Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: blacken700 on February 20, 2013, 02:48:31 PM
-
-
::)
-
Man, nobody ever gives skin the credit it deserves!
-
::)
This is so true.
-
::)
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=460547.0;attach=506256;image)
How about this crazy notion that the people responsible for bringing that child into the world, actually take care of that child.
I have four kids. Yet for some reason, I don't depend on daycare, food stamps, school lunch, etc.
I don't know from where it came, but I got this STTTRRRRAAAANNNGGGEEE concept that I and MY WIFE ane responsible for our kids.
But, per Carlin's stupid statements, we conservatives don't care about kids, because we don't want to be bliked, caring for someone else's kiddies, by having our paychecks fleeced, wasted by government, and the crumbs going to help the poor (many of whom REMAIN POOR, in perpetuity).
Another classic case of liberalism: Choice without consequence. The right to screw, without the responsibilities of caring for the kids THEY PRODUCE (as if they forgot that having sex is how we make babies around here
"I would like to ban the word liberal, because people who are called liberals aren’t liberal about anything except hard drugs, sex, and spending other people’s money. Otherwise, they want to control your life. That should be really, really clear to everybody." - David Howoritz
-
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=460547.0;attach=506256;image)
How about this crazy notion that the people responsible for bringing that child into the world, actually take care of that child.
I have four kids. Yet for some reason, I don't depend on daycare, food stamps, school lunch, etc.
I don't know from where it came, but I got this STTTRRRRAAAANNNGGGEEE concept that I and MY WIFE ane responsible for our kids.
But, per Carlin's stupid statements, we conservatives don't care about kids, because we don't want to be bliked, caring for someone else's kiddies, by having our paychecks fleeced, wasted by government, and the crumbs going to help the poor (many of whom REMAIN POOR, in perpetuity).
Another classic case of liberalism: Choice without consequence. The right to screw, without the responsibilities of caring for the kids THEY PRODUCE (as if they forgot that having sex is how we make babies around here
"I would like to ban the word liberal, because people who are called liberals aren’t liberal about anything except hard drugs, sex, and spending other people’s money. Otherwise, they want to control your life. That should be really, really clear to everybody." - David Howoritz
I see Carlin's point went right over your head. He isn't saying anything about responsibility of the parents (strawman there buddy), he is simply pointing out that the intense interest the right has with someones unborn child does not seem to carry over to after birth. Your point actually highlights, this, to you it's the parents responsibility when born (I agree) yet you seem to think they don't have this right/responsibility for the unborn. You are putting wasted energy into zygotes when real living children are struggling in the world. Many proponents of the right want to outlaw volunteer abortions, which kinda highlights this point further.
fuck off telling people what they can do with there bodies and womb's.
-
Good point. You should tell that to the Bible Belt red conservative states seeing how they rank in the top 10 of all states as far as teen pregnancies, high school drop out rates, and taking more $$$ from the Federal gov't than they pay into the system goes.
-
I see Carlin's point went right over your head. He isn't saying anything about responsibility of the parents (strawman there buddy), he is simply pointing out that the intense interest the right has with someones unborn child does not seem to carry over to after birth. Your point actually highlights, this, to you it's the parents responsibility when born (I agree) yet you seem to think they don't have this right/responsibility for the unborn. You are putting wasted energy into zygotes when real living children are struggling in the world. Many proponents of the right want to outlaw volunteer abortions, which kinda highlights this point further.
fuck off telling people what they can do with there bodies and womb's.
The far right claims they believe in a small gov't and want gov't out of people's lives.
Unless of course it is used to regulate women, their vaginas, or who can get married.
-
some scientists consider bodyfat to be a type of endocrine organ and since many Americans are morbidly obese (especially teabaggers) that would make fat the largest organ in the body for most people
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-09/acs-net090110.php
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/pr100621g?tokenDomain=presspac&tokenAccess=presspac&forwardService=showFullText&journalCode=jprobs
-
I see Carlin's point went right over your head. He isn't saying anything about responsibility of the parents (strawman there buddy), he is simply pointing out that the intense interest the right has with someones unborn child does not seem to carry over to after birth. Your point actually highlights, this, to you it's the parents responsibility when born (I agree) yet you seem to think they don't have this right/responsibility for the unborn. You are putting wasted energy into zygotes when real living children are struggling in the world. Many proponents of the right want to outlaw volunteer abortions, which kinda highlights this point further.
fuck off telling people what they can do with there bodies and womb's.
Their bodies aren't being burned or dismembered; the unborn babies, however, are.
Living children are struggling in the world, in part, because of the very attitude that Carlin exhibited in that quote. Head start, food stamps, school lunch and welfare are all government programs, with the onus on those programs being a major lynchpin in taking care of children.
Conservatives are HARDLY against such programs. What they protest is people living off them in perpetuity, when those programs were designed to be TEMPORARY.
-
Their bodies aren't being burned or dismembered; the unborn babies, however, are.
Living children are struggling in the world, in part, because of the very attitude that Carlin exhibited in that quote. Head start, food stamps, school lunch and welfare are all government programs, with the onus on those programs being a major lynchpin in taking care of children.
Conservatives are HARDLY against such programs. What they protest is people living off them in perpetuity, when those programs were designed to be TEMPORARY.
no actual unborn babies
maybe you're referring to a fetus which is not a baby
Repubs had no problem voting against (or trying to vote against) SCHIP
-
The far right claims they believe in a small gov't and want gov't out of people's lives.
Unless of course it is used to regulate women, their vaginas, or who can get married.
The far left claims they're "pro-choice" and want people to have freedom.
UNLESS, of course, it involves people:
- Using their tax dollars at the school of their choice for their kids
- Keeping as much of their hard-earned money as possible
- Opting their kids out of classes, pushing homosexual propaganda
- Buying whatever guns and as much ammo, as they see fit, to defend themselves
- Actually mentioning Jesus Christ, during the CHRISTMAS holiday
- On the right, using the first amendment, as freely as those on the left do
- Using the cheapest, most effeective energy source this country has
-
Good point. You should tell that to the Bible Belt red conservative states seeing how they rank in the top 10 of all states as far as teen pregnancies, high school drop out rates, and taking more $$$ from the Federal gov't than they pay into the system goes.
You forgot the part about the blue states having far higher abortion rates (thus many of their teen pregnancies go UNREPORTED).
Not to mention, as far as taking more federal money than paid into it, that's due to blue states hiking taxes up (which might explain why certain blue states are seeing mass exodus from their borders to red states with zero state taxes).
As far as welfare goes, that falls on the blue states, especially with California housing about a third of the nation's welfare cases. Per capita, five of the top 10 states/districts are blue, in terms of welfare recipients, namely DC, California, Maine, Rhode Island, and Washington (state).
-
You forgot the part about the blue states having far higher abortion rates (thus many of their teen pregnancies go UNREPORTED).
Not to mention, as far as taking more federal money than paid into it, that's due to blue states hiking taxes up (which might explain why certain blue states are seeing mass exodus from their borders to red states with zero state taxes).
As far as welfare goes, that falls on the blue states, especially with California housing about a third of the nation's welfare cases. Per capita, five of the top 10 states/districts are blue, in terms of welfare recipients, namely DC, California, Maine, Rhode Island, and Washington (state).
why don't you ever post sources when you make claims ?
-
no actual unborn babies
maybe you're referring to a fetus which is not a baby
Repubs had no problem voting against (or trying to vote against) SCHIP
when does it become a baby?
-
why don't you ever post sources when you make claims ?
Why don't you quit posting BS like this (i.e. the time you claim I didn't post the source of an exit poll, even though the name of that source was in the first sentence)?
BTW - am I the only one who noticed that Straw didn't ask Lurker to post his sources for his statement?
Of course, Lurker also forgot to mention how many of those red states have fairly LARGE BLACK AND HISPANIC populations (those two demos, unfortunately lead the country in out-of-wedlock births; how do they vote again?).
-
Doesn't matter how many black and hispanics vote Democrat. If they are in a red state, they are still in the minority.
-
Why don't you quit posting BS like this (i.e. the time you claim I didn't post the source of an exit poll, even though the name of that source was in the first sentence)?
BTW - am I the only one who noticed that Straw didn't ask Lurker to post his sources for his statement?
Of course, Lurker also forgot to mention how many of those red states have fairly LARGE BLACK AND HISPANIC populations (those two demos, unfortunately lead the country in out-of-wedlock births; how do they vote again?).
how about you just stop whining and post a link when you make a claim or multiple claims
-
Man, nobody ever gives skin the credit it deserves!
x2
wait... are they going to ban circumcision now for killing part of the 2nd largest organ in the human body?
-
when does it become a baby?
-
how about you just stop whining and post a link when you make a claim or multiple claims
How about you make like a certain crustacean and clam up!!
-
I don't have anything to contribute to this thread other than to say that fetuses are fucking delicious.
-
x2
wait... are they going to ban circumcision now for killing part of the 2nd largest organ in the human body?
If that's the 2nd largest organ in the human body, ...some of y'all in big trouble!!!
No wonder their budget numbers are so messed up.
-
when does it become a baby?
That's the $64,000 question!
Doesn't matter how many black and hispanics vote Democrat. If they are in a red state, they are still in the minority.
You can be in the minority yet still make up a major (if not, majority) part of the out of wedlock births. Blakcs are in the minorities, yet make up a huge chunk of murders in this country. So, why would it be a stretch to suggest that blacks (and ) can compose a mayor portion of out of wedlock births, even in red states?
The stats you cite are incomplete, because they're measured based on BIRTHS. Much like the unemployed who stop looking for work aren't counted in the BLS' overall unemployment rate, the teen pregnancy stat does NOT count girls who get knocked up but don't birth them babies.
And, to no one's surprise, the abortion rates are significantly higher in blue states than in red ones.
This week Slate featured a piece by Amanda Marcotte discussing why New York has lower teen-birth rates than Mississippi. Not surprisingly, Marcotte blames abstinence-only sex education programs in Mississippi and praises New York’s contraceptive-friendly policies. She favorably mentions a pilot program recently started in New York public schools which allows students to obtain contraception — including emergency contraception — directly from the school. Of course, as New York Times columnist Ross Douthat pointed out, Marcotte forgot something. A major reason why New York has a lower teen birthrate is because New York teens are far more likely to abort unwanted pregnancies. Mississippi has a pro-life parental-involvement law in effect, while New York has none.
Now in fairness to Marcotte, Mississippi still has a higher teen-pregnancy rate than New York. However, she, like countless other mainstream-media pundits, is wrong to blame Mississippi’s sex-education policies for the disparity. Many journalists point to the high teen-pregnancy rates in “red” states as proof that abstinence-only sex education programs are ineffective. However, this analysis is flawed for several reasons. First, not every southern school district has adopted abstinence-only sex education. Second, poverty rates are a key determinant in teen-pregnancy rates and many southern states have a high incidence of poverty. Third, the average age of marriage is much lower in many southern states, so some percentage of these teen pregnancies are carried by older teens who are married.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/328775/contraception-programs-and-teen-pregnancy-rates-michael-j-new
-
I don't have anything to contribute to this thread other than to say that fetuses are fucking delicious.
this is gross but made me burst out laughing... :)
-
when does it become a baby?
When it no longer meets the criteria of a parasite imo.
Once it is able to sustain its basic needs (breathing, digestion etc) it is a baby. Until then it requires the mother to live and still requires her collateral circulation, her digestion etc.
