Is the human fetus a parasite according to science?

Got a show idea? Post them here!

Moderators: Loki, exposno1, Parrot, Quasigriz, NickDupree, nmoore63, robroydude, Spinny Spamkiller

Is the human fetus a parasite according to science?

yes
0
No votes
no
1
100%
unsure
0
No votes
 
Total votes : 1

Re: Is the human fetus a parasite according to science?

Postby The Road Rascal » Sat Apr 07, 2012 12:13 am

Dr. Strangelove wrote:Of course. Because banning abortions is exactly the same thing as forcing women to shove coat hangers up their vaginas. Thanks for your insight.


Whew. Thanks, that was close. Almost had an outbreak of humor in this thread. :drunk:
User avatar
The Road Rascal
Nomarch
 
Posts: 1832
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2009 9:34 pm
Location: Louisiana

Re: Is the human fetus a parasite according to science?

Postby Sitri » Sat Apr 07, 2012 12:31 am

but you know that your opposition has no solid ground, no logical argument against you
For once we agree, I'm not arguing against myself, I'm arguing against the methods at which you arrived at your conclusion. I'm sure you didn't mean to type it in such a way, but your Engrish skills are simply astounding.
it just helps my credibility more, thanks.

:lol: You have credibility? Damn, I wish I could get credibility by posting random wiki snippets and pointless linguistic arguments. So, why not? I gotta know, what the hell is your point in all this? Are you simply trying to justify abortion by dehumanizing the fetus, or are you just on a Engrish usage crusade? When I was looking up your blog, I had about 6 or 7 pages worth of hits where your posted this crap to other forums (mostly word for word copies). Are you absolutely stuck on this argument, or are you really a bot/Chinese political prisoner being made to spam this to generate hits?
Sitri
Contributing Member
 
Posts: 418
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 8:40 pm

Re: Is the human fetus a parasite according to science?

Postby raistian77 » Sat Apr 07, 2012 12:39 am

Demonstrators outside the clinic were approached on Wednesday by a man wielding two hunting knives, who slashed a banner they held as they read the Bible.



yup, bet that is gonna help a WHOLE lot.

Common, using the heavy hand of the law and using violence or implied violence is not going to help one bit.

In fact I would not be as smug as Lt Govenor is, he might be suprised at the OB-GYN docs that now head to Miss just to combat it.

But you know, by signing a piece of paper the whole problem just magically goes away.

Not being willing to actualy try and cure the problem means you are not actually intending to stop the problem, instead you just want to throw people in prison. Yup, great solution it worked sooooo well when it came to the drug problem
The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool.

Oh Wait, You're Serious? Let Me Laugh Even Harder!

-"No matter how bad things seem--- "
"They could be worse."
"Nope. No matter how bad they seem, they can't be any better, and they can't be any worse, because that's the way things fucking are, and you better get used to it, Nancy. Quit yer bitching."
User avatar
raistian77
Hetairoi
 
Posts: 6816
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 8:33 pm
Location: Clarksville, TN

Re: Is the human fetus a parasite according to science?

Postby raistian77 » Sat Apr 07, 2012 12:46 am

Also it is not to hard to see the Governors next move. He will simply push hospitals to rescind admitting rights of abortion doctors effectively making abortion in the state illegal.


Also even though I am not a fan of abortion I don't like states using games to get around judicial decisions. Finding a way to kill a constitutional right is real scary. What happens when a state figures out how to get around civil rights laws or the ADA?
The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool.

Oh Wait, You're Serious? Let Me Laugh Even Harder!

-"No matter how bad things seem--- "
"They could be worse."
"Nope. No matter how bad they seem, they can't be any better, and they can't be any worse, because that's the way things fucking are, and you better get used to it, Nancy. Quit yer bitching."
User avatar
raistian77
Hetairoi
 
Posts: 6816
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 8:33 pm
Location: Clarksville, TN

Re: Is the human fetus a parasite according to science?

Postby raistian77 » Sat Apr 07, 2012 1:13 am

HIGH RATES OF UNSAFE ABORTION DRIVEN BY LACK OF CONTRACEPTIVE SERVICES IN UGANDA

Though abortions are illegal in Uganda except when pregnancy endangers a woman’s life, an estimated 297,000—54 for every 1,000 women of fertile age—occur each year, according to two recent surveys of health facilities and health professionals knowledgeable about conditions of abortion provision in Uganda.
Because women seeking abortions rely primarily on untrained personnel using unsafe methods, 85,000 women are treated for abortion-related health complications each year, and unsafe abortion is the country’s leading cause of maternal death. At current rates, half of all Ugandan women will require treatment for complications related to abortion in their lifetime.
Half of all pregnancies in Uganda are unintended. According to the researchers, this high proportion reflects the fact that half of married Ugandan women do not have access to the full range of contraceptive services they need to prevent unwanted pregnancies and plan their families. While contraceptive use increased slightly between 1995 and 2000, the gap between the number of children a woman wants and the number she has rose slightly over the same time period. On average, Ugandan women have two more children than they plan.
Increased access to contraceptive services is needed for all women, the study authors conclude. "Helping women obtain contraceptives will reduce the number of abortions in Uganda. Health care providers, advocates, professional associations, government and communities all have a role to play in ensuring women’s access to the contraceptive services they need," said study co-author Dr. Florence Mirembe, Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Makerere University in Kampala.
The analysis "The Incidence of Abortion in Uganda," by Susheela Singh and Elena Prada of the Guttmacher Institute, New York, NY and Florence Mirembe and Charles Kiggundu of Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda, appears in the December 2005 issue of International Family Planning Perspectives. Also in this issue:
"Promoting Informed Choice: Evaluating a Decision-Making Tool for Family Planning Clients and Providers in Mexico," by Young Mi Kim of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, et al.
"Pregnancy Intentions Among Salvadoran Fathers: Results from the 2003 National Male Reproductive Health Survey," by Marion Carter of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, and Ilene S. Speizer of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC.
"Gender and Relationship Differences in Condom Use Among 15–24-Year-Olds in Angola," by Ndola Prata of the University of California, Berkeley, CA, et al.
"Pharmacists’ Knowledge and Perceptions of Emergency Contraceptive Pills in Soweto and the Johannesburg Central Business District, South Africa," by Kelly Blanchard of Ibis Reproductive Health, et al.


