Abortion Exchange Number Six
Kosherkracker
Allow me to preface with the following: Jerry, this is going to
be rather short by comparison to other posts I've made, as I'll only be adressing a few of the points you've made, the rest of my
post will be citation, quotation, and explanation, of a number of fallacies
you've put forth, in this post alone, which I will cut out of your points, and adress only that which is relevant. You asked what
assumptions you've made, well, rather than simply show you those, I shall instead
show you all the errors I've observed.
Your cutting this short here and implying it necessitates a fixed end-game,
leads me to believe that you entered this in the mindset of a formal, rather
than informal debate, I would have appreciated it if you'd have stated this
beforehand, rather than randomly cutting it off without giving me chance to
rebuke, especially while putting it on that website of yours. Regardless, onwards.
McDonald:
I have already told you what purpose it serves biologically. It serves to
propagate the species. You said that it did nothing for the mother, and
now it seems that you are saying that it does nothing for the mother
biologically. Well, you are wrong on both accounts. (1) It does
serve to help the mother’s emotional well-being which, as you know will have an
effect on her biological well-being. If the mother is off emotionally,
she is going to be off biologically. (2) It also serves to help the
mother’s biological well-being because her body is made for the purpose of
bearing children. It wasn’t an accident that she came to be that
way. God made the woman the way she is and he made the man the way he is
so that the two of them could mate and propagate the species. When women
refuse to bear children it does not help their biological well-being at all
because it can have an effect on her emotional well-being which will often have
an effect on her biological well-being. When women are unable to bear
children there may be something wrong with their biological reproductive system
which can have an ill effect on her emotional as well as biological
well-being. Some women have problems with their menstrual periods until
they give birth to their first child. There are all kinds of ways that
the unborn child can help a woman both emotionally and biologically. Only
someone who is unfamiliar with this subject would make such a foolish remark as
you have made.
KosherKrackers:
Point 1. It can impact it negatively if the pregnancy is unwanted, your
argument assumes the best case scenario, rather than the broad spectrum, it is
therefore biased and has no place in a formal, or informal for that matter,
debate.
Point 2. And I am made for the purpose of ingesting a
wide variety of foods, my body is designed with the purpose of ingesting both
meat and vegatables, I am an omnivore. Go forth
and preach the emotional, and therefore biological
damage that vegetarians are bringing upon themselves by not doing what they're
made for.
I'm sorry but this is absurd, to say that we were made for this therefore we
must instantly wish to do so, denies free will and diversity, and reduces us to
far less than something with no purpose, especially for a man that believes in
god. We were created with free will if indeed we were created at all, what
we were made for is therefore irrelevant, as we are more than able to think and
decide for ourselves, and whether or not our anatomy says this, it does not
necessarily reflect upon our own perception.
You're making a lot of assumptions based around what people feel and think, and
your x = y logic (They are pregnant = They are
happy. They are not pregnant/They cannot become
pregnant = They are unhappy) displays your ignorance in far more clarity than I
could through the written word alone. (The bit I'm replying to here shall also
be in the logical fallacies section, but I felt it needed a mention here also.)
Similarly, you're assuming that a belief in god is present, if that is all you
can argue, and is the fulcrum of your opinions, then you have no place in a
logical and rational argument, we are here to debate fact, not personal belief,
kindly stay on topic.
I would however agree, there are a lot of ways a pregnancy can help someone,
there are also a lot of ways it can harm someone, but you conveniently forget
to factor those into your reasoning, all the while pushing the same biased
garbage forward.
As for my changing stance regarding benefit and biological benefit, I have said
nothing akin to that, I said it has no positive benefit, and as I stated
earlier, emotions are highly personal things, and thus emotional
benefit/detriment cannot be applied across the full spectrum of the human
species hence why I did not include it in my argument, and which is why I am
arguing the biological angle, rather than the emotional, you are the one that
brought the emotional side of things up, so, as I stated earlier, kindly don't
put words in my mouth just so you can refute them. (also,
another logical fallacy I'll be bringing to your attention.)
McDonald
The child and the mother are closely bonded during
that nine months which is why when the mother dies, even the most hardened
criminals break down. During that nine months
the child learns the mother’s moods, her voice, her tone of voice for different
events. The child begins to think much like the mother. You really
don’t have much of a clue about the relationship between an unborn child and
the mother do you?
Some women have committed suicide due to bearing a child they did not want,
some men have committed suicide to being unable to cope financially with the
issues a child brings around.
As for the relationship between mother and fetus, a dog learns to pay attention
to tone of voice through exposure to said tone of voice, cats can do similarly,
I fail to see how attributing this to the fetus proves anything other than that
it has a comparatively rudimentary intellect, and I'd like to see your
documented research into how the fetus thinks, particularly that which goes on
to prove that the fetus thinks as the mother does, otherwise your postulates,
like much else, have no place in a debate built on rational and logic.
McDonald
Now we see that the Merriam-Webster’s
Medical Dictionary says that a fetus is “an unborn or unhatched
vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind;
specifically: a developing human from usually two months after conception
to birth.” Where does this dictionary say anything about the fetus being
a parasite? It doesn’t does it? No, it
says that it is an unborn or unhatched vertebrate
especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind. It also
says that specifically it is a developing human. When it comes to that
communication means absolutely nothing. How can we communicate if we
don’t agree on the definitions of words?
Now then, when exactly did I say that a fetus is not as the above definition
you cited? Again, you're putting your own words in my mouth in order to
refute them.
I said well and true that the fetus is indeed a potential human,
and that potential ought not afford legal status.
I also asked if you were not aware that things can fit more than one
definition, and that a description of what something is, and what it
biologically does, are two different things. Also, I did state that the
fetus differs from the definition of parasite purely due to the
"species" line, and that all else fits it perfectly.
Both points you've failed to adress in favour of attacking what you percieve
as weak points in my reason, unfortuantely, these are
weak points that you yourself have put there through constant misquotes,
misinterpretations, and by stating my points for me, and then refuting them.
This is a logical fallacy called a strawman.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman
IE. I think the fetus is a parasite, the dictionary says a parasite is not a
member of the same species, therefore I disregard definitions and hold them as
notwithstanding, therefore I am illiterate, and hold the position that the
fetus is a parasite on ignorant grounds.
Here you failed entirely to adress my actual point
that the fetus is differentiated from a parasite purely due to species.
This I felt needed adressing here, rather than
pointing out later.
McDonald
Now, the fetus and the mother are of the same kind. The fetus does
obtain some benefits, but most of its benefits comes
from its own supply. And the fetus is not there to harm the mother.
The parasite on the other hand is of another kind than the host and it there
for nothing more than to obtain benefits of its host and it usually causes
harm. There is your difference. If you cannot see it, I cannot help
you.
Again, what diferentiates the fetus
is species alone.
So, as you claim the fetus gains the majority of nutrients from its own body,
where exactly are your sources on this, and how exactly does a fetus ingest
nutrients and oxygen from inside the womb, where it has no access to anything
outside?
The benefits the fetus gains are well documented, the changes made to the host
are well documented.
These changes are not consented to by the mother in
every case.
Parasites are not there to harm people, if they were they'd quickly kill off
there own environment, whether something is there to harm or not is irrelevant,
the fact is that the fetus can, and that it necessitates changes in order for
risk to be reduced to a minimum.
Again, your point refuted, and fetus still fitting the parasite definition in
all but species.
McDonald
For you to compare the fetus or the parasite to
champagne is absurd and has nothing to do with this discussion
... I'm not comparing the fetus to champagne, I'm pointing out
the absurdity inherent with logic along the lines of "This is not this
because it's not from here."
IE. The fetus is not a parasite purely and simple
because it's the same species, damned be the fact that the fetus fits the
parasite descriptive in every other aspect.
Another logical fallacy yet I felt it needed adressing
in more detail.
McDonald
Here are pictures of aborted, what you call
parasites. Do these look like tapeworms to you? Do they look like
tumors to you? Man you need to get your eyes checked. Now you say
that the fetus is nothing more than a parasite before birth, but I challenge
you to check out this video (the first one especially) and tell me that the
fetus is nothing more than a parasite. Do the pictures look like any
parasite you have ever seen?
Merely because it looks like a human, does not make it definitively human, nor
does it allow it rights on account of potential.
Now, allow me to adress the, again, emotional rather
than logical, point you've made.
Seen the videos, and I do indeed believe the fetus is little more than a
parasite with the potential to be human, what something looks like, how
horrifying it is, etc, etc, does not in any way, shape, or form, change what it
is, or how it behaves, nor invalidate nor validate any line of reason.
Another fallacy that required response I felt.
McDonald
Of course the fetus alters the mother’s body and her chemistry. However,
her body was made for that very purpose. It is a natural thing while the
altering of the body or the body’s chemistry by a parasite is not
natural. If a woman takes care of herself during pregnancy, exercises
right, eats properly and gets enough rest the risks to her are unlikely.
When women drink, smoke, take drugs, fail to eat and exercise right and fail to
make her doctor’s appointments, then there will usually be problems. But
that is the mother’s fault, and not the child’s.
Parasites are a part of nature, due to advances in medical technology we can
avoid them, and/or remove them, that is the only reason in which they are, in
this day and age, unnatural, until then, they were inconvenient, but most
certainly natural.
Yes, the risks to her are unlikely, due to medical advances, this does not
change the fact that the maternal mortality rate is 1 in 16 in some countries,
the only thing that avoids that here, is medicine, not the natural act itself
of pregnancy and childbirth.
Nor does it change the fact that the risk is there, if someone takes care of
themselves with a tapeworm, the effects would be negligible, but in essence, if
someone has to make alterations to their lifestyle in order to sustain life
with minimal risk of problems when the risk would have been minimal beforehand
without such changes, how can you say that the fetus does not affect the
mother.
Earlier you stated that pregnancy was beneficial, or no-one would indeed reproduce, now you state that the risk is minimal, and
necessitates potential changes in lifestyle.
Kindly make up your mind so I know which to refute.
McDonald
Why? I mean after all it was just a parasite wasn’t it? Andrea
should have gone to the doctor and had him give her a pill to kill the unneeded
piece of scum. Who wants a parasite living in them? If that is all
it was, then why would you even bother to offer your condolences? Do you
realize that your position on this makes us nothing but varmints? There
is no real purpose for us on this earth we are just something that probably
needs to be eradicated. How could something good and useful come from a
parasite?
I'm sorry, but I wasn't aware that this had suddenly become a personal issue.
You utterly ignore my sincere condolence, insinuate that I'm calling your
unborn scum, and utterly miss my point in this discussion.
And you claim that I'm the inhuman one?
Yes, I realise what my position makes us, I'm an
atheist, I do not believe we have any higher purpose, and I'm a happy, well
adjusted person with a strong moral compass built upon freedom of choice,
without inflicting upon anothers freedom of
choice. To state that I believe we ought be
eradicated for that is ignorant, slanderous, and has no place in this
discussion, I said nothing of the sort, and implied nothing of the sort.
Merely because I do not share your point of view on purpose, does not make me
inherently evil, nor my ideals evil thereof,
regardless of how you'd like to paint me with that brush.
As for how something useful can come from a parasite, I did state that it has
potential, did I not?
Kindly adress my points, rather than putting words in
my mouth and attacking what you have said in my place, similarly, kindly stop
assuming you know what I believe, and attacking that. Stated earlier,
those are logical fallacies, the strawman.
McDonald
You are realistic? You have a desire to put a
parasite inside a woman and you call yourself realistic. I would never
have impregnated my wife if I had ever thought that I was putting a parasite
inside of her.
Another strawman. I
never stated, nor implied, that the fetus is purely, and uniquely, a parasite
and a parasite alone, nor that I have a desire to place a parasite inside a
women, nor that I do not recognise
that a fetus has potential. Only that potential should not afford legal
status.
Again, adress my points please.
McDonald
Yes, we understand that this is how the baby gets it food and oxygen.
However, this does not make it a parasite. If it was just a parasite why
did the former
Wait... Let me quote you from an earlier portion of this...
The fetus does obtain some benefits, but most of its benefits comes from its own supply.
I thought the fetus gains most benefits from it's own supply, not:
Yes, we understand that this is how the baby gets it food and oxygen.
... Take a viewpoint, stick with it, or admit when you're wrong and adapt your
stance, don't pretend as though you held this viewpoint all along in order to
look more believable. I can admit when I'm wrong, and that potential can
matter in the minds of the people, I also adapted my standpoint to reflect that
while it may matter, potential ought not afford legal
status, and that it should be up to the individual, as essentially, the
importance of its potential lies with the mother.
Now, a few personal statements you made for you to back up:
When did I state that the fetus should be killed, or that the choice shuold be taken out of the hands of the mother?
When did I state that I have any interest in forcing my opinion on anyone, nevermind declaring open season on the fetus?
Also kindly stop propgandising my position by
associating me with prominent people and or groups, you did this earlier with
references to Stalin (another logical fallacy I'll explain later). Kindly
stick to the discussion and adress my points.
McDonald
The difference is, the mother would get rid of the
tapeworm when she would make the decision to keep the child.
Not in every case, if it was in every case, we wouldn't have abortion in the
first place, so your standpoint is flawed.
McDonald
I would say that it is the mother’s choice? She understands what she is
going to go through in order to carry that “parasite” to term. She
chooses to do it, otherwise she would just abort it.
Many mothers do abort it.
Irregardless, the choice to make these changes is not in the hands of the
mother, or the fetus, they are simply instigated by the presence of the fetus,
the mother does not conciously choose to make these
changes, she chooses to accept any changes that are made based upon whether or not
she wants the child, and if abortion is not an option for whatever reason, then
there are indeed forced on her against her will.
