What happend to morality?

Topex

Est. Contributor
Messages
692
Role
Little
Like I have said though, maybe the woman would see the fetus developing inside them as a reminder of the traumatic experience they suffered

I dont claim to see that as fair; but it is something that does happen
I agree on that.

Where does the money part come from? Well if you are a business your primary motivation should be the money from making a transaction

To say "well my religion doesn't allow" is to bring religion into the business; which should not dominate the business

Furthermore I dont subscribe to that excuse; because that's what it is

It is all too convenient for people to use Religion as an excuse; rather than to admit that they are against certain people because they are Racist or Prejudiced against somebody or whatever

I know it is an excuse because I have been to church

Those lessons are not taught in Church (if a church teaches you those lessons, it's not a good church, that is not what God wants people to learn)
Yeah I definitely agree that these things aren't right either
 

Topex

Est. Contributor
Messages
692
Role
Little
Again, there's no such thing as "the church" (unless you're referring to a specific organisation like the Church of England). There are churches of people who practise ritualistic child abuse to exorcise evil spirits and please God, others who promote the spread of HIV by spreading lies about the dangers of condom use, and others that are run by wealthy scammers who tell vulnerable people to give them their money and God will reward them tenfold.
"The church" at least in terms of Catholic religion refers conceptually to the collective Catholic community (of people).

I completely agree that there are religions based on evil principles that practice terrible actions, and even groups of people within other religions which do bad things, but what I'm trying to get at is that the concept of religion isn't inherently bad, and there are many religions that are good, so I don't think it's right to lump them all together under a one size fits all description
 

PaddedStag

Contributor
Messages
126
Role
Incontinent
Presumably it depends which translation you're reading. The standard KJV (King James Version) says, "Thou shalt not kill."




But there's no such universally accepted thing as "God's work". Everyone who believes in God believes that their interpretation is correct and everyone else is wrong.

This is just a version of the "No true Scotsman fallacy":



Again, there's no such thing as "the church" (unless you're referring to a specific organisation like the Church of England). There are churches of people who practise ritualistic child abuse to exorcise evil spirits and please God, others who promote the spread of HIV by spreading lies about the dangers of condom use, and others that are run by wealthy scammers who tell vulnerable people to give them their money and God will reward them tenfold.
Yes, I understand. That version of the Bible also claims Moses parted the 'Red Sea'. Later scholastic studies confirmed that what was actually written (way back when), referred to the 'Reed Sea'.
I've no real issues with miss translations, because People are fallible (even if they may have the best of intentions).
The overall concept/meaning is still the same- don't go killing people and someone parted a large body of water to save the fleeing people.

I take exception to 'Religion' (the three Abrahamic Faiths), due to the hypocrisy each promote, or the ignorance of the real world/universe and their refusal to adapt to knowledge gleaned over the centuries.

The moral concepts presented are usually fine. I see little wrong with the '10 Commandments' in what they're trying to address to maintain a healthy, safe society, for instance.

This reply has skirted totally off the OP, so I'll shut-up now.

Thanks for replying and sharing your views, however.
 

PaddedStag

Contributor
Messages
126
Role
Incontinent
It isn't cause and effect. What you're neglecting is the lack of the transitivity property. Just because the rapist caused the pregnancy (effect), does not mean they are responsible for any of the victim's following behaviour. Suppose the victim in vengeance murders someone who she believes was the rapist, but is mistaken. Is the rapist criminally responsible for that killing? No, the victim is. So why is it any different with a woman killing a fetus? It is still her choice. Whether the rapist's actions influenced that choice or not, even if it wouldn't have happened without the event of the rape, it's still the victim's decision to do so, hence their responsibility
You're free to look at it as you like.
If I for one, were forced to carry a parasite (and yes, every fetus is a parasite on the Host aka 'Mother', right up to and after being born. It contributes nothing to the Host aka 'Mother', until many, many years later (maybe)), I would want that parasite out of my body, immediately.

Morality aside, it's the woman's body, it was NOT her choice/decision to become pregnant, ergo I support her decision to abort an unwanted parasite w/o any stigma, much-less calling it 'Murder'.