Until then it isn't really living imo.
-
When it no longer meets the criteria of a parasite imo.
It NEVER has the criteria of parasite. The womb is designed for babies to be developed, especially when the instigation of that process starts with an act, in which the woman VOLUNTARILY ENGAGES, 95% of the time.
Once it is able to sustain its basic needs (breathing, digestion etc) it is a baby. Until then it requires the mother to live and still requires her collateral circulation, her digestion etc.
Until then it isn't really living imo.
A little guy, running around my house and eating grapes as I type this, pretty much shoots your opinion to pieces.
-
It NEVER has the criteria of parasite. The womb is designed for babies to be developed, especially when the instigation of that process starts with an act, in which the woman VOLUNTARILY ENGAGES, 95% of the time.
A little guy, running around my house and eating grapes as I type this, pretty much shoots your opinion to pieces.
wrong, it does.
parasite.
an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.
what opinion does he shoot down again? I don't follow.
-
When it no longer meets the criteria of a parasite imo.
Once it is able to sustain its basic needs (breathing, digestion etc) it is a baby. Until then it requires the mother to live and still requires her collateral circulation, her digestion etc.
Until then it isn't really living imo.
one could say its still a parasite after it leaves the womans body as its still requires someone to feed it...
If not then at what point in gestation does the fetus have the ability to survive outside of the womb if given proper care?
-
one could say its still a parasite after it leaves the womans body as its still requires someone to feed it...
If not then at what point in gestation does the fetus have the ability to survive outside of the womb if given proper care?
fair point
-
It NEVER has the criteria of parasite.
Bullshit. You don't know what the definition of a "parasite" is if you think that.
The womb is designed for babies to be developed, especially when the instigation of that process starts with an act, in which the woman VOLUNTARILY ENGAGES, 95% of the time.
Whether the womb is "designed" (it's not, but let's not quibble over this now) for gestation is irrelevant to the question "is the fetus a parasite?" As for your "statistics" (again, I use the term loosely since you pulled that number out of your ass) it doesn't matter if the "process" started with the woman voluntarily engaged in some behavior 100% of the time. That is irrelevant to the definition of a parasite.
one could say its still a parasite after it leaves the womans body as its still requires someone to feed it...
Not really - at that point it doesn't live in or on the Mother's body, and so doesn't really meet the strict definition of a parasite. Don't split apart the definition and pick and choose what you want to keep to make your argument.
If not then at what point in gestation does the fetus have the ability to survive outside of the womb if given proper care?
That is, certainly, an interesting question, arguments about the fetus being a parasite notwithstanding. Certainly when in utero the fetus qualifies as a parasite. But it doesn't follow it ought to be treated as such automatically, especially in the later stages of pregnancy.
My general feeling is that the fetus (barring some illness, or other medical issue) is "viable" as soon as it able to maintain homeostasis if it is provided the support that a newborn would typically be provided. Of course, in a sense that's really a criterion that's difficult, if not impossible, to judge and apply. That's why we need "bright lines" to delineate "fetus" from "baby". In a sense, the ultimate bright line is "birth" but advances in medical technology have made that line not all that useful for me.
With no special training in obstetrics, my personal take is that anything prior to four months is not viable since critical organs are not yet fully developed or able to operate at sufficient levels. I believe that the youngest premature babies to ever survive were born at about 21 weeks and still required extensive and extraordinary life-support measures; it is my understanding that anything less than 24 weeks is almost insufficient gestational time.
So I don't know that there is a hard cutoff - another bright line - that we could use, and the best we can probably hope for at this time is the "statistical" approach we currently have involving gestation time.
-
There are machines designed to keep people who are brain dead and unresponsive alive through artificial respiration, circulation, intravenous feeding, etc...
Would you consider those people to be "alive"?
-
Going by the strict definition, a fetus is definitely a parasite.
Noun
An organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense.
-
Going by the strict definition, a fetus is definitely a parasite.
Noun
An organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense.
yes this was established earlier in the thread. Thanks for stopping by.
-
yes this was established earlier in the thread. Thanks for stopping by.
Choke on a bag of dicks canuck.
-
Bullshit. You don't know what the definition of a "parasite" is if you think that.
Whether the womb is "designed" (it's not, but let's not quibble over this now) for gestation is irrelevant to the question "is the fetus a parasite?" As for your "statistics" (again, I use the term loosely since you pulled that number out of your ass) it doesn't matter if the "process" started with the woman voluntarily engaged in some behavior 100% of the time. That is irrelevant to the definition of a parasite.
Not really - at that point it doesn't live in or on the Mother's body, and so doesn't really meet the strict definition of a parasite. Don't split apart the definition and pick and choose what you want to keep to make your argument.
That is, certainly, an interesting question, arguments about the fetus being a parasite notwithstanding. Certainly when in utero the fetus qualifies as a parasite. But it doesn't follow it ought to be treated as such automatically, especially in the later stages of pregnancy.
My general feeling is that the fetus (barring some illness, or other medical issue) is "viable" as soon as it able to maintain homeostasis if it is provided the support that a newborn would typically be provided. Of course, in a sense that's really a criterion that's difficult, if not impossible, to judge and apply. That's why we need "bright lines" to delineate "fetus" from "baby". In a sense, the ultimate bright line is "birth" but advances in medical technology have made that line not all that useful for me.
With no special training in obstetrics, my personal take is that anything prior to four months is not viable since critical organs are not yet fully developed or able to operate at sufficient levels. I believe that the youngest premature babies to ever survive were born at about 21 weeks and still required extensive and extraordinary life-support measures; it is my understanding that anything less than 24 weeks is almost insufficient gestational time.
