extending life expectancy is a namby pamby "oprah definition" of survival?

Yup. I think that the feel good/happy aspect negating the 'contributes to the survival of the host' is a stretch. Even so, the 'contribution' isn't while pregnant. And, adopting kids probably has the same effect.

Can't a person be a parasite? I know lots of them, can I kill them?

Seriously, if an unborn is parasitic, why does that make it 'non-human' isn't it just a 'human' in its parasitic phase of being, but still 'human'? Don't get the parasite distinction for human/non-human

Who said anything about non-human? Until that clump of cells can function without it's host -- it doesn't deserve special treatment, or any protections of the constitution. Most certainly not forcing the mother to carry to term.

If the religious abortion protesters gave a quarter of a **** as much about the living as they did about a fetus -- I may look at them more favourably.

I like accusing them of distributing child pornography when they give out those pamphlets with aborted fetuses on them.

To beat the conservatives, you must because MOAR conservative, imo. Beating them at their own game.

So you are granting that the thing is a 'human being' from the moment of conception?

So, what age would you say? 11 or so? Hell, today's kids can't function without a host until they're more like 25 or so.

I believe it was Cosby that said, "I brought you into this world and I will take you out!"

nh.

^ this
Let's go around and euthanize the elderly that depend on their children or nursing homes to function, along with the thousands of people with mental disabilities or paralysis that are unable to do things for themselves. Yea! They don't deserve the special treatment! The people "hosting" them should be able to kill them whenever they want, right?

Hey, what about young children? They're good for nothing! Parents shouldn't be forced to take care of them until they're old enough to move out, they should just kill them if they want to!

Yea, what nutjobs! They should protest in favor of people that can speak for themselves instead of unborn fetuses. Yea!

Wait, come on, that's not what he's saying at all. Saying that I shouldn't be prevented from setting my car on fire is a lot different than saying "let's go around and set all the cars on fire" DUCY?

IC

My point, though it may have been over-sensationalized a bit, is that calling an unborn fetus a "parasite" using that definition of parasite would mean that many living humans with whatever health conditions they may have can also be deemed parasites, and by your logic the killing of these people would also be justified.

It's best not to get overly dramatic about a topic as touchy as abortion. Discussion quality can very quickly drop off a cliff.

Step 1: Is the thing, a fertilized egg, a human being. If yes, why?
If not, at what point does it become one?

If you can't solve Step 1, why discuss justifiable human killing? After all, if your position is the thing ain't human, that is all just conversation.


............

Some parasitic relationships can be terminated without killing.

While newborns, or some 11 or 25 year olds, may be dependents, that dependency is not tied to a single individual, as in the case for a pre-viable fetus.

So if we had the technology to move a fetus from one womb to another, then what?

The woman was the agent who actively created the situation of dependency, the fetus didn't choose it... fwiw.

Of course they are human, unless you are ****ing donkeys or something. I took your 'human being' to imply they have rights and protections of the constitution.

Or at least stand up when their little boys are getting molested.

Baaaaaaaaaaaa

OK. I follow you now.

But Meech, if they are human beings, why are they not entitled to the same rights and protections as all other human beings?

I think you said they are not entitled to the same rights and protections because they are 'parasites', or are parasitic, and only become entitled to those rights when they are 'viable outside the womb.'

Is that a fair statement of your opinion?

My opinion is that a clump of cells is not a "baby" or human being with rights at the moment of conception. That those who believe so are basing it on their personal faith (90+% of the time).

Potential person, sure. But just because a 'special' egg divided once or twice != constitutionally protected full fledged person.

Functioning nervous system or viability is the line for me.

Status quo is ok with me, although I wouldn't be opposed to letting the states individually decide this issue. Those in the south can still travel north to get their abortions (and their sex toys, lol -- talk about backward-ass). And that way this stupid abortion issue isn't the turd in the punchbowl and every, single, stinking health issue. Perhaps I'd have to listen less to the idiots on both sides of this issue.

I would say the woman still has the right not to undergo a risky and complicated medical procedure. And at some point in the development of the fetus, the complications of aborting might meet or exceed the complications of inducing labor and delivery. I see no problem in allowing the availability of technology to decide these cases, since we are dealing with a problem of conflicting rights, not absolute rights.

So if you're talking about conflicting rights, you're implicitly allowing that the fetus DOES have rights.

If you're concerned about the mother's right not to undergo a risky and complicated medical procedure, and you've already allowed that the fetus also has rights, how can you ignore the fetus's right "not to undergo a risky and complicated medical procedure"?

PS: the woman can avoid the risky and complicated medical procedure if she wants to.