I must say, I'm greatly disappointed. I
had thought at least you would honor
academic integrity here, but I see I was
wrong. I can understand the intentional
blindness of the more extreme prochoice
advocates here, but I hadn't counted you
among them until now.
Kypros
wrote:
I cannot find, except in pro-life
material, which are self-explanatorily
politically motivated and lop-sided, where
aborting foetuses is considered to be
callously murdering babies.
Now that's a total, complete change of
subject.
Kypros
wrote:
The dictionaries show that foetuses match
the description of
parasites.
In the vernacular, yes. That's never been
in contention.
Kypros
wrote:
Dictionaries have guidance
from scientific sources. Meanings are not
just thought up to how the author
wants.
And yet you know quite well that they are
sometimes not as complete as scientific
sources, do you not?
How on earth can you read the following
definition and still maintain your
position?
"Parasitism is, like most other animal
associations defined in terms of two
different species, who form a regular
association, although this seems sensible,
and it does exclude consideration of the
mammalian foetus as being parasitic upon
its mother, there are some very
interesting immunological parallels
between the mechanisms the foetus uses to
avoid being rejected by the immune
response of its mother and the ways in
which the parasites of mammals seek to
avoid their hosts immune response." http://www.aber.ac.uk/~mpgwww/Edu
/Para_ism/PaIsmT xt.html
|
yodavater
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007 Posts: 818
Posted: 02-10-08 14:44pm
Darkmoon
wrote:
You quote dictionary
definitions that suit your particular
agenda, ignore the ones that don't
.
There is no reason to quote definitions
that do not deal with the point at issue.
Since the point at issue is the species of
the host and parasite, the ones that don't
refer to that characteristic are
irrelevant, IMO, unless you can find one
that says "parasites can be of the same
species as the host".
Since no one has done that, no one has
made a single point towards showing that
scientifically a fetus is a parasite.
|
Jincks013
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 18 Apr 2007 Posts: 1173 Location: ,
Thanks: 22
Thanked:8
Posted: 02-11-08 07:27am
yodavater
wrote:
Jincks013
wrote:
NO. what this proves is that you will lie
any which way you choose to prove a
nonexistant point. It still does not do
wonders for your
credibility.
Okay, this is getting quite old. I'm
going to make a new thread so that you and
the other prochoicers here that seem to
delight in attacking me personally and
constantly sidetracking threads will have
a central place to do it, without ruining
individual threads. I'll call it "Thread
for bashing Yoda". Look for it, will
you?
Pointing out that you outright lied is
yoda bashing? How interesting. Which
dictionary did you get that from? The only
one 'sidetracking' is you. You refuse to
answer direct questions and then post
dictionary definitions ad nausum instead
of a personal opinion.
Since you are so sincere and definately
want to address issues lets go back to the
orginal question shall we?
Multiple times you have been asked to
produce factual up to date references and
sources and have failed to do so; once
again resorting to personal attacks,
outright lies about people and posting
dictionary definitions ad nausum.
The question was:
You have scientific
proof the the embryo/ fetus does not in
fact leech its nutrients and oxygen out of
the host/mother's body?
|
yodavater
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007 Posts: 818
Posted: 02-12-08 14:30pm
Jincks013
wrote:
The question was:
You have scientific
proof the the embryo/ fetus does not in
fact leech its nutrients and oxygen out of
the host/mother's
body?
How many times do you want to read my
answer? Why don't you print it out so you
can read it over and over?
I NEVER SAID THAT!! So why would I try to
prove something I never said and do not
believe?
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 02-12-08 18:32pm
yodavater
wrote:
Jincks013
wrote:
The question was:
You have scientific
proof the the embryo/ fetus does not in
fact leech its nutrients and oxygen out of
the host/mother's
body?
How many times do you want to read my
answer? Why don't you print it out so you
can read it over and over?
I NEVER SAID THAT!! So why would I try to
prove something I never said and do not
believe?
But you are trying to prove it.
You're trying to say the fetus isn't a
parasite (metaphor ) when in fact,
according to the definitions and the
literary use, it is.
|
Jincks013
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 18 Apr 2007 Posts: 1173 Location: ,
Thanks: 22
Thanked:8
Posted: 02-13-08 00:01am
yodavater
wrote:
Jincks013
wrote:
The question was:
You have scientific
proof the the embryo/ fetus does not in
fact leech its nutrients and oxygen out of
the host/mother's
body?
How many times do you want to read my
answer? Why don't you print it out so you
can read it over and over?
I NEVER SAID THAT!! So why would I try to
prove something I never said and do not
believe?
You have stated, ad nausum, that a fetus
is not a parasite at all. Well here is
your chance to prove it. Lets see your
proof (no the dictionary cannot save you
now)
|
yodavater
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007 Posts: 818
Posted: 02-13-08 15:43pm
Jincks013
wrote:
You have stated, ad nausum, that a fetus
is not a parasite at all.
It's interesting that all these strawmen
you construct are made out of a
paraphrased attribute, never an actual
quote. That speaks volumes.
No, I've never, ever said that. From day
one, I've said that the vernacular usage
of the word "parasite" can be legitimately
used to refer to the unborn fetus/baby,
but not the scientific usage.
That you cannot seem to grasp the
distinction is no fault of mine.
|
yodavater
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007 Posts: 818
Posted: 02-13-08 15:44pm
Eiri
wrote:
But you are trying to prove it.
You're trying to say the fetus isn't a
parasite (metaphor ) when in fact,
according to the definitions and the
literary use, it
is.