So I don't know that there is a hard cutoff - another bright line - that we could use, and the best we can probably hope for at this time is the "statistical" approach we currently have involving gestation time.
by strict definition no as a baby isnt attached to the host in any way but to think that a baby isnt as dependent on a caregiver as a fetus is stupid. Even more so as childs shelter isnt a given as it is in the womb.
-
by strict definition no as a baby isnt attached to the host in any way but to think that a baby isnt as dependent on a caregiver as a fetus is stupid. Even more so as childs shelter isnt a given as it is in the womb.
are you retarded? the baby is in the host, the mother. Where does attached come from, scroll up and read the definition. I don't know why I even bother responding to your posts. Also, you are in need of tutoring on embryology and gynecology.
-
are you retarded? the baby is in the host, the mother. Where does attached come from, scroll up and read the definition. I don't know why I even bother responding to your posts. Also, you are in need of tutoring on embryology and gynecology.
LOL pardon me brain child I used the wrong adjective LMFAO im pretty sure everyone knew what i meant.
do you disagree that a baby outside the womb is just as dependent on others as a fetus?
-
LOL pardon me brain child I used the wrong adjective LMFAO im pretty sure everyone knew what i meant.
do you disagree that a baby outside the womb is just as dependent on others as a fetus?
dependent = yes
just as dependent = absolutely not
-
dependent = yes
just as dependent = absolutely not
its not just as dependent on the care of others?
what qualifiable difference in self sustainability does child 2 mins after delivery have from a child 2 mins before?
-
its not just as dependent on the care of others?
what qualifiable difference in self sustainability does child 2 mins after delivery have from a child 2 mins before?
it can breathe on it's own without depending on the host/mother
-
I would suggest that it's slightly sociopathic to call a child at ANY stage of development a 'parasite'.
-
I would suggest that it's slightly sociopathic to call a child at ANY stage of development a 'parasite'.
No the kid needs to be on welfare before you can call it that.
-
No the kid needs to be on welfare before you can call it that.
LOL!!
-
it can breathe on it's own without depending on the host/mother
touche sir
-
Bullshit. You don't know what the definition of a "parasite" is if you think that.
Of course, I do. It appears that you, however, DO NOT. A refresher:
An organism that lives on or in an organism.....OF ANOTHER SPECIES, known as the host from the body of which it obtains nutriment.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/parasite
Now when did baby humans become a different species from adult humans again? Thanks for playing!!!
Whether the womb is "designed" (it's not, but let's not quibble over this now) for gestation is irrelevant to the question "is the fetus a parasite?" As for your "statistics" (again, I use the term loosely since you pulled that number out of your ass) it doesn't matter if the "process" started with the woman voluntarily engaged in some behavior 100% of the time. That is irrelevant to the definition of a parasite.
Again, see above. BTW -
According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), there were 820,151 legal induced abortions in the US in 2005. About 1% is due to incest or rape and about 3% due to mothers health.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Percentage_of_abortions_due_to_rape_incest_or_danger_to_the_mothers_life
SOOOOOO...1% due rape or incest and 3% due to the mother's lives in danger. That's 4%.
Tell me, what's 100% minus 4% again?
If anything, I lowballed the percentages of abortions, done in those instances other than what's known as "hard cases".
-
wrong, it does.
parasite.
an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.
what opinion does he shoot down again? I don't follow.
What part of the words, ANOTHER SPECIES, did you not understand?
When that "fetus" gets out of the womb, what is it?
A wilderbeast?
A tapeworm?
A Tazmanian devil?
NOPE!!! It's a HUMAN, just like his/her mama and daddy.
A human being, nesting in a place DESIGNED for it to grow and develop, as a result of a VOLUNTARY ACT (at least 95% of the time), by two OTHER HUMAN BEINGS.
-
What part of the words, ANOTHER SPECIES, did you not understand?
When that "fetus" gets out of the womb, what is it?
A wilderbeast?
A tapeworm?
A Tazmanian devil?
NOPE!!! It's a HUMAN, just like his/her mama and daddy.
A human being, nesting in a place DEISNGED for it to grow and develop, as a result of a VOLUNTARY ACT (at least 95% of the time), by two OTHER HUMAN BEINGS.
hahah nice catch
-
hahah nice catch
Thanks. Now let's hear Necrosis and Avxo explain how baby humans are different species than adult humans.
-
Thanks. Now let's hear Necrosis and Avxo explain how baby humans are different species than adult humans.
No the kid needs to be on welfare before you can call it that.
I would suggest that it's slightly sociopathic to call a child at ANY stage of development a 'parasite'.
;D
-
No the kid needs to be on welfare before you can call it that.
So, the kid's a "parasite" but his mama ain't?
-
It NEVER has the criteria of parasite. The womb is designed for babies to be developed, especially when the instigation of that process starts with an act, in which the woman VOLUNTARILY ENGAGES, 95% of the time.
Political analyst, theologian, and now embryologist. Does your erudition know no bounds, my dear and most wisened sire?
Factor in the electoral college look....MINUS the polls where Dems are oversampled 6 to 10 points and you get something similar to.....
(http://www.unskewedpolls.com/map_swingstatespoll01.jpg)
-
Political analyst, theologian, and now embryologist. Does your erudition know no bounds, my dear and most wisened sire?
do you also agree that the fetus is another species and thus meets the criteria of a parasite?
-
Political analyst, theologian, and now embryologist. Does your erudition know no bounds, my dear and most wisened sire?
Hmmmm....Someone accused me of pulling that 95% stat out of my behind. Go check that CDC link I posted.
Two other people claimed a baby is a parasite. By definition, a parasite is a critter from one species that feed on ANOTHER SPECIES.
Perhaps, YOU can explain how an unborn baby is a different species from an adult woman. Or maybe you can't, which is why you have to dredge up stuff that has NOTHING TO DO with the subject at hand.
