Roe v Wade is on deck

[Lion IRC]

I would go to war. I have become a soldier for less...

Killing for the cause.
Sure. We know the type.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence

 

[Jarhyn]

The issue of parasite is on the side of those who say a developing fetus is most definitely living as a parasite.

Not by <one narrow jargonal> definition of the word parasite <that I wish to shoehorn into vernacular>.

FTFY.

 

[Jarhyn]

I would go to war. I have become a soldier for less...

Killing for the cause.
Sure. We know the type.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence

Ah yes. Compare cowardly murderers with enlistment to a regular army. And I suppose those who fought for the north in the civil war against plantation slavery were "the type" too, eh?

But apparently the only wars you christians can support are the ones your leash holding GOP overlords approve.

I stand by my statement. I will fight. And anyone who doesn't consider exactly when, where, and what and why they will fight, honestly will find themselves, when fighting does start, on a side they do not like. Or in the middle.

 

[untermensche]

The issue of parasite is on the side of those who say a developing fetus is most definitely living as a parasite.

Not by definition of the word parasite.

Living like a parasite makes you a parasite.

It does not matter that you use a narrow definition that capriciously excludes a developing fetus.

 

[Toni]

The issue of parasite is on the side of those who say a developing fetus is most definitely living as a parasite.

Not by <one narrow jargonal> definition of the word parasite <that I wish to shoehorn into vernacular>.

FTFY.

Bullshit.

Parasite as used to describe embryos is deliberately politicizing a word in order to make it easier to defend a position.

A position, btw, that I happen to agree with. Girls and women should have the absolute right to abortion, whether your or I or anyone else agrees with their reason or reasoning. It does not depend on whether or not the fetus is human. It is human. That does not mean that any person is forbidden to seek out whatever medical treatment they feel is in their best interests.

 

[Toni]

The issue of parasite is on the side of those who say a developing fetus is most definitely living as a parasite.

Not by definition of the word parasite.

Living like a parasite makes you a parasite.

It does not matter that you use a narrow definition that capriciously excludes a developing fetus.

There's nothing capricious about it. A parasite is dependent upon another organism (not of its species) for life without providing any benefit to said organism.

A human fetus IS dependent upon another organism of the SAME SPECIES for survival AND it provides some benefits to that other host organism.

Even if you remove the requirement that a parasite is of a different species than its host, you cannot remove the fact that a fetus confers some biological health benefit to the mother. It's just not convenient for your argument that women can have abortions because it's only a parasite.

Women can have abortions because it's their body and they get to choose their own medical care and make decisions in their own best interests without justifying it to anyone else. Certainly without torturing the meaning of words.

Furthermore, in any discussion of abortion, there is always discussion of various stages of pregnancy. Roe V Wade makes that absolutely pertinent as it notes that abortion can only be regulated after viability.

It is important to actually know what you are talking about when you are talking about physical, biological processes. That means knowing and understanding terms, words, what they mean, what they imply.

If that's too difficult for anyone, I suggest they stay out of the argument and let women do what the courts have decided they can do, what any man is able to do: make medical decisions in their own best interests.

 

[Jarhyn]

FTFY.

Bullshit.

Parasite as used to describe embryos is deliberately politicizing a word in order to make it easier to defend a position.

A position, btw, that I happen to agree with. Girls and women should have the absolute right to abortion, whether your or I or anyone else agrees with their reason or reasoning. It does not depend on whether or not the fetus is human. It is human. That does not mean that any person is forbidden to seek out whatever medical treatment they feel is in their best interests.

So, I'm going to keep using that term. It is a one word shorthand for "takes resources without permission as a necessary function of it's existence", as if anyone here didn't understand the usage. I am not claiming it isn't human; that's your overzealous misapplication of jargon talking, and you're going to need to break yourself of it if you want to discuss this in street english.

 

[untermensche]

Living like a parasite makes you a parasite.

It does not matter that you use a narrow definition that capriciously excludes a developing fetus.

There's nothing capricious about it. A parasite is dependent upon another organism (not of its species) for life without providing any benefit to said organism.

A human fetus IS dependent upon another organism of the SAME SPECIES for survival AND it provides some benefits to that other host organism.

