"Fetuses are parasites, not people!"

After reading my post, do you believe there is any difference between a fetus and a baby?

Total Votes:

[ 0 ]

This poll closed on January 4, 2005.
No longer accepting new votes.

[Silverback Elemental]

Moniquill

Silverback Elemental

...The only difference between them is that one lives inside the host, and the other lives by directly recieving life from its host...

This is the defining characteristic of a biological parasite... physically taking nourishment from the body of another living organism.

Gotta love how you didn't touch the 'person' issue, orattemtp to define person. Philosophers have been attempting that since humans have BEEN. I'd love to see you prove what precise charactristics make something a person or not a person and have it be anything more than personal opinion.

I can't define what a person is, I just think it's ridiculous how people try to define fetuses as property and babies as humans. Especially when they use one of the two aforementioned one-liners.

[TPauSilver]

Silverback Elemental

Part two- "Not people!" WRONG.

How in the Hell did abortion supporters come up with this? Why does being a parasite mean you can't be a person? Let's take a deeper look into this, and try to figure out just how being a fetus automatically prevents you from being a person.

A parasite requires a host to gain shelter, food, and sometimes even water to survive, while giving nothing back to the host. Gee, this reminds me of something else... a baby. Think about it. Without caretakers, a baby would die. No question about it, a newborn does not have the ability to survive on its own. Without parents giving it food, shelter and water, the baby would die. Hm... now how is that different from a fetus? "A baby is already born, though!" you might cry out. My response is, so? If the reason why you could kill a fetus applies to the baby as well, why are you able to kill one but not the other? What does being born have to do with anything? Does the new baby gain personhood just by popping out? It just so happens to change from an unthinking, unfeeling monster that you can kill to a person, who you obviously can't kill?

"A baby is different than a fetus," you might say, "A fetus is a collection of cells, and a baby is a born person!" So you're basing your deffinition of a person based on how much cells you have? Okay, fine. An average adult has billions and billions more cells than an average baby has, while that same baby has nary a few million more cells than a barely developed fetus. Does that mean that babies do not qualify to be human, since it has only a handful of cells compared to an adult? No? Then how does a fetus not meet the requirements, having only slightly less cells than a baby? Answer: It doesn't. You can't point your finger at one day and say, "This is when a fetus has enough cells to be a baby," because a person cannot be defined his his or her collection of cells.

If you call fetuses parasites, then you better include babies in there too. The only difference between them is that one lives inside the host, and the other lives by directly recieving life from its host- so please, stop using these arbitrary, useless arguments when talking about abortion. And for the love of all that is holy, at least stop using it as your only argument.

Thank you and good day.

1. Being a person is not the same as being human. To me, being a person implies you are a biologically autonomous individual.
2. A foetus is a parasite and a abby isn't because I can pass the responsibility of raising a three year old to another person. They are capable of existing when they are not attatched to me. A foetus is not. I remove a foetus from my body, it dies. I can't give it to my husband for a few hours, or another woman to carry to term. It's physically incapable of existing outside me. Therefore it's parasetic.

[Rie Gav]

... humans are parasites... people, are nothing but a perceptive statement. Basicly you think of people as those of your direct colonial accent, if you havn't noticed, humans live by feeding off the earth and it's resoucees period, not to mention that the children once born have to feed off the mother yet still. face it, we and most other things on this planet can be classified as parasites, unless you yourself can give back more, or the exact amount of every thing you take, then I suppose then you could de-classify yourself from parasite.

[k8iemay]

Cats for Missiles

Here's a simplified part of my argument:

No one knows the fetus, so it does not have any effect on anyone living. Of course, it has the potential to if it is born. But, if it is aborted, then what is the difference?

No one will ever know the human-being-to-be. It will not even know itself..if you know what I mean. It never will have experienced life in the first place, so is not capable of missing it.

*breathes in deeply* That cut... cos I was almost aborted. My mum wasn't allowed though or else she would have. She tells me daily. rolleyes

You are talking to me now and many other people on these boards. What if half of us never existed? What if we weren't here? Think of the differences that it would make! Christ, half the world wouldn't be here!