-
Hmmmm....Someone accused me of pulling that 95% stat out of my behind. Go check that CDC link I posted.
Two other people claimed a baby is a parasite. By definition, a parasite is a critter from one species that feed on ANOTHER SPECIES.
Perhaps, YOU can explain how an unborn baby is a different species from an adult woman. Or maybe you can't, which is why you have to dredge up stuff that has NOTHING TO DO with the subject at hand.
absolutely
-
different dictionaries have different definitions
here is summary of the definition of parasite from various medical dictionaries and the "other species" distinction is missing in place of "other organism". Note one definition even offers the example of a co-joined twin as a parasite and so that kind of eliminates any doubt about whether something of the same species can also be a parasite
parasite /par·a·site/ (par´ah-sīt)
1. a plant or animal that lives upon or within another living organism at whose expense it obtains some advantage; see symbiosis.
2. the smaller, less complete member of asymmetrical conjoined twins, attached to and dependent upon the autosite.parasit´ic
malarial parasite Plasmodium.
obligatory parasite one that is entirely dependent on a host for its survival.
Dorland's Medical Dictionary for Health Consumers. © 2007 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier, Inc. All rights reserved.
par·a·site (pr-st)
n.
1. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.
2. In conjoined twins, the usually incomplete twin that derives its support from the more nearly normal fetus.
The American Heritage® Medical Dictionary Copyright © 2007, 2004 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
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.
Mentioned in: Antihelminthic Drugs, Antimalarial Drugs, Antiprotozoal Drugs, Babesiosis, Brucellosis, Chagas' Disease, Cryptosporidiosis, Cyclosporiasis, Fluke Infections, Stool O & P Test, Vulvovaginitis
Gale Encyclopedia of Medicine. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
parasite
[per′əsīt]
Etymology: Gk, parasitos, guest
1 an organism living in or on and obtaining nourishment from another organism. A facultative parasite may live on a host but is capable of living independently. An obligate parasite is one that depends entirely on its host for survival.
2 See parasitic fetus. parasitic, adj.
Mosby's Medical Dictionary, 8th edition. © 2009, Elsevier.
parasite [par´ah-sīt]
1. a plant or animal that lives upon or within another living organism at whose expense it obtains some advantage; see also symbiosis. Parasites include multicelled and single-celled animals, fungi, and bacteria, and some authorities also include viruses.Those that feed upon human hosts can cause diseases ranging from the mildly annoying to the severe or even fatal. (See accompanying table.)
Types of parasites.
2. parasitic fetus.
adj., adj parasit´ic.
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.
malarial parasite Plasmodium. 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.
Miller-Keane Encyclopedia and Dictionary of Medicine, Nursing, and Allied Health, Seventh Edition. © 2003 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier, Inc. All rights reserved.
parasite,
n an organism living in or on and obtaining nourishment from another organism.
Mosby's Dental Dictionary, 2nd edition. © 2008 Elsevier, Inc. All rights reserved.
parasite
a plant or animal that lives upon or within another living organism at whose expense it obtains some advantage. See also symbiosis.
Among the many parasites in nature, some feed upon animal hosts, causing diseases ranging from the mildly annoying to the severe and often fatal. Parasites include multicelled and single-celled animals, fungi and bacteria. Viruses are sometimes considered to be parasites. However, the commonest use of the word refers to the multicellular helminth, arachnid, crustacean (copepod) and arthropod 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.
Saunders Comprehensive Veterinary Dictionary, 3 ed. © 2007 Elsevier, Inc. All rights reserved
-
so what youre saying straw is that there is also definitions that a baby would fall into as a parasite?
-
Political analyst, theologian, and now embryologist. Does your erudition know no bounds, my dear and most wisened sire?
Lol ;D
-
so what youre saying straw is that there is also definitions that a baby would fall into as a parasite?
In other words, calling a baby anything but that, particularly giving it a perceived negative connotation, justifies killing it at will for any reason.
Of course, we saw the definition Necrosis used. But, why let that stop Straw from his usual excuse-making routine.
BTW - what advantage does an unborn baby gain over its mother? And, under normal circumstances, how is the mother injured in this process (outside the pain of giving birth)?
-
do you also agree that the fetus is another species and thus meets the criteria of a parasite?
Two other people claimed a baby is a parasite. By definition, a parasite is a critter from one species that feed on ANOTHER SPECIES.
It depends on what you guys mean by 'fetus,' 'parasite,' 'species,' and so on. It's really a semantic issue rather than a substantive one; we can assign meanings to the terms however we like depending on what our interests our. That's an important element of promoting one's worldview: formulating language (in this case, assigning meanings to terms) such that one's preferred policies are promoted (e.g., defining fetuses as persons so that they gain protection).
I will say that -- based on the scientific meanings of the terms -- embryos and fetuses are definitely organisms, and of the human variety. If we think all human beings (human organisms) should be afforded equal protection, then it follows that embryos and fetuses deserve such protection since they are in fact human organisms. On the other hand, opponents of this policy simply argue that it is certain sorts of human beings that are worth protecting, viz., those with a mental life (which they tend to define as a 'person,' distinct from early-phase human organisms with no mental life).
I tend to side with the latter since I think it is ridiculous to treat as equal in moral status a full-fledged person with hopes, dreams, wishes, fears, and so on with, say, a thing comprised of 100 cells that can be stored in a petri dish.
-
so what youre saying straw is that there is also definitions that a baby would fall into as a parasite?
who said anything about a baby?
I'm just pointing out that medical dictionaries don't have the distinction of a parasite as necessarily being a different species from the host
-
who said anything about a baby?
I'm just pointing out that medical dictionaries don't have the distinction of a parasite as necessarily being a different species from the host
par·a·site
/ˈparəˌsīt/
Noun
An organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense.