McDonald
Thank you for finally admitting that it is “human.” Since
you recognize that it is a human, then you also, by necessity, also recognize
that it is not a parasite. A parasite is not a human and never will
be. A human fetus is a developing human and it is much different from a
parasite. That is why it isn’t considered a parasite, because it is a human,
even by your own admission. Thank you for that admission. Your
point is lost.
And again, putting words in my mouth.
I have stated, time and time again, that the only difference between a parasite
and a fetus, is that of one little notation "Species".
A point you have conveniently not adressed in any way
shape or form other than merely restating definitions that I already know, and
have made my case on.
Although if you choose to take that as an admission, you're perfectly free to,
by your own logic:
Your mother should have aborted you the first moment she found out that she had
a parasite (you) inside her.
You wish me dead.
Now, perhaps we could instead continue instead of making childish claims
regarding wording. Anyone can take a phrase out of context and claim the
high ground.
McDonald
I fear you need to revisit biology and natural law. Actually the mother’s
metabolism does not cause her to eat more. She is told by her doctor to
eat more and to gain more weight. Clearly you have never taken the time
to go with a woman to a visit with her OBGYN when she goes in for an
examination during pregnancy. I have! I have heard my wife’s doctor
tell her that she needs to gain some weight. For her?
NO! For the baby! You see, she is eating for two and she needs to
understand that. That is why he told her to eat more cheese, drink more
milk (my wife hates milk, but she willingly drank it so our son would be
healthy and have the minerals and vitamins he needed during the
pregnancy. So when she eats more she does it willingly so the baby will
be healthy. I have never heard of a doctor that would tell a woman to eat
more so that the parasite inside of her could grow.
Quick qeustion before I adress this.
When have I stated that the fetus ought be called a parasite to the host
(contrary to popular belief, I do not advocate randomly offending people, this
is a debate, I ought not have to vet my opinions for your benefit, only my
responses so that I am actually debating, and not antagonising),
or that doctors ought treat it as such?
http://www.babycentre.co.uk/pregnancy/nutrition/diethealthypregnancy/
http://www.amazingpregnancy.com/pregnancy-articles/579.html
http://www.vegsoc.org/info/preg.html
http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=specialneed&dbid=5
http://www.pregnancy-info.net/pregnancy_first_trimester.html
The consensus seems to be that appetite fluctuates during pregnancy in the
majority of cases, while I may not have been entirely accurate stating that it
simply increases, it tends to decrease during the first trimester, and increase
thereafter. Your standpoint, that appetite remains unchanged and that the
mother must actively eat more of her own accord, is in fact, wrong.
McDonald
An insect will stray away from a source of impending doom, if it is perceived
as such, but the fact remains that the insect does not have emotions, it does
not have a brain, a mind, a personality. All it has is instinct. A
baby, on the other hand does have emotions, a brain, a mind and a personality.
A crickets face may well be screaming
also if it had one capable of expression.
Fear is a base, instinctual response, we now apply it to things such as horror
movies, but that's purely due to our own sentience, fear in the animal kingdom
is there to ensure survival, if there was no fear, why would a cricket seek to
escape, or hide (under a stone or log for example), from something that may
well end its existence?
Insects may well not recognise their life on any
meaningful level, but they are still driven by hunger, seek shelter, and, at
least on some incredibly basic level, communicate (bees communicating that
there's food nearby, ants communicating by scent, a myriad of insects
'displaying' to avoid confrontation or to attract a mate, assassin bugs
spraying acrid gas when faced with threatening circumstances), and as fear is a
base instinct, I'm interested in what sources, proof, or reasoning you have
that states that they have no fear response, besides "Well it's not human,
and the fetus is." and sources that categorically state that the fetus is
capable of more than simple instinctual emotional responses.
McDonald
While relations between a man and his wife do feel
good it has two purposes (1) to propagate the race, and (2) it is the special
way that they show each other their love for each other. Anything other
than that is just recreation and we know the result of that don’t we?
Point 2 is a personal opinion and nothing more, proclaiming it as fact is
inherently flawed as you assume yourself to be the mold from which we all are
formed, the basis upon which we think.
We define our own purposes, other than point 1, your personal reasons are
irrelevant to a discussion, and have no place beign
put forward as fact without logical rationale to back them up.
McDonald
The fact that an infection is present, where the parasite is, shows that the
parasite caused the infection. It causes infection and whether they are
fatal or not has to do with whether or not treatment is administered.
Tumors which are benign need to be removed so they won’t become
malignant. Benign does not mean that they cannot become malignant, it must means that they aren’t at the time.
I would want any tumor removed so that it wouldn’t have the opportunity to
become malignant.
You entirely miss the point. In the cases of some parasites, the
infection is not simply where the parasite is, it is itself the parasite.
Some parasites do cause infection, some merely make us more susceptible to
infection, but some of them, merely are the infection themselves, and bring
about no others, and as I have proven, the fetus increases the chances of a
very few, but still existent, infections, also, it necessitates a change of
lifestyle to the host in order for the hosts health, or the fetus' health, to
remain in part, unaffected.
Indeed, it does have nothing to do with whether treatment is administered, I
never stated that it did, what I said was that the choice to remove it is in
the hands of the person that has it, and can be turned down if people wish it,
why anyone would in the cases of generic parasites and tumours
(to clarify, as I know you'd take this out of context if I allowed it, by
generic, I mean other than the fetus, IE, those with no potential to become
human), is beyond me, but the fact is that the choice is still there.
McDonald
Why would you say the fetus is a parasite if you don’t
think that it is? If it is a parasite why would anyone get
pregnant? I can see it now, the woman tells her girl friends, “O, I have
a parasite inside of me, isn’t that great?” Another says, “Yes, let’s
throw a parasite shower for her! Do you want a boy or girl?” I made
no attempt to lash out, I just wanted to bring your
statements to their logical conclusions. And besides what could you
possibly know about Christianity?
You say you made no attempt to lash out, yet this post is filled with
assumptions about my ideals, my opinions, my political stance. It is
filled with slanderous accusations as to what I have said and what I
think. It is filled with insinuated attacks on my person. Which I shall detail and cite for you later.
As for the logical conclusion, the logical conclusion I was making was not that
everyone ought view the fetus as nothing more than a parasite, I merely stated
that it ought not be afforded legal status based on potential, and as the
mother is wholly and completely, uniquely, and potentially unconsentingly,
responsible for it, the mother ought be able to make this decision for herself.
As for what I know about Christianity, I used to be a Christian, I was one for
15 years of my life, used to study the bible, and have read it from cover to
cover a number of times. My faith may be gone, but knowledge does not
dissipate as such. Based upon your judgements
on myself, your insults, and your slander, I put the same question to
you: What could you possibly know about Christianity?
And to prove my point, as to my knowledge, and your behaviour:
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
-- Exodus
Thou shalt not raise a false report: put not thine
hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness. -- Exodus 23:1 (Your
viewpoints on the fetus' nutritional intake and sustainment
by the mother, while sustaining that you already knew this despite
contradictory points in this very same post)
Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people:neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbour; I am the LORD. -- Leviticus
Devise not evil against thy neighbour, seeing he dwelleth securely by thee. Strive not with a man without
cause, if he have done thee no harm. Envy thou not the
oppressor, and choose none of his ways. -- Proverbs 3:29-31 (You have turned a
simple civil debate into a personal attack against myself, see the various citation below).