But it hurts the fetus. The silent scream... when the break the fetus into little pieces they can see the fetus screaming silently cos it's in pain and even if it isn't that far gone, if it was here it could make the whole world of difference.

Some babies that have been aborted now could have been capable of finding the cure to cancer, HIV etc but they never had that chance. How does anybody, even the mother, have the right to take that away from someone?!

[Lysia]

Silverback Elemental

In theory, a baby is a viable organism. It still would not be able to survive on its own outside of the womb, without the direct care and support of its mother or similar figure. I'm not trying to prove that fetuses are not parasites or that babies are, I'm trying to show that they function similarly enough that classifying one as being property and the other as being living is not logical.

That's not what you were arguing.

Silverback Elemental

Part two- "Not people!" WRONG.

You have yet to justify the inclusion of biological parasites incapable of thought or emotion into the category of "people". It would help, of course, if you defined the term "person" first.

[Silverback Elemental]

Lysia

Silverback Elemental

armageddon smile

So, in essence, you are saying that the yolk of an egg is a chicken?

Or that a whale fetus is indeed a whale?

My general message is that defining a human by the number of cells he has or by the level of support he needs from a parent are both logical fallacies.

Parasitism is not a function of support; it is about necessity.

A fetus requires the mother to survive in the literal sense; in the early stages, it is not a viable, complete organism.

A baby is, in theory, a complete and viable organism. It does not have to gain its nutrition to the detriment of another organism, and therefore is not a parasite.

Okay then, it is about necessity: A baby needs a mother or it will die. It is the same as a parasitic fetus in this regard.

I beg to differ, a baby does indeed obtain "nutrition to the detriment of another organism." It gets nutrition to breastmilk, supplied by the host mother. It also causes her nipples to be sore, which is detrimental to her, even if it is in just a small manner.

[Lysia]

Silverback Elemental

Okay then, it is about necessity: A baby needs a mother or it will die. It is the same as a parasitic fetus in this regard.

I beg to differ, a baby does indeed obtain "nutrition to the detriment of another organism." It gets nutrition to breastmilk, supplied by the host mother. It also causes her nipples to be sore, which is detrimental to her, even if it is in just a small manner.

That's convenience, not necessity.

A baby could, on its own, by mindlessly eating things it found, survive. The fact that it will die in 99.9% of conceivable environments simply means that it is a very badly adapted organism, not that it is a parasite smile

[Flyboy Fox]

I have to disagree with your statement that fetuses are 'people'. In the very early stages, I don't think you can classify them as people anymore than you could classify a sperm cell and egg as people. They will become a person, but in the very early stages of pregnancy, they really are nothing more than a bunch of cells. There is no self-awareness or conciousness. The baby is just an extention of the mother; another internal organ. I'm a bit wary of later abortions, because I don't know exactly when a fetus becomes aware in any sense, but I do believe that very early abortions are not murder because the fetus is, in my opinion, not a person at that stage.

[Silverback Elemental]

Lysia

Silverback Elemental

In theory, a baby is a viable organism. It still would not be able to survive on its own outside of the womb, without the direct care and support of its mother or similar figure. I'm not trying to prove that fetuses are not parasites or that babies are, I'm trying to show that they function similarly enough that classifying one as being property and the other as being living is not logical.

That's not what you were arguing.

Silverback Elemental

Part two- "Not people!" WRONG.

You have yet to justify the inclusion of biological parasites incapable of thought or emotion into the category of "people". It would help, of course, if you defined the term "person" first.

Yes, it was what I was arguing- "If you call fetuses parasites, then you better include babies in there too"

I can't define the word person, nor could I define the words the, or, or a.

[Moniquill]

[Kiyoshi Hayashida]

Rie Gav

... humans are parasites... people, are nothing but a perceptive statement. Basicly you think of people as those of your direct colonial accent, if you havn't noticed, humans live by feeding off the earth and it's resoucees period, not to mention that the children once born have to feed off the mother yet still. face it, we and most other things on this planet can be classified as parasites, unless you yourself can give back more, or the exact amount of every thing you take, then I suppose then you could de-classify yourself from parasite.