-
It depends on what you guys mean by 'fetus,' 'parasite,' 'species,' and so on. It's really a semantic issue rather than a substantive one; we can assign meanings to the terms however we like depending on what our interests our. That's an important element of promoting one's worldview: formulating language (in this case, assigning meanings to terms) such that one's preferred policies are promoted (e.g., defining fetuses as persons so that they gain protection).
I will say that -- based on the scientific meanings of the terms -- embryos and fetuses are definitely organisms, and of the human variety. If we think all human beings (human organisms) should be afforded equal protection, then it follows that embryos and fetuses deserve such protection since they are in fact human organisms. On the other hand, opponents of this policy simply argue that it is certain sorts of human beings that are worth protecting, viz., those with a mental life (which they tend to define as a 'person,' distinct from early-phase human organisms with no mental life).
I tend to side with the latter since I think it is ridiculous to treat as equal in moral status a full-fledged person with hopes, dreams, wishes, fears, and so on with, say, a thing comprised of 100 cells that can be stored in a petri dish.
By the time most women find they're pregnant, that "thing" is FAR MORE than 100 cells that can be stored in a petri dish.
-
who said anything about a baby?
I'm just pointing out that medical dictionaries don't have the distinction of a parasite as necessarily being a different species from the host
I did if you apply some of the definitions you posted a baby is also a parasite...
-
I did if you apply some of the definitions you posted a baby is also a parasite...
Babies are parasites and they don't stop becoming parasites until they're well in their 20s.
-
I tend to side with the latter since I think it is ridiculous to treat as equal in moral status a full-fledged person with hopes, dreams, wishes, fears, and so on with, say, a thing comprised of 100 cells that can be stored in a petri dish.
Concur.
I also think that it's not my place to tell a woman what she can/can't do with her body/whats inside her body.
-
Babies are parasites and they don't stop becoming parasites until they're well in their 20s.
hahaha spoken like a true parent
-
Babies are parasites and they don't stop becoming parasites until they're well in their 20s.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Concur.
I also think that it's not my place to tell a woman what she can/can't do with her body/whats inside her body.
do you think she should be able to drink and smoke while pregnant?
-
do you think she should be able to drink and smoke while pregnant?
....
I don't agree with it, but it's not my place to tell someone they can't.
IMHO, if she was planning on keeping the baby, then she should choose to abstain from those things. If not, it doesn't matter. But I don't think it's something to be legislated or regulated, that's the parents personal responsibility.
-
....
I don't agree with it, but it's not my place to tell someone they can't.
IMHO, if she was planning on keeping the baby, then she should choose to abstain from those things. If not, it doesn't matter. But I don't think it's something to be legislated or regulated, that's the parents personal responsibility.
you mean parent, singular b/c as we know the law gives the man no rights in regards to their child
-
you mean parent, singular b/c as we know the law gives the man no rights in regards to their child
Yes, I suppose you're correct. But I think we all can agree that the female definitely has the larger say, considering she's the one that is going to be carrying the baby.
-
By the time most women find they're pregnant, that "thing" is FAR MORE than 100 cells that can be stored in a petri dish.
What is it by then?
-
What is it by then?
Ummmm....a unborn baby!!!
-
Ummmm....a unborn baby!!!
How is this relevant to my original point about human beings (organisms) versus persons?
-
How is this relevant to my original point about human beings (organisms) versus persons?
semantics
i am in favor of abortion rights
but i am not dumb enough to believe in some mystical belief system
the instant that sperm and egg become one, it's a person
just a really small, funny looking person with very few rights
-
semantics
i am in favor of abortion rights
but i am not dumb enough to believe in some mystical belief system
the instant that sperm and egg become one, it's a person
just a really small, funny looking person with very few rights
I don't know what you're referring to when you say a "mystical belief system," so I can't comment on that any further -- perhaps you can clarify. I'm also not sure precisely what it is you're labeling 'semantics,' though I do know that your defining the human organism that results immediately after conception a 'person' is an example of it.
-
Babies are parasites and they don't stop becoming parasites until they're well in their 20s.
:D
-
I don't know what you're referring to when you say a "mystical belief system," so I can't comment on that any further -- perhaps you can clarify. I'm also not sure precisely what it is you're labeling 'semantics,' though I do know that your defining the human organism that results immediately after conception a 'person' is an example of it.
person & human organism = same thing
mystical belief system = anything resembling a souls based system
-
Man, nobody ever gives skin the credit it deserves!
best and truest answer yet! thank you, sir!
-
by strict definition no as a baby isnt attached to the host in any way but to think that a baby isnt as dependent on a caregiver as a fetus is stupid. Even more so as childs shelter isnt a given as it is in the womb.
I don't disagree - a baby clearly is dependent on a caregiver; it is unable to survive on its own. I don't think anybody disputes that. But a baby and a fetus are dependent in different ways and those different ways matter, at least when you are discussing whether a fetus qualifies as a parasite (whether it ought to be considered one is another story) or not.
Ummmm....a unborn baby!!!
How many cells does it take to have an "unborn baby?" A thousand? Fifty thousand? A million? How many cells does it take? And how many cells do you slough off daily as you go about your everyday business? The simple fact is tat you are drawing artificial lines based on your own preconceptions and morals; and that's fine in a sense, but the question then becomes what makes your artificial lines better than the artificial lines of someone else who has different preconceptions and different morals?
i am in favor of abortion rights
Really?
the instant that sperm and egg become one, it's a person
If you believe that, then you aren't in favor of abortion rights - you are in favor of murder. Which leads me to suspect you don't really believe that.
just a really small, funny looking person with very few rights
If you believe that, then you aren't in favor of abortion rights - you are in favor of murder.
Tell me WOOO, what specific criteria for personhood do you consider that lead you to believe that a clump of cells is a person?
person & human organism = same thing
So a human organism that is artificially kept alive despite being brain dead is a person? That's an interesting definition of person. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about WOOO.
