Post Reply
Page 23 of 24  •  Prev 1 ... 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Switch to Forum Live View How can someone support the war AND be pro-life?
7 years ago  ::  Feb 21, 2008 - 2:38PM #221
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782
[QUOTE=RiverMoonlady;300882]Mytmouse, I have had an unwanted pregnancy.  And I have had cancer.  Both can be devastating conditions.

When my birth control failed and I became pregnant 20 years ago, there were compelling medical reasons for me to abort - to remove the unwanted fetus.  It was done legally, safely and early and I am so grateful that I had the freedom to make the choice for abortion.  Otherwise, I would have done what women used to do - find someone to perform an illegal abortion, try self-abortion, whatever.  Desperation is a terrible thing and I am so glad that I did not have to resort to desperate measures.  I already had two wonderful sons at the time and had no desire for a "future child."  I needed to keep myself alive (and to regain my health) to care for my very loved and wanted sons.  And, as time has gone by, I have NEVER had a single regret about my CHOICE.

I am equally grateful that, when given my second cancer diagnosis in less than two years, I had the CHOICE to be treated by expert medical professionals.

In both situations, that is exactly how things should be.  Women should not need permission or approval from anyone to protect their health and the future of themselves and their families.[/QUOTE]

You just described a situation in which the taking of a life (or potential life) was justified. I hope I've made it clear -- that, I have no problem with. Once again, I support abortion remaining legal and safe -- primarily for that reason. There are circumstances under which the ending of the unborn's life is justified.

All I'm looking for is some honesty.. rather than endless rationalizations..."it's just a mass of cells... it's a parasite, it's like a cancer..." and so on and so forth. I'm not a fan of the staunch PL posistion (think people picketing outside abortion clinics) because I think it refuses to recognize some basic practical realities of life.
On the other hand, the staunch PC side seems to engage in a lot of denial and rationalization.
THAT's what I have an issue with... not the legality of abortion or the fact that under some circumstances, it really is the best possible choice.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Feb 21, 2008 - 4:24PM #222
mountain_man
Posts: 39,067

mytmouse57 wrote:

....All I'm looking for is some honesty.. rather than endless rationalizations..."it's just a mass of cells... it's a parasite, it's like a cancer..." and so on and so forth.


Did you see how I was attacked when I tried to insert some honesty into that argument? I go along with it's "just a mass of cells" because in the very early stages, when most abortions are performed, it's not near "fully human", but is a potential human. But in no way does the ZEF at any stage meet the honest definition of a cancer or parasite.

I'm not a fan of the staunch PL posistion (think people picketing outside abortion clinics) because I think it refuses to recognize some basic practical realities of life.
On the other hand, the staunch PC side seems to engage in a lot of denial and rationalization.
THAT's what I have an issue with... not the legality of abortion or the fact that under some circumstances, it really is the best possible choice.


I'd agree with you on those points.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Feb 21, 2008 - 4:51PM #223
bluehorserunning
Posts: 1,754
[QUOTE=mountain_man;302162]It does.

Symbiosis.  The close association of two or more dissimilar  organisms where both receive an advantage from the association.

There are four types of symbiotic relationships, but unless one of those is specifically referred to, the mutually beneficial type is the one that is assumed to be used.
[/QUOTE]

MountianM, whence does your definition come?  I've never seen a biological definition of symbiosis that includes benefit for both organisms.  My old Campbell's (3rd ed), for instance, simply states "symbiosis: An ecological relationship between organisms of two different species that live together in direct contact." (note that this definition would preclude the fetus as a parasite).  I know of three (not four) types of symbioses - parasitism, commensalism, and mutualism.  What would you consider the 4th?

I do agree that 'symbiosis' is often conflated with 'mutualism' in lay parlance, sort of like 'theory' is conflated with 'idea,' but that dosen't mean that the lay version of the word should be taken as biologically accurate.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Feb 21, 2008 - 6:54PM #224
mountain_man
Posts: 39,067

bluehorserunning wrote:

MountianM, whence does your definition come?


The many biology texts books I had to study to get a degree in biology.

I've never seen a biological definition of symbiosis that includes benefit for both organisms.  My old Campbell's (3rd ed), for instance, simply states "symbiosis: An ecological relationship between organisms of two different species that live together in direct contact."


And that direct contact provides a mutual benefit for both organisms. Example would be the clown fish that lives with sea anemones. The fish gets a safe place to hide and it protects the anemone and keeps it clean. Both benefit.

(note that this definition would preclude the fetus as a parasite).....


Which is all I'm trying to get across here. A fetus is in no way a parasite, and none of the definitions of the various kinds of symbiotic relationships would fit it either.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Feb 21, 2008 - 6:55PM #225
MedKit77
Posts: 1,384
[QUOTE=mountain_man;304308]Did you see how I was attacked when I tried to insert some honesty into that argument? I go along with it's "just a mass of cells" because in the very early stages, when most abortions are performed, it's not near "fully human", but is a potential human. But in no way does the ZEF at any stage meet the honest definition of a cancer or parasite.[/QUOTE]

Who are you claiming attacked you? If you believe that every instance of someone disagreeing with you is an "attack", then you must go through life in a constant state of defensiveness.

I know that I never said that a zef met the definition of a cancer. A cancer is: An imprecise term used to describe an estimated 200 different kinds of malignant neoplasms, marked by uncontrolled growth and the spread of abnormal cells. (Taber's)

However, I still contend that a zef DOES meet the definition I provided (taken verbatim from a medical dictionary) of a parasite (and yes, I understand that you disagree).

1) It is an organism that lives within the host
2) It takes all of its sustenance from the host (sometimes to the detriment of the host)
3) It contributes nothing to the survival of the host

Here's yet another definition from an online medical dictionary: Parasite: An organism that lives in or on and takes its nourishment from another organism. A parasite cannot live independently. (http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art … lekey=4769)

This adds the requirement for meeting the definition that the organism cannot live independently. Certainly a zef before the gestational date of (at the earliest) 21 weeks meets that requirement.

You are claiming that there is an additional requirement to meet the definition of a parasite: That the organism be of a different species. Yet, you are unable to provide a definition which includes that requirement, and merely claim that it is something you know by benefit of your education.

Perhaps you are unaware of the condition of a "parasitic twin", which describes the smaller of a pair of conjoined twins, when there is a marked disparity in size and one has stopped developing. The undeveloped twin is defined as parasitic because it is incompletely formed and wholly dependent on the body functions of the complete fetus. Obviously, both twins are of the same species as the host.

In any case, the point was not that a zef is a cancer or a parasite, but rather that an unwanted pregnancy may be as unwelcome in the body of a woman as a cancer or a parasite.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Feb 21, 2008 - 6:57PM #226
mountain_man
Posts: 39,067

MedKit77 wrote:

Who are you claiming attacked you? .....


Sorry, a ZEF is not a parasite. Nothing you've said is going to change that.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Feb 22, 2008 - 12:06AM #227
bluehorserunning
Posts: 1,754
[QUOTE=mountain_man;304628]The many biology texts books I had to study to get a degree in biology.[/QUOTE]

Due respect for your years of study, but that's a cop-out.  I also have a degree in biology, and I quoted a definition for you from a specific biology text.  Right now all you're saying is 'I have a degree, therefore I'm right.'

[QUOTE]And that direct contact provides a mutual benefit for both organisms. [/QUOTE]

No, actually I quoted the full glossary definition.  From the internal text, I also find "Symbiosis ("living together") is a term that encompasses a variety of interactions in which two species, a host and its symbiont, maintain a close association.  There are three types of symbiotic interactions.  In parasitism, one organism, the parasite, harms the host; in commensalism, one partner benefits without significantly affecting the other; and in mutualism, both partners benefit from the relationship."  'Symbiosis' does not necessarily imply 'mututalism.'

[QUOTE]A fetus is in no way a parasite, and none of the definitions of the various kinds of symbiotic relationships would fit it either.[/QUOTE]

According to the definition in Campbell's Biology, that is correct; according to other definitions (already quoted here by others), it is not.  Regardless of whether a fetus is, by definition, a parasite, it still has many of the aspects of one.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Feb 22, 2008 - 1:28AM #228
mountain_man
Posts: 39,067

bluehorserunning wrote:

Due respect for your years of study, but that's a cop-out......


It was also a hint that I am less than interested in this discussion. A ZEF is not a parasite, nor would any biologist, or most anyone else for that matter, consider it to be. Claiming that it is just cheapens the PC position. The PLs claim we do not respect life and the parasite or cancer, argument just proves it. You and the others can use that argument if you want. I will not.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Feb 22, 2008 - 12:06AM #229
bluehorserunning
Posts: 1,754
[QUOTE=mountain_man;304628]The many biology texts books I had to study to get a degree in biology.[/QUOTE]

Due respect for your years of study, but that's a cop-out.  I also have a degree in biology, and I quoted a definition for you from a specific biology text.  Right now all you're saying is 'I have a degree, therefore I'm right.'

[QUOTE]And that direct contact provides a mutual benefit for both organisms. [/QUOTE]

No, actually I quoted the full glossary definition.  From the internal text, I also find "Symbiosis ("living together") is a term that encompasses a variety of interactions in which two species, a host and its symbiont, maintain a close association.  There are three types of symbiotic interactions.  In parasitism, one organism, the parasite, harms the host; in commensalism, one partner benefits without significantly affecting the other; and in mutualism, both partners benefit from the relationship."  'Symbiosis' does not necessarily imply 'mututalism.'

[QUOTE]A fetus is in no way a parasite, and none of the definitions of the various kinds of symbiotic relationships would fit it either.[/QUOTE]

According to the definition in Campbell's Biology, that is correct; according to other definitions (already quoted here by others), it is not.  Regardless of whether a fetus is, by definition, a parasite, it still has many of the aspects of one.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Feb 22, 2008 - 1:28AM #230
mountain_man
Posts: 39,067

bluehorserunning wrote:

Due respect for your years of study, but that's a cop-out......


It was also a hint that I am less than interested in this discussion. A ZEF is not a parasite, nor would any biologist, or most anyone else for that matter, consider it to be. Claiming that it is just cheapens the PC position. The PLs claim we do not respect life and the parasite or cancer, argument just proves it. You and the others can use that argument if you want. I will not.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 23 of 24  •  Prev 1 ... 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook