Jump to content
Bear

Abortion

Recommended Posts

Don't forget how there's even a paragraph on how to preform ritual abortion. And how its OK to kill a woman with child.

Examples. Warning. Long

 

Fetuses and infants less than one month old are not considered persons.

Number the children of Levi after the house of their fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and upward shalt thou number them. And Moses numbered them according to the word of the LORD. -- Numbers 3:15-16

God sometimes approves of killing fetuses.

And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. -- Numbers 31:15-17

(Some of the non-virgin women must have been pregnant. They would have been killed along with their unborn fetuses.)

Give them, O LORD: what wilt thou give? give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. -- Hosea 9:14

Yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb. -- Hosea 9:16

Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up. -- Hosea 13:16

God sometimes kills newborn babies to punish their parents.

Because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die. -- 2 Samuel 12:14

God sometimes causes abortions by cursing unfaithful wives.

The priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell. And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen. ...

And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people. And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed. -- Numbers 5:21-21, 27-28

God's law sometimes requires the execution (by burning to death) of pregnant women.

Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by censorkip.gif*dom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt. -- Genesis 38:24

Yup. Totally made to his image.

 

Why are you guys so intent on making me like those stupid animals

 

I'm not intent into making you anything. Blame God for making you an animal, if you need to blame anyone. I'm simply not going to shut up and let ignorance rampant. I'm not posting for you, I'm posting so people who might be reading this do not fall for the "made unto God's image" fallacy.

 

As for the rest of your allegation, it's been already responded, so I'm not going to repeat myself. You keep treating all deaths under the same light (except for non-human animals, curse those stupid and dirty non-human animals) and fail to even consider my arguments.

 

Anyways, it's 4 am, so I'm off to bed as tomorrow I have to work. Have a happy debate night, guys.

Share this post


Link to post

Guess my question will again go unanwsered. sleep.gif"

But I'm also not sure why being called an animal offends people. Like...it just seems egotistical to think just because you have higher intelligence you're a special snowflake in your own category of life.

Does being called an animal instantly/magically make you some kind of dirt scrounger or stupid? (On another note there's too many animals to count that are far from "stupid"). Humans are mammals yes? Mammals are animals. So humans = mammals= animal.

 

*shrugs*

 

But yeah, pointing to the bible about how all life is sacred definitely will backfire.

Share this post


Link to post

Why are you guys so intent on making me like those stupid animals for i was created in the image of God. You all may think you come from apes but we are not talking about that we are talking about human life here.

Just to be a bit more clear regarding the animal issue...

 

Nobody's saying you're stupid, just that human beings fit how we define "animal" (as opposed to "mineral," "fungus," etc.). We're mobile, living organisms whose multiple cells have a nucleus and organelles surrounded by a membrane, and we have to take in nutrients from other organisms (eat) to survive. No matter whether someone believes humans evolved or were created by a deity, we have these traits, which is why people say we are animals.

 

Edit: With regards to killing and morality, we cannot lump all killing together as equally wrong. If I give someone a Snickers and it turns out they have a peanut allergy and die, I've killed them, entirely by accident. If someone tries to kill me, I could end up killing them instead. They're just as dead as if I'd decided to kill them on purpose, but are all these things equally wrong, deserving of equal punishment?

Edited by Kith

Share this post


Link to post

Please like i said i am not a fast writer and sometimes i have to think twice  before i get my thoughts right. So i edit allot sorry that is just me. Well i am off i may not post on here again i am not good at wording my posts right to get my thoughts striagth on here sorry again.

A slower response is usually a better one - don't worry about being quick. c:

 

~~

 

Since you are not going to change your mind, I would like to know what your proposal(s) is/are for reducing the number of abortions that take place. Keep in mind that there are many reasons why abortion might be chosen.

Edited by Infinis

Share this post


Link to post

Humans are animals.

 

And abortion is not murder because the fetus can not be considered "alive" until it is born. Abortion is a right that only women should be allowed to decide, whether they want to go through with it or not.

Share this post


Link to post

I have been looking at sites and this link is the best i can find on what i have been trying to tell you all.Like i said i am not to good at explaining but here it is. So read this i hope it helps you to all understand what i have been trying to say all along. so now i rest my case and will no longer post you all have your answer here now.So carry on and thanks for being so Patient with me and my eddited messages.

 

http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/02/11/pro...g-puppy-murder/

Edited by Laryal

Share this post


Link to post

**Note: mindless phrases such as “I don’t want the government in my womb!” and “Don’t like abortion? Don’t get one” do not constitute “arguments.” They are assertions; clichéd, overused, absurd assertions at that.**

 

The irony, of course, being that said article is full of cliches.

 

That blog is simply an opinion piece. No sources to back of claims, very few facts, zero consideration of the science behind pregnancy and abortion.

Share this post


Link to post

The irony, of course, being that said article is full of cliches.

 

That blog is simply an opinion piece. No sources to back of claims, very few facts, zero consideration of the science behind pregnancy and abortion.

 

Just like he said a prochoicere would try to ague that life does not matter you proved him right don't you know. That is if you are for prochoice.If not still what did he say?