-
I don't disagree - a baby clearly is dependent on a caregiver; it is unable to survive on its own. I don't think anybody disputes that. But a baby and a fetus are dependent in different ways and those different ways matter, at least when you are discussing whether a fetus qualifies as a parasite (whether it ought to be considered one is another story) or not.
How many cells does it take to have an "unborn baby?" A thousand? Fifty thousand? A million? How many cells does it take? And how many cells do you slough off daily as you go about your everyday business? The simple fact is tat you are drawing artificial lines based on your own preconceptions and morals; and that's fine in a sense, but the question then becomes what makes your artificial lines better than the artificial lines of someone else who has different preconceptions and different morals?
Really?
If you believe that, then you aren't in favor of abortion rights - you are in favor of murder. Which leads me to suspect you don't really believe that.
If you believe that, then you aren't in favor of abortion rights - you are in favor of murder.
Tell me WOOO, what specific criteria for personhood do you consider that lead you to believe that a clump of cells is a person?
So a human organism that is artificially kept alive despite being brain dead is a person? That's an interesting definition of person. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about WOOO.
what traits do you think ought to be associated with personhood AV?
you mentioned dreams, wishes, fears etc...but a person in a comma or even some elderly could be said to not posses those, shoot even a new born could be said to not possess those
so what attributes do you associate with personhood?
-
what traits do you think ought to be associated with personhood AV?
That depends on what you mean by traits; more on that in a second.
you mentioned dreams, wishes, fears etc...but a person in a comma or even some elderly could be said to not posses those, shoot even a new born could be said to not possess those
I don't think I mentioned any of those things; I certainly didn't in this thread.
so what attributes do you associate with personhood?
Personhood is a topic that has been debated for centuries, and it's still not entirely settled - that is, there is no "bright line" that we can draw past which one is a person such that we all agree. Personally, I think that self-awareness, self-consciousness and self-determination are critical components of personhood. I'm not prepared to say that lacking those things automatically implies one is not a person, but if you asked me to distill what I think the defining characteristics of a person are in my opinion, those three would be my answer.
In a sense I'd rather err on the side of caution and ascribe personhood to a non-person instead of the opposite. That is my first instinct when it comes to fetuses too. I may not necessarily be convinced that they are persons and therefore, I should err on the side of caution. But instincts can't be the basis of a rational decision that we want others to adapt. "I feel it" doesn't cut it. It's important that we be rational and be able to justify and defend our decisions logically.
As I said before, these are difficult and deeply philosophical questions. They are questions that we may not be able to answer sufficiently in our lifetimes - or perhaps, ever.
I would be curious - what is your position? What constitutes a person, in your view and how do you distinguish a person from a non-person?
-
How many cells does it take to have an "unborn baby?" A thousand? Fifty thousand? A million? How many cells does it take? And how many cells do you slough off daily as you go about your everyday business? The simple fact is tat you are drawing artificial lines based on your own preconceptions and morals; and that's fine in a sense, but the question then becomes what makes your artificial lines better than the artificial lines of someone else who has different preconceptions and different morals?
What artificial lines? My son was born on March 21, 12:35 EST. He was born a month early, scheduled for late April. Am I to believe that at 12:34 EST, he wasn't a baby?
Or at 12:30, he still wasn't a baby? Or at 11:30pm, March 20, he wasn't a baby, and thus potentially subject to dismemberment?
-
I don't think I mentioned any of those things; I certainly didn't in this thread.
You and I are one and the same to him (this isn't the first time he's confused us); probably, part of the reason is we apparently agree on so much. :)
-
What artificial lines? My son was born on March 21, 12:35 EST. He was born a month early, scheduled for late April. Am I to believe that at 12:34 EST, he wasn't a baby?
Or at 12:30, he still wasn't a baby? Or at 11:30pm, March 20, he wasn't a baby, and thus potentially subject to dismemberment?
Your appeals to emotion won't work with me and don't help clarify the situation any. Neither will your silly attempt to draw me into an argument by implying that my position means that his premature status would mean that he could be "potentially subject to dismemberment". Hard as it may be for you to imagine, I'm not for dismembering babies - I don't particularly care for abortion as a matter of fact, although I would never presume to tell others what to do, especially on such an intimate and difficult subject.
With that aside, you may think that your son magically became a person the moment when a sperm and an egg combined but what rational proof of that fact do you have and how do you support that contention? What specific, articulable attribute of personhood did he acquire at that time and how did you verify that? Hmm? Let's hear it.
-
Your appeals to emotion won't work with me and don't help clarify the situation any. Neither will your silly attempt to draw me into an argument by implying that my position means that his premature status would mean that he could be "potentially subject to dismemberment". Hard as it may be for you to imagine, I'm not for dismembering babies - I don't particularly care for abortion as a matter of fact, although I would never presume to tell others what to do, especially on such an intimate and difficult subject.
That's not an appeal on emotion. It's a tangible example, one of which I can obviously relate firsthand.
With that aside, you may think that your son magically became a person the moment when a sperm and an egg combined but what rational proof of that fact do you have and how do you support that contention? What specific, articulable attribute of personhood did he acquire at that time and how did you verify that? Hmm? Let's hear it.
Now, you're contending that, if I'm not sure or can verify when he became a person or obtained personhood, he was subject to being aborted without it being infanticide.
I don't have a way of detecting such. Therefore, I have two options. Either I believe he was a person upon conception OR I believe he wasn't a baby until he popped out of the womb and thus was fair game to be destroyed at any time in the womb.
Obviously, I believe the former.
-
That's not an appeal on emotion. It's a tangible example, one of which I can obviously relate firsthand.
