Disposable? So using emotionally laden terms when arguments fail?So, if a child needs it's mother, and only its mother would do, it's disposable...
A fetus or zygote is not a parasite just because it acts in some similar manner to one. A fetus is the creation between human egg and sperm... no parasite is created this way. A fetus is carried usually for 9 months and leaves the womb as a baby. A parasite doesn't do this. A baby requires love, food, and shelter from its parents (quite "parasitic" too) but is not a parasite.Disposable? So using emotionally laden terms when arguments fail?
But yes, in Canadian law, abortion is the mother's choice and it is not murder. Even late term abortions are allowed here but they require a doctor who thinks it is required to perform it. So yes, my opinion that it is the mother's choice until viability is also the law of the land here.
And the definition? I do lean towards science specific resources for definitions of scientific terms.
CDC: A parasite is an organism that lives on or in a host organism and gets its food from or at the expense of its host.
CDC - Parasites - About Parasites
A parasite is an organism that lives on or in a host and gets its food from or at the expense of its host. Parasites can cause disease in humans.www.cdc.gov
From a biology resource:
Parasitism is s form of symbiosis in which one organism (called parasite) benefits at the expense of another organism usually of different species (called host). This host-parasite association may eventuate to the injury of the host.
Note that is says USUALLY of a different species, not ALWAYS from a different species.
And if you want, here are a whole bunch of papers on parasitism.
Parasitism - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
www.sciencedirect.com
Please show me some biological sources that say a parasite can not be the same species as the host? The ones I already gave say otherwise....A fetus is the creation between human egg and sperm... no parasite is created this way...
This. This right here.I don't think you can limit this to just 3 answers. It's a really hard topic.
Agree. Bear in mind that polls by their nature are basically "for or against", "yes or no". However, the comments from members add further input on a complex issue.This. This right here.
I never understand why people think it's such a cut and dry issue. It's not. It's one of the thorniest moral dilemmas we have.
Abortion effectively ends a viable life. That's not something to be taken lightly. From a logical standpoint, you can understand why someone might call that murder.
On the flip side, there's no denying that an unplanned pregnancy is a life changing event for a woman, rife with responsibilities, not the least of which is lugging around a second human in your body for 40 weeks. Not to mention the psychological impact of an unwanted baby being raised by unwilling parents.
Then there's edge cases that muddy the waters further, like rape and incest.
Anyone who thinks it's a clean cut argument obviously isn't trying to have a reasonable discussion about a tricky topic.
It is, but its a personal choice for women, none of whom treat it lightly.It's one of the thorniest moral dilemmas we have.
None of whom treat it lightly? That's like saying all cops are professional, self-sacrificing individuals. It's idealized thinking that's not reflective of reality. The correct statement would be to say the majority of said women don't treat it lightly.It is, but its a personal choice for women, none of whom treat it lightly.
I don't agree with your logic. Neither taking action and wanking, nor inaction and not wanking, result in or deny life. The act of having sex is what makes life viable. Once fertilization occurs, in most cases, that life will come to fruition unless directly intervened with.Wanking off ends 'viable' possibilities of life. Should that be banned? Imagine if women ruled and they said no more wanking.
This is simpleton worldview/logic.It is, but its a personal choice for women, none of whom treat it lightly.
Wanking off ends 'viable' possibilities of life. Should that be banned? Imagine if women ruled and they said no more wanking.
Ok, 'majority' is likely more accurate. But I haven't met any women who has every discussed or used abortion lightly. Feel free to prove me wrong with some studies or polls.None of whom treat it lightly? That's like saying all cops are professional, self-sacrificing individuals. It's idealized thinking that's not reflective of reality. The correct statement would be to say the majority of said women don't treat it lightly.
I stretched a metaphor only to give you at least one possible thought of other sex controlling our own bodies.I don't agree with your logic. Neither taking action and wanking, nor inaction and not wanking, result in or deny life. The act of having sex is what makes life viable. Once fertilization occurs, in most cases, that life will come to fruition unless directly intervened with.
Keep in mind that I am not pro-life, but I do understand the other side of the issue. And frankly, I don't see how people can not understand it, even if they ultimately fall pro-choice, so long as they make any sort of effort. You talk about compassion as it pertains to a woman's body. Well, they see it as compassion as it pertains to an unborn baby. As I said, it's a thorny issue, specifically because of the ramifications either way.I stretched a metaphor only to give you at least one possible thought of other sex controlling our own bodies.
Since compassion seems too far out of the reach of most of those in this thread.