Quote:
Originally Posted by PaleRider
Is it your place to get in the way of a man who is going to exploit the technology of a .38 special to end his wife's nagging? Is it your place to say no to anyone who wants to kill someone else who is not an immediate threat to their life?
More weak arguments. If you had a strong position, do you believe it would be necessary to compare a perfectly healthy living human being to someone who is so sick or injured that they can't reasonably be expected to recover or a dying animal? Is that really as good as your argument gets?
So do you favor going about killing children who we know beyond doubt are living in very poor families and require sacrifices? Following your logic, you must be. After all, how do you justify killing a child based on what "might" happen without also advocating killing children who you can readily identify as suffering the same fate you advocate killing children who might suffer it?
Sure, no problem.
First and foremost, a parasite, by definition, is described as an organism of one species living in or on an organism of another species (a heterospecific relationship) (See Cheng, T.C., General Parasitology, p. 7, 1973.)
An unborn is an organism of one species (Homo sapiens) living in the uterine cavity of an organism of the same species (Homo sapiens) and deriving its nourishment from the mother (is metabolically dependent on the mother). This homospecific relationship is an obligatory dependent relationship, but not a parasitic relationship.
Second, A parasite is an invading organism, that is, it comes to parasitize the host from an outside source
An unborn is the result of the fertilization of an egg. The egg comes from an inside source. It is formed in the ovary of the mother
Number three. A parasite is generally detrimental to the reproductive capacity of the invaded host. The host may be weakened, diseased or killed by the parasite, thus reducing or eliminating the host's capacity to reproduce.
An unborn is absolutely essential to the reproductive capacity of the involved mother (and species). The mother(in normal circumstances) is not weakened, diseased or killed by the presence of the child, but rather is fully tolerant of this offspring which must begin his or her life in this intimate and highly specialized relationship with the mother.
There are numerous other reasons, but if you only want three, I suppose these will do. Parasites are what they are and unborns simply can not be accurately characterized as parasites.
The point is that you have the right to live because you are a human being and your right to live trumps any right that anyone else may invoke so long as you don't represent an imenent threat to their life.
|
An unborn with a pending mother and a man killing his wife for nagging are completely different circumstances. If you gave equivalent rights to a zebra, would you not allow it to spit out it's fetus to survive while trying to out run a pack of hyenas? I'm not discouraging human rights I'm pointing out your place of persecution.
It is the very same state but in turn a reverse form. The unborn is coming to life, while the dieing is going from life. In that state they need an outside source to live until they are better or dead. The mother should even have a better reason to abort a baby because it can go into something to benefit that comatose relative.
I do not believe in pointless murder. I believe in natural selection and in turn I don't see why you are encouraging the existence of another unwanted mouth to feed. Abortion is a choice, not a mandatory requirement.
The Unborn still does the very same thing as a parasite, Living off another to live. And yes mothers can become crippled or die from child birth while the baby can leave unscathed. But I will say stillbirths occur so the baby doesn't sound like the infallible nemesis.
So all in all I will say that if there was an abundance of benevolent housings for unwanted children my views wouldn't be so stark and inhumane, but reality is not in favor.