Put away from thee a froward mouth, and perverse lips
put far from thee. -- Proverbs 4:24 (Your constant twisting my words out of
context, and putting your own in my mouth, again cited and detailed below).
Need I go on?
As I stated, you're not exactly acting the good Christian, but in truth, that
is irrelevant, as is what I do or do not know about Chrsitianity.
McDonald
The term “underdeveloped” refers to having medical
knowledge, facilities and/or treatments, as well as cleanliness and other
factors. In our country if someone gets a tapeworm, they go to a doctor
and get medication to get rid of it. If they didn’t then problem would
get serious. However, in the underdeveloped countries the reason that
pregnancies cause problems, is not because of the
fetus, but because of the fact that the people don’t have the medical
knowledge, attention and/or facilities to properly guide the pregnant woman
through. The problem doesn’t come as a result of being pregnant, but as a
result of not knowing how or being able to care for the unborn. In this
country a woman can get pregnant and some have even been known to have their
children at home with the help of a mid-wife. I have even heard of girls
giving birth to healthy babies without ever seeing a doctor. Our
knowledge is better than knowledge in the underdeveloped countries.
Similarly, tapeworms cause problems in those areas because those people do not
have the medical knowledge, very few parasites are fatal over here due to that,
similarly, very few pregnancies are fatal over here
due to aforementioned medical knowledge. You have here in no way refuted
my point, childbirth kills one in 16 mothers in severely under developed
countries, this is due to a lack of medical knowledge, parasites kill a great
deal in under developed countries due to a lack of medical knowldge.
Yes, I too have heard of females giving birth without medical attention, it
also happens a lot in under developed nations, and 15 out of 16 survive, that
does not change that one in 16 do not, and that people survive it has no
bearing on this argument, as people survive parasitic infections also.
It's simply a matter of chance, all you've done here is state that it's a roll
of the dice, and that our dice is loaded due to our medical advancement.
McDonald
So what about Terri Schiavo? She was not a fetus. She
was not living inside anyone. Did you argue for her life? I am sure
you did! You see, she didn’t have any legal status because “she couldn’t
create nor develop her future.” So her cheating husband was allowed to
put her to death. Tell me, which side of that issue were you on?
This has no basis on this topic, Terry Schiavo's
situation, and that of a fetus are in no way the same, and the statement about
her legal status is similarly irrelevant.
Terry Schiavo was a grown, out of the womb, human being, who was voluntarily
cared for several years prior to her death, in the hope that she would recover,
how is this applicable to the position of mother and fetus?
Also, this case was a seven year legal battle, and standing by this:
You ought to go and be this former cop’s attorney. Maybe you could get
him off! As a matter of fact he got off on a lesser charge for killing
the mother than he did for killing the “parasite.” The address for this
is found at http://www.wcpo.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=7811933e-da69-4b9a-8f65-2a592f863b79&rss=703
From your good self regarding legality, and that you sarcastically insinuate
that the legal system is broken, meaning that you in fact do not believe
so. As you seem to like viewing things in black and white with only one
definition applicable regardless of other factors, I'd like to know how you
justify hopping across this fence regarding legality when it suits you.
McDonald
The first thing the pro-abortionist wants to charge anti-abortionists with is
religious convictions. Not so, these are moral convictions.
Religious laws have changed three times {Patriarical,
Mosaical, and Christian}, while moral laws never do. Murder always has
been wrong and it always will be. No one but God has the right to decide
who will live and who will die.
Other than the issue regarding god, as I have no belief in him, I do see your
point, and thus concede it, your religious nature has no bearing on whether
your statements are right or wrong, especially not when reasoned, and backed
with evidence.
McDonald
Here is your statement: “What it can be is its potential, as a 22 year
old I shall become a 23 year old, as a 23 year old I shall become a 24 year
old, etc, etc I can never become anything else, and I can never be anything less,
even as a corpse time will continue to pass, I may die at 22, but when the 23rd
year rolls around, am I still that age?” Your example here, if it wasn’t
showing that at 22 you were less human than you would be at 23 has no bearing
on the discussion because your argument in the discussion is that the “fetus is
not human, it has the potential of becoming human.” If your age argument
was not on the same slide then you had no business making it. At 22 you
are no less a human than you will be at 23, and at the fetal stage the fetus is
no less a human than at birth. The only difference in either example is a
matter of age and development. I think you are finally starting to see
the fallacy of your position, you just don’t want to
give it up yet.
Excuse me?
I stated that potential is nothing to base a claim on, at 22 I shall become 23,
it doesn't mean I am, and I never in any way insinuated that I would be more
human AT 23.
I have stated several times that after birth, you have fulfilled that potential,
and that birth is where I believe life begins. I have also made my case as to
why the fetus is a parasite, while the baby is not. I have stated that
the fetus is not a parasite purely due to species, and why that argument is
flawed. You have refuted no points, and taken my quote entirely out of
context, stated my stance for me, and refuted it with another out of context
quotation.
Allow me to clarify, concisely, so that there can be little misunderstanding,
if you are unsure of where I stand even after repeated enforcement of exactly
what I'm saying, I'll be more than happy to explain in more detail, all you
need do is ask.
The fetus is a parasite with the potential to be human.
Potential should not afford legal status.
The fetus relies entirely upon the mother for all aspects of it's
growth, nutrition, and sustainment.
The mother does not consent to this, it happens, and she accepts, or does not.
The mother should have the option to not accept these changes she had no say
in.
The mother should have the right to do with her body as she wishes, and as the
fetus grows inside her, feeds from her predigested food, gains oxygen from her
own lungs, and increases her heart rate to support itself, she is entirely, and
uniquely responsible for the fetus, she ought have the right to remove it.
Simply because it behaves like a parasite does not mean that I view it with
similar disdain.
Simply because it behaves like a parasite does not mean that its potential does
not diferrentiate it from a generic parasite, but that
ought not afford it legal status.
Simply because potential is all it has, does not mean that no-one should aknowledge that potential, or not have children.
Simply because i consider it a parasite, does not mean I believe it should
forcibly be removed.
Simply because I consider it a parasite, does not mean I do not aknowledge the happiness a child can bring to a couple, or
that I have no intention of being a father in the future.
Hopefully, this will allow you to actually understand my viewpoint, rather than your constant assumptions, accusations, insults,
and misrepresentation.
McDonald
So, in other words, your parents were just having
fun. They weren’t expressing their love for each other, and they weren’t
planning a family. They were just having fun? My relationship with
my wife has never been about my recreation, but to express my love for her and
in hopes of having another child (although we are both too old for that now and
I am sterile because of cancer treatments). Now our relations are for the
purpose of expressing our love one for another.
I wrote up a response for this and deleted it.