ROME, Oct. 11 — A comprehensive global study of abortion has concluded that abortion rates are similar in countries where it is legal and those where it is not, suggesting that outlawing the procedure does little to deter women seeking it.

Moreover, the researchers found that abortion was safe in countries where it was legal, but dangerous in countries where it was outlawed and performed clandestinely. Globally, abortion accounts for 13 percent of women’s deaths during pregnancy and childbirth, and there are 31 abortions for every 100 live births, the study said.

The results of the study, a collaboration between scientists from the World Health Organization in Geneva and the Guttmacher Institute in New York, a reproductive rights group, are being published Friday in the journal Lancet.

“We now have a global picture of induced abortion in the world, covering both countries where it is legal and countries where laws are very restrictive,” Dr. Paul Van Look, director of the W.H.O. Department of Reproductive Health and Research, said in a telephone interview. “What we see is that the law does not influence a woman’s decision to have an abortion. If there’s an unplanned pregnancy, it does not matter if the law is restrictive or liberal.”

But the legal status of abortion did greatly affect the dangers involved, the researchers said. “Generally, where abortion is legal it will be provided in a safe manner,” Dr. Van Look said. “And the opposite is also true: where it is illegal, it is likely to be unsafe, performed under unsafe conditions by poorly trained providers.”

The data also suggested that the best way to reduce abortion rates was not to make abortion illegal but to make contraception more widely available, said Sharon Camp, chief executive of the Guttmacher Institute.

In Eastern Europe, where contraceptive choices have broadened since the fall of Communism, the study found that abortion rates have decreased by 50 percent, although they are still relatively high compared with those in Western Europe. “In the past we didn’t have this kind of data to draw on,” Ms. Camp said. “Contraception is often the missing element” where abortion rates are high, she said.

Anti-abortion groups criticized the research, saying that the scientists had jumped to conclusions from imperfect tallies, often estimates of abortion rates in countries where the procedure was illegal. “These numbers are not definitive and very susceptible to interpretation according to the agenda of the people who are organizing the data,” said Randall K. O’Bannon, director of education and research at the National Right to Life Educational Trust Fund in Washington.

He said that the major reason women die in the developing world is that hospitals and health systems lack good doctors and medicines. “They have equated the word ‘safe’ with ‘legal’ and ‘unsafe’ with ‘illegal,’ which gives you the illusion that to deal with serious medical system problems you just make abortion legal,” he said.

The study indicated that about 20 million abortions that would be considered unsafe are performed each year and that 67,000 women die as a result of complications from those abortions, most in countries where abortion is illegal.

The researchers used national data for 2003 from countries where abortion was legal and therefore tallied. W.H.O. scientists estimated abortion rates from countries where it was outlawed, using data on hospital admissions for abortion complications, interviews with local family planning experts and surveys of women in those countries.

The wealth of information that comes out of the study provides some striking lessons, the researchers said. In Uganda, where abortion is illegal and sex education programs focus only on abstinence, the estimated abortion rate was 54 per 1,000 women in 2003, more than twice the rate in the United States, 21 per 1,000 in that year. The lowest rate, 12 per 1,000, was in Western Europe, with legal abortion and widely available contraception.

The Bush administration’s multibillion-dollar campaign against H.I.V./AIDS in Africa has directed money to programs that promote abstinence before marriage, and to condoms only as a last resort. It has prohibited the use of American money to support overseas family planning groups that provide abortions or promote abortion as a method of family planning.

Worldwide, the annual number of abortions appeared to have declined between 1995, the last year such a broad study was conducted, and 2003, from an estimated 46 million to 42 million, the study concluded. The 1995 study, by the Guttmacher Institute, had far less data on countries where abortion was illegal.

Some countries, like South Africa, have undergone substantial transitions in abortion laws in that time. The procedure was made legal in South Africa in 1996, leading to a 90 percent decrease in mortality among women who had abortions, some studies have found.

Abortion is illegal in most of Africa, though. It is the second-leading cause of death among women admitted to hospitals in Ethiopia, its Health Ministry has said. It is the cause of 13 percent of maternal deaths at hospitals in Nigeria, recent studies have found.



So, I have shown that making it illegal is going to both not stop it and make the situation much worse.

So lets talk about REAL ways to stop it that don't involve signing a piece of paper and going "tada fixed it".
The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool.