Even if you remove the requirement that a parasite is of a different species than its host, you cannot remove the fact that a fetus confers some biological health benefit to the mother. It's just not convenient for your argument that women can have abortions because it's only a parasite.

Women can have abortions because it's their body and they get to choose their own medical care and make decisions in their own best interests without justifying it to anyone else. Certainly without torturing the meaning of words.

Furthermore, in any discussion of abortion, there is always discussion of various stages of pregnancy. Roe V Wade makes that absolutely pertinent as it notes that abortion can only be regulated after viability.

It is important to actually know what you are talking about when you are talking about physical, biological processes. That means knowing and understanding terms, words, what they mean, what they imply.

If that's too difficult for anyone, I suggest they stay out of the argument and let women do what the courts have decided they can do, what any man is able to do: make medical decisions in their own best interests.

You capriciously and without cause say "different species".

That is anthropocentric bullshit!

A fetus MIGHT confer a benefit.

There is no guarantee. The little parasite might give you diabetes too.

 

[Toni]

FTFY.

Bullshit.

Parasite as used to describe embryos is deliberately politicizing a word in order to make it easier to defend a position.

A position, btw, that I happen to agree with. Girls and women should have the absolute right to abortion, whether your or I or anyone else agrees with their reason or reasoning. It does not depend on whether or not the fetus is human. It is human. That does not mean that any person is forbidden to seek out whatever medical treatment they feel is in their best interests.

So, I'm going to keep using that term. It is a one word shorthand for "takes resources without permission as a necessary function of it's existence", as if anyone here didn't understand the usage. I am not claiming it isn't human; that's your overzealous misapplication of jargon talking, and you're going to need to break yourself of it if you want to discuss this in street english.

Nope. It's not overzealousness on my part. It's you and others deciding that a word means what you want it to mean.

Given how much of Roe V Wade depends upon some pretty precise medical terminology, I would think that anyone with any genuine interest in discussing the case, its challenges and the ramifications would have the integrity to acquaint oneself with the appropriate use of pertinent terms and vocabulary.

 

[Toni]

Living like a parasite makes you a parasite.

It does not matter that you use a narrow definition that capriciously excludes a developing fetus.

There's nothing capricious about it. A parasite is dependent upon another organism (not of its species) for life without providing any benefit to said organism.

A human fetus IS dependent upon another organism of the SAME SPECIES for survival AND it provides some benefits to that other host organism.

Even if you remove the requirement that a parasite is of a different species than its host, you cannot remove the fact that a fetus confers some biological health benefit to the mother. It's just not convenient for your argument that women can have abortions because it's only a parasite.

Women can have abortions because it's their body and they get to choose their own medical care and make decisions in their own best interests without justifying it to anyone else. Certainly without torturing the meaning of words.

Furthermore, in any discussion of abortion, there is always discussion of various stages of pregnancy. Roe V Wade makes that absolutely pertinent as it notes that abortion can only be regulated after viability.

It is important to actually know what you are talking about when you are talking about physical, biological processes. That means knowing and understanding terms, words, what they mean, what they imply.

If that's too difficult for anyone, I suggest they stay out of the argument and let women do what the courts have decided they can do, what any man is able to do: make medical decisions in their own best interests.

You capriciously and without cause say "different species".

That is anthropocentric bullshit!

A fetus MIGHT confer a benefit.

There is no guarantee. The little parasite might give you diabetes too.

Nope. It's the definition of parasite, as I've posted previously:

par·a·site
/ˈperəˌsīt/
Learn to pronounce
noun
1.
an organism that lives in or on an organism of another species (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense.
"the parasite attaches itself to the mouths of fishes"
Definitions from Oxford Languages

A fetus DOES confer some benefits.

Your so called made up definition is what is capricious and motivated by politics rather than reason.

 

[untermensche]

That is a capricious definition from a specific field. I am not limiting my use of the word to that field. I have never limited my use to that one field with it's one of many definitions.

A parasite is anything that lives as a parasite.

A pregnancy causes great harm to many many women.

The benefits you talk about are merely possible. There is no guarantee you keep the parasite alive you will get them.

 

[Toni]

That is a capricious definition from a specific field. I am not limiting my use of the word to that field. I have never limited my use to that one field with it's one of many definitions.

A parasite is anything that lives as a parasite.

A pregnancy causes great harm to many many women.