If it is 'Murder', the Rapist is responsible for it. Charge him with 'Murder' (I've said this before). I'd be more than happy to throw the switch.

Society shouldn't have to endure rapists.
 

Topex

Est. Contributor
Messages
692
Role
Little
The thing you're failing to acknowledge is that although yes it is a parasite, it is a potential human life and killing it prevents that possible person from living a life and eventually (if you're religion) going to some better place (heaven, etc.). If you honestly think that even after born a child is nothing more than a parasite, I'm not sure what to say to that other than that children give back in many different ways and even if the mother didn't want the child, the child should have the opportunity to live a life elsewhere
 

SlashNBurn

Est. Contributor
Messages
53
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover
If I for one, were forced to carry a parasite (and yes, every fetus is a parasite on the Host aka 'Mother', right up to and after being born.
The thing you're failing to acknowledge is that although yes it is a parasite
No, unborn children are not parasites.
Saying something like this is naive at best, and a slap in the face to basic biology at worst.
--
Taking a look at how the Cambridge dictionary defines a parasite, it is "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 conclusion that can therefore be drawn, is that parasites are inherently different species to the "host" organism. A human fetus is always of an identical species to that of its parents.
A parasite is an invading organism -- coming to infect the host from an outside source. A human embryo or fetus is formed from a fertilized egg -- the egg coming from an inside source, being formed in the ovary of the mother from where it moves into the oviduct where it may be fertilized to form the zygote -- the first cell of the new human being.
A parasite makes direct contact with the host's tissues, often holding on by either mouth parts, hooks or suckers to the tissues involved (intestinal lining, lungs, connective tissue, etc.). A human embryo or fetus makes direct contact with the uterine lining of the mother for only a short period of time. It soon becomes isolated inside its own amniotic sac, and from that point on makes indirect contact with the mother only by way of the umbilical cord and placenta.
When a parasite invades host tissue, the host tissue will sometimes respond by forming a capsule (of connective tissue) to surround the parasite and cut it off from other surrounding tissue (examples would be Paragonimus westermani, lung fluke, or Oncocerca volvulus, a nematode worm causing cutaneous filariasis in the human). When the human embryo or fetus attaches to and invades the lining tissue of the mother's uterus, the lining tissue responds by surrounding the human embryo and does not cut it off from the mother, but rather establishes a means of close contact (the placenta) between the mother and the new human being.
When a parasite invades a host, the host will usually respond by forming antibodies in response to the somatic antigens (molecules comprising the body of the parasite) or metabolic antigens (molecules secreted or excreted by the parasite) of the parasite. Parasitism usually involves an immunological response on the part of the host.
New evidence indicates that the mother does react to the presence of the embryo by producing humoral antibodies, but they suggest that the trophoblast -- the jacket of cells surrounding the embryo -- blocks the action of these antibodies and therefore the embryo or fetus is not rejected. This reaction is unique to the embryo-mother relationship.
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. A human embryo or fetus is absolutely essential to the reproductive capacity of the involved mother (and species). The mother is usually not weakened, diseased or killed by the presence of the embryo or fetus, 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.
A parasite is an organism that, once it invades the definitive host, will usually remain with host for life (as long as it or the host survives). A human embryo or fetus has a temporary association with the mother, remaining only a number of months in the uterus.
Hosts are not specifically designed to play stead to parasites while a human womb is designed precisely for the purpose of the growth of a human zygote, embryo or fetus.
 

Drifter

Contributor
Messages
2,473
Role
Private
If I for one, were forced to carry a parasite (and yes, every fetus is a parasite on the Host aka 'Mother', right up to and after being born. It contributes nothing to the Host aka 'Mother', until many, many years later (maybe)), I would want that parasite out of my body, immediately.
As I said in an earlier post, the average person is biologically programmed to protect the lives of children. That's why people who favor abortion on demand don't refer to the offspring as "child". Instead, they call it fetus, parasite, lump of tissue, or anything that doesn't conjure up the image of children.

Killing a human being that has done no wrong is not morally acceptable, but killing a parasite is. But the idea that changing the name of the thing changes the morality of the act of killing it is just a delusion. The reality is that there is a life growing in the womb, and the odds greatly favor it will become a viable human being in a few months time. Society has an obligation to determine if and when that life can be deliberately terminated.
 