Oh Wait, You're Serious? Let Me Laugh Even Harder!

-"No matter how bad things seem--- "
"They could be worse."
"Nope. No matter how bad they seem, they can't be any better, and they can't be any worse, because that's the way things fucking are, and you better get used to it, Nancy. Quit yer bitching."
User avatar
raistian77
Hetairoi
 
Posts: 6816
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 8:33 pm
Location: Clarksville, TN

Re: Is the human fetus a parasite according to science?

Postby galerouth » Sat Apr 07, 2012 2:35 am

raistian77 wrote:Continued survival of the race is something that a fetus contibutes to
But anyway one part odf that definition that you nutjobs keep leaving out


hey, dummy, you do KNOW that continuation of the FRAKING species has nothing to do with symbiosis, right?

try being intellectually honest for once, on thread against me --because i'm getting sick n' tired of your trollism and fallacies.

OMG, DID YOU JUST COPY WORD-FOR-WORD http://shardoins.blogspot.com/2009/06/i ... asite.html AND POSTED IT, LIKE I'M NOT GOING TO FIND OUT?!

YOU DON'T GIVE A FLYING FRAK ABOUT BEING INTELLECTUALLY HONEST TO ME IN THIS DEBATE, DO YOU?

IT'S PRETTY FRAKING CLEAR YOU DIDN'T FACT-CHECK, http://shardoins.blogspot.com/2009/06/i ... asite.html JUST LIKE DIDN'T FACT-CHECK, http://www.l4l.org/library/notparas.html , and you didn't even give them credit.

do you know what plagiarism is, right?


raistian77 wrote:the parasite and hosts MUST be of a different species A parasite is defined as an organism of one species living in or on an organism of another species (a hetero specific relationship) and deriving its nourishment from the host (is metabolically dependent on the host). (See Cheng, T.C., General Parasitology, p. 7, 1973.)


THIS AGAIN, I ALREADY PROVED YOU WRONG ON THIS AND YOU OMITTED Libertarians for Life - Why the Embryo or Fetus Is Not a Parasite second part, so i will add it for you to keep in context with this human fetus is a parasite debate:

"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."

"It is also possible for a symbiotic relationship to exist between two organisms of the same species."
http://www.answers.com/topic/symbiosis -- Gale's Science of Everyday Things.
just like a parasitic twin --- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitic_twin

"an animal or plant that lives in or on another (the host) from which it obtains nourishment. The host does not benefit from the association and is often harmed by it"
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/parasite

NOTHING ABOUT BEING DIFFERENT SPECIES.

your site omitted symbiotic conspecific relationships, like parasitic twins and the woman/fetus relationship:
"Conspecificity is a concept in biology. Two or more individual organisms, populations, or taxa are conspecific if they belong to the same species.[1]."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspecificity



THIS IS SOMETHING NEW:

"1. It is not true that parasites have to be of different species than their hosts. See http://www.krohde.wordpress.com/article ... 3bc3gp4-51 This is a site by a parasitology specialist with broad ecological background. He notes both permanent and temporary parasites, both interspecific and intraspecific parasites, etc.

When individuals of the same species parasitize individuals of the same species, they are referred to as intraspecific parasites.

The most interesting intraspecific parasitism is that of the ceratoid anglerfish. The male is parasitic on the female, attaching to her and absorbing food from her. This is part of an unusual reproductive mode. See: T. Pietsch, “Dimorphism, parasitism, and sex revisited: Modes of reproduction among deep-sea ceratoid anglerfishes,” Ichthyological Research 52 (2005): 207-16."

slmccoy
April 5, 2012 at 6:00 pm
http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/abortion/

SO LET'S BE HONEST, THE WOMAN/FETUS SYMBIOTIC RELATIONSHIP IS INTRASPECIFIC/ CONSPECIFIC / HOMOSPECIFIC PARASITIC RELATIONSHIP EXISTS....DEAL WITH IT.

FYI, THEY ALL MEAN THE SAME THING.

again, "an animal or plant that lives in or on another (the host) from which it obtains nourishment. The host does not benefit from the association and is often harmed by it"
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/parasite

NOTHING ABOUT BEING DIFFERENT SPECIES.


as a zygote, it invaded the woman's uterus using its TROPHOBLAST cells, hijacked her immune system by using NEUROKININ B, HCG, "indoleamine 2, 3-dioxygenase," which the placenta catabolizes the tryptophan in the woman’s body. --- so her body doesn't kill it, steals her nutrients to survive, and causes her harm or potential death.


raistian77 wrote: this is where you idiots got this stupid idea in the first place
parasitic fetus in asymmetrical conjoined twins, an incomplete minor fetus attached to a larger, more completely developed twin.


DUMMY, PARASITIC TWINS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH A FETUS BEING A PARASITE TO A WOMAN'S BODY --- IT JUST PROVES THAT INTRASPECIFIC/ CONSPECIFIC/ HOMOSPECIFIC PARASITIC RELATIONSHIPS EXISTS...

WHICH YOU HAVE A PROBLEM ACCEPTING THAT WITH YOUR ( http://shardoins.blogspot.com/2009/06/i ... asite.html ) DEFINITIONS THAT GOES AGAINST FULL KNOWLEDGE OF SYMBIOSIS.


