A Woman's Right to her Body

[arX]

What's the plan of attack? Land, sea, or prayer?

A frothy mixture of all the above.

[LetThereBe]

I think you make a mistake here of confusing ability to survive with ability to have proper body functions. If you leave a fetus in an empty room for a few hours, it will still be alive when you get back. If you leave an adult human or even a healthily-birthed baby in a room for a few hours, it will likely still be alive when you get back. The same cannot be said for a fetus; during many stages of development, if you remove a fetus from a woman's body and leave it in a room for a few hours, it will be dead by the time you get back. Maybe its lungs do not work properly, maybe its circulatory system has insufficient blood pumping ability. It will not survive because it is dependent on another organism for its organ systems to work at all.

Ha... this is still arbitrary to the definition of "parasite".
Isn't a flea a parasite? They can survive for quite a while without a host. In fact, killing a flea is probably considerably more difficult than killing an infant (having only actually killed the former, I do not have a complete basis for comparison).

[Void Serpent]

Ha... this is still arbitrary to the definition of "parasite".
Isn't a flea a parasite? They can survive for quite a while without a host. In fact, killing a flea is probably considerably more difficult than killing an infant (having only actually killed the former, I do not have a complete basis for comparison).

To the common public's definition yes, but parasitism is vast and like any other aspect of science is always being refined. From the complex to the simple, as many as half of all animals have at least one parasitic phase in their life cycles. If you want to debate difficulty in eradicating the parasites it would need to be a sliding scale. As for without a host I apply the same need for a sliding scale for duration of survival without host. Obviously a leech is much easier to kill than a flea, maybe less so than a fetus.

[LetThereBe]

To the common public's definition yes, but parasitism is vast and like any other aspect of science is always being refined. From the complex to the simple, as many as half of all animals have at least one parasitic phase in their life cycles. If you want to debate difficulty in eradicating the parasites it would need to be a sliding scale. As for without a host I apply the same need for a sliding scale for duration of survival without host. Obviously a leech is much easier to kill than a flea, maybe less so than a fetus.

I don't want to "debate difficulty in eradicating the parasites", I'm just saying that the difficulty itself is irrelevant to the definition.
Simply because an infant lasts longer than an early-stage fetus sans host, doesn't mean that one is a parasite and one is not.

[BlackSheep]

You didn't "explain" anything. You tried to equate a mother who was doing nothing to a fetus who was wreaking havoc on a woman's body and threatening her with 18 years of an altered quality of life. You failed miserably, but I still answered your question with the affirmative several times. Having one's life changed forever, potentially for the worse, is the motivation for people who abort fetuses. You failed to provide comparative incentive for killing one's mother.

I equated no such thing as I have explained and in fact just did again. It is you who continue to twist my words that way. The question, 'Could you kill your mother?', was a rhetorical question to demonstrate that emotions and/or morals can make certain behaviors beyond our grasp. The fact that you could kill your mother does not change the value of the question. Many could not.

[LetThereBe]

I equated no such thing as I have explained and in fact just did again. It is you who continue to twist my words that way. The question, 'Could you kill your mother?', was a rhetorical question to demonstrate that emotions and/or morals can make certain behaviors beyond our grasp. The fact that you could kill your mother does not change the value of the question. Many could not.

The question has no value, because killing one's mother isn't a choice that one can legally make. It is a completely irrelevant comparison to abortion, where the mother is allowed to have an abortion, but some people choose not to for moral reasons.

A much more accurate analogy would be asking if a vegetarian could eat a tuna sandwich.

[BlackSheep]

The question has no value, because killing one's mother isn't a choice that one can legally make. It is a completely irrelevant comparison to abortion, where the mother is allowed to have an abortion, but some people choose not to for moral reasons.

How many times do I need to explain it is not a comparison. It is a rhetorical question. Lets say there were no legal impediments.

A much more accurate analogy would be asking if a vegetarian could eat a tuna sandwich.

That is a comparison, unlike mine, and it is one that minimizes the seriousness of the emotional / moral quandary that many have over abortions.

[LetThereBe]

How many times do I need to explain it is not a comparison. It is a rhetorical question. Lets say there were no legal impediments.

Okay? Since it is a rhetorical question I'm not supposed to answer it... so why even bring it up again?
In any case, it still isn't relevant to abortion because one does not generally have incentive to kill their mother, unlike the incentive of ending an unwanted pregnancy.

