The mother has absolute moral right to evict the fetus, regardless of the fact that will result in fetal death 100% of the time under current abortion law. That moral right is in force regardless of the circumstances of conception, use or non-use of birth control, etc, because the plain fact is that most sexual activity does not result in pregnancy.
Intraspecific parasitism does not apply to a fetus. If another woman managed to sneak her egg into your womb, it would be. Just because half your fetus’ genes come from a donor does not make it a parasite. You may choose to abort and that’s your prerogative since you “own the womb”, but a fetus is not a parasite except according to your nonstandard definition.
Parasitic males are a whole different topic. 
I don’t agree it does, in fact since the definition and it’s application normally indicates two different species. I also don’t see how arguing that detail does anything to further the discussion. It also doesn’t apply to species who eat or kill their own young.
irrelevant to my post.
tumbledown, then I appologize. Still, there’s a HELL of a lot more that “goes on there” than abortions.
In fact, they even offer services such as
And as you folks can see from the picture, it’s right in the middle of a busy sidewalk. If you’re protesting, you’re blocking people on their way down the street to work. Protesting any further than that and you’d be in the middle of traffic.
giggle
The point is that the anti-abortionists consistently want to make it sound like you’re killing an actual baby - a separate, sentient being that is alive in its own right. I’m of the opinion that it’s more like ridding yourself of a parasite - this thing is existing entirely on the womans goodwill, and therefore it’s up to the woman to decide whether or not to withdraw that goodwill and oust the little parasite.
If I had a tapeworm I would feel comfortable undertaking a medical procedure to get rid of it, since I don’t want to provide it with food and a place to stay. If the tapeworm can go find somewhere else to live, then good for it, but I’m not planning on supporting it at risk to my own health. If I found myself with a fetus inside me, I’d feel the same way. Now, I take precautions to avoid getting a tapeworm by eating clean, cooked food. And I take precautions to avoid ending up with a fetus by practising safe sex. But if I ended up with either I wouldn’t feel bad about dealing with the problem.
I disagree that it’s a semantic argument except to the degree that the whole abortion debate is a semantic argument. When is it a ‘baby’? What is ‘personhood’? Etc. It’s all about how you define these things.
That’s simply untrue. The biological definition of parasitism includes interactions between members of the same species.
Parasitism is a type of symbiotic relationship between organisms of **different[/B ]species. Therefore, a fetus is NOT a parasite. Doesn’t it make you feel better to think of is as a parasite:dubious:
The right to live is more important than the right not to be pregnant.
That’s not true. There is such a thing as intraspecies parasitism.
Not particularly.
I would say there’s no such thing as a “right not to be pregnant”. “Right to bodily autonomy” overrules “right to live”, though, in the case of a person wholly dependent on piggybacking on the biological functions of another person to live. The unwanted fetus, in my opinion, is in the same moral position as I would be if I would die without regular blood transfusions so I just plugged myself into your femoral artery and asserted that my “right to life” overruled your “right to bodily autonomy”.
No one chooses to get pregnant and then aborts, either, to derail THAT strawman. Getting pregnant is not morally related to sexual activity.
Can you please provide a definition of intraspecies parasitism and include a link?
*<googles> *Here’s an appropriate to the discussion example of intraspecies parasitism.
The definition of parasitism includes interspecific and intraspecific forms. You’re quite simply wrong about this.
In your mind it is. Great - nobody is forcing you to get an abortion. But other people draw their moral lines elsewhere, and believe the right of a woman to make decisions about her own body overrules the right of a little parasite that has no ability to think, feel, or live on its own. Incidentally the ‘right to live’ is not nearly as strong as the anti-abortion crown think - killing a person out of mercy (euthanasia) or in self-defence is often considered legit and is not punishable by law in many places. If the ‘right to live’ was really stronger than absolutely all other rights, then that wouldn’t be true.
In any case, your personal morality comes from your religious beliefs, which is fine for you. But I don’t believe in your god, so why should I live by his rules?
And many vegetarians/vegans who eat the way that they do say that the right to live is more important than the right to eat meat and animal products. They are quite sincere in their belief, too. But I don’t have the same ethics as they do, so I eat meat and wear leather.
This. Not just about this issue (I’ve been sterile for over 30 years now) but about a whole host of issues, from being restricted from buying alcohol at certain hours to not being able to choose euthanasia when my health deteriorates to the point where I’d rather die than live. If YOU want to live within a set of rules set down by a diety, fine. But don’t try to enforce those rules on nonbelievers.
While that may be technically true, it is not the standard use by either laymen or professionals. IMO, it’s a pointless semantic argument in any discussion of abortion.
I don’t agree that this is an appropriate example for this discussion.