DID YOU EVEN READ THIS?


raistian77 wrote:"....The question though is whether or not this really is a factual omission or an editorial omission.
An editorial omission would be done for the sake of brevity. Certain elements of a definition may be glossed over when it is considered to either be common knowledge, or secondary to what the author considers important information."


EVERY DEFINITION THAT YOU COPIED GOES UNDER THAT FACT, BUT YOU ARE GOING TO LEARN THAT IT'S THE LATTER.


raistian77 wrote: The first step is to define the criteria for what classifies a parasite. One of the most important criteria for a parasite is that the parasite is always a different species from it's host. When I look up the definition for parasite I find the following.


the first definitions are crap because i already posted that INTRASPECIFIC/ CONSPECIFIC/ HOMOSPECIFIC PARASITIC RELATIONSHIPS EXISTS...so either your definitions were edited out to NOT included them or ignored them all together.



raistian77 wrote:"MedicineNet.com defines parasite as
Parasite: An organism that lives in or on and takes its nourishment from another organism. A parasite cannot live independently."



THAT'S RETARDED, BECAUSE:
"facultative parasite one that may be parasitic upon another organism but can exist independently.
temporary parasite one that lives free of its host during part of its life cycle.
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedic...y.com/parasite

raistian77 wrote:"...When I discuss this topic with a pro-choicer they are quick to point out any definition that has this omission..."



HE'S RIGHT, WE LOVE TO FACT-CHECK, BECAUSE PRO-LIFE-SCHIZOPHRENIC-FASCISTS LIKE YOURSELF LOVE TO LIE, WHEN IT'S CLEAR THAT YOU HAVE NO LOGICAL ARGUMENT, BUT CAN'T ADMIT THAT YOU ARE WRONG, WHY?

YOU CAN'T BE WRONG, YOU WHEN YOU BEEN BRAINWASHED TO BELIEVE THAT PRO-CHOICE IS EVIL AND YOU ARE ON THE SIDE OF GOOD, AND YOU LOVE BEING A TROLL.


raistian77 wrote:"They accuse us of emotionalizing the debate needlessly. So they have brought their own term for the fetus into the discussion in their own attempt to emotionalize the debate. The parasite argument is nothing more than a strawman meant to distract from the real issues of abortion."


YEAH, NOTHING SAY EMOTION LIKE PROVEN, OBJECTIVE-SCIENCE ABOUT HUMAN DEVELOPMENT.

FUNNY, HE NEVER SAID WHAT THE "REAL ISSUES" OF ABORTION ARE, AND GOOD FOR YOU AND HIM, BECAUSE I WOULD DESTROYED BOTH OF YOU ON THAT TOO.

raistian77 wrote:Let me clarify a few things about parasite just to make sure we can put this to rest.

A parasite is always from another kind of species.
A parasite is an invading organism -- coming to parasitize the host from an outside source.
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.).
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).

also, with few exceptions, a parasite will remain a parasite for it's entire life. It cannot survive without a host.


SO RECAP:
1. INTRASPECIFIC/ CONSPECIFIC/ HOMOSPECIFIC PARASITIC RELATIONSHIPS EXISTS.
2. A FETUS IS A FOREIGN OBJECT CREATED FROM HALF THE MAN'S DNA--- as a zygote, it invaded the woman's uterus using its TROPHOBLAST cells, hijacked her immune system by using NEUROKININ B, HCG, "indoleamine 2, 3-dioxygenase," which the placenta catabolizes the tryptophan in the woman’s body. --- so her body doesn't kill it, steals her nutrients to survive, and causes her harm or potential death.
3. the placenta is part of the fetus.
4. repeat:
"facultative parasite one that may be parasitic upon another organism but can exist independently.
temporary parasite one that lives free of its host during part of its life cycle.
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedic...y.com/parasite


raistian77 wrote: It is not scientifically accurate to associate a human fetus with a parasite.


yeah, if you are intellectually dishonest with yourself and others.


raistian77 wrote: Let me give you a definition of baby.

n. pl. ba·bies
1.
a. A very young child; an infant.
b. An unborn child; a fetus.
c. The youngest member of a family or group.
d. A very young animal


this is called common vernacular, it's not based on science --- a fetus is not a baby. google the human development chart.

and unborn baby is oxymoron and misnomer of that said chart.

raistian77 wrote:So where does that leave the pro-choicer? Well, they have every right to use the term parasite metaphorically, but they have no grounds to use it scientifically. However, pro-lifers still seem to be on very good ground for referring to the fetus as a baby or a child.


wrong, fetus is a parasite and science proves it, there is no scientific evidence for a fetus being an actually baby, and the laws proves it: infanticide aka baby killing is illegal, period --when abortion is legal and supported by the constitution.

why?

THIS IS THE LAW:
ABORTION IS A CIVIL AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT SUPPORTED BY THE RIGHTS TO PRIVACY, THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT, AND THE 13TH AMENDMENT.

NO HUMAN ( that means the FETUS, too) has a right to life or any due process rights by the 14th amendment to use another human's body or body parts AGAINST their will, civil and constitutional rights: that's why you are not forced to donate your kidney---the human fetus is no exception; this is supported by the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment AND 13th amendment, which makes reproductive slavery unconstitutional.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause

"Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth ... nstitution

this makes viability unconstitutional because pregnancy is not a crime.

consensual sex=/= a legal, binding contract to an unwanted fetus to live; and abortion is not murder, the unlawful killing with intent.


raistian77 wrote:I am all about accuracy when it comes to this debate. I seek truth no matter what the implications are for me. I am open to correction on this, or any other topic.