Edited by Laryal

Share this post


Link to post

People who equalize murdering a living creature (human being, animal) with abortion and say that "You can't be upset with killing animals if you support abortion" are such idiots that it's pointless to even try to find words to describe their ignorance. First of all, an embryo (yes, people, a clump of cells during the first three lunar months (lunar month = 28 days) of pregnancy / twelve weeks is called an embryo, NOT a fetus) is a POTENTIAL living being, not an actual living being because it isn't formed yet. It doesn't even RESEMBLE other creatures of its species. If anyone tries to put me down, I will say: I have at least some elementary knowledge on this because I had embriology on my freshman year in college. At some point (at seven, eight, nine weeks) the embryo develops further. It gets eyes, arms, legs, genitalia (yes, you CAN tell a baby's gender even then) and looks more and more like a human being. That is why medical ethics stands up against abortion once the pregnancy gets longer than three lunar months, when the embryo becomes a fetus.

The stages of human embryo development goes like this:

 

Month 0/1 - 3: embryo ---> Month 3/4 - 6: early fetus ---> Month 6/7 - 9: late fetus ---> End of pregnancy, birth: baby

 

As I said, during the times of being an embryo, the developing organism ISN'T CONSIDERED A HUMAN BEING. It's a stage when it develops, has POTENTIAL organs, a POTENTIAL heart, POTENTIAL lungs. That's why pregnant women are told to absolutely avoid drug/alcohol/tobacco abuse during the first TWELVE WEEKS of pregnancy, so that the embryo develops into the healthiest possible fetus. To have a normal, healthy heart, to breathe after birth instead of being a stillborn, to have no deformities, to not be miscarried. An embryo with a beating heart IS a human being. An embryo with a somewhat formed nervous system IS a human being. NOTHING PRIOR TO THAT IS CONSIDERED AN ACTUAL HUMAN BEING. Ending a pregnancy before the baby's due and after three months of the potential human being in the uterus is allowed in extraordinary cases when the mother's life is threatened by the growing baby and no other way exists. And if you ask why the mother and not the baby: Because IF a child had any chances of survival to begin with, it would suffer without its mother and would miss her since its earliest days. The mother, however, has another chance to have children after that loss, to either have a less risky and not life-threatening pregnancy or hire a surrogate mother if she herself can't bear a growing child and still wants to have children of her own.

 

Murder, on the other hand, is something else. MURDER is when you violently take someone's life. Let's not start discussing the ways one can do it (it's not the topic + I don't want to give you ideas). And you have NO RIGHT TO DO IT UNLESS YOU ARE PROTECTING YOUR OWN. JUST LIKE SOMEONE WHO IS TRYING TO KILL YOU HAS NO RIGHT TO DO IT EITHER. Murder is when you violently end a life to a creature that HAS FULLY DEVELOPED AND WAS BORN ALIVE. No matter if it's a dog, a cat, a chinchilla, or in the end, a human being - baby, child or adult. If it doesn't provide your personal survival, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO VIOLENTLY END ANYONE'S LIFE, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO KILL. People who think that murder and abortion have the same weight are ignorant as censorkip.gif and should get their censorkip.gif together because killing an innocent, already existing being is not equal to a woman's choice if she wants offspring or not (many times before I explained why abortion can have less consequences than giving birth to an unwanted child).

 

The constitution of any democratic country promises the basic human rights to each and every of its citizens, including the right to choose, to have freedom of choice. It's the school of natural law that exists since the 18th century with its beginnings in France shortly before the French revolution back in 1789. Even that long ago people were fighting for equality in rights, and their goal was to make sure that every human born in a democratic country has their rights from their birth until the rest of their lives. Let's not say how much it has all developed since then and how much the human society progressed from that point. The freedom of choice is one of the most important rights of all, because you won't have a normal life with other people making choices for you. A life where a pregnant woman is forced to give birth to her child against her will for whatever reason is no life at all, and nobody deserves it. This is much different than rape, abuse, murder and other serious acts of that kind. There is a common name for such things: CRIMES, AND THEY ARE ALL PUNISHABLE BY LAW.

 

Sorry about the big letters and the bold parts, but I had to emphasize some things in order to make people realize that what they speak of and what they fight against is far beyond their domain of understanding. Otherwise they wouldn't stand up for beliefs they know nothing of.

Share this post


Link to post
I have been looking at sites and this link is the best i can find on what i have been trying to tell you all.Like i said i am not to good at explaining but here it is. So read this i hope it helps you to all understand what i have been trying to say all along. so now i rest my case and will no longer post you all have your answer here now.So carry on and thanks for being so Patient with me and my eddited messages.

 

http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/02/11/pro...g-puppy-murder/

I....hardly understand the point.

 

The dogs were already born. If it were human it would be called newborn/infant.

And in my case I DO support abortion and I AM against *senseless* killing of animals.

Hey wait...isnt also you that said humans aren't animals? Why are you comparing the two like they can be alike in certain aspects? Shouldn't you be using something that doesn't make it seem like animals and humans are on the same level and both have equal right to live?

 

Killing an infant after it was already born is infanticide.

Abortion is eqauted to removing an unwanted parasite. By definition a parasite almost always just takes from the host and is dependant on it to live. Sometimes it may "do something beneficial to the host" to keep it alive.

 

 

And even though I already know you're not going to respond to me might as well throw it out here anyway.

 

If some stranger holds you down and says that their best friend is dying and won't let you go until you give them your kidney or other organs

Or what if an armed robber breaks into your house and threatens you. Would you say "yeah man you can stay in my house" or would you shoot him or run away? Either of the latter is defending yourself from something that could kill you.

 

Do you have any regard or CARE if some women couldn't handle the pregnancy? As in they would rather KILL themselves? I ask because it seems you're altogether avoiding answering anything I ask.

If abortion is murder what do you think should be done with women that do have one?