The benefits you talk about are merely possible. There is no guarantee you keep the parasite alive you will get them.

I hate to disappoint you but you are not Humpty Dumpty.

BTW, let's use capricious appropriately, as well:

ca·pri·cious
/kəˈpriSHəs,kəˈprēSHəs/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
given to sudden and unaccountable changes of mood or behavior.

If one wishes to capriciously define a term as suits oneself, one would be better served by not including the term in its definition. One cannot define 'parasite' by saying that anything that lives as a parasite is a parasite.

When one is talking about science and medical conditions and procedures, one does need to be familiar with the terminology. If one wishes to be taken seriously.

Pregnancy does confer benefits. The degree to which they are significant depends on the individual and a variety of circumstances.
Although many women are harmed by pregnancy, not all are harmed. The harms are merely possible.

 

[Jarhyn]

Living like a parasite makes you a parasite.

It does not matter that you use a narrow definition that capriciously excludes a developing fetus.

There's nothing capricious about it. A parasite is dependent upon another organism (not of its species) for life without providing any benefit to said organism.

A human fetus IS dependent upon another organism of the SAME SPECIES for survival AND it provides some benefits to that other host organism.

Even if you remove the requirement that a parasite is of a different species than its host, you cannot remove the fact that a fetus confers some biological health benefit to the mother. It's just not convenient for your argument that women can have abortions because it's only a parasite.

Women can have abortions because it's their body and they get to choose their own medical care and make decisions in their own best interests without justifying it to anyone else. Certainly without torturing the meaning of words.

Furthermore, in any discussion of abortion, there is always discussion of various stages of pregnancy. Roe V Wade makes that absolutely pertinent as it notes that abortion can only be regulated after viability.

It is important to actually know what you are talking about when you are talking about physical, biological processes. That means knowing and understanding terms, words, what they mean, what they imply.

If that's too difficult for anyone, I suggest they stay out of the argument and let women do what the courts have decided they can do, what any man is able to do: make medical decisions in their own best interests.

You capriciously and without cause say "different species".

That is anthropocentric bullshit!

A fetus MIGHT confer a benefit.

There is no guarantee. The little parasite might give you diabetes too.

So, unter, I think you're acting.. Well, who am I to talk? I'm downright nasty a goodly bit of my time here. But I do think it's a bit much.

The fact is, I find it 'newspeak' to try to define a language in a way such that you are forbidden from applying certain terms 'just 'cuz it's my jargon', but... I don't think it's out of place to have an attachment to jargon? I dunno. It just seems mean.

Nothing in this universe has any responsibility to accept any organism that lives by taking without consent, though, Toni. That is what parasitism means to people. Humans need words to reference concepts and shapes of relationships and stomping your feet because you want to stand on a special plea in language is... Well, that's a bit much, too.

 

[untermensche]

That is a capricious definition from a specific field. I am not limiting my use of the word to that field. I have never limited my use to that one field with it's one of many definitions.

A parasite is anything that lives as a parasite.

A pregnancy causes great harm to many many women.

The benefits you talk about are merely possible. There is no guarantee you keep the parasite alive you will get them.

I hate to disappoint you but you are not Humpty Dumpty.

BTW, let's use capricious appropriately, as well:

ca·pri·cious
/kəˈpriSHəs,kəˈprēSHəs/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
given to sudden and unaccountable changes of mood or behavior.

If one wishes to capriciously define a term as suits oneself, one would be better served by not including the term in its definition. One cannot define 'parasite' by saying that anything that lives as a parasite is a parasite.

When one is talking about science and medical conditions and procedures, one does need to be familiar with the terminology. If one wishes to be taken seriously.

Pregnancy does confer benefits. The degree to which they are significant depends on the individual and a variety of circumstances.
Although many women are harmed by pregnancy, not all are harmed. The harms are merely possible.

There is no guarantee a pregnancy will confer any benefits.

Many cause great harm.

It is capricious.

They exclude something like a human embryo based on nothing but emotion. Next year they will wise up and include it.

 

[Toni]

You capriciously and without cause say "different species".

That is anthropocentric bullshit!

A fetus MIGHT confer a benefit.

There is no guarantee. The little parasite might give you diabetes too.

So, unter, I think you're acting.. Well, who am I to talk? I'm downright nasty a goodly bit of my time here. But I do think it's a bit much.