HA! UNTIL YOU ARE PROVEN WRONG AND THEN YOU WANT TO CRY LITTLE LIKE A LITTLE GIRL, BEING A TROLL, USING COP-OUTS AND FALLACIES --- TO MAKE YOURSELF SEEM LIKE YOU STILL HAVE A VALID ARGUMENT.


raistian77 wrote: "I will stand corrected:
If I can be shown an example of a parasite in nature that is the same species as it's host. I suppose one might bring up the Angler fish as an example. This is not a true parasitic relationship though because it is their reproductive method, which means that it is a symbiotic relationship."



wow, because reproduction is not part of symbiosis--- i just corrected you.

"Symbiosis is a biological relationship in which two species live in close proximity to each other and interact regularly in such a way as to benefit one or both of the organisms...It is also possible for a symbiotic relationship to exist between two organisms of the same species."

http://www.answers.com/topic/symbiosis- gale

two different species can't make babies --and two of same species can't make babies if one is not properly development, or happen to be related.


raistian77 wrote: Until than fuck off you two idiots, you are not helping your cause you are hurting it.



I FEEL SORRY FOR YOU, HAVE MANY TIMES DO I NEED TO PROVE YOU WRONG?

THIS VIDEO IS ALL ABOUT YOU --JUST REPLACE ATHEISM WITH PRO-CHOICER.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghtoPiAE1sA
galerouth
New Member
 
Posts: 29
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 3:34 pm

Re: Is the human fetus a parasite according to science?

Postby galerouth » Sat Apr 07, 2012 2:42 am

Dr. Strangelove wrote:Interesting:

Lt. Gov. Tate Reeves said the bill “should effectively close the only abortion clinic in Mississippi.” He added, “This is a strong bill that will effectively end abortion in Mississippi.”


http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/planne ... ssippi-law


I guess that's one state without an abortion industry. 49 to go. :popcorn:



WRONG:


THIS IS THE LAW:
ABORTION IS A CIVIL AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT SUPPORTED BY THE RIGHTS TO PRIVACY, THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT, AND THE 13TH AMENDMENT.

NO HUMAN ( that means the FETUS, too) has a right to life or any due process rights by the 14th amendment to use another human's body or body parts AGAINST their will, civil and constitutional rights: that's why you are not forced to donate your kidney---the human fetus is no exception; this is supported by the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment AND 13th amendment, which makes reproductive slavery unconstitutional.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause

"Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. "


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth ... nstitution

this makes viability unconstitutional because pregnancy is not a crime.

consensual sex=/= a legal, binding contract to an unwanted fetus to live; and abortion is not murder, the unlawful killing with intent.
galerouth
New Member
 
Posts: 29
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 3:34 pm

Re: Is the human fetus a parasite according to science?

Postby galerouth » Sat Apr 07, 2012 3:28 am

Sitri wrote:And yet, you don't add anything to prove the OP, and it kinda sucks. It's mostly just wiki crap and other forums.


galerouth wrote:that is rich coming from you, a person who has not even tried to debunk the science but thinks cop-outs are valid arguments.
please prove that sources from wiki wrong.... OH YOU CAN'T, because if you had the science, you would of debunked me by now.
and why do i need to add more science to the OP and waste my time
when you and others can't prove simple science wrong?



Sitri wrote:I'm not trying to prove you wrong, I don't care one way or the other, the whole topic is just semantics.
As far as I'm concerned, you're just troll #3, and a poor substitute for the other two. As far as data's concerned, it does matter where the data originates and picking and choosing random snippets can prove or disprove anything.


galerouth wrote:then you ARE trying to prove me wrong by saying the science that i posted and my claim is just semantics, and not science ---which IS a lie on your part, because my claim is supported the same science that you said sucks, but you can't prove it wrong for some reason. ;)
i'm pretty sure you know difference between semantics and science, do you?

YOU ARE A TROLL AND THIS IS MY THREAD.


Sitri wrote: :lol: looks like I hit a nerve, funny how not caring about a subject but despising the method of argument pisses people off.



galerouth wrote:yes, being lied to and lied about is annoying, but you know that your opposition has no solid ground, no logical argument against you ---and just being a troll.
it just helps my credibility more, thanks.




Sitri wrote:For once we agree, I'm not arguing against myself, I'm arguing against the methods at which you arrived at your conclusion. I'm sure you didn't mean to type it in such a way, but your Engrish skills are simply astounding.
it just helps my credibility more, thanks.


GREAT NOT ONLY YOU KNOW HOW TO USE A GRAMMAR-NAZI FALLACY BUT YOU KNOW HOW TO QUOTE-MINE, TOO.

LET'S LOOK AT MY POST THAT YOU TOOK OUT-OF-CONTEXT TO YOURSELF LOOK GOOD, AND FAILED AT IT.

1.SOURCES THAT I POSTED ARE EASY TO READ, SO JUST CLICK ON THE LINKS. SO YOUR "your Engrish skills" IS A BAD-LAZY EXCUSE ON YOUR PART FOR NOT READING SOUND SCIENCE THAT PROVES MY POINT.