Share this post


Link to post
People who equalize murdering a living creature (human being, animal) with abortion and say that "You can't be upset with killing animals if you support abortion" are such idiots that it's pointless to even try to find words to describe their ignorance. First of all, an embryo (yes, people, a clump of cells during the first three lunar months (lunar month = 28 days) of pregnancy / twelve weeks is called an embryo, NOT a fetus) is a POTENTIAL living being, not an actual living being because it isn't formed yet. It doesn't even RESEMBLE other creatures of its species. If anyone tries to put me down, I will say: I have at least some elementary knowledge on this because I had embriology on my freshman year in college. At some point (at seven, eight, nine weeks) the embryo develops further. It gets eyes, arms, legs, genitalia (yes, you CAN tell a baby's gender even then) and looks more and more like a human being. That is why medical ethics stands up against abortion once the pregnancy gets longer than three lunar months, when the embryo becomes a fetus.

The stages of human embryo development goes like this:

 

Month 0/1 - 3: embryo ---> Month 3/4 - 6: early fetus ---> Month 6/7 - 9: late fetus ---> End of pregnancy, birth: baby

 

As I said, during the times of being an embryo, the developing organism ISN'T CONSIDERED A HUMAN BEING. It's a stage when it develops, has POTENTIAL organs, a POTENTIAL heart, POTENTIAL lungs. That's why pregnant women are told to absolutely avoid drug/alcohol/tobacco abuse during the first TWELVE WEEKS of pregnancy, so that the embryo develops into the healthiest possible fetus. To have a normal, healthy heart, to breathe after birth instead of being a stillborn, to have no deformities, to not be miscarried. An embryo with a beating heart IS a human being. An embryo with a somewhat formed nervous system IS a human being. NOTHING PRIOR TO THAT IS CONSIDERED AN ACTUAL HUMAN BEING. Ending a pregnancy before the baby's due and after three months of the potential human being in the uterus is allowed in extraordinary cases when the mother's life is threatened by the growing baby and no other way exists. And if you ask why the mother and not the baby: Because IF a child had any chances of survival to begin with, it would suffer without its mother and would miss her since its earliest days. The mother, however, has another chance to have children after that loss, to either have a less risky and not life-threatening pregnancy or hire a surrogate mother if she herself can't bear a growing child and still wants to have children of her own.

 

Murder, on the other hand, is something else. MURDER is when you violently take someone's life. Let's not start discussing the ways one can do it (it's not the topic + I don't want to give you ideas). And you have NO RIGHT TO DO IT UNLESS YOU ARE PROTECTING YOUR OWN. JUST LIKE SOMEONE WHO IS TRYING TO KILL YOU HAS NO RIGHT TO DO IT EITHER. Murder is when you violently end a life to a creature that HAS FULLY DEVELOPED AND WAS BORN ALIVE. No matter if it's a dog, a cat, a chinchilla, or in the end, a human being - baby, child or adult. If it doesn't provide your personal survival, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO VIOLENTLY END ANYONE'S LIFE, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO KILL. People who think that murder and abortion have the same weight are ignorant as censorkip.gif and should get their censorkip.gif together because killing an innocent, already existing being is not equal to a woman's choice if she wants offspring or not (many times before I explained why abortion can have less consequences than giving birth to an unwanted child).

 

The constitution of any democratic country promises the basic human rights to each and every of its citizens, including the right to choose, to have freedom of choice. It's the school of natural law that exists since the 18th century with its beginnings in France shortly before the French revolution back in 1789. Even that long ago people were fighting for equality in rights, and their goal was to make sure that every human born in a democratic country has their rights from their birth until the rest of their lives. Let's not say how much it has all developed since then and how much the human society progressed from that point. The freedom of choice is one of the most important rights of all, because you won't have a normal life with other people making choices for you. A life where a pregnant woman is forced to give birth to her child against her will for whatever reason is no life at all, and nobody deserves it. This is much different than rape, abuse, murder and other serious acts of that kind. There is a common name for such things: CRIMES, AND THEY ARE ALL PUNISHABLE BY LAW.

 

Sorry about the big letters and the bold parts, but I had to emphasize some things in order to make people realize that what they speak of and what they fight against is far beyond their domain of understanding. Otherwise they wouldn't stand up for beliefs they know nothing of.

This was absolutely brilliant. Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post

@DragonNighthowler thank you. I really tried my best. smile.gif

 

Killing an infant after it was already born is infanticide.

Abortion is eqauted to removing an unwanted parasite. By definition a parasite almost always just takes from the host and is dependant on it to live. Sometimes it may "do something beneficial to the host" to keep it alive.

 

 

No. I disagree on this. An embryo/fetus/child is not a parasite. Yes, it is an organism that depends entirely on you, but it's not a parasite. The relation of two organisms living in a way that one has use of the other and the other has use on the first one is called mutualism. The relation in which one organism has benefits and the other is caused no harm by it is called commensalism. Parasitism, however, means that one organism benefits on the other, while the other is harmed by the existence of the first, and it usually ends up killing the host, after which it dies or finds another host. You can't possibly be that cruel to say that a potential human being, or any potential living being developing inside the mother's uterus (an embryo of a dog, cat, mouse) is a parasite. That would mean that every embryo growing in the womb will end up potentially killing the mother. That never happens unless the fertilized ovarian cell is implanted in the wrong organ (the egg duct, for example). This is the case when a mother can't possibly carry out the pregnancy because the little ovarian cell that is meant to develop further into a baby will keep growing until the egg duct bursts, causing a massive hemorrhage (bleeding) that WOULD end up killing the mother without immediate medical help. However, those cases luckily don't happen often, otherwise every woman would fear for her life and no humans would be born at all.

