Oh man o man o man. I having to go to confession simply because I had a majorly heretical mental piccie of THAT one! 
I’ll let my previous cite address those points
**
Surprise, Surprise. You didn’t read my reply. My point about infanticide was in reply to your whining about why other pro choice folks did not rush to your line of reasoning in that last abortion debate (you know, the one where pro choice BlackKnight was complaining about your reasoning?) . I don’t claim it has anything to do directly with your OP.
**
Feel free to join me in the pit.
Yeah, 'cause we all know that parasite is defined as a tapeworm. That’s the most interesting counter to a concept definition I’ve seen.
The definition of “furniture” doesn’t explicitly include chairs, either. There is a whole world of arguments I can now devestate because definitions of abstract classes don’t include referents to all their particulars!
Yippie!
or “certainly” as in i will provide an objective, scientific cite?
jb
To save other people the trouble, beagledave’s cite is a usual example of pro-life logic.
We (re)define parasites members of different species than their hosts. Therefore, z-e-fs are not parasites. QED.
Of course, by that definition, cancers aren’t parasites, either. Meaning that either whether or not something is a parasite is irrelavent to its moral value, or you must protest chemotherapy as you do abortion. Bwahahaha. The OP draws blood.
And I know of one type of skin cancer caused when UV light screws with the hydrogen bonds in DNA, causing thymine to bind with itself. So, some cancers do have a different genetic structure than their hosts.
So you want to discard beagledave’s pro-life argument, on the grounds that it came from a pro-life organization?
What strange reasoning! By that logic, we should also dismiss anything pro-choice arguments that come from NARAL and Planned Parenthood. After all, those organizations are hardly objective when it comes to abortion.
Frankly, I’m astounded at how many times I’ve seen SDMBers dismiss pro-life arguments, on the grounds that they were put forward by “unobjective” pro-lifers. This is a subtle case of ad hominem argumentation – attacking a statement based on the person uttering it, rather than addressing its alleged inadequacies. One should know better.
In case you didn’t notice, that definition came from a parasitology textbook. It wasn’t something that pro-lifers cooked up on the spot.
I don’t see your point. I, for one, never claimed that they were.
Such bizarre logic! Neither cancers not fetuses are parasites. This does not, however, mean that they have equal value, or that they are equivalent in any way. Strange, bizarre logic indeed.
Parasites that attack their own species can be found in the link I gave much further above.
But, hey, let’s not argue over who killed who.
And here we come to it. Under your moral system, I cannot slice off your arm, or kill you, or enslave you, right? Why not? What difference does it make in this meaningless universe? Why should I care what your moral system posits as axioms? I can posit an axiom that I can do whatever I damn well please, and you are a meaningless clump of cells. Hey, that’s my axiom. I have no need to defend it, since it is an axiom. There we go. I can now slice you into any number of pieces. Good. You “own” your arm? Nuh-uh. Who says you own your arm? You? You are just a clump of cells there buddy. And everyone knows that clumps of cells have no rights.
OK, now I posit that I can slice you up. But uh-oh. Now I have a problem. Yes, I can slice you up, you are meaningless. But how do I stop you–you meaningless clump of cells, you–from slicing ME up? What if I don’t want you slicing my arms off? Well, I’m making the rules here, so I just make an axiomatic rule that I can murder you but you can’t murder me. Oh, wait. You’re bigger than me. You don’t listen to my rules. You come after me with a sword. Damn.
See, we can define other people as parasites, as cancerous growths, as vermin to be exterminated. Or not. Our postulated axioms are meaningless. Our moral systems are meaningless. Except to us. You want to live in a world where fetuses are treated as cancer. I don’t. Both possitions are defensible, starting from different axioms. What matters are the consequences of our choices. But the consequences don’t matter, except to us. We can decide not to care what other people think about the consequences of our moral choices. But somehow, we can’t escape the consequences of THEIR moral choices. That is the reason we care. Otherwise, we are back to hacking each other with swords and defining each other as tumorous vermin. Not that there is anything wrong with that. Except I don’t like it. And hey, if your axioms allow you to hack at me with a sword, maybe I’ll get tired of it and do something to stop you. Or maybe you’ll kill me.
Let’s state your position a little more clearly:
- Cancerous tumors are of no moral consquence.
- Human fetuses resemble cancerous tumors biologically.
- An entity that resembles a cancerous tumor biologically is equivalent to a cancerous tumor morally.
Conclusion: Human fetuses are of no moral consequence.
The logic is impeccable. If we accept your premises. Hmm. Premise 1 sounds good. Premise 2, hard to argue with. Of course, I could introduce the premise: Adult humans resemble cancerous tumors biologically. That’s what allows me to kill you or slice your arm off. And my premise is just as supportable as yours.
Here, wait. How about we reject your premise 3? Then all this slicing trouble disappears. Nobody gets sliced up. Much nicer.
Of course, some of us don’t feel you are slicing anyone up in the first place, but let’s not bicker and argue over… wait, I already used that one.
My, this debate is getting violent. Let’s not slice anyone’s arm off, okay? You’ll get blood all over the carpet.
Re: the fetus’s potential to become a person being irrelevant. Outside of the abortion debate it’s very relevant. If you do something to a pregnant woman in that seriously and permanently injures (but doesn’t kill) her fetus, be prepared to face a big lawsuit over the harm you’ve done to the resulting child.
Thalidomide, anyone?
Nonny
I think you might note that, in the case of abortion, there is no resulting child. In the case of thalidomide, there were females that wanted to have a child, and did, but their child was harmed as a result of etc.
Ah, but at the time the harm took place, it was just a fetus, and therefore, theoretically, had no rights. So no “person” was harmed, as the person only came into existence at the moment of its birth, with the harm already in place…
Not that this is actually what I believe.
Nonny
Ah, never said that.
You didn’t, but it’s a natural progression of what has been said by others (not necessarily on this specific thread).
Nonny
If you say so.
Lemur866: It would be wrong of you to kill me, because I own my body, and my moral code is one of property rights. It would be damn foolish of you to kill me, because the police would track you down based on your e-mail adress sent to the SDMB.
And adult humans don’t resemble cancers biologically. We can survive without taking nutrients from other people.
Also, I would like to retract my accusation of an ad hominem attack against beagledave. Sorry, beagledave.
Oh, yeah, Lemur, one more thing. My OP did not say that z-e-fs were morally worthless because they resemble cancers. My OP presumes that moral value needs to be proven, and many arguments for assigning moral value to z-e-fs are flawed, because they can be used equally well to assign moral value to cancer.
Once more: If one can do a search-replace and change fetus to tumor, and still get a cogent argument in their defence, than that’s a damn strange argument.
Oh, yes. It was brought up that a cancer is an abberation, while a fetus is natural. First off, cancer is just as natural a phenomonon as pregnancy. Next off, your point? Just because something happens with little human interference doesn’t make it good.