Icewolf

Est. Contributor
Messages
256
Age
34
Role
Babyfur, Carer
But the idea that changing the name of the thing changes the morality of the act of killing it is just a delusion.
So a "rose by any other name" deal? though I agree, call things what they are and come up with set boundaries, maybe with noted exceptions (I.E. threat to mother's life) so we can actually move on from this once and for all.
 

Drifter

Contributor
Messages
2,473
Role
Private
So a "rose by any other name" deal? though I agree, call things what they are and come up with set boundaries, maybe with noted exceptions (I.E. threat to mother's life) so we can actually move on from this once and for all.
The way our system works, government officials are the ones who set those boundaries. In order to move on from this we have to accept their decisions, but that's not happening right now. A significant number of people, including some government officials, don't accept the 1973 decision in Roe v Wade and are trying to change that. If they are successful we will have to accept the new boundaries if we want to "move on from this once and for all". It's not likely enough people would accept that in order for us to forget about it and move on. This will probably be a perpetual issue in our country, continuously going back and forth, due to the mentality we have when voting for representatives.
 

PaddedStag

Contributor
Messages
126
Role
Incontinent
No, unborn children are not parasites.
Saying something like this is naive at best, and a slap in the face to basic biology at worst.
--
Taking a look at how the Cambridge dictionary defines a parasite, it is "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 conclusion that can therefore be drawn, is that parasites are inherently different species to the "host" organism. A human fetus is always of an identical species to that of its parents.
A parasite is an invading organism -- coming to infect the host from an outside source. A human embryo or fetus is formed from a fertilized egg -- the egg coming from an inside source, being formed in the ovary of the mother from where it moves into the oviduct where it may be fertilized to form the zygote -- the first cell of the new human being.
A parasite makes direct contact with the host's tissues, often holding on by either mouth parts, hooks or suckers to the tissues involved (intestinal lining, lungs, connective tissue, etc.). A human embryo or fetus makes direct contact with the uterine lining of the mother for only a short period of time. It soon becomes isolated inside its own amniotic sac, and from that point on makes indirect contact with the mother only by way of the umbilical cord and placenta.
When a parasite invades host tissue, the host tissue will sometimes respond by forming a capsule (of connective tissue) to surround the parasite and cut it off from other surrounding tissue (examples would be Paragonimus westermani, lung fluke, or Oncocerca volvulus, a nematode worm causing cutaneous filariasis in the human). When the human embryo or fetus attaches to and invades the lining tissue of the mother's uterus, the lining tissue responds by surrounding the human embryo and does not cut it off from the mother, but rather establishes a means of close contact (the placenta) between the mother and the new human being.
When a parasite invades a host, the host will usually respond by forming antibodies in response to the somatic antigens (molecules comprising the body of the parasite) or metabolic antigens (molecules secreted or excreted by the parasite) of the parasite. Parasitism usually involves an immunological response on the part of the host.
New evidence indicates that the mother does react to the presence of the embryo by producing humoral antibodies, but they suggest that the trophoblast -- the jacket of cells surrounding the embryo -- blocks the action of these antibodies and therefore the embryo or fetus is not rejected. This reaction is unique to the embryo-mother relationship.
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. A human embryo or fetus is absolutely essential to the reproductive capacity of the involved mother (and species). The mother is usually not weakened, diseased or killed by the presence of the embryo or fetus, 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.
A parasite is an organism that, once it invades the definitive host, will usually remain with host for life (as long as it or the host survives). A human embryo or fetus has a temporary association with the mother, remaining only a number of months in the uterus.
Hosts are not specifically designed to play stead to parasites while a human womb is designed precisely for the purpose of the growth of a human zygote, embryo or fetus.
(computer has been in the shop for the past three weeks. apologies for the late reply)

Anything that feeds-off another without providing equal returns (symbiotic relationship, much like the millions (billions?) of bacteria in our intestinal tract), is a 'Parasite'.
I realize applying that word to a growing fetus, is harsh.
It is truth, and truth is often harsh.
I respect truth.
I am not 'Naive'. Please don't make this a personal issue.