What my parents were or were not doing, and for what purpose,
has no relevance to the topic of abortion, the reasoning or logic behind
my opinions, or how valid they are.
Kindly remain on topic rather than deflecting attention and making assumptions
about how I feel.
McDonald
What assumptions are you talking about?
I'll just make a short list, with direct quotations from yourself. And no, I won't use this post, as I'm
pointing those out as I go along, or citing them later.
It can hear and understand.
Where exactly is the research that state categorically
that it can understand such things on a level comparable to a human?
Keep going and you will end up standing with the Humanist Manifesto II.
Maybe you do already, you just don’t know it yet.
The first of a number of assumptions about my political
standpoint.
Their health is not adversely affected at all
You assume (without ground to stand on) that due to your personal experience of
your wifes pregnancy, all are like that, and that due
to medical advice on diet, exercise, etc, etc, that there are no adverse
effects to pregnancy because you practiced preventative measures.
Similarly, research tellsus
otherwise.
If you are a male, I would advise that you never marry and reproduce. If you
do, don’t ever tell your wife when she tells you she is pregnant that she is
carrying around a parasite inside of her and she needs to get rid of it because
it is doing nothing but adversely affecting her health and is contributing
nothing.
You assume that I do not recognise the value of a
child, that I'm cold and insensitive, and that I believe all fetuses should be
gotten rid of regardless of my statement that choice is paramount.
It doesn’t have a “mind of sorts,” it has a “mind” period. It thinks and is
able to understand.
You assume (based on a propoganda video, IE, clearly
biased), that you are an expert on the topic of fetal brain activity and
development, and the scope of what they can and cannot feel based on an
emotional response you had to that video.
The baby is there at the behest of the father and mother and is there for
the purpose of securing a blood line.
You assume that everyone plans there pergnancies, and
wants them.
Next time you see a pregnant woman walk up to her and tell her that she is
just carrying around a parasite or a tumor and she needs to have it removed.
Again, you assume that I think abortion shuold be
mandatory, and everyone should practice it.
Go ask your mother if she thought you were a parasite when she was pregnant
with you.
Have you asked your mother about this? What does she say? Ask her why she
didn’t abort you? Ask her if she thought you were a tumor that needed to be
removed.
You assume my mother shared your view, and that that, in some way, invalidates
my arguments.
Should every fetus be aborted?
Irrelevant really, as you've already answered this question yourself based on
your assumptions as to my stance.
If everyone thought like you there would be no humans on the planet. We
would all be dead!
You assume that I legislate death, when I do no such thing, I merely examine
what I see, and come to what I percieve as a logical,
unbiased conclusion, we are all free to an opinion, yet you assume and attack
with personal things, rather than adressing the
point.
Moving on.
McDonald
Well, I can see that you didn’t like my statement, but actually I think quite
highly of logic. I wish you would use some in your articles.
I'll admit my statement there was below the belt, and I apologise,
but with someone repeatedly ignoring a number of points you've made, while adressing other ones, and twisting others, keeping a calm and
level head is no easy task.
McDonald
But it’s not my opinion. That is what the Medical Dictionary said about a
fetus. Find where it says that the fetus is a parasite?
As I stated, and you've failed to adress numerous
times, the fetus displays the same properties as a parasite, the difference is
potential, and species, that is all, point to me where, apart from the species
part, the definition of parasite differs from the reality of what a fetus does,
without bringing potential outside the womb into it, because after that I aknowledge it as completely human.
McDonald
I do believe that the operative word on the first link is “hypothetical,” since
they have never had a successful experiment. As far as experimentation is
concerned there has been more of it than you know. Stalin tried for years
to get it right, and he never did.
Proof and sources please, as all the sources I can find say otherwise about
Stalin's supposed experiments.
Conspiracy theory is something for another topic, as I've said before, can we
stick with the facts please.
McDonald
No, that 2% difference was put there by God because humans and chimpanzees are
two different kinds. They are not related to each other, other than the
fact that they are both mammals. We are not a different species from chimpanzees, we are a different kind altogether. A
Zebra is a different species from a horse, but they are not a different kind so
they can crossbreed. A chimpanzee and human are two different kinds, so
they cannot crossbreed.
This is, frankly, a matter of opinion, as no extensive testing has been done on
the topic due to various ethical concerns and so on.
And yes, hypothetical is the key word, I made no claims otherwise, I was merely
pointing out that as no research has been done, your claims that we are unable
to crossbreed are similarly hypothetical, as no experiments with any depth
whatsoever have been made.
McDonald
God did leave proof of his existence. Paul wrote “For the invisible
things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood
by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they
are without excuse” (Romans
So, after giving people freewill and a critical mind, god leaves no other proof
than "Make your own mind up."
Remarkably convenient, not leaving any tangible sense around for people to have
in order to say yeah, you're right, god does exist.
In that case then it's a matter of faith, believe it all you wish, I do not
begrudge you your beliefs, but similarly, I ought not be begrudged for basing
my opinions in fact, instead of faith. Similarly, faith is not relevant
to this debate.
McDonald
Well, I don’t know what I was supposed to have missed, because I have answered
that post. Now, if you can look at the pictures and the videos that I
have linked in this post for you to see, and still say that the unborn is a
parasite, then there is nothing more that I can do for you.
Actually you answered every post -BUT- that one. Forgive me if I'm wrong
there, care to hand me a link to the post in which you answered my points?
McDonald
I don’t intend to discuss this issue further with you. I have made my
point and it has to stop somewhere, so I’ll let it stop here. You are, of
course, free to respond, but I won’t be responding to you unless there is
something of interest. Frankly I get tired of the same old
rhetoric. If you want to challenge the authenticity of these photos and
videos go ahead, that would be something that might be of further interest, but
as far the abortion discussion is concerned I see no point of discussing it
further.
If you're calling an end to it without allowing someone to rebuke Jerry, I'm
not surprised you've been winning all these arguments, making personal attacks
and assumptions about peoples standing based upon them having a view different
to yours.
You claim to be a great debater with years of experience, but anyone can debate
a topic and claim victory while deciding where it's done with no prior
arrangement thereof.
Feel free to think you're serving some higher purpose though, but all you're
really doing by disengaging without giving someone the chance to retort, is
encouraging ignorance.
Now, as stated before, the logical fallacies you've employed, in this post
alone.
1. Ad Hominem:
Ad hominem is when a statement is made about a persons character, circumstances,
or actions, and taken as evidence that this persons argument must be wrong
because of it.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
The three examples that stand out most prominently:
What part of that did you not understand? O, I know, we can’t rely too
much on dictionaries can we. Nope! We have to make up our own
definitions so we can’t be pinned down on certain weaknesses of our
positions. Whenever someone brings up a dictionary definition we say “Well,
we shouldn’t rely too much on dictionaries.” I mean why should we, those definitions are only there because that is
what the words mean, so why pay attention to it? You know it is no wonder
why we graduate so many illiterates in this country. They make up their
own definitions to words (often that go in opposition to the dictionary
definitions) and we say that everyone should have the right to decide how
he/she will define the word.
Stating that I'm illiterate, and disregarding the dictionary, therefore am
wrong.
All I said about the fetus definition is that it describes what it is, not what
it does, and that the fetus fits the parasite descriptive in all but one
incredibly restrictive field, which I have illustrated to be absurd as per my
point about champagne from a different region not being champagne.
A point you failed to adress.
Why would you bother
reproducing? You want to put a parasite inside of a woman. You must
really hate women.
Why would you want to reproduce? Why would you want to put a parasite inside
of a woman? Do you hate women that much? Did some women do
something to you, when you were young, to make you have such a hatred for
women? And if you honestly believe that a child brings nothing but stress
into the family why do it? Did you bring stress into your parent’s
lives? Did your mother tell you that you were a parasite inside of
her? Is that why you hate women, hate them enough to put parasites inside
of them? Did your mom tell you that you caused her stress in her life?
Is that why you hate women enough to put parasites inside them? Did you
think before you typed that?
Irrelevant and utterly baseless claims that I hate women, therefore must be wrong as I endorse placing
parasites inside them.
If you are not already married, which
I really hope you don’t ruin some girl’s life by marrying her, I wouldn’t marry
if I were you. Not with an attitude like yours. I can just see it
now. Your wife says: “O honey, I am pregnant, see the stripe is
blue.” And you say: “O big deal, its just a
parasite, go to the doctor and he will give you a pill and you’ll be rid of
it.” But whatever you do, don’t call it a baby and tell people how much
you love it after saying it was nothing but a parasite for the nine months it
was inside of your wife. And when your wife is pregnant, tell them she
isn’t pregnant, she just has a tumor or a parasite inside of her.
Stating that I must hate babies because of my stance, this is irrelevant to the
debate and baseless, I have said nothing to support the idea that I hate women,
or hate babies, or indeed that I hate the fetus.
2. Ad Populum:
Ad populum is when a statement is profesed
as true because a great deal of people are favourably
inclined toward the claim.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html
Some examples that stick out:
When the one on the sonogram saw the
needle coming toward it, the emotion of fear kicked in and it screamed a
“silent scream.” Forgive me for not being hard as nails about it, but I
just have a problem with people killing babies.
Specifically the part about killing babies, utterly irrelevant
as I have made no statement supporting infant genocide, this is merely an
appeal to popularity to rally to your side, it is also an appeal to emotion,
and shall be in that selection of fallacies.
Only people who have no moral decency
view it for nothing more than recreation. O, I want to have fun, so I’ll
find a girl and have sex with her. No reason, just for fun. It is
the “just for fun” reason that has caused sexually transmitted diseases over
the years including aids.
Your opinion is your opinion, merely because it's popular does not make it
correct.
Here are pictures of aborted, what
you call parasites. Do these look like tapeworms to you? Do they
look like tumors to you? Man you need to get your eyes checked. Now
you say that the fetus is nothing more than a parasite before birth, but I
challenge you to check out this video (the first one especially) and tell me
that the fetus is nothing more than a parasite. Do the pictures look like
any parasite you have ever seen?
"Because the fetus does not look like a parasite, every statement you have
made is therefore false, and does not require rebuke.
Also an appeal to emotion and a personal attack.
3. Ad Baculum:
Ad baculum is an appeal to fear, that if this were to
happen, this unfavourable circumstance intended to
generate fear in the readers/listeners, would therefore happen. Therefore
this claim is false.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-fear.html
Examples:
Why? I mean after all it was
just a parasite wasn’t it? Andrea should have gone to the doctor and had
him give her a pill to kill the unneeded piece of scum. Who wants a
parasite living in them? If that is all it was, then why would you even
bother to offer your condolences? Do you realize that your position on
this makes us nothing but varmints? There is no real purpose for us on
this earth we are just something that probably needs to be eradicated.
How could something good and useful come from a parasite?
This states that my ideals would make us nothing more than
animals with no purpose, while that may be an unfavourable
circumstance to some, that does not invalidate the evidence put forward.
Similarly, we would deserve eradication, another appeal to fear.
When my wife lost our first child due
to miscarriage, she did not eat right, sleep good or
even smile for the longest. She wanted that child. She wanted to
raise it. She wanted to see it grow up. She wanted to nurture it.
When that option was taken from her, it hurt her and had she not been a strong
minded individual it could have taken a toll on her mental and physical
health. Some women have gone insane because they have not been able to
carry a child. Some women have even committed suicide because they have
not been able to carry children.
This states that if women were incapable of carrying children or
did not want to, they would go insane. This is not the case in a great
number of individuals, and regardless, has no relevance to the validity of my claims, it is there simply to sway people against it because
"if this were true, this would happen, therefore you are wrong."
Similarly, your statement is biased, as some women do NOT want children.
I recently found an article that
actually goes along, very well, with this subject about a former
"If we took your stance, people would get away with
aborting pregnancies forcibly!"
I don't think I need to explain that one.
4. Ad Misericordiam
Ad misericordiam (Appeal to pity), is when someone
substitutes a claim intended to create pity for evidence.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-pity.html
Examples:
When my wife lost our first child due
to miscarriage, she did not eat right, sleep good or
even smile for the longest. She wanted that child. She wanted to
raise it. She wanted to see it grow up. She wanted to nurture
it. When that option was taken from her, it hurt her and had she not been
a strong minded individual it could have taken a toll on her mental and
physical health. Some women have gone insane because they have not been
able to carry a child. Some women have even committed suicide because
they have not been able to carry children.
As much as I hate to say it, and I am
truly sorry, this experience does not constitute evidence for your claim, her
response to something is a personal thing, and cannot on any account be applied
across the board.
Why? I mean after all it was
just a parasite wasn’t it? Andrea should have gone to the doctor and had
him give her a pill to kill the unneeded piece of scum. Who wants a
parasite living in them? If that is all it was, then why would you even
bother to offer your condolences? Do you realize that your position on
this makes us nothing but varmints? There is no real purpose for us on
this earth we are just something that probably needs to be eradicated.
How could something good and useful come from a parasite?
Again, attempts to generate pity from ones
audience in order to invalidate my points, but bad circumstance does not
constitute evidence.
5. Appeal to Ridicule
An appeal to ridicule is made when a persons point is misrepresented as
something ridiculous. Not to be confused with reductio
ad absurdum, as that is a representation of the opponents position as
ridiculous in a way that sticks to the point and is not misrepresented.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html
Examples:
Why would you say the fetus is a
parasite if you don’t think that it is? If it is a parasite why would
anyone get pregnant? I can see it now, the woman tells her girl friends,
“O, I have a parasite inside of me, isn’t that great?” Another says,
“Yes, let’s throw a parasite shower for her! Do you want a boy or
girl?” I made no attempt to lash out, I just
wanted to bring your statements to their logical conclusions. And besides
what could you possibly know about Christianity?
I never stated that the fetus is purely and simply a parasite
and noting more, therefore you have misrepresented my position in favour of reducing it to ridicule. My position is
nothing to do with your statement.