Abortion isn't about, or even remotely equal to removing an unwanted parasite because the embryo doesn't behave like a parasite. It would mean that the woman, for any reason, wants to stop a possibility of having a being fully dependent on her for a long time, and that she had to take care of until it learns to take care of itself. Having a child is an enormous responsibility. In my mind, a beautiful one, but still challenging and not to be taken lightly. Not everyone is capable/willing to take care of a child and no one should be forced to. I'm not saying that people should have sex without birth control and end every pregnancy that comes as a result, but if it happens by accident (after the woman forgets to use the so-called "day-after pills" as the last chance to stop herself from getting pregnant) and the parents aren't ready to love their child, take care of it and raise it I wouldn't deny them the possibility even if I had the power to do so.

My mother had me 21 years ago and I was a bit of a difficult baby to handle. I refused to learn to talk and walk until I decided that it's about time it changed, making her worried sick about what could be wrong with me, I had my hysterical moments, I sometimes even ran into walls for no reason and she kept trembling over the fact I could easily get seriously hurt, but she chose to give birth to me, to have me, raise me and love me with all her heart. When I was two my sister was born, and she not only had to keep an eye out on a stubborn toddler, she had to basically re-live the infant troubles all over again. But she did, because it was her choice to have us, and she loved us. When I was nine and Milica (my sister) was seven, dad got a third baby girl, Ana, and six years after that he got a son named Igor, and all of us had our first brother. So now he has four children of twenty-one, nineteen, eleven and six and is having some financial difficulties because he has no stable job and very little income, but he chose to have all four of us, two with our mum and two with his current wife. We were all born because we were wanted. We were all welcome to his family and we were all welcomed to his life. wub.gif

The fact that abortion could be more approachable to women doesn't mean that every woman will terminate each of her pregnancies. Women who want to be mothers will carry out their pregnancies, give birth and love and raise their children, making them as happy as they can. The reason why I think that abortion should be available at a clinic or a section of a well-equipped hospital is only because not every woman is ready to have a child, for whatever reason, and should be able to change that condition while she still can and feel safe during the process. Hundreds of years ago, and even today, thanks to inexperienced people and unsanitary conditions, women had, and still have a huge risk of dying because of possible complications, but if they are ready to even die because they couldn't handle raising a child the society should have mercy on them and at least stop pointing fingers at them as if they were the devil himself. I'd like every woman to have the possibility to end a pregnancy she can't handle and feel safe about it instead of being afraid whether she will die or have the possibility to give birth sometime later in life. To have a possibility to have a baby when she is ready, and if she is ready instead of being pressured and oppressed by her family, friends, and society for her personal choices. Even if abortion becomes integrated like I said, children will be born, and the children that are welcomed into the world will be loved, wanted and the greatest happiness of their parents instead of rejected, abandoned and left behind.

Edited by *Silver Fox*

Share this post


Link to post

@DragonNighthowler thank you. I really tried my best. smile.gif

 

 

No. I disagree on this. An embryo/fetus/child is not a parasite. Yes, it is an organism that depends entirely on you, but it's not a parasite. The relation of two organisms living in a way that one has use of the other and the other has use on the first one is called mutualism. The relation in which one organism has benefits and the other is caused no harm by it is called commensalism. Parasitism, however, means that one organism benefits on the other, while the other is harmed by the existence of the first, and it usually ends up killing the host, after which it dies or finds another host. You can't possibly be that cruel to say that a potential human being, or any potential living being developing inside the mother's uterus (an embryo of a dog, cat, mouse) is a parasite. That would mean that every embryo growing in the womb will end up potentially killing the mother. That never happens unless the fertilized ovarian cell is implanted in the wrong organ (the egg duct, for example). This is the case when a mother can't possibly carry out the pregnancy because the little ovarian cell that is meant to develop further into a baby will keep growing until the egg duct bursts, causing a massive hemorrhage (bleeding) that WOULD end up killing the mother without immediate medical help. However, those cases luckily don't happen often, otherwise every woman would fear for her life and no humans would be born at all.

Abortion isn't about, or even remotely equal to removing an unwanted parasite because the embryo doesn't behave like a parasite. It would mean that the woman, for any reason, wants to stop a possibility of having a being fully dependent on her for a long time, and that she had to take care of until it learns to take care of itself. Having a child is an enormous responsibility. In my mind, a beautiful one, but still challenging and not to be taken lightly. Not everyone is capable/willing to take care of a child and no one should be forced to. I'm not saying that people should have sex without birth control and end every pregnancy that comes as a result, but if it happens by accident (after the woman forgets to use the so-called "day-after pills" as the last chance to stop herself from getting pregnant) and the parents aren't ready to love their child, take care of it and raise it I wouldn't deny them the possibility even if I had the power to do so.