If humans are parasites, then all animals are parasites.

[Calligraphic]

Lysia

Silverback Elemental

Okay then, it is about necessity: A baby needs a mother or it will die. It is the same as a parasitic fetus in this regard.

I beg to differ, a baby does indeed obtain "nutrition to the detriment of another organism." It gets nutrition to breastmilk, supplied by the host mother. It also causes her nipples to be sore, which is detrimental to her, even if it is in just a small manner.

That's convenience, not necessity.

A baby could, on its own, by mindlessly eating things it found, survive. The fact that it will die in 99.9% of conceivable environments simply means that it is a very badly adapted organism, not that it is a parasite smile

Er...about that organism part, it's adapted to a level of necessity, correct?

[SkiiRomora]

Cats for Missiles

Here's a simplified part of my argument:

No one knows the fetus, so it does not have any effect on anyone living. Of course, it has the potential to if it is born. But, if it is aborted, then what is the difference?

No one will ever know the human-being-to-be. It will not even know itself..if you know what I mean. It never will have experienced life in the first place, so is not capable of missing it.

I have to disagree with this one. Have you even talked to a mother who recently had a natural, unplanned abortion? The body can, and does, sometimes abort a fetus all on its own. This happens probably more than anyone knows. That little fetus made all the difference in the world to that mother. Many women become severely depressed after incidents like this. Similar is the miscarriage, although I think this term is used when the baby is further along...(I could be wrong, please correct me politely if I am) In either instance, the mother especially, but also the father (in most cases) and other people close to the family who were excited about the arrival of the child are greatly affected by the abortion of the fetus. Just because it never made it to the open air doesn't mean it didn't affect others.

[TPauSilver]

k8iemay

Cats for Missiles

Here's a simplified part of my argument:

No one knows the fetus, so it does not have any effect on anyone living. Of course, it has the potential to if it is born. But, if it is aborted, then what is the difference?

No one will ever know the human-being-to-be. It will not even know itself..if you know what I mean. It never will have experienced life in the first place, so is not capable of missing it.

*breathes in deeply* That cut... cos I was almost aborted. My mum wasn't allowed though or else she would have. She tells me daily. rolleyes

You are talking to me now and many other people on these boards. What if half of us never existed? What if we weren't here? Think of the differences that it would make! Christ, half the world wouldn't be here!

But it hurts the fetus. The silent scream... when the break the fetus into little pieces they can see the fetus screaming silently cos it's in pain and even if it isn't that far gone, if it was here it could make the whole world of difference.

Some babies that have been aborted now could have been capable of finding the cure to cancer, HIV etc but they never had that chance. How does anybody, even the mother, have the right to take that away from someone?!

1. Foetuses do not scream. Many of them probably don't even have months when they're aborted. If they can feel pain or not is open for debate but I've never seen it proved they have.
2. And some of the babies that have been aborted would have raped, murdered, incited mass genocide, turned out as wife/husband beaters etc. The "OMFG THEY CUD HAVE CURD CANCR" thing is stupid. To start with, any 'cure' for a dissease is the work of a team of people, not one person. And just becuase the foetus has the capacity to do great good doesn't mean it will. It also has the capacity to do great bad.

[Lysia]

Silverback Elemental

Lysia

Silverback Elemental

In theory, a baby is a viable organism. It still would not be able to survive on its own outside of the womb, without the direct care and support of its mother or similar figure. I'm not trying to prove that fetuses are not parasites or that babies are, I'm trying to show that they function similarly enough that classifying one as being property and the other as being living is not logical.

That's not what you were arguing.

Silverback Elemental

Part two- "Not people!" WRONG.

You have yet to justify the inclusion of biological parasites incapable of thought or emotion into the category of "people". It would help, of course, if you defined the term "person" first.

Yes, it was what I was arguing- "If you call fetuses parasites, then you better include babies in there too"

I can't define the word person, nor could I define the words the, or, or a.

In your statement above, you argue that it would not be logical to use this argument to rule that foetuses are not people. In the section above, you say that you are saying that life is the criterion you are checking, not "personhood".

I'm afraid that babies simply are biologically not parasites, and foetuses are.