Litmus
Verified User
Parasites are not viable without a host, yet still considered unique lives. People on a lung machine are dependant on the machine, yet still an individual life. Your arguments are hackneyed, worn out, bullshit.
Court Clears Way for Egg Rights Showdown
- Thread starter uscitizen
- Start date
Parasites are not viable without a host, yet still considered unique lives. People on a lung machine are dependant on the machine, yet still an individual life. Your arguments are hackneyed, worn out, bullshit.
OrnotBitwise
Watermelon
Interesting. I can't find any followup stories on this case. It may not have come to trial yet, of course: it's only been six months.
OrnotBitwise
Watermelon
Gods, you really are something. What, I'm not exactly sure, but something.
You failed to understand the question, yet again. Have you found any medical or biological texts that classify a developing embryo as a parasite?
Litmus
Verified User
Gods, you really are something. What, I'm not exactly sure, but something.
You failed to understand the question, yet again. Have you found any medical or biological texts that classify a developing embryo as a parasite?
You're using dependancy as an argument that something is not living or not a separate organism. The fact is dependant organisms are called parasites, not 'non living', and not 'the same organism as the host'. Think, for once in your idiotic life.
OrnotBitwise
Watermelon
What you call normalcy, I call perverted. In my lexicon, you are a pervert. Big deal. That and an insult at the wrong time will earn you a severe flaming.
Our laws and morality are not subject to your judgment, any more than they are to anyone else's.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
I never stated that I agreed with this attempted law.
I agree that it actually has to be (at this time anyway) attached to the uteran wall to allow it to grow and develop. A fertilized egg has the potential to grow and develop, but it cannot do so at this time without implantation.
I do believe that once implanted it should be entitled to basic human rights. This is just my personal opinion and I recognize that many do not agree with it. If it is human, alive, growing and developing... that is where my personal line is.
OrnotBitwise
Watermelon
Naw. He's not believable enough. He's destined to be a petty bureaucrat in some corporation somewhere. Or maybe a convenience store clerk.
OrnotBitwise
Watermelon
I'm doing nothing of the kind. The question of "dependency" isn't relevant to my position. I was merely making fun of your ridiculous assertion that a developing embryo is medically considered a parasite on the mother.
Now, granted, many women end up feeling like the little monster is parasitic, round about month six or seven. Never ask a pregnant woman to watch Alien. That's not a medical judgment, however.
My position is not that a developing embryo is "non-living." The fact that the embryo can't survive without the mother's support is irrelevant too. Many human beings can't survive without external support. More power to 'em for persevering.
My position is, quite simply, that we don't know at what point the developing fetus becomes a Human Being with legal and moral rights. This is not a question which science can address: any appeal to scientific theory is obfuscatory. In addition, I think there is far too much contention over the point to conclude that there's any sort of consensus.
In the absence of both an objective standard derived by scientific method and a social consensus, I think we MUST leave the question to the conscience of each individual mother, in each individual case.
OrnotBitwise
Watermelon
True. How about a Parking Control Officer? I can see him writing tickets quite easily.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Yes, I know you said the phrase, sorrry... I should been very clear with you... the phrase "human life" is NOT slippery. It is quite easily defined. To say it is not a human being is the arbitrary part. As the term "being" is subjective. The fact that it is not currently legal is the point. To say that it is not a human being in the moral sense is purely speculative and your OPINION.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
yeah I couldn't either. I would be curious to know what happened.
OrnotBitwise
Watermelon
It *could* be easily defined but it is not. That's because too many people already use it in too many different ways.
When I say "human life" I'm referring to human beings. People. Individuals possessed of all the same rights and responsibilities as I. A kidney in a cooler is not "human life" in this sense. It is human, and it is alive, but it is not "human life."
Because of this semantic fuzziness, I prefer to talk about personhood. That's much less prone to misuse.
Litmus
Verified User
Your argument is circular. You say it's not a person because it's not given rights, and it's not given rights because your refuse to recognize it as a person.
In essence you cite our moral decay as a nation to support our further moral decay as a nation.
OrnotBitwise
Watermelon
No, those are two aspects of the same issue. If it were a person, it would have rights. You cannot demonstrate that it is a person, however. No one can. Believe me, it's been tried.
By "it", here, I mean an early term fetus. Say about ten weeks or so. Like this:
Litmus
Verified User
No, those are two aspects of the same issue. If it were a person, it would have rights. You cannot demonstrate that it is a person, however. No one can. Believe me, it's been tried.
By "it", here, I mean an early term fetus. Say about ten weeks or so. Like this:
and you also claim it doesn't have rights cuz it's not a person. That's circular. Stop mentally queefing all over the board.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Just because you misuse the term doesn't change the definition. Ya crazy lib bastard.
Like I said, you can play word games all you want. We agree that it is an ethical issue that must be decided.
Should an unborn child be entitled to basic human rights? That is the question at hand. Obviously you and I disagree on this point.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
No, those are two aspects of the same issue. If it were a person, it would have rights. You cannot demonstrate that it is a person, however. No one can. Believe me, it's been tried.
By "it", here, I mean an early term fetus. Say about ten weeks or so. Like this:
For clarification... a fetus is simply a STAGE of development. Calling it a fetus is simply a way to dehumanize the child.
Litmus
Verified User
They don't want this discussion. SO they use their idiotic word games to avoid it. When He took the IQ test his score mysteriously came back with letters instead of a number: VACANCY.