I’m a little confused… if a tadpole isn’t a frog, what is it, exactly? If, for example, we have a tadpole from a North American bullfrog, you’re contending it’s NOT of the species Rana catesbeiana?
Diogenes the Cynic, I am very pro-choice, but your comments as of late have reflected a rabid, frothing at the mouth attitude which reflects poorly upon our cause.
Rabid, pro-choicers who think its “A-OK” to rip late term fetuses out of the womb, throw them on the floor and stomp on their heads are as repugnant to me as lunatic pro-lifers who shoot abortion doctors.
To be classified as a parasite, an organism must be a different species than the host.
Diogenes, I can’t resist responding once more.
**Whether or not I believe in conception as a boundary of “personhood,” I didn’t offer it as evidence. I was responding to a specific assertion you made, and that’s all I have been doing. You seem determined to assign certain beliefs, however, in the interest of edifying your otherwise unfocused argument. BTW, your counter argument, a variation of “Well, my belief isn’t any more stupid than yours,” tends not to be a particularly effective strategy, I have observed.
And you were being facetious, huh? Yeah, your contribution has been such a playful influence on this thread, I should have guessed that. The part where you discussed pulling out the unborn, throwing them on the floor and stomping on their fucking heads was a particularly jocular moment, now that we’re talking about it.
No one suggested an epidemic, so your statement seems to be the red herring. As a matter of fact, I mentioned third trimester pregnancies only as an example of what you should NOT bring into the argument at that point–i.e., another divergence from your line of thought that would have been inconsistent with what you were arguing (unborn = nonexistent). So your fixation on them in this thread is a bit odd.
**Just because group A possesses a particular attribute does not lead us to conclude that group B cannot also possess it. Your statement doesn’t make sense.
**And you can invent strawmen to argue against as much as you like, and it still won’t validate your argument. Is this really that tough? You understand that the pro-life camp generally believes that the unborn are children with rights, correct? You may hold the opposite to be self-evident, but you do realize that there are those who sincerely disagree with your philosophy, right? For a pro-life group to assert that the unborn can be mistreated may be a position you disagree with, but it is NOT disingenuous on their part. You do know what disingenuous means, right?
And quixotic78 already said it, but of course a tadpole is a frog. What else would it be? You can shout and rant and vent to the heavens, and you still won’t transform a tadpole into something other than a frog. If you want to discuss why a tadpole’s current stage of development affords it different rights in the froggy universe, go ahead. It’s still a frog. And an embryo is a child (i.e., one form of a non-adult human being). BTW, I get your subtle point that this entity has no rights, so you needn’t clarify that for me again.
An unfertilized egg, on the other hand, is breakfast.
**I didn’t read anything into it. An “isn’t it worse” statement doesn’t require any interpretation. Word your beliefs more carefully, would be my advice.
And why do you care that the pregnancy be terminated as early as possible?