Thanks
 

PaddedStag

Contributor
Messages
126
Role
Incontinent
As I said in an earlier post, the average person is biologically programmed to protect the lives of children. That's why people who favor abortion on demand don't refer to the offspring as "child". Instead, they call it fetus, parasite, lump of tissue, or anything that doesn't conjure up the image of children.

Killing a human being that has done no wrong is not morally acceptable, but killing a parasite is. But the idea that changing the name of the thing changes the morality of the act of killing it is just a delusion. The reality is that there is a life growing in the womb, and the odds greatly favor it will become a viable human being in a few months time. Society has an obligation to determine if and when that life can be deliberately terminated.
Perhaps my hard-line stance on this topic has gone askew?

I 100% support a child's life. I will willingly give-up mine own, to protect/defend a child. Children are our future. This has been true throughout all of recorded history.

I do not (how many times must I say/express this sentiment?), support an irresponsible person(s), conceiving embryo after embryo, only to abort them.

THAT, I consider murder. Premeditated intent to end a growing person's life.

In the instances of rape?
In the instances of proven genetic UNviability?
In the instances of the Mother's life being placed in lethal harm?

Yes, I support abortion.

Hope that clarifies things?
 

SlashNBurn

Est. Contributor
Messages
53
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover
Anything that feeds-off another without providing equal returns (symbiotic relationship, much like the millions (billions?) of bacteria in our intestinal tract), is a 'Parasite'.
I realize applying that word to a growing fetus, is harsh.
It is truth, and truth is often harsh.
Firstly, it is not the truth. A parasite has to be an organism of a different species, it can never be the same type of organism. Both the Oxford and Cambridge dictionaries make it perfectly clear, that to be a parasite, you must feed off the nutrients of another organism. There is no evidence for the existence of any parasites that gain nutrition at the expense of members of their own species. What I perceive you to be doing is adjusting definitions in order to suit your own opinions, and when I'm debating with someone, I will not tolerate this.
Furthermore, when a pro-choice person brands an unborn child a "parasite", he/she is contradicting him/herself. Often proponents of abortion justify their position by saying that "a fetus isn't alive", but the very concept of being parasitic is that you use the nutrients of another organism to maintain life. I can directly evidence that both the claims "a fetus isn't alive" and "a fetus is a parasite" are wrong, but this is still absolutely relevant.
--
And you use the qualifier "without providing equal returns". You never set out what constitutes your definition "equal returns"? By this, do you mean in the sense that: "when we are fetuses, we don't return anything that is of utility to the body of our mothers"? If so, you do nothing to prove this in your post, and the evidence overwhelmingly points towards your claim being wholly incorrect. Fetal stem-cells can actually remain in the body of his/her mother for decades after birth. In some cases, this may be as long as 30 years. This was the finding of a 1996 study in the scientific journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (US). I'm confident that you'll be aware, but just in case, stem-cells are essentially biological blank-slates, non-specialised cells that can differentiate into any variety of specialised cell that it is required to. It is these stem-cells that, in the event that organ tissue of the mother's body being damaged or destroyed, can be sent to the body of the mother to repair these damaged cells. The process by which this occurs is very straightforward: the fetal stem-cells engraft maternal bone-marrow, and are able to migrate, through the mother's blood stream, allowing them to be distributed and assigned to the organ tissue that requires repair. This process is known as fetomaternal transfer, and it has been scientifically proven, in the pregnancies of both humans and other mammals, to occur both during and post-pregnancy. Scientific research carried out after the aforementioned 1996 study found evidence for the presence of fetal cells in organs of both human mothers and laboratory-mice. The cells were shown to exist in various maternal tissues and organs including blood (both RBCs and WBCs), bone marrow, skin and liver. This is supported further by the findings of a 2015 study from the scientific journal Circulation Research. In this study, researchers mated female mice with transgenic male mice that were tagged with a fluorescent protein that allowed the researchers to trace the flow of the fetus’s stem cells from the mother’s placenta into its heart, while they induced cardiac injury to the mother. They found that fetal stem cells directly targeted the damaged cardiac cells and fully integrated themselves into the mother’s heart.
On the basis of this, I would say that, even though a fetus, by definition, cannot be a parasite anyway, in view of he/she always being the same species as his/her mother, the suggestion that a fetus grows inside his/her mother "without providing equal returns" is ignorant of the scientific background at best, and a straight-up slap in the face to fetal biology at worst.
 