The fact is, I find it 'newspeak' to try to define a language in a way such that you are forbidden from applying certain terms 'just 'cuz it's my jargon', but... I don't think it's out of place to have an attachment to jargon? I dunno. It just seems mean.

Nothing in this universe has any responsibility to accept any organism that lives by taking without consent, though, Toni. That is what parasitism means to people. Humans need words to reference concepts and shapes of relationships and stomping your feet because you want to stand on a special plea in language is... Well, that's a bit much, too.

Nobody is 'forbidding' anyone from using any word they wish to use incorrectly.

The concept of legal limits to a woman's right to choose abortion is not simply an interesting discussion to me. In fact, this thread is specifically about Roe v Wade, and so it is indeed pertinent to examine the language and the reasoning used in the decision because that is what is pertinent in legal challenges.

I think that you and everyone else posting on this forum is intelligent enough to handle actual definitions of words.

Sorry for refusing to patronize you by thinking you are too confused to know better.

 

[untermensche]

You capriciously and without cause say "different species".

That is anthropocentric bullshit!

A fetus MIGHT confer a benefit.

There is no guarantee. The little parasite might give you diabetes too.

So, unter, I think you're acting.. Well, who am I to talk? I'm downright nasty a goodly bit of my time here. But I do think it's a bit much.

The fact is, I find it 'newspeak' to try to define a language in a way such that you are forbidden from applying certain terms 'just 'cuz it's my jargon', but... I don't think it's out of place to have an attachment to jargon? I dunno. It just seems mean.

Nothing in this universe has any responsibility to accept any organism that lives by taking without consent, though, Toni. That is what parasitism means to people. Humans need words to reference concepts and shapes of relationships and stomping your feet because you want to stand on a special plea in language is... Well, that's a bit much, too.

If you freely kill something calling it a parasite is small potatoes.

 

[Lion IRC]

Killing.
That's the word which is at the heart of the abortion debate.

No matter how hard you try to dehumanise the unborn baby, the disabled person, the Jew, the negro slave you call chattel, the Downs Syndrome sufferer, the quadriplegic, the Covid-19 patient on life support, the parasite....
there is a clear medically - scientifically - defined line in the sand that is crossed when you "kill" a living human.

 

[Toni]

I hate to disappoint you but you are not Humpty Dumpty.

BTW, let's use capricious appropriately, as well:



If one wishes to capriciously define a term as suits oneself, one would be better served by not including the term in its definition. One cannot define 'parasite' by saying that anything that lives as a parasite is a parasite.

When one is talking about science and medical conditions and procedures, one does need to be familiar with the terminology. If one wishes to be taken seriously.

Pregnancy does confer benefits. The degree to which they are significant depends on the individual and a variety of circumstances.
Although many women are harmed by pregnancy, not all are harmed. The harms are merely possible.

There is no guarantee a pregnancy will confer any benefits.

Many cause great harm.

It is capricious.

They exclude something like a human embryo based on nothing but emotion. Next year they will wise up and include it.

Nope.

 

[untermensche]

Killing.
That's the word which is at the heart of the abortion debate.

No matter how hard you try to dehumanise the unborn baby, the disabled person, the Jew, the negro slave you call chattel, the Downs Syndrome sufferer, the quadriplegic, the Covid-19 patient on life support, the parasite....
there is a clear medically - scientifically - defined line in the sand that is crossed when you "kill" a living human.

Is something that does not have a brain a human?

 

[Rhea]

Killing.
That's the word which is at the heart of the abortion debate.

No matter how hard you try to dehumanise the unborn baby, the disabled person, the Jew, the negro slave you call chattel, the Downs Syndrome sufferer, the quadriplegic, the Covid-19 patient on life support, the parasite....
there is a clear medically - scientifically - defined line in the sand that is crossed when you "kill" a living human.

You have no obligation to keep any of those alive by being forced to donate the use of your organs against your will. Refusing to donte the use of your organs may result in them dying. You may even choose to call that “killing.”

Nevertheless, you are not obliged to donate your body to anyone for use of your blood, tissue or organs.

I can see why you would keep dodging this fact, and instead choose to talk about emotional words like “killing” and “baby” in the hopes that they will paper over your desired to take ownership of other people’s bodies and direct their use against their will.