2. "I don't care one way or the other, the whole topic is just semantics.
As far as I'm concerned, you're just troll #3, and a poor substitute for the other two."

DO YOU KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SEMANTICS AND SCIENCE?

FUNNY, HOW YOU WILLINGLY DENY THE SCIENTIFIC SOURCES FROM PEER-VIEWED ARTICLE THAT WIKI USES .... BUT YOU CONTINUE SAYING THAT MY CLAIM IS NOT SCIENTIFIC.

YOU ARE A TROLL, NOT ME. TRY HARDER.

3. FIRST OF ALL, NOTHING IS WRONG WITH WIKI AS LONG AS IT'S ON THIS TYPE OF FORUM.

TRY HARDER.


Sitri wrote::lol: You have credibility? Damn, I wish I could get credibility by posting random wiki snippets and pointless linguistic arguments.


AGAIN: DO YOU KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SEMANTICS AND SCIENCE?

THIS IS THE THIRD TIME THAT I ASKED THAT QUESTION AND YOU REFUSED TO ANSWER IT.


SINCE YOU DON'T KNOW THE DEFERENCE, YOUR BLOG WILL NEVER BE INTERESTING. sad.


Sitri wrote: So, why not? I gotta know, what the hell is your point in all this? Are you simply trying to justify abortion by dehumanizing the fetus, or are you just on a Engrish usage crusade?


YOU MUST BE DUMBER THAN I THOUGHT-- WHEN WITH ALL YOUR FALLACIES, BITCHING AND USELESS COP-OUTS.

SIGH, ABORTION IS ALREADY JUSTIFIED TO THE MANY FEMALES WHO WANTS ONE WITHOUT MY BLOG AND FORUM CREATED FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS-- IT'S THEIR ABORTION.

POINT IS SCIENCE. YOU CAN'T DEHUMANIZE A FETUS BY CALLING IT, WHAT IT IS AND USING SCIENCE TO PROVE TO YOUR POINT.

DEAL WITH IT.

Sitri wrote: When I was looking up your blog, I had about 6 or 7 pages worth of hits where your posted this crap to other forums (mostly word for word copies). Are you absolutely stuck on this argument, or are you really a bot/Chinese political prisoner being made to spam this to generate hits?
[/quote]

FUNNY, MY BLOG IS TWO PAGES --WHEN YOU ONLY AT TWO DIFFERENT POSTING INDIVIDUALLY.

AND I DON'T HAVE TIME TO DEAL WITH YOUR TROLLISM.

YAWN.
galerouth
New Member
 
Posts: 29
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 3:34 pm

Re: Is the human fetus a parasite according to science?

Postby galerouth » Sat Apr 07, 2012 3:43 am

Dr. Strangelove wrote:So I guess it's a no-go on references to a single reputable textbook or peer-reviewed paper that refers to a fetus as a parasite.

Hmm.. I couldn't have guessed they would have nothing. :sleepy:


SIGH, I ALREADY TOLD TO THAT MY BLOG IS NOT PEER-VIEWED, BUT THE SCIENCE THAT I USED IS, SO GO CLICK ON MY LINKS THAT I POSTED --- BUILDING A CASE FROM CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS NOT ILLEGAL OR UNAUTHORIZED.

FUNNY, HOW YOU CHOSE TO IGNORE THAT FACT.

I GUESS ANYTHING TO KEEP YOUR PRO-LIFE-SCHIZOPHRENIC-FASCISM MORALITY ALIVE AND AWAY FROM LOGIC, HUH?

REMEMBER THIS ONE:

"AGAIN, YOU ARE BEING INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST---
1. pro-choice is to support a woman's reproductive choice, not YOUR tax dollars.
2. it's called the hyde amendment for federal tax dollars, states have their own rights to pay for abortions or not --it's up to you to find out whether or not your state pays for abortions and call your congressperson, not me"
galerouth
New Member
 
Posts: 29
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 3:34 pm

Re: Is the human fetus a parasite according to science?

Postby BjornP » Sat Apr 07, 2012 4:30 am

CAPS LOCK IN WRITING IS USUALLY ASSOCIATED WITH YELLING AND SCREAMING. MOST PEOPLE DON'T FEEL IT IS NECCESARY TO YELL AND SCREAM THEIR ARGUMENTS IF THEY TRULY BELIEVE THEY'RE RIGHT. IN FACT, IF THE VOLUME OF YOUR ARGUMENT IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE SUBSTANCE OF YOUR ARGUMENT, MOST PEOPLE WILL ASSUME THAT YOUR ARGUMENT MUST BE LACKING IN SUBSTANCE.

HAVE A SUPER DAY.
Out of sight, out of mind... unless you can imagine things, of course.
User avatar
BjornP
Satrap
 
Posts: 4333
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 12:40 pm
Location: Aalborg, Denmark

Re: Is the human fetus a parasite according to science?

Postby Dr. Strangelove » Sat Apr 07, 2012 5:00 am

galerouth wrote:
Dr. Strangelove wrote:So I guess it's a no-go on references to a single reputable textbook or peer-reviewed paper that refers to a fetus as a parasite.

Hmm.. I couldn't have guessed they would have nothing. :sleepy:


SIGH, I ALREADY TOLD TO THAT MY BLOG IS NOT PEER-VIEWED, BUT THE SCIENCE THAT I USED IS, SO GO CLICK ON MY LINKS THAT I POSTED --- BUILDING A CASE FROM CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS NOT ILLEGAL OR UNAUTHORIZED.