My mother had me 21 years ago and I was a bit of a difficult baby to handle. I refused to learn to talk and walk until I decided that it's about time it changed, making her worried sick about what could be wrong with me, I had my hysterical moments, I sometimes even ran into walls for no reason and she kept trembling over the fact I could easily get seriously hurt, but she chose to give birth to me, to have me, raise me and love me with all her heart. When I was two my sister was born, and she not only had to keep an eye out on a stubborn toddler, she had to basically re-live the infant troubles all over again. But she did, because it was her choice to have us, and she loved us. When I was nine and Milica (my sister) was seven, dad got a third baby girl, Ana, and six years after that he got a son named Igor, and all of us had our first brother. So now he has four children of twenty-one, nineteen, eleven and six and is having some financial difficulties because he has no stable job and very little income, but he chose to have all four of us, two with our mum and two with his current wife. We were all born because we were wanted. We were all welcome to his family and we were all welcomed to his life. wub.gif

The fact that abortion could be more approachable to women doesn't mean that every woman will terminate each of her pregnancies. Women who want to be mothers will carry out their pregnancies, give birth and love and raise their children, making them as happy as they can. The reason why I think that abortion should be available at a clinic or a section of a well-equipped hospital is only because not every woman is ready to have a child, for whatever reason, and should be able to change that condition while she still can and feel safe during the process. Hundreds of years ago, and even today, thanks to inexperienced people and unsanitary conditions, women had, and still have a huge risk of dying because of possible complications, but if they are ready to even die because they couldn't handle raising a child the society should have mercy on them and at least stop pointing fingers at them as if they were the devil himself. I'd like every woman to have the possibility to end a pregnancy she can't handle and feel safe about it instead of being afraid whether she will die or have the possibility to give birth sometime later in life. To have a possibility to have a baby when she is ready, and if she is ready instead of being pressured and oppressed by her family, friends, and society for her personal choices. Even if abortion becomes integrated like I said, children will be born, and the children that are welcomed into the world will be loved, wanted and the greatest happiness of their parents instead of rejected, abandoned and left behind.

Actually yes, I can be that "cruel" to consider a fetus a parasite because that's what it is.

Parasite- an organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense

 

You may argue that this is a form of Mutualism, which is a relationship where both the host and the parasite benefit, but how does this benefit the mother? Where is that "benefit"?

 

Here are some commonly talked about downsides of pregnancy though:

 

Nausea.

Constipation.

Sore boobs.

Vomit all day long, not just in the morning.

You can't eat your favorite foods because you'll throw up.

Indigestion and heartburn.

Braxton Hicks.

Depression.

Anxiety.

Constant crying.

Fatigue.

You look and feel fat, this bothers some people yes

You feel bloated.

You’re carrying around some extra weight.

Insomnia.

Have to pee incessantly

psychosis

 

Now, onto some that are not mentioned much:

Hyperemesis gravidarum

 

Temporary and permanent injury to back

 

Severe scarring requiring later surgery (especially after additional pregnancies)

 

Dropped (prolapsed) uterus (especially after additional pregnancies, and other pelvic floor weaknesses -- 11% of women, including cystocele, rectocele, and enterocele)

 

Pre-eclampsia (edema and hypertension, the most common complication of pregnancy, associated with eclampsia, and affecting 7 - 10% of pregnancies)

Eclampsia (convulsions, coma during pregnancy or labor, high risk of death)

 

Gestational diabetes

 

Placenta previa

 

Anemia (which can be life-threatening)

 

Thrombocytopenic purpura

 

Severe cramping

 

Embolism (blood clots)

 

Medical disability requiring full bed rest (frequently ordered during part of many pregnancies varying from days to months for health of either mother or baby)

 

Diastasis recti, also torn abdominal muscles

 

Mitral valve stenosis (most common cardiac complication)

 

Serious infection and disease (e.g. increased risk of tuberculosis)

 

Hormonal imbalance

 

Ectopic pregnancy (risk of death)

 

Broken bones (ribcage, "tail bone")

 

Hemorrhage and numerous other complications of delivery

 

Refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease

 

Aggravation of pre-pregnancy diseases and conditions (e.g. epilepsy is present in .5% of pregnant women, and the pregnancy alters drug metabolism and treatment prospects all the while it increases the number and frequency of seizures)

 

Severe post-partum depression and psychosis

 

 

yes, the fetus is biologically a parasite, just look at the symbiotic relationship during the time of it's gestation--it fits every definition of parasite:

 

"an animal or plant that lives in or on a host (another animal or plant); it obtains nourishment from the host without benefiting or killing the host"

wordnetweb princeton edu/perl/webwn

 

"biology A (generally undesirable) living organism that exists by stealing the resources produced/collected by another living organism. "

wiktionary org/wiki/parasite

 

"(Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Biology) an animal or plant that lives in or on another (the host) from which it obtains nourishment. The host does not benefit from the association and is often harmed by it"

www thefreedictionary com/parasite

 

"An organism that lives in or with another organism, called the host, in parasitism, a type of association characterized by the parasite obtaining benefits from the host, such as food, and the host being injured as a result."

medical-dictionary thefreedictionary com/parasite

 

and for the people who are saying that an organism HAS to be a parasite for the rest of it's life, are scientifically wrong.

 

"temporary parasite:one that lives free of its host during part of its life cycle."

 

for everyone's info, i give you the different types of parasites:

"accidental parasite:one that parasitizes an organism other than the usual host.

facultative parasite:one that may be parasitic upon another organism but can exist independently.

incidental parasite/accidental parasite.

obligate parasite/obligatory parasite: one that is entirely dependent upon a host for its survival.

periodic parasite:one that parasitizes a host for short periods.

temporary parasite:one that lives free of its host during part of its life cycle."

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/parasite

"It is also possible for a symbiotic relationship to exist between two organisms of the same species"

http://www.answers.com/topic/symbiosis

--- Gale's Science of Everyday Things:

Symbiosis

 

and to see how pregnancy harms a woman, to go:

http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/004

 

 

Edited by BlightWyvern

Share this post


Link to post

OK, so here we are with a pretty ungrateful term "parasite", and although it is true that it is defined as an organism living thanks to another greater organism, I often find a better term in literature. Saprophyte.