Whatever you paid for that mind reading
course, you got ripped off.
And the fact that you choose to ignore the
many scientific sources I have quoted and
linked to makes any further discussion
with you irrelevant.
|
Jincks013
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 18 Apr 2007 Posts: 1173 Location: ,
Thanks: 22
Thanked:8
Posted: 02-13-08 15:55pm
Yoda look up what a strawman fallacy is ..
now just answer the question which you
have been avoiding for 4 pages now...
You have scientific proof the the embryo/
fetus does not in fact leech its nutrients
and oxygen out of the host/mother's body?
|
yodavater
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007 Posts: 818
Posted: 02-15-08 11:31am
Jincks013
wrote:
You have scientific proof the the embryo/
fetus does not in fact leech its nutrients
and oxygen out of the host/mother's
body?
What a strange request....... no, of
course not, because it DOES.
|
yodavater
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007 Posts: 818
Posted: 02-15-08 11:32am
Eiri
wrote:
You're trying to say the fetus isn't a
parasite (metaphor ) when in fact,
according to the definitions and the
literary use, it
is.
"Metaphorically"? Okay, if that's your
way of saying "in the vernacular", then
there is no disagreement between us.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 02-15-08 13:56pm
Nothing wrong with a metaphor, and to my
knowledge "vernacular" and "metaphor" do
not mean the same thing.
|
Jincks013
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 18 Apr 2007 Posts: 1173 Location: ,
Thanks: 22
Thanked:8
Posted: 02-16-08 08:04am
yodavater
wrote:
Jincks013
wrote:
You have scientific proof the the embryo/
fetus does not in fact leech its nutrients
and oxygen out of the host/mother's
body?
What a strange request....... no, of
course not, because it
DOES.
Then you are admitting a zef is a parasite
because it gets it nutrients and oxygen
from a host that it cannot survive
without.
|
yodavater
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007 Posts: 818
Posted: 02-17-08 08:36am
Jincks013
wrote:
Then you are admitting a zef is a parasite
because it gets it nutrients and oxygen
from a host that it cannot survive
without.
I'll give you this, you are extremely
"single minded" when you lock down on a
misconception.
There is more than one criteria to satisfy
in order to classify something as a
parasite (in the scientific sense), and
you have mentioned only one, while
claiming that is all that is needed. It
clearly is not.
Science has very particular criteria for
it's categories, and unborn humans do not
meet ALL those criteria.
|
Jincks013
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 18 Apr 2007 Posts: 1173 Location: ,
Thanks: 22
Thanked:8
Posted: 02-17-08 09:55am
YOu still have not proven your point. You
are saying a fetus is not a parasite on
the host; therefore we should be able to
remove it with no ill effect to the fetus.
I want your proof this is possible.
|
yodavater
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007 Posts: 818
Posted: 02-19-08 10:05am
Jincks013
wrote:
YOu still have not proven
your point. You are saying a fetus is not
a parasite on the host; therefore we
should be able to remove it with no ill
effect to the fetus.
.
Actually, it's just the opposite. Any
"true" parasite can be removed from it's
host at any time, with no harm. It will
simply reattach to the next host it
finds.
But an unborn human baby cannot be removed
before viability, without killing it.
It's not a "true" parasite.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 02-19-08 18:35pm
So you've found two differences between a
fetus and a "true" parasite. I can find
differences between two boats. It doesn't
mean one isn't a boat, it just means they
are variations on a theme.
|
nightangel73
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 Posts: 2511 Location: ,
Thanks: 14
Thanked:10
online
Posted: 02-19-08 21:44pm
Eiri
wrote:
So you've found two
differences between a fetus and a "true"
parasite. I can find differences between
two boats. It doesn't mean one isn't a
boat, it just means they are variations on
a theme.
Eiri a parasite and a human are two very
different things. A parasite is a type of
organism that lives the ENTIRE life
leaching the nutrients of the host among
many other particular characteristics.
Remember in humans we only leech nutrients
from the mother host for 9 months or even
much less than that nowadays. You
understand that? That's why there is
animals and there is parasites. So please
stop the games with the parasite crap.
It's just bull crap.
|
meblonde01
Supporter
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 Posts: 2123 Location: ,
Thanks: 6
Thanked:2
Posted: 02-20-08 08:19am
nightangel73
wrote:
[It's just bull
crap.
I AGREE!
|
sistersister
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 27 Sep 2007 Posts: 145 Location: ,
Posted: 02-20-08 11:52am
"that's why there is animals and there are
parasites."
since a good manyof parasites are animals
(hook worms, leeches, remora, flukes,
ameoba, and on and on) how does this make
any sense at all. what was your point???
If the fetus is attaced to and feeding off
of the womans body but not a paracite then
it must be a part of her body. It has no
independent ability to live except by the
extention of her life and its resources to
the woman.
Either it is a separate orgnaism only able
to sustain its appearance of life by a
paracitic relationship to the womans body
or it is a part of her body much like a
tumor grown from her cells but with some
genetic differences. You may not like it
and it may not leave you with the pretty
picture you seem to need but it is fact.
In either case it is the womans body and
her right to herself superseeds the
potential life the zef might have if the
woman is forced to gestate to term against
her will.
I'm surprised at all the fuss about the
relationship a zef has to the womans body.
I have heard the screamers at the gate
refer to the zef as a rose. Perhaps they
would be more accurate refering to it as a
orchid. Orchids after all are paracitic
plants.
) when in fact,
according to the definitions and the
literary use, it is.