FUNNY, HOW YOU CHOSE TO IGNORE THAT FACT.

I GUESS ANYTHING TO KEEP YOUR PRO-LIFE-SCHIZOPHRENIC-FASCISM MORALITY ALIVE AND AWAY FROM LOGIC, HUH?

REMEMBER THIS ONE:

"AGAIN, YOU ARE BEING INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST---
1. pro-choice is to support a woman's reproductive choice, not YOUR tax dollars.
2. it's called the hyde amendment for federal tax dollars, states have their own rights to pay for abortions or not --it's up to you to find out whether or not your state pays for abortions and call your congressperson, not me"



You made a statement about science, and yet you refuse to provide any evidence. That is the basis of science, after all. Obviously there exist no legitimate textbooks or research papers that refer to a fetus as a parasite. Obviously no self-respecting biologist would make this claim. And yet here you are copy pasting this ridiculous post all over the internet. Then when people ask you to back this up with proper evidence, you bitch and moan.

Honestly, please keep doing these things. You are doing great. I even questioned your motivations. It could be the case that you are actually pro-life, and you use a clever strategy of making pro-abortion folk look like idiots. But.. probably not. You probably truly are this daft and ignorant.
“If the human race is to survive, then for all but a very brief period of its history, the word ship will mean space ship.” –Arthur C. Clarke
User avatar
Dr. Strangelove
Archon
 
Posts: 36644
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 10:21 pm

Re: Is the human fetus a parasite according to science?

Postby Sitri » Sat Apr 07, 2012 11:24 am

FUNNY, MY BLOG IS TWO PAGES --WHEN YOU ONLY AT TWO DIFFERENT POSTING INDIVIDUALLY.

AND I DON'T HAVE TIME TO DEAL WITH YOUR TROLLISM.

YAWN.
:lol: I said you re-posted your blog to other forums, but since you didn't answer, I'll just assume your a bot/political prisoner.
YOUR BLOG WILL NEVER BE INTERESTING

I don't have a blog, debate was always more fun. As you keep repeating that it's not peer reviewed, even though Raistian has quoted from several sources that are, and refute your hypothesis, I'm just going to conclude you don't know where your going with this thread, or lack the ability to find more sources.
:wave: Try again soon...
Sitri
Contributing Member
 
Posts: 418
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 8:40 pm

Re: Is the human fetus a parasite according to science?

Postby hondo69 » Sat Apr 14, 2012 10:33 am

I don't think I've ever met a person in my life smart enough to answer that question.
Fugitive from the law of averages
User avatar
hondo69
Nomarch
 
Posts: 1860
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2011 3:06 am
Location: Austin, TX

Re: Is the human fetus a parasite according to science?

Postby raistian77 » Sun Apr 15, 2012 1:23 am

Dr. Strangelove wrote:
galerouth wrote:
Dr. Strangelove wrote:So I guess it's a no-go on references to a single reputable textbook or peer-reviewed paper that refers to a fetus as a parasite.

Hmm.. I couldn't have guessed they would have nothing. :sleepy:


SIGH, I ALREADY TOLD TO THAT MY BLOG IS NOT PEER-VIEWED, BUT THE SCIENCE THAT I USED IS, SO GO CLICK ON MY LINKS THAT I POSTED --- BUILDING A CASE FROM CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS NOT ILLEGAL OR UNAUTHORIZED.

FUNNY, HOW YOU CHOSE TO IGNORE THAT FACT.

I GUESS ANYTHING TO KEEP YOUR PRO-LIFE-SCHIZOPHRENIC-FASCISM MORALITY ALIVE AND AWAY FROM LOGIC, HUH?

REMEMBER THIS ONE:

"AGAIN, YOU ARE BEING INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST---
1. pro-choice is to support a woman's reproductive choice, not YOUR tax dollars.
2. it's called the hyde amendment for federal tax dollars, states have their own rights to pay for abortions or not --it's up to you to find out whether or not your state pays for abortions and call your congressperson, not me"



You made a statement about science, and yet you refuse to provide any evidence. That is the basis of science, after all. Obviously there exist no legitimate textbooks or research papers that refer to a fetus as a parasite. Obviously no self-respecting biologist would make this claim. And yet here you are copy pasting this ridiculous post all over the internet. Then when people ask you to back this up with proper evidence, you bitch and moan.

Honestly, please keep doing these things. You are doing great. I even questioned your motivations. It could be the case that you are actually pro-life, and you use a clever strategy of making pro-abortion folk look like idiots. But.. probably not. You probably truly are this daft and ignorant.