A saprophyte is an organism depending on another greater organism for nutrition and existence, but it causes neither harm nor benefit to the greater organism commonly referred to as the host. Some examples are: the bacteria called Escherichia coli in the colon, the fungus named Candida albicans and is normally found in the oral cavity, and are also called "opportunistic pathogens" because they will only harm the host if the host's immunity is alarmed by a disease or similar attack. Parasites are referred to as the organisms who benefit from their hosts, and cause damage to it by killing it or making it severely ill. Every single book that my college uses as official and accurate medical literature says so, and those books are collections of scientific facts and work of the greatest experts in biology, medicine and other related sciences. A Dysenteric ameba is considered a parasite. A Cestoda is considered a parasite. Those things can exhaust, or even kill a human being or any host they can infect, unlike an embryo.

By that logic, a developing embryo, and later fetus can be referred to as the saprophyte because it usually doesn't harm the mother (there are extrauteral pregnancies, which is another thing). If a pregnancy endangers the mother's well being, health and life, the abortion is done as a routine to save her from certain death. If a mother is battling an illness during pregnancy, it's a doctor's obligation to recommend abortion if they think the risk is far too great, but nothing can be done without the mother's consent. If she agrees to listen to her doctor, the mother will sign the necessary legal form that states that she has consciously agreed to the procedure, aware of all the risks it carries, but still wishes to proceed with it. That protects doctors from trial in case the patient is harmed or dies because of possible complications because the patient WILLINGLY AGREED TO UNDERGO THAT PROCEDURE AND LEFT THEIR CONSENT AS PROOF, and it also protects doctors from being banned from medical practice.

What you listed as downsides of pregnancy isn't lethal or harmful to the mother's health in a serious way. Sure, no one is happy about throwing up every morning or being nauseous to some more intensive smells, overgrowing their shoes and jeans, hormonal disbalance, sore breasts that can be a pain in the neck, but it's all natural and normal just like stomach cramps, headaches and bleeding when a woman is on her period, which is a natural part of a woman's ovarial cycle, something that's natural and normal for human beings, and not pathological. It defines us as human beings, we have those things in our lives and can do nothing to change that, just to learn to live with it. Most of these changes have a purpose to keep the pregnancy going until the time comes for the child to be born, and to feed it/provide nourishment (sore breasts, lactation, milk glands) because humans are mammals and are normally breastfed, at least for six months, and shouldn't be longer than a year. Breastfeeding provides the child precious immunity cells its mother can give it, the required nourishment, and stimulates the development of the facial bones and muscles, which includes both their final growth and normal functioning. If the mother can't provide milk and the child has to be fed with the bottle, it is highly recommended to use the nipple that imitates the shape and size of the opening of the actual human nipple, so that the child is provoked to put in enough effort and develop its facial structures.

If we talk about prolapse of the uterus, especially after more pregnancies, it's normal. None of our cells are almighty, they all age just like we do, they get tired and they collapse and die, but are more often than not replaced by new cells, at a certain rate. The only non-regenerating tissue types in our organism are the brain tissue (neurons), skeletal muscles and cardiomyocytes (the heart's muscle cells). Besides, as we age, it's normal that our organism's material gets wasted and it takes more time to regenerate and make up for the wasted cells. Our skin wrinkles, breasts get soggy and hang a lot more, our bones get less elasticity and are more fragile to fractures, there are many examples if you at least bother to take a closer look at your fellow senior citizens, male or female. The differences between an average person older than 65 and an average young adult are evident to anyone.

Ovaries also suffer atrophy, or at least the ovarian follicles do, when a perfectly reproductively healthy woman enters her menopause. It's normal and, whether you like it or not, it's inevitable. A normal part of a woman's life. Pregnancy is no different for a woman who wants to have a baby and is willing to put up with it and doing her best to ignore it as much as possible or find ways to deal with it.

The complications and heath issues that you listed may occur, I would never deny it, but they happen rarely, thank God on that. Anemia that you listed is only transitory most of the time, as the body of a pregnant woman requires more iron, which can be compensated by eating more food with iron or using it as a diet supplement. Many complications may occur as a result of bad habits the mother had earlier, or when the doctors, nurses or obstetricians make an irreparable mistake, not necessarily by the presence of a growing baby. Infections, sepsis and so on are caused by unsanitary conditions, unsterilized equipment and neglect/wrong doing of a responsible medical practitioner, not the baby itself.

The complication that you seem to have forgotten to mention is the erythroblastosis fetalis, which occurs when an Rh negative mother bears a Rh positive child. The first pregnancy goes well, but if the same happens again the mother's immune system creates antibodies against the blood of her baby and its erythrocytes are pathologically destroyed, making the child be born with icterus. However, medical science has made enough progress since its beginnings back in ancient Greece with Hypocrates, many remedies have been found, many diseases have been cured or at least held under control using proper medication, and so did the fine art of baby delivery. That is what has so far reduced potential deterioration and aggravation of existing medical conditions and chances of complications occurring and made both women and children safer during the act of giving birth. Not everything is ideal all the time, there are situations when anything can go wrong, but it still shouldn't scare women to get pregnant if they really want to found a family and have children, as many as they want and as many as they can provide for.

Post-partum depression is not what every woman suffers after giving birth, but is also not uncommon. In those cases, the woman should be helped out both medically and as family and friends because it's not a non-transitory state if it's diagnosed and adequately treated in time. However, if it escalates enough to be potentially harmful to the baby (as in, the mother shows aggression and represents a threat to the child), more drastic measures MUST be taken.