If you are not already married, which
I really hope you don’t ruin some girl’s life by marrying her, I wouldn’t marry
if I were you. Not with an attitude like yours. I can just see it
now. Your wife says: “O honey, I am pregnant, see the stripe is
blue.” And you say: “O big deal, its just
a parasite, go to the doctor and he will give you a pill and you’ll be rid of
it.” But whatever you do, don’t call it a baby and tell people how much
you love it after saying it was nothing but a parasite for the nine months it
was inside of your wife. And when your wife is pregnant, tell them she
isn’t pregnant, she just has a tumor or a parasite inside of her.
As above.
What part of that did you not
understand? O, I know, we can’t rely too much on dictionaries can
we. Nope! We have to make up our own definitions so we can’t be
pinned down on certain weaknesses of our positions. Whenever someone
brings up a dictionary definition we say “Well, we shouldn’t rely too much on
dictionaries.” I mean why should we, those
definitions are only there because that is what the words mean, so why pay
attention to it? You know it is no wonder why we graduate so many
illiterates in this country. They make up their own definitions to words
(often that go in opposition to the dictionary definitions) and we say that
everyone should have the right to decide how he/she will define the word.
Again, not my standpoint, I've explained this multiple times, I'm not arguing
with the definitions, what I'm stating is what the fetus is, and what it
does/how it survives, are not in any way, shape, or form the same thing, adn that how the fetus exists is fitting with the parasite
definition in all but species, a point you have conveniently ignored,
consistently simply requoting text I've already aknowledged, and stated my point about, with a reductio ad absurdum to illustrate that A is not B because
it doesn't come from C, is absurd.
6. Appeal to Spite
An appeal to spite is when someone substitutes
evidence for a claim with the intention of generating spite. Spite is
however, not evidence.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-spite.html
Examples:
Why would you bother
reproducing? You want to put a parasite inside of a woman. You must
really hate women.
Claiming that I wish to put parasites in women, and in fact hate
them. I have neither said, nor implied, any such thing.
I recently found an article that
actually goes along, very well, with this subject about a former
Claiming that I support forcible
abortion, and criminality.
When the one on the sonogram saw the
needle coming toward it, the emotion of fear kicked in and it screamed a
“silent scream.” Forgive me for not being hard as nails about it, but I
just have a problem with people killing babies.
Implying that I have no problem with
killing babies.
7. False Dilemma
A false dilemma is when created when a person states a
claim, and the two possible outcomes, this is of course fallacious as neither
could be correct.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.html
Examples:
It is not irrelevant twaddle.
It is a fact. I don’t know how your mother felt about abortion, but
chances are she didn’t feel that you were a parasite,
otherwise she would have got rid of you before you were born. If you were
the parasite inside of her that you say fetuses are then your mother should
have aborted you; that is unless, of course, she loved have a parasite inside
of her.
If she did not view me as a human being, either she would get an
abortion, or she viewed me as a parasite, nothing more, and enjoyed having a
parasite inside her.
Despite this having no bearing on the topic, neither claim is true. she in fact did not view me as a living breathing human, but
having the potential to become a son or daughter, and thus carried me to term.
Why would you bother
reproducing? You want to put a parasite inside of a woman. You must
really hate women.
Either I hate women, or I have no desire to reproduce.
Also false, I do want a child someday, and regardless of how the fetus behaves,
I recognise it's potential,
and recognise the happiness a child can bring, I
simply don't think potential should afford it legal status.
8. Guilt by Association.
This is a fallacy in which the persons claim is rejected on the basis on unfavourable groups or people supporting it.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/guilt-by-association.html
Examples:
Here are pictures of aborted, what
you call parasites. Do these look like tapeworms to you? Do they
look like tumors to you? Man you need to get your eyes checked. Now
you say that the fetus is nothing more than a parasite before birth, but I challenge
you to check out this video (the first one especially) and tell me that the
fetus is nothing more than a parasite. Do the pictures look like any
parasite you have ever seen?
Because my claim is supported by Dr. Tiller, it is therefore wrong.
My our justice
system is crooked. I’ll tell you, why don’t you run for President and you
can run on the platform that the unborn is nothing but a parasite? Maybe
Planned Parenthood would back you!
Planned Parenthood shows support of abortion, therefore my claim is wrong.
9. Ad Verecundiam
Ad verecundiam is commited
when the opinion of an authority with no experience in a specific field is
taken as fact.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html
Example:
I recently found an article that
actually goes along, very well, with this subject about a former
A judge, someone with no experience in the field of pregnancy
and fetal growth, has given a fetus legal status in this instance, as this was amde by a judge, it therefore has to be correct, as a judge
is a strong authority figure.
10. Appeal to Emotion
This is a fallcy by which an emotional response is
taken to validate or invalidate a claim, however, how someone reacts to
something emotionally does not in any way alter or invalidate the claims and
evidence to the contrary.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-emotion.html
Examples:
Here are pictures of aborted, what
you call parasites. Do these look like tapeworms to you? Do they
look like tumors to you? Man you need to get your eyes checked. Now
you say that the fetus is nothing more than a parasite before birth, but I
challenge you to check out this video (the first one especially) and tell me
that the fetus is nothing more than a parasite. Do the pictures look like
any parasite you have ever seen?
My emotional response to something, and those of other people, do no effect the
validity of my reasoning, and similarly, a point made purely to ellicit an emotional response is not evidence for your
point, or against mine.
Any doctor worth his salt is going to
tell a person with a tumor or a parasite to get rid of it. However, most
doctors naturally assume that the woman wants to keep her baby, unless she
tells them different. Whether you actively support abortion across the
board, you do support it when you support abortion by choice. Most
abortions in this country are done simply because the mother doesn’t want to be
bothered with the child, or she doesn’t want to get caught at cheating.
Very few are for rape. Even fewer have to do with saving the mother’s
life (eptoptic pregnancy).
Why an abortion is commited is irrelevant to the
topic of whether it is or is not justified in this case, as I have never stated
I support abortion only in case of rape.
Therefore someones emotional response on why they are
or are not committed is irrelevant.
11. Personal Attack
A personal attack is where someone substitutes abusive
remarks as evidence.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/personal-attack.html
This is by far the most common that you've made,
examples:
Forgive me for not being hard as
nails about it, but I just have a problem with people killing babies.
Here are pictures of aborted, what you call parasites.
Well, if the fetus is nothing but a parasite then, all it will do is cause
biological, mental, emotional as well as spiritual detriment. Your mother
should have aborted you the first moment she found out that she had a parasite
(you) inside her. Then you and I wouldn’t be having this absurd
discussion. What a terrible thing that she didn’t do that! Tell me,
how much detriment did you bring to your mother’s biological and emotional
health? As far as being capable of diversity, parasites aren’t capable of
anything other than living off the host.
Why would you bother reproducing? You want to put a parasite inside of a
woman. You must really hate women.
You are realistic? You have a desire to put a parasite inside a woman and
you call yourself realistic. I would never have impregnated my wife if I
had ever thought that I was putting a parasite inside of her.
And when your wife is pregnant, tell them she isn’t pregnant, she just has a
tumor or a parasite inside of her.
After all he made it possible that she would not have be
diversely affected any longer by the parasite that was inside her. You
ought to go and be this former cop’s attorney. Maybe you could get him
off! As a matter of fact he got off on a lesser charge for killing the
mother than he did for killing the “parasite.”
Why would you want to reproduce? Why would you want to put a parasite
inside of a woman? Do you hate women that much? Did some women do
something to you, when you were young, to make you have such a hatred for
women? And if you honestly believe that a child brings nothing but stress
into the family why do it? Did you bring stress into your parent’s
lives? Did your mother tell you that you were a parasite inside of
her? Is that why you hate women, hate them enough to put parasites inside
of them? Did your mom tell you that you caused her stress in her
life? Is that why you hate women enough to put parasites inside
them? Did you think before you typed that?
1. Implying I have no problem with people killing
babies.
2. Implying that I call them parasites and nothing more, all I've said is that
they fit the parasite descriptive in all but species, something you've said
nothing on that I haven't refuted time and time again.
3. My mother shuold have aborted me, that I, not a
specific claim I have made, is absurd.
4. That I hate women and wish to put parasites in them.
5. That I'm unrealistic and with to put parasites in women.
6. That I view all pregnancies as parasitic infections.
7. That I would be insulted that a fetus has been afforded legal status after
being forcibly aborted during a murder case.
8. That I hate women, that I wish to put parasites in them, that a child brings
nothing but stress (despite my primary point being the joy they bring), again
that I hate women, and want to put parasites in
them. Again that I hate women, and finally, that ignorance sparked this
personal attack on myself, despite you answering none of the points I stated in
that. IE, would people cease any and all compulsion to have
children and reproduce purely because they believe that the fetus has the
potential to be human, but behaves as a parasite?
12: Poisoning the Well
This sort of reasoning involves trying to discredit what someone may later
claim by presenting unfavourable information, be it
true or false.
The main example of this, is in fact on your website.
With thinking like this it is of
little wonder that we have so many people standing for abortion. As you
can see, he compares the human fetus to a parasite or a tumor to be removed as
though it was something harmful to the mother's body. He/she even says
that the fetus adversely affects the woman's health.
With attempts to make my reasoning and my stance seem ridiculous beforehand,
you are already influencing people to discard what I say.
Secondly, these claims are false, and not a representation of my position, I
have compared fetus and parasite, and you have done little to refute me in any
satisfactory manner that I have not revealed as flawed, I have never stated
that it should definitively and categorically been removed, not advocated
taking the choice from the hands of the mother, and it certainly is harmful to
the mothers body in some ways, and I have presented medical evidence of this,
which you have ignored.
13. Strawman
I've presented a few of these throughout the topic. This is when someone
ignores someones actual position, and substitutes a
distorted, exagerrated, or misrepresented version of
that position that he then refutes.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html
Examples, and why they are strawmen.
You said that it did nothing for the
mother, and now it seems that you are saying that it does nothing for the
mother biologically.
Wrong, I have, all along, stated that it has little to no biological benefit,
and that it in fact has biological detriment, I have cited a website with
medical information of some detrimental changes, and it is abundantly evident
that the mother needs a larger intake of nutrients, as the fetus detracts from
what would otherwise sustain her body.
You are the one that introduced the emotional and spiritual side of benefits, a
point which is subjective and depends on how someone views the pregnancy (IE,
whether or not it is a desired pregnanc, notnecessarily planned, but wanted), and which I accepted
as true in your case, but that it's illogical to think that this state of mind
is unanimous, that it differs from person to person, and that it therefore has
no influence as evidence for your claim.
Now we see that the Merriam-Webster’s
Medical Dictionary says that a fetus is “an unborn or unhatched
vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind;
specifically: a developing human from usually two months after conception
to birth.” Where does this dictionary say anything about the fetus being
a parasite? It doesn’t does it? No, it
says that it is an unborn or unhatched vertebrate
especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind. It also
says that specifically it is a developing human. When it comes to that
communication means absolutely nothing. How can we communicate if we
don’t agree on the definitions of words?
I never once stated that it was not, I view, in this case, development as the
fulfillment of potential, and again you utterly bypassed my point about the
fetus fitting the parasite descriptive in all but species, and I demonstrated
how ridiculous stating that it categorically is not a parasite due to this, but
illustrating how absurd it is to claim that champagne is not champagne unless it
is produced in said region of France, regardless of the fact that the process,
etc, etc, is exactly the same.
Yes, we understand that this is how the baby gets it food and oxygen.
However, this does not make it a parasite. If it was just a parasite why
did the former Ohio cop get a guilty verdict for aggravated murder when he
killed the unborn child? Why aren’t you all up in arms about this and out
there trying to tell the people of that “lunatic” state that this man did
nothing but kill a parasite? I am sure, since you seem to know so much,
you ought to find people who will agree with you and help you get this man off
death’s row (provided that’s where they put him), and actually it would be
better for him to go on death row than to put an ex-cop in general
population. For what? Killing a
parasite? My our justice system is
crooked. I’ll tell you, why don’t you run for President and you can run
on the platform that the unborn is nothing but a parasite? Maybe Planned
Parenthood would back you!
I merely support a persons right to choose, and do not feel that they should be
forced to carry children that they do not want, to term.
I have never stated that I support murdering children, unborn or otherwise, or
that abortion should be mandatory, or that forced abortion is an acceptable
thing.
This is nothing but assumption, and you putting words in my mouth.
Thank you for finally admitting that it is “human.” Since you
recognize that it is a human, then you also, by necessity, also recognize that
it is not a parasite. A parasite is not a human and never will be.
A human fetus is a developing human and it is much different from a
parasite. That is why it isn’t considered a parasite, because it is a
human, even by your own admission. Thank you for that admission.
Your point is lost.
I'm not entirely sure where to start here...
Alright, to begin, I have time and again stated that a fetus has potential, it
is a human in the making, and that it relies entirely and uniquely upon the
mother for sustenance in every instance, and that it grows inside her.
I have stated that the only thing that differentiates a fetus from a parasite
by definition, is the species portion of said definition of parasite, and have
shown this to be absurd, a matter which you disregarded out of hand regardless
of it being a perfectly apt comparison of logic. This is called reductio ad absurdum, or, reducing to absurdity, and unlike
an appeal to ridicule, it does not misrepresent the point.
IE. You claim that the fetus cannot be a parasite,
regardless of its behaviour fitting all necessary
parameters, because it is of the same species. My statement was that this
is illogical, and followed thus: champagne cannot be champagne if it is made
outside of said region of France, regardless of it being exactly the same in
every other way.
It is absurd that champagne could be considered any different due to it being
produced elsewhere but in exactly the same manner, therefore, it is ridiculous
to say that the fetus is any different to a parasite purely because it is of a
different species. The fetus has potential, nothing more.