SOTOMAYOR - Page 7

.

.. justcurious, a parasite is heterospecific.

The word "parasite" is defined both medically and socially as an organism  which  lives in and take its nourishment from another organism. A parasite cannot live independently.  While most are heterospecific, the definition does not require they be heterospecific or conspecific.   Someone may not like the term because to them, there are negative connotations associated with the word "parasite",  but that does not take away from the fact that a fetus most certainly fits the definition of a parasite.   Using the word in the context of a fetus does not make someone "cold". 

also, though 'parasite' may not necessarily be the word i would choose, by definition it is not wholly wrong:
"an organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense


You call a baby living at the hosts expense?   An organism?  Pathetic.

Okay, if no one can determine when life begins then can we say that an inconvenient 3 month old baby who won't stop crying isn't yet living and can be killed? What about killing a shrieking  3 year old in the midst of a temper tantrum? Some people do decide to kill such children, after all. And some of the pro-choice side's theoreticians say such things are okay, based on the ethics of abortion. How and where do you draw the line and on what basis?  As soon as the baby is able to survive outside the womb? That threshold keeps getting pushed younger and younger. A fertilized human egg outside the womb but in the right growth medium is actually viable and growing. This is how test tube babies are created. What if someday doctors are able to grow a human baby outside the womb all the way to birth maturity? I would have a problem ethically with this, but I use it as an illustration to ask where would you draw the line? Keep in mind that it is always a tiny human.

I used to be pro-choice, strongly pro-choice in fact. After I listened to and actually thought about the pro-life side of the argument, I conceded that they might have a point. From there, I started reading both scientific and ethical material and eventually I concluded that there is very little support for the pro-choice side given the ready availability of pre-conception birth control. I see the pro-choice side primarily concerned with a woman's freedom, if you want to call it that, to be promiscuous and careless about birth control. There are serious consequences to this attitude.

We are not animals, as someone said earlier. My young male dog is an animal and he's finally getting interested in girls. If he were off leash and met a receptive female dog in heat, they'd be "doing it" in the middle of the street if that's where he caught her. The overwhelming majority of humans would not do such a thing, the few exhibitionists among us notwithstanding. Most of us can control our sex drives. An important part of the pro-life position is talking with young people, especially teens, to emphasize that sex has consequences both physical and emotional and especially for the woman.

I don't expect to change anyone's mind in a few posts. I do hope that I got some people to think a little deeper, though.

Define Organism:  An individual form of life.
Define Host:  The one on which another organism lives.

Oh the horror, we are actually using words  according to their definitions.   

again definitions:

organism |ˈôrgəˌnizəm|
noun
an individual animal, plant, or single-celled life form.

so yes the word organism fits humans as well. it's just a very very broad term for all life forms of which we humans are just one.

That's the thing, Sam.  In fact my beliefs tell me we are animals, and my beliefs tell me it is my decision as to whether or not I have an abortion. My morals and belief systems are different from yours.  So once again, where has that got us?  You stated your opinion and I stated mine.  I even am willing to bet some pretty big bank you already pretty much knew my opinion just as I kind of knew yours.

And yes, those of us on the ProChoice side also hope we are able to get a few people thinking a little deeper too.



.

Okay, if no one can determine when life begins then can we say that an inconvenient 3 month old baby who won't stop crying isn't yet living and can be killed? What about killing a shrieking 3 year old in the midst of a temper tantrum? Some people do decide to kill such children, after all. And some of the pro-choice side's theoreticians say such things are okay, based on the ethics of abortion. How and where do you draw the line and on what basis? - Sam1427

since a baby can live on it's own - breath, digest, eliminate etc - and even though s/he does need another to physically care for her/him - feeding, cleaning, etc - there is a general consensus that (at the very latest) birth is the beginning of life though many debate/believe that life begins far earlier, so the belief/non-fact comes into play prior to birth certainly not 3 months after birth. 

i think it would be a very rare individual who honestly believes a newborn baby was not alive let alone a 3 yr and i have no knowledge of such arguments so i believe your proposition would fall under the argument refered to as "reductio ad absurdum".  there are many other ethical concerns that make this issue staggeringly complex but any deeper discussion would be even more challenging than what is already being experienced at this level of discussion.

Do you believe in the death penalty, Sue? 

And yes, I think we pretty much knew where each other stood on abortion going in.