However, the point of this topic is abortion. NONE OF THESE REASONS SHOULD PERSUADE A WOMAN TO HAVE AN ABORTION IF SHE WANTS TO HAVE A CHILD AND IS CAPABLE OF RAISING IT IN EVERY WAY. That's the entire point.

Everything I used in this post are certified scientific facts that I'm obliged to learn at college since we have tons of medical subjects that aren't always necessarily tied to dental medicine, or at least not so strictly. So believe me, I know what I'm saying.

 

Edit: Oh! I almost forgot. You asked this: "You may argue that this is a form of Mutualism, which is a relationship where both the host and the parasite benefit, but how does this benefit the mother? Where is that "benefit"?" Well, maybe it's not so evident during the pregnancy itself, but after it's over, the mother usually notices the benefits the child she wanted so much gives her - a being that will love her, adore her, the joy of seeing someone who's your own play and laugh, grow, learn, accomplish something, grow up, has a family of its own, and all that thanks to everything she has done to make sure her baby grows up to be a happy human being.

Edited by *Silver Fox*

Share this post


Link to post

Like i said before he said you all would ague that life was not valuable to you all and that if one life is so important then others are as well.You guys just keep proving to us right here that You guys have no heart. You are what he said you are and you guys got me laughing here still trying to prove murder is right in some situations and wrong in others.How can you all justify that? Like he said. So here i rest my case for all the unborn humans who are out there i am their voice as well as other pro- life people.

 

They can argue that the child is human but it does not possess the same value as born humans. But this carries with it the horrible implication that the dignity and value of human life is acquired, developed, and conditional. Now they have turned human beings into stock market commodities. Our worth fluctuates with market demands. And, if our life is tied to our development, then what about humans that are born underdeveloped? What about humans with birth defects, genetic abnormalities, and brain damage? The “pro-choicer” may wish to hide from the obvious and unavoidable consequences of her own ideology, but that does not change the fact that disabled and “defected” humans ARE less valuable IF our value hinges on our physical development. And at what point in the acquisition of value do we reach our peak? 18? 27? 32? And, because we’ve turned human value into a subjective and conditional matter, who are we to argue against the despots and tyrants of history who’ve slaughtered millions using the logic that their victims are “less human” than the favored class? Further, if our value suffers in proportion to our reliance on another human (our mother) for survival, then it stands to reason that newborns and the elderly are just as, or at least almost as, expendable as unborn humans. Therefore, the “pro-choicer” in this category either doesn’t understand what they are saying, or they have explicitly aligned themselves with the insidious philosophy that has fueled every genocide and man-caused mass travesty since the beginning of time. Arguing morals with them is a fool’s errand, as they possess the moral compass of lunatics and mass murderers.

-So, if the “pro-choicer” is not confused, or a hypocrite, or an anarchist, or a sympathizer of tyrants, or a semi-illiterate with zero understanding of basic scientific laws, then only one argument is left for him: he can argue that human life has no objective value at all, at any stage. But if human life — the highest form of life in the known universe — has no value, then life in general must have no value.

Therefore, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the murder of dogs, even at their fuzzy puppy stage.

Edited by Laryal

Share this post


Link to post

 

I'm also in med college but I just started, so I guess I haven't gotten into this yet. I'm merely stating a point as to what a parasite is by a brief scientific definition.

 

Though I do like the term saprophyte, being pregnant does cause some harm to the mother/host. As shown in the above post. But I guess if you're talking about severe harm, that is indeed rare. And yeah, you have a point, most of the minor ones you kind of have to deal with...if you actually want it that is

 

And yes. This is about abortion. If you want kids and are ready for it, go for it. If not, there's ways to prevent pregnancy. But other than that I agree with everything you've said. You need to be ready for that kind of responsibility. And to actually WANT to be a parent. I'm in no place to tell people what choice to make, if you want kids go ahead, if that's what you want. If they go to loving homes then that's hardly a bad thing. It's when people have kids that they aren't ready for that things get bad. Like financially, you need to provide for basic needs (food, etc). You need patience, and self sacrifice. I mean, waking up every few hours to feed/care for your infant, sacrificing your sleep and care for something else? Yeah, its tough.

But if you truly want kids then this isn't going to be a chore, or misery for you. You'll be happy to do it. Something not everyone could handle or just flat out does not want. That doesn't make them selfish though, they just have something else they want to get out of life. smile.gif

But anyways I did find your post insightful.

Edited by BlightWyvern

Share this post


Link to post

Pretty sure BlyightWyvern's comment was directed at *Silver Fox*, since her post is addressing the contents of hers and not yours, Laryal.

Edited by Omega Entity

Share this post


Link to post

Like i said before he said you all would ague that life was not valuable to you all and that if one life is so important then others are as well.You guys just keep proving to us right here that You guys have no heart. You are what he said you are and you guys got me laughing here still trying to prove murder is right in some situations and wrong in others.How can you all justify that? Like he said. So here i rest my case for all the unborn humans who are out there i am their voice as well as other pro- life people.