Last edited:

PaddedStag

Contributor
Messages
126
Role
Incontinent
Firstly, it is not the truth. A parasite has to be an organism of a different species, it can never be the same type of organism. Both the Oxford and Cambridge dictionaries make it perfectly clear, that to be a parasite, you must feed off the nutrients of another organism. There is no evidence for the existence of any parasites that gain nutrition at the expense of members of their own species. What I perceive you to be doing is adjusting definitions in order to suit your own opinions, and when I'm debating with someone, I will not tolerate this.
Furthermore, when a pro-choice person brands an unborn child a "parasite", he/she is contradicting him/herself. Often proponents of abortion justify their position by saying that "a fetus isn't alive", but the very concept of being parasitic is that you use the nutrients of another organism to maintain life. I can directly evidence that both the claims "a fetus isn't alive" and "a fetus is a parasite" are wrong, but this is still absolutely relevant.
--
And you use the qualifier "without providing equal returns". You never set out what constitutes your definition "equal returns"? By this, do you mean in the sense that: "when we are fetuses, we don't return anything that is of utility to the body of our mothers"? If so, you do nothing to prove this in your post, and the evidence overwhelmingly points towards your claim being wholly incorrect. Fetal stem-cells can actually remain in the body of his/her mother for decades after birth. In some cases, this may be as long as 30 years. This was the finding of a 1996 study in the scientific journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (US). I'm confident that you'll be aware, but just in case, stem-cells are essentially biological blank-slates, non-specialised cells that can differentiate into any variety of specialised cell that it is required to. It is these stem-cells that, in the event that organ tissue of the mother's body being damaged or destroyed, can be sent to the body of the mother to repair these damaged cells. The process by which this occurs is very straightforward: the fetal stem-cells engraft maternal bone-marrow, and are able to migrate, through the mother's blood stream, allowing them to be distributed and assigned to the organ tissue that requires repair. This process is known as fetomaternal transfer, and it has been scientifically proven, in the pregnancies of both humans and other mammals, to occur both during and post-pregnancy. Scientific research carried out after the aforementioned 1996 study found evidence for the presence of fetal cells in organs of both human mothers and laboratory-mice. The cells were shown to exist in various maternal tissues and organs including blood (both RBCs and WBCs), bone marrow, skin and liver. This is supported further by the findings of a 2015 study from the scientific journal Circulation Research. In this study, researchers mated female mice with transgenic male mice that were tagged with a fluorescent protein that allowed the researchers to trace the flow of the fetus’s stem cells from the mother’s placenta into its heart, while they induced cardiac injury to the mother. They found that fetal stem cells directly targeted the damaged cardiac cells and fully integrated themselves into the mother’s heart.
On the basis of this, I would say that, even though a fetus, by definition, cannot be a parasite anyway, in view of he/she always being the same species as his/her mother, the suggestion that a fetus grows inside his/her mother "without providing equal returns" is ignorant of the scientific background at best, and a straight-up slap in the face to fetal biology at worst.
You are worrying this topic far, far too much.
There is nothing mandating in biology/psychology, that a parasite must be another species. Parasitism is also a verb. Can even be used as an adjective if you're creative enough.
I see people who are capable, yet refuse to work and earn their own income (bums, pan-handlers, others suckling off the 'Welfare tit' of societies' tax payers), as parasites. Human parasites, nourished and sustained by other people, providing nothing of value to society.
You wanted one example of human parasitism, species-on-species? You got one. I can name others.

Now, I'm totally open to new science proving truth vs ignorance. The evidence of stem cells remaining in the mother's body? Never heard of it, never considered it. I find that intriguing but not applicable to anything I've said so far. Time will tell.

You want to think of a developing fetus one way, fine by me.

I think of a developing fetus, unwanted by the Mother, as another thing entirely. If it is allowed to form and then be born into a human baby, that's fine, too. Not my call.

You do you.

I'll do me.

Thanks for the mutual respect.
 
Top