That is a comparison, unlike mine, and it is one that minimizes the seriousness of the emotional / moral quandary that many have over abortions.

Mine is an analogy, and the fact that it is comparable shows it is relevant. That yours has nothing to do with the situation is not a strong point.
I do not minimize the emotional / moral quandary. Some vegetarians are very passionate about not consuming animals.

Can a vegetarian eat a tuna sandwich?

[BlackSheep]

Okay? Since it is a rhetorical question I'm not supposed to answer it... so why even bring it up again?

I brought it up again because you claimed I didn't explain it well and that is not what rhetorical means.

In any case, it still isn't relevant to abortion because one does not generally have incentive to kill their mother, unlike the incentive of ending an unwanted pregnancy.

And again you ignored my statement that it is not a comparison.

Mine is an analogy, and the fact that it is comparable shows it is relevant. That yours has nothing to do with the situation is not a strong point.
I do not minimize the emotional / moral quandary. Some vegetarians are very passionate about not consuming animals.

Mine is not a comparison, which you continue to ignore.

Some are, I agree, but most of us are not.

Can a vegetarian eat a tuna sandwich?

Not all could take that option. Many could.

[LetThereBe]

And again you ignored my statement that it is not a comparison.

Sorry, I was wrongly assuming it was somehow relevant to the discussion.

Not all could take that option. Many could.

Define "could". What makes someone capable of choosing something?

[el ايمان]

Ha... this is still arbitrary to the definition of "parasite".
Isn't a flea a parasite? They can survive for quite a while without a host. In fact, killing a flea is probably considerably more difficult than killing an infant (having only actually killed the former, I do not have a complete basis for comparison).

Touche. I think we agree, however, that it is acceptable to kill a flea, which engages in parasitism via attaching itself to a host and feeding on its body to the detriment of the host. A baby does not do that, and it does not have specialized organs designed* to steal indiscriminately from its mother. At later stages of development of a fetus, it is closer to a baby in that it is still engaged in something similar to parasitism but is not actually dependent on parasitism to survive.

I equated no such thing as I have explained and in fact just did again. It is you who continue to twist my words that way. The question, 'Could you kill your mother?', was a rhetorical question to demonstrate that emotions and/or morals can make certain behaviors beyond our grasp. The fact that you could kill your mother does not change the value of the question. Many could not.

It does change the value of the question, in part by making your argumentative tactics look foolish when I don't give the answer you might expect. Much of what you have said regarding this topic has been baseless and unsubstantiable. That emotions stop/prevent/makeitimpossibletochooseXoption anyone from doing anything is an unsupportable argument, because you cannot demonstrate that someone has insurmountable emotions rather than a lack of willpower or even a lack of desire to do something. You assert that some women can't choose to have an abortion; you argue that some vegetarians can't choose to eat meat; you argue that some people can't choose to kill their mothers, but you have failed to show that these people cannot make the choice. These people are choosing to not have an abortion/killtheirmother/eatmeat. When asked "how do emotions make it impossible for people to choose one of their options" you don't explain the processes behind it, you basically say that "they just do".

Some people's emotions prevent them from choosing to abort.
How do their emotions prevent them from choosing that option?
Their emotions just do.
That doesn't make sense, you haven't explained how emotions stop a person from choosing to abort.
Some people cannot choose to abort.
I'm fairly sure that abortion is a legal option available to all pregnant woman. What is stopping them?
Their emotions make abortion an impossible choice to choose.
How?
Could you kill your mother?
Yes, but I don't have a good incentive to, plus its illegal.
Well... Uh... Well some people can't. They just can't. Same thing with abortion.
Please explain how exactly emotions disable people from choosing options that are available to them.
Mennonites don't fight. Their emotions stop them from joining the military, and they are supported by the courts.
Anyone can pretend like they are opposed to fighting and get out of combative military service, which is not mandatory.
I'm not saying that Women, Mennonites, and Depressed people are weak willed, I'm just saying that they are too emotional to make decisions about their lives.

[BlackSheep]

Sorry, I was wrongly assuming it was somehow relevant to the discussion.

It is. As I have explained multiple times it is a demonstration that emotions and or morals can sometimes make certain options unavailable to us. You just keep going in circles.

Define "could". What makes someone capable of choosing something?

It was an answer to your question. Maybe you should clarify your question.