Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A fetus is attached to and part of the mother's body until birth.
THAT is science.
Or, maybe you would prefer getting real basic......a fetus, is, in fact.....a parasite...... that cannot survive without its host.
If the host is unwilling, game over.
Oh, please!!!! You are unbelievably brainwashed.
Your first statement is false because, while the fetus is attached through the umbilical cord to the placenta (itself an organ), it is NOT connected directly to the woman's body.
The fetus is not a parasite!
From Wikipedia: Parasitism is a non-mutual symbiotic relationship between species, where one species, the parasite, benefits at the expense of the other, the host.
Is the fetus a different species; i.e., non-human? No, it is not.
You are getting desperate. And, your ignorance of science and biology is glaringly obvious. Give it up! You are on the losing end of this debate. You are grasping at straws.
Not really. It is the very definition of a parasite: an organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense.
What part of that is not accurate?
From Wikipedia: Parasitism is a non-mutual symbiotic relationship between species, where one species, the parasite, benefits at the expense of the other, the host.
Yes...all to true. I've seen that view expressed on this site, many times. Often, it is expressed in the most vulgar, unfeeling, flat vicious , terms possible, to more greatly shock and disgust people who disagree. I hate this subject for that specific reason, yet, a subject of constant "discussion" it remains.
To my thinking, this is a personal, (very) moral and clinical decision. Both ends of this subject have valid points, but the far flung extreme ends , neither have any credibility, to me. I'm sure the usual suspects on this board, will pounce on this thread, soon.
That's because some people think life is something special and worth preserving. No matter what your religious beliefs, life is something unique. Those who have been lucky enough to be given life have hit the lotto. The question we must answer is is it right for one human being to decide that the life of another has no value. It's not what it is now that is the debate but what it could be. All an embryo needs is time go grow up and then there is no doubt what it is. For some of us it's hard to wrap our brains around how anyone can deny the obvious and that is that each and every one of us started as that same "clump of cells" and if those cells had been destroyed WE would have been destroyed. I honestly don't know how women who have had abortions live with the knowledge they ended a life before it had a chance to really start. Do they ever think that that "clump of cells" would be entering kindergarten next year if they'd let it live? Of what it might have become had they let it live?
I know one person who had an abortion and she has struggled with her decision. Once she crossed what would have been her due date that "clump of cells" became "the would be baby". I remember her call to me on that day like it was yesterday. She was crying and all she could say was "Today is the day the would be baby should have been born.". That abortion ripped a hole in her soul. It was not until she stopped her own daughter from making the same mistake that she found the strength to forgive herself. She has a granddaughter who now stands in the place of the "would be baby".
I have no idea why we're even debating this. It's not about what we do with our bodies as our bodies are not the ones being ripped limb from limb, suctioned out and dumped down the toilet.
Better then condemning and characterizing an innocent child as a "parasite".
I am thinking that this makes it easier to end the life of their baby. It is an unborn baby but I am guessing if they had to speak those words "ended the life of my unborn baby", it would be a little more uncomfortable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie53
What child? I was referring to a fetus, which is technically a parasite, whether you like it or not.
A fetus is the unborn young of a mammal.
So, would a baby that nurses from the mother be a "parasite" also? The baby would be dependent.
Despite all the silly arguments about a baby not being a baby if it is considered an inconvenience by the woman who is carrying the baby, it is very likely that the baby, although not wanted by the carrier, would be wanted if the carrier could inconvenience herself until the birth. Many families and couples would be more than happy to adopt these children, even those that are born with disabilities.
It comes down to whatever the woman carrying the baby wants to tell herself in order for her to end the life of her baby.
We have a son with disabilities born to a young mother that opted for adoption instead of abortion. I am so glad she did not just classify him as a "parasite".
Let us not forget the boom that the abortion industry was and is and that plays into the whole picture in a huge way.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