Nope, he uses his blog as proof. Guess he does not understand that the term "peer reviewed" does not mean that you reference yourself. Hell, I am pro-choice and would never stoop so low as to make an unfounded claim that a child is a parasite, that is the single dumbest thing I have ever heard. There is NO evidence to back up his claim just a description of how conception works and his decision somehow that equals parasitism. His responses are basically "YOUR AN IDIOT AN IDIOT, I PROVED IT BY SAYING IT WAS SO, DIDN'T YOU HEAR ME??????" over and over again.


his first statement is this
as a zygote, it invaded the woman's uterus using its TROPHOBLAST cells, hijacked her immune system by using NEUROKININ B and HCG--- so her body doesn't kill it, steals her nutrients to survive, and causes her harm or potential death.


the problem is his source is a wikipedia article that does not say that at all. THIS is what the source says
Trophoblasts are specialised cells of the placenta that play an important role in embryo implantation and interaction with the decidualised maternal uterus. The core of placental villi contain mesenchymal cells and placental blood vessels that are directly connected to the fetal circulation via the umbilical cord. This core is surrounded by two layers of trophoblast; a single layer of mononuclear cytotrophoblast that fuse together to form the overlying multinucleated syncytiotrophoblast layer that covers the entire surface of the placenta. It is this syncytiotrophoblast that is in direct contact with the maternal blood that reaches the placental surface, and thus facilitates the exchange of nutrients, wastes and gases between the maternal and fetal systems.[citation needed]

In addition, cytotrophoblast in the tips of villi can differentiate into another type of trophoblast called the extravillous trophoblast. Extravillous trophoblast grow out from the placenta and penetrate into the decidualised uterus. This process is essential not only for physically attaching the placenta to the mother, but also for altering the vasculature in the uterus to allow it to provide an adequate blood supply to the growing fetus as pregnancy progresses. Some of these trophoblast even replace the endothelial cells in the uterine spiral arteries as they remodel these vessels into wide bore conduits that are independent of maternal vasoconstriction. This ensures the fetus receives a steady supply of blood, and the placenta is not subjected to fluctuations in oxygen that could cause it damage


His second bit is this
"The placenta functions as an immunological barrier between the mother and the fetus, creating an immunologically privileged site. For this purpose, it uses several mechanisms:
It secretes Neurokinin B containing phosphocholine molecules. This is the same mechanism used by parasitic nematodes to avoid detection by the immune system of their host.[2]"

But, he forgot to read the WHOLE article that has this bit of info
In any case, the placenta does not block maternal IgG antibodies, which thereby may pass through the human placenta, providing immune protection to the fetus against infectious diseases.

meaning the mother's body actually and intentionally makes an antibody just for the baby, um how many antibodies do we make for tapeworms again? Oh yeah NONE.

The next is this gem

"It is also possible for a symbiotic relationship to exist between two organisms of the same species."


Ah, once again only part of the whole

Symbiosis is a biological relationship in which two species live in close proximity to each other and interact regularly in such a way as to benefit one or both of the organisms. When both partners benefit, this variety of symbiosis is known as mutualism. The name for a situation in which only one of the partners benefits is far more well known. Such an arrangement is known as parasitism, and a parasite is an organism that obtains nourishment or other life support from a host, usually without killing it. By their very nature, parasites are never beneficial, and sometimes they can be downright deadly. In addition to the extremes of mutualism and parasitism, there is a third variety of symbiosis, called commensalism. As with parasitism, in a relationship characterized by commensalism only one of the two organisms or species derives benefit, but in this case it manages to do so without causing harm to the host.

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/symbiosis#ixzz1s5u2pDt


The definition of symbiosis does not work because the refers to two separate species once again. The closest he might get is commensalism, but I doubt it.

Funny thing is in the entire article, not once does it refer to embryos as parasites in any way.

The term parasitic twin does not equal embryo = parasite it is a descriptor word.

Next
In April, Nebraska passed a controversial first-in-the-nation law banning abortion of a fetus after 20 weeks' gestation. Now, in a blow to America's anti-abortion lobby, a British report has undercut the case for the measure, finding that fetuses at 24 weeks or less do not feel pain and exist in a state of "sedation" even afterward.


okay, so fetuses do not feel pain because they are sedated. Sooo when you go into surgery and get sedated, you stop being alive?
The very fact that the fetus's nero system is sedated means that it is very likely that is CAN feel pain, but has been sedated to prevent that from interfering with it's development

And Jesus man , how many fucking times do you post the same tired ass bit over and over again? You swamped the comments section with the same paragraphs about 10 times.

I am done arguing with you, all your sources are wiki articles that do not support your claims. You have no links to peer reviewed science or medical journals to back you your conclusions so therefore science is not on your side no matter how you wish to look at it.

It looks like you go around spamming the internet hoping that you will get people to follow you on your blog, I noticed that no one does and no one will be likely to. Your blog shows that you must have a very sad sorry little life and hell, I feel pity for you.

The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool.

Oh Wait, You're Serious? Let Me Laugh Even Harder!

-"No matter how bad things seem--- "
"They could be worse."
"Nope. No matter how bad they seem, they can't be any better, and they can't be any worse, because that's the way things fucking are, and you better get used to it, Nancy. Quit yer bitching."
User avatar
raistian77
Hetairoi
 
Posts: 6816
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 8:33 pm
Location: Clarksville, TN

Re: Is the human fetus a parasite according to science?

Postby Dr. Strangelove » Sun Apr 15, 2012 1:30 am

What do you expect from people who believe they are "slaves to their reproductive cycles". Seriously, people like that an endangered species. This place is going down one way or another, and people like that are not exactly prime survival material.
“If the human race is to survive, then for all but a very brief period of its history, the word ship will mean space ship.” –Arthur C. Clarke
User avatar
Dr. Strangelove
Archon
 
Posts: 36644
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 10:21 pm

PreviousNext

Return to New Common Sense Show Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests