Defenses for abortion come in three varieties: medical, philosophical, and emotional. The first two are fairly easily dealt with, even if people do not amend their positions. The arguments are either true or false, sound or unsound. The last however, is much more problematic. Emotional arguments utilize feelings rather than reasoning in order to sway their opponents to concede the ‘need ‘ for elective abortion. An emotional argument can move someone toward or away from a position regardless of the rationality or soundness of an argument. I personally find emotional appeals to be unpersuasive because how we feel about a particular reason is irrelevant to whether or not the reason offered is a good one. There is one emotional argument in particular I find rather obscene. It is couched as a medical appeal, but fails in its medical accuracy and has an ulterior emotional motivation underlying it, and a rather repugnant one at that.
What makes the argument that the developing baby in the womb is a parasite so loathsome is the underlying intention to make the baby to be an affront to the mother, an invader, an attacker, an enemy. It is designed to replace feelings of nurturing and love with hostility and resentment. The instinct of motherhood is quite strong and not easily abridged, therefore creating a mere indifference is insufficient.
The argument goes roughly like this: The embryo attaches itself to the mother, utilizing the mother’s bodily resources for nutrition. It’s basically a type of living organism which uses its host for its survival, most often — but not always — to the detriment of the host. I suppose if we were to use an overly vague and generalized definition of parasite, the developing child might fit. But those who offer this charge overlook significant distinctions between actual parasites which include mosquitoes, tape worms, ticks, etc., and a human in gestation.
The first distinction is parasites are of a different kind than its host. Mosquitoes and ticks feed off mammals, for example. The Hookworm does not live within another hookworm, and the deer tick does not feed off other deer ticks. The fetus is of the same kind as the mother. In fact the mother was necessary in bringing into existence the fetus. This is not the case with parasites. Mammals are not biologically the cause of parasites like they are for their offspring.
Second, though a parasite may rely on its host for survival, the host’s body was not designed — so to speak — for its parasite. In other words, the host’s body does not develop with a biological expectation of being a host. The human body, while able to adapt to handle a tape worm, does not have built within its DNA a genetic preparation for becoming a host. Blood, for example, is used as food by the parasite, but blood’s purpose is to oxygenate the body, not feed mosquitoes. Conversely, the womb is the natural intended environment for the fetus. The woman’s body is specifically genetically intended to and prepared to aid in reproduction, and biologically anticipates the attachment and nourishment of the fetus. The uterus is solely intended to grow and nurture the mother’s child, it has no other purpose.
Furthermore, the fetus is exactly where it ought to be. It’s not as though a human embryo can grow just anywhere and happens to find its way to some unsuspecting woman’s uterus. A thing is only an invader if it is where it isn’t supposed to be. Let’s use an analogy. My dogs are not invaders to my home, because they live here; but they would be invaders to my neighbor’s home. In this way, the fetus is not in an improper place, and it is not foreign. Though genetically distinct from its mother, it is a product of its mother, it is her child. It’s not that just any dogs are in my home, my dogs live in my home. It’s not that a child is growing in her womb, her child is growing in her womb.
Lastly, if the mere feeding off the mother makes the fetus a parasite, it is the only commonality between the two. Moreover it justifies taking the life of a new-born baby. Women who breast feed do so for about six months, give or take. Remember, if expelling a parasite is the justification for the elective abortion, the new mother coming to regret giving birth should be morally able to take her baby’s life in virtue of it being a parasite. It is on this point where the insistence of parasitism as a valid justification for abortion belies the one making the argument. A breast-feeding new-born is a parasite in the same way a fetus is a parasite in that it is feeding off the mother’s body. To argue against killing the new-born but not the fetus is an inconsistent appeal in this discussion. It would show that the pro-choice advocate does not take seriously his own argument.
It should be obvious to anyone thinking about the nature of the developing child and what elective abortion actually accomplishes that something is amiss. The line between a parasite and a developing child is clear and bold. This is why I find this false appeal of parasitism to be so repugnant. It implies a mother has no inherent moral duty to care for her own offspring. She must talk herself into — or be talked into — believing her child is anything but. It attempts — often successfully — to break down the natural relationship between mother and child and she is convinced to ignore one of the strongest instincts a person can have: Protect and love your child.
Sifting Reality 
I don’t know if you deliberately placed your last two posts back to back. But it highlights the utter insanity of people unable to believe what is Truth.
On the one hand you have animal rights activists demanding personhood and Constitutional protection for mere animals while their kin are perpetuating lies about the status and potential of a human fetus so as to deny personhood and Constitutional protection to him.
It reminds me of a lecture by a pro-life attorney at my undergraduate college in Upstate New York. The pro-abortion student organization came to this event, and a woman from that group asked a question.
“You say you are pro-life but are you against the bait-and-shoot program?” (It should be noted that the bait-and-shoot program was a Monroe County iniative to reduce the number of deer in the areas surrounding Rochester, New York. The deer population was getting too big and there was a severe increase in deer-automobile accidents.)
The attorney asked her some questions and it turned out she was upset at the shooting because some of the deer being killed could be pregnant. The attorney then pointed out the incongruity with her pro-abortion stance in favor of killing a baby in the womb and her opposition to the bait-and-shoot program because of pregnant deer.
As she fumbled around for an answer with the look of being caught …er…um…like a deer in the headlights, she finally retorted “Well, the deer are more pregnant!”
And there you have it. Liberalism leaves people to either be unable to reason intellectually or unable to reason morally. They cannot intellectually draw the proper conclusions or they know the proper conclusions and their system of morality compels to reject Truth for lies.
fetus (NOT A BABY, THEY ARE BORN…GOOGLE THE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT CHART) is a parasite because the classification of the biological relationship that is based on the behavior of one organism (the fetus) and how it relates to the woman’s body:
as a zygote, it invaded the woman’s uterus using its Trophoblast cells and hijacked her immune system by using Neurokinin B—so her body won’t KILL it, and stole her nutrients to survive and causes her harm or potential DEATH!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophoblast
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immune_tolerance_in_pregnancy
“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:
Symbiosis
“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
if a man can kill his tapeworm at anytime, so should a woman abort her unwanted human parasitic fetus at anytime, too.
Gale
Just a couple points. The zygote didnt invade the mother because her uterus is its proper location. Regardless of whether you believe it had consent or not, The mothers’s womb is where a zygote which is genetically half hers is supposed to be.
Second, the mother’s body is biologically equipped to handle the needs of her baby which is growing within her body. The fact that it has a mechanism to notify her it is there should tell you about the physiological reciprocal relationship they share.
Third, I’m not clicking through a list of links, if you have a point, make it. I’m not going to search the internet for your case.
I know what symbiosis is, and if you can provide an example of two like species feeding off eachother’s bodies, I’d be glad to read about it.
Your last sentence presumes I have not written the post above it.
Even the notion of the child “feeding off” of its mother is off base. The mother is designed to provide nourishment to the child invited within her. In other words, the child isn’t getting anything not designed to be provided for it. Even breast feeding is expressly for the purpose of providing nourishment, not something that would have been there for the mother’s sake and then “stolen” in the manner of a mosquito sucking blood. As you suggest, the mother’s body is designed to share nutrients for the development of the child within her.
@Marshall
Exactly, which is also why doctors inform their pregnant mothers that they need not ‘eat for two’ while carrying the child. This idea that the baby is a parasite is bourne out of a liberal hyper-feminist mentality as can be seen in Gale’s comments.
@ Dogtags
No, I hadn’t planned them. It was actually in response to another comment on another post, and something I had been meaning to write but forgot about it. Long ago one my first posts about abortion someone began making the parasite reference, which is actually the first time I heard it. I thought it was hyperbole at first, but my jaw dropped when I saw she was serious.
But now I have to wait a bit to post Part 3 of Get a life, I dont want to overload with a single topic.
Which side in this issue, do you John Barron Jr, think has used more emotional argumentation? The pro-life, or the pro-choise?
Emotional argumentation is a valid way of conversation, because we humans are emotional beings. If we try to organize our society based on logic without emotional reasons, we end up in a fascistic culture. And even then the emotions are there, just surpressed. And supression of emotions lead to all kinds of unhealthy behaviour, as we know from a bundle of examples.
I do not see the parasite argument particularly as a strong point of the pro-choise side. It seems the emotional point of the sematics behind usage of the word “parasite” are more like an equal response to the emotional appeal used by the pro-life side, when they try to claim abortion is a murder of a baby. It is not. The reasonable answer is that a fetus is not yet a baby, but that sounds a bit dry as an argument. Hence, to draw the emotional appeal as far and strech the truth as much as the pro-choise side allready has, one can with just as much reason claim that the fetus is a parasite. There is as much ground to claim the fetus is a parasite as there is that it is a baby. Neither are true, but I think people claiming it is a parasite are more aware of this fact, than those who would choose to think it is a baby.
Though the body of a woman may be able to produce offspring, she as a sentient being may choose not to. And believe me, so she will even if abortion were to be illegal. So have legions of would be mothers done throughout the time. It is more a question wether it is done clinically as an accepted treatment, or as some illegal and unhealthy operation by whatever and dangerous means.
@rautakyy
The unjustified intentional taking of an innocent human life is murder. Even if abortion is protected by law, it is murder protected by law.
Second the term baby is one of description of size and maturity, not ontology. So the pro-abortion side doesn’t actually gain anything even if it is conceded a fetus is not a baby. All it does is prove the pro-abortionist needs desperately to hush their conscience.
I think it’s good that folks like Gale view a fetus as a parasite.
John, I agree with all your arguments, but one can easily see how someone would call a fetus a parasite.
Believing that a fetus is a parasite (even at the stage of a zygote, as Gale has argued) means one has to believe that it is both alive and separate from the mother.
@Gale, you’re really close to agreeing with us.
@c2c
I can see why someone would seek to classify a fetus as a parasite, but I don’t think the label fits.
However, I hadn’t thought about the significant admission the one suggesting the fetus is a parasite actually makes. In order to be a parasite, it has to be alive (and functionally so) and separate from the mother. Great observation.
Thanks,
You’re right about it not being a parasite in that most parasites live off another species. And that the mother’s body works in concert with the baby’s to facilitate the seemingly parasite/host relationship.
They’re close to right by saying that it acts very much like any other parasite.
I say that we are so close to being in agreement on the question of a fetus’s parasite status, that we should grant them the classification.
At that point, they either have to agree with us that it’s separate and alive, or abandon the parasite argument.
Either way, it shows just how shaky is the ground on which they walk.
I gotta tell ya. I think we just made a huge leap forward.
You may call it the C2C formulation.
Your humble servant (and I mean that. I am by far the absolute humblest servant in the history of both humility and servitude. I myself am amazed at just how humble a servant I am. Seriously. Amazed.),
C2C
The problem with the claim that the zygote “invaded” the woman is that the woman had to have sex in order to get pregnant. So she wasn’t “invaded,” she opened the gates and let it in!
The current situation that an abundance of abortions are done both in nations where the abortion is legal and in those where it is not, proves we need to have much more sexual education, so the women who do not want be pregnant, would have better access to contraception and that it would be more accepted culturally also by men. So, the women would not “open the gates”. Or is there a nother solution?
Sexual desire and the need to progreate are very driving forces in the human nature, but the biggest threat humanity is facing is over population. Humanity has doubled its number in just few decades. If this goes on the resources will run out eventually. What are our real and actual options?
I can see why someone would classify a fetus as a baby, but I don’t think the label fits.
The unjustified intentional taking of an innocent human life is murder. Even if war is protected by law, it is murder protected by law. Right?
The question remains is there more justification to carpet bombing than there is to abort a human life that has not even been born yet?
So, if a fetus is not a parasite because it is not a separate being, the pro-choise argument that a woman has the right to decide about her own body holds absolutely true? Hmm…
@Rautakyy
The problem isn’t lack of sex education, it is a lack of sexual restraint. People have a “if it feels good, do it” attitude, and are willing to do anything to protect their sexual liberty.
Just war is not murder, I know we disagree on this point. But where we can agree is in a dictatorship nation such as Gadaffi’s Lybia, or Hussein’s Iraq, or Stalin’s USSR many murders were protected by law. The killings of political enemies were declared legal in those States. The legality of those murders did not make them morally justified killings. Legal does not equal moral.
@ john barron
THANKS, john for proving that you are nothing more then the typical pro-life, schizophrenic fascist of which science disproves your unscientific-morality based opinion, therefore science must be wrong! you are nothing more than a creationist with an evil agenda: being intellectually dishonest and using appeal to emotion fallacies to keep ignorant American sheeple stupid and in-line about human production, my question to you is why are you being dishonest and for whom?
“The zygote didnt invade the mother because her uterus is its proper location.”
wrong, the zygote did invade woman’s uterus with the use of its trophoblast cells….i even LINKED the proof in my last comment, and the zygote did hijacked the woman’s immune system, with it’s Neurokinin B molecules—which i also linked in my last comment that you ignored.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophoblast
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immune_tolerance_in_pregnancy
“The mothers’s womb is where a zygote which is genetically half hers is supposed to be.”
you mean evolved? technically, zygote can invade the Fallopian tubes.
“Second, the mother’s body is biologically equipped to handle the needs of her baby which is growing within her body.”
a fetus is not a baby….Google human development.
do you mean the fetus evolved mechanisms to keep it alive? the fact that a woman could eat certain things before pregnancy and not during…sound like a survival mechanism to me. and that doesn’t stop a fetus from being a parasite.
“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
you see that definition said nothing about it being a different species, and if you believe that a fetus can’t be a parasite, because it’s the same species…then what a parasitic twin?
are you going to lie, to save your unscientific- morality based opinion, again?
“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:
Symbiosis
i made my point in my last comment, using science…and now i’m going to prove you wrong again with law.
ABORTION IS A CIVIL AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT SUPPORTED BY THE RIGHTS TO PRIVACY, THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF 14TH AMENDMENT, AND THE 13TH AMENDMENT.
no human 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 force to donate your kidney—the human fetus is no exception; this is protected by the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause
consensual sex =/= a legal, binding contract for an unwanted fetus to live.
“The unjustified intentional taking of an innocent human life is murder” this is your non-legal opinion…murder is the unlawful killing with intent, and abortion is a civil and constitutional right–thus is not legally murder.
“In order to be a parasite, it has to be alive (and functionally so) and separate from the mother”
what do you mean by separate? prove this “separate” with a scientific parasite definition of which you and your sock accounts speaks of, fascist creationist.
it’s clear you have scientific clue what’s a parasite IS and how a fetus is a parasite, scientifically speaking, thus you should not be talking about this issue.
@Gale
Perhaps you should read my comment policy to answer any questions you have as to why I didn’t do the homework you assigned me.
I have one question, if the zygote “invaded” the woman’s body, where did it come from? An invader comes from the outside, does it not? So from whence came the fertilized egg?
On a separate note, I hope everyone sees the mentality of a person who lets sexual liberty trump human life. Look at the depth of rage and name-calling that Gale exudes in order to make his case.
Fetus merely means “offspring.” DUH! and offspring of a human is another human.
I noticed Gale didn’t address the fact that it didn’t “invade,” but was rather let in.
We differ on whether it’s a parasite.
I still maintain that the mother/fetus relationship is close enough to any other host/parasite relationship, that we may as well go ahead and call it that.
I know that it’s different, because the mother helped create the parasite. That’s how babies are made. The nature of reproduction is that the offspring grows inside a woman. That’s just how things are. So, John is right. It belongs there. Not because the woman wants it. Because that’s what’s supposed to happen.
If we say that it’s a parasite, we can’t say that it’s not a separate being from the mother. The tapeworm is a separate being. So is the zygote, embryo or fetus.
I say it’s a parasite (or as close to any definition of parasite that anyone wants to give), which (by any definition anyone wants to give) means that it is a separate being.
This does not mean that we may kill it. Other factors are involved.
It is human.
It is alive.
It has natural rights, despite what R v.W says.
“I don’t want it” isn’t enough.
The absolute drive these people have to allow reckless behavior necessitates an out like abortion.
Why can’t I say, “Don’t have sex if you don’t want a baby!”?
Why can’t I say, “If you get pregnant, 99.9% of the time, it’s your doing. You are responsible for the human life you helped create.”?
A quick reply to the inane remarks by gale:
“fetus (NOT A BABY, THEY ARE BORN…GOOGLE THE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT CHART)”
As if to make sure, by mere labels, that you know that a fetus is not a human person.
Gale might as well have said “elderly, not a senior citizen.”
Gale’s first comment is as if Gale did not even read the blog post. Gale’s second comment demonstrates Gale is obtuse, illogical, ignorant and arrogant, which is a bad combination. Although silly intellectually, Gale’s Dr. Mengele mentality is dangerous if put into policy.
Gale might want to stay away from legal analysis.
“ABORTION IS A CIVIL AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT SUPPORTED BY THE RIGHTS TO PRIVACY, THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF 14TH AMENDMENT, AND THE 13TH AMENDMENT.
no human 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 force to donate your kidney—the human fetus is no exception; this is protected by the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.”
So, gale, legal scholar, tell me, if the equal protection clause prevents the fetus from using another human’s body against their (sic) will, why does the mother and her doctor then have the right to kill the fetus? Shouldn’t the equal protection clause protect the fetus’ body from destruction by the mother? It seems to me you are sentencing the fetus to death without due process.
As far as being a constitutional right, even liberal law professor Alan Dershowitz agrees Roe v. Wade is horrible constitutional law. Emanations from pneumbras? Complete legal fiction. That is why abortion is so contentious: it was created out of whole cloth and not through the traditional constitutional law jurisprudence.
Good people do not disagree on this issue:
http://blog.telladf.org/2010/11/12/the-face-that-changes-everything/
http://americancreed.wordpress.com/2010/10/15/the-face-that-changes-everything/
Good people come to the defense of the innocent and helpless.
@dogtags
I think Gale skimmed the post, or even perhaps read it. But his responses are canned. What I mean is he used to have his facebook link to his name (that I removed) and his page is just mindless repeats of the same status updates. The content of his comments can be found in large portions on his page. That is why they seem so disconnected from the post even if mildly associated.
I actually like when pro-aborts use the “parasite” argument. It may get virtual high-five’s from other pro-aborts, but it is so transparently bad that it reveals to the middle-ground folks just how perverse the pro-abort thinking is. It is like a concession speech.
This doesn’t always work, but I typically point out that their view would mean that the baby could be fully delivered but still be attached via the umbilical cord and she would still be a “parasite.” Therefore, you could kill her any way you liked. They have usually painted themselves in a corner by that point and may actually agree that they’d be OK with that. Again, I’m glad to let the middle ground see that kind of immoral thinking.
Most pro-legalized abortion arguments are emotional and ignore the humanity of the unborn (human zygote, human fetus, etc.). They trade on sentiments how the woman (or child) will be impacted in the areas of poverty, education, love life, etc.
When doing pro-life reasoning training I always start by distinguishing between the psychological complexity of the abortion issue (financial, educational, family pressures, etc. issues are real and powerful and need to be addressed) and the moral simplicity of it (you shouldn’t kill innocent human beings for any of those reasons, regardless of how intense they are).
Neil
C2C actually made the good point that in order to make the parasite argument in the first place, they must concede the embryo is alive, human, and separate from the mother. Which is great. You also make a good point that it shows the middle-ground people who shy away from taking a definitive position what lengths the pro-abortion crowd is willing to go in order to keep the practice legal.
I think the reason I find this particular emotional argument repelling (over and above the poverty and quality of life appeals) is, I don’t see them making the parasite argument “in theory” the way you and C2C view it. As “technically” a parasite. I get the impression they view an embryo — fetus as an actual parasite no different than a tape worm or a tick. As Gale so aptly displays, there is a hatred (by those who make the parasite argument) for the child. I find it disturbing.
Yes, it is disturbing. And how many parasites do you know of that stop being parasites at a point in time? Would Gale et al still be parasites? Their DNA is a guaranteed match.
Once again, what it all comes down to is, when does a new human being begin? How is that defined?
For some reason some people seem to find it very difficult to understand that a human evolves in the womb, from the coupling of two single cells to an actual human individual. This takes time. It is equally wrong to try to appeal to feelings in this matter by claiming that the fetus is a parasite as it is to claim that it is a baby. It is neither. It is a promice of new life feeding like a parasitic creature from the woman. It has every right to feed from the would be mother, just as the woman has every right to abort it from being born.
Legally abortion is allowed only up to half way of pregnancy, because doctors and scientists have shown, that is rougly when it starts to develope neural symptoms of a human being. It is still a fetus, but it has now evolved into a stage that it is almost ready to be born and we do not kill newborn babies. Not the pro-lifers nor the pro-choisers. Do we?
Why is this so difficult?
Rautakyy, you’re right it comes down to when a human being begins. Lucky for you we know. I go over this in get a life part 1. A new human life begins at conception
No, it does not. It is a slow process, roughly some nine months. Haven’t you heard? Conception is just the moment when two singular cells join to begin a process that causes a human being to emerge during those coming months. There is nothing magical about that particular moment. There is no human being in existance right after that moment.
Rautakyy, you can’t be this obtuse. I quoted medical experts. I can cite for you embryologists who have testified before the US Congress. What the developing zygote->embryo looks like is irrelevant to what it is ontologically. You are seriously ill informed on this.
If you are going to insist on your opinion in opposition to embryology experts, I don’t know what else I can tell you.
Yes he can be that obtuse. He cannot, or will not understand that the only significant event that makes a collection of cells a human being is at conception when all the genetic information is assembled and begins work. After conception there are only stages of development. Zygote, Fetus, Newborn, Infant, Toddler, Adolescent, Teenager, Adult, Middle Age, Elderly. Birth is certainly a visual demarcation, but since when does geography define what it is to be a human? You are human in America, but not in Africa. You are human outside the womb, but not inside. Why not shift that line a little bit to the left, like Peter Singer of Princeton University does, and say you are not human until after 28 past your birth?
Good people do not disagree on this issue. Only wicked and heartless people will allow the murder of a baby simply because he lives in his mother’s womb.
I made the exact same point in one of my posts. Conception is the sine qua non of life.
I have to wonder… What would they say to the question “Is it ready yet?” at different points in time?
Zygote: Not yet.
Embryo: Nope.
Fetus: Maybe…
Born child: Yes, even though it’s not self aware.
Ok, so when did it begin?
Not sure.
This has been a great discussion, regardless of Gale’s biased interpretations of scientific facts. The idea of the zygote as “invader” would be comical if the implications weren’t so ominous. The entire process of intercourse is one of reproduction with pleasure as a by-product. It’s purpose is reproduction. It is why there can be no such thing as an unwanted or accidental pregnancy. It would be like pointing a gun at someone’s head, pulling the trigger for the pleasure doing so might provide, and then saying the resultant death was accidental or unwanted.
This fact dispels the notion of the zygote/fetus as a parasite particularly considering that a parasite takes what isn’t freely offered. Engaging in the act designed by nature (if not God) for the purpose of bringing into existence another person is an invitation to that new life, regardless of the intention of the participants. Indeed, it is still an invitation in spite of the intentions of the parents.
The fetus does not take from the mother what isn’t provided specifically for the fetus. This is not how host/parasite relationships work.
Marshall
I agree completely with the thrust of your point, though I would offer a better analogy of drunk driving. Drinking is fun, and drunk driving does not always include a crash (unlike shooting someone in the head). But any crashes can not be dismissed simply because they werent intended or wanted. Drunk driving is known to cause crashes just like sex is known to cause children.
However, I dislike using these kinds of analogies because they liken a child to a negative and bad consequence, like Obama suggested, “punished with a child”. Children are not punishments, and I think that’s the impression these kinds of valid analogies leave people with.
In case this wasn’t already linked to, here is a list of quotes from embryology textbooks and other sources stating that life begins at conception — http://tinyurl.com/amedical
.
Even without that overwhelming evidence, just what sort of being would two human beings create that would ultimately become an indisputable human being?
Neil
I think the biggest obstical with abortion advocates is that they confuse stages of growth with the kind of thing that is growing. When someone says, “a zygote isn’t a human being, it’s a zygote”, it is just as absurd as saying “an adolescent isn’t a human being, it’s an adolescent”. I see this time and again.
Agreed. That’s why you can always ask them, “What type of fetus? Canine? Bovine? Oh, it is human? Big difference.”
Or just note this: Human embryo ==> human fetus ==> human baby ==> human teen ==> etc.
@john barron
“Perhaps you should read my comment policy to answer any questions you have as to why I didn’t do the homework you assigned me.”
maybe, you should be intellectually HONEST in your article…in the first place, when it involves the realms of science and law.
you keep ignoring the science that proves a fetus is a parasite, while at the same time proving your article is nothing more unscientific, appeal to emotion diatribe. i even linked (TWICE) the functions of trophoblast cells, which main purpose to INVADE a woman’s uterus, hell…a slip up can happen and the zygote can invaded a woman’s fallopian tubes, which causes ectopic pregnancies, but since you are a creationist, you will still ignore actual science because of your pride.