 

They can argue that the child is human but it does not possess the same value as born humans. But this carries with it the horrible implication that the dignity and value of human life is acquired, developed, and conditional. Now they have turned human beings into stock market commodities. Our worth fluctuates with market demands. And, if our life is tied to our development, then what about humans that are born underdeveloped? What about humans with birth defects, genetic abnormalities, and brain damage? The “pro-choicer” may wish to hide from the obvious and unavoidable consequences of her own ideology, but that does not change the fact that disabled and “defected” humans ARE less valuable IF our value hinges on our physical development. And at what point in the acquisition of value do we reach our peak? 18? 27? 32? And, because we’ve turned human value into a subjective and conditional matter, who are we to argue against the despots and tyrants of history who’ve slaughtered millions using the logic that their victims are “less human” than the favored class? Further, if our value suffers in proportion to our reliance on another human (our mother) for survival, then it stands to reason that newborns and the elderly are just as, or at least almost as, expendable as unborn humans. Therefore, the “pro-choicer” in this category either doesn’t understand what they are saying, or they have explicitly aligned themselves with the insidious philosophy that has fueled every genocide and man-caused mass travesty since the beginning of time. Arguing morals with them is a fool’s errand, as they possess the moral compass of lunatics and mass murderers.

-So, if the “pro-choicer” is not confused, or a hypocrite, or an anarchist, or a sympathizer of tyrants, or a semi-illiterate with zero understanding of basic scientific laws, then only one argument is left for him: he can argue that human life has no objective value at all, at any stage. But if human life — the highest form of life in the known universe — has no value, then life in general must have no value.

Therefore, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the murder of dogs, even at their fuzzy puppy stage.

Actually, there is less of an argument that a fetus has less value than a human. The argument is usually that the pregnant person has the same value as LITERALLY ANYBODY ELSE OR A CORPSE.

 

If someone was involved in a car accident and could only survive if they had a blood donation from me, guess what? I am not required to give my blood. When it comes to my own body, it's ultimately my choice if I want to share a part of it. Even if I die, people cannot harvest my organs unless I say it is allowed. Organs that could save lives are left to rot inside of my deceased body simply because I said 'no'.

This is something even dead people have.

When a person is pregnant, they don't have their rights removed. If I don't want to play host to a parasite, it is entirely my choice to remove it because it is my body. And before you go on saying something about "consenting to pregnancy" or whatever by having sex in the first place, people choose to smoke. And when people develop lung cancer, we don't refuse them care because they choose to smoke. That's because consenting to one thing is not consenting to another.

 

Your rhetoric here is severely flawed. I'd suggest avoiding ad hominem (attacking people who are arguing with you by claiming they have "no heart"), straw-man (misrepresenting an argument to make it easier to attack) and slippery slope (abortion being right means it is also right to murder dogs at all stages of life).

Share this post


Link to post
Actually, there is less of an argument that a fetus has less value than a human. The argument is usually that the pregnant person has the same value as LITERALLY ANYBODY ELSE OR A CORPSE.

 

If someone was involved in a car accident and could only survive if they had a blood donation from me, guess what? I am not required to give my blood. When it comes to my own body, it's ultimately my choice if I want to share a part of it. Even if I die, people cannot harvest my organs unless I say it is allowed. Organs that could save lives are left to rot inside of my deceased body simply because I said 'no'.

This is something even dead people have.

When a person is pregnant, they don't have their rights removed. If I don't want to play host to a parasite, it is entirely my choice to remove it because it is my body. And before you go on saying something about "consenting to pregnancy" or whatever by having sex in the first place, people choose to smoke. And when people develop lung cancer, we don't refuse them care because they choose to smoke. That's because consenting to one thing is not consenting to another.

 

Your rhetoric here is severely flawed. I'd suggest avoiding ad hominem (attacking people who are arguing with you by claiming they have "no heart"), straw-man (misrepresenting an argument to make it easier to attack) and slippery slope (abortion being right means it is also right to murder dogs at all stages of life).

So you would save your own lfe no matter what right? so turn it around and you were that person who was in that accident would you want some one saving your life? You would be the one screaming help me help me. I then would look at you and say the same thing to you.Those babies have no voice i am their voice as other pro-life people are.

Share this post


Link to post

Pro-birth, not pro-life. Most who use your arguments care nothing about what the potential child has to go through after, only that they're born. Are you willing to take on the financial responsibility of raising that potential child? Will you willingly pay higher taxes to support the government services many low-income families rely on to feed children that they aren't capable of supporting otherwise?

 

 

Edited by Omega Entity

Share this post


Link to post
Pretty sure BlyightWyvern's comment was directed at *Silver Fox*, since her post is addressing the contents of hers and not yours, Laryal.

Really it sounded like she was talking to me.

Share this post


Link to post

Except it doesn't mater. Your religious beliefs aside, we live in a constitutionally limited representative democratic republic (Though we are leading more towards Plutocracy of late but whatever), not a theocracy.

So guess what?

You screaming at me doesn't change the fact it's my body. Your freedoms end where mine begin and you cannot tell somebody they must sacrifice their freedoms for yours. To amount of you telling me its "what my baby wants" or "I'm going to Hell" is going to change the fact it's my body and, at the end of the day, it's my territory. You can yell all you want but you can't expect it to interfere with my freedoms. I will never have children and in the event I get pregnant, it won't stay that way for long. Why?

Because it's my body and you have no jurisdiction over it. Neither does anyone else except for me.

Share this post


Link to post

Really it sounded like she was talking to me.

I can almost positively assure you that she wasn't. You spoke nowhere of of the etymology of the word 'parasite' or 'saprophyte', and she has stated earlier that she is pro-choice.

 

You will not convince people to your side of the argument here, especially with your poor debate techniques. We're going in circles with you at this point, and nothing is being accomplished by it.

Edited by Omega Entity

Share this post


Link to post

I was talking to Silver, beings her words were what I quoted and responded to

 

Theres nothing laryal has said I personally agree/find insightful. Most it being attempted emotional appeal and more based on belief than factual reasoning

Edited by BlightWyvern

Share this post


Link to post

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.