It is. You're screaming "look at this precious little child!" as if that, somehow, magically makes your point. You are counting on me to say, "Aww, all life is precious. How could I possibly suggest that this precious child isn't a person?!? HUGS ALL AROUND!"
Now, you're contending that, if I'm not sure or can verify when he became a person or obtained personhood, he was subject to being aborted without it being infanticide.
No. That's not what I'm contending. I'm contending that you cannot provide us with some event, prior to which there are no characteristics of personhood and after which there are. I assert that there is no such event - it is a continuum, a process the end result of which is a person.
I don't have a way of detecting such. Therefore, I have two options. Either I believe he was a person upon conception OR I believe he wasn't a baby until he popped out of the womb and thus was fair game to be destroyed at any time in the womb.
Another logical fallacy - bifurcation. You falsely assert that you only have two choices. You clearly don't.
Obviously, I believe the former.
The problem isn't that you believe the former - you are free to believe what you want even if your belief is irrational. The problem is that you think that your unsubstantiated and irrational belief constitutes logical proof and that your position should be binding on others.
-
It is. You're screaming "look at this precious little child!" as if that, somehow, magically makes your point. You are counting on me to say, "Aww, all life is precious. How could I possibly suggest that this precious child isn't a person?!? HUGS ALL AROUND!"
At some point, you believe what's in the womb goes from being a non-baby to a baby. My question to you was WHEN that occurs. I simply used the best example to which I could personally relate: My own son, who happened to have been born a month earlier than expected.
No. That's not what I'm contending. I'm contending that you cannot provide us with some event, prior to which there are no characteristics of personhood and after which there are. I assert that there is no such event - it is a continuum, a process the end result of which is a person.
And when do we get that "end result"? That's what I asked of you, using the little guy (currently munching Pringles, that he's not supposed to be eating) as an example. Excuse me a second.
Another logical fallacy - bifurcation. You falsely assert that you only have two choices. You clearly don't.
The problem isn't that you believe the former - you are free to believe what you want even if your belief is irrational. The problem is that you think that your unsubstantiated and irrational belief constitutes logical proof and that your position should be binding on others.
As opposed to your position, which leaves the door open to baby-killing anytime for any reason, as long you can somehow assert that it's not a person.
-
Looks to be a lot of effort in this thread
I predict no one will yield
-
1. If you believe that, then you aren't in favor of abortion rights - you are in favor of murder. Which leads me to suspect you don't really believe that.
2. If you believe that, then you aren't in favor of abortion rights - you are in favor of murder.
3. Tell me WOOO, what specific criteria for personhood do you consider that lead you to believe that a clump of cells is a person?
4. So a human organism that is artificially kept alive despite being brain dead is a person? That's an interesting definition of person. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about WOOO.
i've numbered your points to make my answers easier to understand:
1. i am in favor of murder in certain circumstance: abortion, soldiery, capital punishment, etc...
2. same as answer #1
3. person = human organism which begins at conception
4. of course it's a person... just a person with limited faculties that i may agree to murder
you could never beat me in an argument
ever
-
Looks to be a lot of effort in this thread
I predict no one will yield
No one ever does on the Interwebz
-
i've numbered your points to make my answers easier to understand:
1. i am in favor of murder in certain circumstance: abortion, soldiery, capital punishment, etc...
2. same as answer #1
3. person = human organism which begins at conception
4. of course it's a person... just a person with limited faculties that i may agree to murder
you could never beat me in an argument
ever
I like your style canuck.
-
At some point, you believe what's in the womb goes from being a non-baby to a baby. My question to you was WHEN that occurs. I simply used the best example to which I could personally relate: My own son, who happened to have been born a month earlier than expected.
Again, I believe it is a continuum - with no one point in the process capable of clearly serving as a demarcation point. Immediately after conception you have one cell - is that one cell a person? What characteristic of personhood does this cell have? I can agree that it's a new, unique human cell but it seems a stretch to me to assign personhood to that single cell.
To explain the continuum analogy a bit better - assume it's raining and a puddle begins to form. At which point does this puddle become a pond, and at which point does the pond become a lake?
And when do we get that "end result"? That's what I asked of you, using the little guy (currently munching Pringles, that he's not supposed to be eating) as an example. Excuse me a second.
That was, in a sense, my question to you as well. The difference is that you set some arbitrary line marked by a physical event - which by the way occurs at an unknown and unspecified time and pretend that a single cell and a person are the same thing.
Tell me - is it the case is each cell, individually, a person? If not then are all the cells together a person? How many are needed to maintain personhood? How many can be lost before personhood is lost? These are all important questions that I suspect you cannot answer.
As opposed to your position, which leaves the door open to baby-killing anytime for any reason, as long you can somehow assert that it's not a person.
Now now... do you really think you can misrepresent my position to me and convince me that your misrepresentation accurate?
-
1. i am in favor of murder in certain circumstance: abortion, soldiery, capital punishment, etc...
2. same as answer #1
Interesting.
3. person = human organism which begins at conception
So one cell is a person? Then surely, if I kill you and leave one cell alive and cultivate it in a Petri dish I haven't murdered you. Right?
One more thing - for shits and giggles - you contend that at the moment of conception there's a new person that was magically created. Tell me then, if that fertilized ovum then splits into two identical twins do you have one person still? Two half-persons? Two different persons? If you contend that personhood occurs at conception, then clearly in this case there's something else that happens slightly later as well.
4. of course it's a person... just a person with limited faculties that i may agree to murder
You assume that there is an equivalency between a human organism and a person. There isn't.
you could never beat me in an argument ever
A man can dream... A man can dream.
-
I like your style canuck.
It's a balanced perspective.
-
Man, you guys are sooooo easily distracted by stupid wedge non-issues. Y'all really do need some Ritalin!
Focus, Focus, FOCUS!!!!!!
AND
Know Your Parasites!