“the woman’s body, where did it come from? An invader comes from the outside, does it not? So from whence came the fertilized egg?”
are you that stupid about human reproduction, or are you that desperate and need to grasps at straws, to convince the ignorant sheeple?
when a woman’s ovum and a man’s sperm unit and creates a zygote, that zygote is a foreign object (that has different DNA than the woman’s and her body will kill it aka cause a miscarriage, if it’s invades improperly.
this is science that is not hard to understand, which proves you have an agenda to be intellectually dishonest.
“sexual liberty trump human life.”
duh, your morality when it comes to another legal person’s sexuality is moot, you and your morality is irrelevant to their sexual habits as long as it is legal: a woman do a 50 men gangbang with creampie action, to get pregnant on purpose, then change HER mind and abort triplets, over and over again, until she has no uterus left—because she deems it necessary; you and your morality has legal power over her, will and legal rights to abort…get over it, go worry about children dying in africa.
[The remainder of this comment was deleted by the blog author due to repeated copy and paste content]
Gail
You sure know how to win an audience. But what you fail to realize is a fertilized egg doesnt invade anything. The egg is already present in the woman, and the sperm was invited. Maybe you don’t know what it means to invade.
BTW, if anyone is curious as to why I have allowed Gale’s public admission that he does not know how to discuss controversial topics like a grown up, it is because it is valuable for those readers who are “on the fence” as Neil points out, to see what it looks like when someone has lost an argument. There is name calling, (the equivalent of) shouting, swearing, and a misrepresentation of medical facts and philosophical arguments.
Gale is also apparently a porn aficionado.
I think we can agree that the zygote is formed in the uterus. So it did not invade the uterus from outside.
It attaches to the uterus wall in the same way that some parasites do.
But doing something in the same way that something else does it, doesn’t make it the same thing.
And the fact that this is how babies are made, should be enough for anyone to acknowledge that the zygote, embryo or fetus is not a parasite, as it is exactly where nature intended it to be.
And John is right about it having been invited (unless the man involved was not invited). If you have sex willingly, you are taking the chance that you will become pregnant. And you more than likely know it. The embryo developing in the uterus is a natural and likely result of sexual encounters between a man and a woman.
It is offspring of the “host”.
It is not a parasite.
So, John Barron Jr, if the name calling by Gale Routh is an indicator of having lost an argument, what would you call Dog Tags calling me “wicked and heartless”? What was it you said earlier about appealing to emotions?
It is the psychologists, sociologists, doctors and embryologists who have also decided to give both our governments the advice to allow abortion legally. Or, that is how democracy works in my country. Does it not work in yours? If you find the reality to be in contradiction to your superstition, wich one of us is being “obtuse”?
I can agree that the fetus is not a parasite, but it is not a baby either. I can agree that it is human, but it is not a person with legal rights either. A separated finger is essentially human, but it is not a legal person. It does not have the neural system to be counted among persons or humans. Same goes for the zygote. It is half way along the pregnancy when the fetus starts to have developed neural system that equals it with humans. Until that it is not only legal, but morally justifiable to abort it. Just like it is justifiable (and much more preferrable) to use contraception.
@rautakyy
Actually it wasn’t doctors who decided abortion was morally permissible, it was politicians, activists and judges.
Doctors are suspicioisly left out of the discussion.
Also, if you understood the biblical reference to “wicked and reprobate ” you’d know it isn’t an insult in the way “stupid” and other such names are name calling.
@ John Barron Jr, how do you mean? If the insult is biblical it is OK? No, I do not understand it. I have read the Bible in a different language and maybe that is why I do not remember any such name calling to be any less adolecent in it, than otherwise. But maybe you are willing to explain how that differs from being called stoopid.
Well, it must have been a completely different process of decision making in your country than in mine. Here in Europe the democratically elected governments have made this decision after listening to all experts including doctors and especially them. Natbe you would not have such a heated debate about this issue if doctors had been listened by your politicians as well. Ireland had it different because there the government also listened to the catholic priests. Their desicion differs from most other European nations, but though abortion is illegal there, Irish women get abortions almost as much as women in all the other European nations. Their problem is that some of those abortions are very dangerous to the women. Why would you suppose that is? Why were doctors left out of such a major decision in the US? Is there a lack of democracy in your country?
John,
I see your point about analogies. Unfortunately, the pregnancy is already regarded negatively by those who support abortions. It’s just that I couldn’t think of one that puts a happy consequence on the cheerful and purposeful misuse of a behavior.